Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 182

Thread: Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

  1. #151
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    174

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    Quote Originally Posted by adian808 View Post
    people can be brothers and have different genes
    This evening I wanna have some fun and post interesting things, so I answer to you:

    Lets compare the Aboriginal Australians in every single SNP allele that is available in some interesting samples and see if they match/are similar:

    AboriginalAustralian / Papuan 85,37%
    AboriginalAustralian / Han Chinese 84,21%
    AboriginalAustralian / Melanesian 82,58%
    AboriginalAustralian / Iberian 76,57%
    AboriginalAustralian / Cheddar Man 75,43%
    AboriginalAustralian / Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 69,47%
    AboriginalAustralian / Khomani San / 68,32
    AboriginalAustralian / Dravidian 67,36%
    AboriginalAustralian / Modern German 65,45%
    AboriginalAustralian / Denisova 65,14%
    AboriginalAustralian / Chimpanzee 64,30
    AboriginalAustralian / Neanderthal 64,06%
    AboriginalAustralian / Pygmy: 62,70%
    AboriginalAustralian / Bantu 61,72%
    AboriginalAustralian / Andaman 60,03%
    AboriginalAustralian / Bedouin 42,63%

    CheddarMan:

    CheddarMan / Han Chinese 82,59%
    CheddarMan / Melanesian 81,31%
    CheddarMan / Viking from Sweden 77,56%
    CheddarMan / Papuan 77,30%
    CheddarMan / Iberian 77,27%
    CheddarMan / British Viking 76,69 %
    CheddarMan / Aboriginal Australian 75,43%
    CheddarMan / Viking from Denmark 69,82%
    CheddarMan / Modern German 69,71%
    CheddarMan / Sami 66,55%
    CheddarMan / Dravidian 65,20%
    CheddarMan / Khomani San 65,19%
    CheddarMan / Pygmy 59,46%
    CheddarMan / Bantu 58,43%
    CheddarMan / Bedouin 43,64%

    Lets see who modern day West Africans matches most:

    Bantu/ Melanesian 67,68%
    Bantu/ Han Chinese 66,93%
    Bantu/ Mamanwa 64,98%
    Bantu/ Pygmy 64,88%
    Bantu/ Denisovan 63,95%
    Bantu/ Malawi Mesolithic 63,63%
    Bantu/ Chimpanzee 63,02%
    Bantu/ Neanderthal 63,01%
    Bantu/ Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic 62,91%
    Bantu/ Papuan 61,81%
    Bantu/ Aboriginal Australian 61,72%
    Bantu/ Khomani San 61,53%
    Bantu/ Zlaty Kun 60,42%
    Bantu/ Dzuzuana 60,15%
    Bantu/ Iberian 58,89%
    Bantu/ Egyptian Mummy 59,74%
    Bantu/ Cheddar Man 58,43%
    Bantu/ Modern German 56,31%
    Bantu/ Andaman 54,79%
    Bantu/ Saharawi 54,63%
    Bantu/ Yana Siberia 52,98%
    Bantu/ Bedouin 42%

    Have fun with the data and tell your story. My story is that humanity including Africans originate in the largest part in Asia.
    Han Chinese are a good model for a descendant of a prototype modern human, because they share many alleles with very ancient ethnicities in general and are very inbreed, like many species in the wild or Neanderthals.

    My personal overall allele match with Han Chinese is only 59,92% because I am not much related to archaic humans in general and not related to East Asians.
    I have over 250 samples on my hard disc and tested every single in total allele comparison to me, and I think the method is not a bad one, because those are my highest results:

    Me/ Single Grave Culture 62,95%
    Me/ Hittite 60,74 %
    Me/ Linear Pottery Hungary 60,73 %
    Me/ Maglemose 60,64%

    One should notice that total allele compare is not the same as ancestry informative markers or comparing physical trait related SNPs.
    Last edited by Doggerland; 16-01-22 at 09:41.

  2. #152
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    174

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    Who is more ancient/archaic? Han Chinese or Khomani San?

