Bar-Yosef (personal communication) also believes that evidence for the early introduction of the Sycamore Fig, into the Levant around the time of the Natufian gives additional strength to this theory.6
6 Bones of the Egyptian fruit bat, which eats figs, are found in the Levant only from the Natufian onwards. The Sycamore Fig appears to have been first introduced to the Nile region from its native habitat much further south in Africa. The Egyptian and Levantine versions of this plant are parthenocarpic, requiring the help of man to reproduce. The closest place where a wild wasp helps fertilize these figs is in Sudan. Stored parthenocarpic fig remains have been found in Gilgal I, an early Neolithic village, located in the Lower Jordan Valley, and dating to 11400 to 11200 years ago (Kislev et al., 2006). Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
So maybe the stories of Osiris as a "mythical" ancestor who gave life to the world as the "father" of Agriculture and essence of the "seed" of life from the womb of Africa along the sacred birth canal and waters of the nile aren't so far off?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
word.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Whatcha got to say about this Djehuti.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Excellent.. I'm half way done with reading the entire PDF but must say that Lancaster has some interesting ideas that make a whole lot of sense. The paper (so far) opened my eyes in that I wasn't able to imagine a viable scenario where the Natufians (a small group) could impose their obscure/foreign language onto populations that had their own. Yet it does make sense that they'd (early Asiatics) adopt such a language as a medium to supplant older technologies with novel advances in food production, tools and pottery that these proto-Semitic speakers brought with them. It would be to their advantage.
Also, upon searching for more information about Lancaster (he wrote the Chadic paper posted on here not too long ago) I came across one of Mahtilda's blog posts on which he contributed to the comments section, where he basically gave her a beat down concerning a similar issue. Funny stuff. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Whatcha got to say about this Djehuti.
Mary only believes in Jewish myths and she steadfastly denies any connections with the ancient Egyptians who she dismisses as mere polytheists and worshipers of inanimate objects, unlike the Hebrews and scientific minded Greeks.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ...word, we euros aint no hybrids.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Andrew Lancaster writes:
But Lionel Bender (1997), a leading expert on Ethiopian languages, proposed a scenario upon linguistic grounds wherein Semitic languages originated in Ethiopia and crossed the Red Sea. We can note that although this linguistic theory would be in line with these very particular and unsurprising genetic links between the Horn of Africa and the Southern Arabian Peninsula, it does not correspond to much else in genetics or archaeology, and there is no reason to invoke such a theory in order to explain genetic links between the Horn of Africa and nearby Southern Arabia.
Well in that case, maybe Andrew Lancaster can provide the answers to this, which has been elusive, as far as my memory takes me:
The 800 BC or so date, or even if one were to extend this to the beginning of the south Arabian influences coinciding with the emergence of the the D'mt complex, suggests that an already differentiated and fully developed south Arabian "Semitic" language that has diffused into the African Horn would have been adopted as is, meaning in the very shape or form the language was brought in, and expected to be no different especially in the era it was introduced. However, from archaeology, we have [recap from a previous discussion]:
"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay
What does this imply? "Pure" as used here, suggests that although "Epigraphic South Arabian" alphabets were used to convey a message in two different languages [one for south Arabian administrative centers, and the other for the comprehension convenience of the locals (aka "Ethiopian" people, i.e. Eritreans, Tigrinya or what have you)], one of the languages on the inscriptions was the south Arabian language that was brought in along with South Arabian immigrants, while the other was a local language aka a local "Ethiopian" language.
Though both languages were written in ESA alphabets, evidence above suggests that the "Ethiopic" language very likely had grammatical features that clearly distinguished it from its Sabean/south Arabian counterpart. The aforemention citation of Munro-Hay should be instructive, once again:
"...and another language with certain aspects found **later** in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).
Now, Ge'ez is considered to be Semitic, which therefore follows that this ancestral language was the proto-Semitic language of Ge'ez.
Also, the era suggested in the present study [intro topic] implies that the Neolithic J carriers of the region didn't already speak some form of proto-Semitic or Semitic, but rather, that this only come to being around the time of the D'mt complex, give or take.
Now of course, the authors of the study at hand could attempt to move their dates and make it coincidental with these Neolithic era groups, but they have to come up with a good deal of "south-Arabian" imported Neolithic root terms for the EthioSemitic branch, which hasn't been produced to date, to my knowledge, especially given that the Neolithic in the African Horn has been more linked to those of the Nile Valley in the Sudanese region, in terms of influences, than those in the Levant or south Arabia as sources of inspiration.
Furthermore, we are told:
"another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay
The emphasized bit goes back to what I said above:
[One for south Arabian administrative centers, and the other for the comprehension convenience of the locals (aka "Ethiopian" people, i.e. Eritreans, Tigrinya or what have you)], one of the languages on the inscriptions was the south Arabian language that was brought in along with South Arabian immigrants, while the other was a local language aka a local "Ethiopian" language.
