|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 8, 2012 17:49:38 GMT -5
They also think that race is defined by skin color. Well, it's not. Genetics and Morphology are much more important then pigmentation which is easily changeable within a few generations or so. Skeletal biology takes much longer to evolve.
Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids are the primary three and I think their descriptions of location are dead on (Europe, N.Africa, West/Central Asia) in the case of Caucasoids. This is why skin color is trivial. While a native Iraqi may be "darker pigmented" than me, technically speaking he is still apart of the same racial species as I am which would be Caucasoid. And then from there you have Europeans intermingling and whatnot and phenotypes are all across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 9, 2012 8:22:49 GMT -5
They also confuse minor Caucasoid traits via racial admixture as being Caucasoids 'proper'. Its an old Afrocentric straw man fallacy, which started with Diop (1964)[...] Yet, who claims the Masai or those other groups are Caucasoids? No one. Its just a straw man Diop sets up, which he can easily then knock down. No one has ever claimed these predominant Negroid groups are Caucasoids, all that has been asserted is that members of these groups have a varying extent of Hamitic (Caucasoid) admixture, particuarly as you point out in the higher castes or aristocracy. Quite right. Notice another thing Afrocentrists also do: they often post selective pictures of individuals from those same Hamitic-admixed Nilotic or Bantu groups as examples of how supposedly 'naturally diverse' Negroid peoples in general can be. For comparison purposes, here again they obviously should be using the Negroid groups possessing as little Hamitic/Caucasoid admixture as possible (like the Dinka rather than the Hamiticized Maasai Nilotes). But they're reluctant to do so because that would thwart their overall strategy of trying to bridge the huge morphological gap between themselves and Hamitic peoples. Also what Diop and other Afrocentrics have zero understanding of is skeletal biology. Diop took the view that Nordics are a "different race" to Mediterraneans, because they have blonde hair. Yet minor superficial differences only warrants sub-racial classification. Nords and Meds are uniform in bone mophology, in fact a prevalent view is that the former are a depigmentated variety of the latter. Basically the minor superficial differences are localized intra-racial adaptions, diverging them into subraces, and further into microraces. The same doesn't work with skeletal biology on a short time-frame, as these bone features (and hair texture) appeared at a far earlier time when the major races diverged (multiregionalists argue that some of these racial features are even pre-Sapiens). These skeletal traits, also take a much longer time to change through adaptation modification, when compared to superficial traits such as skin pigmentation or hair colour. The Afrocentrics have no understanding of bioanthropology, and so wasting time with them in pointless. Anyway, if you read the above quote you will see the fallacies Broadly-speaking, skeletal morphology is indeed not nearly as labile or subject to change as Afrocentrists would have us believe. But they must insist that it is because the Caucasoid craniometric affinities of the Ancient Egyptians and other Hamitic peoples are pretty well-established at this point. That Diop's certainly one funny guy, though. He admitted time and again the Hamitic influence in Africa, but just repackaged it in a more self-serving fashion. For example, he asserted that Great Zimbabwe may have at least in part been an extension of Macrobian (not Bantu) territory, as mentioned by Herodotus. The Macrobians had an active gold mining industry, maintained foreign relations with Near Easterners, and they also practiced embalming, like the Ancient Egyptians. We're clearly looking at a Hamitic population here, but that's of course not how he presented it. Also note Diop's use of the term "East African". By the populations he names, it's clear he is referring to the predominantly Negroid peoples in the region (i.e. Bantus and Nilotes), not the Hamitic groups in the Horn. But the quote is still instructive as an example of how Afrocentrists like to exploit the lay public's lack of knowledge on the demography of Africa. The term "Saharan" serves the same purpose since, through its use, Negroid groups inhabiting the Sahara like the Wolof are essentially lumped with Caucasoid-origin peoples like the Tuareg, thereby creating ambiguity as to who exactly is being referred to. Although he's generally considered the prototype for the modern Afrocentrist, Diop's actually in some ways preferable to his disciples because he at least acknowledged the reality of racial differences and didn't resort to silly semantic games; like insisting one moment that race doesn't exist, while confidently asserting the next minute that this individual or that population is "Black African".