    KhomaniSan / Salkhit 68,72%
    KhomaniSan / Dzuzuana 68,51%
    KhomaniSan / Dolni Vestonice 67,17%
    KhomaniSan / Mesolithic South Africa 66,58%
    KhomaniSan / Devils Gate 65,99%
    KhomaniSan / Sunghir 65,92%
    KhomaniSan / Malawi Mesolithic 64,60%
    KhomaniSan / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 64,47%
    KhomaniSan / Denisova 64,37%
    KhomaniSan / Gorilla 63,64%
    KhomaniSan / Altai Neanderthal 63,42%
    KhomaniSan / Chimpanzee 63,20%
    KhomaniSan / Azilian 62,70%
    KhomaniSan / Tianyuan 62,59%
    KhomaniSan / Yana Siberia 62,14%
    KhomaniSan / Oase 1 61,41%
    KhomaniSan / Pestera Muierii 60,98%
    KhomaniSan / CHG 60,41%
    KhomaniSan / Zlaty Kun 57,67%
    KhomaniSan / Mal Ta Buret 57,21%
    KhomaniSan / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 56,94%
    KhomaniSan / EHG 56,50%
    KhomaniSan / Mesolithic Andes 56,33%
    KhomaniSan / Anatolia HG 56.18%
    KhomaniSan / Magdalenian 56,12%
    KhomaniSan / Iberomaurusian 56,06%
    KhomaniSan / Aurignacian 55,86%
    KhomaniSan / Gravettian 55,29%
    KhomaniSan / Natufian 55,16%
    KhomaniSan / Ust Ishim 51,47%
    KhomaniSan / Clovis Culture 48,68%

    HanChinese / Sima de los Huesos (Homo Heidelbergensis) 95,31%
    HanChinese / Oase 1 91.82%
    HanChinese / Natufian 86,36%
    HanChinese / CHG 86,26%
    HanChinese / Mesolithic South Africa 84,67%
    HanChinese / Devils Gate 84,62%
    HanChinese / Dzuzuana 84,62%
    HanChinese / Dolni Vestonice 84,51%
    HanChinese / Salkhit 83,53%
    HanChinese / Sunghir 82,17%
    HanChinese / Mal Ta Buret 78,96%
    HanChinese / Tianyuan 78,95%
    HanChinese / Caspian Sea Mesolithic 76,84%
    HanChinese / Zlaty Kun 76,59%
    HanChinese / Gravettian 75,60%
    HanChinese / Azilian 75,53%
    HanChinese / Mesolithic Andes 74,99%
    HanChinese / Magdalenian 74,69%
    HanChinese / Yana Siberia 74,04%
    HanChinese / Malawi Mesolithic 73,48%
    HanChinese / Aurignacian 73,24%
    HanChinese / Anatolia HG 73,08%
    HanChinese / Gorilla 72,77%
    HanChinese / EHG 71,71%
    HanChinese / Denisova 70,93%
    HanChinese / Pestera Muierii 70,83%
    HanChinese / Iberomaurusian 70,25%
    HanChinese / Chimpanzee 69,95%
    HanChinese / Altai Neanderthal 69,94%
    HanChinese / Clovis Culture 65,25%
    HanChinese / Ust Ishim 60,74%

    Looks like the Asian Han are more similar in alleles to archaic humans then the African San. Or is this a wink to a more archaic separation of human ancestors long before the appearance of modern human traits? This would support the Multiregional Origin theory.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Bfa4d4mv4

  3. #153
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    174

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    Lets get back to Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic, maybe an Ancestor of the Sumerians. Total allele similarity:

    EFCN/ Han Chinese 83,36%
    EFCN/ Burusho 83,20%
    EFCN/ Melanesian 83,20%
    EFCN/ Mamanwa 81,31%
    EFCN/ Papuan 78,70%
    EFCN/ Celtic GB 77,62%
    EFCN/ Celtic France 77,39%
    EFCN/ Hittite 77.32%
    EFCN/ Corded Ware Poland 77,12%
    EFCN/ Iberian 76,90%
    EFCN/ Viking from Sweden 76,65%
    EFCN/ Tarim Mummy 76,59%
    EFCN/ Aboriginal Australian 76,58%
    EFCN/ Pict 76,34%
    EFCN/ Neolithic Greek 76,33%
    EFCN/ Baikal Bronze Age 76,11%
    EFCN/ Guanches 75,74%
    EFCN/ Germanic Rus 75,44%
    EFCN/ Hunnic 75,12%
    EFCN/ Ancient Greek 74,54%
    EFCN/ Modern Native American 74,19%
    EFCN/ Ancient Turk 73,11%
    EFCN/ Ancient Aegean 72,12%
    EFCN/ Iran Neolithic 72,09%
    EFCN/ Maikop 69,89%
    EFCN/ Battle Axe Sweden 68,93%
    EFCN/ Egyptian Mummy 68,22%
    EFCN/ Iran HG 67,71%
    EFCN/ Modern German 67,66%
    EFCN/ Kura Araxes 67,10%
    EFCN/ Malawi Mesolithic 66,80%
    EFCN/ Khomani San 66,57%
    EFCN/ Dravidian 66,44%
    EFCN/ Yamnaya 66,12%
    EFCN/ Modern Greek 65,99%
    EFCN/ Pre-Pottery Brazil 65,56%
    EFCN/ Khanty 65,44%
    EFCN/ Canaanite 65,21%
    EFCN/ Hattian 64,41%
    EFCN/ Pygmy 60,79%
    EFCN/ Bantu 59,75%
    EFCN/ Andaman 58,81%
    EFCN/ Clovis Culture 56,95%
    EFCN/ Basque 45,12%
    EFCN/ Italian 44,68%
    EFCN/ French 44,65%


