quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

---

 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
I am just going to wait for the North African paper and genomes to come out. I hope they do turn out to have a nice, distinct, easily-analyzed North African component, but from the limited analysis they did so far it isn't clear to me what we'll end up finding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
What does it matter what they say? For one lets just be honest and give voice to the only real reason they care: race. Proving someone isn't black isn't the same as proving someone isn't African. Blacks have far more physical and genetic diversity. So the burden of proof is higher to prove they're not, if we're dealing with lowkey racist "Egyptologists." Other than that, if the time period is off it really doesn't matter. If the debate is what group was responsible for state formation then you'll need to be focusing on the people of Nekhen, Naqada and Abydos. The three proto states that were the main players in the process of Egyptian unification.

It's possible Ta Seti and Nekhen were very closely connected with one another, and I'd also like to see what people have to say about Naqada and Abydos, hence the thread I made. The question will likely boil down ultimately to these three proto Egyptian states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

---

---

Yes, we know where Abusir is, so care to expound on this map?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Why are we talking about the Ancient Egyptians? *sigh*

---

quote:

---

Saharan remains may be evidence of first race war, 13,000 years ago

Parallel research over recent years has also been shedding new light as to who, in ethnic and racial terms, these victims were.

Work carried out at Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Alaska and New Orleans’ Tulane University indicates that they were part of the general sub-Saharan originating population – the ancestors of modern Black Africans.

The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin.

The two groups – although both part of our species, Homo sapiens – would have looked quite different from each other and were also almost certainly different culturally and linguistically. The sub-Saharan originating group had long limbs, relatively short torsos and projecting upper and lower jaws along with rounded foreheads and broad noses, while the North African/Levantine/European originating group had shorter limbs, longer torsos and flatter faces. Both groups were very muscular and strongly built.

Certainly the northern Sudan area was a major ethnic interface between these two different groups at around this period. Indeed the remains of the North African/Levantine/European originating population group has even been found 200 miles south of Jebel Sahaba, thus suggesting that the arrow victims were slaughtered in an area where both populations operated.

What’s more, the period in which they perished so violently was one of huge competition for resources – for they appear to have been killed during a severe climatic downturn in which many water sources dried up, especially in summer time.

The climatic downturn – known as the Younger Dryas period – had been preceded by much lusher, wetter and warmer conditions which had allowed populations to expand. But when climatic conditions temporarily worsened during the Younger Dryas, water holes dried up, vegetation wilted and animals died or moved to the only major year-round source of water still available – the Nile.

Humans of all ethnic groups in the area were forced to follow suit – and migrated to the banks (especially the eastern bank) of the great river. Competing for finite resources, human groups would have inevitably clashed – and the current investigation is demonstrating the apparent scale of this earliest known substantial human conflict .

---

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
After taking a hiatus from Egyptsearch and having a presence in multiple forums over the years this is my diagnosis of what is going on in the anthroscene. I will list the main 3 issues tha come top mind and they are NOT unique among people of NOT of African descent.

1 - Its not what you are saying....its the fact that you (Black folks/White folks) have the audacity to say it. This revolves around labels of "Afrocentricty" "Eurocentricity" and pigeonholing certain types of thought and certain types of people into certain types of places. Summed up : They dont want to listen to or accept ideas/discussion from Black Scholars and amateurs. EXAMPLE: If you are Black and say E1b1b originates in Africa, especially sub Saharan Africa you will get attacked by Euroclowns...sometimes even seasoned posters that know better. Later on you will see non Black posters say the same thing...and its ok. Interestingly Afro-clowns, Euroclows and "regular" posters will all attack each other based on "Idea A" even if they all hold the same opinion regarding "Idea A". To be Black in this space they want you to be a "Good Negro" be Anti-African and or relegate your posting discussion to areas South of the Sahara and West of Chad. Alternatively, Afro-loons with argue genetic afropurity with White folks all day, I chime in saying populations X Africans are "mixed" and its all good.

2 - The are coming to the realization....and quite begrudgingly that the concept "All humans are African" is not so much as an Abstract but rather a recent genetic reality. This is a big one and probably the most important issue but I will follow up with a third Geographic issue..
This is why ancient remains outside of the African continent that precede a 65 KYA OOA are so important to their psyche. Why non Human archiacs and them having such ancestry is so important. Its so important for these remains to show some continuity with later populations and not be dead ends. WHY? Because if the data keeps coming as its coming, probably Every modern Autosomal component picked up in "Admixture" is just going to be a "Different Type of African". Neanderthal is really all they have if these early sapien sapiens dont pan out. This of course is how we theorize it when looking at images of Population Bottlenecks but the ancient DNA From Africa hasn't quite (Yet) shown this to be a recent genetic reality. It HAS shown it for data coming from Eurasia : Example The conservative dates for the Colonization of the Americas are about 15kya. Ancient DNA from about 10 THOUSAND years Prior in North East Asia ALREADY carries that "Naive American" affinity. Next we have more samples in East Asia Going back some 40 THOUSAND YEARS....and Again they ALREADY carry an Affinity with what would become a "Native American" component. SO what we have here is the genetic reality of a Bering straits crossing concept showing the variants we view as "Native American" have been sitting in Asia some 30 thousand years before the Americas were even populated. It will be damaging to peoples fragile psyche to see Ancient African DNA - PRIOR to the standard OOA already carrying "Eurasian" components. XYYMAN gets the props for this early conclusion although his evidence sucked. This leads to anther point, the "The Eurasian Shell Game".

3 - Now combing points one and two...what Is to be done of Black people Arguing certain genetic components not too frequent in Modern Africans may still have an origin on the continent simply due to the nature of Human Migration and what we are getting from Ancient DNA? Well what you could do is play a game with the term "Eurasian". It helps them sleep better at night. From the Asian perspective: Amerindian folks that think their DNA simply "Came from the sky" may be quite upset to learn its has been sitting in Asia for 30 KYA. They could argue in a semantic way that its still "Native American" but we all know its just a different variant of East Asian. Moving to Africa, lets take a recent buzz term and popular concept such as "Basal Eurasian". Back to issue #1, they have issues that you said it originates in Africa but they probably believe that anyway. But on the flip side they will argue its a "Eurasian" component anyways. How do they use one geographical term (Eurasian) to override WHERE on earth something actually originates (Africa)...who the fvck knows. Mental gymnastics. We already know computer algorithms give European and Asian autosomal divergence dates well before OOA....Mofos are bound to have a heart attack if this is realized in the literal "Flesh" via Ancient African DNA. It gets to the point where entire concepts are re-wired to fit the scenario and instead of using "Eurasian" as a geographic term they will argue its being used as a genetic one.....again meant to describe the GENETIC affinity of a human populations but again based on Geography....but if its geography why is it "Eurasian" again? Who the fvck knows? LOL Along with the Eurasian shell game is the attachment of Autosomal Components to Uni-parental markers but with an idea that such Eurasian autosomes are Never recombined. For Instance : ANY SUBCLADE of mitochondrial U, M or N or any M89 lineage ALWAYS indicates gene-flow of Eurasians when present in Africa. Of course there is a big double standard with A, B, E, L loosing its African affinity based on migration into or out of the Sahara, out of Africa, after certain time depth, based on phenotype or perhaps never having An African autosomal affinity at all. There are even interesting scenarios that Such autosomal African affinity are present in Population A ....then lost...only to appear again. Or perhaps they are present when received by populations that look a certain way or live in a certain location but not other folks that look different and live in different locations even if both populations received such genetic input simultaneously.

That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Look, being met with resistance because I'm a black researcher by "euro-clowns" or whatever is one thing, however it's the fucking subservient Africans (diasporans) who irritate me. It's only common that you'll have to deal with logical loopholes, and mental gymnastics from the former, I don't care if they chose to understand where I'm coming from or not. The signs are clear regarding certain things it's only the fine details that need to be ironed out.

The mighty question is what does anyone have to gain by denying the "Africanity" of certain protocultures?

It seems quite obvious for me that the ancient African Genetic landscape was very broad. The problem stemmed from sloppy partitioning of Subsaharan Africans in the first place. Look at the ancient Ballito Bay specimen for example and keep in the back of our minds the genetic Diversity of Africans.

-Ballito Bay A and Yoruba have a distance (FST) of ~0.150... YRI have ancestry from a population that diverged earlier than Balito bay did.
-Natufians actually have IAM(like) Admixture and have a distance of ~0.200 from them!!?!
-The Bantu expansion seen every corner of the African continent...that's shared ancestry dating to roughly 4kya max, yet the Luhya and Yoruba avg differences can clear a the distance of the entirety of Europe.
-And Natufians and Yoruba have an average distance of 0.168 (FST) - over 15% closer than a population with shared affinity to Natufians (IAM)

So all in all... WTF is a Eurasian and WTF is a SSA? I thought it would be wise to give Eurasian a definition, basically; Eurasian is a Geo-temporal place holder for the extreme levels of drift apparently separating modern non African and African populations. ("Subsaharan African" was is and will always be a misnomer.) The further we reach back for samples in Africa AND the Near East the more the previous boundaries get muddy so we find ourselves using modern genetic substructure to Identify Ancient populations... some people refuse to see the issue in doing so, This is just one example of why Genetics, especially of only a handful of ancient individuals, can NOT possibly be the end all answer to anything....cuz, for example, Yorubans and Natufians could share Ancient ancestry that parallels IAM and we wouldn't even know...

This is why conceding an indigenous North African component is unacceptable. Jebel ihroud, MtHap L3* and schlebusch's qpGraphs (and the ones that follow) is a nightmare to the "Anti-Afrocentric."
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The mighty question is what does anyone have to gain by denying the "Africanity" of certain protocultures?

---

quote:

---

3 - Now combing points one and two...what Is to be done of Black people Arguing certain genetic components not too frequent in Modern Africans may still have an origin on the continent simply due to the nature of Human Migration and what we are getting from Ancient DNA? Well what you could do is play a game with the term "Eurasian". It helps them sleep better at night. From the Asian perspective: Amerindian folks that think their DNA simply "Came from the sky" may be quite upset to learn its has been sitting in Asia for 30 KYA. They could argue in a semantic way that its still "Native American" but we all know its just a different variant of East Asian. Moving to Africa, lets take a recent buzz term and popular concept such as "Basal Eurasian". Back to issue #1, they have issues that you said it originates in Africa but they probably believe that anyway. But on the flip side they will argue its a "Eurasian" component anyways. How do they use one geographical term (Eurasian) to override WHERE on earth something actually originates (Africa)...who the fvck knows. [Smile] Mental gymnastics. We already know computer algorithms give European and Asian autosomal divergence dates well before OOA....Mofos are bound to have a heart attack if this is realized in the literal "Flesh" via Ancient African DNA. It gets to the point where entire concepts are re-wired to fit the scenario and instead of using "Eurasian" as a geographic term they will argue its being used as a genetic one.....again meant to describe the GENETIC affinity of a human populations but again based on Geography....but if its geography why is it "Eurasian" again? Who the fvck knows? LOL Along with the Eurasian shell game is the attachment of Autosomal Components to Uni-parental markers but with an idea that such Eurasian autosomes are Never recombined. For Instance : ANY SUBCLADE of mitochondrial U, M or N or any M89 lineage ALWAYS indicates gene-flow of Eurasians when present in Africa. Of course there is a big double standard with A, B, E, L loosing its African affinity based on migration into or out of the Sahara, out of Africa, after certain time depth, based on phenotype or perhaps never having An African autosomal affinity at all. There are even interesting scenarios that Such autosomal African affinity are present in Population A ....then lost...only to appear again. Or perhaps they are present when received by populations that look a certain way or live in a certain location but not other folks that look different and live in different locations even if both populations received such genetic input simultaneously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
I am just going to wait for the North African paper and genomes to come out. I hope they do turn out to have a nice, distinct, easily-analyzed North African component, but from the limited analysis they did so far it isn't clear to me what we'll end up finding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yes I meant Fregel et al, I hope there will be more but I don't know of anything specifically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
With a lot of African aDNA papers, we get very limited analysis. A lot of them have little "replay value" or observations you can come back to and compare in light of future findings. There is a big difference between aDNA teams when it comes to creativity and thoroughness with analyses, with some teams really leading and standing out. But we'll see if they'll fix certain things in the published paper. That weird 12.000 year old backmigration claim (which wasn't actually what their source, Henn et al, said), is one thing in a long list, that should be fixed. I'm also looking forward to an investigation into why IAM is pulled away from the closest Eurasian samples, and in what (African) direction. But I don't think that will be forthcoming. They seem very satisfied leaving it at "12ky backmigration".

---

Yeah, I was rather disappointed with what we got in the preprint. I suppose we can't expect all aDNA papers to come with a detailed hundred page supplement. But even if they don't add to the published paper, the genomes will be out there.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Oh yeah. What looks to be a secondary pre Neolithic OOA will make their heads explode.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
With a lot of African aDNA papers, we get very limited analysis. A lot of them have little "replay value" or observations you can come back to and compare in light of future findings. There is a big difference between aDNA teams when it comes to creativity and thoroughness with analyses, with some teams really leading and standing out. But we'll see if they'll fix certain things in the published paper. That weird 12.000 year old backmigration claim (which wasn't actually what their source, Henn et al, said), is one thing in a long list, that should be fixed. I'm also looking forward to an investigation into why IAM is pulled away from the closest Eurasian samples, and in what (African) direction. But I don't think that will be forthcoming. They seem very satisfied leaving it at "12ky backmigration".

---

Yeah, I was rather disappointed with what we got in the preprint. I suppose we can't expect all aDNA papers to come with a detailed hundred page supplement. But even if they don't add to the published paper, the genomes will be out there. [/QB]

---

What were you most disappointed with?
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Now that I check it the supplement *was* almost 100 pages. It actually had a really nice analysis of uniparentals which are too often neglected these days. So I was too harsh.

what disappointed me was that they don't seem to have really tried to draw out a distinct ancient North African component; they seem to be trying to fit it in the LevantN-IranN-ANE-WHG box when it might make a new corner of its own. Also, there was only a small table of f4s with a rather inadequate selection of Sub-Saharan Africans, and not much else for SSA.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
? Their F4 problems sucked, why would they use that equation to model IAM, at MOST they can only determine which of the two (near eastern vs. SSA) have more IAM ancestry, if any. No qpAdm, no qpGrahs, poorly constructed datasets for Admixture considering the patterns they got via FST and pca. There wasn't an interest in establishing any true maghrebi component, which is why the KEB were the highlight of the paper... and their wasn't really any commentary on neither of the two's SSAn affinity, like no explanation or postulation as to why KEB are closer to YRI than IAM?

But they promise a public release of the seq data, so... hey.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Now that I check it the supplement *was* almost 100 pages. It actually had a really nice analysis of uniparentals which are too often neglected these days. So I was too harsh.

what disappointed me was that they don't seem to have really tried to draw out a distinct ancient North African component; they seem to be trying to fit it in the LevantN-IranN-ANE-WHG box when it might make a new corner of its own. Also, there was only a small table of f4s with a rather inadequate selection of Sub-Saharan Africans, and not much else for SSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
? Their F4 problems sucked, why would they use that equation to model IAM, at MOST they can only determine which of the two (near eastern vs. SSA) have more IAM ancestry, if any. No qpAdm, no qpGrahs, poorly constructed datasets for Admixture considering the patterns they got via FST and pca. There wasn't an interest in establishing any true maghrebi component, which is why the KEB were the highlight of the paper... and their wasn't really any commentary on neither of the two's SSAn affinity, like no explanation or postulation as to why KEB are closer to YRI than IAM?

But they promise a public release of the seq data, so... hey.

---

THIS LOL. Its almost as if they dont want to know what we REALLY want to know! And then sometimes its REALLY blatant with priori assumptions brought over from Lazaridis reg Natufian: "We *could not* test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia"

*did not*

- which is some of the most priori assuming shit i have ever seen PARTICULARITY when your dealing with Ancient DNA....especially remains rich in African uni-parental.

The latest studies on African DNA (IMO), ancient or modern keep having this theme of basically writing a Eurasian DNA study about Africans. I could give two shits about a date in which Eurasians interacted with Sudanese natives. We dont get any indepth analysis of Omotic or Cuhsitic or West African ancestry inside and out of Sudan? We dont even get in SSA resolution about IAM?
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
^^^That's why we need more people like Keita in this field but more up to date. Someone who is "Afrocentric" and is in love with African bio-anthropological history.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
I suggest you guys actually comment on the preprint (I did, and so did Maju). That's what preprints are for. Just make your criticism clear and concise. There is a lot of room for improvement, they may actually pay attention, who knows.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Well honestly the failure is that people today have the internet and forums so they may think this is a substitute for actually writing papers and books. All the old scholars who actually put a dent in the system did old school research and wrote books and papers..... But that is all but dead today, even though most folks posting about "afrocentric" scholarship are riding the wave created by actual scholars of the past.... Unfortunately African studies programs have been co-opted and instead of producing true African scholars history and biology they produce social justice warriors, fronting for white dominated institutions and agendas. At the end of the day Biology and Anthropology are stem related fields and black folks are woefully underrepresented. Most folks will get a social studies degree and talk social issues before studying hard stem related topics and go out and do actual field work around the world.

Perfect example:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/pmclassroom/speakers/

On that list, only a few of the black folks on the list actually have degrees in biological anthropology. And those that do are talking about "social" issues not actual bioanthropology in the field or in Africa today. And only one of the students actually in an anthropology course currently are black and she is focusing on "social" issues.

And funny enough the Asian PHD is talking about "educational" achievement as if that is some function of "biology". (Meaning how can Asians, most of whom came here AFTER the civil rights era were blacks were the main "minority" population, sit here and act as if they went through what blacks went through. Most Asians only came here in the last 50 years and most of them came from the top levels of Asian societies. These aren't the bums and poor of Asia. But yeah they will still sit here and talk about it as if we don't know why this is happening. If black folks were treated the same way as Asians are being treated for 300 years in America, Black folks would be among the highest achieving groups as well....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eON-J4v3R8U

Slightly off topic but anyway.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^This is true. But bioanthropology research requires talent. Anyone can be a SJW. No credentials or talent needed. But being competent in this area requires investigative talent and intellectual honesty. Most aDNA research teams are only good at producing the data. They can't draw a coherent analysis from the data because their talent may lie in statistics or computer science. If a lot of these PhDs can't do it, I'm definitely not looking to blogs or message boards for leadership in this area.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
I agree that more people of African descent should get into the STEM fields relevant to bioanthropology. We could always benefit from new perspectives in science. However, I'm not confident that the predominantly non-black STEM communities provide the most accommodating culture for black students, much less those with an "Afrocentric" point of view. Most professional anthropologists may identify as liberal and anti-racist, but there sure seems to be an awful lot of alt-right scum on most amateur anthro forums. It makes me worried on behalf of any black student of bioanthropology who states even the most mildly "Afrocentric" opinion in front of that community.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
Anyway, allow me to re-post this OP of mine from ForumBiodiversity...

When Did Proto-Semitic Enter the Middle East?

Although Semitic as a distinct linguistic group appears to have emerged in the Middle East, it is a branch of a larger linguistic phylum known as Afrasan (or Afroasiatic) which would have originated in Northeast Africa >14 kya.


This, of course, leaves the question of when proto-Semitic entered the Middle East from Africa. I used to think that this migration would have taken place around the time of the Natufians, but now I think it may have been a more recent development that took place near 3800 BC.

My first line of evidence is the estimated date of proto-Semitic's emergence, which is around 5,750 years ago (or almost 3800 BC).

quote:

---

We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.

---

quote:

---

We found signals of mixture from several African and Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). The most significantly negative f3 statistics are for mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture events using exponential decay of admixture-induced linkage disequilibrium (LD). The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations.

---

--- Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations

Of course, most early Afrasan ancestry would have been of Saharan (i.e. pre-OOA) rather than sub-Saharan affinity. But this finding does indicate that the Afrasans who migrated into the Middle East and gave rise to the proto-Semitic community would have carried at least a small amount of sub-Saharan ancestry with them. At any rate, the evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry entering the Middle East around the same time that Semitic languages emerged indicates yet another migration out of Africa into Eurasia that postdates the "Basal Eurasian" contribution to the Natufians etc. Which is to say, proto-Semitic is the product of Africans settling the Middle East sometime after 4000 BC.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Have anyone as of lately approached these concepts using their understanding/findings or interpretation of linguistics? I remember seeing a poster (Asar Imhotep iirc) hypothesize that Semitic is a result of convergence in south west Asia of African languages and some I.E. precursor...

I liked that Idea in particular though I wasn't a fan of the Negro-Egyptian model... It brought to mind what Joseph Yahuda done, as well as his comments on the relationships between Afrasan(Semitic) and I.E.

Genetically speaking I find it odd how underrepresented certain OOA correspondences would be in Omotic samples including Mota... realistically, there isn't much space between Gumuz-Mota and other populations in the region, particularly pre-proto-Cushitic speakers after 15kya to develop OOA affinity before expansion... or maybe OOA elements simply back-migrated around that time period testament to M1 and later R1 only to be recombined in the levant 6-5kya?

regardless these explanations will have to get real exotic. It seems most (including myself sometimes) often settle for the parsimonious explanations, though human history can't be explained by one or two events.... However using A.Asiatic languages as an indicator for population history in this case feels real messy. Don't forget that even Keita (2015) suggested that the Aforementioned east African groups diverged well after OOA.
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
lol.. Its now only gonna get worse for them. @Elmaestro are you still here?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I'm around... I'm waiting for the big stuff, no need to chase around greased pigs tbh.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5Z5BDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq

Language Dispersal Beyond Farming
2017

Editors
Martine Robbeets | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
Alexander Savelyev | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena






 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I am very surprised you guys fail to realize that population genetics is a social science instead of hard science. That is why it promotes the same Hamitic myths in relation to Africa, and its people, that were popularized by Anthropologist for the past 200 years.

Don't you see that the papers they publish are only descriptive papers, describing the haplogroups they put in their studies while they mask out any evidence of African origins of the genes. Or they rename lineages to mask the African origin of a clade, e.g., mtDNA D4, in Africa is really African M1.

You guys go into the Eurocentric forums expecting to contribute to the phylogeographical and population genetics discussions and they block you or delete your post. But like Negroes in the past with hat in hand you revisit these sites and are humiliated again and again, while you try to sit at the table with the deck stacked against you. The deck is stacked because you see population genetics as a new field, that can be helpful in understanding history when in reality it promotes white Supremacy. It is nothing but a subbranch of anthropology.

In the past researchers attempted to justify their claims via archaeogentics. That is, supporting their research with support of linguistics and archaeological research. This worked out fine until they wanted to study ancient DNA (aDNA). This was a disastrous move/ Immediately, they found that contemporary people living in Europe failed to carry genes that matched the ancient Europeans. As a result, researchers began to promote the idea that only Negroes lived in sub-Saharan Africa, especially West, east and South Africa. Blacks in Melanesia were no longer Negroes, while Northeast Africans were again "Hamites", i.e., "Black skinned whites".

Everything was moving along fine in the promotion of White supremacy via population genetics research until 2009 when Cruciani tried to reclassify most African are R1b1 clades into V88. Geneticist were able to disguise the genetic evidence that Dravidians carried M1, and promote the idea that most M1 lineages only occured outside Africa, epecially around the Mediterranean and white Berber North Africa.

Cruciani renamed much of African R1b1 :V88. This upset the Eurocentrics because they found that the so-called basal europeans mainly carried R1b1 and the other clades associated with V88.




Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.

In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.


Euronuts have no limit to their blatant and stealthily rewriting of history to "whiteout" Black and African people. The aDNA of the CHG and EF of Europe is R1b1a2. Although ISOGG 216 makes it clear this haplogroup is V88, in the research literature they are referring to this clade (R1b1a2) as R1b-P312/M269 , eventhough M269 is R1b1a1a2.

The presence of R1b1a2 in Europe is explained by the migration of the Kushites into Europe via Gibraltar and Anatolia. But, because Eurocentricswant to white Blacks out of Europe they have fooled people into believing R1b1 is a European clade, instead of V88.

Given the desire to support White Supremacy you will always be humiliated in so-called bioforums discussing population genetics because it is founded the racist concepts of the Hamitic myth.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Updates were made to the Neolithic Moroccan paper

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/191569

Will try to find differences... one think I can point out now is the inclusion of Guanches
-They appear to be intermediate between IAM and KEB (but at the same time more distant from IAM than KEB interesting?).. Wording is different surrounding the back-migration claim, but it is still the leading postulation. Dig in.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
man when it rains it pours

the only difference i could find is same as you - Guanches, and a bit more cautious wording.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Got to slow down ElMaestro. Agreed....it is pouring studies. Can't keep up. But that is a good thing

@ Capra. Keep Cape Verde in the back of your mind. Remember I told you so. Guanches may be related to ancient Cape Verdeans.

I know you have wet dreams about Portuguese Sailors deflowering Cape Verde maidens. Mark my words. The story of Cape Verde has yet to be told.

As I told you and Lioness. Cape Verdeans(Ancient) are North Africans NOT SSA.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
hey man if i'm dreaming about Cape Verdean babes i don't want any Portuguese sailors involved

seems like we'll have to wait for the genomes to be published before we learn anything new
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rosa Fregel, et al.(2018). Ancient genomes from North Africa evidence prehistoric migrations to the Maghreb from both the Levant and Europe. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/191569


Fregel et al, Argue that the “ farming and pottery production, could have been introduced into northern Morocco through sea voyaging by people from Iberia or the central Mediterranean as early as ca. 5400 BCE”, only problem with this hypothesis is that the oldest evidence for pottery comes from Morocco—not Iberia.

Fregel et al, maintain that Iberia was the source of Maghrebi civilization eventhough they admit that Andalusian Early Neolithic cultures show North African influences before the Cardial expansion into the Western Mediterranean basin. The authors constantly contradict themselves, as evidence by the reality that if North African cultures existed in Iberia prior to the Cardial expansion, how could Cardial culture be evidence of North African adoption of Iberian culture, when the North African cultures preceded Cardial.


Another problem is that not only did agro-patoral traditions in North Africa preceed the Iberian traditions --Bell Beaker pottery appears first in Africa, not Iberia. This makes their claim that North African cultures influenced North Africa and a back migration took place from Europe to North Africa without merit. This is why Fregel et al, constantly use the phrase “could” when they make claims about possible Iberian sources for North African technics and genes. This indicates that Iberians could not have introduced any genes into North Africa, but Fregel et al, pretend that the North African sites are more recent than the Iberian sites when this is not supported by the archaeological research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Where's the proof Bell Beaker culture began in Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Wait what? WHOT?! Maybe my inexperience with this is...what? U6, M1 and E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba? So let me see if I understand this right. Autosomal is different from uniparentals. And even if the haplogroup suggests Eurasian migration, doesnt the autosomal give an idea as how much African or Eurasian would be in a population? So...these ancient northern Africans shared autosomal with the Yoruba? Did the Natufians? Where can I read more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.

---

Wait what? WHOT?! Maybe my inexperience with this is...what? U6, M1 and E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba? So let me see if I understand this right. Autosomal is different from uniparentals. And even if the haplogroup suggests Eurasian migration, doesnt the autosomal give an idea as how much African or Eurasian would be in a population? So...these ancient northern Africans shared autosomal with the Yoruba? Did the Natufians? Where can I read more?

---

quote:

---

"So all in all... WTF is a Eurasian and WTF is a SSA? I thought it would be wise to give Eurasian a definition, basically; Eurasian is a Geo-temporal place holder for the extreme levels of drift apparently separating modern non African and African populations. ("Subsaharan African" was is and will always be a misnomer.) The further we reach back for samples in Africa AND the Near East the more the previous boundaries get muddy so we find ourselves using modern genetic substructure to Identify Ancient populations... some people refuse to see the issue in doing so, This is just one example of why Genetics, especially of only a handful of ancient individuals, can NOT possibly be the end all answer to anything....cuz, for example, Yorubans and Natufians could share Ancient ancestry that parallels IAM and we wouldn't even know...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[qb] I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

---

Abusir is not in opposition to all the archaeological
and anthropological evidence. TO the contrary it is quite in
keeping with it- namely that when your sampling is heavily weighted
towards Late Period/Northern samples you will skew the results a
certain way. This is an old issue that appears in Cranial studies,
as Barry Kemp's critique of the CRANID database used by forensic anthropologists
demonstrated. If your evidence is loaded with samples from northern cemeteries
then you get skewed results that downplay not only other data in situ,
but also the historic south. They have been running this game
for decades.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The thing is Abusir is touted as a first, and so a definitive.

Why are the Egyptian government and Max Planck and other genetic
research institutes deliberately ignoring the Amarna and Ramesside
ROYAL mummies. Full genome for Neanderthal and Denisova though.


I'm the foundress.
TheGreat18thDynasty, "the greatest ruling family to ever rule anywhere,"?
No whole genome because oh my STRs sced da righteousness outta
the establishment intelligentsia. 'SSA' get thee behind me, get thee away.
We gave you niggers the Pulitzer for hip-hop already so oh my gawd
what else do they want don't they get it yet sports and entertainment
no other recognition they can't do anything else

Egy gov turns down requests by all except the approved bed mates who'll suck their ... kiss.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
They already knew the angle people would come with for Upper Egypt, so then there was that Siwa Oasis study. The one that genetically analyzed a later, more isolated group of southern Egyptians with ties to Libya and Bedouin. By the New Kingdom cranial data shows that even a lot of Upper Egypt started to resemble modern Egypt. Certain people who want to communicate that AE demographics were the same as Modern Egypt's are much more likely to get the desired results sampling the NK and later periods, and this has been inferred from cranial data for a long time.

Official restrictions are one of the biggest problems I have had with successfully advocating the reliability of genetic data against skepticism. It's not that you technically couldn't duplicate the results which makes the use of it feel unscientific, but the red tape around the issue I've found. Most people don't have the legal liberty to sample ALL of Egypt, just the portions of Egypt where remains were taken out the country for examination or something (So I've been told).


One of the things I have found a little strange (or at least have no way of explaining) about the DNA ban is how Egyptian bans on ancient DNA testing seem irrelevant to the publications of this data. Why don't these scientists releasing this research feel any fear in releasing all this genetic information? Why hasn't the Egyptian government retaliated against the Abusir study (and others like it) if genetic research of ancient remains is banned?


I imagine this type of confusion is the main source of mistrust for the Egyptian government and ancient genetic research. It creates the feeling among many onlookers that genetic data is only going to be allowed to be published without push back if the government is cool with what it says. I honestly can't say I know what's going on or how objective that conclusion is, but at the same time, I don't have much refutations I can offer when some people say how it looks from them to them from the outside.

Modern Egyptians understandably want the vindication to have the cultural ownership of AE civilization because their ancestors lived there. It's an immense source of revenue for the country so I can only imagine what it'd mean for the world to look at the modern Egyptian people and protest that they have no right to claim AE? So I understand how information released is something that could possibly assist modern Egypt's interests over anyone else's. Can't say I know or understand everything going on, but I don't have anything to discredit it either. Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA. I am doubtful that AE were completely SSA in Old Kingdom times, but I don't think an Old Kingdom Egyptian in Elephantine would genetically be the same as a NK Egyptian in Abusir either.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA.

Which DNA markers do you use to show genetic non-resemblance?


I am doubtful that AE were completely SSA in Old Kingdom times,

Sure, and few credible people go around saying
that AEs are identical to SSA peoples. Classic old
timer CA DIop for example, made no such assertion. Generally
claims along these lines are bogus strawmen set up to supposedly "refute."


I don't think an Old Kingdom Egyptian in Elephantine would genetically be the same as a NK Egyptian in Abusir either.

Sure, they would not be identical due to more foreign influence
in NK times as various studies show, though there would be some links
of continuity depending on the degree of foreign influence,
in a particular area. The further north for example has long had more
foreign influence.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I can only imagine what it'd mean for the world to look at the modern Egyptian people and protest that they have no right to claim AE?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

quote:

---

Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA.

---

Which DNA markers do you use to show genetic non-resemblance?

---

Modern Egypt seems to look more like the Middle East than SSA. Yes, all the Natufian and Anatolia components when broken down further probably would reveal some SSA components, but I would imagine that even still, they wouldn't be best described as majority SSA. I don't mind retracting this position if need be. I admit this is a bit rough for me to wrap my head around at times.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Egyptians in Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Kom Ombo and Edfu are likely the closest to the ancient Egyptians.

---

In part, yes. For instance, Thuya's exact miniFiler STR
profile is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanis.




SSA is an amorphous code.

If actually defined by the desert but not by a set of extreme facial
features, all of Sudan at least to the confluence of the Blue and White
Niles is NOT SSA but all of Ethiopia and Somalia are SSA just like Gabon
and Cameroon. Remember the south of Somalia, in fact, is equatorial.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
African identity was never defined by proximity to the Sahara. Indigenous Africans were and are found all over Africa from the North to the South. The New Kingdom was founded from the South and Southerners continued to flow into Egypt from the South into the late period. And these Southerners were the main allies that help to reunify the country and create the New Kingdom in the first place. In fact, during the New Kingdom the parts of Sudan were annexed and made DIRECTLY PART of the Ancient Egyptian state.

People keep ignoring these facts and making up all sorts of stories of wanton populations from everywhere but within Africa flowing into ancient Egypt during the New Kingdom.

Much of that flow from in the Levant was also due to the Levant being incorporated into Egypt, but most of these areas were vassal states and not directly integrated into Egyptian cosmology and culture like Sudan was. Kush was defined as the Southern Opet and the AE claimed that Amun originated in Kush. The Amun priesthood arose to dominate AE cosmology in the New Kingdom as a result. And the Great Kings wife of Amun was a Sudanese transplant, as all of these women are shown wearing "Nubian style" or "kushite" crowns....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kingdom_of_Egypt


Most of the images of the AE during the New Kingdom depicted the AE as MORE African and unambiguous, including the females. Yet people persist with this nonsense of the New Kingdom being overrun with non Africans. Of course, most books or coverage of new Kingdom art is very limited to hand picked selections.....

The concept of "Gods wife of Amun" started with Aahotep and her daughter Ahmose NEfertari. Ahmose Nefertari is almost ALWAYS depicted as coal black in her artwork. OBVIOUSLY the symbolic and literal connection between the AE and their southern allies could not be stronger at this time.... And this tradition continued in Upper Egypt even into the late period when parts of Egypt came under foreign domination. And due to the later Kushites still having the memory and traditions of Amun they were eventually able to reunify Egypt due to this connection.

quote:

---

Ahmose-Nefertari was the first Egyptian queen to hold the title of “God’s First Wife of Amun”.[1]

This title gave her the religious and economic influence in the cult of Amun-Re.[2] Her status in the cult gave her the position of “The Divine Adoratrice” and “the Second Priesthood of Amun”, which was a financial office in which she could pass off the title of “God’s Wife of Amun”.[3]Therefore, because of these titles, Ahmose-Nefertari played an important role in the founding of the 18th dynasty.

Ahmose-Nefertari was the granddaughter of King Seqenenre Tao I and Queen Tetisheri.[4] She was also the daughter of King Seqenenre Tao II and Queen Ahhotep.[5] She was the sister of both Kamose and Ahmose. Ahmose-Nefertari may have married her brother, Kamose, who was the last ruler of the 17th dynasty.[6] Kamose’s reign was cut short when he died during the war with the Hyksos.[7] When his brother, Ahmose, came to the throne at a young age, she married him and became his “Great Royal Wife”.[8]

After King Ahmose expelled the Hyksos, he bestowed two religious titles on Ahmose-Nefertari “Second Priest” in the priesthood of Amun and “God’s Wife of Amun”.[9] In order to create the title and office of “God’s Wife of Amun”, King Ahmose had to take an obscure Middle Kingdom title and give it importance.[10] These titles he had given to his queen bolstered the cult of Amun and allowed him to exert his control on the newly unified Egypt.[11] By giving his wife power, he secured his position.[12] The rights of “God’s Wife of Amun” included an endowment of lands and goods. It also allowed Ahmose Nefertari to choose her own successors.[13] Another right of “God’s Wife” was that the right to her estate’s income was “independent of any kings who should arise in future generations.”[14] Thus, this title became connected with the Egyptian royal house.[15] It was also a royal prerogative title held only by the “King’s Chief Wife”.[16]

---

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/ahmose-nefertari/queen-ahmose-nefertari-first-gods-wife-amun/

It is also observed that many of the late period females identified as "Gods Wife of Amun" have obvious African features, just like Ahmose-Nefertari's mummy. One example is Queen Henuttawy.... but sure, lets pretend that Southern influence in AE was diminishing during the New Kingdom....

http://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/God's_Wife_of_Amun.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duathathor-Henuttawy

quote:

---

The Vulture Crown was an Ancient Egyptian crown worn by Great Royal Wives and female Pharaohs. The Vulture Crown was a crown which depicted a vulture, with its two wings hanging from both sides of the head. It was a symbol of protection from the goddess Nekhbet. These crown were frequently adorned with gold and were worn by the Great Royal Wife, high ranking priestesses and female Pharaohs. These crown were also sometimes equipped with the Uraeus, representing both Upper (Nekhbet) and Lower Egypt (the Uraeus). The first known Egyptian woman to wear this crown was Tetisheri.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_crown

The Vulture crown is an emblem of Kush/Amun.

Variations of this crown: Ahmose Nefertari


Another variation with two plumes rising symbolizing Amun


These crowns became common for queens in the New Kingdom and were common in later Kushite Queens in AE.

quote:

---

Nekhbet was the tutelary deity of Upper Egypt. Nekhbet and her Lower Egyptian counterpart Wadjet often appeared together as the "Two Ladies". One of the titles of each ruler was the Nebty name, which began with the hieroglyphs for [s/he] of the Two Ladies....[2]

In art, Nekhbet was depicted as a vulture. Alan Gardiner identified the species that was used in divine iconography as a griffon vulture. Arielle P. Kozloff, however, argues that the vultures in New Kingdom art, with their blue-tipped beaks and loose skin, better resemble the lappet-faced vulture.[3]

---

quote:

---

The lappet-faced vulture or Nubian vulture (Torgos tracheliotos) is an Old World vulture belonging to the bird order Accipitriformes, which also includes eagles, kites, buzzards and hawks. It is the only member of the genus Torgos. It is not closely related to the superficially similar New World vultures, and does not share the good sense of smell of some members of that group.

The lappet-faced vulture was formerly considered monotypical, but now is separated into two subspecies. The nominate race lives throughout Africa. The subspecies T. t. negevensis, differing considerably in appearance from African vultures (as described below), occurs in the Sinai, the Negev desert, and probably north-west Saudi Arabia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
African identity was never defined by proximity to the Sahara. Indigenous Africans were and are found all over Africa from the North to the South. The New Kingdom was founded from the South and Southerners continued to flow into Egypt from the South into the late period. And these Southerners were the main allies that help to reunify the country and create the New Kingdom in the first place. In fact, during the New Kingdom the parts of Sudan were annexed and made DIRECTLY PART of the Ancient Egyptian state.

People keep ignoring these facts and making up all sorts of stories of wanton populations from everywhere but within Africa flowing into ancient Egypt during the New Kingdom.

Much of that flow from in the Levant was also due to the Levant being incorporated into Egypt, but most of these areas were vassal states and not directly integrated into Egyptian cosmology and culture like Sudan was. Kush was defined as the Southern Opet and the AE claimed that Amun originated in Kush. The Amun priesthood arose to dominate AE cosmology in the New Kingdom as a result. And the Great Kings wife of Amun was a Sudanese transplant, as all of these women are shown wearing "Nubian style" or "kushite" crowns....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kingdom_of_Egypt


Most of the images of the AE during the New Kingdom depicted the AE as MORE African and unambiguous, including the females. Yet people persist with this nonsense of the New Kingdom being overrun with non Africans. Of course, most books or coverage of new Kingdom art is very limited to hand picked selections.....

The concept of "Gods wife of Amun" started with Aahotep and her daughter Ahmose NEfertari. Ahmose Nefertari is almost ALWAYS depicted as coal black in her artwork. OBVIOUSLY the symbolic and literal connection between the AE and their southern allies could not be stronger at this time.... And this tradition continued in Upper Egypt even into the late period when parts of Egypt came under foreign domination. And due to the later Kushites still having the memory and traditions of Amun they were eventually able to reunify Egypt due to this connection.

quote:

---

Ahmose-Nefertari was the first Egyptian queen to hold the title of “God’s First Wife of Amun”.[1]

This title gave her the religious and economic influence in the cult of Amun-Re.[2] Her status in the cult gave her the position of “The Divine Adoratrice” and “the Second Priesthood of Amun”, which was a financial office in which she could pass off the title of “God’s Wife of Amun”.[3]Therefore, because of these titles, Ahmose-Nefertari played an important role in the founding of the 18th dynasty.

Ahmose-Nefertari was the granddaughter of King Seqenenre Tao I and Queen Tetisheri.[4] She was also the daughter of King Seqenenre Tao II and Queen Ahhotep.[5] She was the sister of both Kamose and Ahmose. Ahmose-Nefertari may have married her brother, Kamose, who was the last ruler of the 17th dynasty.[6] Kamose’s reign was cut short when he died during the war with the Hyksos.[7] When his brother, Ahmose, came to the throne at a young age, she married him and became his “Great Royal Wife”.[8]

After King Ahmose expelled the Hyksos, he bestowed two religious titles on Ahmose-Nefertari “Second Priest” in the priesthood of Amun and “God’s Wife of Amun”.[9] In order to create the title and office of “God’s Wife of Amun”, King Ahmose had to take an obscure Middle Kingdom title and give it importance.[10] These titles he had given to his queen bolstered the cult of Amun and allowed him to exert his control on the newly unified Egypt.[11] By giving his wife power, he secured his position.[12] The rights of “God’s Wife of Amun” included an endowment of lands and goods. It also allowed Ahmose Nefertari to choose her own successors.[13] Another right of “God’s Wife” was that the right to her estate’s income was “independent of any kings who should arise in future generations.”[14] Thus, this title became connected with the Egyptian royal house.[15] It was also a royal prerogative title held only by the “King’s Chief Wife”.[16]

---

https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/ahmose-nefertari/queen-ahmose-nefertari-first-gods-wife-amun/

It is also observed that many of the late period females identified as "Gods Wife of Amun" have obvious African features, just like Ahmose-Nefertari's mummy. One example is Queen Henuttawy.... but sure, lets pretend that Southern influence in AE was diminishing during the New Kingdom....

http://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/God's_Wife_of_Amun.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duathathor-Henuttawy

quote:

---

The Vulture Crown was an Ancient Egyptian crown worn by Great Royal Wives and female Pharaohs. The Vulture Crown was a crown which depicted a vulture, with its two wings hanging from both sides of the head. It was a symbol of protection from the goddess Nekhbet. These crown were frequently adorned with gold and were worn by the Great Royal Wife, high ranking priestesses and female Pharaohs. These crown were also sometimes equipped with the Uraeus, representing both Upper (Nekhbet) and Lower Egypt (the Uraeus). The first known Egyptian woman to wear this crown was Tetisheri.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_crown

The Vulture crown is an emblem of Kush/Amun.

Variations of this crown: Ahmose Nefertari


Another variation with two plumes rising symbolizing Amun


These crowns became common for queens in the New Kingdom and were common in later Kushite Queens in AE.

quote:

---

Nekhbet was the tutelary deity of Upper Egypt. Nekhbet and her Lower Egyptian counterpart Wadjet often appeared together as the "Two Ladies". One of the titles of each ruler was the Nebty name, which began with the hieroglyphs for [s/he] of the Two Ladies....[2]

In art, Nekhbet was depicted as a vulture. Alan Gardiner identified the species that was used in divine iconography as a griffon vulture. Arielle P. Kozloff, however, argues that the vultures in New Kingdom art, with their blue-tipped beaks and loose skin, better resemble the lappet-faced vulture.[3]

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekhbet

quote:

---

The lappet-faced vulture or Nubian vulture (Torgos tracheliotos) is an Old World vulture belonging to the bird order Accipitriformes, which also includes eagles, kites, buzzards and hawks. It is the only member of the genus Torgos. It is not closely related to the superficially similar New World vultures, and does not share the good sense of smell of some members of that group.

The lappet-faced vulture was formerly considered monotypical, but now is separated into two subspecies. The nominate race lives throughout Africa. The subspecies T. t. negevensis, differing considerably in appearance from African vultures (as described below), occurs in the Sinai, the Negev desert, and probably north-west Saudi Arabia.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lappet-faced_vulture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I am very surprised you guys fail to realize that population genetics is a social science instead of hard science. That is why it promotes the same Hamitic myths in relation to Africa, and its people, that were popularized by Anthropologist for the past 200 years.

Don't you see that the papers they publish are only descriptive papers, describing the haplogroups they put in their studies while they mask out any evidence of African origins of the genes. Or they rename lineages to mask the African origin of a clade, e.g., mtDNA D4, in Africa is really African M1.

You guys go into the Eurocentric forums expecting to contribute to the phylogeographical and population genetics discussions and they block you or delete your post. But like Negroes in the past with hat in hand you revisit these sites and are humiliated again and again, while you try to sit at the table with the deck stacked against you. The deck is stacked because you see population genetics as a new field, that can be helpful in understanding history when in reality it promotes white Supremacy. It is nothing but a subbranch of anthropology.

In the past researchers attempted to justify their claims via archaeogentics. That is, supporting their research with support of linguistics and archaeological research. This worked out fine until they wanted to study ancient DNA (aDNA). This was a disastrous move/ Immediately, they found that contemporary people living in Europe failed to carry genes that matched the ancient Europeans. As a result, researchers began to promote the idea that only Negroes lived in sub-Saharan Africa, especially West, east and South Africa. Blacks in Melanesia were no longer Negroes, while Northeast Africans were again "Hamites", i.e., "Black skinned whites".

Everything was moving along fine in the promotion of White supremacy via population genetics research until 2009 when Cruciani tried to reclassify most African are R1b1 clades into V88. Geneticist were able to disguise the genetic evidence that Dravidians carried M1, and promote the idea that most M1 lineages only occured outside Africa, epecially around the Mediterranean and white Berber North Africa.

Cruciani renamed much of African R1b1 :V88. This upset the Eurocentrics because they found that the so-called basal europeans mainly carried R1b1 and the other clades associated with V88.




Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.

In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.


Euronuts have no limit to their blatant and stealthily rewriting of history to "whiteout" Black and African people. The aDNA of the CHG and EF of Europe is R1b1a2. Although ISOGG 216 makes it clear this haplogroup is V88, in the research literature they are referring to this clade (R1b1a2) as R1b-P312/M269 , eventhough M269 is R1b1a1a2.

The presence of R1b1a2 in Europe is explained by the migration of the Kushites into Europe via Gibraltar and Anatolia. But, because Eurocentricswant to white Blacks out of Europe they have fooled people into believing R1b1 is a European clade, instead of V88.

Given the desire to support White Supremacy you will always be humiliated in so-called bioforums discussing population genetics because it is founded the racist concepts of the Hamitic myth.

---

This old thread is an interesting read...


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Shoutout to BBH for recognizing the importance of Proto-Semitic speakers early on, as opposed to going along with the mainstream science and commentators who, almost without fail, use 'Semitic' to mean 'modern Middle East', even in anthropology, where the branch of Semitic among the Afroasiatic languages should have been a clue that the genetics of Semitic speakers would have followed their linguistic inclusion in Afroasiatic (ie they would have been indistinguishable from Africans of the primary pastoral community in terms of biology, if not also in culture).

This is something I posted on the FB group a long time ago, IIRC. It's one example of a bunch of MENA samples that I consider to be candidates of Semitic (predynastic Egyptian) ancestry. The samples come from a Chl and/or Bronze Age site from the Negev, called Kissufim.

Most of the bones were broken and distorted by soil
pressure so that very few measurements could be made.
However, the overall impression was that the sample
from Kissufim resembles samples from other Chal-
colithic sites in Israel previously described (Smith 1995).
The skulls are small and the face short and broad, with
small mandibles (see Fig. 10.1). Mandibular measure-
ments that could be taken are presented in Table 10.3 and
long bone measurements in Tables 10.4-10.6. They con-
firm previous estimations of the ChaIcolithic populations
as relatively slender and probably short (males 166 em
and females 155 em) and demonstrate once again the
overall similarity ofChaIcolithic populations from differ-
ent sites in the southern Levant, including those from
Byblos described by Ozbek (1975).
The Human Remains
http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/9.pdf

Compare with the probable descendants of Semitic speakers in MBII Palestine (note the comment on shorter faces in MBII, recalls Kissufim, but differs from typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine):

In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with
a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose
than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations
inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are
present in five out of the seven measurements shown in
Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from
that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary
trends or environmental factors affecting growth and
development. The MBII samples studied here then
represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics
suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more
temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of
their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA
analysis.
People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e

And compare to predynastics themselves (note, again, the shorter faces compared to typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine):

Figure 6.3 illustrates some of the cranial parameters of Egyptian, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age skeletal samples. Mean values and standard deviations of all measurements for Byblos and other Chalcolothic sites in the southern Levant overlap, while those from the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic sites diverge considerably. The small and incomplete data set (not all meassurements could be made on all speciments) indicates that tthe values quoted may not accurately reflect the entire range of population variation at any one site. However, the data sets available demonstrate consistent differences between samples from the Levant and those from Egypt. This is manifest in cranial breadth, upper facial height and nasal height.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf

So, Kissufim seems part of a group of sites in the Levant that stand out in terms of looking like candidates for new Egyptian (Semitic) ancestry different from the Egyptian ancestry that was already there from Natufian and earlier times. Since we're dealing with Egyptian ancestry from multiple periods, as I've just said, all of the sites will probably have Egyptian ancestry, including some 5.9ky old Semitic ancestry. But if the aforementioned skull from Kissufim (see L507 in fig 10.1) is as typical of that population as Smith claims, Kissufim is clearly among a more standout group of Bronze Age Levantines with a relatively sharp increase of 5.9ky Semitic/Egyptian ancestry.

The Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age specimens recovered from Ein Huderah (Bar Yosef et al. 1977) and Gebel Gunna (Bar Yosef et al. 1986), like those from Wadi Solal (Field 1952), share the short face and narrow cranium characteristic of Early Egyptians.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf

See the skull in in the Kissufim paper (L507 in fig 10.1). It looks more African than many dynastics, including King Tut, in some ways (see King Tut below).


 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ Would you say that short and broad faces is a pan-African trait? I admit to being guilty of eyeball anthropology here, but I have noticed anecdotally that a lot of African people from different regions of the continent have faces like that, and many AE sculptures do as well even if their facial features differ from equatorial Africans in other ways. Even Greek sculptures sometimes have that type of facial outline too, which makes me wonder if that's a holdover from the African admixture in Neolithic Southern Europeans.