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 9, 2012 8:34:14 GMT -5
A typical "Black girl" apprecation thread, where most the girls posted are heavily Caucasoid admixed and mixed race. And the very few that aren't admixed have fake straightened hair. The true Negroid phenotype is universally despised. When one now talks about "Black girls", there is simply nothing "Black" in the sense of Negroid physiognomy (prognathism, wide nose, afro hair) about them. Its as if the real Black race no longer exists. Several of the girls posted in that thread have literally no visible Negroid traits. But that has not prevented their images from being held up as representative "Black" girls. It's like something out of the Twilight Zone. As I suggested in another thread, the myopic One Drop Rule has created a monster in the sense that it has given actual predominantly Negroid people carte blanche to claim as their own literally any person with even so much as trace amounts of Negroid admixture. And they believe they can get away with this because they didn't create the system to begin with. So the "Black Race" is artificially broadened in this way. Eventually, the situation will reach a point where even black girls with fake hair will be a rarity.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 9, 2012 8:46:34 GMT -5
They also think that race is defined by skin color. Well, it's not. Genetics and Morphology are much more important then pigmentation which is easily changeable within a few generations or so. Skeletal biology takes much longer to evolve. Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids are the primary three and I think their descriptions of location are dead on (Europe, N.Africa, West/Central Asia) in the case of Caucasoids. This is why skin color is trivial. While a native Iraqi may be "darker pigmented" than me, technically speaking he is still apart of the same racial species as I am which would be Caucasoid. And then from there you have Europeans intermingling and whatnot and phenotypes are all across the board. The original range of Caucasoid inhabitation is significantly broader than perhaps many realize. It's much closer to what Coon and other authorities from the pre-PC period asserted. For example, besides Berber tribes in the Maghreb, some Tuareg inhabiting the Sahara actually have blue eyes, as do certain Cushitic peoples in East Africa. That's in addition to other Caucasoid-associated physical and cultural traits. Of course, one doesn't have to possess blue (or green or gray or even hazel) eyes to be of Caucasoid origin, seeing as how most Caucasoids actually have brown eyes. The very presence of this particular trait, however, is diagnostically informative because all blue-eyed people can ultimately be traced back to a common ancestor who is believed to have lived around 10,000 years ago, near the Black Sea.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 9, 2012 9:07:08 GMT -5
it can be seen many Western African tribes were attemting to dye their hair or artificially lengthen it to emulate a certain foreign look. Was this all based on Negroid encounters with Hamitic females? Robert Gayre touches upon this in an article. I believe the evidence shows Negroids have despised their traits for thousands of years and that their crisis over their "nappy" (afro) hair texture and the very old practicise of black tribal females covering themselves in lighter paints (mostly reddish) was a reaction to emulate Hamitic female beauty long ago. Today it has merely shifted to skin bleaching, as European Caucasoids are a spectrum lighter than most Hamites (excluding some cases of Berbers). I think that the actual practice of smearing red paint itself may have been borrowed. It's interesting that most of the Negroid tribes that smear red ochre on themselves are pastoralists, tending to animals such as goats, which are ultimately of foreign introduction. It's also rather telling that many also have traditions of contact with 'red-skinned' peoples of Caucasoid physiognomy. On this point, notice the appearance below of a Neolithic Near Eastern farmer in Central Europe. It's from an artistic impression held in the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. He is covered in red body paint, and is in a one-legged, pelican stance, with arms resting on a herding stick slung across his shoulders. These are all archaic Hamitic pastoral customs, which were later through contact adopted and perpetuated by some Nilotic and Bantu tribes. According to Kenneth Howard Honea in his A Contribution to the History of the Hamitic Peoples of Africa, the staff-across-the shoulders posture is also featured on pastoral-themed rock art found in the Sahara, the Horn, the Nile Valley and Jordan. I stay away from genetics as much as possible. Until the Human Genome Project can map and identify every gene (there are now known to be more than 30,000), then genetics should have no involvement with studying race. This is largely because the fallacy has arisen to select genes which have nothing to do with race formation and which are randomly distributed among all world populations. This has led to race denial. 