"it does not correspond to much else in genetics..."
On the genetic side, I dunno but this is what one would expect, due to drift and possibly, selective pressure, if the ancestors of said sampling candidates had first passed through an African "corridor" where relative prevalence of malaria might have jump-started a positive genetic drift to favor those X chromosomes bearing the G6PD-A allele in question:
Interestingly, when the molecular heterogeneity of the G6PD locus was compared between the Amman and the Dead Sea samples, a lower number of different variants and a higher incidence of the African G6PD-A allele was detected in the latter (Karadsheh, personal communication). Another singularity of the Dead Sea is its high frequency (31%) of E3b3a-M34, a derivative of the E3b3-M123 that is only found in 7% Bedouins (Cruciani et al. 2004). Until now, the highest frequencies for this marker (23.5%) had been found in Ethiopians from Amhara (Cruciani et al. 2004). On the contrary, most Bedouin chromosomes (63%) belong to the haplogroup J1-M267 (Semino et al. 2004) compared with 9% in the Dead Sea. All these evidences point to the Dead Sea as an isolated region perhaps with past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa.
Strong drift and/or founder effects might be responsible for its anomalous haplogroup frequencies. - Flores et al.
It is true that the correlation of this X chromosome allele is not airtight, for besides any potential accompaniment with a Hg E-M35* dispersal, it could just as well be a relic of some migration involving R1*-M173 chromosomes -- the other chromosome type found in the Dead Sea sample, which like E-M34 chromosomes, reaches its frequency pinnacle only in Africa. Still, the fact that E-M34 has its highest frequency in the African Horn, is for example, not something that should be deemed as "it does not correspond to much else in genetics." Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
i know andrew lancaster i talked with him in the e3b haplozone i think he is brilighent great paper he wrote since you talked about my clade e-m34 is high in amhara but not in oromo so the to tal frequency of e-m34 in ethiopia is 11.5 % very close in the frequency to yemen 12.5% mahlouf and 12% in oman there are also some spots in sicily with 10-12% frequncy mazera , piazza armanina , and troina so those sicilians are horners in your prespective you forget that m34 is also in antolia 5.5% same frequncy of e-m81 in iberia so its significance there i proved you that oman and yemen also have high frequncy of m34 as ethiopia 10-12% in all those 3 groups e3b1c1
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
This guy did most of the write up of the E3b wiki article.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB]
He looks Latino gringo (Knowledgeiskey62 6). Is he one of your morphologically whites that remixed with incoming Africans and Asians during the Neolithic? Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB]
He looks Latino gringo (Knowledgeiskey62 6). Is he one of your morphologically whites that remixed with incoming Africans and Asians during the Neolithic?
Hes a gringo whiteboy, whom just like you, wishes he were black.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
Also, upon searching for more information about Lancaster (he wrote the Chadic paper posted on here not too long ago)
Correction. No he did not. Have no idea where I got that from either.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You kidding me! Which white man wishes he was black? . (Remember the Chris Rock).
White rappers??? It is about the Benjamins.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB]
He looks Latino gringo (Knowledgeiskey62 6). Is he one of your morphologically whites that remixed with incoming Africans and Asians during the Neolithic?
Hes a gringo whiteboy, whom just like you, wishes he were black.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You kidding me! Which white man wishes he was black? . (Remember the Chris Rock).
White rappers??? It is about the Benjamins.
Gringo doesn't know who Chris Rock is so he wouldn't know this. Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Andrew Lancaster
Spring 2009 edition of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy:
Y Haplogroups, Archaeological Cultures and Language Families: a Review of the Possibility of Multidisciplinary Comparisons Using the Case of E-M35
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Whatcha got to say about this Djehuti.
What can I say about it other than it supports what I and others have been saying all along the Natufians of the Levant descend from Mushabians of Nile Valley Africa. They introduced microlithics that were the predecessors of Neolithic technology. The fig thing is very interesting also.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So maybe the stories of Osiris as a "mythical" ancestor who gave life to the world as the "father" of Agriculture and essence of the "seed" of life from the womb of Africa along the sacred birth canal and waters of the nile aren't so far off?
Actually the oldest myths of Abutu (Abydos) say it was Aset (Isis) who invented agriculture, specifically the planting of crops. The invention of the plow was attributed to her husband, Ausar (Osiris). It is very likely that women were the discoverers of agriculture as they were the ones who gathered plant foods while men were the hunters of animal food. According to the moderator Ausar, even today in Egypt rural Fellahin would make female dolls of straw as part of some arcane ritual during the agricultural festivals.