BTW, many Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians look to me like they have short and wide faces too, so maybe it's also a pan-tropical trait (or a trait retained from ancestral AMH that some OOA populations further away from the tropics lost).
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
For facial height (but not necessarily facial breadth) If would say yes, for many, even most African samples by mid-holocene times.

If you remember, I posted Olduvai and said he seems to belong to a more pristine form of Type B than the Type B we see among predynastic Egyptians and Capsians, in that Olduvai lacks the negroid features of the later Type B populations. So, the shorter faces of predynastic Egyptian samples (compared to typical Bronze Age Levantines), are a mid-holocene thing, that is not seen in Olduvai.

We know this is probably a mid-holocene thing because the longer face seen in Olduvai is also seen in many other African samples from the Upper Palaeolithic, like Jebel Sahaba, Kiffians, etc. They do not have shorter faces and have similar face height as Kefi's Taforalt and Afalou samples with Eurasian mtDNA (according to Kefi). Note that as soon as the Kiffians at Gobero are followed by mid-holocene Tenereans with some links to the Middle Nile/the primary pastoral community, the shorter faces appear.

Although Olduvai is different from all of them in that he has a narrow face (face is not short and also not broad), while in the aforementioned Palaeolithic samples the face is usually not narrow (it's usually not short but still broad, even in Kefi's Taforalt and Afalou).

For Upper facial height of some of the populations I mentioned (Kiffians, Tenereans, Iberomaurusians), you can look into Sereno et al (see HNP = upper facial height, in table 4)

Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/935e/b92eb51058c5abd91725b0f291ca6ef61b3c.pdf
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Notice that the Taforalt and Afalou samples are pooled with other Iberomaurusian samples, leading to smaller facial heights in Sereno et al. When you look up the Taforalt and Afalou samples in other works, you will see the values are larger than those reported for the pooled Iberomaurusian samples in Sereno et al.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Fair enough, so shorter faces in Africa are a mid-Holocene development rather than a pan-African trait, let alone a AMH plesiomorphy like I was thinking.

That being said, if you'll allow me to go off-topic again, I do believe that a number of the other phenotypic traits that we stereotypically associate with "Negroid" or "Black" people are simply AMH plesiomorphies. At least the prognathism, broad and rounded noses, dark skin, and elongated limb proportions have to be. The evolution of different hair textures needs more study, but I believe 4C-textured hair is another AMH plesiomorphy as well, since all the populations that have evolved other hair textures (West Eurasians, East Eurasians, mainland Aboriginal Australians, and possibly North Africans as well) are of the mtDNA L3 clade, and even then 4C hair remains in some OOA populations as well.

Don't get me wrong, modern Africans have undergone plenty of phenotypic change of their own since the earliest AMH. In addition to the mid-Holocene changes in facial height you pointed out, I've observed that modern Africans don't seem to have the prominent brow ridges that you see in early AMH like the Herto or Jebel Irhoud specimens, and of course there's all the other phenotypic diversity throughout Africa that biological anthropologists have long noted. But I do believe that, were you to present the general public with an accurate reconstruction of ancestral AMH, most viewers would regard them as Black people, albeit maybe with a handful of weird features like the aforementioned beetle brows.

IMO, this is why you sometimes get reports of "Negroid" features being found in skeletal remains far removed from Africa. It's not necessarily that, say, prehistoric South Americans like Luzia really had any special affinity to modern Africans or even Australasia. It's more like they simply retained a number of the same AMH plesiomorphies that persist in much of Africa and Australasia. Those plesiomorphies are probably what underlay the "generalized modern" term I remember seeing armchair anthropologists throwing around back in the 2000s (although, ironically enough, they sometimes used the term even to describe actual African remains like the Jebel Sahaban ones). Even Angel's "Bushman-like Basic White" term might be related to that.

That said, in a West Eurasian context specifically, actual African connections are more likely especially since some of the more African-like remains do contrast with neighboring populations without said African resemblances. Even if you discount the Natufian and EEF aDNA samples we have, Natufians for example do look much more African than earlier populations in their region, as do certain Neolithic European remains like those of Nea Nikomedeia. I mention that because I don't people taking my above statements on AMH plesiomorphies as explaining African affinities in every non-African specimen.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Those plesiomorphies are probably what underlay the "generalized modern" term I remember seeing armchair anthropologists throwing around back in the 2000s (although, ironically enough, they sometimes used the term even to describe actual African remains like the Jebel Sahaban ones).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.

Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] I've looked into this for some time, and at the moment I am of the view that there are a bunch of ancient morphotypes that recur in the palaeolithic archaeological record. I consider the Cro Magnon type epitomized by Cro Magnon I and Mladec I (but also to a lesser extent/in modified form in for instance Kostenki 14 and some African remains) one example of such a very ancient morphotype [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.

Again props to Swenet who called it out years ago. Funny how the same Euronuts who desperately cling to the fact that North Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than some (West Africans) Sub-Saharans are awfully quiet about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.

Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer

---

You were already on page 5 of a thread talking about that

3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.


see OP 2nd abstract:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010874;p=1

ABSTRACT HGP-023
Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)
Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer

_______________________________

I didn't check to see if all 3 > of those charts at your reddit link were all in the 8 page thread though

---

Shhh...don't interrupt they are busy congratulating each other on their mutual genius



 

---

Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
 
^^^
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Thought I had left the "Semetic" and "Caucusus" thread... but folks didn't get the memo/can't take a hint.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
The ancient "arabians" were proto semetic kushites first.


And the name Kushites is a MISNOMER... the Nilo Sarahans are the real KUSHITES. They built Nabta Playa... which contains the main corpus of pre dynastic E culture in stone.

Euro's busy mixing up names so its all confusing in the end.


The red sea peoples/horn of africa who are the pre proto semetics should be called Erythraics




 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Thought I had left the "Semetic" and "Caucusus" thread... but folks didn't get the memo/can't take a hint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.

---

Why bring me in it? All I did is respond to the 23andme data in the link, showing data I hadn't seen before, with modern Egyptians lower in the list of affinities to OK Egyptians, than Arabians (which I thought was an interesting turn of events, even if you can't appreciate that). If you have a problem with what DJ said about a huge influx of Levantine ancestry, take it up with him. I never said anything about that in regards to this OK Egyptian sample.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ For context.

Overall-- covering all three periods


The three periods from recent to older




Levant Natufian

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Would'nt this influx have happened after the foundation of Dynastic Egypt?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.

Again props to Swenet who called it out years ago. Funny how the same Euronuts who desperately cling to the fact that North Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than some (West Africans) Sub-Saharans are awfully quiet about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now, as I'm aware I haven't seen any genomic samples from the Archaic Period (Pyramid Age) much less predynastic times)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ For context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ If by "they" you mean the Eurocentrics, their premise is basically the old 'Dynastic Race Theory' that Egyptian civilization was founded by non-African Asiatics. Now, as I'm aware I haven't seen any genomic samples from the Archaic Period (Pyramid Age) much less predynastic times. But to play devil's advocate, even if we are to assume that Egyptian civilization was founded by Natufians, this said people were very distinct from later populations that we know as 'Asiatic' in historical times. As shown in the autosomal distances with modern Mahra being closest to them. But apparently starting from the Middle Kingdom, there was further influx of Asiatic far post-Natufian of course (Hyksos?).

---

quote:

---

There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ For context.

---

Thanks.

The way I see it, the major takeaway is, as the '23andme' OP in your link says, that there is a massive discontinuity with modern Egyptians, when taking the oldest sample (ie the OK sample) as a starting point, and when you take the other ancient Egyptian samples as derived from the OK sample.

(^Jari, see paragraph above)

The other stuff was already discussed in the 3 abstracts thread (unless I'm missing something).

If Djehuti or Brandon still has sth to say, let's talk about it. If not, I'd like to be on my way, before any more weird, discombobulated reactions and grudge posts come barging in that have nothing to do with anything that was said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Djehuti

quote:

---

There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.

---

Guy seems on point from what I've read so far. The gap is not filled because of what I described as 'modularity' earlier. Nubians with 'Natufian' but with non-indigenous other components from the south or the west (Maghreb/ANA and presumably also Takarkori) are not going to fill the gap.

Only A-Group Nubians on the Egyptian border so far seem to have been like predynastic Egyptians in all anthro facets, while Nubians further south (e.g. Kerma) or certain early ones (Gebel Ramlah) were not.

Also, these A-Group Nubians I am speaking of, they might cluster with other Nubians (C Group, A-Group from Upper Nubia) but they are not the same. We already know from, for instance, Gizeh-like elements in the Kerma sample, and 'alien' types discussed by early expeditions (e.g. Reisner) that later Nubian groups were different in different ways, even if not all analyses are consistently picking up on it.

I believe Batrawi also spoke on heterogeneity in Nubia, with later groups (e.g. X Group) for instance having much more ancestry from the south.

------

BTW, I'm not interested in posting in this thread anymore. Just wanted to post the Kissufim data for whatever it's worth. Tired of opinionated loudmouth non-contributing members who post trash and take more from the forum than they give. Go head. Turn it into another "Semetic" thread. Let's see how the thread is better off with your input.

---

 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
A hit dog hollered then threw his friend under the bus





So many broad suppositions being made about this or that population without any supporting data.

historical, archaeological or otherwise...

and even if there were " aliens" within a population what do they have to do with the broader civilization by which their skeletal remains are found? Unless you are covertly promoting the dynastic theory that Reisner the whites supremacist ascribed to.




 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
@Swenet...Manybe this topic deserves another thread? I know its been discussed in various other threads but maybe this post from Ygor deserves its own?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.

Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer

---

You were already on page 5 of a thread talking about that

3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.


see OP 2nd abstract:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010874;p=1

ABSTRACT HGP-023
Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)
Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer

_______________________________

I didn't check to see if all 3 > of those charts at your reddit link were all in the 8 page thread though

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:


More from Miro....

---

quote:

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/16nj9ob/leaked_new_ancient_egyptian_samples_from_mussauer/

Go to 23andme
r/23andme
•
2 mo. ago
[deleted]

Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer et al reveals genetic discontinuity between Modern and ancient Egyptians of Old Kingdom who built the pyramids and a Huge levantine influx !

---

quote:

---

https://twitter.com/MiroCyo/status/1704028229605249195?s=20


Miro C
@MiroCyo
Genetic distances to modern populations of the new Ancient Egyptian samples from the study that is going to be released at some point (Mussauer et al.)

This should really end the debates once and for all, but of course it won't for certain ethnonationalists

---

quote:

---

[deleted]
•
2 mo. ago
•
Edited 2 mo. ago
I don’t have the samples, i copied the leakage photo from a twitter page, the samples are widely leaked on twitter and some geneticists who have hand on all the study data itself talked about it

•
2 mo. ago
and some geneticists who have hand on all the study data itself talked about it

Link? Thank you in advance!


[deleted]
•
2 mo. ago
That’s one of the most notable, Here you are:

https://x.com/MiroCyo/status/1704028229605249195?s=20


[deleted]
•
2 mo. ago
That’s one of the most notable, Here you are:

https://x.com/MiroCyo/status/1704028229605249195?s=20
•
2 mo. ago
From his statements it can be concluded that he's not a geneticist.

---

quote:

---

Honest-Ad4409
•
2 mo. ago
These results DO NOT show discontinuity between Old Kingdom Egyptians and modern Egyptians. In fact, it shows the exact opposite…it shows modern Egyptians do descend from Old Kingdom Egyptians, just not all of it.

However, these results are not confirmed to be from the upcoming Mussauer study and these results are not official results.

And just to end with something…populations around the world are not genetically the same as their ancestors from 5000 years ago or more. Look at the Levant, there is a dramatic genetic change between Neolithic Levantines and Bronze Age Levantines. So even if this result is true (which we don’t know yet) it’s no different from any population and their ancestors from 5000 years ago. The point to take away from this is that modern Egyptians DO descend from Old Kingdom Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Egyptian Civilization was NOT founded by Natufians.

---

quote:

---

It was founded by Erythraics and Nilo Saharans.
So there is no need to play devils advocate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

@Djehuti

quote:

---

There is still, in this cline, a not so big gap between the Egyptians and the Nubians, Sudanese and Horn Africans (I’m citing here both modern and ancient DNA samples), which will possibly be filled in the future by yet unsampled biogeographic groups from Egypt and Sudan.

---

Guy seems on point from what I've read so far. The gap is not filled because of what I described as 'modularity' earlier. Nubians with 'Natufian' but with non-indigenous other components from the south or the west (Maghreb/ANA and presumably also Takarkori) are not going to fill the gap.

Only A-Group Nubians on the Egyptian border so far seem to have been like predynastic Egyptians in all anthro facets, while Nubians further south (e.g. Kerma) or certain early ones (Gebel Ramlah) were not.

Also, these A-Group Nubians I am speaking of, they might cluster with other Nubians (C Group, A-Group from Upper Nubia) but they are not the same. We already know from, for instance, Gizeh-like elements in the Kerma sample, and 'alien' types discussed by early expeditions (e.g. Reisner) that later Nubian groups were different in different ways, even if not all analyses are consistently picking up on it.
I believe Batrawi also spoke on heterogeneity in Nubia, with later groups (e.g. X Group) for instance having much more ancestry from the south.

---

quote:

---

------

BTW, I'm not interested in posting in this thread anymore. Just wanted to post the Kissufim data for whatever it's worth. Tired of opinionated loudmouth non-contributing members who post trash and take more from the forum than they give. Go head. Turn it into another "Semetic" thread. Let's see how the thread is better off with your input.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

Brandon and the rest of the forum what kind of implications do you think the upcoming Takarkori Saharan study (7000 BP) will have on the wider implications of population references inside the entire continent of Africa?

Eg: Do you think it would provide a better proxy for Ancient Egyptians compared to Natufians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

Brandon and the rest of the forum what kind of implications do you think the upcoming Takarkori Saharan study (7000 BP) will have on the wider implications of population references inside the entire continent of Africa?

Eg: Do you think it would provide a better proxy for Ancient Egyptians compared to Natufians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

It depends on what you mean by "pure Afrocasiatic". Do you mean the hypothetical proto-language itself or the speakers from which it arose? As far as linguistics is concerned, the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier. In fact the Omotic subfamily seems to support this as it is the most divergent of all the Afrisian languages. This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.



If Natufians do represent Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers, then Semitic is all that remains similarly, Berber is all that remains of Libyco-Berber. I also believe that Egyptic was also more diverse including A-Group and who knows what else.

As for the speakers themselves, they too had to be pretty diverse. Remember that Hadza-marker is found in Natufians and other West Eurasians. And Basal Eurasian has to represent a population close to the OOA node that left out of Africa.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I hope so, but IIRC, that sample was described as being related to Iberomaurisians. I do think Iberomaurusians and other ancient Maghrebis had some Afroasiatic-related ancestry, but I will admit that all the various characterizations of ANA confuse me. Some make it sound like an upstream relative of Basal Eurasian, while others treat it as being closer to sub-Saharan ancestries. Possibly, it’s somewhere on the continuum between sub-Saharans on one end and OOA on the other, but it might be too upstream to be the kind of ancestry we’re interested in. That is to say, it could have “gotten off the bus” after the sub-Saharans but before the Egyptians.

---

According to the fst distance that Antalas cited they aren't as close as many believe.



The distance between IM Moroccans and Natufians are about the same as Nigerians and Biaka Pygmies of Cameroon.



and the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians



What this suggests to me is a more distant ancestry between the target population and the others.


 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

It depends on what you mean by "pure Afrocasiatic". Do you mean the hypothetical proto-language itself or the speakers from which it arose? As far as linguistics is concerned, the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier. In fact the Omotic subfamily seems to support this as it is the most divergent of all the Afrisian languages. This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.



If Natufians do represent Pre-Proto-Semitic speakers, then Semitic is all that remains similarly, Berber is all that remains of Libyco-Berber. I also believe that Egyptic was also more diverse including A-Group and who knows what else.

As for the speakers themselves, they too had to be pretty diverse. Remember that Hadza-marker is found in Natufians and other West Eurasians. And Basal Eurasian has to represent a population close to the OOA node that left out of Africa.

---

I was assuming that the first Proto-Afroasiatic speakers would look like however we think the Proto-Egyptians' ancestors looked. However, the phenotype of Omotic-speakers does need accounting for, since many of them could be confused for Upper Nile peoples. I presume the Mota specimen had a similar appearance to them.

Maybe they descend from an early dispersal of Proto-Afroasiatics that went into the Horn, where Mota-like locals absorbed them? Only other scenario I can think of is that it's the Mota-type people who would have been the first Afroasiatic-speakers, and that the branch that split away from the Omotics moved into North Africa and had the locals absorb them. IIRC, Swenet has suggested that most of whatever sub-Saharan ancestry AE and Natufians shared might be related to Mota.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ There has been speculation from various scholars on what if any general phenotype the Proto-Afrisian speakers had. Unfortunately most of that data that I've come across comes from our old troll Parahu.

Craniometric chart from Froment 1998 showing generalized speakers from different language groups


Ike & Hayama 1982



 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Egyptian Civilization was NOT founded by Natufians.

---

Yes I know that.

quote:

---

It was founded by Erythraics and Nilo Saharans.
So there is no need to play devils advocate.

---

The purpose of playing 'devil's advocate' is to know your enemy's arguments and therefore its weaknesses. This is the reason why when it comes to debate I like to know where the other side is coming from. They make the point that (post-Archaic) Old Kingdom samples shows affinities to Natufians, though such affinities may stem from common origins as Natufians themselves show African affinities.

Later you post something about a hurt dog hollering but you seem like a paranoid dog hollering from fear of being hurt. Just calm down.

---

quote:

---

This is why some scholars think Afrisian was much more diverse than it is today with extinct subfamilies leaving gaps in the phylogeny.

---

quote:

---

the theory that Mr. Coelho goes by pushes the date of Proto-Afroasiatic be at least 12,000 BC if not earlier.

---

quote:

---

Additionally, philological evidence backs a Steppe connection. For example, Bahadur (1917) notes that “Eusebius states that Ethiopians [Meroites] emigrating from the River Indus settled in the vicinity of Egypt [Meroe].” Nilus similarly relayed to Apollonius Tynaeus that “the Indi are the wisest of all mankind. The Ethiopians [Meroites] are a colony from them: and they inherit the wisdom of their forefathers.” The Indus river mostly traverses Pakistan, an area that historically was settled by Indo-European speakers, who carried Steppe ancestry.

Craniometric analysis likewise points to a close association between Afro-Asiatic speakers in Northeast Africa, Indo-European-speaking and Dravidian-speaking populations of South Asia, and Europeans. This affinity extends back in time to subsume early groups in these areas, including the ancient Egyptians and post-Neolithic Nubians. Brace (1993), for instance, asserts that “insofar as India has metric ties with any other populations, it combines with Nubia [Bronze Age/X-Group and Medieval/Christian Era samples] and then the Somalis to join Europe and the Egyptians [Predynastic and Late Dynastic samples] as a last link before that set of branches ties in with the rest of the world.” Multiple other studies have also observed a similar affiliation (e.g. Morton (1854), Stoessiger (1927), Coon (1939), Sergent (1997), Brace et al. (2006)). This aligns well with a diffusion of ancient Steppe-bearing peoples into Northeast Africa and South Asia, either indirectly from a common waypoint near Central Asia or directly from Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ There has been speculation from various scholars on what if any general phenotype the Proto-Afrisian speakers had. Unfortunately most of that data that I've come across comes from our old troll Parahu.

Craniometric chart from Froment 1998 showing generalized speakers from different language groups


Ike & Hayama 1982

---

quote:

---

Lol, Perahu's page is quite the read, Ill give him that...

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yeah! The guy presents a lot of accurate data. But it's the way he interprets that data is the problem.

You know the guy is nutty when he presents light-skinned types (either bleached-skinned girls or mixed-ancestry types) as representative of the original Cushitic or Afro-Asiatic type. But then in the same breath he says deeply melanated Mahra reflect the original phenotype of Natufians who reflect proto-Afroasiatics. LOL

He used to troll this forum years ago and was (still is?) a member of the Hamitic Union forum. The way the guy talks about Cushitic people a lot one may think he is one until you look deeper into what he says and again the 'type' of Cushitics he posts. Even actual Cushitic people have called his b.s. out and judging by his avatar of the actor Billy Crystal I doubt the guy is even African. LOL
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which scholars?

---

quote:

---

Mr.? Who is he and what are his academic bonafides and where are his published papers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

Interesting, esp. coming from Perahu, but he definitely advocated a "Hamite" approach to Afro-Asiatic...even the images he selected is of the lightest most mixed looking HOAs...

---

quote:

---

That said he does offer another approach to this "Afro-asiatic Cluster" topic that is not as Eurocentrist as Miro, but more so than Ygor's

---

quote:

---

Perahu also proposed(among many other things) an introduction of Steppe/Indo-european Ancestry into Nubia/Kerma during the Merotic period..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

Interesting, esp. coming from Perahu, but he definitely advocated a "Hamite" approach to Afro-Asiatic...even the images he selected is of the lightest most mixed looking HOAs...

---

I've been informed that actual Horners from the Hamitic Union have called out his distortion of what the original Cushitic speakers looked like, not the fair-and-lovely (bleached or mixed types) he keeps posting! LOL As I understand it most members of the Hamitic Union (who are Horners) just want to emphasize the fact that they differ racially from other (true negroid type) Sub-Saharans but even they are against the idea that their ancestors were light-skinned Eurasians!

---

It could be that Perahu is of mixed ancestry himself, or simply has internalized enough colorism to think that lighter skin is more desirable. Though, on the other hand, there very likely are guys pulling an Ausar all over the armchair anthropology community. It's way too easy to lie about your ethnicity on the Internet in order to score talking points.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I thought he could be mixed or biracial person but his avatar of Billy Crystal as well as his posting of a lot of modern Jewish types makes me wonder if he's a Jew who wants his personal type to be the proto-Afroasiatic type. I don't know nor do I care. He just happens to have a lot of good objective data. How he interprets it is something else.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Compare Wang et al. 2020 study...



with Wang et al. 2022 Kadruka study


 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)

But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I thought he could be mixed or biracial person but his avatar of Billy Crystal as well as his posting of a lot of modern Jewish types makes me wonder if he's a Jew who wants his personal type to be the proto-Afroasiatic type. I don't know nor do I care. He just happens to have a lot of good objective data. How he interprets it is something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)

But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK

---

quote:

---

You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bauval in Black Genesis, He didn't use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians

I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I wonder how probable it is that we'll ever find a "pure" Afroasiatic population in the archaeological record. African Afroasiatic samples will likely have too much admixture from other African sources, whereas Asian samples will of course have genuine Eurasian admixture. It wouldn't be so bad if we could simply point to the shared ancestry between the African and Asian samples as representing that of the original Afroasiatics, but we all know the tendency in the anthro fandom has been to call that shared ancestry "Natufian" and claim that the African Afroasiatics therefore represent Natufian/sub-Saharan mixes.

I suppose that, once we identify whatever Saharan refugia the Egyptians' African ancestors were hiding in during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, we'd find skeletal remains with aDNA that represent the population we're looking for. I don't have much confidence that they'll even keep searching for those refugia, let alone get aDNA and characterize it as anything other than yet more Natufian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bouval in Black Genesis, He did'nt use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians

I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.

---

---

Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.

The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians






 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
toubou are nilo saharan speakers

quote:

---

MALDER, which has the potential to determine whether or not the admixture LD in the population is best represented as the result of one or multiple mixtures, showed that two mixture events had occurred in the Toubou (Figure 3A; Table S3). The first event occurred 2,850–3,500 ya (Z score ¼ 11), a time close to the date of mixture in East Africans 2,500–2,700 ya (Z score ¼ 26)

---

quote:

---

admixture LD showed that
the events in southern Chad preceded the events in East Africa by 2,000–4,500 years, and (2) we found in Chad a Eurasian Y chromosome lineage (Y haplogroup R1b-V88) that had penetrated all Chadian populations examined but was absent or rare from the Ethiopians examined (Table S4; Figure S1). From whole Y chromosome sequences (Figure S2), we estimate that the Chadian R1bV88 chromosomes sampled emerged 5,700–7,300 ya(Figure 3B), a time comparable to the Laal speaker admixture dates (4,750–7,200 ya) estimated from genome-wide
LD-decay patterns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[qb]
Wait I thought Perahu was a(Really Fair/White Skinned) Berber....oh wait Im thinking of Fawal(lol)

But come to think of it, I vaguely remember Parahu claiming to be an Arab Xtian possibly Armenian...IDK

---

So is Fawal the same as Melchior/Antalas?? I think Abaza is a (Druze?) Palestinian. These trolls are all alike and blur into one another so I don't care.

quote:

---

You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bauval in Black Genesis, He didn't use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians

I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...

---

Bauval was slightly off, but just slightly. Nabta Playa was not built by Egyptians per say but by a Nubian population . These ancient Nubians of the Western Desert may very well be related to the ancestors of the Tubu. But Tubu are not the same as the Fulani whose ancestors lived across the Green Sahara but as nomads these groups were likely in contact.

---

quote:

---

Thomas Brophy, PhD ASTROPHYSICS , is president of the California Institute of Human Science. He also serves as president of the Society for Consciousness Studies. He is author of The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism: An Exploration of Spirit, Matter and Physics (see https://amzn.to/3abDkGz) as well as The Origin Map: Discovery of a Prehistoric, Megalithic, Astrophysical Map and Sculpture of the Universe has also coauthored, two books with Robert Bauval titled Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt (see https://amzn.to/2Rhh1qb) and Imhotep the African: Architect of the Cosmos is president of the California Institute of Human Science. He also serves as president of the Society for Consciousness Studies. He is author of The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism: An Exploration of Spirit, Matter and Physics (see https://amzn.to/3abDkGz) as well as The Origin Map: Discovery of a Prehistoric, Megalithic, Astrophysical Map and Sculpture of the Universe (see https://amzn.to/30hM9tH). (see https://amzn.to/38721SD). His websites are https://www.cihs.edu/ and https://consc.org/.

Here he describes his research in portions of the Sahara desert that are rarely explored where he encountered prehistoric, megalithic structures of astronomical significance, as well as rock paintings and inscriptions. He explains how these artifacts were created by the black population at a time when the area produced rains and had many animals. When the climate changed, he believes that these people migrated east and north and helped to create the culture of ancient Egypt .

---

quote:

---

Robert Bauval (born 5 March 1948) is a Belgian author and lecturer, perhaps best known for the fringe Orion Correlation Theory regarding the Giza pyramid complex.

---

quote:

---

On 4 November 1999, the BBC broadcast a documentary entitled Atlantis Reborn which tested the ideas of Robert Bauval and his colleague, Graham Hancock. Bauval and Hancock afterwards complained to the BSC (Broadcasting Standards Commission) that they had been treated unfairly. A hearing followed and in November 2000 the BSC ruled in favour of the documentary makers on all but one of the ten principal complaints brought by Hancock and Bauval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You know another Author who proposed a similar theory was Robert Bouval in Black Genesis, He did'nt use the genetic side but from an archeological side, proposed a connection between Ancient Egypt/Nabta Playa and the Tebu as a good modern Example of the Proto A. Egyptians

I also think that the Tebu/Fulani are a modern population that represents how these ancient proto Afro-Asiatics could have looked, hey still I mean they still practice Pastoralism...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:I already cited his background in the previous page he has no more credentials in the topics we discuss than any of us (he's a lawyer) yet he's done the research like us here in ES and he's reached the same conclusions as us as well as others like Ethiohelix. Paul Kekai Manansala is a Filipino whose background was journalism yet his research has come to the conlusion that the ancient Egyptians were (black) Africans who are genetically and culturally related to Nubians. So the issue is not necessarily one of credentials but proper assessment of data. To not do so falls prey to the fallacy of 'Apeal to Authority' as if the authorities are always right.

---

---

Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.

The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.

The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Nabta Playa was built by Nilo Saharan people not the proto afroasiatics/erythraic peoples from the horn and the highlands of Ethiopia.

The Nilo Saharans were cattle pastorialists and the Erythraic developed ancient wild grain harvesting. Both of these populations end up in the Nile valley but have different origins and different subsistence strategies. These Nilo Saharans when they build Nabta playa are not Nubians yet, they are proto Nubians and pre dynastic proto Egyptians

---

And pray tell, how do you know what language phylum was spoken by which group considering we have no such evidence?? This is why predynastic or Neolithic cultures are labeled by their material remains because don't know anything else about their identity.

I get your point that the people of Nabta exhibit Nilotic cultural features such as cattle cult and subsisting on both cattle milk and blood, but don't know for sure what language they spoke anymore say the Abkan Culture of Upper Nubia.

---

You can always email Christopher Erhet and ask him since these are just screen shots from his newest book. Or you can buy it and read it.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I read Ehret's works. Both he and Fred Wendorf think the Nabtans could be Nilo-Saharans but they are not sure since again, we have no historical texts from these people to know that they actually spoke. Ehret has made it clear that ancient Egyptian language has recieved Nilo-Saharan influence early on.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
-- World History Connected: A Conversation with Christopher Ehret
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I read Ehret's works. Both he and Fred Wendorf think the Nabtans could be Nilo-Saharans but they are not sure since again, we have no historical texts from these people to know that they actually spoke. Ehret has made it clear that ancient Egyptian language has recieved Nilo-Saharan influence early on.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
-- World History Connected: A Conversation with Christopher Ehret

---

This is his latest work published this August 2023. He shows his work on Nilo Saharan. I suggest you read this latest work
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The only work published this year from Ehret is the book Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE. If that's what you're citing, then again his hypothesis that they were Nilo-Saharan seems to be based on their cattle culture only. My point is that it's probable but not certain because that area of Nubia also lies in Afroasiatics/Erythraic territory.



And by "Nubians" I don't mean modern ethnic Nubians but simply inhabitants of the region of Nubia. The structures at Nabta are based on alignments of heliacal and stellar (sirius) patterns which are the exact same patterns that Egyptian monuments are based on. This is why some scholars are pointing to Nabtans as ancestral Egyptians yet archaeologically they are not ancestral to Egyptians. That does not necessarily mean they aren't Afroasiatic, but they are not ancestral to Egyptians. If they are continuous to other cultures in the Sahara then there is no telling for certain what languages they spoke since even some languages traditionally grouped in Nilo-Saharan today are actually language isolates that show Nilo-Saharan like features like Songhay. There is even evidence of language isolates in Ethiopia like the old language of the Waata people that became extinct in the last century and may be related to Degere.

So as much as I respect Ehret as an expert, I'm not as confident in his conclusions as you are because there was a lot more diversity in ancient times that was lost and without actual historical evidence for me it's just safe to say I don't know. By the way, language phyla are one thing and populations are another which is why I addressed the Nilo-Saharan peoples here.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
The only work published this year from Ehret is the book Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE.

Boy you are slow... that is exactly what I said, quit repeating what I said like I did not say it and it is something you newly discovered.

The way I can tell you are arguing with a book you have not read is interesting to me.

And if you DON't READ THE BOOK you won't know if he is basing his Nilo Saharan Nabta Playa only on cattle culture. READ THE BOOK
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Well I don't have the book at the moment. Since you've obviously read it, how about you cite the evidence Ehret has. You say I'm "slow" but I just merely state the simple fact we don't know for languages the Nabtans spoke since we have no historical records. If favoring hard evidence over wishful thinking is "slow" then so be it.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa

wiki

Nabta Playa

Archaeological findings indicate the presence of small seasonal camps in the region dating to the 9th–8th millennia BC.[2] Fred Wendorf, the site's discoverer, and ethno-linguist Christopher Ehret have suggested that the people who occupied this region at that time may have been early pastoralists, or like the Saami practiced semi-pastoralism.[2] This is disputed by other sources as the cattle remains found at Nabta have been shown to be morphologically wild in several studies, and hunter-gatherers at the nearby Saharan site of Uan Afada in Libya were penning wild Barbary sheep, an animal that was never domesticated.[6] According to Michael Brass (2018) early cattle remains from Nabta Playa were wild hunted aurochs, whilst domesticated cattle were introduced to northeast Africa in the late 7th millennium BC, originating from cattle domesticated in the Euphrates valley.[7]

quote:

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20110806140123/http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html

Added March 1998. Updated November 26, 2000.

Late Neolithic megalithic structures at Nabta Playa (Sahara), southwestern Egypt.
By Fred Wendorf
Anthropology Department

Southern Methodist University

The geographic position of the Nabta center is also of interest. Nabta may have been a contact point between the early Neolithic groups along the Nile who had an agricultural economy and the cattle pastoralists in the Eastern Sahara. The functional separation of these two different economies may have played a significant role in the emergence of complexity among both groups. The evidence for Nilotic influence on pastoralists is not extensive and is presently limited to ceramic technology, domestic caprovids, and the occasional trade of shells of Nile species and rare stones from the Nile gravel. However, there are many aspects of political and ceremonial life in the Predynastic and Old Kingdom that reflects a strong impact from Saharan cattle pastoralists.

The likely possibility of a symbiotic relationship between the cattle pastoralists in the Sahara and the Neolithic groups in the Nile Valley points to a potentially important role for the Nabta regional ceremonial center. Among East African cattle pastoralists regional ceremonial centers, because of their integrative role, are frequently placed near boundaries between different segments of a tribe, or between different tribal groups. The Nabta center could well have served that purpose, it could have been located between several groups of pastoralists, and between pastoralists and the Neolithic farmers along the Nile, 100 km away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Well I don't have the book at the moment. Since you've obviously read it, how about you cite the evidence Ehret has. You say I'm "slow" but I just merely state the simple fact we don't know for languages the Nabtans spoke since we have no historical records. If favoring hard evidence over wishful thinking is "slow" then so be it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I don't have one because I haven't seen enough evidence. I never said they didn't speak Nilo-Saharan, I just said I'm not certain. Aspects of their culture is very much Nilotic such as both milk and blood subsistence from cattle. Their heliacal and syrius stellar megaliths are very much the same as later dynastic Egyptians who were Afroasiatic speaking. The territory of Nabta-Kiseiba lies in an area where Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan overlaps so who knows. As I said it could just as well be possible that they spoke a language from an entirely different group. As I said, there are vestiges of language isolates both in the Horn and in the western Sahel. The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't. Linguists like Ehret are going by conjecture when they postulate where a language phylum originates and to what extent its speakers ranged.

---

quote:

---

Category: History & Society

Also called:
Oranian Industry

Ibero-Maurusian industry, North African stone-tool industry dating from the late Würm (last) Glacial Period, about 16,000 years ago. The former presumption that the industry extended into Spain explains the prefix “Ibero-” in the name. The industry does bear a close resemblance to the late Magdalenian culture in Spain, which is broadly contemporary (c. 15,000 bc). Subsequent study, however, suggests that the Ibero-Maurusian industry is derived from a Nile River valley culture known as Halfan, which dates from about 17,000 bc. Human remains are rather frequently associated with Ibero-Maurusian artifacts, and it appears that the industry belonged to a group of people known as the Mechta-el-Arbi race, considered to have been a North African branch of Cro-Magnon man.

---

quote:

---

The Late Paleolithic

This period began around 30,000 BCE. Ancient, mobile buildings, capable of being disassembled and reassembled were found along the southern border near Wadi Halfa. Aterian tool-making industry reached Egypt around 40,000 BCE, and Khormusan industry began between 40,000 and 30,000 BCE.
The Mesolithic

Halfan culture arose along the Nile Valley of Egypt and in Nubia between 18,000 and 15,000 BCE. They appeared to be settled people, descended from the Khormusan people, and spawned the Ibero-Marusian industry. Material remains from these people include stone tools, flakes, and rock paintings.

The Qadan culture practiced wild-grain harvesting along the Nile, and developed sickles and grinding stones to collect and process these plants. These people were likely residents of Libya who were pushed into the Nile Valley due to desiccation in the Sahara. The Sebilian culture (also known as Esna) gathered wheat and barley.

The Harifian culture migrated out of the Fayyum and the Eastern deserts of Egypt to merge with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; this created the Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex, who invented nomadic pastoralism, and may have spread Proto-Semitic language throughout Mesopotamia.

---

quote:

---

General Data on the Late Palaeolithic of the Main Nile Valley

Numerous archaeological sites are dated to MIS 2 in the main Nile Valley, most of which are surface occurrences of bone fragments and lithic artefacts. Based on the characteristics of the lithic artefacts, i.e., the production of flakes and elongated products (blade/lets) of small dimensions associated with a toolkit including high proportions of backed tools, they are attributed to the Late Palaeolithic. The Late Palaeolithic (ca. 25-12 ka) in north-eastern Africa follows the Upper Palaeolithic (with scarce sites dated to ca. 50-25 ka), and precedes the Epipalaeolithic in the Egyptian Nile Valley and Egyptian Eastern Desert (with sites dated from ca. 9 ka cal BP, Vermeersch, 2012), the Early Neolithic in the Western and Eastern Desert of Egypt (from ca. 10 ka cal BP, Wendorf et al., 2001; Gatto, 2012) and the Mesolithic in the Sudan (from ca. 11 ka cal BP, Honegger, 2019). The Late Palaeolithic in north-eastern Africa is coeval with the Epipalaeolithic in the Levant, the Iberomaurusian/Later Stone Age in northern Africa and the Later Stone Age in other African regions. This constellation of terminologies and the use of the same terms to designate different periods in different regions make comparisons at the macro-regional scale difficult.

Late Palaeolithic sites in north-eastern Africa are located mostly in southern Egypt and Nubia. Most sites were discovered during prehistoric investigations as part of the Nubia Campaign which began in 1961–1962, (Schild and Wendorf, 2002) and archaeological expeditions that followed, until the end of the 1980s. This leads to a record biased toward certain geographical areas (in particular, the location of the Aswan Dam in northern Nubia), although geomorphological reasons also explain why virtually no Late Palaeolithic sites are known north of Qena (see also The Late Pleistocene main Nile in southern Egypt and Nubia section). The only possible occurrences of Late Palaeolithic assemblages in northern Egypt are in the region of Helwan, near Cairo, where P. Bovier-Lapierre at the beginning of the 20th century (Bovier-Lapierre, 1926) and F. Debono in 1936 (Debono, 1948; Debono and Mortensen, 1990, 9–11) noted several surface occurrences or ‘stations’ of material that they attribute to the end of the Palaeolithic. In a later reassessment of Debono’s surface collections, Schmidt (1996) attributed Debono site 7 ‘ostrich’ to the Late Upper Palaeolithic and published two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments of ca. 18 ka BP (or ca. 21–23 ka cal BP). Schmidt (1996) also mentions several localities with microlithic artefacts that he attributes to the Epipalaeolithic, although it is unclear whether this refers to the Epipalaeolithic or Late Palaeolithic. Recent research in the Nile Delta has also reported the presence of Epipalaeolithic assemblages (Rowland and Tassie, 2014; Tassie, 2014). However, with the exception of the two dates on ostrich eggshell fragments which must be considered with caution as these are surface finds, the Late Palaeolithic or Epipalaeolithic surface occurrences in the Nile Delta are poorly dated and may not in fact date to MIS 2 (see discussion below).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jehuti:

The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougM:

The facts are that all evidence points to the regions along the Nile between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan as the cultural heartland of the Nile Valley between the last Wet Phase and 5,000 BC. And this period involved many different populations who came and went over time in this region as part of seasonal migrations and interacted with others who had a more settled lifestyle. And this migratory pattern ties into the populations in the Sahara during the last wet phase as well. The languages all these groups spoke over the time frame from 10kya to 5kya is not known. And unfortunately there is little if any DNA from these time periods either...

Suffice to say, the later dynastic culture emerged from earlier cultures on the Nile like the Halfan and Kubbaniyan which were part of a settlement complex on the Upper Nile that goes back to the Pleistocene and further. So this firmly shows that the root of these cultural traditions and early populations migrating along the Nile was in Africa.

Another more modern narrative of these cultural traditions, but again using misleading phrasing because all of these traditions were African (note the last bit about the Harifian, when all the evidence on the Nile points to an indigenous African pastoral complex evolving in the Sahara/Sahel and on the NIle):

It just shows how desperate these people are to associate anything to do with the dynastic era, even if it comes from further south or in the central Sahara, with Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jehuti:

The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?

---

Likely he meant to say that the Songhai languages had once been classified as Niger-Congo langauges, but he can correct me if i am misrepresenting his position. But to your question, Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan? The leading scholar in Songhai languages, Robert Nicolaï, disagrees that the Songhai languages belong in the Nilo-Saharan language phylum, but rather that they're Berber - Mande creoles, with some more "berberized" than others (Tadaksahak for example).

To your point about the Nabtan's possibly being Nilo-Saharan speakers, please elaborate on what this entails? We are currently speaking in English, does that mean that we are of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Fulani pastoralists speak Niger-Congo languages yet still cluster with certain Nilo-Saharan and Chadic groups. The fact that the people who were at Nabta Playa may or may not have spoken Nilotic-Saharan languages could mean nothing more than cultural contact between two different groups, nothing genetic related, they could've still been a majority Levantine/Eurasian population.

Offtopic, but does anybody know the name of the scholar who believed that the Ancient Egyptians actually spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? I've seen him mentioned on this site but can't

---

quote:

---

quote:
The FRENCH ( my empahsis) colonial conquerors saw the upper strata of Tuareg society as white and, according to some, even of European descent. They have been portrayed, among other things, as the descendants of the Vandals, lost crusaders, or even a Caucasian-populated sunken Atlantis (Henry 1996). Meanwhile, the lower strata of Tuareg society, the slaves and blacksmiths, were seen as racially black. Thus, in colonial European presentations of African history, the Tuareg elite was presented as an alien invader which had subdued an indigenous African population, an image that would resurface at various times after independence. In the colonial mind, Tuareg society and its historical white European origins mirrored the colonial project itself. This may have been at the root of the positive appreciation of Tuareg society by French colonial rulers.

To the Malian administration, the Tuareg elite was just as white as it had been to the colonial administration. However, where the latter appreciated their whiteness positively, the Malian Government saw it as a sign of otherness and as a threat. In the 1950s and in the first years after independence, the Malian political leaders made it quite clear that they perceived the Tuareg their whiteness and their way of life as a problem (Lecocq 2002). In the vision of ruling US-RDA politicians, the Tuareg had been colonial favourites because of their whiteness, which had given them a misplaced superiority complex.

As for the Tuareg themselves, their own concepts of race have slightly more sophisticated nuances, but they are nevertheless important in classifying people. Three physical categories are perceived: koual, black; shaggaran, red; and sattafan, greenish or shiny black. Social status is connected to these categories. Koual is the appearance of the blacksmiths and slaves,- shaggaran is associated with the free, but not the noble,- and sattafan is the colour of nobility. Finally, we could note the specifically racial denominator esherdan in the Air and Hoggar dialects, which means mulatto of a "black" and a "red" parent - black and red here meaning African and Arab-Berber, not slave and master (Alojaly 1980)

Thus, local terms to describe racial and social status cannot easily be translated into Western racial or racialist concepts as the French conquerors did. Yet, that is what happened. In 1951, a French Commander could still note about the Tuareg nobility of the Niger Bend, which would most likely be qualified as sattafan, that "many are black and generally do not have the noble appearance of the inhabitants of the [Algerian] Hoggar." Through their own racial bias and despite fifty years of colonial presence, the French commanders translated shaggaran (red) as "white" and "white" as nobles . Indigenous Tuareg physical distinctions have gradually incorporated these more European notions. When speaking French, a Tuareg will now translate koual as "noir." However, both shaggaran (red) and sattafan (greenish black) will be translated "blanc."
Source: " target="_blank">https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/25067450[/QUOTE]


Let's not forget what the French did in North Africa and HOW they did it.

quote:

---

How France engineered North African ethnic rivalry to further colonisation France wielded ethnic and cultural diversity as a weapon and engineered sectarian discord to achieve its colonial goals.
To realise its dreams of North African hegemony,

---

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/how-france-engineered-north-african-ethnic-rivalry-to-further-colonisation-33720
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 


Reviewed Work: Parentés linguistiques (à propos du songhay) by Robert Nicolaï
Review by: Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1992), pp. 610-612 (3 pages)
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
This actually seems plausible with the proto-Afroasiatic "Eurasian" cluster possibly evolving in North Africa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:
What if Levantine/Eurasian like populations arose in Africa? What then?

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Indeed, where exactly is the dividing line between African and "Eurasian" if proto-Eurasian originated in Africa??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo-Saharan?

---

There are many but two I can think of are Gerrit Dimmendaal (2008) and Westermann & Bryan (2017)

quote:

---

What vestige languages are NOT Nilo Saharan nor Afroasiatic in the Sahel & The Horn are you speaking of? What are their names and what ethnic groups speak them?

---

I already gave examples of 2 in Ethiopia in my previous post-- Degere and the old language of the Waata which became extinct. Here's another Ongata.

quote:

---

How do you dispute Ehret's "conjecture" on Songhai as a a Nilo-Saharan language? What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?

---

Ehret is just going along with Joseph Greenberg's 4 phyla model which has been disputed for the longest. In fact I myself have been schooled in this issue in this forum which was discussed multiple times.

COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL lINGUISTIC SCIENCES

Kushites: “Nilo-Saharan” speakers vs. a “language isolate” speakers

Nilo- Saharan
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo-Saharan?

---

There are many but two I can think of are Gerrit Dimmendaal (2008) and Westermann & Bryan (2017)

quote:

---

What vestige languages are NOT Nilo Saharan nor Afroasiatic in the Sahel & The Horn are you speaking of? What are their names and what ethnic groups speak them?

---

I already gave examples of 2 in Ethiopia in my previous post--Degere and the old language of the Waata which became extinct. Here's another Ongata.

quote:

---

How do you dispute Ehret's "conjecture" on Songhai as a a Nilo-Saharan language? What is your linguistic evidence to the contrary?

---

Ehret is just going along with Joseph Greenberg's 4 phyla model which has been disputed for the longest. In fact I myself have been schooled in this issue in this forum which was discussed multiple times.

COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL lINGUISTIC SCIENCES

Kushites: “Nilo-Saharan” speakers vs. a “language isolate” speakers

Nilo- Saharan

---

Where any of the vestige languages in the green sahara practicing cattle pastoralism? All of these groups are in SW Ethiopia, Kenya & Tanzania.

Ongata southwest Ethiopia. seems has a Nilo Sarahan substrate...

quote:

---

Ongota has features of both Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages that confuse its classification, and linguists and anthropologists have been unable to clearly trace its linguistic roots so far. Savà and Tosco (2007) claim that Ongota's morphology is Ts'amakko and that ~50% of the lexicon can be connected to Ts'amakko roots. They also report that Aklilu Yilma of Addis Ababa University considers Ongota to be a pidginised creole. They state that this "conclusion is strengthened by a local legend stating that Ongota originated from a multiethnic melting pot." They further report that Lionel Bender considers Ongota to be Cushitic, Václav Blažek (1991, 2001, and forth.)[full citation needed] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushiticist Maarten Mous (2003)[full citation needed][3] mentions it as a language isolate. Savà and Tosco (2003, 2007), themselves, believe it to be an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum—that is, that Ongota speakers shifted to East Cushitic from an earlier Nilo-Saharan language, traces of which still remain.

---

Waata - Southern Cushitic. The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers.

quote:

---

The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers. They share the name Sanye with the neighboring Dahalo.

The current language of the Waata may be a dialect of Orma or otherwise Southern Oromo. However, there is evidence that they may have shifted from a Southern Cushitic language, a group that includes Dahalo

---

Degere -former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania,

quote:

---

The Degere are a Mijikenda-speaking group of former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania, now settled along the Ramisi, Mwena and Umba rivers, with a few along the coast. They may number no more than a few hundred to at most a few thousand. They are believed to be related to, possibly descended from, the Oromo-speaking Waata. They are variously reported to speak Duruma, Digo, a similar Mijikenda dialect of their own, or to speak Mijikenda with grammatical errors (such as incorrect verb tenses) much as the Waata do when they speak Mijikend

---

Westermann has been dead since 1956 the book was not written in 2017 as you link implies. Westermann's conclusion was that Songhai was an isolate language.

quote:

---

The Languages of West Africa is a book written by Diedrich Westermann and Margaret Arminel Bryan. It was published in 1952 by the International African Institute

---

Gerrit Dimmendaal on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai, there is definitely conditional language in his concluding paragraph on the subject from his 2019 work.




https://www.academia.edu/40293482/Linguistic_features_and_typologies_in_languages_commonly_referred_to_as_Nilo_Saharan


Now if you are looking for vestige langauges that actually might be related to the ancient Nilo Saharans of the green sahara, why not the Laal speakers

Toubou autosomal DNA was Eurasian in origin, and their African ancestral component was best represented by Laal-speaking populations.

quote:

---

Laal remains unclassified, although extensive Adamawa (specifically Bua) and to a lesser extent Chadic influence is found. It is sometimes grouped with one of those two language families, and sometimes seen as a language isolate. Boyeldieu (1982) summarizes his view as "Its classification remains problematic; while it shows certain lexical, and no doubt morphological, traits with the Bua languages (Adamawa-13, Niger–Congo family of Joseph H. Greenberg), it differs from them radically in many ways of which some, a priori, make one think of geographically nearby Chadic languages." Roger Blench (2003), similarly, considers that "its vocabulary and morphology seem to be partly drawn from Chadic (i.e. Afro-Asiatic), partly from Adamawa (i.e. Niger–Congo) and partly from an unknown source, perhaps its original phylum, a now-vanished grouping from Central Africa." It is the last possibility which attracts particular interest; if this proves true, Laal may be the only remaining window on the linguistic state of Central Africa before the expansion of the main African language families—Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger–Congo—into it

---

Laal people were cattle herders 200 years ago, prior to being forced off the savannah and reduced to fishing
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Where any of the vestige languages in the green Sahara practicing cattle pastoralism? All of these groups are in SW Ethiopia, Kenya & Tanzania.

---

Your question makes no sense. We don't know all the languages that existed in the green Sahara unless you know of a time machine we can use. I cited two of many linguists who show that Songhay should be classified as its own language phylum which was likely spoken in the Sahara.

quote:

---

Ongata southwest Ethiopia. seems has a Nilo Sarahan substrate...

quote:

---

Ongota has features of both Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages that confuse its classification, and linguists and anthropologists have been unable to clearly trace its linguistic roots so far. Savà and Tosco (2007) claim that Ongota's morphology is Ts'amakko and that ~50% of the lexicon can be connected to Ts'amakko roots. They also report that Aklilu Yilma of Addis Ababa University considers Ongota to be a pidginised creole. They state that this "conclusion is strengthened by a local legend stating that Ongota originated from a multiethnic melting pot." They further report that Lionel Bender considers Ongota to be Cushitic, Václav Blažek (1991, 2001, and forth.)[full citation needed] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushiticist Maarten Mous (2003)[full citation needed][3] mentions it as a language isolate. Savà and Tosco (2003, 2007), themselves, believe it to be an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum—that is, that Ongota speakers shifted to East Cushitic from an earlier Nilo-Saharan language, traces of which still remain.