90% of the race denialist arguments are based on genes, namely that races can't be identified because of genetic overlap, or that a different genetic tests can come out with different conflicting proposed races. Yep - well of course, since they're choosing the genes which have nothing to do with race formation in the first place. I'm writing a work which includes exposing this fallacy. Czekanowski interestingly enough came to oppose genetics on the same grounds I have just highlighted: "The morphological approach merely produces summarized observational facts with the help of mathematical formulas. If the morphological facts are summarized accurately, then the theories of genetics must be adjusted. Theories are adapted to the observational facts, not vice versa. The well-known scorn of the “population geneticists”—so much the worse for the facts— has no place in science"As of 2012, this has still never happened. We have not identified a;; the genes which cause racial divergences e.g. the genes for nose width, hair texture etc. Instead, most geneticists today just take random genes which have nothing to do with races. This is what Czekanowski came to object to in the 1950's. Today the situtation is even worse, as phenotypic or morphological traits in regards to race are rarely now ever discussed. I'd be interested in reading that work, and I'm sure the other members and lurkers would too. When you feel it's ready for publication, you should consider perhaps posting some exerpts here as a taster. Or maybe even the whole thing, if it's intended for free distribution.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 11, 2012 0:15:38 GMT -5
Good info on the body paint. The following is taken from anthropologist Peter Frost on African preference for lighter reddish, yellowish-brown or 'copper' skinned females, as opposed to dark brown or black. You will note not all of these ethnic peoples listed are Negroid, however most are Yes, I've read that piece. Frost's work is generally quite good, but I disagree with his reasoning here on the Somali. They value red skin in their women because that's what their Hamitic ancestors uniformly looked like, as many still do. As you know, this reddish-brown hue is actually the characteristic color of the Eastern Hamites, of which the Ancient Egyptians are perhaps the most emblematic. Frost probably just wasn't aware of this, or the fact that most Horners and North Africans possess the same Ala111Thr/rs1426654 allele of the SLC24A5 gene that is associated with lighter skin coloration in West Eurasians. The latter is a fairly recent discovery, so it's understandable. Gayre has some appropos material on the correlation between skin color and caste systems within Hamitic communities: "It might be observed that in their contact with Negroids or Australoids (in India, for instance) the Caucasoids have always erected a caste system based on colour or other obvious attributes of racial difference. Thus arises a structure in which there are noble clans or higher caste and lower ones; and beneath the latter are those which are not recognized at all. The higher or noble segment of the society is more or less of the ancient blood, the intermediate is of less pure ancestry, and the members of the lowest are not recognized and are the slaves or outcastes --although no doubt they share some of the genes of the noble classes. It is quite evident that this is virtually instinctive in White-Black relationships, and so is not surprising to find that the Tauregs, who are of Caucasoid origin, have evolved a system in north-west Africa which is parallel to that produced by the Indo-European Hindus in India[...]"
"Generally speaking, as we have already observed, the Somalis look down upon the Negroes, and in fact, even in Somalia itself, the upper classes are lighter in complexion and generally non-Negroid in appearance. These facts also have a bearing on their relations with their southern, Kenyan, neighbours. It seems probable that if Somalia were not so pre-occupied with the quarrel with Ethiopia over possession of the Ogaden, the Somali guerillas working inside north-eastern Kenya, the so-called Shiftas, would be even more active than they are at present[...]"
"As far as the Hamites themselves are concerned, their absorption of Negroid blood appears to have been due to the fact that as a conquering and dominating group they were not only able to overcome their outer circle of Nilo-Hamites, from whose women indirectly Negroid genes would be absorbed, but also they were able to practice slavery in a big way. Indeed the word for slave in Amharic is the same word as for Negro -- as far as the Ethiopians were concerned the two were the same. Probably this, more than any other single factor, accounts for the absorption of Negroid genes by Ethiopians. In such places as Addis Ababa it is noticeable that the type carries more Negroid strains in the poorer quarters than in the country districts and in the higher social classes. This is confirmatory of the observation, since the lower classes in Addis Ababa would have been always slaves until recent times." An updating of Coon's theories was actually undertaken by anthropologist Grover Krantz in 1981, and then a revised edition appeared as late as 1994, yet his book (The Process of Human Evolution) was a limited print of under 1000, probably actually as low as only 200 copies. It is a work that is impossible to track down. I'm getting into contact with the National Anthropological Archive at the Smithsonian Institution. They sell copies of both Coon's and Krantz's archived papers, which includes Krantz' book. All though it will probably cost around $500 for all the print copies (they charge per sheet). Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like a useful, if expensive, work. Still more research needed to be done. This site has certainly helped me in numerous areas, especially on African history. I think though someone like yourself should write a modern work on the Hamites, as like Coon, the books on Hamites are now old. All these areas need ''updating''. Most people though just don't get around to spending hours and hours to write. This forum itself though is great in that it can get this knowledge out to the public. I plan to create my own site in the next year and upload loads of content on race based topics. Glad to hear it. I have actually noticed something of a revival of interest online in Hamitic theory. But it would be naive for me to think that it's all because of this obscure, under-promoted forum. More likely, people simply drew parallels on their own between what Coon, Seligman, Elliot-Smith, Keane, Gayre and other authorities wrote all those years back with the facts at their disposal today. The funny thing is, this includes scholars who once upon a time were as anti-Hamitic as could be. For example, most linguists now sheepishly admit that Carl Meinhof was right after all about the Cushitic influence on the Hottentot/Khoi of Southern Africa. The poor fellow was hitherto for decades demonized for having the audacity to suggest 'exotic' influences in such a remote population. The Hamitic E1b1b haplogroup that's found at moderate frequencies within this tiny pastoralist Bushmanoid community -- but barely observable elsewhere amongst the region's San hunter-gatherers and Bantu farmers -- is also a legacy of these contacts. So are most of the old Caucasoid skulls that are excavated there every so often.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 11, 2012 0:32:43 GMT -5
India is also Caucasoid. The whole "Veddoid" affair has confused many, as the Veddah's are actually Caucasoid as Coon (1965) shows. Yet there is an Australoid substratum in India (wrongly called Veddoid), yet they are not the the Veddah's[...] Pockets of Australoids are though indeed found across the subcontinent, alongside a very small Negrito population. India is, in truth, more of a subcontinent than a country. At least one recent paper suggests that there's as much genetic variation present there as there is in Africa as a whole. So we're indeed likely looking at several different racial groups coexisting in the same area. Biologically, Coon believed that the Brahui of Balochistan were the closest of the modern Dravidian speakers to the original Mesopotamian Dravidians (whom he regarded as Caucasoid). If we examine the craniometric data, these Caucasoid affinities are usually confirmed. Most Indians are additionally Duffy positive. Perhaps most intriguingly, Coon also wrote that "the Dravidian resemble ancient Southwest Asians such as the Natufians". This seems to be line with what you indicated elsewhere on the Paleo-Mediterranean affinities of the Natufians. The overall racial position of Indians, though, ultimately depends on the relative affinities of the Ancestral South Indian genetic component that is ubiquitous on that subcontinent.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 11, 2012 1:32:27 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that a number of the Neolithic Near Eastern pastoralists (like the red-skinned herder pictured on the previous page) inhabiting different areas in Central and Western Europe have been analysed for aDNA/ancient DNA. A common maternal lineage found amongst them has consistently been the N1 West Eurasian clade. This haplogroup is practically non-existent in modern Negroid groups, including those that ritually cover themselves with red ochre. It is, however, relatively frequent amongst Cushitic populations, who carry N1 sub-clades that are downstream to the Near Eastern ones. This points to cultural transmission of the red ochre application ritual and the other aforementioned customs from a Near Eastern-affiliated Hamitic source population(s). The matter is discussed in greater detail on the Upper Paleolithic ties between E. Africa & Europe thread.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 11, 2012 16:47:42 GMT -5
Hello all
I am new to this arena and wanted to state something please. If you will, I would like to state where the Semitic, Jafetic, and hametic races really sett;ed and where they are to be found today. Spencer Wells has found that Jericho the Cannonite race and the dreaded Phoenicians where of haplogroup J1 and J2! I studied these lineages and found them to be what you call Hamitic that is where is says they settled in the land of Cannon who was cursed of one of three sons of Ham. Ham was not cursed but his son Cannon who settled in the region of where Lebanon is and parts of Syria. The ancient bones there where found and tested to be of the haplogroup J1 and J2 ! This is the true Hamitic groups. The haplogroup E is where the Semitics settled where northern Africa what we call today as Egypt and the rest of the meditid peoples who also settled in southern Europe such as Greece and southern Balkans. The Jefitc side settled in Eurasia and spread to western Eurasia. This information can be studied quite easily if one really does his homework but not hard to find. I hope this does not unsettle the apple cart of the E haplogroup as being Hamitic but please study it for yourself and you will have a Eye popping moment. Thank you for letting me post.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 11, 2012 17:06:35 GMT -5