If you look at all the agricultural myths from around the world a female figure was said to be the founder, or in cases where a male took over he is ritually sacrificed. Hints of this can be seen in Egyptian myth where Ausar is murdered and his body torn to pieces by his brother Seti. In Canaan Baal is murdered and torn also torn to pieces by Mot. In both cases the male deity later is resurrected by the power of a female. The same is said with the Levantine god Adon (Greek Adonis) who killed only to be resurrected during the harvest. A twist on this theme is even seen in the Biblical Genesis story of Cain and Abel where the agricultural Cain upset over God's dissatisfaction with his offering resorts to spilling his brother's blood on the very ground he tills.
If you notice in the archaeology of virtually all early neolithic centers, women tended to have higher prestige than men. Perhaps this is due to their agricultural innovations that founded these centers. It's interesting to note among Natufian remains evidence of ritual acts on the bodies of women such as missing incisors and fire charred bones (once attributed to cannibalism) which the anthroplogists who first studied these remains rightly saw striking parallels with neolithic women in Africa. I can't help but wonder if the burning of these dead bodies was part of some ritual to 'immortalize' them somehow. I can recall an Egyptian myth in which Aset travels to the Levant where she performs an ancient and mystical ritual to make a local child-prince immortal by burning his body over a fire. This act is echoed in later Greek myth where the agricultural goddess Demeter tries to make a baby prince immortal by "buring away his mortality" in a fire. I seriously think this is more than mere coincidence and stems from a common neolithic or even mesolithic source that is African in origin.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: seriously think this is more than mere coincidence and stems from a common neolithic or even mesolithic source that is African in origin.
Wow, when did you become a diffusionist Mary? You forgot you denied any African influence on Hebrew culture? That AE weren't monotheists but polytheists that worshipped winged creatures and the like? You forgot also that you denied any commonality of culture between AE and that other Asian civilisation, Sumer? Two different people with totally different cultures remember? Grumman was right, you forget what you post sometimes. LOL
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So maybe the stories of Osiris as a "mythical" ancestor who gave life to the world as the "father" of Agriculture and essence of the "seed" of life from the womb of Africa along the sacred birth canal and waters of the nile aren't so far off?
Actually the oldest myths of Abutu (Abydos) say it was Aset (Isis) who invented agriculture, specifically the planting of crops. The invention of the plow was attributed to her husband, Ausar (Osiris). It is very likely that women were the discoverers of agriculture as they were the ones who gathered plant foods while men were the hunters of animal food. According to the moderator Ausar, even today in Egypt rural Fellahin would make female dolls of straw as part of some arcane ritual during the agricultural festivals.
If you look at all the agricultural myths from around the world a female figure was said to be the founder, or in cases where a male took over he is ritually sacrificed. Hints of this can be seen in Egyptian myth where Ausar is murdered and his body torn to pieces by his brother Seti. In Canaan Baal is murdered and torn also torn to pieces by Mot. In both cases the male deity later is resurrected by the power of a female. The same is said with the Levantine god Adon (Greek Adonis) who killed only to be resurrected during the harvest. A twist on this theme is even seen in the Biblical Genesis story of Cain and Abel where the agricultural Cain upset over God's dissatisfaction with his offering resorts to spilling his brother's blood on the very ground he tills.
If you notice in the archaeology of virtually all early neolithic centers, women tended to have higher prestige than men. Perhaps this is due to their agricultural innovations that founded these centers. It's interesting to note among Natufian remains evidence of ritual acts on the bodies of women such as missing incisors and fire charred bones (once attributed to cannibalism) which the anthroplogists who first studied these remains rightly saw striking parallels with neolithic women in Africa. I can't help but wonder if the burning of these dead bodies was part of some ritual to 'immortalize' them somehow. I can recall an Egyptian myth in which Aset travels to the Levant where she performs an ancient and mystical ritual to make a local child-prince immortal by burning his body over a fire. This act is echoed in later Greek myth where the agricultural goddess Demeter tries to make a baby prince immortal by "buring away his mortality" in a fire. I seriously think this is more than mere coincidence and stems from a common neolithic or even mesolithic source that is African in origin.
I did not know that. But even after Osiris became the predominant agricultural deity Isis (and the other mother godessess Nut, Hathor, etc) still retained their role as "mother nature". They represent "mother nature" who nurtures and germinates the seed, as the "birds and the bees" who pick up the seed from the earth (osiris) and cause it to mature and bear fruit. Of course the seed is Horus in this mythology.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually the earth was the god Geb, but yeah.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Wow, when did you become a diffusionist Mary? You forgot you denied any African influence on Hebrew culture? That AE weren't monotheists but polytheists that worshipped winged creatures and the like? You forgot also that you denied any commonality of culture between AE and that other Asian civilisation, Sumer? Two different people with totally different cultures remember? Grumman was right, you forget what you post sometimes. LOL
As usual Eva, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Even in the very thread you link it's obvious I never denied Egyptian influence on Israelite culture, what I did deny was YOUR claims! Of course Ancient Egyptians were polytheists that worshipped some winged beings but this is quite different from later Israelite monotheism and the belief of angels. Also the diffusion I speak of is Neolithic which preceeds anything you're talking about.