---

---

Yes that's the theory. Ongata is either a pigeon language or an isolate due to its mixture of features.

quote:

---

Waata - Southern Cushitic. The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers.

quote:

---

The Waata (Waat, Watha), or Sanye, are an Oromo-speaking people of Kenya and former hunter-gatherers. They share the name Sanye with the neighboring Dahalo.

The current language of the Waata may be a dialect of Orma or otherwise Southern Oromo. However, there is evidence that they may have shifted from a Southern Cushitic language, a group that includes Dahalo

---

---

The Waata today currently speak Cushitic language yes, but during colonial times it was documented they spoke something else entirely different which became extinct. By the time of European colonialism there were only a few words and sentences that were preserved.

quote:

---

Degere -former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania,

quote:

---

The Degere are a Mijikenda-speaking group of former hunter-gatherers of Kenya and Tanzania, now settled along the Ramisi, Mwena and Umba rivers, with a few along the coast. They may number no more than a few hundred to at most a few thousand. They are believed to be related to, possibly descended from, the Oromo-speaking Waata. They are variously reported to speak Duruma, Digo, a similar Mijikenda dialect of their own, or to speak Mijikenda with grammatical errors (such as incorrect verb tenses) much as the Waata do when they speak Mijikend

---

Westermann has been dead since 1956 the book was not written in 2017 as you link implies. Westermann's conclusion was that Songhai was an isolate language.

quote:

---

The Languages of West Africa is a book written by Diedrich Westermann and Margaret Arminel Bryan. It was published in 1952 by the International African Institute

---

Gerrit Dimmendaal on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai, there is definitely conditional language in his concluding paragraph on the subject from his 2019 work.




https://www.academia.edu/40293482/Linguistic_features_and_typologies_in_languages_commonly_referred_to_as_Nilo_Saharan


Now if you are looking for vestige langauges that actually might be related to the ancient Nilo Saharans of the green sahara, why not the Laal speakers

Toubou autosomal DNA was Eurasian in origin, and their African ancestral component was best represented by Laal-speaking populations.

quote:

---

Laal remains unclassified, although extensive Adamawa (specifically Bua) and to a lesser extent Chadic influence is found. It is sometimes grouped with one of those two language families, and sometimes seen as a language isolate. Boyeldieu (1982) summarizes his view as "Its classification remains problematic; while it shows certain lexical, and no doubt morphological, traits with the Bua languages (Adamawa-13, Niger–Congo family of Joseph H. Greenberg), it differs from them radically in many ways of which some, a priori, make one think of geographically nearby Chadic languages." Roger Blench (2003), similarly, considers that "its vocabulary and morphology seem to be partly drawn from Chadic (i.e. Afro-Asiatic), partly from Adamawa (i.e. Niger–Congo) and partly from an unknown source, perhaps its original phylum, a now-vanished grouping from Central Africa." It is the last possibility which attracts particular interest; if this proves true, Laal may be the only remaining window on the linguistic state of Central Africa before the expansion of the main African language families—Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger–Congo—into it

---

Laal people were cattle herders 200 years ago, prior to being forced off the savannah and reduced to fishing

---

I don't know why you seem so die-hard on the Greenberg model considering that there is so much evidence showing that there was a greater diversity of African languages than the 4 family model. Especially considering that Africans have the greatest genetic diversity. Are you even aware that the Khoisan grouping is the most artificial?? This reduction of African languages into 4 families is no more than a homogenization process used by European colonialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Africa#Unclassified_languages

And there are probably more.

Here's another good paper: The linguistic importance of language isolates: the African case

One of the most telling proofs of the problematic status of "Nilo-Saharan" is that two recent attempts at reconstructing "proto-Nilo-Saharan" (Bender 1996 and Ehret 2001) end up with two very different - in fact incompatible - internal classifications of the phylum. Even "Eastern Sudanic" which should presumably prove most resistant to restructuring does not escape entirely unscathed: Greenberg's "Teuso", (nowadays more generally called Kuliak, a remnant language group in eastern Uganda) is taken by Bender outside of the "Eastern Sudanic" family altogether, whereas Ehret firmly retains it (in fact many contemporary researchers would consider Kuliak an isolate)
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
Actually I am not die hard on the nilo saharan classification of Songhai... what I am interested in is the misinformation that I see some on this site spouting left and right. I find that some here are actually just repeating what other people say and not actually reading and comprehending some of these sources.


I am reading Blench's Niger Saharan and he disputes both Dimmendal and Nicolai
 

---

Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
 
^ Sauces. 🤣
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Wasn't Nilo-Saharan often used as a linguistic wastebasket? If so, there's got to be a ton of linguistic isolates in there. I always thought it was strange that the cradle of humanity had almost all its languages sorted into only four phyla. You find way more linguistic phyla in the Americas despite the human arrival there being much more recent.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ That's why I'm suspicious about the way some of these African languages are classified. I'd say Nilo-Saharan is roughly equivalent to say Altai-Siberian or Altaic phylum in Asia. I always took it for granted that these Western linguists were accurate as accurate in their assessments as they were with Indo-European, so imagine my surprise some years ago when I found out how tenuous the construct was. [And yes I knew Korean, Japanese, and definitely Ainu were not included] However I always thought Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic were more genetically related than I thought. In regards to African linguistics, Christopher Ehret's specialty is Afroasiatic which all linguists agree is a true genetic phylum. I'm not saying that Nilo-Saharan is not a true genetic phylum, but as you Brandon stated some linguists who are not a accurate are quick to group isolates in there due to apparently superficial features.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:
What if Levantine/Eurasian like populations arose in Africa? What then?

---

Then that original population would be rightfully called African. However, the issue is distinguishing those parent populations and their descendants that stayed in Africa versus those other descendants that left. But that would be primarily at a much greater time scale over 20kya. Most of the issues at this point is related to lack of ancient DNA from Northern Africa of any time scale and across the Sahara and Nile Valley, including Chad, Niger, Mauretania, Southern Libya, Sudan and Ethiopia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shebitku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jehuti:

The Songhai for example who even formed their own empire had they language classified as 'Nilo-Saharan' once only for linguists to realize it really wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan?

---

Likely he meant to say that the Songhai languages had once been classified as Niger-Congo langauges, but he can correct me if i am misrepresenting his position. But to your question, Which linguists dispute that Songhai is not Nilo Saharan? The leading scholar in Songhai languages, Robert Nicolaï, disagrees that the Songhai languages belong in the Nilo-Saharan language phylum, but rather that they're Berber - Mande creoles, with some more "berberized" than others (Tadaksahak for example).

To your point about the Nabtan's possibly being Nilo-Saharan speakers, please elaborate on what this entails? We are currently speaking in English, does that mean that we are of Anglo-Saxon heritage? Fulani pastoralists speak Niger-Congo languages yet still cluster with certain Nilo-Saharan and Chadic groups. The fact that the people who were at Nabta Playa may or may not have spoken Nilotic-Saharan languages could mean nothing more than cultural contact between two different groups, nothing genetic related, they could've still been a majority Levantine/Eurasian population.

Offtopic, but does anybody know the name of the scholar who believed that the Ancient Egyptians actually spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? I've seen him mentioned on this site but can't find the thread.

---

The idea that the Nabtans were of Levantine/Eurasian heritage is very unlikely. Their temporal and geographic location puts them at the crossroads of ancient migrations between the drying Sahara and Nile Valley. And it is that same geographical and temporal location that he question of what languages they spoke and its relation to known language groups is intriguing but currently unknown.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ My original contention with Yatunde was in regards to what phylum the Nabtans' language belonged not their own physical genetics. Yatunde claims it's Nilo-Saharan, while my opinion is that it's very much possible but without actual evidence we won't know for certain.

Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

As to the actual genetics of the Nabtans, we don't have any genetic samples as far as I know but we do have samples from the Bronze Age Pre-Kerman site of Kadruka.



^ The sample is almost half "Eurasian".

Yet Kadruka lies much farther south than Nabta.



So the question is when did this allegedly Eurasian ancestry enter that far south in the Nile Valley?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ My original contention with Yatunde was in regards to what phylum the Nabtans' language belonged not their own physical genetics. Yatunde claims it's Nilo-Saharan, while my opinion is that it's very much possible but without actual evidence we won't know for certain.

Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

As to the actual genetics of the Nabtans, we don't have any genetic samples as far as I know but we do have samples from the Bronze Age Pre-Kerman site of Kadruka.



^ The sample is almost half "Eurasian".

Yet Kadruka lies much farther south than Nabta.



So the question is when did this allegedly Eurasian ancestry enter that far south in the Nile Valley?

---

Not sure where that DNA sample is from but I assume it is from that Kadruka hair sample from 4000 years ago. Obviously one sample is just a drop in the bucket and would need more data to show how it relates to overall population movements.

The bigger issue is that the Upper Nile and Lower Sudan has more sites of settlement going back 20,000 years or more than the Lower Nile. Because for a long time that area was more suitable than the Lower Nile for human occupation. And it is during that time that you see population settlements moving between the Sahara and the Nile. Ancient Kerma (prior to 5,000 BC) or the Khartoum Mesolithic and other sites attest to this, along with Nabta Playa, Wadi Halfa and so forth. To characterize these clusters of populations as "Eurasian" makes no sense. And of course it is from this region that the question of the origin of cattle domestication on the Nile has come up numerous times.

Kadruka hair study:
4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25384-y

That DNA plot was generated by somebody on a site called revoiye as posted in this thread:
https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010612

quote:

---

The cemetery of Ghaba, consisting of 265 graves, was excavated under direction of Y. Lecointe by the Section Française de la Direction des Antiquités du Soudan (1982–1985). The cemetery dates to 4750–4350 and 4000–3650 cal BC (Salvatori and Usai, 2007, Salvatori and Usai, 2008b, Salvatori et al., 2015), thus being partly contemporaneous with R12. Organic material included bucrania of domestic cattle, few tools made of bone from domestic and/or wild animals, and freshwater molluscs. In 39 graves, whitish deposits that were similar to those from R12 were recorded (see Supplementary data file 1). Two samples from graves 233 and 295 were available for analysis. Initially, these deposits were intuitively interpreted as remains of mats and/or leather clothes (Lecointe, 1987, p. 73, p. 78).

The earlier obtained identifications of silica skeletons, phytoliths and starch from dental calculus from R12 and Ghaba as well as the 14C dates are presented in Madella et al. (2014). At R12, phytoliths were obtained from grave 46 (Fig. 3) that belongs to a cluster of graves that represents the oldest phase of the site and which included a grave dated to 4933–4688 cal BC (grave 18B). The silica skeletons in this sample show dominance of inflorescences (chaff) of the C3 grasses Hordeum sp. and/or Triticum sp. (Triticeae) (see Fig. 4). Although phytoliths of these taxa do not allow for a distinction between wild and domesticated plants, the finds from R12 are interpreted as domesticated emmer wheat and/or hulled barley since wild relatives of these taxa are not known from this region and period (Weiss and Zohary, 2011, Zohary et al., 2012). The phytolith sample was directly radiocarbon dated to 5311–5066 cal BC (2σ) and corresponds with the earliest phase of the site. In contrast to R12, the silica skeletons from Ghaba have shown dominance of inflorescences of various C4 panicoid grasses, including Brachiaria sp. and Echinochloa sp., directly dated to 5620–5480 cal BC and 4730–4540 cal BC (2σ) (see Fig. 4). Again the phytoliths do not allow for a distinction between wild and domesticated taxa. Although some form of plant management may have taken place, the most parsimonious assumption for these taxa is that it concerns wild grasses since there is no substantial evidence of domesticated panicoid taxa for this region and period. The Ghaba phytolith samples also verified a minor component of Hordeum sp./Triticum sp.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618215014615

quote:

---

With the research on the issue in its initial phases, the behaviour and hunting strategies of MSA communities inhabiting the Nile Valley in the Late and Terminal Pleistocene have been fragmentarily recognised thus far. Osteological materials from the area of the Affad Basin in the Middle Nile Valley, recorded in archaeological contexts and dated to the sixteenth millennium BP using OSL methods, have significantly enhanced our knowledge in this regard. It is the first time that an opportunity has occurred to construct a reliable model of the environment exploitation and the behaviour of human groups producing lithic tools using Levallois methods in the Terminal Pleistocene. Archaeozoological analyses have allowed the identification of taxa, species and anatomical origin of remains and enabled the establishment of a database of osteometric measurements. The animals hunted in the Sudanese Nile Valley during the Terminal Pleistocene have been classified with a view to refer the data to the results of analogous studies on MSA in South Africa. The behaviour of the communities occupying the Affad Basin 15,000 years ago was connected to the environment of the tree-covered, swampy savannah and extensive backwaters. Medium-sized antelope (kobus) was hunted most often. People hunted also, albeit less frequently, for large ruminants (buffalo), guenons and large rodents. Remains of fish and mega-fauna (hippopotamus and elephant) have been found in isolated concentrations, away from the camp sites. Remains of molluscs or ostrich eggs have not been registered. The condition of the osteological materials, notably their anatomical distribution, is shown to have been largely affected by wetland environment, rich in iron and manganese.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618215014615

quote:

---

In northeastern Africa, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) weather system influenced biotic productivity and people's abilities to live away from major rivers and oases in what is now the Sahara. During the Holocene Saharan humid phase (8500 to 5300 BC), the ITCZ was far north of its present location, and human populations settled the suddenly green and well-watered Saharan grasslands as semi-sedentary foragers who developed widespread ceramics in the tenth millennium BC (Caneva, 1987; Huysecom et al., 2009; Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006).[b] Within this context, pastoralism—rather than farming—was the earliest food production system in most of Africa except for the Nile delta (Linseele, 2010; Marshall & Hildebrand, 2002; see Salvatori & Usai, 2019 for a dissenting view). The adoption of cattle herding spread throughout the Sahara, Eastern Saharan oases, and along the Nile between 7000 and 4000 years BC, and Southwest Asian sheep and goats were introduced within a millennium (Gifford-Gonzalez & Hanotte, 2011; Linseele, 2010). Although scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the initial adoption of pastoralism in the Sahara, most agree that experimentation with herding and increasing mobility provided Saharan populations with a means of buffering themselves against the consequences of climate change (Di Lernia, 2001; Marshall & Hildebrand, 2002; Nicoll, 2004; Stojanowski & Knudson, 2014). By 3500 BC, an even more dramatic decrease in rainfall caused Saharan populations to concentrate themselves into the wadis (seasonal watercourses), oases, and remaining marshes (Hoelzmann et al., 2001; Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006; Kuper & Reimer, 2013). When these areas dried up, some Saharan populations shifted east into the Nile Valley and Eastern Saharan oases (Brooks, 2006; Di Lernia, 2006; Hassan, 2002), where pasturelands and water would have been attractive for seasonal migrations (Haaland & Haaland, 2013).

Meanwhile, Holocene peoples along the Nile had developed economies based on intensive gathering of wild plants and exploitation of wild animals, some becoming semi-sedentary (Haaland, 1992; Nicoll, 2004; Wetterstrom, 1997). By 6000 BC, these Nile Valley subsistence strategies began to accommodate the initial influx of caprines from Southwest Asia (Wengrow et al., 2014). After 5300 BC, the ICTZ's maximum northward movements shifted south, and the Sahara Desert expanded (Kuper & Kröpelin, 2006). By extension, changes in the ITCZ's location also impacted the Nile, increasing water flow and becoming more attractive for herding peoples fleeing Saharan desiccation.

---

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oa.3223
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Language and population are two different entities that are related but not synonymous. I tried to explain this to Tarazah who identifies E-M215 in Southwest Asia with Semitic yet most Semitic speakers today carry J. This shows that languages can be transferred without genes. This is why the majority of English speakers in the world today have NO English that is Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

---

First of all, I did not identify anything. Actual geneticists identified it and I simply referenced their work. Secondly, I never claimed that language had to be transferred with genes. I argued that proto-semitic speakers would have been the biological ancestors of the Hebrews and Israelites and I referenced papers to show it. According to the Biblical narrative (and common sense), Shem, the ancestor of the Hebrews and Israelites, would have been apart of the same bloodline that was responsible for the creation of the semitic languages. Yes, millions of people speak english today but that does not mean they are descendants of the original and native english speakers. That is the exact point I have been making when it comes to semitic languages.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.

To Doug, I am of the opinion that the PPN ancestry in the Kadruka study is the same as Natufian ancestry and that such ancestry is also African as was shown here. This is why Nubians' position is East African but as an outlier as was shown here.




 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
Please stop stating Mesopotamian ancestry for he Hebrews as a fact because it is NOT. The claim of Mesopotamian Ancestry by the Hebrews is a myth,


The book of the Bible was written by different authors in different spaces and times.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So are you saying the Biblical stories are fabrications? What about all the Hebrew customs in Genesis that are Mesopotamian which I listed here? Where did modern Jews including Middle Eastern Jews of Levite and Cohen surname inherit their hg J, then?
 

---

Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
 
^Spacetime guy (Theory of Relativity). Profound theory, you *should* be arrested 😇

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

The book of the Bible was written by different authors in different spaces and times.

---

This comment may be deeper than you know.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ So are you saying the Biblical stories are fabrications? What about all the Hebrew customs in Genesis that are Mesopotamian which I listed here? Where did modern Jews including Middle Eastern Jews of Levite and Cohen surname inherit their hg J, then?

---

All and I mean all of the bronze age patriarchal ancestors are legends, myths, eponymous ancestors. And how many times you gonna make me debunk this claim.

quote:

---

The Nuzi texts are ancient documents found during an excavation of Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city southwest of Kirkuk in modern Kirkuk Governorate of Iraq, located near the Tigris river. They were found on cuneiform tablets written in the Akkadian language.[1] The site consists of one medium-sized multiperiod tell and two small single period mounds. The texts are mainly legal and business documents. They have previously been viewed as evidence for the age and veracity of certain parts of the Old Testament, especially of the Patriarchal age, but that attribution is now doubted by most scholars

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.

---

I never said the Hebrews originated in Africa, and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period that the Biblical narrative records.

The chosen lineage that the Bible gives us is:

Adam > Seth > Noah > Shem > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel

For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

To Doug, I am of the opinion that the PPN ancestry in the Kadruka study is the same as Natufian ancestry and that such ancestry is also African as was shown here. This is why Nubians' position is East African but as an outlier as was shown here.

---

I wasn't disagreeing with that, except to put this in its proper context. My larger argument has always been that the Nile Valley and Sahara were a evolutionary cradle for the survival strategies that would lead to pastoralism and early agriculture. But the time frame for this is much older than 4KYA and likely somewhere between 20kya and 10kya to be a common ancestor between various ancient Northern/Northeastrn African populations and Natufians. The links I provided show all the ongoing research uncovering the large numbers of sites in he Upper Nile between Sudan and Egypt going back to the holocene as a key site of human evolutionary survival strategies.

Finding that common ancestor is the issue and would help clarify all these issues of the classification of African DNA lineages as "Eurasian" even far away from Eurasia. That Kadruka hair sample is far too late to identify that potential common ancestor as well. But we are far from having enough ancient DNA to see this bigger picture, with "basal Eurasian", various "ghost populations" and Natufians being strong hints in that direction. Keeping in mind this Eurasian affinity goes beyond the initial waves of OOA due to subsequent African migrations from a more recent time frame. Of course that whole discussion of back migrations from Eurasia obfuscates this as well.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.

---

According to the bible what groups are Semites?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

This is from a well known christian website:

"Who are Semites?

Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Semites.html


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness,

This is from a well known christian website:

"Who are Semites?

Semites are a group of Near Eastern and African peoples descended from Shem. Called the father of the Semites, Shem was a son of Noah. He and seven other members of his family entered the ark, escaped the flood, and lived to repopulate the earth. Through Shem passed the line of descent to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Shem’s great-grandson Eber was the father of those who were eventually called “Hebrews,” including Abram (see Genesis 10 and 11 for more on Shem’s line)."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Semites.html

---

Th above link says

quote:

---

The Elamites, Assyrians, Lydians, Arameans, and several Arab tribes were known to be descendants of Shem.

---

So I assume you believe Arabs are descendants of Shem
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Duh..... so are the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and several other nations. Not sure what your point is
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.

---

Shem, Abraham or Jacob have nothing whatsoever to do with genetic methodology.
And it doesn't matter if a geneticist makes a remark about a character in the bible, the remark steps outside of genetics, has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

All and I mean all of the bronze age patriarchal ancestors are legends, myths, eponymous ancestors. And how many times you gonna make me debunk this claim.

---

Yes the patriarch narratives are indeed legends not myths. Maybe you need to know the difference between these concepts. Legends have the greatest historicity next to actual historical documents themselves unlike myths. As far as eponymous ancestors are concerned, most scholars agree that the patriarchs are either based on ancient tribal leaders. Like all Semitic speaking peoples in the Middle East especially Arabs where tribes are named after their founders as they are in many cultures in around the world including in Africa. What is there to debunk?

Aside from myths of unions between gods and mortals, are you saying there is no basis in the Greek legends of their own matriarchs and patriarchs like Helen forefather of the Hellenic (Greek) nation or the 4 tribes who comprise that nation which is reflected in the 4 ancient dialects such as Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian? Is there no truth to the ancient Egyptian legends about their own ancestors-- the Anu and Mesinitu? What about the Hindu legends of the 5 Aryan ethne descending from the 5 patriarchs of Chandravamsha (lunar race)? Or the Chinese tradition of descent from the 5 tribes of Huaxia? Even Western anthropologists, specifically ethnologists, are realizing that folk legends about ancestral origins held more accuracy and truth than what was originally believed, but doesn't mean every detail of the legend was accurate. How plausible is it that the 'War of the 9 Kings' a.k.a. 'Battle of Siddim' described in Genesis in which Abraham and his family was involved in was a total fabrication? About as plausible as the Rig-Vedic 'Dāsharājñá yuddhá' (Battle of the 10 Chiefs) yet I find it funny how many Western historians and philologists find the Vedic tradition more believable than the bible.

quote:

---

The Nuzi texts are ancient documents found during an excavation of Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city southwest of Kirkuk in modern Kirkuk Governorate of Iraq, located near the Tigris river. They were found on cuneiform tablets written in the Akkadian language.[1] The site consists of one medium-sized multiperiod tell and two small single period mounds. The texts are mainly legal and business documents. They have previously been viewed as evidence for the age and veracity of certain parts of the Old Testament, especially of the Patriarchal age, but that attribution is now doubted by most scholars

---

Of course the attribution is doubted because the Nuzi texts date to the late part of the Bronze Age (1450-1350 BC). Nobody is saying that the Hebrews received their customs from Nuzi, but what the texts indicate is that such customs did exist and it's not just Nuzi. The same Hebrew customs are found in the Code of Hammurabi (1755–1750 BC), and the Code of Lipit-Ishtar (1934–1924 BC). The point is that Hebrew customs show more affinities to Mesopotamia than anything else. In fact, I remember reading a paper from a Jewish female anthropologist whose thesis was that part of the conflict between the Israelites and Canaanites was a clash of cultures in which the former rejected certain customs of the latter not just religious ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

I never said the Hebrews originated in Africa, and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period that the Biblical narrative records.

The chosen lineage that the Bible gives us is:

Adam > Seth > Noah > Shem > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel

For those who do subscribe to genetic methodology, it is complete madness to assert that Shem himself would not have been apart of the same bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of SEMITIC/SHEMITIC languages (haplogroup E), regardless of whether or not modern secularists say Semitic = Shem.

---

That's the problem!-- Even though name of the language group 'Semitic' was named after the Biblical ancestor Shem, NO educated Jew accepts this linguistic correlation with the Biblical lineage. Semitic is as branch of so-called Afroasiatic which originated in Africa. In fact the older name for the language phylum is Hamito-Semitic named after both Ham and Shem but "Hamitic" is used for all the branches of Afroasiatic that are spoken in Africa with Semitic being the only branch that developed outside of that continent. Therefore the genetic relations of the language do NOT reflect Biblical genealogy. At the same time according the same genealogy one of Shem's sons is Elam yet the historical Elamites spoke an entirely different language that is genetically unrelated to any other known language. Either the Bible is wrong about genealogy OR that genealogy has no correlation to linguistic genealogy.

Genetics shows that haplogroup E originated in Africa and traveled into Asia how then is E from Turkey unless it's a back-migration. Also that does not explain the modal-Cohen marker hg J which is found in Cohens and Levites who are allegedly male descendants of Abraham and we know that J originated somewhere near Turkey.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

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

---

 

---

Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
 
^ That "Let there be light" statement in the book of Genesis takes on profound meaning if you get acquainted with Einstein's theory of Relativity.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
This thread is going all over the place. please let's try to find the topic and stay on it.

@Geometer please open a thread on Metaphysics or something. Your contribution is way off topic.

This is also not a thread to talk about the validity of religious texts. There's a whole subsection of the forum strictly for religious talk.

//MOD
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
That's the problem!-- Even though name of the language group 'Semitic' was named after the Biblical ancestor Shem, NO educated Jew accepts this linguistic correlation with the Biblical lineage. Semitic is as branch of so-called Afroasiatic which originated in Africa. In fact the older name for the language phylum is Hamito-Semitic named after both Ham and Shem but "Hamitic" is used for all the branches of Afroasiatic that are spoken in Africa with Semitic being the only branch that developed outside of that continent. Therefore the genetic relations of the language do NOT reflect Biblical genealogy. At the same time according the same genealogy one of Shem's sons is Elam yet the historical Elamites spoke an entirely different language that is genetically unrelated to any other known language. Either the Bible is wrong about genealogy OR that genealogy has no correlation to linguistic genealogy.

Genetics shows that haplogroup E originated in Africa and traveled into Asia how then is E from Turkey unless it's a back-migration. Also that does not explain the modal-Cohen marker hg J which is found in Cohens and Levites who are allegedly male descendants of Abraham and we know that J originated somewhere near Turkey.

---

This is fine, you are entitled to your opinion but:

1. Dr. Elhaik says that E is what Abraham would have had and that a mass migration of E came from Turkey (Mesopotamia) during the same time period of the Abraham story in the Bible. I asked you several times to draft a prompt message for me to forward to Dr. Elhaik in which you could question him about his methodology but each time you refused (yet you kept talking and implying that he is wrong, which leads me to believe you only want to preach to the choir). I then drafted my own message and emailed him and he explained his methodology.

And like I said it's complete madness to assert that Shem was not apart of the bloodline responsible for the creation and dispersal of shemitic languages, regardless of what modern secularists say or claim. They did not magically come up with the terms "Semitic/Shemitic", regardless of what they currently claim Semite/Shemitic means. And just because Elamites did not speak a semitic language, does not mean they were not Shemites. The Bible tells us they were Shemites.

2. There is no evidence that the "cohen haplotype" or gene is something that ancient Levites actually had, it's 100% speculation and you yourself have admit this so I've no idea why you keep bringing it up. Imagine if I admit something had no conclusive evidence to prove it, but then I kept bringing it up as a fact to support my arguments.

3. If you are going to try using the origin of haplogroup E as a way to try disqualifying it, you will always run into problems when trying to marry genetic methodology with the Bible because according to you Abraham supposedly had J, this would have to mean Shem and Noah also had J. But if that's the case then how does E supposedly predate haplogroup J, when Noah (supposedly J) and his sons repopulated the earth?

This is the part where you claim the flood was not global, even though God himself says that he killed ALL flesh during the flood.
Because Noah > Shem > Abrahram being J can only be possible if you pretend the Biblical flood was not global, which it 100% was according to God himself. You only believe in the Bible when you believe it supports your opinions.

And then this is the part where I lose interest in talking to you and leave it to future readers with common sense to put the puzzle pieces together themselves.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ You are correct that if Abraham carried J then his ancestor Shem did and Shem's brothers also, which is why I DON'T identify Biblical genealogies specifically of Noah and his sons with genetic populations. In fact most educated Jews don't do it for the reasons you cited. I already cited a paper on Chalcolithic Canaanites here showing that in Southwest Asia there were at least 3 distinct populations in that region. If you want to identify them as Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites fine, but you can't say they descend from biological brothers. Funny how you are so keen on Dr. Elhaik's theory even though most geneticists including Israeli geneticists disagree with him. Yes hg E is one of the main hgs shared in common by Jewish males but the predominant one is J, and I already showed you that is what the Modal Cohen marker is real as proven here.

You are beginning to be look like Antalas in that no matter how much evidence is cited in your face you will still believe in your doctrines.

To Yatunde, yes I know that the patriarchal narratives and the Torah in general were probably penned as recently as the Babylonian Exile but that still doesn't change the fact that these came from oral traditions that were preserved among the people like those found in virtually all peoples around the world. What is your point?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891;p=12

*** Now all of a sudden it's been proven. This is why I do not take you seriously, and why your insults and ad homs mean literally nothing.

You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out several times, your theory about Noah > Shem > Abraham being J carriers can only be possible if the Biblical flood was not global, but the Bible clearly says it was, and that only Noah and those on the ark with him survived. It's funny how you try to discredit Elhaik yet his research is actually congruent with the Biblical narrative, while your opinions are not.

quote:

---

GENESIS 7:21-24

"21 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier who came from Turkey

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).

---

If you believe or want to suggest that only someone E1b1b can be Israelite,
modern Jews, for instance Ashkenaz in multiple genetic studies show they are 16-23% of E1b1b but yet that is a substantial amount,
about 2 out of 10. Why do you hide that? That's not honest

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

If it makes you feel any better, chances are most likely that I am E1b1a or some type of R... so that would eliminate me and almost every other African American from being an Israelite

---

You want to eliminate Ashkenazi from having Israelite ancestry so badly as to excludes yourself in the process, although you don't point to the later frequently.
And did you consider the possible motive Elhaik's speculation on the biology of a person not even proven to have existed (but may have) is to support the legitimacy of his own haplogroup?
My speculation here is as good as his speculation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You can claim israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).

---

If you believe or want to suggest that only someone E1b1b can be an Israelite,
you would have to modify the above statement to say>>

"only around 20% of Ashkenazi Jews could be Israelites since only 16-23% are E1b1b"

so at least if you said that you would be consistent but I don't hear you saying this

However this thread is about "Proto-Semitic"

The word "Semite" or "Semitic" is not in the bible. If you want to talk the bible you should be saying "descended from Shem" and stop talking about this 18th century word "Semite"

However in this thread we are not talking about the bible we are talking about what linguists call
"proto-semitic". Even though the word "Semitic and "Semite" were made up by German historian in the 18th century and these words are inspired by Shem linguists don't use this word in the literal context of the bible which says that at the time of Noah the world only spoke one language but later God created other languages.

Linguists use this word "Semitic" to link together languages they think show similarities and thus seem to have organically evolved from the same area not due to supernatural creation by God at the time of Babel.

If instead you say multiple languages were created
by God then one being similar to the other does not mean anything significant as evidence of culture exchange so it makes more sense to stick to biblical concepts if you are going to speak of Shem and words not language family theory concepts as purported by language scientists
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But as I explained to you before the Hebrew language is not the same Proto-Semitic and the Biblical ancestry of the Hebrew people lies in northern Mesopotamia NOT Africa. Again language vs. population.

---

From what Tazarah has been saying, it seems to be consistent with a belief that haplogroup E originated in Mesopotamia or some place outside of Africa.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

I am not going to put much effort into engaging your nonsensical attempts at refuting what you think I believe.

I'm not trying to exclude ashkenazi, ashkenazi/israeli geneticists are excluding the ashkenazi and I've referenced them. I did not write those papers.

Furthermore, I referenced a well known and reputable christian source that acknowldges Semites from a Biblical standpoint are descendants of the Biblical patriarch Shem. And there are plenty more sources that say the same. I wrote none of these sources.

The word "trinity" is not in the Bible, nor are plenty of other words. Retarded argument on your part.

And I explained how and why it's silly it is to try divorcing modern usage of the word Semite from what it actually means, even if modern secularists changed the meaning of the usage from it's original context.

Also, I've told you personally close to a dozen times that I only reference genetics to show how it DOES NOT line up with the Bible. According to genetics, almost nobody who claims to be a Jew is actually a Jew or Israelite if we take the Biblical narrative into account.

The fact that after all this time you still haven't comprehended that this is what I've been trying to say is pathetic. I've explained this an overwhelming amount of times yet you keep making retarded comments like the one above.

For like the 15th or 16th time, I do not subscribe to genetic methodlogy due to the fact that it contradicts the Biblical narrative. When I do reference genetic sources, it is only do demonstrate that a lot of genetic claims being made are contradicted by what the Bible actually says.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness,

I'm not trying to exclude ashkenazi, ashkenazi/israeli geneticists are excluding the ashkenazi and I've referenced them. I did not write those papers.

---

of course you are.
You are selectively picking out from geneticists who have multiple theories the particular unproven theory you believe and saying it over and over again like a broken record in various threads

And you are also leaving out that around 20% of these modern Jews are included by the same means you want to exclude the other 80%. That's called lying by omission

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Furthermore, I referenced a well known and reputable christian source that acknowldges Semites from a Biblical standpoint are descendants of the Biblical patriarch Shem. And there are plenty more sources that say the same. I wrote none of these sources.

The word "trinity" is not in the Bible, nor are plenty of other words. Retarded argument on your part.

And I explained how and why it's silly it is to try divorcing modern usage of the word Semite from what it actually means, even if modern secularists changed the meaning of the usage from it's original context.

---

this is what it means from the 18th century German historian (not theologian) Ludwig Schlozer who invented the term:

quote:

---

Ludwig Schlozer 1781:

“from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic.”

---

the derivative term "Semite" comes later meaning:
1847, "a Jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Semite

^^ thus if you want to refer to the original meaning of the word, this is it

But It doesn't matter if some Christian site uses the word, it's not scriptural
and as we can see does not come out of a literal connection to Shem. It comes from language analysis. This is what these Germans were attempting to do. So again stop the BS.
You are using the word "Semitic" so you can take the word out of context when convenient
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

Instead of crying to me and begging for my attention, go cry to the Israeli geneticists who publish research excluding ashkenazi jewish people from being Israelites.

If your argument is that a word needs to be in the Bible for it to be a valid concept then you need to come up with a better argument. In any case, I'm not interested in what you have to say.

quote:

---

"First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis,[9] together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#:~:text=Semitic%20people%20or%20Semites%20is,%22Semitic%20languages%22%20in%20linguistics.

---

 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
History is an important discussion especially if geneticists are going to name DNA remains after historical/mythological figures.


In the following Finklestein theorizes that Abraham is an autochthonous Eponymous figure and NOT from Mesopotamia. In other words a local indigenous hero from the SOUTH


II. I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, Comments on the I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative: Between "Realia" and Exegetica", I.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
I am well aware of Finkelstein's theory. Yet all the temporal contexts in the Abraham story i.e. War of 9 Kings, Destruction of Cities in the Plains, are associated with the Bronze Age and the customs and traditions practiced by Abraham's people are associated with Mesopotamia not Canaan. What's funny is how one Jewish scholar believes the Abraham legend is indigenous and dates later to the Iron Age while another Jewish scholar (Dr. Elhaik) agrees with the tradition that Abraham's family originates from norther Mesopotamia (Turkey) and dates from the Bronze Age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

@Djehuti

When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891;p=12

*** Now all of a sudden it's been proven. This is why I do not take you seriously, and why your insults and ad homs mean literally nothing.

---

Bro, I stopped taking you seriously long time ago in that very thread due to your dishonesty and you prove it again when you leave out the rest of my above post.

quote:

---

No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested. But it is an interesting inference that so many Levites and Cohens today from different communities of Jews share that same clade and NOT E. So the circumstantial evidence of today's populations do not favor your desire.

---

So while there is no conclusive evidence, we do have circumstantial evidence that J is the cohanic/Levite lineage, which is more than what can be said about Elhaik's hg E theory.

quote:

---

You can claim Israeli geneticists disagree with Dr. Elhaik, but there are others who agree with him and who also assert that modern Jewish populations are actually descendants of proselytes (converts).

---

Most geneticists in general (Jew & Gentile) disagree with him for the following reason that the predominant Middle Eastern clade in all endogamous major Jewish groups is J.



And that among Levi and Cohen, J occurs at almost 100%.

quote:

---

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out several times, your theory about Noah > Shem > Abraham being J carriers can only be possible if the Biblical flood was not global, but the Bible clearly says it was, and that only Noah and those on the ark with him survived. It's funny how you try to discredit Elhaik yet his research is actually congruent with the Biblical narrative, while your opinions are not.

---

If you paid attention to what I wrote I don't have a theory as to what haplogroup Shem and his father Noah had because the story of Noah's flood is a legend that borders on mythology. The story of a single patrilineage populating all the known regions of the Biblical world contradicts the paper I cited about (at least) 3 distinct groups populating the Levant alone.

quote:

---

GENESIS 7:21-24

"21 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

---

Again, this narrative is based on the perspective of the person/people telling the story and the word translated as "earth" is the Hebrew word eretz which means land and not necessarily the entire globe. Are you aware that there are similar flood myths like Vaivasvata Manu in India and Deucalion of Greece. While the great deluge was similar, there are obvious differences between these versions.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness,

Instead of crying to me and begging for my attention, go cry to the Israeli geneticists who publish research excluding ashkenazi jewish people from being Israelites.

If your argument is that a word needs to be in the Bible for it to be a valid concept then you need to come up with a better argument. In any case, I'm not interested in what you have to say.

quote:

---

"First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis,[9] together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#:~:text=Semitic%20people%20or%20Semites%20is,%22Semitic%20languages%22%20in%20linguistics.

---

---

It is unlikely that an “Israelite gene” ever existed since Iron Age Israelite tribes exchanged genes with their neighboring tribes.
Had there been a paternal “Israelite gene” on the Y chromosome, it would have been lost due to the transition to matrilineal descent.
Had there been a maternal “Israelite gene” on the mitochondrial chromosome, it would have been lost due to the initial period of partilineal descent.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would have been lost due to the high rates of movements into the religion.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would not be unique to Jews due to the high rates of movements out of the religion.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene” that survived to modern days, it would have been extremely rare and undetectable by popular search approaches that prioritize findings common to a large fraction of Jews.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The closest thing to "Israelite" marker is the Cohen Modal Haplotype even though that is not unique to Israelites or Jews.

And why would Ashkenazi be excluded when as a European population they are closest to Middle-Eastern populations (along with Greeks).

I've already shown that here:

Ashkenazi G25 distances



Now compare the distribution of Y-dna haplogroups in Ashkenazi Jews with those of Assyrians.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I am well aware of Finkelstein's theory. Yet all the temporal contexts in the Abraham story i.e. War of 9 Kings, Destruction of Cities in the Plains, are associated with the Bronze Age and the customs and traditions practiced by Abraham's people are associated with Mesopotamia not Canaan. What's funny is how one Jewish scholar believes the Abraham legend is indigenous and dates later to the Iron Age while another Jewish scholar (Dr. Elhaik) agrees with the tradition that Abraham's family originates from norther Mesopotamia (Turkey) and dates from the Bronze Age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

@Djehuti

When I questioned you about it the other week, this is what you said about the "cohen gene" on the last page of that same thread:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
[qb] ^ No there is no conclusive evidence like the remains of an Israelite priest or Levite being tested.

---

.

---

This Dr. Elhaik? What is his first name and can you cite an article by him
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Everybody pay attention to how:

1) I have quoted Djehuti admitting the other week that the "cohen gene" is not supported by any conclusive evidence (in his own words) yet he constantly appeals to it and is now saying it has "been proven". He must have forgotten that he already admit there was no conclusive evidence to support it.

2) I have shown multiple times that the context in Genesis clearly and undeniably demonstrates a global flood happening, God himself says he killed all flesh under heaven (Genesis 6:17) and that the only people who survived the flood was Noah and his family that was on the ark with him (Genesis 7:23).

Yet Djehuti will continue trying to deflect attention away to this red herring about the hebrew word used for earth supposedly not meaning the entire world as a whole, which is irrelevant because all of the context in Genesis demonstrates the flood was undeniably global and killed everyone except for Noah and his family.

Djehuti has to try convincing himself and others that the flood was not global and an isolated event that didn't kill everyone on the planet so that he can have an explanation for why other haplogroups predate J, which he claims is NOAH > Shem > Abraham. When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup J to be Noah > Shem > Abraham.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
and there are geneticists (Dr. Eran Elhaik for example) who label Abraham (a Hebrew) as an E carrier

---

in this an other threads you have said that Elhaik said Abraham as an E carrier 23 times

what is the link to a page where Elhaik is claimed by you to have said this?

It's not on his website https://www.eranelhaiklab.org

Is it possible you made up him saying that and you've been bluffing all this time? prove me wrong.
I hope it's on some other website
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

This is a prime example of why I largely ignore you, you always want to respond to things I've said yet 9/10 times you do not even comprehend what I'm saying, nor do you pay attention to things I've said. You pick and choose things to respond to in order to try making it seem as if I don't know what I'm talking about, because you are a troll.

I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/jewish-ancestry-0012151

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup J to be Noah > Shem > Abraham.

---

what is your reasoning here to say any haplogroup in mentioned in the above statement is impossible?

For instance if someone said

"When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup E to be Noah > Shem > Abraham. "


What's the difference?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

Again, this is something I've explained already. This will probably be my last response to you especially since you had nothing to say about Dr. Elhaik assigning Abraham to haplogroup E, after implying that I lied about him saying it.

According to the Biblical narrative, God killed everything underneath heaven with a flood. Only Noah and his sons + their wives survived. Noah's sons would have had the same Y marker as their father Noah.

If Noah and his sons had J markers and they were the only males to survive the flood, there should be no existing haplogroups that predate J because they would have been killed off during the flood and only J would have survived. However there are multiple Y haplogroups in current existence that predate J.
 

---

Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
 
Back and forth and back and forth, mods should lock this topic, its getting lame.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness,

This is a prime example of why I largely ignore you, you always want to respond to things I've said yet 9/10 times you do not even comprehend what I'm saying, nor do you pay attention to things I've said. You pick and choose things to respond to in order to try making it seem as if I don't know what I'm talking about, because you are a troll.

I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/jewish-ancestry-0012151

---

---

He never says this in one of his science articles because he just makes up that Abraham was a Turk,
solely based on the ark landing in Turkey (if you believe all animals were in there, etc )
but also peculiar since E1b1b was not found in Neolithic Iran or Anatolia
And we are to believe the Chinese, for example, somehow derived from Noah, ridiculous
Let us know when he actually puts his name to this in a peer reviewed science article

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.

Let that sink in.

---

yes correct, would you like me to set up a dialogue between you and Elhaik to point this out to him
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

The part of Turkey in question was apart of ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Mesopotamia encompassed parts of modern Turkey. You would know this if you weren't a troll who actually knew what they were talking about.

He didn't say Abraham was E1b1b and I also showed the email in the other thread where Elhaik explained that he uses autosomal DNA to come to conclusions because autosomal shows the entire picture. You were fully aware of that information, you even responded to it. Stop playing dumb.

Dr. Elhaik already wrote a paper concluding that some of the most likely Israelite progenitors were E carriers, and again, this has been referenced.

You accused me of lying about Dr. Elhaik assigning Abraham to haplogroup E, and you originally asked about where he said it on his website... now that I've shown him saying it on one of the genetic websites he contributes to, you're moving the goalpost and asking for him to say it in a peer-reviewed paper.

Literally nobody cares what you think or what you have to say, you're nothing but a career troll who does not even know what they are talking about 9/10 times. Let us know when you become an actual geneticist.

You subscribe to genetics (not me) and this is what the genetics say.

Have a nice day.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I asked you if you made it up
> asked
because although you mention that he said Abraham carried haplogroup E (and says he was a Turk) you rarely say the source of the remark but you did I guess (I had trouble finding it although may have seen it buried in a 12 page thread somewhere)
You play that "source" down because you known it's not in a peer reviewed journal where he would be required to actually prove it, which he does not
So if proof is the goal, it has not been achieved
no matter where he said it, the ball has not passed through the goal post at any location
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I don't play anything down, I reference all information the same way.

Future readers, take note of how this troll explicitly and specifically requested a link to a website where Dr. Elhaik classified Abraham as an E carrier:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
in this an other threads you have said that Elhaik said Abraham as an E carrier 23 times

what is the link to a page where Elhaik is claimed by you to have said this?

It's not on his website https://www.eranelhaiklab.org

Is it possible you made up him saying that and you've been bluffing all this time? prove me wrong.
I hope it's on some other website

---

And then after the genetic website was provided and it was shown that I'm not a liar, the troll moved the goalpost by saying it needs to be in a peer reviewed paper -- yet he (the troll) originally asked for proof it was written by Dr. Elhaik on a website.

Get a life.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
just remember to link that second rate source when you say he said that
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Imagine a career troll on egyptsearch calling an actual geneticist "second rate". Rofl

Your request for evidence of Dr. Elhaik classifying Abraham as E has been met, keep coping.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I'm saying the article source is second rate
and as you said

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Y'all are in here arguing over Abraham's DNA.... without having Abraham's DNA.

Let that sink in.

---

I could set up a discussion with you and Eran so you can help him to let that sink in

.

It is unlikely that an “Israelite gene” ever existed since Iron Age Israelite tribes exchanged genes with their neighboring tribes.
Had there been a paternal “Israelite gene” on the Y chromosome, it would have been lost due to the transition to matrilineal descent.
Had there been a maternal “Israelite gene” on the mitochondrial chromosome, it would have been lost due to the initial period of partilineal descent.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would have been lost due to the high rates of movements into the religion.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene,” it would not be unique to Jews due to the high rates of movements out of the religion.
Had there been an autosomal “Israelite gene” that survived to modern days, it would have been extremely rare and undetectable by popular search approaches that prioritize findings common to a large fraction of Jews.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
You are a professional career internet troll, while Dr. Elhaik is a professional career geneticist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You subscribe to genetics (not me) and this is what the genetics say.

Have a nice day.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You subscribe to genetics (not me)

---

that's why it's so peculiar for you to be hypocritically using what a geneticist said to try to convince people of something,
instead of telling them genetics is a bunch of bs
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What is peculiar is the fact that I've:

1. Explained that genetics is not congruent with the Biblical narrative.

2. Used genetics to demonstrate how it is not congruent with the Biblical narrative.

3. Also used genetics and the Bible to demonstrate how certain genetic claims can be disproven using either genetics or the Bible.

And you still pretend not to understand.

Keep playing dumb.... continue coping... you can have the last word.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Bottom line, the genetic history of the Levant did not start with the nation state of Israel. And there is no "unique" Israelite genetic signature, as it is a mixture of multiple groups who have been in the region over time. And with the various wars and conflicts this lineage as changed over time as various elements of the ancient Israeli population migrated into other regions. And this movement and displacement is what causes so much of the confusion as many ancient texts were influenced by this event.

quote:

---

How did the Babylonian exile of the Jews grow "larger than life" and take on symbolic value beyond the actual historical circumstances? The reason why the Judahite exile in Babylon became proverbial is because, during and after the exile, the exiled Judahites developed an unprecedented creative energy that resulted in the final editing of the Pentateuch, of the deuteronomistic work of history (the Books of Samuel and Kings), of many of the prophetic books and also in the composition of new literature (such as the Chronistic works of history, i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) that reflects the concerns of the returnees from Babylone often more directly than the older literature. In other words, whether in form of careful reverential editing or in form of the composition of new works, the priests and scribes of the exilic community decisively shaped what we simply consider the biblical world view.

Since the exilic and postexilic redactors and authors often hide their own contribution to the sacred literature of Israel in subtle additions to older works rather than openly stating their authorship, since they furthermore prefer anonymity or attribution of their works to the great figures of the golden age before the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem, and the Solomonic temple, since they therefore create the literary fiction that the result of their deliberation was already available to the personages representing the golden age, we must deconstruct their fiction to get a sense of their real achievements. To this day, fundamentalist and naïve readers habituated to taking biblical stories as the literal truth have trouble imagining that the story framing the Mosaic legislation (from the creation of the world to the appearance of the LORD at Sinai, and from forty years of migration in the desert to the conquest under Joshua) may reflect the concerns of exilic or postexilic authors/editors rather than actual events truthfully (and passively) recorded.

If the above is even vaguely accurate, it follows that the role of Jerusalem in biblical literature is decisively shaped by the experience of loss and destruction reflected in exilic and early post-exilic literature (and in the editorial processes older texts and traditions underwent at this time). For the evident reason of the political dimension of loss and of all hopes for reconstruction, Jerusalem, in fact, is henceforth one of the three central religio-political symbols of Jewish (as subsequently of Christian and Islamic) eschatology, i.e., of any monotheistic teaching about the ultimate things to come, about the end of history, the final condition of the world, and the like.

2. Some notes on the changes from pre-exilic Israelite/Judahite culture to the early Jewish culture of the exile and of early post-exilic times

Pre-exilic

Before the exile, Judah was a monarchy that had taken on the traditions of "Israel," the tribal community once united under King David. It absorbed many of the pan-Israelite traditions but it still was a commonwealth, a political entity with no other purpose than to exist, survive, and thrive as a political entity.

Among the major institutions of pre-exilic Judah are:

the davidic kings, a dynasty with a claim to divine investiture,
the Solomonic temple which, with the exception of short-lived reforms instituted by Hezekiah and Josiah, housed many cults,
prophetic diviners in the service of the kings and also prophets critical of the kings and advocating the worship of YHWH alone.

Post-exilic

After the exile, Judah was politically rebuilt as a Persian satrapy, a semi-autonomous administrative province, ruled by a priestly elite that remigrated from Babylonia and whose views and attitudes were shaped by the religious blue-prints for reconstruction drafted in the exile. They were at odds with the local population, rigorously enforced separation from the mixed multitude of inhabitants of Judah, and ruled on the basis of the Torah. This code of law was promulgated by Ezra in the early 4th century BCE and it served as the legal ideal of a theocratic state (ruled by priests rather than kings). According to the later rabbis, the institution of the Torah as the basic law (in addition to which there must have been oral law traditions of various kinds) brought the earlier institution of prophecy to an end.

---

https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/cp/exret.htm

Given that, it is obvious that ancient genetics would be vary among those populations in the region and that "Jewish" identity formed as a result of a theocratic and bureaucratic orthodoxy largely derived from Babylonian exile. And the more interesting question being addressed in this thread is about the history of the region genetically prior to and leading up to the emergence of this orthodoxy as part of the proto-semitic expansion in the region. And that would include the genetic evolution and history of the populations of Judah before and after the exile in Babylon.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

This Dr. Elhaik? What is his first name and can you cite an article by him

---

Dr. Eran Elhaik is an Israeli geneticist and bioinformatician. He is somewhat controversial for being a proponent of the "Khazarian" origins for Ashkenazi as first popularized by Arthur Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe book. The irony is that although the results of his research are accurate enough, Elhaik would misinterpret these results.

