"Of more relevence is who populated southern Mesopatamia originally. The genetic evidence of the M clade of mtDNA and ancient history indicate that at one point in time Black populations extended from Africa to India."
This raises the question:
When did Whites enter the "Middle East"? The M Clad of mtDNA found among ancient Black Asian populations such as the Andamanese Islanders and among East AND West Africans but NOT among people of the Iraq and Syria indicates that the aboriginal Black base that stretched from Africa to the south Pacific during the paloelithic has recieved an INTRUSIVE element via the Levant.
The topography of the "Middle East" indicates that it would be very difficult for Northern Eurasians to enter the Middle East during the mesolithic with the Caucasus, Zargos and Elburtz Mountains blocking passage.
The Neolithic (along with the E3b Black African gene)spread into Anatolia and eventually the Danube Valley. This process would have been a two way street. With the spread of civilization/agriculture from Africa to Central Europe population growth would have accelerated in Europe. Trade routes would have been established and northern European genes would have flowed back into Anatolia, then the Levant and eventually into NE Africa. Here is a very INTERESTING comment from Dienekes website:
"The spread of the Neolithic economy into continental Europe involved E3b bearers in a riverine expansion whose northern expression is associated with the Linearbandkeramik. This does not mean that E3b was the only haplogroup associated with these early European farmers, only that it definitely seems to correlate better with this movement compared to the other Neolithic haplogroup (J2)."
Thought Posts:
Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool.
Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Nov;67(5):1251-76.
Richards et al.
"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East..."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
"The Linearbandkeramic (abbreviated LBK) is the earliest neolithic culture of Central Europe. Its oldest phase is dated by the radiocarbon method to 5.500 BC. This culture can be associated with the westward spread of agriculture across Europe during the 6th millennium BC and 5th millennium BC. The name derives from pottery found in Neolithic archaeological sites featuring painted or incised linear motifs.
Early LBK sites are found in river valleys and flood plains of the Danube River area in Hungary and the northern Balkans. This region already had a thriving culture of farms and small settlements in the 6th millennium BC. Most scholars derive the Linearbandkeramic from the Starcevo-Körös culture of Northern Serbia and Hungary, but some would argue for an autochthonous development out of the local Mesolithic cultures.
Evidence suggests that settlers from the northern Balkans spread slowly westward and northward over the centuries, eventually reaching the Rhine valley and west-central France. This region was then sparsely populated, probably by only a few Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
Important sites include Bylany in the Czech Republic, Langweiler and Zwenkau in Germany and Brunn am Gebirge in Austria.
It is followed by the stroke-ornamented ware pottery in the eastern part of the settlement area, by the Hinkelstein, Großgartach- and Rössen-cultures in the West.
LBK sites near Cologne show that the people lived in villages of multi-room wooden long houses, and raised grain and vegetables in small plots. Though their farming was small-scale, the increasing numbers of LBK settlements began a process of thinning Europe's primeval forests. This would continue for millennia as population increased.
Evidence suggests that when Neolithic farmers reached the Atlantic and North Sea coasts, they met other peoples who made their living from the rich marine environment. Some anthropologists suggest that the encounter and possible fusion may have brought about the megalithic cultures of western Europe."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
So if Whites spread back from Europe into the Middle East, when did this take place. One possibility:
http://members.aol.com/RARinIT/indwhat.htm
"What are/were the Indo-Europeans ?
In 1786 Sir William Jones, an English Orientalist (and jurist), said..
"a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs, and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine all three without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick (i.e. Germanic) and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family."
(Source Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
What evidence there is suggests that there was a "Proto-Indo-European Language" from which all the known Indo-European languages are derived. This parent language must have split into well defined different languages well before 2000 BC, but the split is unlikely to have occurred before 3000 BC and may well have been later. This implies a common cultural root or tribe around 2800 BC.
The best candidate for this "common culture" seems to be the Kurgan culture of what is now South Russia. The word "Kurgan" refers to the tumuli in which their dead were buried - often in the form of a house with many funeral gifts. The origins of Kurgan culture have been traced back to about 5000 BC. Round about 4000 BC to 3500 BC this culture started to spread, covering an area from Eastern Central Europe to northern Iran (Kurgan III 3500 - 3000 BC). It is possible that at an even earlier time, perhaps 2 or 3 thousand years earlier, the Indo-Europeans and the Ural-Altaics (the people who eventually settled in Finland and Hungary, for example) may have sprung from common roots (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
It would appear that in Europe at least there was a steady progression towards urbanisation before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans. But this was seriously threatened when in about 3500 BC semi-nomadic pastoralists from the Russian steppes (akin to the Kurgans) infiltrated Europe. An early stronghold of these invading Indo-European pastoralists was Vukovar (in modern Yugoslavia) (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
Greece seems to have had two waves of migration. An early wave seems to be the people who eventually ended up in South West Turkey (by about 2200 BC). These people were responsible for place names ending in "-anthos" and "-anassos", but they were eventually supplanted by Greek speaking people who were well entrenched by 2000 BC (The Hittites, MacQueen JG, see references)
In the south west of modern Turkey there is evidence of Indo-European settlement related to the culture of the second city at Troy (dated at about 2200 BC) and the Cilician culture of about 2400 BC (The Hittites, MacQueen JG, p27 references). This puts the Indo-Europeans as entering the North West of modern Turkey by about 3000 BC. They spread to the centre of modern Turkey by about 2300 BC (there is evidence of them in Konya in about 2230 BC)."
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
The term 'whites' and its use is not consistently been equal in use and metaphor.
Tjhe modern term is different and in use due to the North American preoccupation with its supposed valid explicit aura of power.
Europe and its progeny, has its origins, due to population drift in the area now defined as the Fertile Crescent. At some time, a founder gene, over time left its imprint and over the millenia left footprints (genotype) that distinguishes each nation-state (formerly tribes like Saxon (Vikings from Normandy), Picts, Vandals, etc and each group in turn through conquest, slavery, or voluntary movement influenced the present society.
I see Indo-European as a language group (actually different languages sharing a basic root, albeit a misnomer) trying to link Europe with non European entitiies to form a greater majority. I reference Tamil (olde than Sanskrit?? language, which shares much with Sanskrit but its people were/are too BLACK in skin colour and location so they were excluded from the Indo-European sphere.
Turkey has a part in transferring genes from the Balkans (Serb, Croat, ec) to the homeland with its conquest so much of backmigration was probably forced, which in turn modified the Turkish gene pool to what it is today.