    They appear somewhat Ancient Eurasian/Asian + Indo-European, but not African when it comes to total allele sharing. Like i said about the trait allele sharing: They where dark skinned, but not brothers of modern Africans, they had a special kind of archaic Eurasian/Asian ancestry.

  4. #154
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    23-05-21
    Posts
    199


    Country: Spain



    Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.

  5. #155
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    174

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    The problem is that many people don’t understand that genetics are notable to give a simple and clear answer that people want to hear.

    Ancestry informative markers don’t say something about how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They make only up to 0.4% of the whole DNA.
    They can predict who is related to someone. But being related does notmean being similar, because after 12 generations ethnicity specific alleles can be completely gone, if the parents are not from the same ethnicity/not related.
    Native Americans are related to East Asians, but that does not mean that they must share much allele similarity with them, because they where isolated and got other ancestors from Siberia and in the southern part also from Polynesians (Botocudo)

    A total allele compare can show who shares the most alleles. The problem with this is that it does not show who is related. The similarity can be based on the fact that many populations of the world, especially the ones that are believed to be very ancient, don’t have much mutated over time. Their ancestry informative markers differ, but not their overall alleles.

    And then there are alleles that are related to physical abilities, how someone is looking, diseases, psychological traits. Those alleles where under strong pressure and selection in many ethnicites, because they lived in a special environment, other to archaic humans and had a more complex social structure.
    When you compare those alleles, you will also get different results that may not match with total allele sharing or ancestry informative markers.

    Haplogroups are the least markers that can determine race, because they have no effects on how someone is looking, behaving or anything else. They are simple lineage markers. African Americans that have 100% African Ancestry can have I1 or R1b haplogroups from slave owners, many Southern American Natives have European Y-DNA.
    They are just an event marker, nothing more.

    But people want clear answers, because they believe determining ancestry or race is as simple as comparing wood pound pegs.

    If you are interested in ancestry, who is related to who, ancestry informative markers/ancestry components/admixture PCA is the best answer.

    If you wanna know about someones physical look or psychological traits, looking for a bunch of single trait related SNPs is the best way.

    If you are interested in human migration, war and population changes, haplogroups and mtDNA are the best predictors.

    If you wanna know how genetically similar two people are, total allele compare.

    All those methods have limitations and are also dependent on sample quality and quantity.

    Such claims like “In Britain 90% of DNA was replaced by Bell Beakers” are in the bigger sense completely nonsense. Human genomes are over 90% similar, so there cannot be a 90% replacement. Who knows what the guys measured there, ancestry informative markers or some specific SNPs they are using for their studies.

    Back to the Native Americans:

    It depends what your question is and what kind of calculator you are using.
    They are related to Han in terms of ancestry components. For example in Eurogenes K15 they are relatively far away from Han Chinese and between Sami and Chukchi.
    In Eurogones K36 they are between Han, Tatar and Adygei.

    Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic is placed near Balochi in Eurogenes K15and in K36 between Pathan, Bosnian, Iranians and Makarani.

    Eastern Fertile Crescent Neolithic and Native Americans are not related in terms of ancestry components.

  6. #156
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    73
    Posts
    5,231

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Doggerland, I find very confused your way of thinking. What differences between "similarity" genes and other genes, concerning shared ancestry? What could have weight would be which among our all inherited genes are the ones showing a more recent common heritage.
    Your EFCN percentages don't say anything to me, sorry.