Again, I suggest you leave this forum for intelligent people and get your buggeredass back to the mens' bathroom stalls. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Intelligent scholars and historians don't deny that Hebrew monotheism and concepts were influenced by ancient Egypt, only religious quacks and chauvinist Jews. Which are you Catholic Manila Mary?
Also, in that thread you denied all the obvious Egyptian influences whether Moses (whose name some trace to AE) teaching, ark of the covenant etc. so I'm curious to know which ancient Egyptian influences you do acknowledge Mary? Becareful how you answer...
And it doesn't matter if you want to confine the influences to the "Neolithic" to build a straw man, you dufus, as the AE influenced Canaanite concepts in turn influenced the Hebrew religion - AE influnces throughout the ME was continous. My god Mary, you're such a lightweight! Your reputation as a pathetic tag along of other posters on ES is showing. lol
Another "silly Afrocentric" book according to Mary below.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You moron, the worlds major religions of the Middle East arose among Semitic speaking peoples. Semitic is an Afrasian language and associated culture that originated in Africa. You do the math.
This is quite different from saying much later Isrealite themes of monotheism originated in Egypt which obviously wasn't monotheistic.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:the worlds major religions of the Middle East arose among Semitic speaking peoples. Semitic is an Afrasian language and associated culture that originated in Africa. You do the math.
Ok. And what does this have to do with what Dr. Ben says in his book? Me thinks you want to call it another "silly Afrocentric book". Go ahead, maybe none of your friends on ES visit this thread anyway. lol
And don't think you're going to get away from listing the AE influences you do acknowledge.
Another book showing AE concepts in Judeo-Christianity that Mary would call "silly" (when he thinks noone is looking )
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mose or Mosis means "is born" in Egyptian or generally one who is born. Therefore Thutmosis means Toth is born or the son of Toth is born. Ahmose means the moon is born. Therefore Moses means one who is born (to lead the people). But that is the same meaning of Ahmose and Thutmose, which is a reflection of Egyptian kingship as being divine. Hence each pharaoh was born of the gods and received his right to rule from the gods and the power and authority to rule by the word from Ptah. And all of this was crouched in a long story involving the gods announcing themselves to the King's mother and the god visiting the King's mother and impregnating her. She then followed the path of Isis and gave birth in a swamp or sea of reeds, and was brought forth by Heqet the frog goddess or the other aquatic goddesses symbolizing the primordial ocean to be born and presented to the gods. From there the king was anointed with the power to rule and given the crown, throne and other symbols of power and authority. IN the truest sense the Kings was gods essence or spirit manifest or born in the flesh. And the whole idea of the promised child or leader being born in a sea of reeds is straight out of the symbolism of Ausar, Auset and Heru (Hero).
Therefore much of what we see in the 3 major religions is simply a rehashing of ancient concepts of divinity and cosmology reinforcing the right to rule of one group of people. The major difference is that previous religions were primarily reinforcing the rulership within a local context, the 3 major religions are global and hence associated with the rule of one particular group of people over everyone else.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct, many of the concepts cult practices of the 3 great religions of the Middle East share the Afrasian roots of Africans. This is quite different from saying Israelites "stole" their religion from the Egyptians like some openasses claim. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
In some cases "stole" is literally the correct answer. This is in the case of these religions claiming some historical antecedent that makes them the right, true and original worship of god and therefore above all others, when they aren't. This is exactly why so much of the early works of the Christians were called "apologies" because so many people at the time accused them of STEALING ancient concepts in order to create their new religion. And Judaism itself acknowledges their roots in Egypt in their own stories symbolically, metaphorically and literally. Both Judaism and Islam have mystical sects that are much more in tune with the ancient symbolism of religious thought than generally expressed in the traditional teachings.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Oh my, I can see this is going to be another thread where Mary's friends subtly try to educate him as he cleverly avoids backing up his anti-African claims. But are you really going to bitch-out again from answering my questions Mary?! Come on! "I'm curious to know which ancient Egyptian influences you do acknowledge Mary?" LOL
And as for a stolen legacy, if they didn't steal it Mary please post where they acknowledge the concepts they borrowed(?). You said if someone acknowledge concepts then its not stolen, so please show this acknowledgement. Of course you have to list the influences first and we know you are avoiding this. LoL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:gaping-used-ass: Oh my, I can see this is going to be another thread where Mary's friends subtly try to educate him as he cleverly avoids backing up his anti-African claims. But are you really going to bitch-out again from answering my questions Mary?! Come on! "I'm curious to know which ancient Egyptian influences you do acknowledge Mary?" LOL
And I can see you just can't stop lying. You lie that I'm anti-African when I'm not, and that I somehow support Mary Lefkowitz's positions when I obviously don't nor have I ever. Doug is not "educating" me on anything since what he says I already knew-- that Christianity is basically a religion based on a mixture of older traditions both Judaic as well as pagan! That Judaism acknowledges roots in Egypt is also a given! So what??