Spain with its North Africa association between 711 and 1492 can also be a point of transmigration due to Berbers and others who, when their dynasties fell, were forced to return to their countries of origin (Mali, Tunisia, Morocco, etc) and many with their ranks had Celtic or Germanic ancestry.
There is too much of mixing modern terms and usages which do not accurately reflect their ancient reality. I say that because theri is no such group known as Indo European, as it refers to language.
I am aware of an elusive group known as Scythians, who are said to be the ancestors of Sihks and some of their imprints are in Central Asia (Silk ROad).
Genotyping is great and they tell a good story but the social and cultural legacy is many times missing so it is anyone's guess of their relevance.
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:Thought2,
social influences culturalThe term 'whites' and its use is not consistently been equal in use and metaphor.
Tjhe modern term is different and in use due to the North American preoccupation with its supposed valid explicit aura of power.
Thought Writes:
Hi Yazid,
I agree that the use of the term white has recieved inconsistent usage. That is actually the point of this thread. To understand when whites moved into the Middle East and dislocated the indigenous Black populations such as the Natufians we must reason and establish a model based upon probability and possibility. Once we understand when genes and people flowed back into the Middle East THEN we can intelligently discuss the physical and genetic characteristics of Lower Egypt.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Hi Yazid,I agree that the use of the term white has recieved inconsistent usage. That is actually the point of this thread. To understand when whites moved into the Middle East and dislocated the indigenous Black populations such as the Natufians we must reason and establish a model based upon probability and possibility. Once we understand when genes and people flowed back into the Middle East THEN we can intelligently discuss the physical and genetic characteristics of Lower Egypt.
Interesting pieces on movements into Europe and back-migration into the "Middle East". In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Interesting pieces on movements into Europe and back-migration into the "Middle East". In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
Not to intrude, but just to offer a guess...R1b and I.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Not to intrude, but just to offer a guess...R1b and I.
What I had in mind, but want to be precise, for if we examine these regions [Middle East], will we find these lineages in meaningful frequencies? We know about the paleolithic expansion of the aforementioned lineages in Europe, and the subsequent Neolithic expansion involving Hg E and Hg J lineages.
Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.
We know that a historically prominent indigenous black population in the Near-East was the Elamites of modern-day Iran. Other than them, I have no clue as to what other indigenous populations existed in the Near-East. It is very possible that the Ubaidians, the predecessors of the Sumerians were also indigenous black people. And what about Arabia? There are the pockets of black Yemenis but that's it.
Also, could the predominance of light-skinned Eurasians in the Near-East be compared to that of "mongoloid" peoples eventually predominating Southeast Asia?
According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
It would appear that in Europe at least there was a steady progression towards urbanisation before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans. But this was seriously threatened when in about 3500 BC semi-nomadic pastoralists from the Russian steppes (akin to the Kurgans) infiltrated Europe. An early stronghold of these invading Indo-European pastoralists was Vukovar (in modern Yugoslavia) (see Encyclopaedia Britannica references).
Yes, the earliest evidence of urbanization in Europe is found in Cucuteni, in modern-day Moldavia to Tripolye in Ukraine. These areas were contemporary to urban centers like Catal Huyuk in Anatolia and others dotted along the Near-East. Do you believe that the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture has a connection to the Near-East via the introduction of agriculture?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 September 2005).]
Some linguist postulate that Indo-European spread from Anatolia instead of southern Russia. Is anybody familiar with this theory?
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:Some linguist postulate that Indo-European spread from Anatolia instead of southern Russia. Is anybody familiar with this theory?
Yes, however the Anatolian origin theory does not fit well with the linguistic and historical pattern.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
In light of what we know about the Hg M mtDNA distribution, what paternal lineages would correlate to these movements?
Thought Writes:
Possibly the YAP insertion that defines haplogroup DE. Haplogroup E being found in Africa and haplogroup D being found in Asia with populations like Andaman Islanders, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Possibly the YAP insertion that defines haplogroup DE. Haplogroup E being found in Africa and haplogroup D being found in Asia with populations like Andaman Islanders, etc.
Right; for the likes of the Andaman Islanders. But what about the folks migrating from Europe back to the Middle Eastern regions? Surely they would have carried lineages extant in Europe, along with them back to the Middle East?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:Thought, what do you mean by "whites"??
Do you mean European-looking, or overall light-skinned Eurasians because that is a good question.
Thought Writes:
Indeed, you pose a very thoughtfull question
Djehuti. I think relative to a discourse about back migration from Western Northern Eurasia into the Middle East and eventually Africa it is first neccessary to establish a POSSIBLE chronology for said event. Then we can examine what possible physical characteristics were existent in Northern Eurasia (specifically Western Northern Eurasia). For example many of the first Europeans carried a phenotype similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans. It is safe to assume that by the Bronze Age (3300 BC) Europeans had phenotypes similar to what we see today in Western Northern Eurasia (for example see Ötzi the Ice-Man). These sorts of haplogroup I carrying Europeans represent the "Real Whites". Greeks look very different from these people because Greeks have substantial Sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages. Then we can look for evidence of said physical characteristics in northern AE. This would be a proper approach to such a topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:According to Spencer Wells, all northern Eurasians share a common ancestry in western Central Asia. Could this be where "caucasian" Near-Easterners come from or from another source like Anatolia or something?
Thought Writes:
Probably NOT. The first Europeans and the first East Asians had physical similarities to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, Melaneseans and Andaman Islanders. There is an attempt to sweep this baseline phenotype under the rug by labeling it "GENERALIZED". Modern European phenotype probably had derived bi the late mesolithic. Their population was small and grew when they were instructed on how to reap and sow by people whose ancerstors came out of Sub-saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Right; for the likes of the Andaman Islanders. But what about the folks migrating from Europe back to the Middle Eastern regions? Surely they would have carried lineages extant in Europe, along with them back to the Middle East?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
Thought Posts:
Richards et al
2000
"Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are STRIKINGLY HIGH. We estimate that 10% - 20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry."
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Richards et al
2000"Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are STRIKINGLY HIGH. We estimate that 10% - 20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry."
Which "clusters in the Near East", was Richard et al. referring to here?
Richard et al. made reference to the following:
"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a(formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe." - Richards et al. 2002
...does it involve any of these?
The Eskimo have lived in Artic regions for many thousands of years.
According to Nina Jablonski they never completely lost their melanin because a diet of fish supplied them with the vitamin D otherwise delmanated skin is more efficient at synthasizing from sunlight.