  7. #157
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    174

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    I personally don’t understand why people lay so much weight on ancestry markers. They are almost not alleles that have a known function or predict our physical look or abilities. In our everyday life we cannot see ancestry markers, we look for similarity.

    I see a huge focusing on physical traits in the discussion about the race/ethnicity of people in Anthro-Forums, but the majority of people try to answer this with SNPs that are not related to physical traits. Ancestry markers or haplogroups. They don’t influence our look at all.

    This is in my opinion the wrong way to answer questions about peoples physical apperance.

    For example many calculators give modern Europeans high percentages of WHG ancestry, but when it comes to physical trait related SNPs, they don’t match as much as with neolithic samples in most cases. They have WHG related ancestry markers, but the physical and metabolic traits where not favored by evolution, because they are a huge disadvantage in a modern society. So the people of today don’t look so much like WHG anymore, despite of their ancestry markers. SHG is another thing but i will try to make this post as short as possible.

    Lets get back to the widely used admixture calculators and ancestry markers:
    For example things like this:https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig5_346952053
    Those percentages are very unrealistic, because they only use very few selected samples. People think: “Ah, yes, everybody is somehow descended from that ancient people” But that is wrong. This is all based on data selection. But selection is the only way to get clear and simple results like this when it comes to human genetics.
    You could produce graphics like this with almost every population on earth. We could use Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan and also create a 100% percentage graph where everybody will get percentages of Maori, Neanderthal and Tianyuan.
    Have you ever wondered why every ethnicity like Poles, Germans, Russian ,Maris etc. on the graph get all 100%? It is highly unrealistic, that those 3 samples, Nganasan, Yamnaya, Anatolia explain the whole ancestry of those people.
    The same comes to the widely used calculators on the hobby. They always produce a 100% result with the tested sample, but that is highly unlikely:https://whoareyoumadeof.com/wp-conte...k6-results.jpg

    How “wrong” those calculators are if selected by specific samples, I will demonstrate. I use myself in Dodecad Africa:

    68,21%Europe
    23,74%SW_Asian
    7,08%NW-African
    0,56%S_Africa
    0,42%E_African

    Yeah,I am 30% Non-European and therefore a POC.

    Using1 populations approximation
    1100% North_Italian @ 7,010

    MixedMode:
    191,02% North_Italian + 8,98% Morocco_N @ 0,650

    Was born in the wrong family.

    Or another good example is Tolan K16 Neolithic:

    98,25%European_EHG
    1,75%Caucasus
    -
    Modern:

    87,20%Russian
    12,00%Mordovians
    0,60%Pole
    0,20%Abhkasians

    If the calculators would be realistic, it should address me a large percentage of “ERROR” or “Unknown”
    But those things are not build for this, they show the most similarity in ancestry markers to the selected samples, even if they are very distant.

    Admixture calculators cannot differentiate between Apes, Monkeys, Nanderthals and Sub Saharan Africans:

    Gorilla
    Using1 populations approximation
    1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,334
    2100% Luhya @ 4,570
    3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 5,755

    Chimp
    Using1 populations approximation
    1100% Luhya @ 3,568
    2100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,885
    3100% Bantu_N.E. @ 4,810

    Neanderthal
    Using1 populations approximation
    1100% Biaka_Pygmy @ 3,623
    2100% Bantu_S.E. @ 6,236
    3100% Bantu_S.W. @ 8,484

    Rhesus Monkey
    Using1 populations approximation
    1100% Bantu_N.E. @ 7,889
    2100% Luhya @ 8,702
    3100% Mbuti_Pygmy @ 11,610

    So if admixture defines who is brother or not, Apes, Monkeys, Africans and Neanderthals are all black brothers.
    All those calculators have their limitations and the method of using ancestry markers in general.

    And because of this I prefer direct SNP compare or total allele compare instead of ancestry markers when it comes to similarity(not ancestry) of people/samples. If there is no match, the answer is just “0”zero, and not a forced percentage of some of the samples to reach a 100% answer.