quote:And as for a stolen legacy, if they didn't steal it Mary please post where they acknowledge the concepts they borrowed(?). You said if someone acknowledge concepts then its not stolen, so please show this acknowledgement. Of course you have to list the influences first and we know you are avoiding this. LoL
You moron. Almost all Jews and especially Rabbis know of Egyptian influence in their traditions. No Jewish person in the right mind denies this, why don't you ask one?? Oh I forgot, you're too scared of them to ask! I'm sure if you even saw a Rabbi you would faint! LMAO Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: That Judaism acknowledges roots in Egypt is also a given! So what??
You are such a predictable slut Mary. We are not referring to underground "mystical" movements within the three faiths: like say the Cabalists (Judaism), Sufis (Islam) or Gnostics (Christianity) that have no problem acknowledging, to some extent, Egypt. So there is nothing in Doug's post to cling to for help.
Fact is, traditional mainstream Judaism acknowledges Yahweh, not Egypt. And neither do you! This is why you fail to list the ancient Egyptian influences even to this day!??!?
Where???
quote:Almost all Jews and especially Rabbis know of Egyptian influence in their traditions.
Yeh I know, Jews like Freud in his Moses and Monotheism...oops that ain't one of the influences according to you!
So apparently almost all Jews and especially Rabbis know of Egyptian influence in their traditions except YOU Mary.
Where's the list?
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
i was one of the main members in e3b haplozone but the adminstrator of the site didnt like me it turned out that most of my enemy are e1b1b1 if thats the case than i have no choise but talking to e3a people like you guys e3b1c1
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:gaping ass begs for more: You are such a predictable slut Mary...
quote:We are not referring to underground "mystical" movements within the three faiths: like say the Cabalists (Judaism), Sufis (Islam) or Gnostics (Christianity) that have no problem acknowledging, to some extent, Egypt. So there is nothing in Doug's post to cling to for help.
And where did I say anything about "mystical movements", illiterate imbecile?? I never "cling" to anyone else for help. I simply elaborated what Doug meant for your dumbass. The roots of all 3 religions is Afrasian and Afrasian originated in Africa. The influence from Africa is not Egyptian so much as Afrasian you dumbass.
quote:Fact is, traditional mainstream Judaism acknowledges Yahweh, not Egypt. And neither do you! This is why you fail to list the ancient Egyptian influences even to this day!??!?
What are you talking about?? Yahweh is the deity, Egypt is a place. Judaism acknowledges both as part of their traditions. I think your medication is wearing thin. The question is which one-- the psychiatiric or the antibiotics for your STDs??
quote:Yeh I know, Jews like Freud in his Moses and Monotheism...oops that ain't one of the influences according to you!
Freud is not a religious scholar, but he is a psychologists which means he bears more relevance for YOU than you realize.
quote:So apparently almost all Jews and especially Rabbis know of Egyptian influence in their traditions except YOU Mary.
Where's the list?
You love to call me by the name a of a Jewish woman yet accuse of having no knowledge of Jewish traditions whereas you (a jew-hating moron) does?? You are definitely in need of a Jewish shrink and I don't think Freud would be able to help you but I bet he could try! Perhaps he suggests you are either a victim of sexual advances of a man or a willing participant which is it??
Get your scaredass back here if you want to discuss this issue and stop running away to other threads such as this about DNA!!
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote: The influence from Africa is not Egyptian so much as Afrasian you dumbass.
See what I mean? You now deny AE influence, before you denied you where denying it. LoL
quote:Judaism acknowledges both as part of their traditions.
Yeh, some Jewish scholars, but do you? Ahem..."list those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced"
quote: Get your scaredass back here if you want to discuss this issue
But you don't even want to discuss it there either Mary? What's the deal?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Andrew Lancaster
Spring 2009 edition of the Journal of Genetic Genealogy:
Y Haplogroups, Archaeological Cultures and Language Families: a Review of the Possibility of Multidisciplinary Comparisons Using the Case of E-M35
Evergreen Writes: Well, I was banned from dna forum for pointing out that the author used Dienekes P. as an "advisor" and that Dienekes is a racist.
Deinekes - "The second issue is that Watson's factual comments are entirely accurate! Sub-Saharan Africans do indeed have lower intelligence than people in western societies."
Makes you wonder about Lancaster!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes: Well, I was banned from dna forum for pointing out that the author used Dienekes P. as an "advisor" and that Dienekes is a racist.