It is of interest because it is one of many evidence that points to the relatively recent [mesolithic] nature of the depigmented white phenotype.
Note: Skeletally, Eskimo are the most/best cold adapted of all peoples....thick trunks and short non tapering limbs for trapping body heat: they are the opposite of the ultra tropical morphology of the elongated Africans.
Europeans are opposite of elongated Africans in terms of skin color, but are more intermediate in terms of skeletype - they are not as well adapted skeletally to cold climates as Inuit and NorthEast Asians.
Then again - Europeans are product of admixtures with middle Easterners and Africans, so.....
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Which "clusters in the Near East", was Richard et al. referring to here?
Thought Posts:
R1b-M269 Frequencies from:
Al-Zahery et al.
Cinnioglu et al.
Nation Frequency
Syria 15%
Turkey 14.7%
Iraq 10.8%
From Cinnioglu et al:
"The R1b3-M268 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions rflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period (Holocene)."
It would be interesting to study the spread of R1a in association with the spread of the Kurgan Culture.
P.S.
Has anyone read Granger's Adam, the Altaic Ring and the Children of the Sun?
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
Thought Posts:R1b-M269 Frequencies from:
Al-Zahery et al.
Cinnioglu et al.Nation Frequency
Syria 15%
Turkey 14.7%
Iraq 10.8%From Cinnioglu et al:
"The R1b3-M268 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions rflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period (Holocene)."
I realize that the clusters Richards et al. were actually referring to in your earlier post, has to do with mtDNAs, which nevertheless doesn't take away from your point, which is the back-migration from Europe to the "Middle East":
"We have employed a novel method to identify and quantify back-migration from Europe and the Near East. We have done this by identifying two European haplogroups (i.e., U5 and V) that appear to have evolved in situ. Extrapolating from the frequency of these clusters in the Near East has provided us with estimates for back-migration in general. These are strikingly high. We estimate that 10%–20% of extant Near Eastern lineages have a European ancestry, although this estimate fallsto 6%–8% for the core zone of the Fertile Crescent. - Richards et al. 2000
But now, to your last post, which is what I was specifically after...
Those R1b3-M269 frequencies, were they from Al-Zahery et al. or from Cinnioglu et al.?
And what do we know about the R1b3-M268 mutation, as mentioned in your Cinnioglu et al. citation? Does its distribution extend deep into Asia, i.e., west Asia or the so-called "Middle East"? or is it supposed to read "R1b3-M269"?
Here's a piece from P. Underhill, which is relevant to your earlier point about "The genetic evidence of the M clade of mtDNA and ancient history indicate that at one point in time Black populations extended from Africa to India."...
"This review has catalogued 14 different Y-chromosomes among 74 East Asian populations, totalising 3,762 individuals. The reconstructed phylogeny shows that all 14 chromosomes descend from a unique origin (M168) further subdivided into 3 different clades, YAP, M130 and M89. The YAP lineages, probably originating in Africa, would be representative of the early colonisers into Asia. They are observed at low frequencies throughout East Asia, except in Tibet, Japan and the Andamanese where they are more common. This suggests that they were initially present in the region but pushed to peripheral regions by new migrants carrying other lineages. The M130 and M89 mutations, not detected in Africa, may have arisen in Asia, but prior to the arrival of modern humans in Sahul." - Underhill.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 03 September 2005).]
Climate and dietary changes also appear to influence physical characteristics!
[This message has been edited by yazid904 (edited 03 September 2005).]
quote:
The Neolithic (along with the E3b Black African gene)spread into Anatolia and eventually the Danube Valley. This process would have been a two way street. With the spread of civilization/agriculture from Africa to Central Europe population growth would have accelerated in Europe. Trade routes would have been established and northern European genes would have flowed back into Anatolia, then the Levant and eventually into NE Africa...Richards et al.
"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East..."
Here is the thing, as reiterated in the Cinnioglu et al citation:
"The phylogenetic and spatial distribution of its equivalent in Europe (Cruciani et al. 2002), the R1-M173 (xM17) lineage for which considerable data exist (Semino et al. 2000a; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003) implies that R1b3-M269 was well established throughout Paleolithic Europe, probably arriving from West Asia contemporaneous with Aurignacian culture.
Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic, we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward direction. However, archeological evidence supports the view of the arrival of Aurignacian culture to Anatolia from Europe during the Upper Paleolithic rather than from the Iranian plateau (Kuhn 2002)."
...something that is not exactly news, but then this simply means that the presence of these lineages are to be expected in West Asia, where they arose in situ. So these lineages made their way to Europe about 40,000 years ago or so.
This brings us to the following point, which is relevant to the idea of the lineages having expanded northwards from west Asia, and then subsequently expanding back to the Mediterranean regions [with southwestern Europe, i.e., Iberia being important, in terms of refuge] and Asian Minor during the last Ice age, and then at the end of LGM, re-peopling of the northward European regions began from these regions. And as noted time and again, during the early Holocene, Neolithic expansion involving sub-Sahara African E3b lineages along with J, spread these lineages to Europe:
"The variance of 49a,f ht35 related chromosomes are lower in the Balkan, Caucasian and Iraqi representatives than those in Turkey (Table 4). Similarly, the variance is higher in Iberia than in Western Europe. The decreasing diversity radiating from Turkey towards Southeast Europe, Caucasus and Mesopotamia approximates similar results from Iberia tracing the re-colonization of Northwest Europe by hunter-gatherers during the Holocene as suggested by others (Torroni et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000a; Wilson et al. 2001)...
Haplogroup R1b3-M269 occurs at 40–80% frequency in Europe and the associated STR variance suggests that the last ice age modulated R1b3-M269 distribution to refugia in Iberia and Asia Minor from where it subsequently radiated during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene. The R1b3-M269 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions reflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period. The R1b3-M269 variances and expansion time estimates of Iberian and Turkish lineages are similar to each other (Table 2) but higher than observed elsewhere (Table 4). Low variances for R1b3-M269 lineages have also been reported for Czech and Estonian populations (Kivisild et al. 2003)." - Cinnioglu et al.
The issue of European mtDNA (as per Richards et al.) comes into play in these southward back-migration, and perhaps the best indicator of back migration to the Near East, at least in the context of regions as far as Iraq, where variance of R1b3-M269 are lower relative to those in Turkey.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 04 September 2005).]