  8. #158
    Regular Member Nicu's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    40

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L23

    Ethnic group
    Romanian
    Country: USA - Texas



    Quote Originally Posted by Mmiikkii View Post
    Mmmm... The Sumerians and the Native Americans related??The Native Americans have a mixture of Southern Chinese women and an ancestral Siberian/North Eurasian component on the male side with a now distant relation to European men.They're a Paleolithic East Asian population. We guess already differentiated from West Asians and Europeans.
    Wait, Southern Chinese?? Is that some new finding? I thought Native Americans derived from a Central-East Siberian/North Asian population which in the past had absorbed some ancient West Eurasian/Proto-Caucasian before moving across the Bering Strait to the Americas thousands of years ago? If anything they'd be closer to the paleo-Siberians, Ket people (with whom some in the NaDene family have linguistic links), Chukchi, Inuits, etc, and after that maybe Tungusic peoples, even Mongols and Turkics and maybe Ainus before straight up Chinese. The occasional superficial resemblance of Native American types with some Southeast Asians is more coincidental, and I thought a northeast Asian link would be more probable.

  9. #159
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Doggerland View Post
    Ancient Greeks where not modern scientists and could not perform genetic analysis. They recognized people based on their bias.

    Blacks” do exist as a social idea, but not as a genetic reality. Sub Saharan African can be seen as an ethnicity, because they share ancient ancestry. Sub Saharan Africans are genetically real. But Aboriginal Australians, Negritos, South Indians, Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans are genetically very distant from them. They are not part of their genetic cluster, not part of their genetic ethnicity.

    The idea that people with a same trait like dark skin, blue eyes or blonde hair belong to the same “Race” or are somehow related, is an outdated idea that has no support in modern science.
    It was the base for racial wars in the past and it seems that it will be in the future, because some(or many?) people are not interested in reality and place their bad claiming for vengeance over knowledge and wisdom.

    If Cheddar Man is "black" because he has alleles for dark skin, I must be "black" too, because I have wild type alleles for dark eye and hair color, the same ones Archaic Humans and Sub Saharan Africans have.

    As the first human genomes where sequenced, scientists found out that most alleles in all humans are the same. So they had to find a method to differentiate populations and traits. They found out that some single SNPs determined traits that differ between populations, but that was not enough to make a clear differentiation. They searched for patterns of alleles in SNPs that where common for a population and based on this, ancestry can be determined.

    Cheddar Man does not share a large amount of unique DNA with Sub Saharan Africans, but with Europeans:

    Eurogenes K36 results:

    32.26% Fennoscandian
    24.48% North_Sea
    16.45% East_Central_Euro
    10.70% Eastern_Euro
    9.41% North_Atlantic
    6.69% Basque

    If he would be of ancient African ancestry, he must have at least 30% Pygmy component.

    Population Oracles from Gedmatch for Cheddar Man:

    MDLPK16

    #
    Population
    Percent
    1
    NorthEastEuropean
    72.46
    2
    Neolithic
    25.2
    3
    Steppe
    1.19
    4
    Australian
    0.53
    5
    Subsaharian
    0.44
    6
    Oceanic
    0.15
    7
    Ancestor
    0.03
    8
    Amerindian
    0.01

    #
    Population (source)
    Distance
    1
    Finn (Finland)
    39.01
    2
    Latvian (Latvia)
    39.33
    3
    Latvian_Dobele (Dobele)
    39.45
    4
    Estonian (Estonia)
    39.65
    5
    Lithuanian (Lithuania)
    40.51
    6
    Latvian_Cesis (Cesis)
    40.6
    7
    Russian (Russia)
    41.27
    8
    Vepsa (Russia)
    42.19
    9
    Karelian (Karelia)
    42.31
    10
    Saami_WGA (Lapland)
    42.39

    DodecadK12b

    #
    Population
    Percent
    1
    North_European
    69.96
    2
    Atlantic_Med
    29.74
    3
    Sub_Saharan
    0.24
    4
    East_African
    0.05

    #
    Population (source)
    Distance
    1
    Swedish (Dodecad)
    14.36
    2
    Polish (Dodecad)
    15.06
    3
    Norwegian (Dodecad)
    16.95
    4
    FIN30 (1000Genomes)
    17.03
    5
    Belorussian (Behar)
    17.55
    6
    Lithuanian (Dodecad)
    17.7
    7
    Finnish (Dodecad)
    17.82
    8
    Lithuanians (Behar)
    17.85
    9
    Mixed_Slav (Dodecad)
    18
    10
    Russian (Dodecad)
    18.62

    Much distance to any living population, but closest to Northeast Europeans.