I am not surprised. The so-called "protected" DNA forums of those clowns, is really "protected" from free speech: "tow the line or you are out". I suspect that I'm in line; his "do-nothing" minions are already crying their eyes off about my audacity of disagreeing with Lancaster.
quote: Makes you wonder about Lancaster!
The guy is spineless. I challenged him on his claims about the "Middle Eastern" origins of Ethio-Semitic and E-M123, and he swiftly crumbled, reduced to driveling in circles. His last resort was to provoke me, by pretending to confuse you with me, which is why he wrote your moniker in brackets.
He is your usual "liberal" racist cultist, who safeguards white supremacy by way of supposed "compromise"; example: when he told me that he was willing to "compromise", and accept an African origin of Semitic, as long as I don't say that it originated in Ethiopia [aka Bender's scenario], but rather in Egypt , and as long as I stop using "Africa". Quite comical.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes: Well, I was banned from dna forum for pointing out that the author used Dienekes P. as an "advisor" and that Dienekes is a racist.
I am not surprised. The so-called "protected" DNA forums of those clowns, is really "protected" from free speech: "tow the line or you are out". I suspect that I'm in line; his "do-nothing" minions are already crying their eyes off about my audacity of disagreeing with Lancaster.
quote: Makes you wonder about Lancaster!
The guy is spineless. I challenged him on his claims about the "Middle Eastern" origins of Ethio-Semitic and E-M123, and he swiftly crumbled, reduced to driveling in circles. His last resort was to provoke me, by pretending to confuse you with me, which is why he wrote your moniker in brackets.
He is your usual "liberal" racist cultist, who safeguards white supremacy by way of supposed "compromise"; example: when he told me that he was willing to "compromise", and accept an African origin of Semitic, as long as I don't say that it originated in Ethiopia [aka Bender's scenario], but rather in Egypt , and as long as I stop using "Africa". Quite comical.
Evergreen Writes: The good thing is at least his position has been brought out in the open.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Indeed.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
Cool,so you guys been kicking ass all over the^ net,not just here. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but whats your theory about m34 tell me i am intrested since its my clade you think it originated in ethiopia while it is 12% totaly in this country and i show you that oman 12% and yemen 12.5% maulouf have the same frequency as ethiopia so at the moment we are not sure were it originated maybe in southern arabia and than some of them went to ethiopia or as andrew and i think that m34 originated in egypt than spread to antolia 5.5% significance in this country thats million of brothers and to the persian gulf area oman more likely or do you think an ethiopian army reach antolia or yuou belive in the kolchis e3b1c1
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
no answere explorer because you know m34 is in yemen and oman in the same frequency as in ethiopia but you dont care e3b1c1
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: no answere explorer because you know m34 is in yemen and oman in the same frequency as in ethiopia but you dont care e3b1c1
Holy shiit dude. Why not just give it UP. Why are you placing MORE importance on WHERE the mutation happens than WHO the mutations happens in?
You are acting like a dumbass. All your comments are just a waste of space. Please answer this.
-WHAT do you have to have to get Mutation M34? -What upstream mutations does M34 come FROM? -What populations carry that Upstream Mutation? -If you need that upstream mutation to get M34, where where the people FROM that carried that upstream mutation?
What changes when that population goes from point A to point B?
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
m123 is the upstreem mutation from which m34 came very rare m123* without the m34 is very rare only 2% in north portugal are m123* from which m34 derived i dont know from were probably egypt defently not ethiopia crucuany thinks m34 was intruduced to ethiopia from the near east now thanks to genertic dat we know m34 is 12% in oman and 12.5% in yemen so defently could arrived to ethiopia from west asia e3b1c1
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: m123 is the upstreem mutation from which m34 came very rare m123* without the m34 is very rare only 2% in north portugal are m123* from which m34 derived i dont know from were probably egypt defently not ethiopia crucuany thinks m34 was intruduced to ethiopia from the near east now thanks to genertic dat we know m34 is 12% in oman and 12.5% in yemen so defently could arrived to ethiopia from west asia e3b1c1
Ok, your getting somewhere. 2 more questions.
1 - What is the upstream mutation of M123, and where do THOSE people come from?
2 - How would you describe E3a carriers and all the people that descend from E3a.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
no answere explorer because you know m34 is in yemen and oman in the same frequency as in ethiopia but you dont care e3b1c1
Has it occurred to you, that some people just have a life outside of the internet?