So for example here is his paper published several years ago-- The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish--he claims that Ashkenazi are of Khazarian orign but the problem is that Khazaria was NOT in Turkey but in modern day Ukraine. Also many of those Anatolian (Pre-Turkey) genetic elements are shared with other non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups as well! LOL

Now Tazarah is agreeing with Elhaik's conclusion that Y haplogroup E is identified with Israelites/Hebrews when that is not the common dominant haplogroup shared by all *endogamous* Jewish men, it's J.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Everybody pay attention to how:

---

You are a delusional twit blinded by your bias. I think everybody in this forum saw that days ago.

quote:

---

1) I have quoted Djehuti admitting the other week that the "cohen gene" is not supported by any conclusive evidence (in his own words) yet he constantly appeals to it and is now saying it has "been proven". He must have forgotten that he already admit there was no conclusive evidence to support it.

---

I said it's not been "conclusively" proven because no ancient kohen priest has been tested, but it has been circumstantially proven by modern Cohen and Levite men. You don't even have circumstantial evidence that they carry E! LOL

quote:

---

2) I have shown multiple times that the context in Genesis clearly and undeniably demonstrates a global flood happening, God himself says he killed all flesh under heaven (Genesis 6:17) and that the only people who survived the flood was Noah and his family that was on the ark with him (Genesis 7:23).

---

Where in the narrative does it say the flood affected the whole world or in Hebrew 'olam' or 'tevel'. Let's say the flood was global and refers to the Holocene warming and glacial melting, do you nou really believe that the Biblical narrative was being literal instead of poetically metaphorical when it says "all flesh was destroyed" by flood waters including fish who live in water??

quote:

---

Yet Djehuti will continue trying to deflect attention away to this red herring about the Hebrew word used for earth supposedly not meaning the entire world as a whole, which is irrelevant because all of the context in Genesis demonstrates the flood was undeniably global and killed everyone except for Noah and his family.

---

That's because the Hebrew word 'eretz' means earth as in land NOT the entire world, and the entire Old Testament is poetry NOT prose which uses a lot of hyperbole and metaphor NOT literal. But you are so ignorant of the Bible you don't know any of this.

quote:

---

Djehuti has to try convincing himself and others that the flood was not global and an isolated event that didn't kill everyone on the planet so that he can have an explanation for why other haplogroups predate J, which he claims is NOAH > Shem > Abraham. When the Biblical narrative is taken into account, it is IMPOSSIBLE for haplogroup J to be Noah > Shem > Abraham.

---

No. I said the Biblical narrative never said it was global, but even if it was, to believe that all creatures (including fish) were wiped from existence except what was in the ark is the type of Santa Clause level childhood belief that intelligent. As for other haplogroups predating J, what does that have to do with the fact that if Noah and his sons were the only survivors they would all share the same haplogroup but instead ancient populations had different haplogroups.

This is why I never took you seriously because you 're an idiot.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

Dr. Elhaik's position on them being khazars has nothing to do with research that shows ancient Israelites had a different Y marker than what they have. Other Israeli geneticists also say that they are not descendants of ancient Israelites.

Secondly, you are trying to force reality to bend to the presupposition that you have.

"Most modern jewish people have J markers, thus the ancient Israelites and Abraham must have had J".

If you don't see the problem with that logic then I don't know what to tell you but I'm not surprised.

Either way, as it's already been established, the Biblical narrative destroys the false idea that Noah had J since God says he killed all flesh under heaven during the flood, yet haplogroups that predate J are still in existence.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Dhejuti

I'm not going back and forth with you anymore, you're really embarrassing yourself at this point.

You can continue breaking down my comments and responding to make it look like you are rebutting me but:

1) You are on record admitting that there is NO conclusive evidence to prove the "cohen gene" was possessed by ancient Israelites.

2) The Bible records God himself saying that he killed ALL flesh UNDER HEAVEN and that ONLY NOAH and those on the ark with him survived the flood.

***** Notice how contextually, usage of the word "earth" is irrelevant here, but I'm sure you will continue trying to appeal to it like a broken record as if you don't understand.

Fish DO NOT have Y markers so even if they survived that is irrelevant, a deflection, and a retarded comment to even make. God killed all flesh under heaven during the flood, so J should be the oldest haplogroup in current existence since that is what you claim Noah had -- but it is not the oldest in current existence, there are haplogroups in current existence that predate J and that had nothing to do with Noah or any civilization(s) related to that area.

Have a nice day.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LMAO The only one embarrassing himself is YOU! Even most religious Jews including rabbis know that the Torah is poetry with a lot of hyperbole and metaphor and that not everything should be taken literally. That you don't know this means you are not only an ignoramus but one who is not rational.

Also, Dr. Elhaik's research shows that those closest related to ancient Israelites are modern Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jews and the difference with Ashkenazi is that they show more European admixture which you don't need a geneticist to know that.

quote:

---

Other Israeli geneticists also say that they are not descendants of ancient Israelites.

---

Really? Who? You already failed with Elhaik who showed Askhenazi do have descent.

quote:

---

Secondly, you are trying to force reality to bend to the presupposition that you have.

---

LMAO Projecting much. I'm the only one citing evidence. Yet you have only cited the name of Elhaik and not his actual research.

quote:

---

"Most modern jewish people have J markers, thus the ancient Israelites and Abraham must have had J".

If you don't see the problem with that logic then I don't know what to tell you but I'm not surprised.

---

No we have evidence from remains as well.

Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018)

We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites:A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations

The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.

This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.

This migration was already in motion in the Early Bronze Age, around 2900-2500 B.C.E., and is also visible archaeologically, with pottery from this period exhibiting strong influences from Anatolia and the Caucasus. It continued in the Middle Bronze Age, as seen in the study of ancient DNA of individuals from Megiddo and other places, and is evident in the mention in historical texts of Canaanite officials in the Late Bronze Age, with names that are not Semitic and originate in the northeastern Middle East, Finkelstein says.

Last but not least...

The genetic history of the Israelite nation

Figure 2. The frequencies of various Y chromosome haplogroups among the Ashkenazi, Cohanim vs non-Cohanim. The number and letter combination after the main haplotype designation (e.g. ‘-P58*’) references the name of a characteristic mutation that helps to define that lineage. These naming conventions have changed much over the years. (From Hammer et al.15).

Now let's see you spin and whine some more!
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

You can have the last word, you are just repeating yourself at this point.

You already dismantled your own argument by admitting there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate the idea that ancient Levites/Israelites had J markers or this "cohen gene".

It makes no sense for me to continue going back and forth with someone who can be shown multiple times that God killed all flesh underneath heaven, and that only Noah and his family survived -- yet you still try to pretend it's only talking about a select portion of land (because that's the only way your genetic position can make any sense).

Then you laughably brought up the "fish didn't die in the flood" nonsense again, as if that would make any difference, or as if fish can contribute Y markers to human populations.

Grasping for straws.

Rofl, have a nice day my brother.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ "Grasping for straws"?! I just cited actual data from ancient Israelite remans you moron! I also told you that most rabbis and Jewish religious scholars and sages don't interpret the Torah as literal as you because it is poetry and not prose!

ROTFL Indeed. I'm not your "brother" but I know deep down you know you are defeated. So please by all means get some help.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @Djehuti

You can have the last word, you are just repeating yourself at this point.

You already dismantled your own argument by admitting there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate the idea that ancient Levites/Israelites had J markers or this "cohen gene".

---

Is there conclusive evidence that had E markers?

we don't need name drops or speculation

show us the hard evidence, with data from testing backing it

Instead of name dropping, find an article where they discuss their testing method and the results of their tests
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes E markers were in the Levant prior to J but I just cited two sources from Israeli geneticists admitting that hg J was introduced to the Levant from the east by migrants and that this became the major male clade there. Does this not conform with the Biblical account of Abraham and his people immigrating from the east and eventually taking over??
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
To all future readers, and for posterity, this is a screenshot from almost exactly a month ago where Djehuti admit to me that there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate the idea that ancient Levites had J markers or this "cohen gene".

No new studies have come out since then, so one has to wonder why he is now saying it has been proven and contradicting himself.



http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891;p=12

Noah > Shem > Abraham having J markers does not align with the Biblical narrative when Genesis is taken into account, if Noah had J then no haplogroups that predate J should currently exist, but they do.

The study that says "ancient Israelite" remains were found with a J marker explicitly states that this doesn't prove the J markers represented the entire population.

Just like how a J marker being found in north america during the time of the native americans doesn't mean the native americans and had their ancestors had J markers.

"The Lioness" will be ignored for obvious reasons.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Yes E markers were in the Levant prior to J but I just cited two sources from Israeli geneticists admitting that hg J was introduced to the Levant from the east by migrants and that this became the major male clade there. Does this not conform with the Biblical account of Abraham and his people immigrating from the east and eventually taking over??

---

And I've referenced two Israeli geneticists who say the opposite. A legitimate argument to make would be that there is no conclusive genetic evidence to support either position... but that's not what you are doing, even after you're on record rebutting your own position.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


"The Lioness" will be ignored for obvious reasons.

---

the obvious reason is you are scared of the question
We'll leave it at that
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
The obvious reason is because you are known all over the internet as a troll with no life who is a digital blackfacer pretending to be a black woman, and also because the last time I answered one of your questions you moved the goalpost and tried to play dumb.

Have a nice day
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Noah > Shem > Abraham having J markers does not align with the Biblical narrative when Genesis is taken into account, if Noah had J then no haplogroups that predate J should currently exist, but they do.

---

If Noah > Shem > Abraham had E markers that does not align with the Biblical narrative when Genesis is taken into account, if Noah had E then no haplogroups that predate E should currently exist like haplogroups A, B, C, and D but they do.



At left A, B, C, and D are all older than E


Thus if there was a flood it can't have been comprehensive because people still carry this ancestry

Ever wondered why the bible never mentions East Asian or South America?
It's because the people who wrote it didn't know anything about these places
What about the Shang Dynasty? What about the Incas and Mayas?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Noah > Shem > Abraham having J markers does not align with the Biblical narrative when Genesis is taken into account, if Noah had J then no haplogroups that predate J should currently exist, but they do.

---

do you see how this argument is destroyed?
If you say E you have the same situation, its a dub
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Exactly, so according to the Biblical narrative, Noah would have had to be haplogroup A, if we are trying to mix science and the Bible. Now you can see why I'd rather just stick to the Bible.

You don't think I already knew E wasn't the oldest? I only reference papers about E and other genetic papers to demonstrate that Abraham/Israelites having J isn't the overwhelming scientific consensus. I've REPEATEDLY stated this, and literally just said in my previous comment that there's no scientific evidence to 100% support either position.

And no, all modern populations existed during Biblical times but went by different names.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Exactly, so according to the Biblical narrative, Noah would have had to be haplogroup A, if we are trying to mix science and the Bible. Now you can see why I'd rather just stick to the Bible.

---

so does the thought ever cross your mind the biblical narrative might be wrong?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

Does the thought ever cross your mind that "population genetics" and the methodology of these human scientists might be wrong?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
@the lioness,

Does the thought ever cross your mind that "population genetics" and the methodology of these human scientists might be wrong?

---

often
on particular things
at varying degrees of discrepancy

but I try to do so with logical reasoning
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Lioness, you are wasting your time. He is trying to fit genetics in an improper way to the Biblical narrative. So far IF one is going to use a genetics approach to the Biblical legends then at least Abraham would have carried hg J as he and his family immigrated into the Levant from southern Turkey which is around the area where hg J supposedly arose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

And I've referenced two Israeli geneticists who say the opposite. A legitimate argument to make would be that there is no conclusive genetic evidence to support either position... but that's not what you are doing, even after you're on record rebutting your own position.

---

And which geneticists are those?? You have yet to site any passage or paper saying hg E entered the the Levant from Turkey. I doubt you can since ALL the evidence suggests the opposte-- that hg E, which by the way originated in Africa, was already in the Levant before J carriers from Asia appeared.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

@the lioness,

Does the thought ever cross your mind that "population genetics" and the methodology of these human scientists might be wrong?

---

Yet that hasn't stopped you from using the same science of population genetics and those same scientists, now has it, albeit in an erroneous way? LOL
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Taz keeps saying that Israeli geneticists support his claims but it's funny how he never cites anything from them.

Meanwhile we have:

Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018)

We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites:A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations

The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.

This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.

This migration was already in motion in the Early Bronze Age, around 2900-2500 B.C.E., and is also visible archaeologically, with pottery from this period exhibiting strong influences from Anatolia and the Caucasus. It continued in the Middle Bronze Age, as seen in the study of ancient DNA of individuals from Megiddo and other places, and is evident in the mention in historical texts of Canaanite officials in the Late Bronze Age, with names that are not Semitic and originate in the northeastern Middle East, Finkelstein says.

Last but not least...

The genetic history of the Israelite nation

Figure 2. The frequencies of various Y chromosome haplogroups among the Ashkenazi, Cohanim vs non-Cohanim. The number and letter combination after the main haplotype designation (e.g. ‘-P58*’) references the name of a characteristic mutation that helps to define that lineage. These naming conventions have changed much over the years. (From Hammer et al.15).

Instead of Tazarah, maybe we should call you Tazmanian devil cuz all you do is spin and babble nonsense.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Lioness, you are wasting your time. He is trying to fit genetics in an improper way to the Biblical narrative. So far IF one is going to use a genetics approach to the legend then Abraham would at least carry hg J as he and his family immigrated into the Levant from southern Turkey which is around the area where hg J supposedly arose.

---

I was looking at this article

Volume 181, Issue 5, 28 May 2020, Pages 1158-1175.e28
Journal home page for Cell
Article
Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus
Author links open overlay panelEirini Skourtanioti 1,

Evidence for genetic homogenization across larger geographic distances also comes from the uniparentally inherited Y chromosome lineages (Table S9). We observe the most common male lineages J1a, J2a, J2b, and G2a in all spatiotemporal groups of the region. Alongside the less frequent lineages H2 and T1a, these all form part of the genetic legacy that dates to the Neolithic or was already present in the region during the Upper Paleolithic (Wang et al., 2019, Lazaridis et al., 2016, Jones et al., 2015, Feldman et al., 2019, Broushaki et al., 2016). A few notable exceptions provide rather anecdotal but nonetheless important evidence for long distance mobility and extended Y-haplogroup diversity. For example, individual ART038 carries Y-haplotype R1b-V1636 (R1b1a2), which is a rare clade related to other early R1b-lineages, such as R1b-V88 that was found in low frequency in Neolithic Europe (e.g., Haak et al., 2015) and R1b-Z2103—the main Y-lineage that is associated with the spread of “steppe ancestry” across West Eurasia during the early Bronze Age. However, R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103 lineages split long before (∼17 kya) and therefore there is no direct evidence for an early incursion from the Pontic steppe during the main era of Arslantepe. Lineage L2-L595 found in ALA084 (Alalakh) has previously been reported in one individual from Chalcolithic Northern Iran (Narasimhan et al., 2019) and in three males from the Late Maykop phase in the North Caucasus (Wang et al., 2019). These three share ancestry from the common Anatolian/Iranian ancestry cline described here, which indicates a widespread distribution that also reached the southern margins of the steppe zone north of the Caucasus mountain range.

Overall, we performed genetic analyses on genome-wide data from 94 individuals, and 77 of these were accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dated (Figure 2B; Table S1). We grouped the individuals by archaeological site or area and archaeological period applying a nomenclature scheme that preserves this information (Figure 2C; STAR Methods). We also identified seven cases of 1st or 2nd degree relative pairs (Figure S1; Table S2) and restricted group-based genetic analyses for these groups (f-statistics, qpWave/qpAdm, and DATES) to 89 unrelated (≥3rd degree) individuals (Figure 2C).

__________________________

take a look at the Table S9 in the supplement,
it's a wide diversity of haplogroups but I don't see any E

As per Turkey today, wiki, Turkish People:

E3b-M35: 10.7% (E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 accounting for all E representatives in the sample, besides a single E3b2-M81 chromosome). E-M78 is common along a line from the Horn of Africa via Egypt to the Balkans. Haplogroup E-M123 is found in both Africa and Eurasia.

When does this E come in? It seems not to go back far there

according to the bible the ark landed in Turkey, we can't assume Abraham if a real person was Anatolian based just on that,
and then in Genesis and elsewhere quotes about his Ur of the Chaldees (Ur Kasdim ) possibly located in Iraq
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

The fact that your genetic beliefs only make sense if you twist the Bible speaks volumes. Anyone who tries to convince people that the Biblical flood only wiped out certain populations when the Biblical text word for word says "all flesh under heaven" was killed, and that "only Noah and his family survived", is Biblically pseudo.

Not to mention you debunked your own position by admitting there is no conclusive evidence that ancient Levites had J markers or this "cohen gene" (screenshot of Djehuti admitting this has been posted above, a few comments ago).

I've referenced Israeli geneticist Dr. Elhaik who disagrees with your position and also Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin who wrote in a peer-reviewed paper that modern eastern european jews (ashkenazi), who carry J markers in large numbers, are all likely the descendants of proseltyes (converts).



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Yet that hasn't stopped you from using the same science of population genetics and those same scientists, now has it, albeit in an erroneous way? LOL [Big Grin]

---

Um... how many times have I said this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

I only reference papers about E and other genetic papers to demonstrate that Abraham/Israelites having J isn't the overwhelming scientific consensus. I've REPEATEDLY stated this, and literally just said in my previous comment that there's no scientific evidence to 100% support either position.

---

...or something extremely similar? Yeah... reading comprehension is definitely an issue here. Which explains your inability to understand basic context in the Genesis story.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
There you go the topic is:
IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component

yet you are hellbent on wanting to change the topic to how can we exclude people by DNA

> at the same time not believing in genetics
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
So you only cite scientific sources that support your claims. Good to know except those sources actually don't!

As for the last paper you cited pray, tell can you cite something from that paper that specifically differentiates the J in Ashkenazi from the J found in Mizrahi, Sephardi, Teymani, etc?? I mean everyone knows that even if Ashkenazi descend from Israelites they are heavily mixed with European. Again you don't need a geneticist to see that.

To Lioness, hg E was found in the Natufian remains so E does date back early in the Levant at least to the Epipaleolithic, but the idiot here doesn't identify E with pre-Abrahamic Canaanites but with Abraham himself who came from southern Turkey.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness

Djehuti brought up my name and reignited this topic that was being discussed in another thread, and this is what it turned into. And is Djehuti not trying to exclude people with certain DNA? I wouldn't expect you to be a fair judge because you yourself are a biased troll, I'm just pointing all this out for future readers.

@Djehuti

Your new request is a red herring. Ashkenazi are the largest and most notable jewish population in the world, and the majority of them are J carriers. If their autosomal DNA has revealed they are all likely descendants of converts, then it's not looking good for anyone else who is J. All these modern jewish populations share DNA. Also, the study I referenced based the conclusions off of what their autosomal DNA revealed so appealing to different types of J markers is irrelevant.

This all just goes to show that Abraham being J is not 100% scientific fact, and that it's just an opinion certain individuals hold to for whatever reason.

And for the last time, my faith is in the Bible, but I do enjoy pointing out and demonstrating how DNA can be used to support or debunk almost any position and is not 100% in either direction.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ We don't have Abraham's body but we have the following.

quote:

---

Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018)

We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites:A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations

The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.

This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.

This migration was already in motion in the Early Bronze Age, around 2900-2500 B.C.E., and is also visible archaeologically, with pottery from this period exhibiting strong influences from Anatolia and the Caucasus. It continued in the Middle Bronze Age, as seen in the study of ancient DNA of individuals from Megiddo and other places, and is evident in the mention in historical texts of Canaanite officials in the Late Bronze Age, with names that are not Semitic and originate in the northeastern Middle East, Finkelstein says.

Last but not least...

The genetic history of the Israelite nation

Figure 2. The frequencies of various Y chromosome haplogroups among the Ashkenazi, Cohanim vs non-Cohanim. The number and letter combination after the main haplotype designation (e.g. ‘-P58*’) references the name of a characteristic mutation that helps to define that lineage. These naming conventions have changed much over the years. (From Hammer et al.15).

---

It will only be a matter of time before they do find the body of a Kohen who served in the Temple of Jerusalem, and once they test the body and find hg J, what will you do then? Will you deny the results or will you kill yourself??
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
🤦🏾‍♂️

You are repeating yourself.

I have dealt with all of your arguments.

The Bible disagrees with you, Israeli geneticists disagree with you, and you disagree with yourself.

And if you seriously think they don't already have the bodies of actual Levites after all this time, then rofl...
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the lioness

Djehuti brought up my name and reignited this topic that was being discussed in another thread, and this is what it turned into. And is Djehuti not trying to exclude people with certain DNA? I wouldn't expect you to be a fair judge because you yourself are a biased troll, I'm just pointing all this out for future readers.

---

The way you use the word "troll" has no meaning the way you use it.
You are the odd man out in this thread, read the title, it's not a religion thread.
So the troll cap fit your head better

But you did bring up some genetics

Below, deeper look at the date from your last source. That's what we do hear at Egyptsearch we don't always agree with the authors conclusion we look at that data


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/


They talk a lot in the article about the female DNA but since you don't care about that we'll look at the Y
This is an interesting chart, relax and look at some of the percentages here

Look at the left column, a list of various Jews including Ethiopians and also Palestinians

So at the top are the Eastern European Jews
there are a tiny portion of E lineage that excludes E1b1b1 where is has that x (xE1b1b1)
move the decimal point over two
.006 = 0.6%
Then over to E1b1b1 22.9%

EEJ

E1b1b1 22.9%
G 10%
J (xJ2) 17.4%
J2 20.6%
R1 15.4%

(and a few 5% or lower stuff)
__________________


Palestinians

E1b1b1 24.5%
G 8.6%
J (xJ2) 34.5%
J2 19.3%

___________________

Take a look at the various peoples, there is a lot to see here

We se Palestinians an EEJs have similar Y. I didn't look at the mtDNA but probably less similar
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

The paper concludes all eastern european jewish people are likely the descendants of converts.

Accusing me of trying to "exclude peoples' DNA" and trying to hold that against me, when that is also what Djehuti is doing, is disingenous and one of many perfect examples as to why I would be better off ignoring you and letting you talk to yourself when you try to engage me.

Taking that into account with all of your other shenanigans, you are a grade A troll.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] @the lioness,

Accusing me of trying to "exclude peoples' DNA" and trying to hold that against me, when that is also what Djehuti is doing, is disingenous and one of many perfect examples as to why I would be better off ignoring you and letting you talk to yourself when you try to engage me.

You are a troll.

---

your definition of a troll is "someone who disagrees with me"

Show us a quote of Djehuti where he is not just saying one group is more common but going so far,
in Tazarian fashion, as to exclude a group
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness

Thank you for demonstrating that you have not been paying attention to anything Djehuti has been saying in this thread or the other one in question about haplogroup E in relation to Abraham. Of course, you only care about what I say (which is flattering) and you always expose yourself as being the biased, trolling clown that you are.

There are PLENTY of people on this website, past or present, and on other internet platforms who would all agree that you are one of the biggest trolls on the web.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I'm talking about excluding a whole group of people not taking a position on what haplogroup Abraham might of been, actual troll.
I know I'm winning when you start using this meaningless word

If you say E and pick your favorite geneticist who agrees
and he picks J

what is the difference?
He never said E carriers are converts
You on the other hand say EEJ's are converts, and in your theology God does not care for converts
yet your own damn source says they are 22.9% E !
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

🤦🏾‍♂️

You are repeating yourself.

I have dealt with all of your arguments.

---

No you haven't. I repeat myself because YOU do without addressing what is stated.

quote:

---

The Bible disagrees with you, Israeli geneticists disagree with you, and you disagree with yourself.

---

More projecting on your part.

quote:

---

And if you seriously think they don't already have the bodies of actual Levites after all this time, then rofl...

---

Last I checked, they've already tested quite a number of ancient remains and the results are the same-- predominantly J. Now as to whether or not they are Levites maybe you should contact someone from the Israeli Antiquities Services and ask them.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness

If Djehuti says Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, had a J marker, he is by proxy saying that any other Y marker is not a lineal descendant of Abraham and that is the same argument I'm making.

You know exactly what's going on, I'm done entertaining you troll.

The only thing you've won is "internet troll of the decade" and dozens of people have nominated you.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

I've totally addressed all your arguments, any unbiased future readers can scroll up and see for themselves.

No ancient Levite dna is on record, as you yourself have admit. So it's extremely disingenous for you keep to trying to act as if there is.

You are the KING of ignoring points I make about faulty arguments you make especially when you get caught contradicting yourself.

If you can't even accept the fact that Genesis undeniably describes an event that destroyed all living humans other than Noah and his family when that's LITERALLY what the text says word for word, then nothing you say concerning Biblical figures and/or who their modern descendants are is relevant.

You do not believe in the Bible, you are trying to push a narrative that the Bible does not support.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

If Djehuti says Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, had a J marker, he is by proxy saying that any other Y marker is not a lineal descendant of Abraham and that is the same argument I'm making.

---

Again for the record I never claimed to know what Abraham's Y haplogroup was. I simply make an inference that the predominant one linking all Jews today and ancient Israelites since at least the Bronze Age is J. Therefore it is highly probable if not likely that Abraham was also.

In regards to those not descending from Abraham, you do recall that the Bible states that even after the Israelite conquest of Canaan (which is an event debated by many scholars), the indigenous Canaanites still lived on with their own lineages and were eventually assimilated into the Israelite nation.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

I'm glad we can agree that no geneticist(s) have said Abraham had J, and that it's just an opinion.

All due respect, I'm not interested in discussing the Bible with you anymore.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
@Djehuti look at that Y-DNA chart I just posted that was buried in the Supplement of Spaz's source
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I know. I looked up the original paper myself. LOL His own sources debunk everything he says! That's why I don't take him serious and just use him for laughs-- like all trolls.

The final nail in his coffin is when they actually test an actual ancient kohen.

The guy is like Antalas who believes indigenous North Africans are Eurasian and non-black no matter how dark their skin is. These guys are just delusional to the point of being deranged.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
And if someone believes that Judaic lineage is determined by the father, if they bring up a genetics article, they might like the flavor of a conclusion
but the conclusion might also come out of a matrilineal element in concert with the patrilineal as per the context of the whole enchilada
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I know. I looked up the original paper myself. LOL His own sources debunk everything he says! That's why I don't take him serious and just use him for laughs-- like all trolls.

The final nail in his coffin is when they actually test an actual ancient kohen.

The guy is like Antalas who believes indigenous North Africans are Eurasian and non-black no matter how dark their skin is. These guys are just delusional to the point of being deranged.

---

Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.

If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/

The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.

If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/

---

The Chalcolithic study (4500–3900/3800 BCE)
is of 22 individuals from one particular Cave, Israel.
Y DNA was recovered for 10 individuals, one was of haplogroup E
9 were haplogroup T (plot twist)
____________

But the article with remains closer to the time period to the Israelites is

The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, 2020

https://images2.imgbox.com/94/0c/wbwjBeb3_o.png

DNA charted in this image
73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant, who share the Canaanite material culture, three sites in Israel
Dating 2500 to around 1150 BCE, we see plenty of J
and some E, R and T
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.

If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/

The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

---

Thank you... I don't know why it's so hard to understand, or why Djehuti has to lie and pretend the "cohen gene" is supported by conclusive evidence when he already admit to me word for word that it is not supported by conclusive evidence.

Then he admits yet again that his position about J has not been proven by saying "the nail in my coffin will be once they test an ancient Levite" -- in other words, djehuti's position is just an opinion without evidence.

1. Two Israeli geneticists I've cited conclude that modern jewish populations who carry J in large numbers are descendants of converts (not ancient Israelites) based on their autosomal admixture.

2. No geneticists have reported that haplogroup J the founding lineage of the Israelites.

With all the "evidence" out there, you would think there would be sources confirming what Djehuti is saying word for word (J being the founding lineage of Abraham/Israelites), but there is not.

I don't expect someone who can't even be honest about what the Bible says in Genesis, to be honest about data or anything else.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
An important lesson we've learned is that a J marker is not what Djehuti claims it to be, as Dr. Elhaik said in his email. Looking solely at a J marker without looking at anything else (like autosomal) does not give a complete picture and leads people to false conclusions.

quote:

---

"CONCLUSION: EEJ (eastern european Jews) are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool."

---

quote:

---

"From both The current study and those of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] it can be seen that the only Jewish populations that are as close to Ashkenazi Jews as non-Jewish Europeans are those with a significant Sephardic (The descendants of the Jews who were expelled from the Iberian peninsula at the end of the 15th century) component in their gene pool. It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel."

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel." [/i]

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/

---

there goes your Portuguese stuff down the tubes
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.

If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102297/

The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

---

Thank you... I don't know why it's so hard to understand, or why Djehuti has to lie and pretend the "cohen gene" is supported by conclusive evidence when he already admit to me word for word that it is not supported by conclusive evidence.

Then he admits yet again that his position about J has not been proven by saying "the nail in my coffin will be once they test an ancient Levite" -- in other words, djehuti's position is just an opinion without evidence.

1. Two Israeli geneticists I've cited conclude that modern jewish populations who carry J in large numbers are descendants of converts (not ancient Israelites) based on their autosomal admixture.

2. No geneticists have reported that haplogroup J the founding lineage of the Israelites.

With all the "evidence" out there, you would think there would be sources confirming what Djehuti is saying word for word (J being the founding lineage of Abraham/Israelites), but there is not.

I don't expect someone who can't even be honest about what the Bible says in Genesis, to be honest about data or anything else.

---

But I am not on your side on this. You aren't addressing the point I am making that this thread isn't about ancient Israelite DNA. And you keep going back and forth yet neither one of you is paying attention to what the other is saying. So why not leave this thread to the original topic instead of continuing a discussion from another thread that was already locked.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Doug

I understand you are not on my side, I just don't like being gaslighted and it's nice to see someone else say what I've been saying the entire time. I've already admit that there is no conclusive evidence to genetically support mine or Djehuti's argument either way, he is the one trying to play the genius.

I'm definitely willing to agree to disagree, the only reason this all started up again is because Djehuti brought my name up on a previous page in here and started acting as though he had schooled me on the topic.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.

---

Yes and I never said it was! My point was that only after the Bronze Age did J become prevalent and that it was introduced from southern Turkey.

Carlos Flores et al. (2005)

Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in [Modern] Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.


Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018)

We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.

Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

And if someone believes that Judaic lineage is determined by the father, if they bring up a genetics article, they might like the flavor of a conclusion
but the conclusion might also come out of a matrilineal element in concert with the patrilineal as per the context of the whole enchilada

---

As I've explained before, the Hebrews had a bilateral kinship with patrilineal emphasis that is the official lineage reckoned was a patrilineal segmented lineage (nation, tribe, clan, house, family) but maternal descent was also taken into consideration for membership in the nation.

Alice Linsley despite her errors on genetics and linguistics is spot on when it comes to ethnic/social practicies.

The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew
Common Fallacies about Hebrew Culture:

• 1. Descent is traced through the paternal line only. (Part 2)
• 2. Inheritance rights come through the father's lineage only. (Part 3)
• 3. Right to rule is vested with males only. (Part 4)
• 4. Patrilocal residence; that is the bride lives with the groom's clan/family. (Part 5)
• 5. Governance by a council of all males. (Part 6)
• 6. Ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, a chief or a king. (Part 7)

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.

---

Of course that makes no sense, because that isn't what I said. I was not suggesting that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham and his people, nor did the geneticist who I referenced (Dr. Elhaik) say or suggest that.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.

---

Of course that makes no sense, because that isn't what I said. I was not suggesting that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham and his people, nor did the geneticist who I referenced (Dr. Elhaik) say or suggest that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/jewish-ancestry-0012151

---

---

what's this then?
So E was already there, is this what you are implying?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

Quote me or Elhaik saying that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham, otherwise shutup and stop trying to troll.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Well forget the "first introduce" how about explaining how Abraham or his people carried E from Turkey when that region is the origin of J, and hg E existed in the Levant prior among the Natufians.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

Are you saying it's impossible for E to have come from Turkey/Mesopotamia just because another haplogroup supposedly originated there? How do you E was not also present in that area and that E-carrying migrants did not come from there?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Well forget the "first introduce" how about explaining how Abraham or his people carried E from Turkey when that region is the origin of J, and hg E existed in the Levant prior among the Natufians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

---

---

^^ Charlatan geneticist Elhaik here, instead of saying this is his theory he states it's as if it is a fact "Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1)"
Taz did you know most Turks are not E1b1 and even less so in ancient times? And the idea he was a Turk, Elhaik made that up

He also says: "led a group of Anatolians"
He did not say "led his family"
>that means In Elhaik's view some may have not been of his bloodline, potentially more than one haplogroup in the group


I guess Tazzy troll thinks the whole (small) world at the time was E

So when did God magically create the other haplogroups?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"Lioness" the blackfacing troll still fails to realize that the part of modern day Turkey in question was apart of ancient Mesopotamia, thus, this is why Elhaik is calling Abraham a Turk.

I've already explained this to him at least twice.

Even if I had not explained it, this is something that somebody who participates in these topics should already know.

Notice how nobody else is complaining about Elhaik calling Abraham a Turk?

This blackfacing troll forever demonstrates why he is not worthy of any serious response on these topics. He is either not competent, or purposely trolling and trying to get a rise out of people.

Or both.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
"Lioness" fails to realize that the part of modern day Turkey in question was apart of ancient Mesopotamia, thus, this is why Elhaik is calling Abraham a Turk.

---

Spaz, you seem to be getting very emotional lately. Relax




you don't know why Elhaik said Abraham was a Turk, stop the BS
As we can see a small part of Turkey is only part of Mesopotamia so the words are not synonymous.
if he meant Mesopotamia he would have said Mesopotamia.
Though part of Mesopotamia is in Turkey Mesopotamia is much more associated with Iraq, wake the hell up

quote:

---

wiki
History of Mesopotamia '

Later and in the broader sense, the historical region included not only the area of present-day Iraq, but also parts of present-day Iran, Syria and Turkey.

---

Modern Turkey:

quote:

---

(Turkish Region)
TR samples were documented and grouped into six different subregions, namely Balkan (TR-B: 90), West (TR-W: 157), Central (TR-C: 441), North (TR-N: 372), South (TR-S: 116), and East (TR-E: 284)


The most common Y chromosome haplogroups in TR individuals were from J2a (18.4%), R1b (14.9%), and R1a (12.1%) sublineages, consistent with previous findings (SI Appendix, Fig. S12 and Dataset S1) (3). Except for TR-B, in which I2a (20%) was the most prevalent haplogroup followed by R2a (17.1%) and E1b (14.3%)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8433500/

The genetic structure of the Turkish population reveals high levels of variation and admixture

---

So we see in the modern Turks R dominates, then J
and in the Balkan region of Turkey, E1b 14.3%

but if we go to ancient times E1b1b was not found in Neolithic Iran or Anatolia !! wake up
E was LESS prevalent in Anatolia then
So why would Elhaik even say "Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1)" ??

> put that in your pipe and smoke it

You and I don't know why after says Abraham was a Turk he put E1b1 in parentheses as if that was a given- not


If someone were to talk about say, the Berbers
and the wrote "Berbers (E1b1b) that would be reasonable since most male Berbers are E1b1b
but not Turks !!

I look into these things, and there are problems.
That is why although Elhaik might says something on a commercial website he wouldn't say that in one of his peer reviewed articles because he would not pass the peer review


You don't check out people statements after you like them, fingers in ears

quote:

---

Genesis 11:28
And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Genesis 11:31
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Genesis 15:7
And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

2 Kings 24:2
And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets.

2 Kings 25:4
And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king's garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about:) and the king went the way toward the plain.

2 Kings 25:5
And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him.

2 Kings 25:10
And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about.

2 Kings 25:13
And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.

2 Kings 25:24
And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you.

2 Kings 25:25
But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah.

2 Kings 25:26
And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.

2 Chronicles 36:17
Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand.

Nehemiah 9:7
Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;

Isaiah 13:19
And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
DISCLAIMER: I am not asserting that Elmaestro or anyone that he referred to in this screenshot agrees with my position.

*** It seems to be common knowledge amongst the non-trolls of this website that "Turkey" is a factor and relevant term in regards to the topic of Abraham. Have a seat, troll.



*** P.S. -- Look, "Lioness" is quoting from the Bible. According to his logic that means he believes in it and subscribes to everything written in it.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Lol @ you for trying to use modern turkish data to prove a point.

And lol @ you for still trying to associate J with Abraham. Geneticists know exactly who these J carriers were that came to the Levant. Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization.

These J carriers were people from the Caucusus with Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names. Not Abraham/Hebrews.

Clearly you do not look into these things and are projecting your flawed logic onto others.

quote:

---

"This geographic distribution of J2a versus J1 mirrors the two autosomal components from Haber et al. (2013). However, several demographic and migrational events may contribute to the observed Y frequency patterns in the southern Levant.
Major J2a lineages whose origin is likely from East Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, and NW Iran could have migrated to the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age through the movement of the Kura-Araxes horizon to Lebanon, Syria, and ultimately the Galilee area marked by the Khirbet Kerak culture (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003). Later immigration from a similar East Anatolian source may have brought Hurrian onomastics
to the southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age (King 2009). These events may have added J2a to an underlying J1 substratum."

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=humbiol_preprints

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization.

---

with no physical remains of Abraham or any patriarch
how would you know that? You pulled it out of your arse?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


*** P.S. -- Look, "Lioness" is quoting from the Bible.

---

there are no other sources as regard Abraham
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
These J carriers were people from the Caucusus with Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names. Not Abraham/Hebrews.

---

Re-read this part of my last comment and then have a seat.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Ezekiel 16:1-5

16 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
1. The Hurrians were not Amorites or Horites.

2. God is not telling the Israelites in that scripture that they descend from Amorites/Hittites. Common sense tells us that is impossible. This is figurative speech in which God is insulting the Israelites for following heathen customs and taking apart in their idolatry.

quote:

---

"The father, therefore, of this city, might be properly said to be an Amorite, and its mother, a Hittite; these names comprehending all the idolatrous nations of Canaan, of which the Jebusites were a branch. Or if the Jews or Israelites be intended, their progenitors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sojourned in the land of Canaan long before the possession of it was given to their posterity; and the two latter were natives of that country. But as those are said to be our parents, in Scripture language, whose manners we imitate, the Jews or Israelites, may be here represented as being of Canaanitish origin, because they followed the manners of the idolatrous inhabitants of that country, rather than those of the pious patriarchs: see Ezekiel 16:45; John 8:44; Matthew 3:7. There is an expression of the same import in the history of Susannah, Ezekiel 16:56, that seems to be borrowed from this passage, O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart."

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ezekiel/16-3.htm

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Put the Bible down. You are grasping for straws and it's hilarious. I think I'm done now
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Lol @ you for trying to use modern turkish data to prove a point.

And lol @ you for still trying to associate J with Abraham. Geneticists know exactly who these J carriers were that came to the Levant. Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization.

These J carriers were people from the Caucusus with Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names. Not Abraham/Hebrews.

---

who claimed they were from the Kura-Araxes culture
?

that's a straw man you brought in

With no other source, the bible says Abraham was a Chaldean of Ur

you should be trying to establish what culture he was from first rather than what culture he was not from

_______________________________

Ur Kasdim (Hebrew: אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים‎ 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 Baghdad Eyalet (which is located in modern-day 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

_________________________________

Taz do you ever look at this stuff and think, damn how come the people in area are not looking West African?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J. You just clarified that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) yet I just provided a source showing that J carriers who came to the Levant during the bronze age had Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names (Caucusus). They were migrants/invaders from the Caucusus.

They were not Hebrews nor did they have Hebrew names. The name "Abraham" is Hebrew/Semitic. Abraham was a Hebrew.

Here's another source:

quote:

---

"Haplogroup J1-M267 probably evolved in the region encompassing northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran 23 to 24 kya. The oldest human aDNA reported so far, belonging to this haplogroup, originates from an individual, who lived ~ 13.3 kya in the Caucasus during the Late Upper Paleolithic."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2

---

The oldest ancient DNA belonging to haplogroup J was found in the caucusus dating back to 13,000 years ago.

Coupled with the previous source I provided, do you realize what this means for your "J = Abraham" argument?

Rofl
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J. You just clarified that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) yet I just provided a source showing that J carriers who came to the Levant during the bronze age had Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names (Caucusus). They were migrants/invaders from the Caucusus.

They were not Hebrews nor did they have Hebrew names. The name "Abraham" is Hebrew/Semitic. Abraham was a Hebrew.

---

There is nothing that says that of J carriers who went into the Levant that every one of them had to have Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/jewish-ancestry-0012151

---

---

You have to first establish that some group of E carriers went into the Levant from Turkey before trying to exclude

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J.

---

my position is that if he existed his haplogroup is unknown. He could have been T or R for all we know
and think about this, he could have arrived into Israel and the majority of people there were not of his haplogroup.
Not every male on the planet is E so God could have created other haplogroup people at any point in time after Noah (biblically)
(or resurrect old pre-flood haplogroups in new people)

If you want to say E in Turkey you will have to find remains of any individual bearing E from that time period in Anatolia, I'll wait
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
You have been among the people trying to imply that Abraham had J. Now that I've shown J belonged to a totally different culture long before Mesopotamia/Abraham you want to play games. The data shows that J came to the Levant during the bronze age from the Caucusus along with Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture.

These J carriers were not Sumerian or Mesopotamian in origin. They were invaders/migrants originally from the Caucusus.

quote:

---

"Hurrian-speaking people was the region of the upper Nabur and Tigris Rivers, together with the piedmont beyond, extending into the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros Mountains. The Hurrian language belongs to neither the Semitic nor the Indo-European language family, nor is it related to Sumerian or Elamite, other important isolated languages of the ancient Near East."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hurrian

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians is J.
If you think otherwise show us an article purporting the main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians was a different haplogroup, I'll wait
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Poor reading comprehension skills. Re-read my last comment.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians is J.
If you think otherwise show us an article purporting the main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians was a different haplogroup, I'll wait
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"Lioness" is stuck in repeat mode, attacking a strawman.

Wow, Dr. Elhaik's (an actual credentialed geneticist) research and conclusions are actually starting to make a lot more sense.

Weren't you one of the people trying to tell me that Elhaik was incorrect for writing that the Natufians (E carriers) were the progenitors of the Israelites, one of the reasons being because there was a "gap" in time, and also because the Hebrews/Israelites had to come from Mesopotamia where J was?

quote:

---

"The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1617660

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Typical troll tactic of saving battered ugly face. Taz would build a straw mansion for someone to knock down to avoid the fact that whatever original argument he had was null and void. That's why I stopped arguing and let the clown do his thing.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Notice they have no explanation for J being Hurrian long before it was even in Mesopotamia, if they still want to claim Abraham was J then they have to claim he had Hurrian ancestry, which would be laughable at best. This whole time they have been trying to make it seem as though J originated in Mesopotamia but it was found in the Caususus with Hurrian culture long before it was ever in Mesopotamia.

There are also sources that indicate a Natufian (haplogroup E) presence in Mesopotamia.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
[qb] The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Notice they have no explanation for J being Hurrian long

---

no need for explanation, it's dumb to say a haplogroup is a language or restricted to one
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup
Also no source

Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
no need for explanation, it's dumb to say a haplogroup is a language or restricted to one

---

I didn't say a haplogroup was a language and I showed how J was apart of the Kura-Araxes culture. Now you wanna play dumb about haplogroups after I bring out sources showing where J was before Mesopotamia and how it did not originate there. Furthermore you are so Biblically illiterate that you don't even realize the implications of asserting that Abraham was J at this point.

My work here is done
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
language and I showed how J was apart of the Kura-Araxes culture.

---

another misstatement

get it straight
It's a biological marker that has nothing to do with a culture
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
No matter how you try to twist it, J did not originate in Mesopotamia and was connected to a culture/language that had nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors, and this was long before it was ever in Mesopotamia. Have a nice day
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup
Also no source

Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?

---

https://www.academia.edu/8937237/Origins_and_history_of_Haplogroup_J1_Y_DNA_


 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup
Also no source

Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?

---

Akkadian
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I think Yatunde and Taz might be making up stuff as regard alleged E in Mesopotamia. Let's come up with an article

Here's one about a Mesopotamian region in southeastern Turkey, ancient remains several females and male remains found there 8500 to 7500, recovering Y-DNA from 4 males. I think fair to assume if Abraham existed this is pre-Abraham

A genomic snapshot of demographic and cultural dynamism in Upper Mesopotamia during the Neolithic Transition

N. EZGI ALTINIŞIK HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-0653-4292 , DUYGU DENIZ KAZANCI HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0002-8333-4027, AYÇA AYDOĞAN HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-0171-6978, HASAN CAN GEMICI HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-4424-2864, [...], AND MEHMET SOMEL HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0002-3138-1307 +20 authorsAuthors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE ADVANCES
4 Nov 2022

Abstract
Upper Mesopotamia played a key role in the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia through marked innovations in symbolism, technology, and diet. We present 13 ancient genomes (c. 8500 to 7500 cal BCE) from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Çayönü in the Tigris basin together with bioarchaeological and material culture data. Our findings reveal that Çayönü was a genetically diverse population, carrying mixed ancestry from western and eastern Fertile Crescent, and that the community received immigrants. Our results further suggest that the community was organized along biological family lines. We document bodily interventions such as head shaping and cauterization among the individuals examined, reflecting Çayönü’s cultural ingenuity. Last, we identify Upper Mesopotamia as the likely source of eastern gene flow into Neolithic Anatolia, in line with material culture evidence. We hypothesize that Upper Mesopotamia’s cultural dynamism during the Neolithic Transition was the product not only of its fertile lands but also of its interregional demographic connections.

Y-chromosome haplogroups of male individuals (n = 4) were assigned using the “best path” method of pathPhynder (80), which adds particularly low-coverage samples on phylogenetic trees annotated with haplogroups. We used the compiled Y-chromosome dataset and phylogenetic tree in (80). By counting the number of derived and ancestral alleles represented on each branch of the tree, we determined the best path for each male individual. Then, we assigned the relevant haplogroup according to the node of the sample on the tree (table S3). We used default parameters of pathPhynder. We visualized the tree using iTOL v6 (fig. S13) (81). Because of missing data among informative SNPs,

we could determine only the basal branch “CT” for two individuals (cay012 and cay033).

While cay011 was placed onto the haplogroup G branch

(supported by 10 derived variants above the branch and 2 derived variants at the assigned branch),

the cay007 individual was assigned J2a1a
____________________________________________


So they had limited information on 2 of them and were assigned to the basal branch CT
One was Hap G (also the hap of the Egyptian Yuya, father of Queen Tiye)
and one was J2

So this is showing J2 in Southern Turkey, in Mesopotamia 8500 to 7500 BC.
Comparatively Kura–Araxes culture about 4000 BC until about 2000 BC/ Hurrian culture 3500 BCE - c. 1000 BCE.


/dead
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
1) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the implications of J being found in the Caucus 13,000 years ago.

2) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the implications of J not being Mesopotamian in origin, and that J carriers were invaders/migrants from the Caucusus.

3) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the fact that J2 is linked to Hurrian/Kura-Araxes culture which had nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors.

4) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding what #3 means from a Biblical standpoint.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
aDNA discovered in Northern Iraq sheds a light on Neolithic and Bronze age populations of Mesopotamia showing the substantial migrations from the caucasus to the middle east. Demonstrating a Caucasian/Levantine Natufian mix in early populations.

quote:

---

"We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."

---

quote:

---

"The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

/dead
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b

---

Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup
Also no source

Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?

---

https://www.academia.edu/8937237/Origins_and_history_of_Haplogroup_J1_Y_DNA_

---

It says there at Eupedia

quote:

---

Haplogroup E1b1b is considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia. The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b. One specific deeper subclade is surely associated with the development of Arabic language and with J1-FGC12, but it hasn't been identified yet. Note that E-M34 itself is many thousands of years old and is also found in non-Semitic countries, including Turkey, Greece, Italy, France and Spain.

---

Not properly written and no references and you left out the part about J1

Haplogroups are not origin point for a language. They are biological markers originating far prior to languages spoken by people later, who carry these haplgroups

It should say

"Populations associated with Haplogroup E1b1b are considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia."
______________________

^ so looking at this, it's a reasonable theory but it's not explained further this article about Haplogroup J. It would be better to a journal article with this as it's main theme


wiki:

Afroasiatic languages

The Afroasiatic languages (or Afro-Asiatic, sometimes Afrasian), also known as Hamito-Semitic or Semito-Hamitic, are a language family of about 400 languages spoken predominantly in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahara and Sahel.[2] Over 500 million people are native speakers of an Afroasiatic language, constituting the fourth-largest language family after Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and Niger–Congo.[3] Most linguists divide the family into six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Semitic, and Omotic.[4] The vast majority of Afroasiatic languages are considered indigenous to the African continent, including all those not belonging to the Semitic branch.