    But we can ignore the genetic components of Cheddar Man and just look what modern populations most matches his look in trait SNPs, not ancestry:

    Swede 68% United Kingdom 68% European 68%
    Aboriginal Australian 63% Ukrainian 63%
    All Africans 61%
    Northern South Asian 60%
    Dravidian 59% Middle East 59%
    San 58%
    Khanty 56% Native American 56%
    Bantu 55%
    Papuan 53%
    Han Chinese 48%

    He doesn't resemble any living population in a large percentage.
    Its the same case like with the Tarim Mummies, some people do hard in accepting that ancient individuals often don’t fit in today's categories build by social movements and the racial Ideas of the last century.

    Cheddar Mans people may looked like this Aboriginal Australian + European mixed woman on the right side of the picture:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/f3/f9/d8f3f950ed05ce62dc7070e4a936c533.jpg
    you forget one thing
    cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
    so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

    y

  10. #160
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by adian808 View Post
    you forget one thing
    cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
    so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

    y
    I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

    With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

    With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

    Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

    So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).


    Now with respect to Cheddar Man, he was not genetically related to peoples of sub-saharan Africa or even Horn Africans if you want to distinguish them from Western, Central, Southern and other Eastern Africans given their unique genetic history of back migration from West Asia to the Horn. He is not exactly like any modern population today, but closest to NW Europeans (British isles and Northern Europeans (Scandinavians) due to him being a European HG. His Y DNA was I2, common among Mesolithic Western European HG and is maternal was U5, very common in Western Eurasia and also found in North Africa. His skin tone was likely darker probably due to not having the snps for lighter skin tone on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2; however someone more up to date on Cheddar might have definitive information on that one. However, in 2018 additional work was done and it was suggested his skin tone could have been more intermediate. Regardless of what his skin tone was or was not, skin tone is a "phenotype" not something that can be used to categorize Cheddar into Population A vs. B vs. C, etc.

    Regards.
    Last edited by Palermo Trapani; 04-02-22 at 07:36.

  11. #161
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    499


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by adian808 View Post
    you forget one thing
    cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
    so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

    y






    Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.

    Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.

  12. #162
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    73
    Posts
    5,231

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by adian808 View Post
    you forget one thing
    cheddar man , dravidians and australians originate from africa where peoples are brown skinned and they are brown skinned too so we can guess they inherit brown/black skin genes from black africans ( i dont say subsaharans cause toubous and nubians live in plain sahara and bejas live in eastern egypt so they are not subsaharan people )
    so even if they got different genes they share some continuous genes with africans so knowing their haplogroup Mis son of african wide haplogroup L3 they are sons of black africans so they are black too what noticed greeks and greeks were not saying bullshits , they say blacks, curly or long haired ones come from ethiopia and yves coppens show this true , so dravidians , veddoids , aboriginals and cheddar men are africans that's the truth

    y

    I fear you shall never understand some things!
    We are all of us (based on current knowledge) 'black africans' since our ancestors came seemingly from Africa!
    In fact we don't know all, and you even lesser: We don't know HOW "black" was Cheddar man because we have not studied every potential pigmentation SNP. We can suppose his pigmentation genetic making was for a part the same (so called, arbitraty, "ancestral" genes), but he had certainly some unkown variants not proper to first African ancestors. Even in "black" SSA Africa, the allover composition of the DNA linked to pigmentation is not the same in every individual and pop', and it seems that in SSA the mutated DNA doesn't concern only DEpigmentation but also OVERpigmentation. POp's are evolving, and the external traits (often selected by prejudice) are not always the best ones to establish more or less global proximity of pop's and people.
    But you can and may stick on to your believings if they are good to your feelings.

  13. #163
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post



    Stop spreading misinformation. You display poor scholarship and you seem to be scientifically not very literate. Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), such as the Cheddar Man and La Brana were descended from the earlier, genetically homogeneous Cro-Magnon population. That said, the WHGs diverged from the Cro-Magnons during the Last Glacial Maximum in the refugia of Europe. All Eurasians alive today who don't have recent African ancestry are descendants of a migration out of Africa that happened between 100,000 and 70- 65,000 years ago. The ancestors of WHGs exited Africa into Eurasia which means that the WHGs are "descend" from an early population from Eurasia, who developed outside of Africa. Besides, according to one genetic study, the divergence time estimates among the major population groups suggest that Eurasian populations diverged from Africans during the same time frame (approximately 90 to 110 thousand years ago). The divergence among different Eurasian populations occurred more than 40,000 years after their divergence with Africans. So, after a small group of people left the African continent around 70.000 years ago, all humans spread throughout the globe - creating new populations wherever they went. These populations were often separated from each other, and they encountered different environments that could drive evolutionary processes, mutations. Nevertheless, the fact that if you go far back in times all humans came ultimately from Africa doesn't translate into all humans directly descending from indigenous Africans.