Here is a link to what I am talking about in short. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_EastZalloua and Wells (2004), under the auspices of a grant from National Geographic Magazine examined the origins of the Phoenicians. The debate between Wells and Zalloua was whether haplogroup J2 (M172) should be identified as that of the Phoenicians or that of its "parent" haplogroup M89 on the YDNA phylogenetic tree.[6] Initial consensus suggested that J2 be identified with the Canaanite-Phoenician (Northwest Semitic) population, with avenues open for future research.[7] As Wells commented, "The Phoenicians were the Canaanites"[8] It was reported in the PBS description of the National Geographic TV Special on this study entitled "Quest for the Phoenicians" that ancient DNA was included in this study as extracted from the tooth of a 2500 year-old Phoenician mummy.[9] Wells identified the haplogroup of the Canaanites as haplogroup J2.[10] The National Geographic Genographic Project linked haplogroup J2 to the site of Jericho, Tel el-Sultan, ca. 8500 BCE and indicated that in modern populations, haplogroup J2 is found in the Middle East, North Africa and Southern Europe, with especially high distribution among present-day Jewish populations (30%), Southern Italians (20%), and lower frequencies in Southern Spain (10%).[11] In a 2005 study of ASPM gene variants, Mekel-Bobrov et al. found that the Israeli Druze people of the Carmel region have among the highest rate of the newly evolved ASPM haplogroup D[disambiguation needed], at 52.2% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele.[12] While it is not yet known exactly what selective advantage is provided by this gene variant, the haplogroup D allele is thought to be positively selected in populations and to confer some substantial advantage that has caused its frequency to rapidly increase. According to DNA testing, Druze are remarkable for the high frequency (35%) of males who carry the Y-chromosomal haplogroup L, which is otherwise uncommon in the Mideast (Shen et al. 2004).[13] This haplogroup originates from prehistoric South Asia and has spread from Pakistan into southern Iran.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 11, 2012 17:12:50 GMT -5
So If the J1 and J2 are the Cannonite offspring of Ham who was his father THEY ARE The Hametic RACE Not the E race. The E race is Semitic. If you look at ancent Egyptian language is a semitic. I really hope I did not upset anyone but I love truth.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Oct 11, 2012 20:56:08 GMT -5
Truth999, You appear to be working from the assumption the Bible geneology is true. My stance on the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) is as follows:
(a) The table preserves the names of many real ethnic peoples the Hebrews encountered or knew of through trade links.
BUT
(b) The authors of the table constructed a fictional geneaology for all tribes appearing on the list, linking them all to one of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham or Japheth.
In other words while the table contains genuine ethnographical content, the genealogies of tribes were entirely fabricated by the Hebrews. This is evident by the table itself, for example some tribes listed as having descended from Shem, were not in fact Semites, having spoken a non-Semitic language (Bromiley, 1995: 388):
"The Elamites and Lydians (cf. Gen. 10:22) are not Semites in the modem classification, whereas the Amorites and Canaanites (which the Table of Nations considers to be descendants of Ham; cf. Gen. 10:15f.) are Semites".
Honestly if you take the Table literally, you are left with many problems.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 11, 2012 22:32:24 GMT -5
I assumed that all these post where accounting for the biblical account. By using hamitic, samitic, jafitic is a biblical twit. Why not use a diffrent nomenclature to address these ancient cultures. There are sensitive issues using Hamitic due to cannon being cursed. Meaning these people's are cursed for all time. I used my argument to correct haplogoup E from being Hamitic that I seen used all over these posts and wanted bring J2 into the picture to correct what I know about the truth of genetics are and where the Cannonite peoples. Genetics are simple truth of what haplogoup these people where. I simply wanted to point this discrepancy out.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 12, 2012 0:11:40 GMT -5
Greetings truth999! Welcome to the Hamitic Union. The term "Hamitic" as used on this forum is not intended to hold any religious connotation. It is strictly employed in the classic anthropological sense i.e. as a convenient descriptor for the various modern peoples inhabiting Africa of predominant Caucasoid descent. For example, from the 6th edition of Columbia Encyclopedia: "Hamites - African people of caucasoid descent who occupy the Horn of Africa (chiefly Somalia and Ethiopia), the western Sahara, and parts of Algeria and Tunisia. They are believed to be the original settlers of N Africa. The Hamitic cradleland is generally agreed to be in Asia—perhaps S Arabia or possibly an area farther east. The Hamites entered Africa in a long succession of migrations, of which the earliest may have been as far back as the end of the pluvial period. They are commonly divided into two great branches, Eastern and Northern. The Eastern Hamites comprise the ancient and modern Egyptians, the Beja, the Berberines, the Oromo, the Somali, the Danakil, and most Ethiopians. The Northern Hamites include the Berbers of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, Tunisia, and Algeria; the Berbers of Morocco; the Tuareg and Tibu of the Sahara; the Fulbe of the Western Sudan; and the extinct Guanche of the Canary Islands."