Subdivisions

Berber
Chadic
Cushitic
Egyptian
Semitic
Omotic

Timeline
There is no consensus as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken.[43] The absolute latest date for when Proto-Afroasiatic could have been extant is c. 4000 BCE, after which Egyptian and the Semitic languages are firmly attested. However, in all likelihood these languages began to diverge well before this hard boundary.[65] The estimations offered by scholars as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken vary widely, ranging from 18,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE.[43] An estimate at the youngest end of this range still makes Afroasiatic the oldest proven language family.[6] Contrasting proposals of an early emergence, Tom Güldemann has argued that less time may have been required for the divergence than is usually assumed, as it is possible for a language to rapidly restructure due to areal contact, with the evolution of Chadic (and likely also Omotic) serving as pertinent examples.[92]

Location
Likewise, no consensus exists as to where proto-Afroasiatic originated.[43] Scholars have proposed locations for the Afroasiatic homeland across Africa and West Asia.[93] Roger Blench writes that the debate possesses "a strong ideological flavor", with associations between an Asian origin and "high civilization".[69] An additional complicating factor is the lack of agreement on the subgroupings of Afroasiatic (see Further subdivisions) – this makes associating archaeological evidence with the spread of Afroasiatic particularly difficult.[94] Nevertheless, there is a long-accepted link between the speakers of Proto-Southern Cushitic languages and the East African Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (5000 years ago), and archaeological evidence associates the Proto-Cushitic speakers with economic transformations in the Sahara dating c. 8,500 ago, as well as the speakers of the Proto-Zenati variety of the Berber languages with an expansion across the Maghreb in the 5th century CE.[95]

An origin somewhere on the African continent has broad scholarly support, and is seen as being well-supported by the linguistic data.[96] Most scholars more narrowly place the homeland near the geographic center of its present distribution,[18] "in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa."[97] The Afroasiatic languages spoken in Africa are not more closely related to each other than they are to Semitic, as one would expect if only Semitic had remained in an West Asian homeland while all other branches had spread from there.[98] Likewise, all Semitic languages are fairly similar to each other, whereas the African branches of Afroasiatic are very diverse; this suggests the rapid spread of Semitic out of Africa. Proponents of an origin of Afroasiatic within Africa assume the proto-language to have been spoken by pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers,[92] arguing that there is no evidence of words in Proto-Afroasiatic related to agriculture or animal husbandry.[97] Christopher Ehret, S.O. Y. Keita, and Paul Newman also argue that archaeology does not indicate a spread of migrating farmers into Africa, but rather a gradual incorporation of animal husbandry into indigenous foraging cultures.[99] Ehret, in a separate publication, argued that the two principles in linguistic approaches for determining the origin of languages which are the principles of fewest moves and greatest diversity had put “beyond reasonable doubt” that the language family “had originated in the Horn of Africa”.[100]

A significant minority of scholars supports an Asian origin of Afroasiatic,[69] most of whom are specialists in Semitic or Egyptian studies.[101] The main proponent of an Asian origin is the linguist Alexander Militarev,[102] who argues that Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken by early agriculturalists in the Levant and subsequently spread to Africa.[43] Militarev associates the speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic with the Levantine Post-Natufian Culture, arguing that the reconstructed lexicon of flora and fauna, as well as farming and pastoralist vocabulary indicates that Proto-AA must have been spoken in this area.[103][104] Scholar Jared Diamond and archaeologist Peter Bellwood have taken up Militarev's arguments as part of their general argument that the spread of linguistic macrofamilies (such as Indo-European, Bantu, and Austro-Asiatic) can be associated with the development of agriculture; they argue that there is clear archaeological support for farming spreading from the Levant into Africa via the Nile valley.

_________________________________

It's interesting.
A bible believer might favor a Levantine (Southwest Asia) origin for Proto-Afroasiatic,
the alternate name of Afroasiatic also known as Hamito-Semitic, thus a Levantine origin might support a separation from the so called "Hamites"

Afroasiatic

Subdivisions

Berber
Chadic
Cushitic
Egyptian
Semitic
Omotic


^ try fitting this into a sequentially ordered narrative descending from Noah and incorporating myth of God creating new languages at Babel.
Taz, break that down for us, what's older Egyptian
language or Semitic?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] aDNA discovered in Northern Iraq sheds a light on Neolithic and Bronze age populations of Mesopotamia showing the substantial migrations from the caucasus to the middle east. Demonstrating a Caucasian/Levantine Natufian mix in early populations.

quote:

---

"We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."

---

quote:

---

"The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

/dead

---

There is nothing that would exclude Abraham , if he existed, from being a member of any of these populations or a mixture of them.
This article supports my position

/deader
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Still trying to sidestep the data. This demonstrates natufians (E carriers) had a significant presence in neolithic Mesopotamia.

(You falsely accused me of making up information again... and were proven wrong yet again.)

You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia yet still tried to draw a conclusion without the full picture. This is why I like to let people talk and dig themselves into a hole.

Furthermore I've already demonstrated that due to it's origin and the culture it stemmed from, J has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors when the Biblical narrative is taken into account.

Your head is rolling down the street, go pick it up.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Re-reading this part of my last comment, after reminding myself that you constantly try to discredit Dr. Elhaik's research makes me literally LOL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia yet still tried to draw a conclusion without the full picture. This is why I like to let people talk and dig themselves into a hole.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Still trying to sidestep the data. This demonstrates natufians (E carriers) had a significant presence in neolithic Mesopotamia.

(You falsely accused me of making up information again... and were proven wrong yet again.)

You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia

---

show us an article documenting an individual or individuals bearing haplogroup E. You have not

from the article:

"Caucasus hunter-gatherer–related ancestry levels are high in all inland populations"
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Yeah just ignore the part about the natufians being in Mesopotamia (where Abraham/Hebrews came from) after you repeatedly tried to discredit an actual geneticist for drawing a similar conclusion. Not only are you a troll but you're pseudo.

No wonder you were afraid to propose some questions to him as to his methodology when given the opportunity.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] Yeah just ignore the part about the natufians being in Mesopotamia (where Abraham/Hebrews came from)

---

the article doesn't say that

It says

quote:

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia
IOSIF LAZARIDIS


"By analyzing

Pre-Pottery and

Pottery Neolithic
populations of Anatolia,

we show that the former (Pre) were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources,

but the latter (Pottery Neolithic) experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."

---

so what does this prove about Hebrews?

I have already maintained the first Hebrews could have been J or E or possibly a combination, T and R are also in the neighborhood

According to this a Levantine element came in later into Mesopotamia
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Yeah so Natufians/E were in Mesopotamia during the neolothic and you had no idea yet you were trying to shit all over Dr. Elhaik as recently as yesterday. There's really nothing left to talk about at this point
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Yeah so Natufians/E were in Mesopotamia

---

You have shown no article that says either Natufians or E was in Mesopotamia

If you think you do quote the sentence in the article saying this

_____________________________

Suppose there was though

quote:

---

"Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/jewish-ancestry-0012151

---

we are still left with this claim from who you regard as an Edomite
and he still doesn't know if Abraham came from the small part of Mesopotamia that is in Turkey
and he doesn't know if he was E1b1

He wrote science articles but he would never claim that as a fact as he does above

If it is a theory he should be saying it is a theory or hypothesis

Let us know when Elhaik even mentions Abraham in any way in any of his science journal articles



Also look at the dates of Natufians:
12,500 and 9,500 BC.
That doesn't even correspond to thr right period
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"Lioness" is lying and playing dumb like he always does when he gets proven wrong. All of a sudden he can't read anymore.

quote:

---

"We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

---

quote:

---

"The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0762

---

***

quote:

---

"The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1617660

---

***

quote:

---

"Belbaşı is a cave and a late Paleolithic/Mesolithic site in southern Turkey, located southwest of Antalya."

"Belbaşı culture shows indications of an early connection to the Kebaran industry assemblages of Palestine. Their settlements were stable, typical of Natufian culture sites in this respect, and many later evolved into agricultural villages, similar to Jericho’s forerunner Tell es-Sultan, settled around 7,800 years BCE."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belbaşı

---

 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?

I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?

I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.

---

I wonder what a pure "ANA" population would look like too. But I remember Swenet recently identifying the ANA in Iberomaurusians with earlier Aterians. In which case, maybe something like these skeletal remains?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

"The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1617660

---

---

This is a peculiar source, not linking directly to wikipedia.
It says it's from Wikipedia but I don't see it in Wikipedia. Also it has no numbered references like Wikipedia has for supporting sources to the statements and a list of references at the bottom
linked to each claim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

"Belbaşı is a cave and a late Paleolithic/Mesolithic site in southern Turkey, located southwest of Antalya."

"Belbaşı culture shows indications of an early connection to the Kebaran industry assemblages of Palestine. Their settlements were stable, typical of Natufian culture sites in this respect, and many later evolved into agricultural villages, similar to Jericho’s forerunner Tell es-Sultan, settled around 7,800 years BCE."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belbaşı

---

---

^ This is a normal wikipedia link

None of this proves anything about Abraham some of this might actually be closer to the tread topic.

It is just noting common stability in these prehistoric cultures
typical "in this respect" it doesn't say the people who loved in each site overlapped
Kebaran is much older (c. 23,000 to 15,000 BP )
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@the lioness,

I'm going to start ignoring you now that I've cited sources saying and demonstrating exactly what I claimed... Natufians/E in Mesopotamia before the time of Abraham. Which logically means E was there during the time of Abraham. You can play dumb all you want. I should have returned to ignoring you sooner. My apologies to all other people (excluding "the lioness"), regardless of whether they agree or disagree with my position
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
According to the Genesis narrative, Abraham and his people were immigrants from Haran in northern Mesopotamia which was the region that hg J was prevalent. His migration occurred in the Bronze Age and only in the Iron Age do we see prevalence of hg J in the Levant, prior to that other Y lineages were present-- E, R, and T to name a few. Yet Taz claims Abraham carried E not J or not even R or T.

Yantunde says Semitic languages or rather Proto-Semitic is to be associated with E-M34 carriers but the E clade itself originated in Africa meaning that M34 were African immigrants who entered the Levant and their language spread and diversified from there. Abraham supposedly spoke a down stream descendant of Proto-Semitic namely Hebrew, but that doesn't mean he carries the lineage of Proto-Semites anymore than someone from India carrying the lineage of Proto-Indo-Iranians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?

I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.

---

Much of that "Eurasian" ancestry is Basal Eurasian. But I am curious as to what other African ancestries Taforalt had besides ANA and Hadza-like ancestry.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the caucusus.

The Bible says Abraham's origin was Ur of the Chaldees, not Haran.

Abraham and co. later migrated TO Haran, they did not originate there.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_755.cfm

Djehuti, if you think Abraham was a Hurrian or had Hurrian ancestry then just say that already and stop beating around the bush so that I can laugh at you.

Because that is literally what you are claiming by saying Abraham was J.

quote:

---

"Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hurrian-language

---

Lmaooooooo.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?

I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.

---

I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon. But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the Caucusus.

The Bible says Abraham's origin was Ur of the Chaldees, not Haran.

Abraham and co. later migrated TO Haran, they did not originate there.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_755.cfm

Djehuti, if you think Abraham was a Hurrian or had Hurrian ancestry then just say that already and stop beating around the bush so that I can laugh at you.

Because that is literally what you are claiming by saying Abraham was J.

quote:

---

"Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hurrian-language

---

Lmaooooooo.

---

And when did I say Abraham was Hurrian??! LOL You obviously mistaken my reference to the Nuzi texts for such a claim, when my claim was simply that his culture and its customs were Mesopotamian. Abraham ethnically and at least linguistically was Hebrew a West Semitic language related to Chaldean and Sutean which were also found in Mesopotamia.

So please stop with the straw dolls.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

I never said you directly claimed Abraham was a Hurrian, which is why I asked you to directly say it if you believe that he was.

Because ultimately, by asserting that he was a J carrier, this is what you are claiming. Whether you realize it or not.

I am explaining everything very clearly.

"Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the Caucusus."

Imagine trying to convince yourself and others that Abraham came from an invading culture from the Caucusus that had nothing to do with Semites, instead of actual Semites (E carriers) who inhabited Mesopotamia.

The people you are trying to say Abraham descends from (J carriers) were hunter-gatherers from the Caucusus.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.

---

Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?

It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

---

This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.

---

Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?

It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

---

This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.

---

What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.

---

Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?

It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

---

This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.

---

What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.

---

I get this but what about upcoming Takarkori study? Keep in mind it's a fairy young specimen 7kya while it appears to be related to Taforalt it has also has Sub-Saharan like neanderthal levels Furthermore given it's relatively young age as well as the constant movement between Eurasian as well as African population within North African throughout the ages shouldn't it be tied up with Eurasian like Taforalt?

Obviously we're speculating here as the paper is not obviously yet out.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.

---

Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?

It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

---

This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.

---

What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.

---

I get this but what about upcoming Takarkori study? Keep in mind it's a fairy young specimen 7kya while it appears to be related to Taforalt it has also has Sub-Saharan like neanderthal levels Furthermore given it's relatively young age as well as the constant movement between Eurasian as well as African population within North African throughout the ages shouldn't it be tied up with Eurasian like Taforalt?

Obviously we're speculating here as the paper is not obviously yet out.

---

Depends on how you define "ANA". My opinion is if such a theoretical population existed, it would exist in that time frame I mentioned and have the characteristics mentioned. Otherwise no population can truly be labeled as "ANA" because populations in the region have been so fluid over time that there is no single "Ancestral" population that can be identified specific to North Africa. Different populations at different times would be more ancestral to certain modern groups than others. For example, the 7KYA date range falls in the time range of the last wet phase and we don't know where the population with the novel lineage originated and how they are related to any potential ANA population.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010935

Lazaridis does not use that term ANA.
He just uses "Ancestral North Africans" on a chart

I have a new thread on this term:

"ANA" means Northeast Asian

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

---

The article where Lazaridis mentions Taforalt and
Dzudzuana:

quote:

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry
Iosif Lazaridis, 2018

Table 1: (in gray box, you have to click to see the chart)




Taforalt A and B

A, Mbuti 27.2%
B, Dzudzuana 72.8%

Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.

Supplement:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/09/20/423079.DC1/423079-1.pdf

we do not consider Taforalt as a mixture of Africans and West
Eurasians14. Rather, we attempt to graft each of the 3 populations on the graph in the 1st step, then the second population as a mix of the first and an unconstrained other (2nd step), and finally the third population as a mix of the second and an unconstrained other (3rd step). Thus, all orders of the 3 populations are considered.

Finally, we attempt to fit Sub-Saharan African populations onto the models of Fig. S2.7, motivated by
the observation14 that West Africans share more alleles with Taforalt than with Natufians, which was
interpreted as evidence that Taforalt is a mixture of a Sub-Saharan lineage and Natufians.

Taforalt is inferred to have ~58% deep ancestry; the admixture graph model makes them a mixture of
Dzudzuana and a more deeply splitting lineage, thus giving them 0.45+0.55*.28 ≈ 60% deeply splitting
ancestry, which is also a good match to the admixture graph. However, qpAdm can also successfully
model Taforalt as a mixture of 73% Dzudzuana and 27% Mbuti, which produces a lower proportion of
0.73*0.28+0.27≈47% deep ancestry.

. No Sub-Saharan African populations appear to be good sources
for the ancestry of Taforalt as described previously.

The admixture graph model suggests an alternative possibility: that it is West African populations like the
Yoruba that may have ancestry from a North African Taforalt-like population. Under such a scenario,
North Africa and the Levant were occupied by populations that experienced gene flow from each other,
with more ancestry from a Basal lineage in North Africa, and more ancestry from a West Eurasianspecific lineage (represented by Dzudzuana) in the Levant, thus explaining the presence of Dzudzuanarelated admixture in Taforalt and of Taforalt-related admixture in the Levant. Under this scenario, a North
African-related population may have contributed some ancestry to Sub-Saharan populations to its south,
perhaps during the Holocene Green Sahara period (~11-6kya)22 that postdates the sampled Taforalt
individual which may have facilitated north→south gene flow across the Sahara.

Based on the very low presence of Neandertal admixture in Yoruba, it has been estimated that >2.7±0.9%
of the ancestry of Yoruba came from West Eurasia 9618 ± 1825 years ago
23
. The admixture graph model
predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5%
Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref. 2

---

.


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:
Bit of a thought question for the forum.

According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)

---

The text is not exactly clear. I see Dzudzuana 72% but then at the bolded 55%,
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
The argument that Proto-Semitic developed in northern Mesopotamia makes me wonder how we should reconstruct ancient South Semitic peoples of Arabia like the Sabaeans. Can we really say they were descended from the (undeniably dark-skinned) aboriginal inhabitants of southern Arabia if their language attests to an origin further north? I suppose they could have still mixed with aboriginal types though.

EDIT: Of course the earliest Proto-Semitic speakers would have been dark themselves, having just arrived from Africa, but I wonder if admixture with more northerly populations like Anatolians might have lightened them up over time.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ There are men in southern Europe around the Balkans and Italy who carry hg E yet are no different in appearance from their non-E carrying folk. At the same time there are Cameroonians who carry hg R and look no different from other Cameroonians. This is why uniparental lineage is just one genetic factor alone.

By the way, LOL @ Taz squirming like the worm he is. Haplogroup J was not associated with any one archaeological group but spread rapidly since the Neolithic to Bronze Age.

Here is a Youtube video on hg J1 one subtype is identified as Cohen-modal:

Do Jews and Arabs Really Have Different Ancestors?

Here is some scriptural support from Genesis 10: 25-30

Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan. The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.

Again the Joktanites were the southern Hebrews corresponding with southern Arabians who predominantly carry J1.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Getting back to the actual topic of this thread...

The following comes from a previous discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Courtesy of revoiye

Some findings of interest:

* ANA (Ancient North African) ancestry appears to be most heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations, although West and Central Africans, as well as ancient Maghrebis, have some ANA as well.
* Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go.
* The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will.

---

^ Note that both Basal Eurasian and 'Main Eurasian' diverged from a common ancestor who also diverged from the same common ancestor as Ancestral North African.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Gotta love how Djehuti the clown comes back to a thread weeks later and indirectly addresses me after undeniably running away from the last response I made to him about how impossible it would be for Abraham to have had J due to it not being native to Mesopotamia and due to its Hurrian/Kura-Araxes origin prior to it invading Mesopotamia.

Anyone can scroll up and see that he ran away from my last response and has returned to the thread weeks later to declare victory and go "back to the original topic of the thread."

ROFLLLLL.

And regarding the "cohen gene" that Djehuti has already admit lacks conclusive evidence:

quote:

---

"One thing is clear: the CMH cannot definitively prove the existence of a single founding father for the Jewish priesthood, let alone confirm that he was Aaron. If it is primarily a marker of priestly inheritance, why would it show up on two J lineages—most commonly on J1 but also on J2 -- that split thousands of years, maybe more than ten thousand years, before the time of Aaron?
Moreover, some Jews with an oral history of being a Cohanim and no known record of conversion have neither a J1 nor J2 lineage. They are from the haplogroup E3b, which has Middle Eastern origins, or from Rlb, which is common among Europeans and some Turks. How could that be?"

"Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People" by Jon Entine, page 70-71

---

Djehuti has admit the "cohen gene" lacks conclusive evidence and other authorities also say the same, so why does he keep trying to appeal to it? Is it incompetence? Or deception and dishonesty.

He's not even worth the time. I think I'm about to start treating Djehuti like "the lioness," and ignoring him completely.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Bruh, I didn't know if you're away or not, nor do I care. It doesn't matter if there is no conclusive evidence (yet). The point is that we have circumstantial evidence, while you have NO evidence for your claims at all.

How about you address the Y- haplogroup that all Jews have in common (J) OR the fact that the descendants of the Joktanites (Southern Hebrews) share it as well and or any of the autosomal data I brought up.

You can't can you because your delusion won't let you.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 


Levant Natufian




Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018)

We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites:A rare First Temple-period family burial opens the door to genetic studies on the true origin of the ancient Israelites - and their links to modern Jewish populations

The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.

This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.


 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^

Sorry but I can't take anyone seriously who literally ran away from my last reponse to them concerning the issue at hand, only to return weeks later with a deflection while indirectly addressing me and trying to claim victory.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I am "away".

Literally anyone can scroll up and see that you ran away and never addressed my last response to you. You come back weeks later after thinking the coast is clear and still have not addressed anything I said about how your argument about J is 100% flawed in regards to Abraham due to it's non-Mesopotamian and Hurrian/Kura-Araxes origin. Abraham did not descend from Caucusus hunter-gatherers you clown.

And you repeat the same old bs over and over about the "cohen gene" even after admitting that there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate it.

You're literally spamming and reposting the same irrelevant sh*t over and over again.

Stop wasting my time and stop indirectly addressing me when we all know damn well you ran away from my last response to you. It's right there for anyone and everyone to see.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LMAO

What does the Kura–Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C.E. — c. 2,000 B.C.E.) have to do with the origin of Y haplogroup J (~ 45 thousand years ago)??

I'm beginning to think you have low IQ until you prove me otherwise. Here is yet another source for you.

Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267

ABSTRACT
Human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 is a common male lineage in West Asia. One high-frequency region—encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant—resides ~ 2000 km away from the other one found in the Caucasus. The region between them, although has a lower frequency, nevertheless demonstrates high genetic diversity. Studies associate this haplogroup with the spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the desert regions of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of the Jews, and the spread of Islam. Here, we study past human male demography in West Asia with 172 high-coverage whole Y chromosome sequences and 889 genotyped samples of haplogroup J1-M267. We show that this haplogroup evolved ~ 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.

They even go on to say that Ashkenazi Jews preserve J1-M267 i.e. 'Cohen modal'. So I'm still waiting on you for an actual counter-argument let alone refutation.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Your source says J supposedly evolved in a part of Mesopotamia. That's not it's origin. Are you trying to ignore all the other locations that the source lists as possible evolution points?

The same source says the oldest ancient DNA for J was found in the Caucusus ~ 13.3 kya.

quote:

---

"Haplogroup J1-M267 probably evolved in the region encompassing northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran 23 to 24 kya. The oldest human aDNA reported so far, belonging to this haplogroup, originates from an individual, who lived ~ 13.3 kya in the Caucasus during the Late Upper Paleolithic."

---

J came to the Levant via Kura-Araxes movement and brought Hurrian onomastics (names) along with it.

quote:

---

"This geographic distribution of J2a versus J1 mirrors the two autosomal components from Haber et al. (2013). However, several demographic and migrational events may contribute to the observed Y frequency patterns in the southern Levant.
Major J2a lineages whose origin is likely from East Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, and NW Iran could have migrated to the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age through the movement of the Kura-Araxes horizon to Lebanon, Syria, and ultimately the Galilee area marked by the Khirbet Kerak culture (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003). Later immigration from a similar East Anatolian source may have brought Hurrian onomastics to the southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age (King 2009). These events may have added J2a to an underlying J1 substratum."

https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=humbiol_preprints

---

These people came from the Caucusus and invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia with Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture and you are claiming this was Abraham.

ROFL!

I will not entertain your "cohen gene" fantasies anymore because you have alteady admit there is zero conclusive evidence to substantiate it, and I've referenced an actual authority on the topic who has also said it's bogus.

The fact that you continue bringing it up each time you post is hilarious.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ No. What's hilarious is that YOU are the one who posts things without knowing the context or detail.

The source I cited is about subtype J1-M267 which IS the Cohen-modal haplotype! What YOU cite instead is a paper on subtype J2a and how it is affiliated with the Kura-Araxes Culture. Wrong genetic marker as well as wrong culture! LOL

So are you still going to pretend to argue with this farce of an error? Because my point still stands.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^
Still babbling about the bogus "cohen gene" that you already admit is bogus?

Imagine that! "Cohen Hurrians"

R O F L!

Did you already forget that the "Israelite" sample you keep affirming from that recent haaretz article was J2?.........

Furthermore there are plenty of sources that assign both J1 and J2 as being Hurrian/Kura-Araxes.

Keep playing dumb and I'll surely start posting some of them for you.

quote:

---

"A second expansion would have occured with the advent of metallurgy. J2 could have been the main paternal lineage of the Kura-Araxes culture (Late Copper to Early Bronze Age), which expanded from the southern Caucasus toward northern Mesopotamia and the Levant. After that J2 could have propagated through Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean with the rise of early civilizations during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

---

quote:

---

"It is very likely that J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293 were the dominant male lineages the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture, which expanded from the South Caucasus to eastern Anatolia, northern Mesopotamia and the western Iran. From then on, J2 men would have definitely have represented a sizeable portion of the population of Bronze and Iron Age civilizations such as the Hurrians, the Assyrians or the Hittites. It is very possible that bronze technology spread from the South Caucasus across the Iranian plateau until the Indus Valley, giving rise to the Harappan Civilisation (see below)."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

---

quote:

---

"The Minoan civilisation emerged from 2,700 BCE and could have been founded by colonists from the Kura-Araxes culture who would have brought bronze working with them. Modern Cretans have the highest percentage of G2a (11%), J1 (8.5%), J2a (32%), and L + T (2.5% together) in Greece (and the highest percentage of J1 and J2a in all Europe for that matter), the three haplogroups associated with the Kura-Araxes culture."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

---

quote:

---

"While the Maykop culture was closely linked to the Yamnaya culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and is thought to be associated with Proto-Indo-European speakers and Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b, the Kura-Araxes culture would have allowed the diffusion of Y-haplogroup J1 and J2a around the Middle East, taking over the Neolithic societies primarily associated with Y-haplogroup G2a and G2b."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^ None of those are journal articles it's all Eupedia, and Eupedia doesn't even have references stop the BS

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

J2 could have

---

quote:

---

"It is very likely that

---

quote:

---

"The Minoan civilisation emerged from 2,700 BCE and could have

---

quote:

---

the Kura-Araxes culture would have

---

---

All speculation in other words.






THE SOUTHERN ARC

quote:

---

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247

The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe
IOSIF LAZARIDIS HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0002-4094-9347 , SON


We report ancient DNA data from 727 individuals of this region over the past 11,000 years, which we co-analyzed with the published archaeogenetic record to understand the origins of its people. We focused on the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages about 7000 to 3000 years ago, when Indo-European language speakers first appeared.

---

Lazaridis et al. examined more than 700 ancient genomes from across this region, the Southern Arc, spanning 11,000 years, from the earliest farming cultures to post-Medieval times

That's the entire Mesoptamia and surrounding region and above you see the haplogroups, lots of J there no E
>actual science article with actual human remains and DNA

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

"A second expansion would have occured with the advent of metallurgy. J2 could have been the main paternal lineage of the Kura-Araxes culture (Late Copper to Early Bronze Age), which expanded from the southern Caucasus toward northern Mesopotamia and the Levant. After that J2 could have propagated through Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean with the rise of early civilizations during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age."

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

---

---

This might be true but so what?

The Kura–Araxes culture was an archaeological culture that existed from about 4000 BC until about 2000 BC

Estimates as to the era in which Abraham lived can vary from 2100 BC to 1800 BC

So Abraham could have (yes all this stuff is "could have" because there is no proof he was even a real person) but could have have been J or T or R, etc (see chart) and if he came from Mesopotamia he would inconsequential to two thousand years prior of J being spread by Kura–Araxes theorized by Eupedia
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 
This is a little off-topic but I didn't want to create a entire new thread just to ask one simple question about the Kadruka/Sudan sample

What was the exact portion of Sub-Saharan and Eurasian DNA in the sole sample that was taken. I've looked through the study as well as this forum and other internet forums and can't find percentage numbers.

I can only find this graph and the genetic distance appears to be in the middle between "West African and "North African."



So does this equate to the stereotypical 50% Sub-Saharan 50% Eurasian ancestry ratio similar to modern day Horners/Sundanese?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I want all future readers to pay attention to how this blackfacing career troll "lioness" tries to present himself as an unbiased keeper of equality when it comes to who descends from Abraham, yet we never see him challenging people like Djehuti who argue that Abraham was a J carrier. This "lioness" character only pops his head in these conversations and only comes after me for demonstrating that Abraham could not have been J, but he never goes after anyone who claims Abraham could not have been E or any other marker.

Keep that in mind folks, this is definitely what it looks like. I do not plan on ever addressing him directly especially concerning this topic since he continuously demonstrates 100% incomptence when it comes to understanding that it is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).

quote:

---

The Northeast Caucasian language family seems to show clear links to Ancient eastern Anatolia, as most subclades of J1-Z1842 (TMRCA 4300 BCE) can be linked to the Armenian Highlands and present day Azerbaijan, precisely fitting the exact location of the Kura-Araxes culture (3400 BCE- 2000 BCE). Three subclades of it, J1-ZS 3042 (TMRCA 3500 BCE), J1-ZS5658 (TMRCA 2800 BCE), J1-ZS2872 (2800 BCE) and J1-Y5353 (TMRCA 2500 BCE) are widespread among Northeast Caucasian groups (YFull 2021), suggest Northeast Caucasian languages to have originated from the Kura-Araxes culture. As ancient J1 subclades also seem to have been present in the ancient Levant as well, this supports the existence of the Alarodian language family, linking Hurrian to Northeast Caucasian.
Regarding the Northwest Caucasian language famil, broader analysis of other genetic components by Yunusbayev et al (Yunusbayev et al. 2011). confirmed that Northwest Caucasian populations also originate from South of the Caucasus, thus from within the cradle of the Neolithic Middle East. This also supports their supposed relations to the Indo-European family (Colarusso, 1997), and suggests that their urheimat must have been in close proximity with that of the Indo-European Homeland in Eastern Anatolia. On the other hand it must have been west of the Northeast Caucasian urheimat, as the latter seemed to have cover the entire Kura-Araxes culture area. The presence of J2-M67 in Northwest Caucasian populations also points to origins south of the Caucasus, although as J2-M67 is present in human populations belonging to both Northwest Caucasian and Northeast Caucasian language groups, it is somewhat ambiguous to which language family did the population that introduced it in the region, belong to."

https://www.academia.edu/44981646/_How_Eurasia_Was_Born_HOW_EURASIA_WAS_BORN_A_Provisional_Atlas_of_prehistoric_Eurasia_based_on_genetic_data_supporting_the_farming_language_disper sal_model_CSABA_BARNABÁS_HORVÁTH

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).

---

It's ridiculous to use the term "biblically" impossible and then talk about genetics

the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian are only one of groups that may have carried J in the greater Mesopotamia region "the Southern Arc" it's all over the place and before Abraham
That deads your argument and The Hebrew of Israel's who you copied
He who acted like he never read
Genesis 11:28, 11:31, 15:17, 24:2
Nehemiah 9:7
(although just myth or legend as regards anthropology)

I thought there would be some E in this Southern Arc greater Mesopotamian region but it wasn't until you, trying to bolster your argument brought up Lazaridis' 2022
"Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia"
and I was wondering where the data was but read "
In a trio of papers, Lazaridis et al. examined "
and realized the three articles are like a set and
data was in the Southern Arc article.
I don't see the E there due to you bringing up that other article except for an earlier time period in Israel, 6 people in a cave bearing E 15,000-11,500 cal. BP and if you want to believe the great flood myth most theologians would date that pre-flood.
Since I don't believe that I think there were E carriers continually living in Israel, North Africa and the Arabian peninsula
but if we are going to talk about people who may or may not have existed we have to go by what we have
" Nehemiah 9:7
Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;"

Taz, how come in our old battles you swept this under the rug? You're supposed to by the bible expert

Again
the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian are only one of groups that may have carried J in the greater Mesopotamia region "the Southern Arc" it's all over the place and before Abraham
That deads your argument

They still might find some ancient E in that region so I still would not exclude the possibility but when you hipped me to that Lazridis article it seems lesser but maybe

I'm going to put money on you or The Hebrew of Israel never mentioning the ancestry of Abraham as per the Chaldees references in a video

Djehuti was just reacting to YOU
and your exclusion fails (although he did do a little entertaining baiting of the Tazmanian devil)
Taz your vibe is too pissy. Let it be a resolution to be more cool and chill this year
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ still has to play dumb and act as though I haven't stated ad nauseum that I do not subscribe to genetics because it contradicts the Bible.

Nobody is going to read the long-winded wall of text you wrote, first you said there's no actual reference(s) saying that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were J, then when I show a reference saying it, you do your signature move and try to move the goalpost after getting debunked and embarrassed.

If your new argument made any sense then you would have made that argument originally but you didn't because you're full of sh*t and you get off on trolling black people who say things that trigger you.

You should make your new years resolution to stop being a white man who pretends to be a black woman on the internet all day, and to stop being a biased career troll who only challenges black people who make arguments concerning Abraham and who his descendants are.

*** You have never challenged Djehuti for excluding other Y markers and claiming that Abraham must have been a J carrier. You only run to me and start obsessing and crying about what I say. ***

All the genetic evidence points to J originating in the caucusus and being Kura-Araxes/Hurrian before invading the Levant and Mesopotamia which makes it impossible for Abraham to descend fron J. The sources literally say that the J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian people, and not even Djehuti was dumb enough to try asserting Abraham was a Hurrian or Kura-Araxes. You look extremely stupid for trying to keep this going.

Stop referencing the Bible which you know absolutely nothing about. Remember I had to teach you the difference between a haplotype and a haplogroup? Rofl.

Let me go back to ignoring you now because literally no one on this website takes you seriously and I'm convinced at this point that you have an unhealthy obsession with me, or black people in general.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ still has to play dumb and act as though I haven't stated ad nauseum that I do not subscribe to genetics because it contradicts the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).

---

this is why nobody takes you seriously here, saying genetics contradicts the bible
and then using genetics to claim something is biblically impossible. That is completely ridiculous. No one is in your camp. Yatunde thinks it's a joke even to think Abraham was a real person

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Nobody is going to read the long-winded wall of text you wrote, first you said there's no actual reference(s) saying that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were J, then when I show a reference saying it,

---

It's not an academic reference. Unlike wikipedia
Eupedia does not list references.
I sometimes mention what they say but to get to a professional level it will need to be backed by peer reviewed journal articles

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

*** You have never challenged Djehuti for excluding other Y markers and claiming that Abraham must have been a J carrier.

---

Me stating Abraham if he existed could have been
an E carrier already does that

But after the Lazaridis article you mentioned it seems less likely


You have bad character. When someone says you stole a cookie from the cookie jar you say "but Jimmy stole two cookies and you didn't say anything"
That's a deflection to someone else
If you get debunked by me,
mentioning Djehuti is irrelevant,
you still stole a cookie.
Try to train yourself to stop using this argument. I suspect you use it in other parts of your life.
Instead of admitting guilt or error you say "but you didn't say anything about what so and so did"
That is child-like

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

All the genetic evidence points to J originating in the caucusus and being Kura-Araxes/Hurrian before invading the Levant and Mesopotamia which makes it impossible for Abraham to descend fron J.

---

That's retarded.
The age of J is over 40,000 years ago
Kura-Araxes/Hurrian around 4-5,000

They were spreading their culture to other J carriers (assuming they were J carriers - not proven)
and this 2,000 years before Abraham !!

back to the drawing board Taz
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Future readers, pay close attention to how this "lioness" character cries about me demonstrating that Abraham was likely E and not J. He gets triggered by the sources I bring out and starts suggesting that Abraham could have been any number of haplogroups to counter what I say.

But when Djehuti or anyone else claims Abraham was J and could not have been E, "the lioness" is completely quiet and does not ever come at them with the same energy. He has no problem with other people trying to exclude certain haplogroups.

The reason why is obvious.

He is only here to antagonize a certain demographic.

He only crawls out of his hole to cry about what I say because of who I am. As countless others have pointed out over the years, this "lioness" character is not actually a black woman but a white man in digital blackface who tries to hide his racism but always exposes himself when he breaks character and starts trolling.

When something triggers him, all of his biases and contradictory logic rise to the forefront for all to see.

And on top of that he tries to present himself as someone who knows more about genetics than he actually does. Prove him wrong and he just moves the goalpost and tries to come up with a new flawed line of thinking that makes absolutely no sense.

It's always satisfying to see a troll expose themselves.

He was once a moderator on this site but had the position stripped from him because of the exact type of behavior that you see him exhibiting right now in this thread.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Future readers, pay close attention to how this "lioness" character cries about me demonstrating that Abraham was likely E

---

" Nehemiah 9:7
Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;"

_________________________

Taz without even mentioning J or T etc.

what leads you to believe that Abraham, if he is not mythological was an E carrier?

"because Elhaik said so"

That's not good enough. We need some reasoning
Then maybe it's worth considering

If you think you are excluding "A" and that means "B" is right
Assuming your exclusion was right (Not, but for the purposes of argument) that does not mean C or D might not be right

This is logic, Taz.

without even mentioning J or T etc.

what leads you to believe that Abraham, if he is not mythological was an E carrier?

>> you will have to establish E in ancient Mesopotamia.
So see if you can find an journal article to that effect
That is basic to what your need for your argument.
Otherwise turn off the waterworks

Stop thinking exclusion for a minute
If you want E to be on the table you need hard evidence for it's INCLUSION
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
On top of what we have already witnessed, a sure fire way to know that "the lioness" is in troll mode is when he starts rapidly responding and trying to divert attention away from what was originally being discussed after getting debunked.

The reason why he is so triggered is because it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter gatherers from the caucusus who had nothing to do with the Hebrews, Abraham, or any of Abraham's ancestors.

Abraham was not a descendant of any Kura-Araxes/Hurrian populations.

If I were to feed this troll the attention he desires and needs, he would no doubt try to go back and forth with me all day in an attempt to save face.

He has moved the goal post so many times, his existence in this thread is laughable at this point.

quote:

---

"Hurrian-speaking people was the region of the upper Nabur and Tigris Rivers, together with the piedmont beyond, extending into the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros Mountains. The Hurrian language belongs to neither the Semitic nor the Indo-European language family, nor is it related to Sumerian or Elamite, other important isolated languages of the ancient Near East."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hurrian

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter gatherers from the caucusus who had nothing to do with the Hebrews, Abraham, or any of Abraham's ancestors.

Abraham was not a descendant of any Kura-Araxes/Hurrian populations.

---

Again, J was all over the region prior to Abraham
Kura-Araxes/Hurrian didn't have any exclusive rights on it

Make this your other resolution:
stop trying to argue that your theory is correct because someone (in your mind) can't prove their theory

I see people do this a lot.
People have a theory. Theory A
Someone else has a different theory, Theory B
The one that believes Theory B is correct
thinks that if A can't prove their theory then their theory B is instantly correct

> wrong

you still have to prove theory B regardless

Your horse hasn't even exited the gate.
The first step is hard evidence of E in the ancient Mesopotamia region

No more Mickey-ing
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

This is a little off-topic but I didn't want to create a entire new thread just to ask one simple question about the Kadruka/Sudan sample

What was the exact portion of Sub-Saharan and Eurasian DNA in the sole sample that was taken. I've looked through the study as well as this forum and other internet forums and can't find percentage numbers.

I can only find this graph and the genetic distance appears to be in the middle between "West African and "North African."

---

Well, besides the original thread where it was posted-- 4000-year-old aDNA from Kadruka, Sudan sequenced

This chart from Revoiye was posted in various other threads.

https://revoiye.com/possible-upcoming-study-on-neolithic-nubian-remains/

quote:

---

So does this equate to the stereotypical 50% Sub-Saharan 50% Eurasian ancestry ratio similar to modern day Horners/Sundanese?

---

It's not that simple. The 'Eurasian' as you can see is identified with the Levant Neolithic while the so-called 'Sub-Saharan' is Kenyan Late Stone Age which is different from the Yoruba IBD marker and is associated with Mota among other things.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
All the evidence I've shared shows that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians regardless of other bogus arguments that "the lioness" or anyone else tries to make. No information has been presented that says any other population brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia, "the lioness" is grasping at straws and desparately trying to change the focus of the conversation as he normally does after getting disproven, instead of admitting that he was wrong.

This is because he does not seek any honest dialogue and his only goal is to troll.

The Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were a completely separate group of people who had nothing to do with Hebrews, Abraham or Abraham's ancestors.

quote:

---

"While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period."

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

Still babbling about the bogus "cohen gene" that you already admit is bogus?

---

The only one babbling incoherently is YOU. When did I say the Cohen gene is bogus?? I already cited several papers. Here is the earliest one on it: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood

The cohen haplotype is J1-P58 is a subtype of J-M267 (J1) yet you keep bringing up J2a and Hurrian/Kura-Araxes culture. If you think throwing the same straw sex doll you love so much at me will help your argument you thought wrong.

quote:

---

Imagine that! "Cohen Hurrians"

R O F L!

Did you already forget that the "Israelite" sample you keep affirming from that recent haaretz article was J2?.........

---

Again Cohen carry J1 NOT J2 and since when is J2 identified with Hurrians only?? You do realize that these haplotypes are not confined to one culture only! LOL This shows how idiotic and desperate you are.

By the way, didn't I show that Abraham and his people did practice rites similar to the Hurrians? Again, I never said they were but that northern Mesopotamia which was their home was a melting pot of many cultures. But your low simplistic low IQ brain can comprehend that.

quote:

---

Furthermore there are plenty of sources that assign both J1 and J2 as being Hurrian/Kura-Araxes.

---

Nobody with half a brain would assign haplogroups that predate a culture by tens of thousand of years to that culture! Which means you have less brains that that! LMAO Kura-Araxes people also carried hg G2 so did that haplogroup originated among them too?! LOL

I suggest you read this Eupedia thread Predicted haplogroups of early Middle Eastern civilizations

Then again, reading doesn't seem to help you.

quote:

---

Keep playing dumb and I'll surely start posting some of them for you.

---

No boy, YOU are dumb!

ROTFLMAO

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Let me repost this since Djehuti is attempting to use the same bogus strawman argument that "the lioness" tried using in regards to J and Kura-Araxes/Hurrians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
All the evidence I've shared shows that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians regardless of other bogus arguments that "the lioness" or anyone else tries to make. No information has been presented that says any other population brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia,...

The Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were a completely separate group of people who had nothing to do with Hebrews, Abraham or Abraham's ancestors.

quote:

---

"While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period."

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

---

(Now that it's been shown that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians had both J1 and J2, which Djehuti challenged at first, he is now trying to move the goalpost just like "the lioness".)

J was specifically brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia via the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian migration/invasion from the caucusus.

Also keep in mind, Djehuti is on record admitting that there is zero conclusive evidence to substantiate the "cohen gene" yet he continues making appeals to it.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Tazarah, why you lie so much?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Because he thinks that the only advantage he has left.

Anyway, does Lostranger or anyone else have anything to say about the topic??
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Exactly what I thought... no answer after getting called out for your strawman argument.

"tHe KuRa-ArAxeS ArE noT tHe onLy oNeS wHo hAd J maRkErsss!!!" -- djehuti and "the lioness"

^ cool, I never said that you clowns. Nor did any of the sources I referenced. But what they did say is that J was specifically brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by invading Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter-gatherers from the Caucusus, who had nothing to do with Abraham, Hebrews, ETC.

You are completely unable to refute that evidence so now your only option is to gaslight, build strawmen and run away.

You know it says A LOT more about you than it does about me when you have to seek validation from one of the biggest, unhinged and most notorious trolls on the internet ("the lioness").
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Predictable. Again with the Kura-Araxes straw sex doll whom you love to ravish but have yet to prove how that culture is the origin of any haplogroup let alone J1.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
LOL now he's resorted to deviant X-rated jokes and claiming I said Kura-Araxes is the origin of haplogroup J when I've never in my life said that

My work here is done
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So what pray tell are you saying? Because I notice whenever lioness, Brandon, or I bust you, you then quickly change your preposition.

Your "work" is nonsense and you were done weeks ago, boy please!
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I would ask you to give an example of me "getting busted" and "changing my preposition" but then that would give you an opportunity to deflect instead of addressing the point that I have been making for the past week.

I have literally been saying the same thing I've always said concerning this topic/issue. Nothing has changed, liar.

LOL if you're going to play dumb then don't even respond, I've been repeating myself and making myself very clear, you know exactly what I'm saying and how it debunks your nonsense.

Go back and re-read the comments if you really don't understand. It ain't rocket science.

It's sad (but not a surprise) that you now have to resort to straight up lies and claiming I've changed what I've originally been saying.

Anybody can go to the original thread that sparked this conversation months ago:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891;p=1

And they will see nothing about my position has changed.

* I made my position clear on the very first page of that thread, back in October. *

That thread has been locked for over a month, so no I didn't go back and edit any comments.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
This is Tazaarh's argument

A) There was no J in Mesopotamia or anywhere but the Caucasus until it was brought in by Kura-Araxes/Hurrians before Abraham ( this can't be proven)

B) Abram is a Semitic name (probably Akkadian a Semitic language ) so he can't be Kura-Araxes/Hurrian therefore he can't be J

my comments in parenthesis ( )
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ You added a lot in, on your own. Not even going to entertain you, I'll just wait to see if the misrepresentation builds up any traction.

The multiple sources I referenced say word for word that J came to the Levant/Mesopotamia via the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians yet it "can't be proven" according to "the lioness"

"Can't be proven" is a cop out. Demonstrate J coming into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews. Can you do that? Can anyone do that?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


The multiple sources I referenced say word for word that J came to the Levant/Mesopotamia via the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians

---

It was all a Eupedia article and all speculative with no hard evidence, correct me if I am wrong

-also correct my representation of your position

The origin of J doesn't matter, biblically it would be pre-flood
what matters is where J carriers were in the time period of Abraham
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Demonstrate J coming into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews. Can you do that? Can anyone do that?

---

You have to demonstrate J was not in Mesopotamia prior to Abraham
that's the problem, 2,000 year of J being in the region before Abraham
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ I referenced actual papers as well, not just Eupedia.

I also never appealed to the "origin of J", I simply demonstrated that the people who introduced it to the Levant/Mesopotamia were not Hebrews or related to Abraham.

I don't need to prove "J wasn't there" because I proved how it got there, undoubtedly.

Stop with the logical fallacies.

* You all talk about the "mass migration of J that matches the Biblical narrative", yet I've demonstrated that mass migration of J was not Hebrews or Abraham or anyone related to Abraham.

And now you want to get into the flood and other things that contradict genetics altogether.

*** Absolutely crazy how you troll and make all these demands about what I need to prove and how I need to prove it yet you can't demonstrate J being brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Hebrews and Abraham.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

I don't need to prove "J wasn't there" because I proved how it got there, undoubtedly.

---

you don't understand what proof is, undoubtedly.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Thanks, blackfacing career troll who is notoriously known for trolling. That means a lot coming from you! Let me know when you find evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by people who could actually be related to Abraham and the Hebrews.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


* You all talk about the "mass migration of J that matches the Biblical narrative", yet I've demonstrated that mass migration of J was not Hebrews or Abraham or anyone related to Abraham.

---

I haven't been talking about mass migration

The migration of Abraham, if real, would be much smaller than "mass"
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Thanks, blackfacing career troll who is notoriously known for trolling. That means a lot coming from you! Let me know when you find evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by people who could actually be related to Abraham and the Hebrews.

---

why do you have to get petty? can't you be civilized in a debate?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
This is not a debate, this is me reminding future readers who you are, troll.

You always love to crawl out of your hole and attempt to muddy the water when a "debate" actually is going on.

Everybody take note -- "the lioness" is unable to provide any evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by any people(s) who could actually be related to Abraham/Hebrews.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
This is not a debate, this is me reminding future readers who you are, troll.

---

the problem is you are the troll
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Yeah that must be why there are countless posts all over the internet on different websites (including this one) about how notorious of a troll I am. That was sarcasm... because we all know I was just describing you.

* Everybody take note -- "the lioness" is unable to provide any evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by any people(s) who could actually be related to Abraham/Hebrews.

I think this will be my last response to him.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10212583/

Thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Middle Bronze Age, dated 2500-2000 BC

Estimates for the birth of Abram about 1800 or later estimate 2,166

There's nothing that proves he couldn't be hap J


Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite group of languages.
Thus if Abraham came from Mesopotamia and his original name was Abram, his original name was not Hebrew but instead Akkadian

So to prove he was not of haplogroup J you would have to prove the Akkadians were not J
I'll wait
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Look at how hard this troll is trying to deflect. The sources I've referenced cover the date(s) that you are appealing to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
* Everybody take note -- "the lioness" is unable to provide any evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by any people(s) who could actually be related to Abraham/Hebrews.

---

Yet I've thoroughly demonstrated that J was introduced into the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by people who were not at all related Abraham/Hebrews.

This is why I don't entertain you, you waste everyone's time and make me repeat myself. You like to troll/argue just for the sake of trolling/arguing.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10212583/

Thirteen individuals from Yehud (central Israel), dating to the Middle Bronze Age, dated 2500-2000 BC

Estimates for the birth of Abram about 1800 or later estimate 2,166

There's nothing that proves he couldn't be hap J

---

Especially since he came from northern Mesopotamia/southeastern Turkey.

quote:

---

Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite group of languages.
Thus if Abraham came from Mesopotamia and his original name was Abram, his original name was not Hebrew but instead Akkadian

So to prove he was not of haplogroup J you would have to prove the Akkadians were not J
I'll wait

---

According to Jewish tradition. Hebrew language was introduced to Canaan by Abraham. The indigenous Canaanites spoke other (alien) languages. So there is disparity between the native tradition and linguistics. What linguists call "Canaanite" is West Semitic which includes various languages like Ugarit, Aramean, Sutean etc.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Yet I've thoroughly demonstrated that J was introduced into the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by people who were not at all related Abraham/Hebrews.

---

Actual Troll:
The simple fact is that if some Kura-Araxes/Hurrians introduced J to the region that does not means some other person 2,000 later bearing J could not migrate to the Levant

Who first introduced what > doesn't matter
and you have not demonstrated anything but speculation

/it's dead
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Can anybody here prove that J was introduced into the Levant/Mesopotmia by people other than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians?

Any sources at all? Crazy how I reference at least 3 sources demonstrating that J was introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by people who were 100% not related to Abraham/Hebrews

Any sources at all that show people who were actually related to Abraham/Hebrews bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia?

Prove me wrong instead of gaslighting and making up retarded excuses; if you have the intellect to do so. Source up.

* Future readers -- take note and pay attention to how zero sources to substantiate what they are suggesting will be referenced. They will continue with the deflection and logical fallacies.

Keep coping...

/copium

🦗🦗🦗🦗
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
According to Jewish tradition. Hebrew language was introduced to Canaan by Abraham. The indigenous Canaanites spoke other (alien) languages. So there is disparity between the native tradition and linguistics. What linguists call "Canaanite" is West Semitic which includes various languages like Ugarit, Aramean, Sutean etc.

---

Abraham if he existed is speculated to have be an native speaker of Akkadian or Aramaic


But biblically (if we are to believe tradition is reality)
Abraham, a Mesopotamian later introduced Hebrew to
speakers the Canaanites.
Potentially, biblically he learned a new language, Hebrew or invented it

Where would this have occurred?
Do you propose Hebrew originated in Anatolia or Sumer?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can anybody here prove that J was introduced into the Levant/Mesopotmia by people other than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians?

---

the declarative statement here is " J was introduced into the Levant/Mesopotmia"... by Kura-Araxes/Hurrians?"
That means the burden of proof is on YOU

and you dont know the difference between speculation and proof.
You think a theory in an article = proof and that is super-dumb.

Who introduced J 2,000 years before Abraham is not relevant
and does not exclude Abraham from being a J carrier who migrated to Israel much later
> understand this logic
who introduced what does not matter


For someone who claims to not believe in genetics you sure are trying hard to make genetic information fit the biblical narrative
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"Lioness" is basically saying: "I don't care if Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were not known to be related to Hebrews/Abraham, or that they are the ones who introduced J to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the same time period that overlaps with Abraham and his ancestors... J could still possibly be Abraham even though all the evidence points against it and even though I don't have any sources to reference that help my opinion."

For someone who claims to believe in genetics; you sure are going out of your way to REJECT it all when it debunks your false worldviews.

ROFL,

/Copium
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Ah shut up, and give up! Nobody is falling for your 'Kura-Araxes' straw crap! What does Kura-Araxes have to do with all those ancient Israelite men carrying J1?? Answer: NOTHING!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] "Lioness" is basically saying: "I don't care if Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were not known to be related to Hebrews/Abraham...