Hi Super Car
You raise many interesting questions that deserve further investigation. For example we need to review R1b to determine which SUB-CLADES derived in West Asia and which sub-clades derived in Europe AFTER the migration of man to Europe. In other words we need to determine which lineages are generalized Eurasian and which ones are European or northern Central Asian specific. We also need to study the topography of these regions to understand the possible effects on phenotypic evolution. Did R1a evolve in the region of northern Kazakhstan?
It is interesting to note that the tribes associated with Indo-European are rarely mentioned and if so they are associated with the Fertile Crescent (Middle East) or border area separating Asia from Europe proper.
The myth of the Aryan is also odd in that it has survived despite the falsehoods associated with it. There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils. The trick is, again, those tribal group were rarely mentioned!
I agree that genetically we still have to discern between which clades are generalized Eurasian and which are European specific.
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
Thought,
About 2 years ago I came across a report filmed by one researcher who followed the trail of supposed out migration and there was a place in present day Kazakhstan where there was a family that possessed the
founder effect genotype associated with present day Europe. I do not recall the specific gene complex but it shows that the youngest group belong to Europe!It is interesting to note that the tribes associated with Indo-European are rarely mentioned and if so they are associated with the Fertile Crescent (Middle East) or border area separating Asia from Europe proper.
The myth of the Aryan is also odd in that it has survived despite the falsehoods associated with it. There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils. The trick is, again, those tribal group were rarely mentioned!
What many people tend to forget about India is other groups. The tribal groups are diverse and vary phenotypically. Although all of them speak Dravidian languages, there is evidence that other languages existed and Dravidian itself ultimately orignated from the north, perhaps even outside of India! There are also certain language isolates like Burushaski in Pakistan and Sumerian in Mesopotamia give further proof of great ethnic diversity that has been lost.
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
About 2 years ago I came across a report filmed by one researcher who followed the trail of supposed out migration and there was a place in present day Kazakhstan where there was a family that possessed the
founder effect genotype associated with present day Europe. I do not recall the specific gene complex but it shows that the youngest group belong to Europe!
Thought Writes:
Hi Yazid
Was this the documentary that Spencer Wells worked on?
At anyrate it is clear that during this Upper Paleolithic period the phenotype was still Sub-Saharan. I want to know more about this region during the late mesolithic.
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:There is no doubt that the Dravidians (S. India like Tamils) were driven south and that the foreign elements were usually fair skinned when compared to the native Tamils.
Thought Writes:
I concur. It is possible that we have TWO different (R1a and R1b), distantly related (related via upstream R1*)leucoderm populations. This R1 model may be akin to the African to southern Asian spread of the mtDNA M clad. The R1a carrying Whites may have been primarily responsible for the demise of NE African and SW Asian Black civilizations (Egypt, Elam, etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
What many people tend to forget about India is other groups. The tribal groups are diverse and vary phenotypically. Although all of them speak Dravidian languages, there is evidence that other languages existed and Dravidian itself ultimately orignated from the north, perhaps even outside of India! There are also certain language isolates like Burushaski in Pakistan and Sumerian in Mesopotamia give further proof of great ethnic diversity that has been lost.
Thought Writes:
I concur that India was diverse, but it is likewise clear that the baseline population is of a tropical African background. These people RETAINED the phenotypic traits they took with them when they migrated out of Africa. The full delineation of the mtDNA lineage M1 will tell us more about these people as well.
quote:
Thought Writes:I concur that India was diverse, but it is likewise clear that the baseline population is of a tropical African background. These people RETAINED the phenotypic traits they took with them when they migrated out of Africa. The full delineation of the mtDNA lineage M1 will tell us more about these people as well.
A look at Evil Euro's favorite graph suggests of the existence of an African phenotyic element as a sub-stratum of the Indian population. Its intermediate location between the European/cold adapted cluster and the African/tropically adapted cluster attests to the fact that before the "Aryan" incursian the population of that sub-continent (Dravidian/Dalit?) was primarily of a phenotype similar to Africans. Furthermore it suggests a continuity (both temporally and spatially)of this phenotype from Africa to South Asia and Australia.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Hi Super Car
we need to review R1b to determine which SUB-CLADES derived in West Asia and which sub-clades derived in Europe AFTER the migration of man to Europe. In other words we need to determine which lineages are generalized Eurasian and which ones are European or northern Central Asian specific. We also need to study the topography of these regions to understand the possible effects on phenotypic evolution. Did R1a evolve in the region of northern Kazakhstan?
Now we are talking. 
quote:That is what they are Djehuti, they are Indo-Europeans who have taken another peoples heritage. I mean I don't think it takes a bible to note that, look at the name: Ashke-NAZI. These modern day Jews are simply Germany that are in turmoil about what they did to themselves... The other sect of Jews are Sephardi which claim to be the Khazars. The Khazar king announced that the Khazar descended from Togarmah ... Japheth grandson.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^Actually, the term Indo-European is a linguistic one describing a language phylum. No one knows what the original speakers of proto-Indo-European looked like, but many linguists place its origins somewhere in the Russian steppes. Also, many of the earliest Indo-European speakers are described or depicted as tall, blonde-haired, and gray-eyed. Of course this does not mean all of them looked that way, and it especially does not mean peoples who had such features were proto-Indo-European speakers. As we all know, 'white' features especially fair hair, eyes, etc. were cold adapted traits that evolved in Pleistocene glacial Europe.
It is interesting that European Jews especially those from Eastern Europe with blonde hair and blue eyes are called Ashkenazi and the Ashkenazi in Jewish history are said to be descended from Gomeri, an ancient Indo-European people.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Speaking of Marc, quote:LOL Actually, the 'nazi' in Ashkenazi is a different word with a totally different meaning from the German political party NAZI which means National Socialist.
Originally posted by RU2religious:
That is what they are Djehuti, they are Indo-Europeans who have taken another peoples heritage. I mean I don't think it takes a bible to note that, look at the name: Ashke-NAZI. These modern day Jews are simply Germany that are in turmoil about what they did to themselves... The other sect of Jews are Sephardi which claim to be the Khazars. The Khazar king announced that the Khazar descended from Togarmah ... Japheth grandson.
NOTE: This comment is not Anti-Anything ... just truth.
quote:Actually it would be wrong to call the Hebrews black also, even though no doubt they had some black ancestry. Many Hebrews would look no different from Bedouin people found today in the Levant. Of course this does not mean there were any black people among them let alone in their land.
