posted 04 June 2004 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

What was the sample size? How many bedouin (the truly relevent group) were sampled?

---

I don't know, but I will post the studies. I don't think they tested many bedouin, buit that would be good, since most bedouin do not mix.

posted 04 June 2004 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

As far as I am aware the Aksumites married into the Jewish families of Yemen.

---

That may be true, but a DNA study found no sub-Saharan ancestry in those sampled. I don't know how large the sample size was.

posted 04 June 2004 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

http://www.asor.org/AM/fridayabs03.html

Eli Yannai, Israel Antiquities Authority
The Excavations at Tel Lod and their Contribution to Understanding Egyptian Presence in the Land of Israel at the End of Early Bronze IB
Tel Lod is located in the middle of the coastal plain ca. 8 kilometers east of Tel Jaffa. Excavations revealed a large settlement <A TITLE="Click for more information about dating" STYLE="text-decoration: none; border-bottom: medium solid green;" HREF="http://search.targetwords.com/u.search?x=5977|1| || |dating|AA1VDw">dating</A> to Early Bronze I-III. Finds included hundreds of imported Egyptian vessels, as well as imitations made in Lod and the south of the country. Six sherds from imported vessels had incised serakhs of Narmer, while another bore the serakh of Ka. These discoveries indicate that during the reign of Narmer (parallel to Naqada III B-C in Egypt) the community at Lod displayed Egyptian cultural characteristics and may have included a colony of Egyptian immigrants. The finds also indicate that Egyptian presence, well known from the south of the country, extended northwards to the Yarkon Basin. Although no Egyptian settlements have been found to date north of the Yarkon Basin, several tombs at excavated sites have revealed sporadic Egyptian finds. Thus, the colony at Lod was probably not part of a network of Egyptian settlements along the "Via Maris," but as testified to by the discovery of an Egyptian jar off 'Atlit and the establishment of several settlements along the coast, it was probably part of an Egyptian command complex whose purpose was to provide support for Egyptian maritime trade to the Syrian-Lebanese coast, especially Byblos. Lod may have also been an agricultural and commercial support for the (Egyptian?) port at Jaffa, while Egyptian settlements in the south of the country provided agricultural and commercial support to the (Egyptian?) ports at Gaza, Ashkelon, etc.

---

posted 04 June 2004 03:46 PM            

The reason why there are some tribes with a Eastern African phenotype in Southern Yemen is because of the Proto-Semetic speakers from Eastern Africa.

posted 04 June 2004 04:29 PM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
The same genetic study on the Lemba said Ethiopian Jews are less mixed than Lemba. Ethiopian Jews(Beni Israel)
I see why Wally says you're confused, the Ethiopian Jews are "Beth Israel" the "Beni Israel" are in India.

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
Another point to notice that I did not highlight was one of Gomer's son's, Ashkenaz. Ashkenaz is synonymous with the modern day Ashkenazi Jews
Is American synonomous with Ancient/Native Americans.You're foolish is you honestly think that a name can't be adopted.

1.I suggest you read "The 13th tribe" when Arthur Koestler a Jew himself, assert that the Ashkenazi Jews are descendant of the Khazaar Empire (Eastern Europeans) that converted to Judaism in the beginning of the century 740 A.D. (After Death, mind you).

2.Professor of Mediaeval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, A. N. Poliak. His book Khazaria (in Hebrew) was published in 1944 writes:
"a new approach, both to the problem of the relations between the Khazar Jewry and other Jewish communities, and to the question of how far we can go in regarding this [Khazar] Jewry as the nucleus of the large Jewish settlement in EasternEurope. … The descendants of this settlement — those who stayed where they were, those who emigrated to the United States and to other countries, and those who went to Israel — constitute now the large majority of world Jewry. "

Fact: The large majority of surviving Jews in the world is of Eastern European — and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar — origin.

3.Yakubi, a ninth-century Arab historian, traces the origin of the Khazars back to Japheth, third son of Noah.

Now lets deal with scientific evidence, and not "passion"
The "Cohen gene" which is a signature mark in determining you direct heritage to the lineage of Moses/Aaron results show the following:

1.(Beni Israel)Indian Jews- more than 50% carry the gene.
2. Lemba (Buba)- 50% carry the gene
3. Western Sephardic Jews- 10% carry the gene
4. Western Ashkenazi Jews-only 3% carry the gene.

So based on these findings along it appears that the Africans(Jews) and the Indians(Jews) have more claim to this "Promise Land" than the white ones.

posted 04 June 2004 04:33 PM            

Here I was prepared to read some authentic scientific evidence, and your entire article is based on mere "heresy" from local residents.

posted 04 June 2004 05:14 PM            

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you direct me to you sources for this claim please.

Ozzy[/b]

There are Jews that were expelled from Spain and settled in India I dont recall exactly where I got this information from, but thats beside the point. The point was that white Jews have been travelling from far away lands for centuries, why is it not logical for the Black Jews in South Africa to have done the same. Why should we believe some "foreigner" came there to mate with them, as Ausar has asserted.