/Copium

---

Abraham could have been of the same biological stock as Kura-Araxes people (about 3500 to 2450 BC) some of whom may have been J carriers.

If some of the Kura-Araxes people were J it is also unknown what languages were present in Kura-Araxes, there is not much known about them generally

> and there is nothing that says some people within Kura-Araxes could not have adopted more than one language

You know what I'm saying is true, you just can't handle it

/dead
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
According to most linguists:



There was a split between West Semitic and East Semitic.



Strange how most male Semitic speakers by historical times were J carriers as opposed to E carriers seen in other Afroasiatic speakers.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
IIRC, Tazarah has said he rejects genetics altogether since some of its findings imply human beings (and by extension the Earth) existed long before 6,000 years like some Biblical literalists have argued. This isn't really a place where I like to shit-talk other people's religious views, but I don't think anyone is going to win him over by appealing to sciences he rejects outright. You might as well argue with the people who claim dinosaurs never existed.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yet he depends on and tries to use the very science he rejects-- haplogroups. LOL Very bizarre.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Brandon, the issue is not what I believe or don't believe. It's the fact that the people here who claim to believe in genetics are trying to make excuses about the fact that J1/J2 was introducted to the Levant/Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews.

Saying "omg Tazarah doesn't believe in genetics but he keeps debunking us with it" does not help them in any way, it just demonstrates how desperate they are to shut me up.

Not too long ago, Archeotypery made a thread about an Atheist Bible scholar.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013470;p=1#000016

According to the pseudo logic of "the lioness" and djehuti, this Atheist Bible scholar is wrong for studying the Bible and researching the Bible.

LOL.

When they aren't outright rejecting the sources about J1/J2 being brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes/Hurrians, they're trying to suggest that Abraham still could have been a "different kind" of J carrier who was not related to the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians.

But they suggest this without ANY EVIDENCE showing that "other" J carriers set up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia.

We know exactly who these J carriers were who came to the Levant/Mesopotamia and they had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews.

This is why Dr. Elhaik (an actual geneticist) almost laughed when I explained to him the arguments that these people were making.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Taz says the earth might be as old as 15,000 years but I'm not sure how he rationalizes that biblically .
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

This is why Dr. Elhaik (an actual geneticist) almost laughed when I explained to him the arguments that these people were making.

---

Assuming you are even being honest about conversing with Elhaik, are you even representing our arguments correctly?? Because I doubt you are.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Ask Brandon, he saw the screenshot of the conversation between myself and Dr. Elhaik and I still have it saved.

Oh and "the lioness" saw it as well.

LOL @ you thinking I have to lie about any of this, when the evidence already supports what I'm saying.

I worded everything EXACTLY the way you guys have been asserting it (in regards to Abraham, Mesopotamia/Levant and haplogroup J) and he outright dismissed it and said it's just hypothetical theory that cannot be proven... because that's exactly what it is.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ Ask Brandon, he saw the screenshot of the conversation between myself and Dr. Elhaik and I still have it saved.

---

I did, but I don't remember the text of it well enough to give DJ a verbatim quote of it.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
people here who claim to believe in genetics are trying to make excuses about the fact that J1/J2 was introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews.

---

You are trying to hustle here


Your source is a speculative page on Eupedia
If Kura-Araxes introduce J to the Levant before Abram
Kura-Araxe was 3500 to 2450 BC

That does not exclude the possibility of Abram from being a J carrier
who was born 2,000 BC or later (if real) and migrating to Israel from somewhere in the Mesopotamia region

He didn't introduce it to Mesopotamia or Israel so who cares who did?
Abraham could be a decedent of the Kura-Araxes. The languages they spoke are unknown
so stop the bullshit
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] ^ Ask Brandon, he saw the screenshot of the conversation between myself and Dr. Elhaik and I still have it saved.

---

the fact that you haven't linked it suggests the lameness of the conversation
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyinass:
Your source is a speculative page on Eupedia
If Kura-Araxes introduce J to the Levant before Abram
Kura-Araxe was 3500 to 2450 BC

---

What an idiotic fool, I referenced 2 additional papers as well that said the same thing and the date actually went to 2000BC and if this was before Abraham's time, it doesn't matter because you clowns are asserting that these J markers were Abraham's lineage.

The fact that you have to lie and claim I only referenced Eupedia is a prime example of why you will never be seen as anything more than a low IQ troll who begs for attention.

Scroll back through the most recent pages, it's all there.

All you do is crawl out of your hole and start spewing out bullsh*t and lies, literally nobody cares for you, [b] except [/] for when they think you are helping theit argument.

I blame only myself for dignifying your remedial ass with responses.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Anyway, getting back to the topic..





Note that other than the Yemeni Mahra, you have Bedouin B which was discussed before.

Bioarchaeological analysis of one of the earliest Islamic burials in the Levant-Megha Srigyan (2020)


No cultural artifacts were associated with the human remains, however, their archaeological context revealed that these were primary burials with the bodies placed in decubitus position, inside pits that were intrusive in the Neolithic levels (Fig. 1b). Interestingly, while the two burials were located very close to each other, no evidence of a Late Antiquity cemetery was documented at the site.

Genomic analysis of the individuals:
all four methods confirmed low levels of contamination. Two biological sex inference methods26,27 identified syr005 to be a male and syr013 a female. Individuals syr005 and syr013 were determined to carry mitochondrial haplogroups J2a2a1a1 and R0a2, respectively. Both haplogroups are common in the Arabian Peninsula, Near East and parts of Africa28,29 in concordance with the broad geographical location of the samples. In addition, the Y chromosome of syr005 was determined as haplogroup J, which is the most common haplogroup across the Middle East30 (Supplementary Table S2).
In order to explore general patterns of genetic affinity to modern populations, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed projecting the two newly sequenced Syrian individuals on a broad set of modern Middle Eastern, European and North African groups (Fig.2a). The two Late Antiquity Syrian individuals fell close to Saudi, Turkish and Middle Eastern genomic variation and to some Jewish populations but do not show close genetic affinities to the geographically close Lebanese samples from12. Further, to obtain a better understanding of the regional variation, a second PCA was conducted, limited to 37 groups from the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and Caucasus. Here, the Syrian samples fell close to Yemenite Jews, Saudi and Bedouins genomic variation (Fig. 2b). Notably, within these genotyped Bedouins, there are two sub-groups, both sampled in the Negev in Israel: Bedouin A and Bedouin B2 that were observed to have distinct distributions in the PCA: while Bedouin A seem to be more widely dispersed and overlap with other groups from surrounding regions, Bedouin B (with the exception of one individual) form a small cluster separate from all other groups in the region.
From these two sub-groups, individuals syr005 and syr013 fall between the two Bedouin groups, and show a clear genetic differentiation from relevant modern-day Levantine populations (i.e. Druze, Palestinian, Jordanian and Lebanese). Further, to gain insight into the genetic composition of ancient and modern populations, an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis was performed. ADMIXTURE was first run with a larger set of individuals (1073 individuals) from Europe and the Middle East (73 populations). For K = 2, 3 and 5, all iterations with different random seeds converged to consistent results (Supplementary Fig. S2). Therefore, we consider K=5 as a compromise between resolution and robustness of results. At K = 2, mostly north Europeans are differentiated from south Europeans, Middle Easterners and Arabian Peninsula groups. At K = 3, a new component emerged in Caucasian and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 4, another component appeared in south Europeans and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 5, a component exclusive to Middle Eastern and Arabian Peninsula groups appears (Fig. 3). This new component was seen at high proportions in Bedouins, Saudi, Yemenite Jews and our Syrian samples. Interestingly, within the Bedouins, Bedouin B was composed almost entirely of this new component. The separate cluster of Bedouin B could be the result of genetic drift, although its presence in other populations from the Arabian Peninsula suggests some degree of separate ancestry among these groups. The Late Antiquity Syrian individuals showed similar genetic composition to Bedouin B and some Saudi individuals.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyinass:
the fact that you haven't linked it suggests the lameness of the conversation

---

LOL what???? This comment now 100% leads me to believe that Lyinass TRULY is a team of idiotic trolls instead of just one person -- just as other users have suggested over the years.

Lyinass, YOU quoted and responded to the screenshot of my dialogue with Dr. Elhaik in the other thread. Remember you tried to dismiss it?

Now all of a sudden you're challenging me to post it as if I don't really have it, or as if the dialogue with Dr. Elhaik didn't actually happen?

Looks like the Night Shift Lyinass forgot to get briefed by Morning shift Lyinass.

Fail 🤡😂😂😂😂🤡

ROFL, thank you for giving me 100% more reason to ignore your trolling ass.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
YOU quoted and responded to the screenshot of my dialogue with Dr. Elhaik in the other thread.

---

So what, if it was brought up for Djehuti might read then why didn't you just post the link here now instead of people going back digging for it, which you know they wont do, that's stupid
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyinass:
[qb] Your source is a speculative page on Eupedia
If Kura-Araxes introduce J to the Levant before Abram
Kura-Araxe was 3500 to 2450 BC

---

I referenced 2 additional papers as well that said the same thing and the date actually went to 2000BC and if this was before Abraham's time, it doesn't matter because you clowns are asserting that these J markers were Abraham's lineage.

---

Yes, no you've got it, what Kura-Araxes spread or didn't spread before the birth of Abraham does not matter

why?

Because that does not exclude the possibility that
Abraham was J and migrated to Israel after Kura-Araxes

There is still the possibility he was a J carrier, assuming he is not mythological
There is even the possibility he was a descendant of Kura-Araxes

You will have to put on your thinking cap now to try to explain clearly why this is not a possibility
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Lioness, what's funny is that if you simply put in 'Abraham's Y haplotype' into ANY search engine let alone Google, you get TONS of sources talking about how it is almost certain it was J1-M267 and NO mention of any "Kura-Araxes" or "Hurrians".

I mean there's really NOTHING in support of what the idiot Taz is saying.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
* Future readers, pay attention to how none of the requests I've made have been met in regards to evidence of non-Hurrian/Kura-Araxes J carriers setting up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia, as these pseudos are claiming was the case.

* Pay attention to how when an expert geneticist's response to this topic was invoked, djehuti finally shutup and did his "back to the topic/change the subject". But then jumped right back to indirectly mentioning me to make himself feel better.

Djehuti, the google scholar.

ROFL.

All of the genetic papers and sources I referenced literally say the J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s) were Kura-Araxes/Hurrians, whom had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews.

You know you've completely FAILED when you start talking about what Google says.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I can type "Jesus" into any search engine and a white man with blue eyes and long hair will pop up.

Does that mean that's Jesus? No, dummy.

🤦🏾‍♂️
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Lioness, what's funny is that if you simply put in 'Abraham's Y haplotype' into ANY search engine let alone Google, you get TONS of sources talking about how it is almost certain it was J1-M267 and NO mention of any "Kura-Araxes" or "Hurrians".

I mean there's really NOTHING in support of what the idiot Taz is saying.

---

FWIW, while it's not impossible that the Biblical story of Abraham was based on a real individual, that isn't guaranteed either IMO. Same with any other figure from myth or legend. But yes, J does seem to have been a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Bronze Age Semitic-speakers in southwestern Asia. I don't see any reason to assume it wouldn't have been present among the earliest Hebrews.

Note, by the way, that Y-DNA haplogroups by themselves don't necessarily say anything about a population's skin tone or other phenotypic traits. I assume those are what Taz is really concerned about, since he seems to think that Israelites having J would somehow make them not as dark-skinned as he wants them to be.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Forget about whether Abraham was a real person or not. The point is that Jews and many Arab tribes DO share a common male ancestry. Even most skeptics think 'Abraham' to be a metaphor for some early tribal confederation or tribe that was ancestral. As I said to Lioness, forget Abraham and look at what genetic marker is shared with the majority of males. It's not E and NONE of the papers say anything about Kura-Araxes. LOL
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I assume those are what Taz is really concerned about, since he seems to think that Israelites having J would somehow make them not as dark-skinned as he wants them to be.

---

He doesn't care about that. He considerers himself a descendant of the Israelites and that they are the only true Jews. He hasn't taken a DNA test but assumes he is not of Hap J so to suggest J was the ancestry of the Israelites he thinks would exclude him from this special chosen by God class of people determined by an exclusive patrilineal descent.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

I can type "Jesus" into any search engine and a white man with blue eyes and long hair will pop up.

Does that mean that's Jesus? No, dummy.

🤦🏾‍♂️

---

Again with the idiotic straw dolls. I'm not talking about doing image search on Google, I'm talking about doing an INFO search on multiple search engines that yield dozens of scientific sources, you idiot! GTFOH
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
I assume those are what Taz is really concerned about, since he seems to think that Israelites having J would somehow make them not as dark-skinned as he wants them to be.

---

He doesn't care about that. He considerers himself a descendant of the Israelites and that they are the only true Jews. He hasn't taken a DNA test but assumes he is not of Hap J so to suggest J was the ancestry of the Israelites he thinks would exclude him from this special chosen by God class of people determined by an exclusive patrilineal descent.

---

So not only is he a Judaizer but a wannabe Jew. LOL

If he does carry hg E, something tells me it's not the E-M215 found in the Middle East and North Africa. LOL

To Brandon, there are J carriers in Yemen and Ethiopia who are black, but obviously Taz has nothing to do with these people.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
So not only is he a Judaizer but a wannabe Jew. LOL

---

I always felt the BHI people were trying to reconcile Black nationalism with following Christianity, a religion which African-Americans historically had imposed upon them through slavery. They don't want to give up their subscription to a religion of Levantine instead of African origin, so they claim the ancient Israelites were really Black people.

To be fair, a lot of Christians all over the world tend to represent Biblical characters as looking like themselves. Take these portrayals of Jesus by an Anglicized Indian artist, for example:



 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
*** STILL waiting for djehuti the google scholar or lioness the blackfacing troll to provide a genetic source that says J carriers OTHER than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians set up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia, which would make it somehow possible for Abraham's story to align with the theory of haplogroup J....

Will it ever happen? Now I'm a "judaizer", I wonder if they speak about ashkenazim that way?

Rofl, these wannabe genetic expert clowns are willing to talk about literally anything EXCEPT for the evidence that they claim exists.

Now all of a sudden Y markers are not legitimate indicators of lineage. Imagine if I played these games with genetic sources about haplogroup E, they would all cry foul play.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"djehuti", change your display name to "djbooty" because your scholarship is straight booty and that's why you are crying about me like a woman right now instead of producing a source to back up your pseudo claims.

****** Future readers; scroll back and pay attention to how when it's just me and Djehuti posting in this thread about haplogoup J he gets COMPLETELY SILENT because he knows I'm going to press his ass to show a source for his BS claims. He then changes the subject and goes "back to the original topic" of the thread; and only has the nerve to start talking about me again when someone like "the lioness" rears his head.

But even then, he refuses to provide a genetic source that says J carriers OTHER than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians set up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia to back up his claims about Abraham being a J carrier.

*** Keep in mind, an expert geneticist with decades of experience (Dr. Eran Elhaik) has already dismissed this theory about Abraham having J.

Imagine getting bested by a "BHI" and then obsessively crying instead of producing a source to back up your claims.

ROFL

I thought Google was helping you out Djehuti? 🤣

*** Instead of crying about how much you don't like Tazarah, why don't you guys rub your three brains together and come up with a genetic source that actually says J carriers OTHER than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians set up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia, like how you claim was the case?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

*** STILL waiting for djehuti the google scholar or lioness the blackfacing troll to provide a genetic source that says J carriers OTHER than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians set up shop in the Levant/Mesopotamia, which would make it somehow possible for Abraham's story to align with the theory of haplogroup J....

---

Hey, moron! We've already provided you SEVERAL sources already, but of course you ignore them. NONE of these sources mention anything about hg J being spread by Kura-Araxes. Why is that? Because...

Y haplogroup J* (~45 thousand years ago), J1-M267 (~20,000 years ago), Kura–Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C.E. — c. 2,000 B.C.E.)

So you can keep living in your Black Hebrew Israelite fairy tale, the reality remains.

By the way, you are obviously suffering from psychotic delusions. Nobody is crying over you maybe laughing. You are a joke that is good for nothing but entertainment.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ *** Which source are you referring to? WHICH source that you referenced identifies a non-Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization bringing J markers into the Levant/Mesopotamia????

All you've referenced is sources talking about J in the Levant/Mesopotamia, but that isn't the point of contention.

I've demonstrated that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilizations who had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews.

Which source did YOU reference that attributes the arrival of J to a non-Hurrian/Kura-Araxes civlization?

Post it RIGHT NOW in your next response.

The cognitive dissonance is REAL.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Don't play dumber than you really are! Go back and look at all the sources I cited. How can Kura-Araxes be identified a with an haplogroup that preceded it by tens of thousands of years?!

Here's yet ANOTHER source:

In search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq

For millennia, the southern part of the Mesopotamia has been a wetland region generated by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers before flowing into the Gulf. This area has been occupied by human communities since ancient times and the present-day inhabitants, the Marsh Arabs, are considered the population with the strongest link to ancient Sumerians.

Popular tradition, however, considers the Marsh Arabs as a foreign group, of unknown origin, which arrived in the marshlands when the rearing of water buffalo was introduced to the region.

Results: To shed some light on the paternal and maternal origin of this population, Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation was surveyed in 143 Marsh Arabs and in a large sample of Iraqi controls. Analyses of the haplogroups and sub-haplogroups observed in the Marsh Arabs revealed a prevalent autochthonous Middle Eastern component for both male and female gene pools, with weak South-West Asian and African contributions, more evident in mtDNA.

A higher male than female homogeneity is characteristic of the Marsh Arab gene pool, likely due to a strong male genetic drift determined by socio-cultural factors (patrilocality, polygamy, unequal male and female migration rates).

Conclusions: Evidence of genetic stratification ascribable to the Sumerian development was provided by the Y-chromosome data where the J1-Page08 branch reveals a local expansion, almost contemporary with the Sumerian City State period that characterized Southern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, a more ancient background shared with to Northern Mesopotamia is revealed by the less represented Y-chromosome lineage J1-M267*.

Overall our results indicate that the introduction of water buffalo breeding and rice farming, most likely from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of autochthonous people of the region. Furthermore, a prevalent Middle Eastern ancestry of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also the Sumerians were most likely autochthonous and not of Indian or South Asian
ancestry.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I'm speaking english, right? Pretty sure I am. Let me help you out.

Djehuti: "I believe Abraham was J because J was in Mesopotamia during the time period of the Biblical Abraham story, and because J went to the Levant during the time period of the Biblical Abraham story."

Tazarah: "OK, but there are plenty of genetic sources that say J came to the Levant/Mesopotamia before and during the same time period of the Biblical Abraham story via the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization, a civilization that had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews. Are you saying that Abraham was a J carrying descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization?"

Djehuti: "No I do not believe that Abraham was a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization. Just because I believe Abraham had J does not necessarily mean he was a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization."

Tazarah: "OK, then can you please provide a genetic source identifying a DIFFERENT civilization that brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s)? A civilization that could ACTUALLY be related to Hebrews and Abraham?"

Djehuti: "Omg here's a source showing that J was in Mesopotamia."

Tazarah: "OK, but I am not denying that. Can you please provide a genetic source identifying a DIFFERENT civilization that brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s)? A civilization that could ACTUALLY be related to Hebrews and Abraham?"

Djehuti: "OMG OMG omg omg black hebrew israelite omg judaizer omg omg "

****** I'm pretty sure that any unbiased and rational minded people reading this dialogue (even those who DO NOT believe black people are Israelites) can see that you are playing a game.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^How can Kura-Araxes be identified a with an haplogroup that preceded it by tens of thousands of years?!

---

The same can literally be said about any other haplogroup. Now all of a sudden haplogroups are irrelevant when we don't like what they reveal.

LOL.

Imagine if I started saying this BS about hg E.

According to this logic I can say that hg E is not what you claim it is, simply because its origin precedes whatever you claim it is.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You're so pseudo. What a joke.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Taz it goes back to Noah, founder of the Kura-Araxes culture.
Abraham invented the Hebrew tribe later
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^^^^^ ROFL!

Let's see what Djehuti says
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

The same can literally be said about any other haplogroup. Now all of a sudden haplogroups are irrelevant when we don't like what they reveal.

LOL.

---

LOL Indeed. When did I say "haplogroups are irrelevant"??! All you do lie and construct idiotic straw dolls.

I don't know what the hell lioness is saying in her prior post about Noah and Kura-Araxes but my original point is that Kura-Araxes is just one of MANY cultures associated with J carriers and is therefore irrelevant. YOU are the one who brought up Kura-Araxes when they are not the originators of haplogroup J but are among many cultures who carried it including Sumerian and early Semitic speakers.

quote:

---

Imagine if I started saying this BS about hg E.

---

Not hard to do since all you've been doing is saying BS about hg J.

quote:

---

According to this logic I can say that hg E is not what you claim it is, simply because its origin precedes whatever you claim it is.

---

But I've never claimed hg E to be anything but African because that's where it originated. Meanwhile Abraham was not an African but from northern Mesopotamia which was a heartland of hg J.

quote:

---

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You're so pseudo. What a joke.

---

No. You're so dumbo, it's not a joke. It's actually quite annoying. You are either low IQ OR a typical psychotic troll who is need of mental help. I hope not both.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^^^^ **** FUTURE READERS, PEEP HOW THIS CLOWN ONCE AGAIN STRAIGHT UP REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE MAIN ISSUE AND INSTEAD CHOOSES TO BREAK DOWN AND RESPOND TO A COMMENT OF MINE THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT OF CONTENTION.

I NEVER SAID J ORIGINATED WITH THE KURA-ARAXES (I ALREADY MADE THIS CLEAR MULTIPLE TIMES) AND HE STILL FAILS TO SHARE A SOURCE THAT SAYS J CARRIERS OTHER THAN THE KURA-ARAXES/HURRIANS SET UP SHOP IN THE LEVANT/MESOPOTAMIA DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD(S) LIKE HOW HE CLAIMS.....BECAUSE HE KNOWS SUCH SOURCES DO NOT EXIST.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

DO WE SEE A PATTERN HERE?

ROFL, STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
And yes I typed in all caps to put extreme emphasis on the fact that this pseudo clown is playing games and blowing smoke. Your beloved J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s) were Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews and you have ZERO sources to demonstrate that any other J-carrying civilizations brought J to that area, let alone any J-carrying civilizations that could possibly be related to Abraham/Hebrews.

Don't even bother responding if you don't have any sources because that's all I'm going to ask for -- I don't give a damn about your silly rhetoric.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes everyone in this forum including lurkers can see how irrational and unhinged you are. The rants of a lunatic don't mean much. But I guess you've succeeded.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews

---

wishful thinking

That's like saying Noah had nothing to do with Abraham
Kura-Araxes are obviously decedents of Noah, prove they aren't
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Wishful thinking? It's Biblical and "genetic" fact that they had nothing to do with Israelites. That's why Djbooty has to play games and pretend the J in the Levant/Mesopotamia had a source other than Kura-Araxes/Hurrians, with zero evidence that it came from a different source. You haven't already figured out the game that he's playing?

Djbooty himself already admit on the other page that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians had nothing to do with Abraham.

Rofl, I literally gave him days to drop a source that supports what he's claiming and he can't. It's all a joke at this point.

quote:

---

"While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period."

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Yes everyone in this forum including lurkers can see how irrational and unhinged you are. The rants of a lunatic don't mean much. But I guess you've succeeded.

---

The irony of somebody posting this when that person can't provide a source to support their claim, after being begged to provide the source for days.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
And to Brandon (who has a habit of making glaring inaccurate assessments about what I actually believe), I never said anything about skin color so I have no idea why you claimed I want to "exclude J carriers" because they don't have dark skin. It's about lineage. It's about what the "genetic evidence" says right? Oh and I'm a "BHI" remember? I subscribe to a 12 tribes chart on which only 3 of the 12 Israelite tribes are black.

So no, it's not about color, and I never said it was.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
-
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Kura-Araxes/Hurrians had nothing to do with Abraham.

---

Kura-Araxes culture came before Hurrians and
there is no conclusive evidence that the Hurrians were descendants of the Kura-Araxes culture.

there is no need to keep trying to pair up Kura-Araxes and Hurrians and it's suspect that you keep doing that. Deal with each one separately


As we can see Ararat is right in the middle of Kura-Araxes
> and supposedly Noah and his sons and their wives were the first humans in that region. Let that sink in
We see on the map Kura and Araxes rivers, hence the name of the culture there, the region where the ark landed

Kura-Araxes overlaps the time Noah lived.
Thus it would be reasonable to guess that they might direct descendants of Noah

> and you can't say Kura-Araxes had nothing to do with Abraham. Maybe you could if you tack on Hurrians but not about Kura-Araxes.

The best you can do is say Kura-Araxes may or may not have had something to do with Noah but you can't exclude it

And then if we move up to Abraham, he had said he may have been Turkish

> So he is still in Anatolia before moving to Israel!
compared to Ham and Japeth who moved elsewhere

So while their decedents moved out of the region
Abraham was still in Anatolia where Kura-Araxes was so it's not unreasonable that they might all be of the same stock
but if you keep taking on Hurrians I know what you are up to. Problem is it's two different cultures.

Forget Hurrians, Kura-Araxes was earlier
there is several hundreds years of separation.
Later the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites (natives of Israel who were possibly descendants of Natufians)
Taz you made this bed now you got to sleep in it
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ I'm not going to entertain a remedial idiot who just claimed a few posts ago that Noah founded the Kura-Araxes culture, which would have to mean Noah was J, and which would also have to mean that all currently existing Y markers would have to be J or a downstream mutation of J.

What an idiot.

I've already provided a source(s) that linked hurrians to the kura-araxes, you've already demonstrated that you haven't even been keeping up with the sources I've posted.

All the evidence shows that the Kura-Araxes brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia and they were not Hebrews or related to Abraham. Nobody here has shown any evidence of J coming from somewhere else NOR will anyone do so.

Have a nice day.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
a few posts ago that Noah founded the Kura-Araxes culture, which would have to mean Noah was J, and which would also have to mean that all currently existing Y markers would have to be J or a downstream mutation of J.

---

That's a ridiculous argument
Pick any haplogroup you like
If Noah was of that haplogroup
all currently existing Y markers
would have to be of Noah's same haplogroup
No double standards fool
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ My point exactly. Now you get it
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ My point exactly. Now you get it

---

These biological markers exist and can be seen in a microscope

So if you are a believer in the bible, just the way God created new languages at Babel he could have created new haplogroups instantly

So you can't dismiss these biological markers. They exist if you are a bible believer you just need some explanation along the lines of a miracle
or just the fact that biblically God created human beings instantly not from a gradual millions of years long evolution, that these things could be created instantly by God at any time
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes

---

Nope

look at this, human remains, Kura-Araxes sample,
aka hard evidence:
(not "may have" , "could have" etc )



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8#additional-information

you owe everyone an apology now


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M377

wikipedia:

Haplogroup G-M377

Haplogroup G2b-M377 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup and is defined by the presence of the M377 mutation.[1] It is a branch of Haplogroup G2, which in turn is defined by the presence of the M201 mutation.[2]

G2b is a major Y chromosome haplogroup, and yet unique. It was found among Pashtuns, who are classified as Iranic and on much lower scale among all major Jewish groups, Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians[4](See also page covering Jews with Haplogroup G (Y-DNA)) G2b presents more mysteries regarding its origin and distribution than virtually any other major Y haplogroup. Haplogroups that are rare in certain regions are more common in another, and have rather clear origins in other places where they are more commonly found. G2b has none of these obvious characteristics.

One very early G2b sample, although it was derived as a negative for the SNP M377, was found in the remains of an individual dating back to 7000 BCE at Wezmeh Cave, a site near Eslamabad-e Gharb in the Kermanshah province in western Iran.[26] Specifically, it belonged to G-Y37100.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
You found a paper that says two kura-araxes samples had G. So what? That doesn't mean they didn't also have J you idiot. And one of the sources I referenced acknowledged they also had G.

The point of contention has always been that the Kura-Araxes brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia and they had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews. I referenced at least 2 papers where actual genetic scholars (something you are not) wrote that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by the Kura-Araxes.

Go write an email to those scholars and tell them to retract their work. Since you know so much.

You were too afraid to write to Dr. Elhaik so of course I don't expect you to write any other scholar.

Once again you demonstrate that you are not keeping up with the sources I post and you're just typing to troll because you love to make yourself look like an idiot. Why do I even respond to your garbage? Now you see why I try so hard to avoid directly dealing with you.

quote:

---

"Interestingly, an ancient individual from the Caucasus belonging to J1a1b-Z18375 is found in the assemblage of the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes cultural tradition. This cultural tradition probably originated in the Caucasus and may explain the radiation of this branch."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
In summary

⦾ Y-DNA of Kura-Araxes culture (3500 to 2500 bc) is hardly known yet, except for one instance of J1 and two of G2 and varied mitochondrial DNA. They may have spread J in the region and to the Levant

⦾ According to the bible Noah's ark landed on Ararat believed to be a mountain in Turkey in the middle of what would be the Kura-Araxes culture, people around the nearby rivers Kura and Araxes

⦾ Years later Abraham, if he existed, may have remained in the same region before migrating to Israel

⦾ Thus it would not be surprising if some of the the Kura-Araxes people are direct descendants of
of Noah and/or Abraham if they existed although this is unknown
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Peep how this incompetent idiot falsely accused me of lying about the Kura-Araxes having J markers and said I need to apologize. But he doesn't apologize after getting caught falsely accusing me of something for like the 5th or 6th time. And he STILL doesn't comprehend how all the evidence presented makes it impossible for Abraham to be a J carrier since the people who introduced J to the Levant/Mesopotamia had nothing to do with Hebrews or Abraham. Nor will he provide evidence of J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by any people who actually could be related to Abraham or Hebrews. Now he's trying to make a connection based solely on the fact that Noah's ark landed in the Kura-Araxes region.

Rofllllllllll.

Straight clown.

All the trolling you did amounted to nothing as usual.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
And to Brandon (who has a habit of making glaring inaccurate assessments about what I actually believe), I never said anything about skin color so I have no idea why you claimed I want to "exclude J carriers" because they don't have dark skin. It's about lineage. It's about what the "genetic evidence" says right? Oh and I'm a "BHI" remember? I subscribe to a 12 tribes chart on which only 3 of the 12 Israelite tribes are black.

So no, it's not about color, and I never said it was.

---

So why were you so quick to dismiss the J2 found in ancient Israelite remains as "not really Israelite", then? You insisted throughout that entire thread that the E found in Natufians had to have been the real Israelite Y-DNA haplogroup instead of J. Is that not because you felt Israelites carrying J would make them less "Black"?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Maybe because J does not descend from E?

If skin color is what I care about, then why am I hypothetically including european Jewish people in any appeals I make to haplogroup E? You realize that not everyone with E markers are black or dark-skinned right?

And if skin color is what I care about then why do I personally subscribe to the 12 tribes chart, on which only 3 of the 12 Israelite tribes (Judah, Benjamin, Levi) are supposed to be black?

According to my own personal worldview, only 25% of the 12 tribes of Israel are foundationally "black".
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


According to the bible Noah is the progenitor of the first post-flood humans in the Caucasus Mountain region and this is where post-flood humanity began.
No one else was there when he arrived with his sons and their wives and children.
Later, Abraham was still in the same region before migrating to Israel


They did Genome-wide analysis of 110 ancient individuals from places in these regions

For example 22 from this place in Turkey

Here are a couple with the dates


Arslantepe, Turkey

ART001 (H156 S138) is a female in pit burial from Period VI D2. Evidence of epicondylitis was observed on both humeri. The remains also exhibit evidence of severe osteoarthritis. Dating of human bone: 2470-2301 cal BCE (3908 ± 26 BP, MAMS-33533).


▪ ART004 (H238 S156) is an old male in a pit dug under and sealed by the floor of a house. Period VII. Dating of human bone: 3758-3642 cal BCE (4906 ± 26 BP, MAMS-33534)

_______________________________

Other locations in Turkey are listed and elsewhere

example, a place with older Turkey samples
six individuals from Tell Kurdu, Turkey


▪ KRD003 (TK_22:2) is a mature adult placed in a simple pit in a tightly flexed position. The burial included a small painted necked-jar placed near the head as well as a Dark Faced Burnished globular jar discovered by the feet. Dating of human bone: 5661-5630 cal BCE (6739 ± 23 BP, MAMS-40665).


▪ KRD004 (TK_25:80) is an adult male placed in a pit in a tightly flexed position. A small Dark Faced Burnished necked-jar was discovered by the head. A partial cattle mandible had been left just over the neck of the jar. Dating of human bone: 5703-5639 cal BCE (6766 ± 25 BP, MAMS-40666).
____________________________________________


Then if you go to the Table S9 supplement
you can see each individuals haplogroup (or go there first look at the haplogroups, and go back to the main article to see their date
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Cool, that line of thinking was already dealt with.

👍🏾
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Cool, that line of thinking was already dealt with.

👍🏾

---

No,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Now he's trying to make a connection based solely on the fact that Noah's ark landed in the Kura-Araxes region.

---

That is a misleading comment

Biblically Noah did not land in the Kura-Araxes region, that is ridiculous
He landed in a place with no living human inhabitants. Because Noah, his sons and wives are at the starting point before there was any spread elsewhere, ancestors of the Kura-Araxes

This is where post-flood humanity began, in the Caucasus

Thus if Kura-Araxes spread J later to the Levant or other places that is irrelevant.


And later, Abraham (If a "Turk") was still in the vicinity before migrating to Israel.
So ancient Turkey is the place to look for potential Abraham-similar people
BEFORE Kura-Araxes
BEFORE spread of J

Later Joshua, likely bearing Haplogroup J (something common in that Anatolia region invaded and slaughtered the native Canaanites, that is what resembles the spread of J supposedly by Kura-Araxes.

Why don't anthologists says Joshua may have been Kura-Araxes? Because there are no remains of Joshua or any patriarch so they are in the realm of religious mythology until proved real

So you didn't deal with anything. The Caucasus is the starting point BEFORE any spread
of J and Noah was right in the center of that.


Right here for instance is before
Kura-Araxes (3500 to 2500 bc) >>

Tell Kurdu, Turkey


▪ KRD003 (TK_22:2) is a mature adult placed in a simple pit in a tightly flexed position. The burial included a small painted necked-jar placed near the head as well as a Dark Faced Burnished globular jar discovered by the feet. Dating of human bone: 5661-5630 cal BCE (6739 ± 23 BP, MAMS-40665).
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Even your buddy djehuti disapproved when you tried asserting Noah was J.

Crazy how it went from "Tazarah is lying about Kura-Araxes having J" ..... to "it's ok if they had J because Noah...."

The only thing you are remotely good at is moving the goalpost when one of your talking points gets dismantled. The only reason I even responded to you for this long was to show future readers how full of sh*t you are and how deceptive you are willing to be when it comes to black people like myself identifying as Israelites.

So enjoy talking to yourself, nobody is reading your gibberish.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I've already said my piece. I'm not arguing with your dumb ass anymore. Haplogroup E (common in Natufians) was in the Levant prior to the introduction of haplogroup J from the north which is associated with the Biblical story of Abraham's immigration.

Whether Abraham was a real person is still a matter of conjecture but unlike Noah, Abraham was a legendary figure whose name is not only mentioned in the Bible but in other ancient texts associated with a number of tribes which is why the most popular theory that many skeptics have is that 'Abraham' may very well have represented a tribal confederation of some sort.

Noah on the other hand is not a legendary figure but a mythical one because thus far he is only mentioned in Biblical texts as a progenitor of all nations (known to the Middle East) after the Deluge including nations in Africa and Europe. So to argue about what haplogroup Noah carried is a mute argument. It's like arguing what haplogroup Vaivasvata Manu (the Hindu Noah) had.

For those interested here are a couple more sources on the historicity of the bible in Bronze Age times:

Archaeology evidence linked to Abraham proves Bible 'stands up to scrutiny' claims expert

Historicity of the Bible
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Djehuti is back, but once again without a single scholarly source demonstrating that haplogroup J (which he claims is Abraham) was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization(s) other than the Kura-Araxes like how he claims. The Kura-Araxes were non-Hebrews who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.

All the available "genetic evidence" shows that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians, and the Kura-Araxes had nothing to do with Abraham or Hebrews at all, which means that Abraham was not a J carrier.

Djehuti has repeatedly failed to produce a source that shows J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization(s) that could actually be related to Abraham or Hebrews because no such evidence exists.

I happily rest my case.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
To know if Abraham really existed and which haplogroup he eventually had we must find his body. According to some believers he is buried in the cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron on the West Bank. For different reasons it will probably be rather difficult to get a permit to excavate the cave.

Tomb of the Patriarchs

When it concerns Noah there are four or five different locations where he is said to be buried. The locations are in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey.

Tomb of Noah

The Ark (if such thing ever existed) did supposedly land in todays Turkey. It is said that there were ten generations from Noah to Abraham.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
 
Abraham was not a jew, he was a Hebrew, Abram was a Cushite

The word “Hebrew” appears for the first time in this week’s Torah portion. , the patriarch Abraham, received the shocking news that his cousin, Lot, had been taken away as a prisoner of war. According to the text, “a fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew (Avram ha’ivri) ” (Gen. 14:13).

quote:

---

biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, concluded that “Hebrew” was really an ethnic designation , akin to “Canaanite” and “Moabite.” Other theories abound. Whatever the case, by the time of King David, some three thousand years ago, the term “the Hebrew” had largely disappeared. For most of recorded history, the descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” were known simply as Jews.

---

Ivri & Ifri, Afri, are the same word...

quote:

---

Āfrī (singular Āfer)[1] was a Latin name for the inhabitants of Africa, referring in its widest sense to all the lands south of the Mediterranean (Ancient Libya).

Etymology
The etymology of the term remains uncertain. It may derive from a Punic term for an indigenous population of the area surrounding Carthage. The name is usually connected with Phoenician ʿafar "dust"[4] (also found in other Semitic languages), but a 1981 hypothesis asserted that it stems from the Berber ifri (plural ifran) "cave", in reference to cave dwellers. The same word may be found in the name of the Banu Ifran from Algeria and Tripolitania, a Berber tribe originally from Yafran (also known as Ifrane) in northwestern Libya.[7] The classical historian Flavius Josephus asserted that descendants of Abraham's grandson Epher invaded the region and gave it their own name

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
....
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

To know if Abraham really existed and which haplogroup he eventually had we must find his body. According to some believers he is buried in the cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron on the West Bank. For different reasons it will probably be rather difficult to get a permit to excavate the cave.

Tomb of the Patriarchs

When it concerns Noah there are four or five different locations where he is said to be buried. The locations are in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey.

Tomb of Noah

The Ark (if such thing ever existed) did supposedly land in todays Turkey. It is said that there were ten generations from Noah to Abraham.

---

The problem is some people don't know the difference between legendary and mythical. The former has more historical evidence than the latter. The myth of the Great Flood and ark is shared by a variety of cultures from the Indian Vaivasvata Manu to the Greek Deucalion. Most of the myths are from Southwest Asia-- Hebrew Noah, Akkadian Utnapishtim, Sumerian Ziusudra. Interestingly the Egyptians and other Africans do NOT have a flood myth.

The idiot Taz says I have no evidence of any culture introducing J from the north, when I already cited several papers pages ago showing immigration from northern Mesopotamia. Again the Kura-Araxes is a straw doll, because there were multiple cultures in that region not just Kura-Araxes and there was immigration into the Levant from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age. This is why I don't debate morons.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Hey mr. dunce, you NEVER showed any evidence of a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes bringing J markers INTO the Levant/Mesopotamia. All your sources start with J already being in the Levant/Mesopotamia, and not where they came from.

That's what I've been challenging you to provide the entire time, I'm sure eveyone has been readinf the comments so I've no idea why you are trying to act like you don't understand.

All the sources I've referenced show J being brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by the Kura-araxes civilization which had nothing to do with Hebrews or Abraham.

If I'm wrong then man the f*ck up and cite a source that shows a different civilization bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia, instead of indirectly addressing me like a clown. Crying to other people makes you look like a loser.

All you do is spew bullsh*t and try to play genius, then you start playing dumb when someone actually challenges you to present a source that substantiates what you are asserting.

And what do you know, now you're making up nonsense about Africans and Egyptians not having flood stories.

quote:

---

"Although the continent has relatively few flood legends African cultures preserving an oral tradition of a flood include the Kwaya, Mbuti, Maasai, Mandin, and Yoruba peoples.

Egypt

Floods were seen as beneficial in Ancient Egypt, and similar to the case with Japan, Ancient Egypt did not have any cataclysmic flood myths picturing it as destructive rather than fertile force. One "flood myth" in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness which resulted in the gods overturning wine jugs to simulate a great flood of blood, so that by getting her drunk on the wine and causing her to pass out her slaughter would cease. This is commemorated in a wine drinking festival during the annual Nile flood."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Nice try but a flood of wine to simulate blood for a blood thirsty goddess is not the same as an actual deluge of rain water. GTFOH
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
To everyone else in this forum with intelligence or at least some knowledge in genetics what are we to make of these?:





Note that other than the Yemeni Mahra, you have Bedouin B which was discussed before.

Bioarchaeological analysis of one of the earliest Islamic burials in the Levant-Megha Srigyan (2020)


No cultural artifacts were associated with the human remains, however, their archaeological context revealed that these were primary burials with the bodies placed in decubitus position, inside pits that were intrusive in the Neolithic levels (Fig. 1b). Interestingly, while the two burials were located very close to each other, no evidence of a Late Antiquity cemetery was documented at the site.

Genomic analysis of the individuals:
all four methods confirmed low levels of contamination. Two biological sex inference methods26,27 identified syr005 to be a male and syr013 a female. Individuals syr005 and syr013 were determined to carry mitochondrial haplogroups J2a2a1a1 and R0a2, respectively. Both haplogroups are common in the Arabian Peninsula, Near East and parts of Africa28,29 in concordance with the broad geographical location of the samples. In addition, the Y chromosome of syr005 was determined as haplogroup J, which is the most common haplogroup across the Middle East30 (Supplementary Table S2).
In order to explore general patterns of genetic affinity to modern populations, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed projecting the two newly sequenced Syrian individuals on a broad set of modern Middle Eastern, European and North African groups (Fig.2a). The two Late Antiquity Syrian individuals fell close to Saudi, Turkish and Middle Eastern genomic variation and to some Jewish populations but do not show close genetic affinities to the geographically close Lebanese samples from12. Further, to obtain a better understanding of the regional variation, a second PCA was conducted, limited to 37 groups from the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and Caucasus. Here, the Syrian samples fell close to Yemenite Jews, Saudi and Bedouins genomic variation (Fig. 2b). Notably, within these genotyped Bedouins, there are two sub-groups, both sampled in the Negev in Israel: Bedouin A and Bedouin B2 that were observed to have distinct distributions in the PCA: while Bedouin A seem to be more widely dispersed and overlap with other groups from surrounding regions, Bedouin B (with the exception of one individual) form a small cluster separate from all other groups in the region.
From these two sub-groups, individuals syr005 and syr013 fall between the two Bedouin groups, and show a clear genetic differentiation from relevant modern-day Levantine populations (i.e. Druze, Palestinian, Jordanian and Lebanese). Further, to gain insight into the genetic composition of ancient and modern populations, an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis was performed. ADMIXTURE was first run with a larger set of individuals (1073 individuals) from Europe and the Middle East (73 populations). For K = 2, 3 and 5, all iterations with different random seeds converged to consistent results (Supplementary Fig. S2). Therefore, we consider K=5 as a compromise between resolution and robustness of results. At K = 2, mostly north Europeans are differentiated from south Europeans, Middle Easterners and Arabian Peninsula groups. At K = 3, a new component emerged in Caucasian and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 4, another component appeared in south Europeans and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 5, a component exclusive to Middle Eastern and Arabian Peninsula groups appears (Fig. 3). This new component was seen at high proportions in Bedouins, Saudi, Yemenite Jews and our Syrian samples. Interestingly, within the Bedouins, Bedouin B was composed almost entirely of this new component. The separate cluster of Bedouin B could be the result of genetic drift, although its presence in other populations from the Arabian Peninsula suggests some degree of separate ancestry among these groups. The Late Antiquity Syrian individuals showed similar genetic composition to Bedouin B and some Saudi individuals.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Nice try but a flood of wine to simulate blood for a blood thirsty goddess is not the same as an actual deluge of rain water. GTFOH

---

It was a flood sent by Egyptian gods to destroy humans you idiot. So now the type of flood and symbolism matters? You just said there was no flood story you clown. And ignore the evidence of African tribes having flood stories after you claimed none of them did.

And that's not even the only flood myth the Egyptians had, but I'm not going to go into all that because you'll just use that a way to deflect from hg J.

Place this all on top of the fact that you repeatedly fail to show J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization OTHER than the Kura-Araxes.

You're 100% pseudo, I have no idea why you keep coming back here to embarrass yourself.

😂😂😂😂😂
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The idiot obviously knows nothing about Egyptian mythology let alone the myth of Ra's Vengeful Eye. In the myth because humankind became rebellious and wicked, Re sent his wrathful 'Eye' the lion goddess Sekhmet to slaughter humans in the form of drought and pestilence and or her actually slaying humans en masse. Sekhmet is similar to the Hindu goddess Kali in that she was bloodthirsty and did not relent, so in order to save mankind from extinction, the gods sent forth rivers of wine that looked like blood to get Sekhmet intoxicated.

There was NO actual flood. LOL Let alone one that afflicted humans. On the contrary it was the opposite-- a drought said to be caused by the fiery breath of Sekhmet.

I would recommend you stick to the bible but you even fail at that.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^^^ Why should anyone take you seriously about anything else when you can't even provide a genetic source showing a civilization OTHER than the kura-araxes bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia? Isn't that what you are asserting? That the hg J in the Levant/Mesopotamia possibly came from civilizations OTHER than the kura-araxes -- civilizations that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews? If so then SHOW THE SOURCE. Source up or shutup.

This is why in my last comment, I said I wouldn't get into how you are wrong about the Egyptians not having a flood story. Because now you're trying to ramble on about that instead of proving what you said about hg J and the Levant/Mesopotamia.

In your deception you also ignore how you were 100% wrong about africans "not having a flood story".

When you get DEBUNKED you ignore it and try to move onto other BS talking points instead of acknowledging your incompetence.

You're a clown who likes to see/hear themselves talk because you think you're smarter than you are.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Djehuti, pretty please can we see a genetic source that shows hg J arriving into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes?

Via a civilization that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti
The myth of the Great Flood and ark is shared by a variety of cultures from the Indian Vaivasvata Manu to the Greek Deucalion. Most of the myths are from Southwest Asia-- Hebrew Noah, Akkadian Utnapishtim, Sumerian Ziusudra.

---

Flood stories and other stories about ancient catastrophes are always interesting. They may go back to traumatic events in the past. People who come in contact with each other also exchange stories, so different stories can mix together, or change and adapt to new cultural circumstances.

When concerning flood stories one must remember that early humans often found environments like coastal areas or flood plains to be attractive places to live in (we still do today). Such areas are often prone to floods, landslides and similar events. Such experiences are of course traumatic and will be remembered and talked about. These stories will also be brought to other peoples. Over time the stories gradually mutate. At some occasion they might also be written down.

Sometimes we can see different written versions as the Mesopotamian flood myths who also reappears in the story about Noah.

Many such events are rather local and happen within a shorter time frame, as for example inundations in the Euphrates - Tigris valleys, Nile inundations and similar. But there is also a background of larger scale inundations as a result of raising sea levels after the last ice age. Whole landscapes have disappeared, like parts of Sunda and Sahul, like Doggerland in Northern Europe or the Gulf Oasis in the Persian gulf. So reminiscences of such events can maybe have remained in people's imagination and later mixed up with stories from later events.

Certain other types of climate disasters can also be remembered, such as cold periods up in the lands of the Norse which are talked about in the form of predictions about the great Fimbul winter that will precede Ragnarök (the end of the world). It has been speculated that faint memories of the Great Ice Age have been mixed up with memories of later cold periods (like the one in the 6th century AD) to shape such beliefs.

Catastrophic events haunt humanity still today. And in modern climate debate there are also some ingredients of flood stories in the shape of predictions about future inundations caused by humanity itself because we change the climate through emissions of CO2 and similar. So one day our sins will result in some kind of deluge.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes, but you see strikingly similar myths in India with Vaivasvata Manu a son of the sun god being a "King of Dravida" after being forewarned of the flood by the god Vishnu in the form of a fish, he built a vessel in which his family, the 7 rishis, and 9 seeds and 9 pairs of animals were boarded in. When the flood waters receded the ship rested on the holy Mount Naubandhana which in earlier versions was somewhere in the Vindhya range but later versions moved to the Himalayas. The Greek version states that Deucalion was a son of the titan Prometheus and that he reigned as a king amongst the Pelasgians. He was warned of Zeus's plan to flood the earth due to the "hubris of the Pelasgians" by his father so he built a chest like boat for him and his wife (later versions say pairs of animals and seeds). When the flood receded their boat rested on a sacred mountain (various versions with Mount Parnassus in central Greece being the earliest while others say Mount Athos in Chalkidiki or Mount Othrys in Thessaly). In both versions, this surviving patriarch was said to have been good natured and pious and after the flood they both made sacrifices as soon as they left their boats like Noah.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

^^^ Why should anyone take you seriously about anything else when you can't even provide a genetic source showing a civilization OTHER than the kura-araxes bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia? Isn't that what you are asserting? That the hg J in the Levant/Mesopotamia possibly came from civilizations OTHER than the kura-araxes -- civilizations that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews? If so then SHOW THE SOURCE. Source up or shutup.

---

Both Lioness and I cited multiple sources showing that J PREDATES Kura-Araxes which is why it found in multiple cultures not just Kura-Araxes including Sumerian and Halafian cultures. But all you've done is ignore them because you are a sore loser and lunatic.

quote:

---

This is why in my last comment, I said I wouldn't get into how you are wrong about the Egyptians not having a flood story. Because now you're trying to ramble on about that instead of proving what you said about hg J and the Levant/Mesopotamia.

In your deception you also ignore how you were 100% wrong about Africans "not having a flood story".

---

The Egyptians DON'T have a flood myth, you lying idiot! The only one attempting deception is YOU with that silly snippet about floods of wine. You don't even know the context. So here it:

The Destruction of Humanity

Where in the story does it say anything about a deluge?! LMAO

If Africans had original flood myths that were non Abrahamic you would be able to cite one but instead you distort an Egyptian myth. LOL

quote:

---

When you get DEBUNKED you ignore it and try to move onto other BS talking points instead of acknowledging your incompetence.

You're a clown who likes to see/hear themselves talk because you think you're smarter than you are.