At any rate, you've wrongly characterized the yellow-belly Lancaster's claims in his so-called "review" paper. He specifically treats E-M34 as a "Middle Eastern" marker, which is something he wasn't able to back up, upon being challenged. I'll repost my exchanges with him on my blog in the near future. It was only upon this challenge, did he say he was willing to "allow" an Egyptian origin, but not an Ethiopian one, and as long as I don't use "Africa" to invoke "Egypt" or what have you, as the place of origin. He obviously has psychological issues with "Africa" being used. I replied by telling the coward that there is no room for "compromise", he is expected to either agree on an African origin, because that is the most logical conclusion based on evidence, or he doesn't, in which case, he'd have to provide his evidence for assuming such a position. Long story short, the guy was mercilessly crushed about his claims in his "review" paper, to the point where his puny little minions just couldn't bare the onslaught, and had to intervene by trolling around, and not even touching the topic.
Ethiopia is known to sport the highest frequencies of this marker anywhere, to address your whining. And even Cruciani et al. could not be certain between Ethiopians and so-called "Near Easterners" where the marker emerged first; they ended up speculating that it was likely in the "Near East", presumably because, according to them, the Ethiopian examples were relatively less diverse, and that a couple of studies [including their own] did not detect the marker in Sudan. However, upon examining their diagram for E-M34, I noticed that in the star-like presentation, based on shared tandem repeat links, there really wasn't that much of a difference between the microsatellite diversity of Ethiopia E-M24 markers and those of the so-called Near East. As for geographic structuring, not many studies had been, and even to this day, conducted in Sudan, as opposed to Ethiopia and Egypt, and so, naturally this would affect any information known about "consistency" in trends found in Sudan. So, the way I see it, Cruciani et al. (2004) really didn't have much of a strong case about favoring the "Near East" over "Ethiopia"; I think they did it, because well, they likely had a bias for a non-African origin for the marker; take that as you will.
If you have an argument for "Near Eastern" origin, short of trolling and denigrating E3a carriers, then present it, and I'll be happy to discuss it.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Explorer
Great to see you take this lancaster character to school. We have to be able to challenge these people on there own turf and make them come to the Fact that you cannot hide African connections by trying to take Africa out of it.
Peace
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
it was known to be the highest of this marker before genetic research hjave been done in oman and this year yemen both report the smae frequency 12% oman {louis} yemen 12.5%{malouf} so we dont know were it originated i think it originated in africa but not in ethiopia probably in egypt 7% of the egyptions till this day carry the marker from there it spread to oman and antolia ps. by the way on serch of how haplogroup effect endurence running in ethiopia they checked the haplogroup of 108 oromo from arsi ethiopia and 98 semetic speakers from amhara buttom line they found 5% m34 in oromo and 7% of m34 in the amhara so it isnt that haigh in ethiopia as you think pay attension that cruciany used only 34 samples in this research they used 108, and 98 peoples much higher samples which is more representive e3b1c1
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
it was known to be the highest of this marker before genetic research hjave been done in oman and this year yemen both report the smae frequency 12% oman {louis} yemen 12.5%{malouf}
Unlike you, I look at patterns of findings spanning a number of studies. In doing so, I have noticed that E-M34 is almost *consistently* found in Ethio-Semitic speaking groups and their 'Afrasan' neighbors. Now, the frequencies may vary from study to study, depending on sampling bias on various levels, but there seems to be "consistency" in E-M34 distribution here. This to me, suggests that E-M34 has considerable frequencies in said section of Ethiopian population. In many cases [not necessarily all], Ethiopian samples outdo "Near Eastern" counterparts in terms of frequency. I leave you with this example:
Recap: Another singularity of the Dead Sea is its high frequency (31%) of E3b3a-M34, a derivative of the E3b3-M123 that is only found in 7% Bedouins (Cruciani et al. 2004). Until now, the highest frequencies for this marker (23.5%) had been found in Ethiopians from Amhara (Cruciani et al. 2004). - Flores et al. (2005)
quote: so we dont know were it originated i think it originated in africa but not in ethiopia probably in egypt 7% of the egyptions till this day carry the marker from there it spread to oman and antolia
I don't question the Egyptian territory as a possible place of origin for the E-M123 marker, but it could just have originated in other areas of eastern Sahara; almost certainly, the Nile Valley acted as a corridor for its dispersal out of the continent. None of this to me matters much, where Ethiopians are concerned, because those folks would still be E-M34 bearing Ethiopians' ancestors, regardless of *precisely* where it emerged. The modern nation of Ethiopia is just geography, it has no bearing on the complete bio-history of Ethiopians.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
what we know for sure is that m34 is alos in western asia and not only in ethiopia i dont denay that m34 exist in ethiopia all the genetic reasearch point to this fact but i dont think it is that high like cruciany found and again mainly in amhara in oromo it is much less tell you the truth m34 could arrived to ethiopia with the shabeans since we know m34 is 12% in oman and 8-12.5% in yemen so it common in southern arabia simple logic the shabeans carry m34 along with j1 to ethiopia remember that in kenya tanzania and somalia it is absent if it exists in sudan it doesnt matter second the african american slaves didnt carry m34 so why do you care so much about this clade ? they also didnt carry m78 or m81 as isaid all those clades are legends e3b1c1
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
@ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard? Imo this sounds like politics rather than science where something is either right or wrong. It s..t,like this,that cause some folks right on E/S to distrust so called scientics.