Don't miss the points!!

posted 04 June 2004 06:00 PM            

I wonder how much Native American Indian DNA, most Americans have. Have we forgotten about the "LOST" tribes of Israel.

posted 05 June 2004 01:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
Look at the names of the places that his territory spread to, Assyria, and Nineveh, can you prove that assyrians were black or had a heavy amount of blacks therer or better yet, that they were Hamitic speakers?
Diop has made claims that Arabs are nothing but a mix of Blacks and Whites.

---

Assyrians were not Arabs and Arabs are not a mix of blacks and whites. Genetic studies do not prove this and if Diop said this he was wrong, very wrong.

[quote)Originally posted by S. Mohammed
The same genetic study on the Lemba said Ethiopian Jews are less mixed than Lemba. Ethiopian Jews(Beni Israel)
I see why Wally says you're confused, the Ethiopian Jews are "Beth Israel" the "Beni Israel" are in India.[/quote]

Irregardless of the name, Ethiopian Jews are essentially pure African without the Cohen and without any substantial foreign mixture. My point proven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
Another point to notice that I did not highlight was one of Gomer's son's, Ashkenaz. Ashkenaz is synonymous with the modern day Ashkenazi Jews
Is American synonomous with Ancient/Native Americans.You're foolish is you honestly think that a name can't be adopted.

---

Are you telling me its a coincidence? Ashkhenaz is mentioned in Japeth, not Shem's line. If you think its merely conincidence, are Cushites and modern day Nubians not the same? Cush is taken to be Nubians(Cushites).

posted 05 June 2004 01:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b]Palestinians have only 15% sub-Saharan MTDNA and no sub-Saharan paternal DNA

I wonder how much Native American Indian DNA, most Americans have. Have we forgotten about the "LOST" tribes of Israel.

By contrast the average African American has close to 18% European admixture 99.9% of it being paternal DNA, but we sure as hell dont want to acknowledge our "White rapist" grandfathers![/B]

---

What does that to do with the relatively low amount of sub-Saharan ancestry in Palestinians? Autosomally, Palestinians are 7.5-8% sub-Saharan.

posted 05 June 2004 01:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Ozzy
[b]Originally posted by homeylu:
It is not unreasonable to recognize the fact that the "Bene Israel" of India, can trace routes, from Israel to Spain finally inhabiting India.

[/B]

---

Unless you post evidence you just arguing a strawman. You know what happens when one assumes right?

posted 05 June 2004 10:11 AM            

Then simply make the point without quoting what you can not back.

Ozzy.

posted 05 June 2004 12:41 PM            

Originally posted by S. Mohammad
What does that to do with the relatively low amount of sub-Saharan ancestry in Palestinians same thing the modern Americans that "migrated" to this country have a relatively "low" amount of Native American DNA. Hence substantial massive migration to a geographical location can "replace" the traces of the previously inhabitants.

I'm sure if they did a DNA study of modern white South Africans, you would find "relatively low" amounts of Sub-saharran ancestry.

Originally posted by Ozzy
Then simply make the point without quoting what you can not back

The point was that white Jews have been travelling from far away lands for centuries, why is it not logical for the Black Jews in South Africa to have done the same.

posted 05 June 2004 01:54 PM            

One word: Excellent!!

Originally posted by Homeylu
When one Kingdom conquers another, the language of the conqueror typically dominates. So its feasible to explain how Canaanite came to speak a Semitic tongue.

They all forget that we are talking about "ANCIENT TIMES"

The lower the DNA, the "earlier" the time frame of this "common" ancestry.

Which is why using genetics, scientist can trace "every" population to Sub-sahara Africa from 200,000 years ago to the present.

History tells us that if not for the migrations of Black people out of Africa, first to the East - then North across the planet, all peoples today would still be Black. Can we trace the global racial hierarchy, with light-skinned at the top, to the first African groups that migrated out of Africa into the Asiatic/Middle East and Arab worlds, to China and on to Europe, losing their pigmentation along the way.

Has it not already been proven that even today, Black Sub-saharan Africans can "still" give birth to Albino offspring.
And that 2 albino are much more likely to give birth to other albinos.

While albinism is described as hypopigmentation, has scientific evidence ever shown a reverse condition called hyperpigmentation that only affect a few "patches" of the skin.

Why has scientist proven that the Khoisan people that appeared in Sub-sahara Africa 10,000 years ago and who do not have the so-called "negroid" features ,show the largest genetic diversity in MtDNA of all human populations, which indicates that they are one of the oldest extant human communities. Y chromosome data also indicates that they are close to the root of the human ancestral tree.

Does it not prove the Sub-saharan Africans carry the DNA to produce a wide range of physical features. Has history of science ever shown the Khoisan to migrate from "Europe" or "Asia" to come to occupy Southern Africa 10,000 years ago- highly unlikely.