---

LMAO Punk, quit PROJECTING yourself on to me! YOU are the one who keeps getting debunked and are an incompetent clown! I suggest you leave this forum and seek professional mental help.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
I just cited a source showing that Egyptians and multiple African tribes have flood stories and what do you know? The goal post moves... but I'll leave that alone.

Nobody said that hg J doesn't predate the Kura-araxes, straw queen.

All haplogroups predate all cultures you idiot. So stop trying to cop out.

You agreed that Abraham and the Hebrews were not descendants of the Kura-Araxes,

So...

Here is the million dollar question, once again...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Djehuti, pretty please can we see a genetic source that shows hg J arriving into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes?

Via a civilization that could actually be related to Abraham and Hebrews?

Pretty please with a cherry on top?

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Again projecting. YOU are obviously the straw queen because all you cited is Kura-Araxes when nobody in here ever said that was the culture that Abraham and his people were part of. Abraham came from northern Mesopotamia and there were a variety of cultures there.

By the way did you read the 'Destruction of Humanity' story?

I doubt it. YOU are the one who ignores sources you lying twit.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Again projecting. YOU are obviously the straw queen because all you cited is Kura-Araxes when nobody in here ever said that was the culture that Abraham and his people were part of. Abraham came from northern Mesopotamia and there were a variety of cultures there.

---

Then can we please see you reference a source that shows hg J arriving into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes, since that is what you are claiming was the case?

You keep repeating this bs without any evidence to substantiate it.

How do you not understand what I am asking you, after weeks of me breaking it down in several different ways?

Are you seriously this dense?

I promise we can talk about the flood stories after you produce a source(s) showing hg J arriving in the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Yes, but you see strikingly similar myths in India with Vaivasvata Manu a son of the sun god being a "King of Dravida" ...

---

Yes, it can at least partly be due to these civilisations had contact with each other, either directly or by intermediate (both geographically but also chronologically) cultures. Thus India had contact with Mesopotamia, which inspired the Israelite versions, which in its turn inspired the Quranic version. Persians had contacts with Mesopotamians and Indians, and with Greeks and so on.

So many of the myths can be results of traditions (perhaps inspired by real catastrophes) which have diffused into other cultures.

One can perhaps compare with different sailors tales inspiring other similar tales through the ages, like the Odyssey, Jasons adventures at sea, the Aeneid (which seem inspired by the Odyssey), Sindbads voyages. Good stories have a tendency to get spread, especially when different cultures meet.

There are also tales which seem to have arisen without the cultures seemingly had any contact with each other, as many stories about men swallowed by gigantic fishes, whales or other aquatic creatures.

Jean-Loïc Le Quellec, a French researcher, has identified c 170 different tales of people being swallowed by Sea creatures, and other aquatic beasts, and returned alive. The stories are from Europe, Asia, India, Oceania, North America, Mesoamerica and South America.

One can read Quellecs article here:

The long tale of a whale


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Again projecting. YOU are obviously the straw queen because all you cited is Kura-Araxes when nobody in here ever said that was the culture that Abraham and his people were part of. Abraham came from northern Mesopotamia and there were a variety of cultures there.

---

Then can we please see you reference a source that shows hg J arriving into the Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes, since that is what you are claiming was the case?

You keep repeating this bs without any evidence to substantiate it.

How do you not understand what I am asking you, after weeks of me breaking it down in several different ways?

Are you seriously this dense?

I promise we can talk about the flood stories after you produce a source(s) showing hg J arriving in the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes.

---

A) So far there seems to be only one individual even identified as J at the same time Kura-Araxes
and 2 as G.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
Hovhannes Sahakyan

"Interestingly, an ancient individual from the Caucasus[55] belonging to J1a1b-Z18375 is found in the assemblage of the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes cultural tradition. This cultural tradition probably originated in the Caucasus and may explain the radiation of this branch."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2

---

---

this J1 individual is from the same CC Wang article, reference [55]

55. Wang, C.-C. et al. Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–13 (2019).

I didn't even realize that J1 individual was in the Wang article I posted until I went to the supplement because in the main text Wang only mentioned the two Kura-Araxes individuals who were
haplogroup G2 (also found in 12th dyn Egypt).
If you look at some of these articles they don't all have new data, they might refer to some other article, as here who did the primary testing.
So your Sahakyan article is commenting on the sample from CC Wangs earlier article
> one individual is not solid


B) This shows how speculative theorizing how J arrived in Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes.
As we see in what you quoted above says "may explain"
Yet you still don't know the difference between fact and speculation
> and then you pretend it's determinative.

C) But it's possible J arrived in Levant/Mesopotamia by Kura-Araxes. So what?
This was before Abraham anyway

D) and there's nothing that proves Abraham, if he existed, was not a descendant of Kura-Araxes

E) According to the bible Noah with his sons wives and children landed on Ararat in Turkey and there were no other people living on earth,
Thus he is in the heartland or what would become
Kura-Araxes, this even before they spread out !
They were his descendants

F) All there is for description of Abraham is the bible and the bible say doesn't say he was Mesopotamian. It says he was from Ur of the Chaldees and scholars are not even certain where that was. Let that sink in
and Hebrew was not his native tongue.

G) Joshua and his tribe went into Israel and killed all the native Canaanites (probably descendants of the Natufians) claims the bible

___________________________________

Your claim Abraham could not have been J has no basis
whatever DNA Kura-Araxes spread or did not does not matter because this was before Abraham
BECAUSE even if they did spread J to Mesopotamia/Levant if Abraham hypothetically was a J carrier he also spread J when he migrated to the Levant he just does not get credit BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE

>> Just like a J Carrier can go right now from one place to another THEY ARE STILL SPREADING J if they have children there yet do not get credit for
being the original spreader of the haplogroup

see how that works?

KEY POINT:

You want to pretend that after some original migration spreads a haplogroup to new locations that after that no one can ever KEEP SPREADING THE HAPLOGROUP LATER
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ I'm not entertaining your nonsense and goal post movint any longer. You always challenge me and tell me "Abraham could have been a number of haplgroups" yet I never see you trying to challenge people who claim Abraham was J, you only engage people like me who argue that ancient Jews were "black".

Your remedial ass didn't even know the Kura-Araxes had J. You falsely accused me of lying about them having J, even though I posted the source about 4 times.

You are a low IQ troll who despises black people.

The person you are trying to help (Djehuti) already acknowledged that Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes.

Good luck finding a source that says people OTHER than the Kura-Araxes brought hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia. That is what he is asserting yet he hasn't produced any evidence demonstrating that idea.

Now all of sudden you guys don't want to deal with Y markers anymore and the cultures they carried. ROFL.

I've shown actual papers where scholars say J came to the Levant/Mespotamia specifically via the Kura-Araxes. You are not a scholar, and you can't even show a source explaining where J did come from.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ I'm not entertaining your nonsense any longer. I never see you trying to challenge people who claim Abraham was J, you only engage people like me who argue that ancient Jews were "black".

The person you are trying to help (Djehuti) already acknowledged that Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes.

Good luck finding a source that says people OTHER than the Kura-Araxes brought hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.

---

Read the last sentence I added to my previous
post

There are plenty of J carriers who are black Ethiopians and Nubians
In a study of 39 Sudanese Nubians 41% were J1

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
And to Brandon (who has a habit of making glaring inaccurate assessments about what I actually believe), I never said anything about skin color so I have no idea why you claimed I want to "exclude J carriers" because they don't have dark skin. It's about lineage. It's about what the "genetic evidence" says right? Oh and I'm a "BHI" remember? I subscribe to a 12 tribes chart on which only 3 of the 12 Israelite tribes are black.

So no, it's not about color, and I never said it was.

---

As you know there are some "BHI" who don't believe
in the 12 Tribes chart.
So I am going to assume you do unless you are being facetious above

I think you should make it clear
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ I think you are an idiot who needs to explain how J got to the Levant/Mesopotamia and which civilization brought it since you supposedly know more than the actual scholars who say it came via the Kura-Araxes.

The people who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia WERE NOT HEBREWS.

Your bullsh*t opinions and speculations mean nothing. I've referenced sources to substantiate everything I'm saying and you have not. So get to it.

Otherwise stop typing to me.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ I think you are an idiot who needs to explain how J got to the Levant/Mesopotamia and which civilization brought it since you supposedly know more than the actual scholars who say it came via the Kura-Araxes.

The people who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia WERE NOT HEBREWS.

Your bullsh*t opinions and speculations mean nothing. I've referenced sources to substantiate everything I'm saying and you have not. So get to it.

Otherwise stop typing to me.

---

You want to pretend that after some original migration spreads a haplogroup to new locations that after that no one can ever KEEP SPREADING THE HAPLOGROUP LATER

thus Kura-Araxes is irrelevant to Abraham
They were before him, if they spread J they did it before him


Thus J keeps being spread every day to the present day as people who carry J migrate to new locations

You want to pretend some kind of door shuts where no one can spread it after the first theorized to do so
That's your scam and we all see it
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ "the lioness" thinks Abraham is a descendant of J-carrying Kura-Araxes hunter gatherers from the Caucusus who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia.

ROFL, even Dhejuti rejected that stupidity because he knows that is impossible. If that's truly what you believe then go argue with him about it because even he will disagree with you on that.

Stop pestering me you clueless idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about, you just want to troll and argue for the sake of trolling and arguing.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
[QB] ^ "the lioness" thinks Abraham is a descendant of J-carrying Kura-Araxes hunter gatherers from the Caucusus who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia.

---

No, so far I have only seen on individual determined Hg J who was identified as Kura-Araxes
so it is not certain even they were predominantly J

The haplogroup of Abraham, if he existed is unknown. The strongest possibilities would be he was of the same haplogroup as one of the haplogroups in his native region in his time period

Scholars say Abrahams native tongue was not Hebrew
Although he his seen as the founding patriarch of of Judaism. It is not clear at what point Hebrew language and culture can identified in relation to his lifespan
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
"The lioness" is so clueless that he is trying to argue Abraham was a descendant of the J-carrying Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia.

The funny part is that these people WERE NOT Hebrews or descendants of Shem (Abraham's forefather) and "the lioness" fails to realize he has been trying to insert Abraham into a lineage that is not even his.

If these people carried J but WERE NOT apart of Shem's lineage then what do you think that means, you idiot?

Let that sink in.

The people who introduced J to the Levant/Mesopotamia were not Hebrews and had nothing to do with Abraham. If you are claiming that J somehow became Hebrew after the Kura-Araxes culture then you are an IDIOT.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
"The lioness" is so clueless that he is trying to argue Abraham was a descendant of the J-carrying Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia.

The funny part is that these people WERE NOT Hebrews or descendants of Shem (Abraham's forefather) and "the lioness" fails to realize he has been trying to insert Abraham into a lineage that is not even his.

If these people carried J but WERE NOT apart of Shem's lineage then what do you think that means, you idiot?

Let that sink in.

The people who introduced J to the Levant/Mesopotamia were not Hebrews and had nothing to do with Abraham. If you are claiming that J somehow became Hebrew after the Kura-Araxes culture then you are an IDIOT.

---

The Hebrews came after Kura-Araxes
That means Hebrew language and culture could have come from people who had Kura-Araxes ancestors,

Just like there are some people in Egypt today who might have ancestry that goes back to the ancient Egyptian culture
yet today they might be Muslim or Christian
Just like the Arabs also spread J into East and North Africa. You want to pretend there was some rule against it


> Let that sink in stupid


People can change their language and culture language later fool
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Shem (the forefather of the Hebrews) was one of Noah's direct sons. Are you asserting that Shem's lineage gave rise to the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization, you idiot?

You're so retarded you don't even realize you're claiming that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians somehow transformed into Hebrews.

Your arguments get more remedial each time you come back to this thread. Don't be surprised when I stop responding.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Shem (the forefather of the Hebrews) was one of Noah's direct sons. Are you asserting that Shem's lineage gave rise to the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian ?

---

There you go with your cute little trick, mix in Hurrian


edited version:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Shem (the forefather of the Hebrews) was one of Noah's direct sons. Are you asserting that Shem's lineage gave rise to the Kura-Araxes ?

---

Possibly if Shem existed

and it's also a problem determining exactly when he did if he did, to make this all work in a timeline in relation to Kura-Araxes
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
There you go with your cute little trick, mix in Hurrian

---

What a clueless idiot. Back to ignoring you now, thanks for reminding me why I was avoiding you in the first place. You're a low level troll who knows next to nothing about this topic. Go find some other black people to pester.

quote:

---

In the Akkadian period, Kura-Araxes stratified ceramics come from primary contexts (liv-ing floors) of the royal palace. On these floors we had a total of 11,618 sherds, of which only 25 were Kura-Araxes ceramics. These same floors yielded a large number of seal impressions of the Hurrian king (endan in Hurrian) of Urkesh, Tupkish, his queen, Uqnitum, and servants connected with her. From their seal inscriptions we know that the city was named Urkesh and that the ruling elite was Hurrian. Evidence from the royal inscriptions, the seal legends and an administrative cuneiform tablet indicate that the language they were using was Hurrian. We have argued elsewhere that the local dynasty, whose kings called themselves endan, was connected to the Akkadian rulers to the south in specific ways, one of which was through the previously unknown daughter of Naram-Sin, Tar'am-Agade, who in all likelihood was married to an endan of Urkesh. A number of door sealings connected with the palace, sealed with a contest scene naming her as seal owner, attest to the fact that she was present in Urkesh. We have also published our interpretation that the purveyors of the Kura-Araxes culture can be identified as Hurrian.

https://urkesh.org/attach/KellyBuccellati2018b.pdf

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
And no, the Hurrians were not descendants of Shem or related to Hebrews/Israelites. My God, what an idiot. Keep up the good work tho. You owned me so hard.

/sarcasm

I'm screenshotting that comment of you saying Hurrians possibly descended from Shem to demonsrate what a complete and clueless idiot you are.

You are NOT worth mine or anyone else's time.

quote:

---

While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period.

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
There you go with your cute little trick, mix in Hurrian

---

What a clueless idiot. Back to ignoring you now, thanks for reminding me why I was avoiding you in the first place. You're a low level troll who knows next to nothing about this topic. Go find some other black people to pester.

quote:

---

URKESH INSIGHTS INTO KURA-ARAXES SOCIAL INTERACTION
Marilyn KELLY-BUCCELLATI


We have also published our interpretation that the purveyors of the Kura-Araxes culture can be identified as Hurrian.

https://urkesh.org/attach/KellyBuccellati2018b.pdf

---

---

Super Jackass, do you know what interpretation means?

from the same article:

quote:

---

URKESH INSIGHTS INTO KURA-ARAXES SOCIAL INTERACTION
Marilyn KELLY-BUCCELLATI


In this article, I will study two cases where the confrontation with an established urban
culture on the part of migrating Kura-Araxes groups took place along diametrically opposed
lines, and will propose a common reason for this difference. The two sites are Arslantepe in
southwest Anatolia and Urkesh (modern Tell Mozan), and the reason I suggest is that at
Arslantepe the Kura-Araxes groups met with a completely alien population, one that did not
share any of their core values, while at Urkesh they met with a Hurrian population with
which, we have reason to believe, the Kura-Araxes culture had many ties of affinity

---

In the same article she discusses Kura-Araxes and Hurrian as separate entities who had affinity

This is like Mizrahi Jews or share affinities with Palestinians yet one speaks Hebrew the other Arabic

It's even possible Abraham had Hurrian background.

Where Hebrew language comes in is unclear

>AND People can speak more than one language clown,
language does not determine ancestry


Haran is usually identified with Harran, now a village of Şanlıurfa, Turkey.

The patriarchal connection with Hurrian culture was traced to Harran in north-western Mesopotamia the heart of Hurrian territory.


According to the Hebrew Bible, Haran was the place where Terah settled with his son Abraham (at that time called Abram), his grandson Lot, and Abram's wife Sarah (at that time known as Sarai) during their planned journey from Ur Kaśdim (Ur of the Chaldees) to the Land of Canaan.[7] The region of Haran is referred to variously as Paddan Aram and Aram-Naharaim. Abram lived there until he was 75 years old before continuing on to Canaan, in response to the command of God


Haran figures prominently in the patriarchal narratives and in the attempts at historical reconstruction of the patriarchal period. In addition to Haran, the father of Lot and brother of Abram (Gen. 11:31), the names of several of Abram's relatives are the names of cities or towns in the region of Haran: Peleg, a distant ancestor (Gen. 11:18); Serug, Abram's greatgrandfather; Nahor, his grandfather and his brother; and Terah, his father (Gen. 11:22-29). Terah took his household to Haran after leaving Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:31-32) and died in Haran. Abram left Haran for Canaan at God's instruction (Gen. 12:1), gathering with him his sizable household and considerable wealth, amassed while in Haran (Gen. 12:4-5). Abraham sent his servant back to the region of Haran to procure a wife for his son Isaac (Gen. 24:10).

_________________________________

People can be part of different cultures but be of the same biological stock

So there is nothing that says Abraham could not be a descendant of Hurrians OR share the same biological ancestry but adopted a different culture
Jews are known for bearing J, E, T and G ancestry

and if don't believe in genetics
then having a different haplogroup should not exclude Israelite ancestry and followers of the 12 Tribes chart would have to agree

But I think you are playing games, you don't really believe in that chart, you are scamming Brandon


Who knows if Shem was real but if he was it's hard to know his time period and then relate it to Hurrians. If he was before Hurrians there is nothing that says Hurrians could not have shared the same haplogroup
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Nah, you're done. You're an incompetent troll. You failed 200% when you said Hurrians possibly descend from Shem. What a clueless idiot. That archaeologist said word for word that the Kura-Araxes can be identified as Hurrians. She's not the only one who wrote that either, but I'm not going to waste time entertaining your madness.

Hurrians had NOTHING to do with Hebrews and I just referenced a source that demonstrated that as well.

This reminds me of when you falsely accused me of lying about the Kura-Araxes having hg J because you were too stupid to read the source I was posting that said they did have J.

You failed. Go troll another thread now. If I'm so wrong then why do you keep trying to engage to me, for literal weeks?

It's because you are coping.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


Hurrians had NOTHING to do with Hebrews and I just referenced a source that demonstrated that as well.

---

they may have had the same haplogroup

To say that is impossible is to lie to yourself and God
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
they may have had the same haplogroup

To say that is impossible is to lie to yourself and God

---

Lmfao yeah, and george washington may have been an alien.

You don't even believe in God so the fact that you try to invoke God just shows what a trolling devil you are.

Let me know when y'all find a source showing another civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


It's because you are coping.

---

My identity is not riding on this
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ You sure do act like it is. You've come up with tons of retarded arguments that make no sense and contradict what the "genetic evidence" says. You constantly try to engage me and constantly interrupt the flow of the conversation between myself and others when I'm not even trying to deal with you. You sure you're not a J carrier? I wouldn't be surprised at this point. That's honestly what I'm starting to believe.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

You don't even believe in God so the fact that you try to invoke God just shows what a trolling devil you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
That's not trolling, this is literally what you believe -- that if someone studies and/or discusses a certain topic, they must believe or subscribe to it.

---

practice what you preach

My God is not your God
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Your god is Satan.

Go crawl back in your hole now.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Maybe it could be an idea to start a thread specifically about the origin and ancestry of ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. This thread was originally about IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component.

But just as a small contribution to the current discussion I post a video I stumbled over which also discusses the genetic origins of ancient Israelites

THE GENETIC ORIGINS OF THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES

The samples they talk about in the video is not the ones from Abu Ghosh or the Tomb of the Shroud in Jerusalem, which are purportedly the only ones so far that contain DNA from ancient Israelites.

The samples in the video is from Megiddo and Abel Beth Maacah.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
[QB] Maybe it could be an idea to start a thread specifically about the origin and ancestry of ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. This thread was originally about IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component.

---

then why didn't you do it?
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Maybe I do it later, or if someone else feels like to start such a thread.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Maybe I do it later, or if someone else feels like to start such a thread.

---

Although there was already this thread

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010891;p=1

Topic: In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"

(but the thread got locked)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:


THE GENETIC ORIGINS OF THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES

The samples they talk about in the video is not the ones from Abu Gosh or the Tomb of the shroud in Jerusalem, which are purportedly the only ones so far that contain DNA from ancient Israelites.

The samples in the video is from Megiddo and Abel Beth Maacah.

---

In that same thread on page 1, I posted the following image and they also show this article title in the video you just posted

3/4 down on page 1

Genomic History of the Brone Age Southern Levant

https://images2.imgbox.com/94/0c/wbwjBeb3_o.png

^ this chart shows the Megiddo DNA
This shows 15 males from the site and 8 females
And also has DNA from other sites in ancient Israel:

Megiddo
Tel Abel Beth Maacah
Tel Hazor
Yehud

_________________________________


What sources do you have for Abu Gosh or the Tomb of the shroud in Jerusalem, having DNA from ancient Israelites?
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
I saw that. Both Megiddo and Abel was in that chart

-Megiddo 14517, (1107-903 BC), Y-DNA: J1

-Tel Abel Beth Maacah 1A 12201, (1011-846 BC), Y-DNA: T1a1a1b2b2b1a1a2

I also found them on a map with ancient DNA



The map is interactive with different layers, and one can click on symbols to obtain information about different objects. Can be worth a closer look

Haplogroups info
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I saw that. Both Megiddo and Abel was in that chart

-Megiddo 14517, (1107-903 BC), Y-DNA: J1

-Tel Abel Beth Maacah 1A 12201, (1011-846 BC), Y-DNA: T1a1a1b2b2b1a1a2

I also found them on a map with ancient DNA



The map is interactive with different layers, and one can click on symbols to obtain information about different objects. Can be worth a closer look

Haplogroups info

---

https://images2.imgbox.com/94/0c/wbwjBeb3_o.png

Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant

this is the primary research article.

On Megiddo you just mentioned one sample
But like I said there are 15 males,
Y-DNA haplogroups include
J1,J2, T1 and E1b1b1b2a1

Abel is T1 (Tel Abel Beth Maacah)

and mtDNA also recorded at these sites
So it's not all J1 and uncertain as to if any are to regarded as "Israelites"
I'm not sure if they found any ancient writing along with those remains

There is also another study of the copper age (Chalcolithic) where all males in
a cave were haplogroup T

But asked you about
Abu Gosh or the Tomb of the shroud in Jerusalem
as for DNA
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
I mentioned only the two since it was they which were presented in the video. The others were already posted in the closed thread.

I think the Abu Ghosh, or Kiryat Yearim, scientific article is not out yet, there are only a news article which was covered in the thread which was closed. The Y-DNA was J2

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites

The tomb of the Shroud has only mtDNA:



Molecular Exploration of the First-Century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem

Here is a link to the closed thread for more details:

Topic: In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:


The samples they talk about in the video is not the ones from Abu Gosh or the Tomb of the shroud in Jerusalem, which are purportedly the only ones so far that contain DNA from ancient Israelites.

The samples in the video is from Megiddo and Abel Beth Maacah.

---

Tomb of the shroud is first century CE

Israelites c. 1000–586 BCE
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
As I explained here...


(larger version)

The samples tested vary in dates from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. Unfortunately all these sites are in northern Israel and the southern sites have yet to be tested.

I'll just ignore Taz because he is an ignoramus who knows nothing about ancient cultures in the region being discussed. He just looked up Kura-Araxes and sticks with that straw doll despite the fact that hg J dating to paleolithic times and whose spread is linked to the Neolithic predates that culture and as I said there were other cultures in northern Mesopotamia such as the Hassunan, Halafian, and Samarran Cultures-- ALL of which predates Kura-Araxes.

The idiot cannot even make the proper distinction between physical population comprised of individuals whose ancestries are reflected in their genes, versus the material cultures they possessed, and what languages they spoke. Without such nuances and their contexts, there will always be confusion.

Thus Proto-Semitic while developing in Asia is ultimately derived from Africa (Afro-asiatic) brought into Asia by African immigrants. But languages are easily spread and adopted by other peoples. Thus I myself am a Filipino speaking English does that make me an ethnic Anglo??
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


The samples tested vary in dates from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. Unfortunately all these sites are in northern Israel and the southern sites have yet to be tested.

---

Here is some Ashkelon DNA not mentioned yet

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6609216/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


I'll just ignore Taz because he is an ignoramus who knows nothing about ancient cultures in the region being discussed. He just looked up Kura-Araxes and sticks with that straw doll despite the fact that hg J dating to paleolithic times and whose spread is linked to the Neolithic predates that culture and as I said there were other cultures in northern Mesopotamia such as the Hassunan, Halafian, and Samarran Cultures-- ALL of which predates Kura-Araxes.

---

Also we have the Israelites
Israelites c. 1000–586 BCE


And above we are looking at Ashkelon
the dating ranges from 1622-1042 BCE

_____________________________________

And we have prior to the Israelites:

https://images2.imgbox.com/94/0c/wbwjBeb3_o.png

Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant

Israel sites:

Megiddo 1623-923 BCE

Yehud 2500-2000 BCE

Hazor 1800-1250


There are several haplogroups on the chart for these sites including J1, J2 and others

Spaz say this got there by way of Kura-Araxes
but if that is the case so what?
That is before the Israelites

He acts like if (according to speculation) Kura- Araxes did the main spread of J in the region
that no one after them was allowed to spread it more after them which is BS. Even if Kura-Araxes were the initial main mass spreaders that doesn't mean they were the only spreaders, J is still being spread to this day but someone didn't get the memo
And it's even possible some of the the Israelites who came from outside Israel were descendants of Kura-Araxes if not of the same haplogroup/s

quote:

---

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/08-1763.1


Transmission dynamics of Tazmanian devil facial tumor disease may lead to disease-induced extinction

Hamish McCallum, Menna Jones, Clare Hawkins, Rodrigo Hamede, Shelly Lachish, David L. Sinn, Nick Beeton, Billie Lazenby
First published: 01 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1763.1

---

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Tomb of the shroud is first century CE

Israelites c. 1000–586 BCE

---

Yes, but the tomb of the Shroud is considered Jewish, and it seems that later Jews, at least partly are descendants of Israelites. Ancient Israelite DNA and ancient Jewish DNA are rarities.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
I am sitting and watching this map, and trying to figure out how complete it is

Haplogroup info - Prehistory Atlas
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Djehuti returns every 3 days to say "I'll just keep ignoring Taz"

Why can't he produce a source to substantiate what he has been claiming for weeks now?

Because he is PSEUDO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Again projecting. YOU are obviously the straw queen because all you cited is Kura-Araxes when nobody in here ever said that was the culture that Abraham and his people were part of. Abraham came from northern Mesopotamia and there were a variety of cultures there.

---

Then can we please see you reference a source that shows hg J arriving into the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes, since that is what you are claiming was the case?

You keep repeating this bs without any evidence to substantiate it.

How do you not understand what I am asking you, after weeks of me breaking it down in several different ways?

Are you seriously this dense?

I promise we can talk about the flood stories after you produce a source(s) showing hg J arriving in the Levant/Mesopotamia via a culture other than the Kura-Araxes.

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
And "lioness" is so dense that he is still asserting the Israelites descended from J-carrying Hurrians even though I've demonstrated multiple times that the Hurrians were a completely different bloodline/lineage.

You two idiots (you and Djehuti) don't even realize you are arguing two completely different things. He is arguing that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (without any evidence) and you are arguing that the Hebrews descended from the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians.

ROFL, this is why Dr. Elhaik dismissed the psuedo claims you clowns were making.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The idiot cannot even make the proper distinction between physical population comprised of individuals whose ancestries are reflected in their genes, versus the material cultures they possessed, and what languages they spoke. Without such nuances and their contexts, there will always be confusion.

---

You're so dumb and desperate that you're now debunking your own arguments. The same can be said for the J-carrying Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia and assimilated into Hebrew/Semitic culture. You cannot have it both ways. The fact that they assimiliated into that culture at the time DOES NOT make them ethnic or bloodline Hebrews you idiot.

This is something you are making up in your head, even though the genetic sources AND an actual Ph.D geneticist with decades of experience say otherwise.

LOL!

Imagine if I kept coming to this thread every 3 days saying "omg I'm just going to keep ignoring Djehuti" but I continued to spew and repeat the same unsubstantiated nonsense without any sources even though I was being challenged.

The mods would jump in here and BAN my ass and start deleting my posts.

You pseudos can say anything you want about me but one thing you can't say is that I don't provide sources. I have a source to back up everything I claim and assert.

"The lioness" falsely accuses me of lying and making stuff up and what do I do? BOOM, I drop a source.

***** I can 100% guarantee that Djehuti is going to respond to all of this EXCEPT for the part where he is challenged to produce a source showing that a J-carrying civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia -- a J-carrying civilization that could ACTUALLY be related to Hebrews.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Ignoring the idiot above.

To Lioness, Ashkelon was NOT an Israelite city but a Philistine one. During the Iron Age the Philistines a foreign people colonized the coast from the Gaza strip to a little farther northeast.

Philistia


The bible identifies the five main cities of Philistia as Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath.

Genetic analysis has shown that the Philistines were indeed a foreign people whose origins are traced to the Aegean region which confirms the archaeology as their material possessions like pottery all show distinct Aegean features.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ As expected, ZERO sources were provided by Djehuti who has repeatedly asserted that J carriers other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. Zero sources to demonstrate J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Hebrews.

Just speculation, deflection and childish insults when sources should have been provided.

He will most likely indirectly respond to me sometime in the near future (as he has done several times already) in an attempt to save face, but NEVER will he produce a source to substantiate his faulty assertion.

I am the boogie man to this pseudo idiot who can't keep my name out of his mouth but NEVER produces a source to back up his opinion.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
In many discussions people for different reasons often focus on the Y-DNA. But also the mtDNA can be interesting. Who were the women who accompanied the men? Where did they descend from? In the Haaretz article about Kiriath-Jearim they also mention the mtDNA found there:

quote:

---

As for the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the maternal side, the two individuals at Kiryat Yearim displayed two different haplogroups. One, T1a, is a very ancient ancestral haplogroup, with similar counterparts already found in individuals living in Jordan some 10,000 years ago and in southeastern Europe around 7,000 years ago, says Shaus. In later samples it is found in Iran and in those Canaanites sampled in Israel, as well as all the way to the Baltic and Ural Mountains.

This suggests that this haplogroup’s initial source may have been somewhere in Neolithic Anatolia or the Levant, and slowly spread with early farming, Shaus says.

The second mitochondrial haplogroup, called H87, hasn’t been previously detected in ancient DNA samples but is found in modern-day Basques, Tunisian Arabs, and Iraqis. This may point to an origin in the Mediterranean or the Near East, perhaps in the Arabian peninsula, he says. If so, this particular haplogroup may have spread with nomadic populations, Shaus concludes. In other words, the samples from two ancient Israelites hint at ancestry from peoples in both Anatolia and Arabia.

Much more data and research are needed to understand how significative these results are, whether they truly represent the ancestry of the region’s population at the time – and what they mean for our understanding of the broader story of the emergence of ancient Israel.

---

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of Ancient Israelites

The tomb included remains from ten individuals, six adults and four children. The tomb is dated to some time between 750 BC and 650 BC.

We are waiting for the Scientific publication of the find where they also may publish autosomal results.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ As expected, ZERO sources were provided by Djehuti who has repeatedly asserted that J carriers other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. Zero sources to demonstrate J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Hebrews.

---

Like he said you have created a straw man, a false goal post
Some speculate that Kura-Araxes mass spreaders of J from the Caucasus area where Noah landed

You pretend if so these probable direct descendants of Noah
the Kura-Araxes were the ONLY ones as if there was a rule only they were allowed to spread it, no one
could also spread after them
and you know that is bullshit

The Israelites come in after Kura-Araxes, invaded Israel and they are potentially J also
but you want to pretend there was some rule only saying only Kura-Araxes could spread it

So you puts up this false goalpost to that effect
And you are asking Djehuti to play your deceptive game

And doesn't even believe the human populations was wiped out by an alleged flood and then restarted with Noah and sons after landing in a boat

Thus people were all over the planet still living, some with haplogroups older than J or E

and J was in Anatolia before the Israelites, where Abraham (If he existed) may have lived before migrating to Israel

So you are asking somebody to make this false goal
in a biblical timeline
> who does not believe in a biblical timeline. He believes humanity starts around 2 million years ago and is continuous since then



Noah and sons if real were the first post-flood Caucasians

tell me if I am lying
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
You pretend if so these probable direct descendants of Noah
the Kura-Araxes were the ONLY ones as if there was a rule only they were allowed to spread it, no one
could also spread after them
and you know that is bullshit

---

STILL waiting for one of you gaslighting trolls to produce a source demonstrating a civilization OTHER than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia, like you keep asserting.

The Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were responsible for bringing J to the Levant/Mesopotamia and they had zero relation to Hebrews.

If I'm playing a game then why do you clowns keep responding to me and making claims that YOU can't substantiate?

It's because you are coping.

"Lioness", you are a J carrier aren't you?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So you are asking somebody to make this false goal
in a biblical timeline
> who does not believe in a biblical timeline. He believes humanity starts around 2 million years ago and is continuous since then

---

Thank you for acknowleging that djehuti DOES NOT believe in the Bible. I already knew this and this 200% explains why he is trying to fit squares into circles.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] You pretend if so these probable direct descendants of Noah
the Kura-Araxes were the ONLY ones as if there was a rule only they were allowed to spread it, no one
could also spread after them
and you know that is bullshit

---

STILL waiting for one of you gaslighting trolls to produce a source demonstrating a civilization OTHER than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia, like you keep asserting.

---

On a mass level I assume.
One ancient family migrating cannot be accounted for

The Islamic conquest by the Arabs is an example
of mass spreading of J



this was all under their control at this point
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Can you produce a genetic paper demonstrating a civilization (other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians) bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia during the same time period(s) as the Biblical Abraham story? A civilization that is known to be Hebrew or related to the Hebrews?

That is what the point of contention was.

And this is LITERALLY what Djehuti and now you as well are asserting.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ Can you produce a genetic paper demonstrating a civilization (other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians) bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia during the same time period(s) as the Biblical Abraham story? A civilization that is known to be Hebrew or related to the Hebrews?

That is what the point of contention was.

And this is LITERALLY what Djehuti and now you as well are asserting.

---

I did what you asked, you owe me $300 but know you are moving the goal post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


^ Can you produce a genetic paper demonstrating a civilization (other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians) bringing hg J into the Levant/Mesopotamia during the same time period(s) as the Biblical Abraham story?

---

this is a new straw man, false goal post your setting up

Kura-Araxes is before Abraham yet to pretend they are the same time period

Abraham, if he existed was born around 1800 BCE

The Kura–Araxes culture was an archaeological culture that existed from about 4000 BC until about 2000 BC
(other sources: 3500 to 2500 bc)

So the J was spread BEFORE Abraham was even born
and his migration from was later even
And this is assuming the Kura-Araxes even spread J around (theory not fact, there is only one even identified remains that is J)

So since Abraham , if he existed might have been J,
since he comes AFTER Kura-Araxes
THEN STRAW MAN QUESTIONS ABOUT KURA-ARAXES ARE IRRELEVANT



SOUTHERN ARC REGION

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4247
_____________________

thread on this article:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010933


Here's your answer
Abraham born around 1800 BCE

Above human remains bearing J all over the region
see chart column TMRC, that is average date between the high and low estimates on the far right columns. So we have 4000 years ago going back to 31,000
> prior to Abraham

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
during the same time

---

^ irrational requirement

As for Israel if the Israelites invaded as the bible said, they could have been the ones who brought J there and the indigenous Canaanites were possibly E or some J could have already been there


Haplgroup J in Israel:
Tel Yehud 2500-2000 BCE

Abraham, if he existed was born around 1800 BCE

let that sink in


And, Arabs spread J to North and East Africa

>> meaning that anybody can post-KuraAraxes
at any point in time since can be LATER SPREADERS OF J
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
this is a new straw man, false goal post your setting up

---

Yep, this is what I get for entertaining a trolling idiot who I already knew is a trolling idiot.

That is literally the same question I've been asking on every page, anyone can scroll back and look. The entire point of contention is who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s) of the Abraham story.

And that's literally how I worded the question when I asked Dr. Elhaik over a month ago, remember?

🤡

You now call it a strawman because you know damn well you can't demonstrate anyone other than Hurrians bringing J there during that time period.

Then in your previous post, your remedial ass posted a map of J being spread in 750 CE, thousands of years after the relevant time period.

ROFL what an idiot.

Back to ignoring you, undercover J carrier.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

And that's literally how I worded the question when I asked Dr. Elhaik over a month ago, remember?

---

in his reply to you he gave to argument or explanation as to why he thinks Abraham (If he existed) was E

I suspect the reason is that Elhaik himself is E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


That is literally the same question I've been asking on every page, anyone can scroll back and look. The entire point of contention is who [b] brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period(s) of the Abraham story.

---

witless buffoon, that was to demonstrate a point, that Kura-Araxes spread J other AFTER Kura-Araxes can CONTINUE to spread J

And since Abraham came AFTER Kura-Araxes
He could have been one of these J spreaders

see how that works
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ I asked him that, and I also specifically asked him about hg J supposedly coming to the Levant from Mesopotamia during the time period of the Abraham story.

The point is that I did not move any goalpost or create any strawmen because I've been literally wording my comments the same way since day one.

You are a lying idiot who probably trolls this topic so hard because you yourself are a J carrier.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I don't even subscribe to Judaism, much less a J carrying female

and I repulsed by any obsolete tribal custom that gives God-preferred status to a person just by birth

My God is not your God

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


The point is that I did not move any goalpost or create any strawmen because I've been literally wording my comments the same way since day one.

---

Kura-Araxes is before Abraham, so yes, you have been promoting an irrelevant straw man from the start

Kura-Araxes hypothetically spread J
and then Abraham hypothetically also spread J after them (No contradictions)
and since that time other people have continued to spread J (No contradictions)

Let that sink in
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ First of all, you just got caught lying on me AGAIN and falsely accusing me of moving the goalpost because you don't know how else to handle this intellectual beatdown.

Secondly, you are a J-carrying man pretending to be something you are not. You are not a woman.

"Hypothetically, hypothetically, hypothetically..."

It doesn't matter if the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians predate Abraham you dunce, I already know that and it's irrelevant because Abraham did not descend from them nor was he related to them. That's the point.

Repeatedly pointing out that they were before Abraham is the actual strawman because I never said they weren't before him, I've repeatedly acknowledged that they were before him -- the argument is that he did not descend from them (hg J).

You just claimed in your other comment that hg J could have possibly been brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period by XYZ civilization but provided zero sources to substantiate any other civilizations bringing hg J there.

All the evidence shows it was Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia and they were not related to Abraham or the Hebrews.

quote:

---

While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period.

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

You and djehuti keep running into a brick wall and I'm sure you are willing to endlessly try to convince me to accept your laughable attempts at gaslighting but I never will so at this point we should all just agree to disagree.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
if Kura-Araxes/Hurrians predates Abraham you dunce, I already know that and it's irrelevant because Abraham did not descend from them nor was he related to them. That's the point...

I've repeatedly acknowledged that they were before him

---

The problem is there is no way to know that

So just saying that over and over is meaningless

You can't prove it

I'm not saying this possibly mythological person
was definitely J
I'm saying he might have been
because J was all over the region BEFORE him
That is solid logic
Stop straw-dolling

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

You just claimed in your other comment that hg J could have possibly been brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia during the relevant time period by XYZ civilization but provided zero sources to substantiate any other civilizations bringing hg J there.

All the evidence shows it was Kura-Araxes/Hurrians who brought J to the Levant

---

So what if it was Kura-Araxes?
That's before Abraham so J was spread before Abraham then why do you keep bringing it up ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

and they were not related to Abraham or the Hebrews.

---

You are phrasing the thought chronologically backwards

If Kura-Araxes is first then your trying to say

"and Abraham or the Hebrews were not related to Kura-Araxes"

So don't try to pull fast one by switching that around

Regardless you have the same problem you can't prove they were not both J carriers, Kura-Araxes and the Israelites
And religion or custom or language can be changed without changing someone's genes
Thus culturally different people can have the same genes, for instance some Jews and Palestinians
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
So what if it was Kura-Araxes?
That's before Abraham so J was spread before Abraham then why do you keep bringing it up ?

---

This is why you will forever be a clown whose comments are not even worth addressing. Abraham was NOT a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians, we are talking about two completely different bloodlines/lineages.

Shaking my damn head, you are completely lost in the sauce and are obviously not comprehending any of this.

quote:

---

While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period.

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade11-1-03

---

^^^^ Those are your J carriers who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.

The fact that they came before Abraham only strengthens the fact that he was not J. If they came after him then you would have an argument. But these are literally the people who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia before and during the time period of Abraham and they were not Hebrews like how Abraham was.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


The fact that they came before Abraham only strengthens the fact that he was not J. If they came after him then you would have an argument. But these are literally the people who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia before and during the time period of Abraham and [b] they were not Hebrews like how Abraham was.

---

Like I said, people can create or adopt new languages and religions at anytime. It doesn't change their DNA
Thus it's possible Abraham was in the same region Noah landed which after Noah but before Abraham would have become the Kura-Araxes culture

So biologically Abraham MIGHT have been of the same haplogroup as SOME of the Kura-Araxes (who also bore hap G and probably other groups also, yet to be verified)
There is no evidence of Hebrew culture prior to Abraham and what language he even spoke if he existed
I'm sorry
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ You're trying to play a game now since you can't demonstrate any other civilizations bringing J into the Levant/Mesopotamia

"Oh just because they were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian doesn't mean that's what they actually were ethnically or by blood"

But by taking that route you are basically admitting that they aren't Hebrews just because their Y markers were in the Levant/Mesopotamia.

You're trying to play the same game as djehuti and you failed just like him. Now all of a sudden Y markers are irrelevant because they debunk your "Abraham was J fantasy".

Rofl
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
There is no evidence of Hebrew culture prior to Abraham and what language he even spoke if he existed
I'm sorry

---

^^^^ ROFLLL what an idiot. Hebrews existed BEFORE Abraham. Everyone who descended from Eber was a Hebrew. Abraham was not the first Hebrew you clueless idiot. You sure are sorry

GO CRAWL BACK IN YOUR HOLE

quote:

---

Eber:

The eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews; grandson of Arphaxad and great-grandson of Shem; father of Joktan, the ancestor of the Arabs, and of Peleg, among whose progeny, in the fifth generation, was Abram (Abraham) (Gen. x. 22, 25-30; xi. 18-26).

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5406-eber

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Abraham is the first person called a Hebrew in the bible Genesis 14:13:

וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑י וְהוּא֩ שֹׁכֵ֨ן בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֜י מַמְרֵ֣א הָאֱמֹרִ֗י אֲחִ֤י אֶשְׁכֹּל֙ וַאֲחִ֣י עָנֵ֔ר וְהֵ֖ם בַּעֲלֵ֥י בְרִית־אַבְרָֽם׃
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The Hebrew Bible does not provide any information about where Eber lived.
The ark (ridiculous fable like Noah living to age 950) supposedly landed in Turkey
Hypothetically Abraham also live in Anatolia, so perhaps Eber did too
This is potentially before J even spread

But these THEORIES about MASS spreading events do not mean Noah , Eber or Abraham could not have all been haplogroup J

This spreading stuff you talk about does not change that
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^^^ You just exposed yourself you clown. Imagine trying to argue about who Abraham was without having a single clue about what the Bible says concerning his lineage and ancestry.

Rofl

You are not qualified to be talking about any of this. Hebrews existed LONG before Abraham and you didn't even know this.

quote:

---

"From Shem, through Arpachshad and Shelah came Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, and from his descendants through Peleg, Reu, Sereg and Nahor came Terah, the father of Abram and his brothers Nahor and Haran. It becomes clear that if "Hebrews" are descendants of Eber, then others besides those of Abraham's line would be included (see Gen. 10:25-27).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-were-the-hebrews

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

You are not qualified to be talking about any of this. Hebrews lived LONG before Abraham and you didn't even know this.

---

It can't be proven by scripture

and if one talks about the spread of a haplogroup
For Instance if you think Abraham was E

A genetics article is not going to talk about that
because there is no body
and no proof that Abraham existed

Yet plenty of articles will talk about the spread of E from Africa to places outside of Africa (let that sink in)

So if any of these patriarchs spread J or E
that is outside of the realm of these geneticist dealing with actual human remains testing, they cannot prove biblical characters are even real

Further as I keep telling your dumb azz
If one culture is responsible for a mass spreading of a DNA type that does not means smaller groups or individuals did not ALSO spread it as is continually going on to this day

So again your wicked desire for excluding others from the love of God will continue to flop
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Nah you got caught red-handed; it's a widely known fact that Hebrews are descendants of Eber, who long predates Abraham.

Just like how Shem predates Semites. Notice how you had NO problem in the past when the discussion was Shem being the father of Semites but now that you've been 200% exposed you want to play games.

80% of the bs you assert cannot be proven in scripture but now you want to be a Bible expert.

You know ZERO about the Bible and/or Abraham + his lineage/ancestors yet here you are making silly arguments about Abraham that are pure nonsense.

Rofl 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 have a seat
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^^^ You just exposed yourself you clown. Imagine trying to argue about who Abraham was without having a single clue about what the Bible says concerning his lineage and ancestry.

Rofl

You are not qualified to be talking about any of this. Hebrews existed LONG before Abraham and you didn't even know this.

quote:

---

"From Shem, through Arpachshad and Shelah came Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, and from his descendants through Peleg, Reu, Sereg and Nahor came Terah, the father of Abram and his brothers Nahor and Haran. It becomes clear that if "Hebrews" are descendants of Eber, then others besides those of Abraham's line would be included (see Gen. 10:25-27).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-were-the-hebrews

---

---

Gen. 10:25-27

quote:

---

וּלְעֵ֥בֶר יֻלַּ֖ד שְׁנֵ֣י בָנִ֑ים שֵׁ֣ם הָֽאֶחָ֞ד פֶּ֗לֶג כִּ֤י בְיָמָיו֙ נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יׇקְטָֽן׃
Two sons were born to Eber: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
וְיׇקְטָ֣ן יָלַ֔ד אֶת־אַלְמוֹדָ֖ד וְאֶת־שָׁ֑לֶף וְאֶת־חֲצַרְמָ֖וֶת וְאֶת־יָֽרַח׃
Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
וְאֶת־הֲדוֹרָ֥ם וְאֶת־אוּזָ֖ל וְאֶת־דִּקְלָֽה׃
Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,

---

Actual clown, the only thing that associated associate Eber and Hebrew is perhaps his name and being ancestor of Abraham but the foundation of the culture is not proven at that time such as the practice of circumcision, the Ten Commandments, the observance of the Sabbath, the use of the tabernacle, and the importance of the Ark of the Covenant, etc
All of these customs has starting point and either that can be established scripturally or it is unknown (or possible ancient writing outside of the bible )

Again, Abraham is the first person called a Hebrew in the bible Genesis 14:13
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^Everything you just listed is ISRAELITE culture you damn dummy, Arabs are also Hebrews and don't practice that stuff.

ROFL!!!! Keep going though! This is the most foolish you've ever made yourself look and you're making it so much easier to ignore you FOR GOOD when I start ignoring your clueless ass again.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^Everything you just listed is ISRAELITE culture

---

Yes fool, each of those things has to be associated in a biblical timeline proven by verse with a person named in the bible to prove that the Hebrew culture
is occurring at that time, when that particular person lived

But at the sometime it's irrelevant to the fact that
if you deem Abraham a Hebrew that does not mean he could not carry haplogroup J and brought it "spread it" to Israel after Kura-Araxes which starts around 4000 BC, 2,000 years before Abraham was born

The gimmick you keep using is if Kura-Araxes spread J that ONLY they could ever spread it.
You are insertion this "only" implication which is a form of lie.
In reality if they spread it that does not prevent
anybody after them from continuing to spread it
and haplogroups are not bound to any particular culture or language

In my view anybody regardless of ancestry should not determine a person's status
but regardless, Jews today are mainly J, E, T and G.
on the male side (although for most of their history it goes by the mother). T for instance was in Israel in the copper age
But I don't see something in their ancient history that there was some big schism dispute as to who was a real Jew or not that might parallel people who would correspond to the differences, J, E, T and G
(although there are some minor disputes)

You hate white Jews so you want to call as many as possible as frauds on a biological basis and most are J
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ This lying idiot didn't even know that Hebrews existed before Abraham and that Abraham was not the first or only Hebrew.

quote:

---

According to the Hebrew Bible, the first patriarch (male clan leader) of the Hebrews was Abraham, a man who led the Hebrews away from Mesopotamia in about 1900 BCE.

https://pressbooks.nscc.ca/worldhistory/chapter/the-hebrews/

---

And he, along with djehuti, has for weeks failed to produce a source showing hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could Biblically be the ancestor(s) of (or related to) Abraham.

After getting manhandled for all this time, he's now playing the "Tazarah hates white jewish people" game.

Here's a thread I made about black Jews years ago, notice how the first comments are by "lioness" (he went back and deleted some of them to cover up the fact that he was trolling) but also pay attention to how in the comments he did not delete/edit, he can be seen arguing that "black doesn't mean black" or "black doesn't mean negroes" when in reference to black Jews:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000662

He obviously adheres to the "true negro" doctrine.

The whole internet knows that this "lioness" person is actually a white man who has been pretending to be a black woman on this website and many other websites for over a decade -- his main goal being to discredit black history that he does not want to be discussed on the internet.

Screenshots from around the web of countless different people acknowledging this about "lioness" can also be seen at the end of the same thread linked above.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:


The whole internet knows that this "lioness" person is actually a white man who has been pretending to be a black woman on this website and many other websites for over a decade -- his main goal being to discredit black history that he does not want to be discussed on the internet.

---

keep guessing

what other websites?

the whole internet knows me?

bluffs don't work on me
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Lioness, why bother with the idiot. He is arguing about haplogroup J when I already cited a source about one branch of J, J1-M267 of which one subtype happened to be identified as the Cohen modal haplotype--J1-B877.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2


We show that this haplogroup [J1-M267] evolved 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. *The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia.* Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.

The imbecile hides behind his straw doll of Kura-Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C. — c. 2,000 B.C.)

Kura-Araxes


Yet he ignores the Halafian Culture (c. 6500 B.C. – c. 5500 B.C.), the Samarra Culture (c. 5500 B.C. - c. 4800 B.C.), and the Hassuna Culture (c. 5750 B.C. – c. 5350 B.C.)



All in the homeland of Abraham-- Ur (not to be confused with Sumerian Ur in southern Mesopotamia)



These were the Bronze Age cultures during the time of Abraham.



^ Note, Yamhad, Qatna, and Mari were Semitic speaking nations-- the last were East-Semitic speakers while the former two were West-Semitic speaking.