The hebrews of old were viewed as a black people and there is a Roman historian who verifies this claim like Herodotus verified a black Egypt. So that this last comment wont be taken as afrocentricism I must info you that I'm not an A-centric.
Peace!~
quote:That depends on what you mean by 'Arab' since Arabs consist of diverse ancestries.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
They look like very dark arabs to me, djehuti come here and explain it to me.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Of course there are northern Sudanese who think of themselves as being "very dark Arabs" also. Does this mean they are not black? quote:My question is to you: would you consider the elamites to be "asiatic negroids" or what exactly means "black" to you?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:That depends on what you mean by 'Arab' since Arabs consist of diverse ancestries.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
They look like very dark arabs to me, djehuti come here and explain it to me.
And Morpheus, lay off the Matrix pics.
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:That is what they are Djehuti, they are Indo-Europeans who have taken another peoples heritage. I mean I don't think it takes a bible to note that, look at the name: Ashke-NAZI. These modern day Jews are simply Germany that are in turmoil about what they did to themselves... The other sect of Jews are Sephardi which claim to be the Khazars. The Khazar king announced that the Khazar descended from Togarmah ... Japheth grandson.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^Actually, the term Indo-European is a linguistic one describing a language phylum. No one knows what the original speakers of proto-Indo-European looked like, but many linguists place its origins somewhere in the Russian steppes. Also, many of the earliest Indo-European speakers are described or depicted as tall, blonde-haired, and gray-eyed. Of course this does not mean all of them looked that way, and it especially does not mean peoples who had such features were proto-Indo-European speakers. As we all know, 'white' features especially fair hair, eyes, etc. were cold adapted traits that evolved in Pleistocene glacial Europe.
It is interesting that European Jews especially those from Eastern Europe with blonde hair and blue eyes are called Ashkenazi and the Ashkenazi in Jewish history are said to be descended from Gomeri, an ancient Indo-European people.
NOTE: This comment is not Anti-Anything ... just truth.
The hebrews of old were viewed as a black people and there is a Roman historian who verifies this claim like Herodotus verified a black Egypt. So that this last comment wont be taken as afrocentricism I must info you that I'm not an A-centric.
Peace!~
I certainly hope there isn't any anti-Jewish bias involved.
quote:I didn't even see this post because I would have at least commented on it.
Jews are a people and a civilization which recognizes
the children of converts who've married into "old
families" (i.e. "Israelites") to be part of the nation
and as such heirs to all of "Jewish" heritage including
the history and rights to tribal lands as laid out in
the territorial claims documented in the TN"K (i.e.,
the original edition of what has been translated into and
named "the Bible," the Hebrew Scriptures part only as
the Greek Scriptures part is neither recognized or
accepted as a continuance of Torah (5 books of Moses,
Nebi'iym (the Prophets), and Ketubiym (the Holy Writings).
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
First there was an United Monarchy of Israel
composed of all 12 Tribes of Israel but it
only lasted through three kings; Shaul, Dawid,
and Sh*lomo.
Then there two separate kindoms of `Am Yisra'el
resulting from a revolution following Sh*lomo's
death. These were the northern Kingdom of Israel
and the southern kingom of Judah; the former
composed of 10 Tribes of Israelites and the latter
having mainly members of the Tribe of Judah.
When the northern kingdom fell some of its citizens
fled to the still intact southern kingdom where
they mingled and married with Judahites to the
point of losing whatever tribal identity and
affiliation they once held generations ago.
That is how "Israelites" first became "Jews."
Note however that Judaeans are just as much from
the original 12 Tribes of Israel as were the
members of the destroyed northern kingdom. So,
Israelites were indeed in the land at the time
of the Roman conquest. And in the writings of the
Judaeans they speak of themselves as Israel.
In fact in all the subsequent writings of the
Mizrahhi, Mashreqi, Magrebi, Sephardi, Hodi,
Teimani, and Itiopi clear from then on up to
our times continue to use Israel as a self
descriptor rather than Jew. Ashkenazim are
the one who embraced this term Jew generally
used by Gentiles when they describe `Am Yisra'el.
You and the wife have fun and enjoy your life together
and may it be a wonderful one!
quote:Thanks a lot sir and that is truly appreciated. Secondly, please forgive the typos; I have to get another laptop, I have keys missing so I’m trying to work it out on this computer despite apparent typos.
You and the wife have fun and enjoy your life together
and may it be a wonderful one!
quote:The holy City of the Desert is who of Yisra’el most sacred places (Psalms 48) 48:2 “
Zion consists of the components On (Hebrew for the holy city of On/Heliopolis in Egypt) and the Hebrew word zi (meaning arid place). Literally translated, Zion appropriately becomes "Holy City of the Desert." –
for more on this History click here!
quote:where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical
Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote
access it. The companion mag, also published by
the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review
is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical
Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote
access it. The companion mag, also published by
the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review
is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
quote:I'm on my way there now ... Thank you.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
An OT like me got the real slick paper mags and
storing 'em in a box. But I guess the best thing
real time is to go to http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbMktBack.html
and handle it there. $135 is cheap considering what
you get (and that I paid more than that for more
than a box full of magazines that only covered
20 years. And I can't tote around all them 'zines
as easy as you can slip a CD into a wallet).
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
quote:where can I find them at? R they on the biblica-archaeology website?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well I have a pretty complete set of Biblical
Archaeology Review magazine but can't remote
access it. The companion mag, also published by
the Biblical Archaeology Society, Bible Review
is ok too.
Check 'em out, if you ain't already, I think you might like 'em.
quote:Good question and it desires attention.
Originally posted by Willing Thinker:
R U 2 and all, how were they from egypt?
It's confusing, first, you say there was an yisra-el, then you say they were really egyptians and their languages and stuff is derived from there.
Yes, I know they were in A Egypt, but egyptians mixed with other mid-easterners at the time, and alot of things come from egypt. What used to be called Semetic is now Afrasan.
Some is the ancient hebrew culture Egyptian in a vague sense, or are you saying they ripped off kemet's culture or what?
I mean, what are you basing all this on, because I think it was you who in another thread said that the Native Americans are africans with straight hair, not related to europeans because they have dark skin.
quote:^When were the scriptures written? < This question isn't retorical, it's sincere. I really don't know.
So then why does the scriptures say he came from Ur when he didn't? This is what started my journey.
code:
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Greece 53 55 60 66 77 84 89 89 82 73 64 57
Tunisia 53 54 56 60 67 74 80 81 77 69 61 65
quote:Depends on how light "relatively lighter skin" is supposed to be, as it pertains to climate in North Africa.
Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North
Africa, particularly the littoral where the average
monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than
the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
quote:interesting ...
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Hhz"l has a mahh*lokhet that either Moshe Rabbeynu
prophetically penned his death or Y*hoshua` wrote the
last few lines of D*bariym.
If either the Jews in Egypt or the Ptolemaic ruler of
Egypt desired a translation there's no reason for it
to have to have been done elsewhere than in Egypt.
Every miqdash me'at from Tunis to Afganistan had copies
of all necessary scrolls. No one had to go to the Beth
haMiqdash for a Torah or any other scroll of TN"K.
Not to mention that at least two authorized (and one
unauthorized) temples were established in Egypt long
enough before Ptolemaic rule.
quote:Speaking of which, I see no reason why this particular Wiki piece cannot be deemed reasonable, given that this is info generally accessible in high school level physics...
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Depends on how light "relatively lighter skin" is supposed to be, as it pertains to climate in North Africa.
Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North
Africa, particularly the littoral where the average
monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than
the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
Exposure to UV solar radiation is an instrumental determining factor in melanin synthesis regulation. UV radiation intensity varies across latitudes...
http://sedac.ciesin.org/ozone/maps/latest_eptn.gif
This map is provided courtesy of the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).The Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University has been designated by NASA to operate and maintain SEDAC.
Data Description: This map represents local noon near-real time estimates of the UV Index (UVI) using total column ozone abundances measured by NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) carried by the Earth Probe satellite. Cloud cover is not incorporated.
Courtesy of SafeSun.com
Another insightful site:
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html
...
quote:Temperature is actually irrelevant to skin color, what is relevant is UV radiation.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Why doesn't relatively lighter skin not fit North
Africa, particularly the littoral where the average
monthly temperatures are in some places LOWER than
the monthly average for the South Europe littoral?
quote:Shivering is a response to cold, and has nothing to do with skin color as response to solar radiation.
One would shiver just as much on a night in Tunisia
as they would on the northern shores of the Mediterranean
quote:
Originally posted by RU2religious:
... why is it that the Hebrew text has been totally lost?
. . . .
The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Tanakh yet their is no Hebrew text older then the Septuagint.
It doesn't make sense. All other people has had their writings maintained except the Yisra'elites. The modernist have come through with a new teaching and has totally removed the old by giving us their personal home-made version of what the original text should have said whih we know they really don't know just as much as we don't know.
quote:so I gave temperature figures.
The light-skin in North African and Southwest Asian inhabitants does not seem to suit the climate at all so it is interesting to learn why they are there.
quote:What I wonder is did some part of the indigenous North
Originally posted 10 June, 2006 06:58 PM by Supercar (after Frank Sweet):
... Baltic Seas, keeping temperatures moderate despite dim near-Arctic sunlight. Around the planet, only circum-Baltic farmers could switch to a grain diet devoid of vitamin D, in a place where sunlight also lacked UV. And so, the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only within 600 miles of this unique spot on earth.
. . . .
Since 1910, researchers have known that human skin pigmentation is polygenic, depending on just a few codominant additive genes of essentially two alleles each. We have known that complexion is polygenic, rather than the result of one gene with many alleles, because breeding of palest with darkest yields a spectrum of offspring genotypes from the same parents, not just the four Mendelian ones. We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents, no matter how similar the parents. We have known that at least three genes are involved because histograms of population skin reflectance yield continuous, not discrete, values (Stern 1973, 443-65), (Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1971, 527-31).
Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998).
Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation.
. . . .
This essay suggests that as modern humans migrated into northeastern Asia, they became lighter in response to two selective pressures. Less darkness was needed to protect against folic acid destruction by solar UV penetrating the dermal layer and causing neonatal neural defects. And more paleness was needed to enhance vitamin D synthesis which, together with calciferol ingested in meat, prevented neonatal skeletal malformations. But these adaptations functioned by the loss of genetic coding for dark complexion.
quote:The light-skin in North African and Southwest Asian inhabitants does not seem to suit the climate at all so it is interesting to learn why they are there.
Mansa Musa posed his question thusly
quote:Understood. My post was not a criticism. It just denoted the fact that temperature really has nothing to do with skin color.
so I gave temperature figures.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Did you know that polar bear have black skin under their fur?
quote:* Did you mean lighter-skinned?
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Excellent insight guys.
I hadn't really thought about UV radiation vs. temperature being the cause of skin depigmentation.
That being said the climate of a region also effects UV radiation exposure and since North Africa and the Middle East recieve alot of sunlight I'd expect the inhabitants to be no more significantly darker*-skinned than the Khoisan brings up the interest of where these light-skinned inhabitants came from.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:i think he meant darker skinned.
Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
quote:* Did you mean lighter-skinned?
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Excellent insight guys.
I hadn't really thought about UV radiation vs. temperature being the cause of skin depigmentation.
That being said the climate of a region also effects UV radiation exposure and since North Africa and the Middle East recieve alot of sunlight I'd expect the inhabitants to be no more significantly darker*-skinned than the Khoisan brings up the interest of where these light-skinned inhabitants came from.
quote:I agree that genetic testing methods for Jewishness isn't expedient.
Originally posted by Yonis2:
80-90% of todays jews are Ashkenazi. They consider themselves "the real thing", and they take blood samples from other jews and compare these results to thwmselves when they want to determine who's a real jew. It's like modern australians taking blood samples from aborigines and comparing it to themselves and those aborigines who have most similar result to english speaking australians are branded as a more authentic australian.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by mentu:
From biblical text/ancient writings and archaeology, it can be hypothesised whites entered the middle east (from around 4000bc) if not later.
Even Jewish mythology admits to this fact originally Canaan was inhabited by blacks (children of Ham) ...
quote:not only skin color, but features also.because Mulattos and black mixed people aren't black colored.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^'Black' is in reference to skin color
quote:
The eastern Mediterranean is a nexus of three continents. It and the
Arabian Peninsula were peopled by other migrant invaders who didn't
originally speak in Afrasan. Semitic speakers were among the
first but weren't the only inhabitants of the region. Kushitics
preceded them. Indo-Europeans, Caucasics, Altaics, etc.,
came after them probably via the Daryal Gorge through the
Caucasus Mountains.