Bottomline, sub-saharan Africans carry the genetic traits to produce all the features we see across the globe.

posted 05 June 2004 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Thought
[b]the author provides fascinating information about Dynasty 0 Pharaohs, who established Egyptian colony in Canaan 3300 B.C.

One word: Excellent!!

They all forget that we are talking about "ANCIENT TIMES"

The lower the DNA, the "earlier" the time frame of this "common" ancestry.

Which is why using genetics, scientist can trace "every" population to Sub-sahara Africa from 200,000 years ago to the present.

History tells us that if not for the migrations of Black people out of Africa, first to the East - then North across the planet, all peoples today would still be Black. Can we trace the global racial hierarchy, with light-skinned at the top, to the first African groups that migrated out of Africa into the Asiatic/Middle East and Arab worlds, to China and on to Europe, losing their pigmentation along the way.

Has it not already been proven that even today, Black Sub-saharan Africans can "still" give birth to Albino offspring.
And that 2 albino are much more likely to give birth to other albinos.

While albinism is described as hypopigmentation, has scientific evidence ever shown a reverse condition called hyperpigmentation that only affect a few "patches" of the skin.

Why has scientist proven that the Khoisan people that appeared in Sub-sahara Africa 10,000 years ago and who do not have the so-called "negroid" features ,show the largest genetic diversity in MtDNA of all human populations, which indicates that they are one of the oldest extant human communities. Y chromosome data also indicates that they are close to the root of the human ancestral tree.

Does it not prove the Sub-saharan Africans carry the DNA to produce a wide range of physical features. Has history of science ever shown the Khoisan to migrate from "Europe" or "Asia" to come to occupy Southern Africa 10,000 years ago- highly unlikely.

Bottomline, sub-saharan Africans carry the genetic traits to produce all the features we see across the globe.

[/B]

---

I found an old messageboard of a friend of mine we can post on to continue this discussion
http://www.network54.com/Forum/275887

The colors are similar to this board. Instead of creating another message board I just salvaged one. The forum owner lurks here on occassion.

You and I can continue our discussion there.

Originally posted by Homeylu
When one Kingdom conquers another, the language of the conqueror typically dominates. So its feasible to explain how Canaanite came to speak a Semitic tongue.

This is not true always. The Fula conquered my people the Hausa, but the Fula adopted our language, not the other way around.

About that link that Thought posted, it doesn't prove that Canaanites are descendants of Egyptian colonists, for Egyptians did not establish the towns of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre, the principle Phoenician(Canaanite) towns. It said Egyptians established colonies there to take advantage or the trade with these cities. In any case such a colonization probably did not involve a large migration of people and any Egyptian colonists would have ben absorbed into the population.

posted 05 June 2004 06:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
About that link that Thought posted, it doesn't prove that Canaanites are descendants of Egyptian colonists, for Egyptians did not establish the towns of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre, the principle Phoenician(Canaanite) towns. It said Egyptians established colonies there to take advantage or the trade with these cities. In any case such a colonization probably did not involve a large migration of people and any Egyptian colonists would have ben absorbed into the population.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 05 June 2004 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I have provided my evidence on the period in question. Now I eagerly await ANY scientific data from you on this matter?

---

I'm not denying that egytians had colonies along side the canaanites, I'm saying that in itself does not prove that Canaanites descend from Egyptians, Canaanites the people. We know for example that Phoenicians settled and founded Carthage the city but that does NOT make Carthagnians descendants of Phoenicians. Carthaginians were mostly native North Africans. can you see the point that I'm making? before the Egyptians founded their colonies, Canaanites were already settle along the coast.

posted 05 June 2004 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
before the Egyptians founded their colonies, Canaanites were already settle along the coast.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 05 June 2004 08:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Well, in that the Egyptians first colonized Canaan during the pre-dynastic stage the original Canaanites would pre-date this period, correct? Are you suggesting that between the Natufian period and the Egyptian Colonies during the pre-dynastic phase some Indo-European group conquered the region, or do you see the Canaanites descending from the Natufian type?

---

The Natufian type, not Indo-Europeans. The people looked like those very dark Bedouin types

posted 05 June 2004 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The Natufian type, not Indo-Europeans. The people looked like those very dark Bedouin types

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 June 2004 07:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

And your saying these folks were non-African in origin?

---

I would say the people of this region were dark skinned akin to the types found in southern Arabia, dark Bedouin types. They're probably closer to the Natufian type, but were distinct from both tropical Africans and Europeans. if you look at modern Bedouin you will see what I'm talking about and Bedouin almost never mix.

posted 06 June 2004 07:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
An Analysis of Crania from Tell-Duweir uding Multiple Discriminant Functions
SOY Kieta
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
75:375-390 (1988)

"It is possible to say that the objective evidence does NOT deny an hypothesis of biological HETEROGENEITY in some general sense at Lacish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian prescence is supported."

---

Well Lachish was a principal city of Judah and Egyptians in the 18th and 19th dynasty ruled this area, so I would not be surprised to find crania remains of an Egypto-Nubian type.