If he was in error it would be better just to say he didn't take such and such into consideration and a revision is in order and let the facts fall where they may.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
why should he if he thinks m34 originated in west asia its is right its posible probably southern levant i think it originated in egypt than spread to antolia persian gulf and from there some return to ethiopia but only some of them since m34 is still common in southern arabia yemen oman as i said what does it matter to you again the african american slaves didnt carry m34 or m81 or m78 e3b1c1
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee: @ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard? Imo this sounds like politics rather than science where something is either right or wrong. It s..t,like this,that cause some folks right on E/S to distrust so called scientics.
If he was in error it would be better just to say he didn't take such and such into consideration and a revision is in order and let the facts fall where they may.
Evergreen Writes: The best thing that came out of that exchange is that Lancaster was exposed as a supporter and defender of a blatant White Supremacist - Dienekes.
Here is an example of the kinds of posts you will find on Dienekes website (which he controls):
The important question is, are Europids and Mongolids better adapted on average to modern-civilized and disciplined societies than Negrids or other races.
Dienekes is a blatant racist. Andrew Lancaster listed Dienekes as an advisor for his paper. Could it get any clearer!
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
Thanks,EverGreen it'sgood to know there are people out there to challange the B/S put forward by so called men/women of learning you guys keep up the pressure.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee:
@ Explorer about this Lancaster guy,He makes studies,writes papers and yet he is willing to bargin and make compromises with someone he don't even know on the other end of a keyboard?
Knew nothing about this fellow until his "review" article was posted here. So I don't know anything about any previous work of the guy, but the paper posted here cites works of other people; no primary scientific research therein that Lancaster himself conducted; certainly not genetics or linguistics, which are what the paper essentially revolves around.
Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
Lancaster and Dienekes are further connected to a psuedo-research group called the International Society of Genetic Genealogy.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Interesting. What connections are these? Whatever it maybe, I highly doubt it has any bearing on the Y-DNA trees presented. Commentary there, perhaps.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Interesting. What connections are these? Whatever it maybe, I highly doubt it has any bearing on the Y-DNA trees presented. Commentary there, perhaps.
Evergreen Writes: Commentary from ISOGG website....
Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Yeap, that's what I thought it might be.
Know that I linked to the ISOGG in my blog only in so far as the Y-DNA tree is concerned. Do you know of any alternative site(s), more reputable, that regularly updates the Y-DNA tree?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yeap, that's what I thought it might be.
Know that I linked to the ISOGG in my blog only in so far as the Y-DNA tree is concerned. Do you know of any alternative site(s), more reputable, that regularly updates the Y-DNA tree?
Evergreen Writes: I don't. Until we develop our own we will have to selectivly use their tools. The important thing is we continue to dig deep with independent analysis and make the connections that exist between some of these racist organizations, entities and individuals (such as Dienekes).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
We are on the same page here!
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
dienekes is a living legend god bless him and his blog he is one of the first who reach the conclusion that e3b is diffrent racialy from the e3a guys e3b1c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote: -------------------------------- Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly. --------------------------------
Which naturally causes anyone with reasonable intelligence to ask, why do you guys hang on their every word. If you know they lie and are biased why do so many of you even bother listening to them.
You know that in order to stake a claim to Ancient Egypt the eurocentrists must divide Africans using bogus: anthropology, linguistics, geography, genetics, history, archaeology, and a host of others methods.
And yet you fools actually believe and recite word for word their propaganda. How did you people get this dumb?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: The Explorer wrote: The Explorer wrote: -------------------------------- Besides that, scientists are people too, which means that they have their own subjective personal opinions. The question is whether a scientist lets that get in the way or not; it is up to an "informed" audience to determine that, and make the case for it, accordingly. --------------------------------
Which naturally causes anyone with reasonable intelligence to ask, why do you guys hang on their every word. If you know they lie and are biased why do so many of you even bother listening to them.
1. We DON'T hang on to every word they say. What we DO is critically evaluate mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarship. Lancaster is obviously not a mainstream peer-reviewed scholar. His association with a known racist such as Dienkes demonstrates that.
2. We know that they lie and/or are biased, but we still need to engage their scholarship because the majority of our people recieve their information via the work of these scholars. Lying and being biased are two related but different things. We can agree that White Supremacy is at the root of both scholalry reactions. However, bias is unconciously administering a White Supremacist mentality. Lying is doing so with awareness. We can change those who are simply biased through change management strategies. If they are simply outright liars then we expose them as fringe scholars.
...word, we euros aint no hybrids. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. (Remember the Chris Rock).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