So he can keep clinging to his straw doll of 'Kura-Araxes/Hurrians' all he wants. He can hump it for all I care but it won't save his sorry lying ass.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Taz is one of those trolls who is so dumb he doesn't realize he was debunked ages ago. So please the idiot alone.

I really want to get back to the original topic of this thread which is NOT haplogroup J or the origins of Abraham but rather IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component .

Recall the following...





Note that other than the Yemeni Mahra, you have Bedouin B which was discussed before.

Bioarchaeological analysis of one of the earliest Islamic burials in the Levant-Megha Srigyan (2020)


No cultural artifacts were associated with the human remains, however, their archaeological context revealed that these were primary burials with the bodies placed in decubitus position, inside pits that were intrusive in the Neolithic levels (Fig. 1b). Interestingly, while the two burials were located very close to each other, no evidence of a Late Antiquity cemetery was documented at the site.

Genomic analysis of the individuals:
all four methods confirmed low levels of contamination. Two biological sex inference methods26,27 identified syr005 to be a male and syr013 a female. Individuals syr005 and syr013 were determined to carry mitochondrial haplogroups J2a2a1a1 and R0a2, respectively. Both haplogroups are common in the Arabian Peninsula, Near East and parts of Africa28,29 in concordance with the broad geographical location of the samples. In addition, the Y chromosome of syr005 was determined as haplogroup J, which is the most common haplogroup across the Middle East30 (Supplementary Table S2).
In order to explore general patterns of genetic affinity to modern populations, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed projecting the two newly sequenced Syrian individuals on a broad set of modern Middle Eastern, European and North African groups (Fig.2a). The two Late Antiquity Syrian individuals fell close to Saudi, Turkish and Middle Eastern genomic variation and to some Jewish populations but do not show close genetic affinities to the geographically close Lebanese samples from12. Further, to obtain a better understanding of the regional variation, a second PCA was conducted, limited to 37 groups from the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula and Caucasus. Here, the Syrian samples fell close to Yemenite Jews, Saudi and Bedouins genomic variation (Fig. 2b). Notably, within these genotyped Bedouins, there are two sub-groups, both sampled in the Negev in Israel: Bedouin A and Bedouin B2 that were observed to have distinct distributions in the PCA: while Bedouin A seem to be more widely dispersed and overlap with other groups from surrounding regions, Bedouin B (with the exception of one individual) form a small cluster separate from all other groups in the region.
From these two sub-groups, individuals syr005 and syr013 fall between the two Bedouin groups, and show a clear genetic differentiation from relevant modern-day Levantine populations (i.e. Druze, Palestinian, Jordanian and Lebanese). Further, to gain insight into the genetic composition of ancient and modern populations, an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis was performed. ADMIXTURE was first run with a larger set of individuals (1073 individuals) from Europe and the Middle East (73 populations). For K = 2, 3 and 5, all iterations with different random seeds converged to consistent results (Supplementary Fig. S2). Therefore, we consider K=5 as a compromise between resolution and robustness of results. At K = 2, mostly north Europeans are differentiated from south Europeans, Middle Easterners and Arabian Peninsula groups. At K = 3, a new component emerged in Caucasian and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 4, another component appeared in south Europeans and Middle Eastern groups. At K = 5, a component exclusive to Middle Eastern and Arabian Peninsula groups appears (Fig. 3). This new component was seen at high proportions in Bedouins, Saudi, Yemenite Jews and our Syrian samples. Interestingly, within the Bedouins, Bedouin B was composed almost entirely of this new component. The separate cluster of Bedouin B could be the result of genetic drift, although its presence in other populations from the Arabian Peninsula suggests some degree of separate ancestry among these groups. The Late Antiquity Syrian individuals showed similar genetic composition to Bedouin B and some Saudi individuals.

Here is a PCA of modern populations of the Middle East and North Africa.



^ Note that the Bedouin B form one cluster while Egyptians form another in close proximity to Libyans. Also note the two Yemeni samples-- 1 close to Bedouin A, while another close the Libyan cluster.

From the thread Indigenous Arabs are descendants of the earliest split from ancient Eurasian populations, the source paper states:

The ADMIXTURE analysis identified K = 12 ancestral populations as having the lowest cross-validation error (Supplemental Fig. 7A). At this level of resolution, the Q1 (Bedouin) had a high average (84%) proportion of ancestry that was also present in the Human Origins *Bedouin B population at a high average proportion (93%)* (Supplemental Fig. 7B,C), in which this same ancestry was also shared with Saudis, and at lower levels among other Middle Eastern populations. This ancestry therefore appears to be the signal of an indigenous Arab ancestral population. The Bedouin A population also shared this ancestry but at a lower average proportion (45%) and appeared to be more admixed overall. The Q2 (Persian-South Asian) shared a large proportion (45% on average) of ancestry that dominates in Iranians (46% on average), consistent with a Persian ancestral population (Omberg et al. 2012). The Q3 (African) shared the majority of ancestry with African populations as expected and were considerably admixed overall, again consistent with the known history of this subpopulation (Supplemental Fig. 7A; Omberg et al. 2012).



^ Note the common ancestor of both Main Eurasian and Basal Eurasian shares a common ancestor with Ancestral North African. Bedouin B has very much something to do with theses early Eurasian lineages.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

As I pointed out to you before, the source you referenced says J1 evolved in Mesopotamia, you low IQ scholarly poser. I've already shown you where it came from and who brought it there -- and they were not related to Abraham.

Back to the challenge you keep avoiding -- when did you ever address what I actually challenged you to address?... Never. The fact that you have to save face by clinging to "lioness" as a coping mechanism speaks volumes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
^ As expected, ZERO sources were provided by Djehuti who has repeatedly asserted that J carriers other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia. Zero sources to demonstrate J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Hebrews.

Just speculation, deflection and childish insults when sources should have been provided.

He will most likely indirectly respond to me sometime in the near future (as he has done several times already) in an attempt to save face, but NEVER will he produce a source to substantiate his faulty assertion.

I am the boogie man to this pseudo idiot who can't keep my name out of his mouth but NEVER produces a source to back up his opinion.

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

And regarding the "cohen gene" that Djehuti has already admit lacks conclusive evidence:

quote:

---

"One thing is clear: the CMH cannot definitively prove the existence of a single founding father for the Jewish priesthood, let alone confirm that he was Aaron. If it is primarily a marker of priestly inheritance, why would it show up on two J lineages—most commonly on J1 but also on J2 -- that split thousands of years, maybe more than ten thousand years, before the time of Aaron?
Moreover, some Jews with an oral history of being a Cohanim and no known record of conversion have neither a J1 nor J2 lineage. They are from the haplogroup E3b, which has Middle Eastern origins, or from Rlb, which is common among Europeans and some Turks. How could that be?"

"Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People" by Jon Entine, page 70-71

---

Djehuti has admit the "cohen gene" lacks conclusive evidence and other authorities also say the same, so why does he keep trying to appeal to it? Is it incompetence? Or deception and dishonesty.

He's not even worth the time. I think I'm about to start treating Djehuti like "the lioness," and ignoring him completely.

---

 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
******* For those who have been reading along but not commenting -- I'm sure you've noticed that for the last few pages I have been specifically asking djehuti to provide a genetic paper showing hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that can actually be related to Hebrews or Abraham.

A civilization OTHER than the kura-araxes/hurrians. In other words, I stopped beating him over the head with the kura-araxes/hurrian sources and have given him ample opportunity to provide sources showing a Biblically relevant civilization introducing hg J to the Levant/Mesopotamia and he still can't do it for some reason... yet he continues flapping his gums and declaring victory, repeating the same nonsense over and over.

It's called cognitive dissonance.

🤷🏾‍♂️
 

---

Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
 
The trolling needs to stop, this is getting boring.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Seems much of the stuff about Abraham and ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were already discussed in this thread:

In First, Archaeologists Extract DNA of 2 "Ancient Israelites"
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yeah, but the thread had to be closed because the idiot above you would not stop trolling there. So now he has to pollute this thread with his trolling. It's very annoying. This is why I'm now ignoring him so we can discuss the relevant topic.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

What a lying cry baby, imagine being upset at somebody else because you can't provide a source to support what you claim.

That thread in question concluded with me contacting an actual Ph.D geneticist with decades of experience who dismissed all of the pseudo claims about hg J being the supposed marker of Abraham and his caravan as they migrated from Mesopotamia to the Levant.

Literally anybody can go look at the last page of that thread and see for themselves.

Imagine calling me a troll when I:

1.) Provided genetic sources that contradict your assertion(s).

2.) Backed you so far into a corner that you are unable to provide a genetic source to support the idea that hg J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Abraham/Hebrews like how you have repeatedly claimed.

3.) Presented the input of an actual Ph.D geneticist who viewed your claim(s) and dismissed all of them as hypothetical theory that cannot ever be proven.

ROFL, if you're going to "ignore Taz" then start doing it already and stop crying to other people about me.

UNLESS you finally decide to provide a source that shows hg J being brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by a civilization that could actually be related to Abraham/Hebrews -- like how you have repeatedly claimed.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@Djehuti

You are the one who started all of this in that thread, pretending to be a genetic know it all.

Then you have the nerve to bring my name up in this thread, declaring victory talking about how you "schooled me".

You're the reason why it all carried over into this thread.

Now you're butthurt because you got exposed.

Rofl
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Anyone have pictures of the "Bedouin B" people?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

to Eran▾
12:15 PM (5 hours ago)
Thank you for your response Dr. Elhaik. I have one last question:
What would you say is the best response to those who claim Abraham must have been haplogroup J due to the fact that haplogroup J supposedly came from Mesopotamia to the Levant at the same time period Abraham did?


Eran Elhaik
to me▾
This is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that.
4:04 PM (1 hour ago)
☆

---

thus it remains an unresolved question, not a rejection of possibility
> the same thing I have been saying

/8 pages dead
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Look at this black-obsessed, black-hating troll who despises any black person who presents argumentation that goes against what he believes in.

He claims his position is that: "it remains an unresolved question" whenever I post about the topic but refuses to take this position when it comes to djehuti arguing for hg J.

Go tell that to djehuti then if that's what you believe, you idiot. You have been arguing in support of hg J this entire time and when you do take the position that it's "unresolved", you only take that position in response to me because you hate black people.

You expose yourself everyday.

Lastly, Dr. Elhaik came to the conclusion that Abraham was not a J carrier and postulates that Abraham was a different Y marker entirely.

You also excluded the last part of that email message where he explained the GPS.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
You are a liar. I have said from the start Abraham could have been J or E (or even T of G )
I never excluded

But you are on an exclusion mission, that I react to
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What I am saying is that haplogroup J originated between Africa and Arabia, regardless of whether or not a downstream branch of J arose in the Caucasus. Haplogroup J-M267 is a child of the parent J lineage and entire J family originated between Africa and Arabia.

---

source?
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ You mean you only react to black people. Djehuti has been excluding all other markers in favor of J, have you not been reading the posts in here you idiotic troll?

I mean, you troll in here everyday so I have no idea how you missed djehuti claiming that Abraham was J.

It's only a problem for "lioness" when a black person takes a position concerning Abraham and the Israelites.

What a lying, disgusting, black-hating troll.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:
Djehuti has been excluding all other markers

---

stop boo-hoo-ing

I'm not Djehuti's keeper or in charge

give us a quote of Djehuti excluding a specific haplogroup
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ Now you want to play dumb huh?

What does that mean if djehuti says Abraham was hg J you idiot? Can Abraham be more than one hg?

Keep exposing yourself as the black-hating troll that you are.

Djehuti and I are arguing the exact same thing, just in opposite directions.

Yet you only come out of your hole and start trolling me when I (a black person) take a position on the matter.

And you probably still wonder why you were ousted from being a mod.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
why do you keep bringing up blackness?
I told your silly ass Nubians and Ethiopians have significant frequencies of both E and J, both regarded as black, get a DNA test you never know what might turn up and work on your manners so people won't keep thinking you're a troll. You already won the 2023 Egyptsearch awards for pettiness and repetitiveness.
Abraham might even have been E1b1b like the Natufians

but is a purely hypothetical question. There will never be an answer to that (Elhaik 2023)
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ one of the most notorious trolls the web has ever seen is trying to imply that I'm a troll. ROFL!

Nubians and ethiopians having E or J means absolutely nothing when it comes to Abraham's potential Y marker you idiot.

You claim I'm excluding people by demonstrating that Abraham was E and you obsess over me night and day, but you say NOTHING to djehuti for excluding people by arguing that Abraham was J.

Because you are a lying hypocrite who has a disdain for black people. It's not "exclusion" that bothers you, it's black people making certain arguments that bothers you.

Get the hell out of here you damn loser, you are the biggest troll this website has ever seen and plenty of other users would agree with that.

The fact that the admin(s) had to boot your ass from being a mod speaks for itself.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
why are you saying I have disdain for black people?
stop being mean

what trolling is is when people are discussing or debating a topic one of the starts throwing in insults and personal attacks. I'm not saying I never do that but you do it ten times more and when I do it's usually retaliatory.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

the original J is J-M304
later splitting into J1 and J2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

"Interestingly, an ancient individual from the Caucasus belonging to J1a1b-Z18375 is found in the assemblage of the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes cultural tradition. This cultural tradition probably originated in the Caucasus and may explain the radiation of this branch."

Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
Hovhannes Sahakyan, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2

---

---

More from the same article:

quote:

---

Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
Hovhannes Sahakyan, 2021


Y chromosome haplogroup J-M304 represents the major male lineage in West Asia today. The 12f2a13 deletion and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) biallelic markers M3049 and P20914 define and characterize this haplogroup...

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-M172...

haplogroup J1-M267 root’s locations covers Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, Mesopotamia, the northern Levant, and the northern and the eastern Arabian Peninsula

We conclude that haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 started to diverge most probably in a region encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, the southern Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. The small-scale migration of people from northern West Asia to these regions among whom J1a1a1-P58 evolved, obviously occurred between the origins of J1a1a-Z2359 and J1a1a1-P58. The most conservative estimate is 7.4–15.7 kya.

Haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 in ancient populations was found only in the Bronze Age Levant2

At the beginning of the population expansion, people belonging to haplogroup J1a1a1-P58, probably migrated also to the northern regions of West Asia and Europe from the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Therefore, in the case of West Asia this evidence—based on the TMRCAs of the shared J1a1a1-P58 branches—mirrors that of genome-wide ancestry22. The migration of the J1a1a1-P58 lineages, though, was less pronounced towards the northern regions of West Asia and Europe, since the frequency of this haplogroup and the number of such branches are low there. During this time and especially thereafter, the spread within the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant was more intense, resulting in a large number of local branches and the high frequency we find today. This expansion resembles the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in West Asia65. Both the spread of J1a1a1-P58 and Afro-Asiatic languages could have been caused by the change of climatic conditions and the emergence of arid pastoralism as suggested earlier23.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazarah:

quote:

---

"Interestingly, an ancient individual from the Caucasus belonging to
J1a1b-Z18375 is found in the assemblage of the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes cultural tradition. This cultural tradition probably originated in the Caucasus and may explain the radiation of this branch."

Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267
Hovhannes Sahakyan, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2

---

---

here we see J1-M267 breaking off into different lineages

J1a1b-Z18375
and at the far right we can see some modern people who carry it, as well as an Assyrian
Sindi (Scythian)
Lesgin (Northeast Caucasian ethnic group)
USA
Tabasaran (Northeast Caucasian ethnic group)
Bedouin
Columbian
etc

There is person there in Columbian,
probably migrant


But Ashkenazi, at one position with the blue dot and a couple others lower down, as well as other Jews and non-Jews, Egyptian, Sardinian, Yemeni, Qatari
even Peru (obviously not a native)

These a people from a different branch descending from J1a1a1-P58

"We conclude that haplogroup J1a1a1-P58 started to diverge most probably in a region encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, the southern Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. The small-scale migration of people from northern West Asia to these regions among whom J1a1a1-P58 evolved, obviously occurred between the origins of J1a1a-Z2359 and J1a1a1-P58. The most conservative estimate is 7.4–15.7 kya."

and you can see some Middle East people in there
as expected for P58 while the Caucasus people are showing up with the previous clade J1a1b-Z18375
(although the Bedouin is an exception)
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

Anyone have pictures of the "Bedouin B" people?

---

The Bedouin B sample was first discussed here by Xyyman. They are bedouin from the Negev Desert in southern Israel the same as Bedouin A except the former preserve genetic elements not shared by Bedouin A or other modern Levantine groups.

Recall the Schuenemann pca.



Not only is Bedouin A more similar to modern Levantine groups, but part of this similarity is the presence of Sub-Saharan ancestry.

Yet the Bedouin B shows higher rates of Natufian brown.

quote:

---

As Tukuler once explained:

Natufians are known to be crossbred. If the royal blue Anatoli element reps
Natufian 'Eurasian' parentage then surely the brown reps African heritage.

All the peoples below have only two or three major components.

Natufian: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
Levant N: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
AbusirEg: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue + Caucasus Sky Blue

Beduin B: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Teimani: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Saudi: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue

Beta Israel: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel
Somali: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel



Bronze Age Levant has less than 50% Erythrea and interjects the Maghreb geography
coming next. Other than that it'd be with the Levantine-Abusir brown/royal/sky set.

Though placed here for their majority brown, Beduin B, Yemenite Jew, and Saudi
would otherwise fit in the upcoming Mashreq brown/sky/ set.

---

As far as looks go, Negev Bedouin vary in appearance depending on tribe. Some tribes look more 'African' while others less so.





https://m.psecn.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000_kvnxIvYTQE/s/1200/I0000_kvnxIvYTQE.jpg

https://m.psecn.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000XQshScFNc7E/s/1200/I0000XQshScFNc7E.jpg

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5ee5ebc89f12e138c6c7e820/5ee5ebc89f12e1284ac7ea1a_bedoueens.JPG
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
@"the lioness,"

I completely disagree with djehuti on this topic for XYZ reasons but in all honesty and all genetic arguments aside, I can tell that djehuti is not a bad person and most likely a decent human being who is very intelligent.

I do not dislike people, I dislike arguments. Do things get heated when people are debating things they are passionate about? Of course.

He can call me names and I can call him names, he can attack my position and I can attack his position, but at the end of the day all of that means nothing to me because I don't hate the guy and I don't lose sleep over any of this.

And he can continue to feel the way he does about me, that doesn't change any of the positive things I've just said about him.

That being said, you ("the lioness") are a known, notorious troll who clearly has it out for black people specifically.

75% to 80% of the garbage posts and miscellaneous side-arguments in this thread alone exist because of you.

I blame myself as well for being dumb enough to go back and forth with a complete idiot.

All of the derailed threads on this website over the span of the past decade have a common denominator: YOU.
 

---

Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
 
The trolling needs to stop in this topic, it is way off topic.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Tt's because the mods are out to lunch allowing page after page of unprovoked insults and personal attacks. Occasionally you might hear me retaliate,
can you blame me after 20 insults in row?
Carefully go back in the thread and count the number of times and who's doing it. They don't care.
In addition there is a religious agenda running through it
And they let him follow me around in many threads, about 50 posts asking why I'm not a mod anymore.
Look at my last post, it's all data and article quote and no bullshit mixed in, It took time to research.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
Yeah, everyone go back and start reading at page 4 where "the lioness" repeatedly inserted himself into a discussion between djehuti and myself, and repeatedly kept trying to muddy the water. You do this ALL the time and everybody knows it.

Djehuti and I were each arguing in favor of a certain Y marker in regards to Abraham. "The lioness" claims he obsesses over me because I promote "exclusion" yet djehuti was also excluding all other haplogroups in favor of the one he believed to be Abraham's.

"The lioness" is a sociopathic troll who only has a problem when black people make certain arguments; if a non-black person makes the exact same argument, "the lioness" has no problem with it and says nothing about it. But let it be a black person and he will insert himself into the discussion non-stop in an attempt to silence and "discredit" them.

Now he's trying to play the victim, yet the whole damn website knows you have a problem and that you are the problem -- even the mods know this and that's why they booted your ass from being a mod. So you look even more foolish for trying to talk bad about the other mods of this website who are actually normal people.

I kept pestering you and asking you why you were no longer a mod to give you a taste of your own medicine and show you how damn annoying you are. Nevertheless, Askia told me to stop and I did. And it wasn't 50 posts, liar.

Keep trying to play the victim, especially with your decade-long history of this type of foolish behavior. Let's see how well that works for you.
 

---

Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tt's because the mods are out to lunch allowing page after page of unprovoked insults and personal attacks. Occasionally you might hear me retaliate,
can you blame me after 20 insults in row?
Carefully go back in the thread and count the number of times and who's doing it. They don't care.
In addition there is a religious agenda running through it
And they let him follow me around in many threads, about 50 posts asking why I'm not a mod anymore.
Look at my last post, it's all data and article quote and no bullshit mixed in, It took time to research.

---

I see whats going on but that person will never admit that they're just trolling for the hell of trolling.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ The person you just quoted has a 10+ year long history of trolling and derailing threads, he's even derailed multiple threads of mine personally. You obviously do not "see what's going on" because if you did then you would know that "the lioness" is doing what he always does. He literally follows me around everywhere on this site, especially when I make posts about ancient Israel because he doesn't want black people to have anything to do with ancient Hebrews/Israel. I don't troll, nor am I known for trolling. Asking XYZ person to present a source to back up their claim(s) is not trolling.

I've been on this site for years and I've only been banned one time for 3 days and it wasn't for trolling, it was for something I said that came off as offensive -- I should have been more careful with how I worded it.

If you want to say I'm off topic then sure, but I'm not the only one guilty of that.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
He ("the lioness") wants to try so hard to discredit what I'm saying because I'm "excluding Y haplogroups" but has nothing to say to djehuti about making the same exact argument and also excluding Y haplogroups.

THAT is a troll -- if anything, if he wanted to stop people from excluding haplogroups, he would say "hey Tazarah and Djehuti, both of you need to shutup because you are excluding people when there isn't 100% evidence for any haplogroup to be Abraham's."

He instead spams me with nonsense even when I ignore him (start reading at page 4 of this thread) and only attacks me because I'm black and he wants black people to stay in their place. That's why he has attempted to derail literally every major thread I have made about black Jews + evidence of black Jews:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000555;p=1

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000662

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000431;p=1

But yeah, I'm the troll. Nah, I'm just tired of playing nice with "the lioness" and letting his BS fly. So now I'm calling him out for it.

******** P.S., it doesn't matter when the specific branch of J1 split because the people in question with the J1 (Kura-Araxes/Hurrians) were not related to Hebrews so that logically means their ancestral clade was not related to Hebrews either.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
And this my comrades is why we (mods), close threads.

It was obvious then when I insisted the conversation had no bounds in the previous thread about Israelites.

This thread has nothing to do with haplogroup J, nor does it have anything to do with Hebrews or Israelites.

The topic and others with similar patterns of spam will be closed. You guys have 24 hours.
///MOD
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Perhaps if people would stop feeding the troll, he would starve and disappear. That's why I went back to actually discussing the topic of this thread since the troll is too dumb to realize he was debunked ages ago with sources that he keeps asking for!
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Perhaps if people would stop feeding the troll, he would starve and disappear. That's went back to actually discussing the topic of this thread since the troll is too dumb to realize he was debunked ages ago with sources that he keeps asking for!

---

Djehuti,

I specifically asked for a source showing hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mespotamia via a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization -- via a civilization that was actually related to Hebrews in some form or fashion (since this is what you are heavily asserting was the case). If you can re-quote something you already posted that shows this, or even post a source that you have not posted yet, then I will personally apologize to everyone in this thread INCLUDING "the lioness".
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I might ask somebody a question 3 times in a thread
but if I get still no answer I'll quit.
When a question is asked 10, 20 times etc in the same thread it becomes trolling harassment
It should be obvious they don't want to answer the question.
This is regardless of if the question is even valid or not
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I might ask somebody a question 3 times in a thread
but if I get still no answer I'll quit.
When a question is asked 10, 20 times etc in the same thread it becomes trolling harassment
It should be obvious they don't want to answer the question.
This is regardless of if the question is even valid or not

---

Thank you for acknowledging that the source was never provided, so djehuti is lying and gaslighting when he says that he "already posted it".

We all know he never posted the source like how he claimed, so calling me a troll for exposing his lie is actually troll behavior in itself.

He literally just said again that he posted the source. Are you not reading his comments? You're only crying about what I post, right?

It's not "harassment" if djehuti keeps mentioning my name each time he posts, and keeps saying he "already debunked me and posted the source."

The fact that you would rather cry about me because I'm asking him to prove what he says, demonsrates even further what a biased hypocrite you are.

If that were me claiming to have posted a source when we all know I never did then you would be the first person calling me out for it and trying to make me look stupid. But since the person in this case (djehuti) isn't black, you could care less about him lying about posting a source.
 

---

Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
 
the trolling continues still..............
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them.

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them.

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian.

---

Natufians had quite a bit of ANA, so if we take the modeling of AE ancestry as predominantly “Natufian” literally, then some ANA will be included in that. Though I don’t think we are ready to estimate how much.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian.

---

As Brandon pointed out, the problem is that Natufians are themselves a mixture of ANA, Basal Eurasian, not to mention some Anatolian admixture.

quote:

---

As Tukuler once explained:

Natufians are known to be crossbred. If the royal blue Anatoli element reps
Natufian 'Eurasian' parentage then surely the brown reps African heritage.

All the peoples below have only two or three major components.

Natufian: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
Levant N: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue
AbusirEg: Erythrea Brown + Anatoli Royal Blue + Caucasus Sky Blue

Beduin B: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Teimani: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue
Saudi: Erythrea Brown + Caucasus Sky Blue + Anatoli Royal Blue

Beta Israel: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel
Somali: Erythrea Brown + Volta-Niger Red + Hadza Steel



Bronze Age Levant has less than 50% Erythrea and interjects the Maghreb geography
coming next. Other than that it'd be with the Levantine-Abusir brown/royal/sky set.

Though placed here for their majority brown, Beduin B, Yemenite Jew, and Saudi
would otherwise fit in the upcoming Mashreq brown/sky/ set.

---

Compare with Loosdrecht et al. 2018



According to Loosdrecht even the Anatolians were admixed including Hadza ancestry.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
In summation, djehuti was asked to provide a source showing hg J being introduced to the Levant/Mespotamia via a civilization other than the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization -- via a civilization that was actually related to Hebrews in some form or fashion since this is what he claimed was the case for weeks.

Djehuti never showed a source demonstrating such, and even "the lioness" acknowledged djehuti never showed a source demonstrating such, yet he has repeatedly lied and claimed that he did, claims to have "debunked" me, and has been trying his best to get others to ignore me in hopes that this blunder of his can start to be forgotten as soon as possible.

I offered to apologize to everyone in the thread AND stop posting on this website altogether if djehuti could prove that he indeed posted the source as he repeatedly claims he did, but still, no answer from djehuti.

This is because he never posted such a source to begin with and is a gaslighting liar. He started the mess in this thread by mentioning my name and I finished it.

I will definitely be archiving this thread for future reference once the moderators lock it.

My sincerest apologies to all of the unbiased people here who actually have integrity.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ In short you are a lying idiot.

quote:

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85883-2


We show that this haplogroup [J1-M267] evolved 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. *The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia.* Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.

The imbecile hides behind his straw doll of Kura-Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C. — c. 2,000 B.C.)

Kura-Araxes


Yet he ignores the Halafian Culture (c. 6500 B.C. – c. 5500 B.C.), the Samarra Culture (c. 5500 B.C. - c. 4800 B.C.), and the Hassuna Culture (c. 5750 B.C. – c. 5350 B.C.)



All in the homeland of Abraham-- Ur (not to be confused with Sumerian Ur in southern Mesopotamia)



These were the Bronze Age cultures during the time of Abraham.



^ Note that the Eblaite Empire was comprised of Semitic speakers with the Eblaites themselves being East-Semitic speakers like the Akkadians. The Hebrews are West Semitic speakers.

---

This is the last time.
 

---

Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
 
^ and as I said before, that source simply gives general information about hg J but does not identify any specific J-carrying civilizations (who could be related to Hebrews) that brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia.

And that is what I have very clearly been asking for.

I gave sources showing that the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization (non-Hebrews) specifically brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia.

You assert there were other civilizations who brought J to the Levant/Mesopotamia that could actually be related to Hebrews yet you still have shown no evidence of such.

"The lioness" must be lying on you too because he also acknowledged that you never provided such a source, regardless of whether or not you believed my line of questioning was valid:



In any case, we can agree to disagree at this point because I myself am tired of going in circles with you over this.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ That's because Lioness keeps responding. The troll's questions were answered in the previous page but we know his cognitive dissonance won't allow him to address them.

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic again, the only autosomal components Neolithic Maghrebi and Natufians have in common is Ancestral North Africa, and Basal Eurasian.

Egypt is the link between them. [/qb]

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking. It makes zero sense to me that Ancient Egyptians per the supposed "Old Kingdom" leak would be 90% Natufian/Basal Eurasian related.

If the Natufians themselves have ANA then the Ancient Egyptians HAVE to some ANA.

I personally believe when this is all said and done the Ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic) will have a near equal mix of ANA/Basal Eurasian. [/QB]

---

Figure 2.
An admixture graph model of Paleolithic West Eurasians.

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry
Iosif Lazaridis, 2018

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full

_______________________________________


^ The term ANA means "Ancient North Asian"

The above chart is the only science article where you'll "Ancestral North African"
The term is not used in the article other than on this chart and not as "ANA" either

He does use these other abbreviated terms>>

Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE)

European and Siberian hunter-gatherers (ESHG)

‘Ancient North Eurasians’ (ANE)

Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG)

_________________________________________

My thread on this term:

Topic: "ANA" means Ancient Northeast Asian not "Ancestral North African "

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=8;t=010935;replyto=000000

________________________


What is ancestral North Africa?

__________________

Discovery of oldest Homo sapiens in Morocco rewrites human history
How long has our species been around? New fossils from Morocco push the evidence back by about 100,000 years.

The bones, about 300,000 years old, were unearthed thousands of miles from the previous record-holder, found in fossil-rich eastern Africa. The new discovery reveals people from an early stage of our species' evolution, with a mix of modern and more primitive traits.


Previously, the oldest known fossils clearly from Homo sapiens were from Ethiopia, at about 195,000 years old.

____________________________


Aterian

The Aterian is a Middle Stone Age (or Middle Palaeolithic) stone tool industry centered in North Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt, but also possibly found in Oman and the Thar Desert.[2][3] The earliest Aterian dates to c. 150,000 years ago, at the site of Ifri n'Ammar in Morocco.[4] However, most of the early dates cluster around the beginning of the Last Interglacial, around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, when the environment of North Africa began to ameliorate.[5] The Aterian disappeared around 20,000 years ago.

________________________

The Iberomaurusian is a backed bladelet lithic industry found near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. It is also known from a single major site in Libya, the Haua Fteah, where the industry is locally known as the Eastern Oranian.[note 1] The Iberomaurusian seems to have appeared around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), somewhere between c. 25,000 and 23,000 cal BP. It would have lasted until the early Holocene c. 11,000 cal BP.

Marieke Van de Loosdrecht et al. (2018) did a full genome-wide analysis including Y-DNA from seven ancient individuals from the Taforalt site. The fossils were directly dated to between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present. All males at Taforalt belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1a1 (M-78).

23 individuals from the original 2005 Taforalt sample were determined in Kefi's 2016 article to be of the maternal genetic lineage U6 and of Eurasian haplogroups H, U, R0 and at the Algerian Afalou site maternal groups were JT, J, T, H, R0a1 and U.

_________________________________________


Since they have not recovered the DNA of those much older fossils in Morocco and Aterians I would not use the term "Ancestral North African"
even though Lazaridis has that on the above chart

I think it's less vague to talk about
Iberomaurusian (Iberomaurusian)
This is implication of the above chart
You see the downstream of "Ancestral North African" are the Iberomaurusians at Taforalt Moerocco and (Afalou in Algeria)
and Taforalt was E1b1b1a1 (M-78) and Eurasian ancestry on the female side

It's not clear if Taforalt/Afalou paternal genetic ancestry goes all the way back to Aterians and these very old Moroccan skulls and it's unknown what the maternal ancestry of those older "Ancestral" people was
So "Ancestral North African" is unknown at this time

He also has "Basal Eurasian" in the chart mixed in
real populations with remains and "Basal Eurasian"
is hypothetical
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 
To piggy back off what the Lioness is saying the Lazaridis 2018 paper does seem to be the only publication I've seen that briefly uses the term "Ancestral North African" because even relatively newer publications such as "Paleogenomics North African" Summary paper back in 2021 by Fregel models Taforalt as Dzudzuana + Sub-Saharan NOT Ancestral North African.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ This was clarified in the 2018 Loosdrecht study.


 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This was clarified in the 2018 Loosdrecht study.

---

Forgive my ignorance but I don't see how because Loosdrect also modelled Taforalt as being part Sub-Saharan (Mende) 36.5% she has never implied any sort of genetically divergent "Ancestral North African" DNA the way Lazaridis preprint did.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
The nomenclature "Ancestral North African" was spotted by the QPgraph of Lazaridis, it isn't used in text. Loosdrecht never investigated a possibility of local ancestry but the results of lazaridis have been replicated. See Ghost North African in this study.

Also from this point on it is generally accepted though seldomly reported that those North African samples are a product of a mixture of local North African ancestry and an unknown west Eurasian source.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


@LoStranger

If you look at the various genetics articles mentioning North Africa
what they always seem to do is classify people of E1b1b as North African/Horn

And "Sub-Saharans" as
A
B
E1b1a
E1a
E2

______________________________

So according to this model "Ancestral North African" it would be fair to assume that is synonymous with E1b1b carrier

Lazaridis does not abbreviate that to ANA
Somebody did that on a blog and now it has stuck as a tend here at ES. Lazardis didn't even have the whole thing spelled out "Ancestral North African" in the article

But anyway, if you hear people talk about "ANA"
think E1b1b people

I'm not saying this is the right way to look at things but this is how geneticists are talking about this stuff currently, that E1b1b is not of "Sub-Saharan" people
and they exclude Horn Africans as Sub-Saharans even though many are geographically "Sub-Saharan"
They do this because they see E1b1b as a continuum
from the horn up into North Africa

What about the much older Aterians and archaic Moroccans ?
Their DNA is unknown
So to use the word "Ancestral" is malleable

What came before E1b1b
and E1b1a ?

It was E1b1
no "a" or "b" at the end

On this map that would be at the point 9 above
Ancestral North African and Mota

So if you think of ANA as E1b1b
it makes these terms less mysterious
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The nomenclature "Ancestral North African" was spotted by the QPgraph of Lazaridis, it isn't used in text. Loosdrecht never investigated a possibility of local ancestry but the results of lazaridis have been replicated. See Ghost North African in this study.

Also from this point on it is generally accepted though seldomly reported that those North African samples are a product of a mixture of local North African ancestry and an unknown west Eurasian source.

---

The West-Eurasian source is Dzudzuana related and has been cited now by both Lazaridis 2018 and Fregel 2021.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoStranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The nomenclature "Ancestral North African" was spotted by the QPgraph of Lazaridis, it isn't used in text. Loosdrecht never investigated a possibility of local ancestry but the results of lazaridis have been replicated. See Ghost North African in this study.

Also from this point on it is generally accepted though seldomly reported that those North African samples are a product of a mixture of local North African ancestry and an unknown west Eurasian source.

---

The West-Eurasian source is Dzudzuana related and has been cited now by both Lazaridis 2018 and Fregel 2021.

---

Fregel 2021?

The west Eurasian source is unknown.

Dzudzuana is as good of a west Eurasian ancestor for Taforalt as Mbuti is an Afican one. Also see the explanation provided by Lazaridis for the WHG-related West Eurasian ancestry not only in Taforalt but in Natufians and Dzudzuana for context. Dzudzuana could be interchangeable with Natufians for example.

quote:

---

“Western” Near Eastern populations, including Dzudzuana from the Caucasus, belonged to a cline of decreasing Villabruna/increasing deep ancestry: Villabruna → Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N → PPNB → Natufian → Taforalt

https://i.postimg.cc/CLKnRCbm/lazaridis2018.png

---

And here's a replication of the method used in the Lazaridis preprint using Pinarbasi epipaleolithic in place of Dzudzuana as a donor. See my comments here for why I used pinarbasi
qpAdm

code:

---

test       S1          S2                chisq        p-value      S1        -S2-
Taforalt   Mbuti       TUR_Pnarba_EpiP   2.764        0.736264     0.508     0.492 
Taforalt   Mbuti       Natufian          1.194        0.945463     0.314     0.686 

---

Notice ^ Natufians have a better fit.

For further clarity, the methodology in the Dzudzuana preprint allowed for Dzudzuana to provide the best fit given an absence of the African or "basal Eurasian" Ancestor in all tested populations. Therefore if Dzudzuana simply shared Deep ancestry with Taforalt they will provide some of the best fits. This is why Pinarbasi also works in this context. If Natufians were used they would likely provide a better fit. But look at what is stated when a decent group of Africans and used in the reference set(outgroups)

quote:

---

AllAfrican: Mbuti, South_Africa_HG20, Mota21, Yoruba3, Ust_Ishim, Tianyuan, Onge, Han, Papuan, Kostenki14, GoyetQ116-1, Sunghir3, Vestonice16, MA1, AG3, Villabruna, Dzudzuana, Taforalt, Natufian
The Early Neolithic samples from Morocco could be modeled as a simple clade with Taforalt (p=0.06). All the ones that could be modelled as mixtures of Villabruna/Dzudzuana+Basal Eurasian in the previous analysis using the All set could also be modeled using the AllAfrican set (Table S3.5).

Taforalt could not be modeled as any 2-way mixture. The best model involving Natufians and an African population (Yoruba) could still be strongly rejected (p=2.7e-13). Taforalt could also not be modeled as a 3-way mixture. However, Natufians could be convincingly modeled as a 2-way mixture of ~86% Dzudzuana and ~14% Taforalt (p=0.405) with small standard errors of 1.9%. Thus the affinity between Natufians and Taforalt described in ref.15 may have come about by admixture from a North African/Taforalt-related population into Natufians, rather than by admixture in the opposite direction.

---

10.1101/423079 see extended preprint
Natufians provided the best fits in a Failed model, Dzudzuana included.

The West Eurasian source is ultimately unknown. We have hints here and there but there's a reason why this study is still in preprint.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ Elmaestro

Which aDNA sample right now would you say represents the purest or most basal West Eurasian? As in, a sample that postdates the West/East Eurasian split, but lacks post-OOA African (including BE) admixture altogether?

I feel that, if someone claimed that ancient Egyptians or some other ancient North African population had mostly West Eurasian ancestry like a large chunk of the anthro fandom does, they would have to show that most of their ancestry could be traced to a source similar to the most basal West Eurasians instead of something like BE. Likening those ancient North Africans to samples we know have a lot of BE and ANA wouldn't be enough for such people.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
wiki

Basal Eurasian

A study by Lazaridis et al. in 2014 demonstrated that modern Europeans can be modelled as an admixture of three ancestral populations; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), and Early European Farmers (EEF).[2] This same study also showed that EEFs harbour ancestry from a hypothetical non-African 'ghost' population which the authors name 'Basal Eurasians'. This group, who have not yet been sampled from ancient remains, are thought to have diverged from all non-African populations c. 60,000 to 100,000 years ago, before non-Africans admixed with Neanderthals (c. 50,000 to 60,000 years ago) and diversified from each other. A second study by Lazaridis et al. in 2016 found that populations with higher levels of Basal Eurasian ancestry have lower levels of Neanderthal ancestry, which suggests that Basal Eurasians had lower levels of Neanderthal ancestry compared with other non-Africans. Another study by Ferreira et al. in 2021 suggested that Basal Eurasians diverged from other Eurasians between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, and lived somewhere in the Arabian peninsula, specifically the Persian Gulf region, shortly before proper Eurasians admixed with a Neanderthal population in a region stretching from the Levant to northern Iran

Possible geographic origins
Basal Eurasians may have originated in a region stretching from North Africa to the Middle East, before admixing with West-Eurasian populations.[3][4][5][6][7] North Africa has been described as a strong candidate for the location of the emergence of Basal Eurasians by Loosdrecht et al. in 2018.[8] Ferreira et al. in 2021 argued for a point of origin for Basal Eurasians into the Middle East, specifically in the Persian Gulf region on the Arab peninsula. As Basal Eurasians had low levels of Neanderthal ancestry, genetic and archaeological evidence for interactions between modern humans and Neanderthals may allow certain areas, such as the Levant, to be ruled out as possible sources for Basal Eurasians. In other areas, such as southern Southwest Asia, there is currently no evidence for an overlap between modern human and Neanderthal populations.[6]

__________________________________

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=8;t=010838;go=older

Topic: Projecting ancient ancestry in modern-day Arabians and Iranians (Ferreira,2021)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
The Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the early structuring of modern humans in the wake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite its poor climatic conditions for the recovery of ancient human DNA evidence, the availability of both genomic data from
neighbouring ancient specimens and informative statistical tools allow modelling the ancestry of
local modern populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in
291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus. Eastern Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for a possible bias due to a recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, eastern Arabians were also the ones with highest similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were, so far, the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans who diverged from the common European-Eastern Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, prior to the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results appear to indicate that the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf was the possible home of basal Eurasians, a scenario to be further investigated by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/gbe/evab194/6364187

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
A basal Eurasian paper, which describes Basal Eurasian as non-African while acknowledging that it is likely African:

"The basal Eurasians and the Neanderthal admixed group were genetically close, so they most likely descended from the same African migrant group that
had split somewhere earlier. The split might have occurred in southwestern Asia after the OOA
migration (through either the northern or the southern route; (Lahr and Foley 1994), or,
alternatively, in Africa. In the latter scenario, the subset that gave rise to the basal Eurasian branch probably followed the southern route taking refugium in the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian
Gulf, while the direct ancestors of Europeans and Asians followed the northern route, mixed with
Neanderthals, and hence moved forward, further splitting towards Europe and Asia. Current
evidence does not allow us to disentangle between the two scenarios, which highlights the urgency
of finding and analysing ancient human specimens in eastern AP/Zagros region"

---

 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
@ Elmaestro

Which aDNA sample right now would you say represents the purest or most basal West Eurasian? As in, a sample that postdates the West/East Eurasian split, but lacks post-OOA African (including BE) admixture altogether?

I feel that, if someone claimed that ancient Egyptians or some other ancient North African population had mostly West Eurasian ancestry like a large chunk of the anthro fandom does, they would have to show that most of their ancestry could be traced to a source similar to the most basal West Eurasians instead of something like BE. Likening those ancient North Africans to samples we know have a lot of BE and ANA wouldn't be enough for such people.

---

I'd have to say, so far it'd be Russia's Sunghir.
Another argument can be made that it's probably WHG but It's not clear how devoid of various non W/E they actually are. Their profile had been crystallized by an extreme genetic bottleneck. And Villabruna can sometime show minor Affinity with some African groups.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ This begs the question where the dividing line between African and non-African is. There are many who are starting to acknowledge Basal Eurasian as African and definitely Ancestral North African. So 'Main Eurasian' then would somehow be 'truly' Eurasian.

What complicates things further the are waves of African admixture from not only Basal Eurasian but Ancestral North African and even Hadza if the Loosdrecht finding is accurate.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This begs the question where the dividing line between African and non-African is. There are many who are starting to acknowledge Basal Eurasian as African and definitely Ancestral North African. So 'Main Eurasian' then would somehow be 'truly' Eurasian.

What complicates things further the are waves of African admixture from not only Basal Eurasian but Ancestral North African and even Hadza if the Loosdrecht finding is accurate.

---

For me if it originated in Africa then it's African even if it clusters closely to "proper/true" Eurasian clusters.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Neanderthal admixture seems to be the best indicator of Eurasian ancestry, given that we haven’t found Neanderthal remains anywhere in Africa yet. Even then, there’s the question of how much time elapsed between the departure of mtDNA M and N from Africa on the one hand and Neanderthal introgression on the other.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Neanderthal admixture seems to be the best indicator of Eurasian ancestry, given that we haven’t found Neanderthal remains anywhere in Africa yet. Even then, there’s the question of how much time elapsed between the departure of mtDNA M and N from Africa on the one hand and Neanderthal introgression on the other.

---

Couldn't agree more and furthermore this is how you know Taforalt is definitely proper Eurasian because they've higher levels of Neanderthal levels than Sub-Saharan Africans heck I believe their levels were even measured higher than that of Early Neolithic Iran
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The only question is where did such Neanderthal ancestry come from? Was it inherited from Natufian forebears OR did it come across the Straits of Gibraltar?

According to Loosdrecht, Taforalt is awfully close to modern Yemenis.



And Natufians in general are close to Yemeni Mahra.



Yet Mahra also have high amounts of Neanderthal ancestry.
 

---

Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The only question is where did such Neanderthal ancestry come from? Was it inherited from Natufian forebears OR dis it come across the Straits of Gibraltar?

According to Loosdrecht, Taforalt is awfully close to modern Yemenis.



And Natufians in general are close to Yemeni Mahra.



Yet Mahra also have high amounts of Neanderthal ancestry.

---

More than likely it's the increased African ancestry (ANA or SSA) in Talforalt that mitigated it's neanderthal levels compared to Yeminis. Also it appears to plot closet to Afar populations.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
We're in a very rough state in the bioanthro world. I don't think it's appropriate to compare Taforalt's unknown ancestry to the Afar or to modern day Yemeni's as these populations are separated by tens of thousands of years. I think in order for us to be at a point where we can better distinguish actual probabilities going forward we need to establish or agree on a few key things.

PCA's are not useful as a tool to investigate hidden ancestry. And as a result, G25 is not that good of a tool to an even greater extent because the coordinates are based on the PCs created. Moreover proximity in PC 1, 2 and 3 can't speak to ancestry as multiple dimensions are calculated by default. Things like heterogeneity can have a huge impact on how populations cluster on a PCA. Afar are not related to Taforalt, and even further removed are the Mahra.

As it related to Taforalt's ancestry composition: I think it's viable or even safe to assume that the sampled Taforalt individuals have received ancestry from an eastern source. That eastern source were the carriers of m78. So one stream of their ancestry is a part of a "complex" which likely included unsampled North East African populations. Archaeologically we have candidates for such a population. On the other hand we have the unknown fore-bearers who brought U6. And lastly we have the uncertain possibility of Aterian introgression (other minor African components notwithstanding).

This is where logic has to come to play. If we were to say the Natufian related ancestry is responsible for the Neanderthal ancestry then we've effectively dismissed space for a Basal Eurasian being in North East Africa.

We can also look at Taforalt's Ancestry as being a result of an SSA-Like population with elevated Neanderthal due to possibly Aterian introgrestion or U6, and later Basal Eurasian carrying "Natufian-like" ancestry.

Or we can just respect the history of the region as a whole and expect that U6 and other Eurasian haplogroups have been in North west Africa since at least 24Kbp. We can expect that the neighboring regions outside of Africa, East and North have Eurasians who were vastly similar in autosomal composition to the U6 progenitors. We can also estimate that since then an African group dispersed both into North west Africa and into the Levant bringing forth the Natufians. We probably estimate that relatively Isolated populations of Arabia (like those of the Mahra ancient socotra) were likely simply a mixture of Levant Natufians and local huntergathers. Ancestral North African (ANA) is ancestry that likely spanned all of Northern Africa (and maybe a bit further south) and is probably not unique to Iberomaurasians. ANA are just "Biological North Africans" with local derivatives in North west, Eastern and North East Africa.

With such a reality we can understand why the "Natufian component" was so pervasive as the Natufian-component is merely a black-hole for all the undiscovered African ancestry not precisely covered in modern populations. We can also understand why in any model with an ANA-Component, there is no Natufian component and vice-versa (because Natufians have ANA ancestry.)
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Cool. Is anyone else having issues accessing this website?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ No but it is annoying that I have to keep logging back in to make my posts or log out and log in to edit my posts. I think the format of this forum changed to protect users from cyber attacks.

To Elmaestro, I totally agree with you. When you look at the PCA of modern populations not only is there sampling bias with more samples collected from certain regions than others but look at the gaps in the populations of the African continent.



And this is just modern populations. We are only scratching the surface in regards to ancient populations with all these 'ghost populations' being discovered. So I too am skeptical in regards to what conclusions can be drawn about how modern populations are related to ancient ones.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

PCA's are not useful as a tool to investigate hidden ancestry. And as a result, G25 is not that good of a tool to an even greater extent because the coordinates are based on the PCs created. Moreover proximity in PC 1, 2 and 3 can't speak to ancestry as multiple dimensions are calculated by default. Things like heterogeneity can have a huge impact on how populations cluster on a PCA.

---

I've pointed it out before, but I notice a lot of anthrobros will use PCA positions to make inferences about an ancient population's phenotype, even though phenotypic traits like skin color account for only a small part of the autosome. Antalas for instance would argue that certain ancient North Africans would have had to look like himself because that's where their autosomes plotted on a PCA chart. Mind you, I don't doubt that there were some lighter-skinned people in the Maghreb as far back as the late Neolithic, but would I be correct in saying PCA position by itself doesn't say much about a population's phenotype?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Cool. Is anyone else having issues accessing this website?

---

A couple of weeks ago I was having big problems with it but not lately

Had made a thread about it

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010948

Topic: ES Server issue? > "The form is not secure autofill has been turned off ?"


________________________

the pop up message varies according to browser

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
it is annoying that I have to keep logging back in to make my posts or log out and log in to edit my posts.

---

'you currently still have to do this?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Only in one pc but that's probably because of its security features.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

PCA's are not useful as a tool to investigate hidden ancestry. And as a result, G25 is not that good of a tool to an even greater extent because the coordinates are based on the PCs created. Moreover proximity in PC 1, 2 and 3 can't speak to ancestry as multiple dimensions are calculated by default. Things like heterogeneity can have a huge impact on how populations cluster on a PCA.

---

I totally agree, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. PCAs have some usefulness despite the flaws you pointed out.

Note for example how PCAs correlate with nonmetric data such as the odontic data from Irish et al. (2020).


(larger size)

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

I've pointed it out before, but I notice a lot of anthrobros will use PCA positions to make inferences about an ancient population's phenotype, even though phenotypic traits like skin color account for only a small part of the autosome. Antalas for instance would argue that certain ancient North Africans would have had to look like himself because that's where their autosomes plotted on a PCA chart. Mind you, I don't doubt that there were some lighter-skinned people in the Maghreb as far back as the late Neolithic, but would I be correct in saying PCA position by itself doesn't say much about a population's phenotype?

---

Yeah, it's the same stupid conclusions the anthrobros make about every other piece of anthropological data. They see a skull and make automatic assumptions about the skin color. LOL
 

---

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3