From this can be gathered, if anything, that "Semites" are North East
Africans who migrated into the Arabian peninsula and moved northward
(as far as up to Turkey1) where they met and mingled with and were maybe
blocked from further spread by southward invading Eurasian peoples
(Altaic and Indo-European speakers) in pre-historic times. Upon the
eclipse of the southerners the hybrids and assimilated settlers (beginning
circa -1800 with the maryannu caste) became heir to the names and languages
of the original people they married into and whose culture they emulated.
posted 19 December, 2004 by al~Takruri
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001282;p=1#000019
The Semitic speakers worked their way up
from the Bab-el-Mandeb crossing over from
the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and from
there moved northward ending their trek at
the foot of the mountains of Turkey. If
anything, Caucasic, Altaic, and Indo-European
speakers moving southbound across the
Caucasus met and mingled with the Semitic
speakers giving then a much lighter color
than their southern ancestors had and still
have today.
posted 20 April, 2005
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001883#000014
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Of course the notion of "races" is bankrupt to begin with, but there is no reason to assume that Chalcolithic populations of the Levant were not derived from multiple demic diffusions. In that regard, the study above is suspect.
quote:The keywords being "heterogeneous", which renders what your citation is saying, scientifically bunk.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Of course the notion of "races" is bankrupt to begin with, but there is no reason to assume that Chalcolithic populations of the Levant were not derived from multiple demic diffusions. In that regard, the study above is suspect.
Just as the Ancient Egyptians were heterogenous with a primary African origin, the people of the Levant seem to have been heterogenous with a primary Eurasian origin.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:The keywords being "heterogeneous", which renders what your citation is saying, scientifically bunk.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Of course the notion of "races" is bankrupt to begin with, but there is no reason to assume that Chalcolithic populations of the Levant were not derived from multiple demic diffusions. In that regard, the study above is suspect.
Just as the Ancient Egyptians were heterogenous with a primary African origin, the people of the Levant seem to have been heterogenous with a primary Eurasian origin.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^I just did, and you cited it right up there - but didn't read it?! Lol.
quote:Australian Aboriginals are black, melanesians are black, and Dravidians are black, but not native african black.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I am well aware of that fact but it should be known that 'black' originally was a reference to color. And it would be inaccurate to use the label for any other feature besides color.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Australian Aboriginals are black, melanesians are black, and Dravidians are black, but not native african black.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I am well aware of that fact but it should be known that 'black' originally was a reference to color. And it would be inaccurate to use the label for any other feature besides color.
quote:yes, they live in the tropics.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Australian Aboriginals are black, melanesians are black, and Dravidians are black, but not native african black.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I am well aware of that fact but it should be known that 'black' originally was a reference to color. And it would be inaccurate to use the label for any other feature besides color.
The unanswered and **TABOO** question is, if the "East and West Ethiopians" (Black Africans and Black Asians) share a common physiology does this translate to a common nature. Nature being defined as innate reaction to the greater cosmos.
quote:^ What Evergreen meant by the above is that since all these peoples share common physiology in tropical traits such as black skin etc. they must somehow share mental traits. His premise here falls along the lines of racialist thinking so I don't buy it.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
The unanswered and **TABOO** question is, if the "East and West Ethiopians" (Black Africans and Black Asians) share a common physiology does this translate to a common nature. Nature being defined as innate reaction to the greater cosmos.
quote:But there is only so little this artwork can entail, especially if it is unpainted.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Look to the depictions of the A3mw, the "Megiddo
Ivories," Sennacherib's palace wall, and the like
for what Canaanites thought they looked like and
how others saw them. A very heterogenous lot with,
in my eyes, a predominant African base.
quote:Yes I am already aware of that historical fact. Which is why I asked how did the original Canaanites look like.
By the time there was a 'Holy Land' the Canaanites
had been absorbed -- primarily by the Judaeans --
and many an other people fused into the body that
became Roman Palestina.
quote:Yes I already know about this as well too. It is apparent to anyone with sense that the peoples of the Levant especially in modern times are of very mixed ancestries.
The eastern Mediterranean is a nexus of three continents. It and the
Arabian Peninsula were peopled by other migrant invaders who didn't
originally speak in Afrasan. Semitic speakers were among the
first but weren't the only inhabitants of the region. Kushitics
preceded them. Indo-Europeans, Caucasics, Altaics, etc.,
came after them probably via the Daryal Gorge through the
Caucasus Mountains.
From this can be gathered, if anything, that "Semites" are North East
Africans who migrated into the Arabian peninsula and moved northward
(as far as up to Turkey1) where they met and mingled with and were maybe
blocked from further spread by southward invading Eurasian peoples
(Altaic and Indo-European speakers) in pre-historic times. Upon the
eclipse of the southerners the hybrids and assimilated settlers (beginning
circa -1800 with the maryannu caste) became heir to the names and languages
of the original people they married into and whose culture they emulated.
posted 19 December, 2004 by al~Takruri
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001282;p=1#000019
quote:So you go by the theory that proto-Semitic originated in the Horn and crossed over into southern Arabia where it differentiated there?
The Semitic speakers worked their way up
from the Bab-el-Mandeb crossing over from
the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and from
there moved northward ending their trek at
the foot of the mountains of Turkey. If
anything, Caucasic, Altaic, and Indo-European
speakers moving southbound across the
Caucasus met and mingled with the Semitic
speakers giving then a much lighter color
than their southern ancestors had and still
have today.
posted 20 April, 2005
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001883#000014
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:But there is only so little this artwork can entail, especially if it is unpainted.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Look to the depictions of the A3mw, the "Megiddo
Ivories," Sennacherib's palace wall, and the like
for what Canaanites thought they looked like and
how others saw them. A very heterogenous lot with,
in my eyes, a predominant African base.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Yes I am already aware of that historical fact. Which is why I asked how did the original Canaanites look like.
By the time there was a 'Holy Land' the Canaanites
had been absorbed -- primarily by the Judaeans --
and many an other people fused into the body that
became Roman Palestina.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:So you go by the theory that proto-Semitic originated in the Horn and crossed over into southern Arabia where it differentiated there?
The Semitic speakers worked their way up
from the Bab-el-Mandeb crossing over from
the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and from
there moved northward ending their trek at
the foot of the mountains of Turkey. If
anything, Caucasic, Altaic, and Indo-European
speakers moving southbound across the
Caucasus met and mingled with the Semitic
speakers giving then a much lighter color
than their southern ancestors had and still
have today.
posted 20 April, 2005
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001883#000014
What of the theory proposed by linguists like Carleton T. Hodge which statest that proto-Semitic stems from a northern division with Egyptian and Berber and that it entered the Levant via the Sinai from Egypt and from the north differentiated and spread south into Arabia??
quote:The findings from Hodge and others of a northern crossing are based primarily phonetic commonalities between Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well those italicized quotes that I dug up are
how I viewed things at that time (which is the
reason why I included their dates of posting).