www.questia.com/read/1E1-Hamites/hamites
That said, the ancestry of the Phoenicians does seem to be of great interest of late. The authors above assume that they all belonged to a single clade. However, this may not necessarily have been the case. Modern Lebanese, for example, have a mixture of J and E1b1b lineages; so it's possible that the Levantine Phoenicians did too. The fact that these particular lineages are also frequent throughout the Afro-Asiatic-speaking world likewise suggests a long-term association between them. Case in point, Neolithic gene flow from the Near East in the form of J1 and E1b1b1b was recently observed in el-Hayez, Egypt: "The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods. We present here a whole genome analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and high-resolution molecular analysis of nonrecombining Y-chromosomal (NRY) gene pools of a demographically small but autochthonous population from the Egyptian Western Desert oasis el-Hayez. Notwithstanding signs of expected genetic drift, we still found clear genetic evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated into the Neolithic. This is revealed by high frequencies and high internal variability of several mtDNA lineages from haplogroup T. The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 +/- 3,633 YBP. Similarly, the Y-chromosome gene pool reveals high frequencies of the Near Eastern J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic. These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425100
But let's just say for the sake of argument that the Phoenicians were instead associated with one primary haplogroup. It could be a J sub-clade like J2, as Zalloua et al. (2008) propose. Alternatively, the signature Phoenician lineage could be an E1b1b sub-clade like E1b1b1c1 (M34), as Aliev and Del Turco (2010) suggest: "The homeland of haplogroup E1b1b1c1 (M34) is placed in a relatively small region of the Middle East, covering south-east Asia Minor and the Levant areas (Syria and Palestine) [1]. This opinion is based on the fact that it is here presented as the haplogroup E1b1b1c1 *(M34), and its known sub-clades: E1b1b1c1a * (M84), E1b1b1c1a1 * (M136) and E1b1b1c1b * (M290) [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. It may be the result of the long-term presence of this haplogroup. The haplogroup was found in the Eastern Mediterranean countries, in the European Mediterranean countries, the British Isles [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] as well as on the Arabian peninsula, but with relatively low diversity [12, 13, 14].
[...]
1) Haplogroup E1b1b1c1* (M34) was born in an area of modern south-east Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine about 7000 years ago.
2) In ancient times, carriers of this haplogroup were peoples of civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor, who spoke the Northwest Semitic languages, Anatolian and Mitannian Aryan languages, as well as Hurrites language.
3) Approximately 3400-4300 years ago some carriers of E1b1b1c1 migrated from the Middle East to Europe, poured into the European nations, forming clusters E1b1b1c1-D2 and E1b1b1c1-A." Regarding the Egyptian language, it's Afro-Asiatic like Semitic, Cushitic, Berber and Chadic. However, it is generally classified as a separate, independent branch within the family.
|
|
|
Post by truth999 on Oct 12, 2012 7:15:01 GMT -5
Thank you for the invitation. My haplogroup is Ev13 on my fathers side I come from macadonia and my mothers side is from haplogoup K she comes from Austria. My Y DNA started in Egypt and am very proud Of that fact. But how long my history goes back in the Balkans I feel 17k. There where bones found in Spain with that go back 7k or more withe haplogoup I and Q. my phenotype is very European. I feel the meditid race is what made civiation. I feel that ancent Egytian moved north became Thracians who became Macadonia who birthed Alexander the great. One note I would like to add I read a lot of posts many halogroups from R1b loves to rewrite history because they occupy most of Eourpe now. I feel R1b is a new addition coming from the Russian area and during the Roman area moved out during the fall of Rome and filled the void that was left. I feel haplogoup I Q and E are aboriginal to the building of western and middle eastern civiation.
|
|