Since then I'm not so sure that either the
north crossing vs south crossing is the answer.
When did the African ancestors of the Natufians
wend their way down the Nile and on over to the
Levant?
At that time was there a Semitic language, a
proto-Semitic language, or an undifferentiated
Afrisan language -- or protoAfrisan language --
taken into Sinai and the Gaza and what evidence
do we have of it in any residual form in Egypt
allowing us to say it passed through?
quote:You are right that one problem with the northern entry is that classical Arabic from deep Arabia possesses many archaic feautures not only from proto-Semitic but proto-Afrasian. However, the Akkadian language also possess such features too.
What is the age of Arabic? How related are the
old Semitic languages of Abyssinia and earliest
Arabic?
I guess, because of Arabic's age relative to the
other Semitic languages, that if it's an either
or choice then the Sinai passage is more likely.
I need to look more into it to see if my some of
it here some of it there opinion holds water.
.quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
All in all, I still don't know how or when Semitic or its Afrasian predecessor entered Southwest Asia/outer northeast Africa. But Yom suggested it could be the result of multiple dispersions along multiple points of entry along the Red Sea.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ What Evergreen meant by the above is that since all these peoples share common physiology in tropical traits such as black skin etc. they must somehow share mental traits. His premise here falls along the lines of racialist thinking so I don't buy it.
quote:
Originally posted by Agluzinha:
For whatever it is worth, here are the first & last pages of an article by Hungarian Egyptologist Gabor Takacs dealing with influence of Afrasian languages on Proto Indo-European and its corollaries. I can send you the full paper by PM if you wish.
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5872/p1010094ko5.jpg
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2940/p1010095it5.jpg
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8873/p1010096ju1.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8200/p1010097io2.jpg
quote:White people came into the "Middle East" through the land areas of what is Central Asia and including other areas as Turkey who made their way into Central Asia and into the Middle East. However, these white people were not your "typical" pale face, blond hair European. The white races people see today in the Middle East and for the most part of Iran are direct descendants of these Central and "Indo-European" groups. Of course many of them are also mixed with indigenous groups and white western European groups.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
I assume Indo-European Cimmerians (Assyrian Gumerri, Hebrew Gomeri of the Bible) Armenians, Scythians, and various other Iranian speakers who settled the Iranian plateau, as well as the Indo-Aryan Mitanni no doubt represent "white" groups intruding into the 'Middle East'. Which would explain the presence of R1a in these areas. (?)
quote:Why are you starting shyt. You don't want me to bust your azz in this.
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
Wow, shocked at Bettyboo!
What she said seems to correlate with the genetic and historical evidence.
quote:^ From “Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations.
quote:It's as I believed. This study has major implications on the "semitic" civlizations of the Arabs, Sumerians, etc. that people have sort of assumed were light-skinned.
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Another bumping!
Some relevant information:
quote:^ From “Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations.
East Asians”
Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
From this evidence, we can conclude that the current generation of Southwest Asians can trace its phenotype to an influx of Europeans into the region that occurred no earlier than 12,000 years BP, possibly even no earlier than 5,300 BP.
The earliest movement of Europeans into Southwest Asia that I can think of is the Indo-European expansion shown here:
Red represents areas settled by Indo-Europeans up to 2500 BC, and orange the area settled by Indo-Europeans up to 1000 BC. As you can see, while we do have an Indo-European presence in northern Anatolia before 2500 BC, it isn't until 2500-1000 BC that the Indo-European presence in Southwest Asia becomes significant. Assuming the spread of Indo-European languages involved major population movements, it appears that it wasn't until well after Southwest Asian civilization had been established that large numbers of light-skinned people were in the area.
quote:Southwest Asia probably already had many light-skinned people by the time the Arabs gained prominence. However, I agree that the Sumerians and other ancient Mesopotamian peoples were black.
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
It's as I believed. This study has major implications on the "semitic" civlizations of the Arabs, Sumerians, etc. that people have sort of assumed were light-skinned.
quote:What time period did non-blacks become majority in Arabia?
Originally posted by mentu:
When did whites enter the middleast?
Pale skin did not evolve in the middleast.
If fact white skin is a relative recent phenomenon.
From biblical text/ancient writings and archaeology, it can be hypothesised whites entered the middle east (from around 4000bc) if not later.
Even Jewish mythology admits to this fact originally Canaan was inhabited by blacks (children of Ham) who most probably spoke a Semitic language (these may have been the earliest proto semites)
The land belonging to these blacks was taken by 'israelis'(who may have been mixed with blacks themselves)- Hence the curse of Ham.
I remain to be corrected.
quote:First of all people that look like Africans are not as lacking in Arabia as we might be led to think by the television programming. Secondly it would have to have been since the last 4-5 centuries since as late as the 14th century as the Northwest Arabs of Hejaz are called dark brown. Fair skin was "rare".
Originally posted by the lion:
.
In what decade did non-blacks become a majority in Arabia?
.
quote:Actually the fair skinned or "Armenoids" appear to have adopted the Hurrian from the early Subaro-Hurrian or Subarian people later called Savara, Sabara or Sabir who were probably much like the peoples of Elam and Dravidians or so called Austronesians. These same fair-skinned people also adopted the Semitic dialects at some point although their culture is not related to early Semitic peoples. They are found in north Syrian and Mesopotamian sites at Ebla speaking semitic dialects and of course in the Hurrian speaking regions south of Lake Van as well as the Diyala. They may have been related to Guti. Undoubtedly these people also adopted the Indo-European dialects as well and moved into Iran and India.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
I believe the quandary of 'whites' or fair-skinned peoples in the Middle East may be in part answered by what I call the 'Hurrian Hypothesis'. For decades, indeed almost a couple of centuries now, anthropologists have described the earliest human remains in the Middle East including Mesopotamia as having "negroid" or "australoid" features with the appearance of another population termed "armenoid" due to affinities with modern Armenian and other peoples within the vicinity of the Caucasus. This brings me back to an issue of Archaeology Magazine that I read a couple of years back which reveals that a people called the Hurrians who were themselves archetypical "armenoids" played a role in the development of Sumerian civilization. A role more prominent than previously thought. The Hurians or Urartu were also thought be closely related to the Gutians.