    Furthermore, although is likely that the Cheddar Man was dark-skinned that doesn't indicate kinship with Africans. On the contrary, WHGs like the Cheddar Man and La Brana are genetically one of the most distinct populations from indigenous Africans. Furthermore, their closest living relatives are the very pale Baltic, Scandinavians, Finnish people.
    i don' t spread any misinformation
    african L3 is mother of black veddoids and dravidians and aborigines M haplogroup and of modern europeans fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroupe_M_(ADNmt)#/media/Fichier:Peopling_of_eurasia.jpg
    and you said yourself cheddar man come from africa and we know europeans became white from 8000 BC when they oit africa 50000 years ago AS SAID HERE lenouvelliste.ch/sante/cela-ne-fait-que-8000-ans-que-les-europeens-ont-la-peau-blanche-375234...

  14. #164
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

    With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

    With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

    Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

    So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).
    Regards.
    Great error ! Pre roman greeks NEVER called only nubians ethiopians and say ancient egyptians was an ethiopian colony the same way they say Caucasus was occupied by ethiopian colonists too ( what is also said inthis map of Bible upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Table_of_Nations.jpg/301px-Table_of_Nations.jpg )
    Ancient egyptians themselves said they come from Pount in northern Somalia
    histoire-secrete.fr/265475300 and portrayed pountites the same color ancient egyptians: brown color the typical color of Blacks :
    i.pinimg.com/564x/fd/38/ed/fd38edbdd524b90f0894421d386bec4e.jpg
    ancient egyptians dancing
    2.bp.blogspot.com/-YqGHA0EFdiM/Wf8OtKpirPI/AAAAAAAABNA/hiT3f7qYBLs2QMlZLWgA33bF5SCGJLU3QCLcBGAs/s1600/punt.jpg
    pountites shown by ancient egyptians

    Notice BEJA people girls has the same color and same hairstyle ancient egyptian girls and puntites girls and puntite boys i.pinimg.com/474x/09/30/c3/0930c39ddd4b08024c069993ae526433.jpg and BEjas are historically first people of egypt since prehistory and come from horn of africa too ...
    qr.ae/pGEFsq
    AND GENETICALLY ancient egyptians come from HORN OF AFRICA and have same genes Bejas , somalis , afars ( who are not mixed with semites ) and darfuris according to Tillmar flickr.com/photos/anbessa2011/6284194929 and this ev32 gene is not linked to arabs or semites but to indigenous black populations of horn of africa and east of africa and northeast of africa

  15. #165
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.

  16. #166
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    I don't agree with your take on what the extant Greek writers wrote. They did compare populations in India with those of Africa south of Egypt (i.e. Ethiopians below the first Cataract of the Nile). Greeks (Herodotus, Alexander the Great) did indicate or describe Indians from South of Ganges River were similar in tone to Ethiopians or were dark or black but not all of them to the extent of Ethiopians; i.e. Africans from regions South of the First Cataract of the Nile. However, the Greeks were very clear to point out that the Indians from the South of the Ganges while being similar in skin tone to African Ethiopians, they had straight hair and different nose phenotypes than Ethiopians from Africa. Those same Greek writers noted that populations in North India resembled Egyptians in terms of phenotypes. So descriptions are sometimes vague as to who is being referred but by the time of Xenophanes (570 BC to 478 BC), Greeks had encountered enough different peoples to provide phenotype descriptions of peoples they encountered other than skin tone (e.g., hair, nose, etc).

    With that said, the ancient Greek and Roman writers are great to read but they got some things wrong and some right. Herodotus, for example, was wrong about his theory regarding the Estruscans. So always good to read as many different sources and cross-check them (e.g. Herodotus had his detractors in his own time). On the other hand, the ancient writer Philostratus (circa 170 to 250AD) noted that once you got past the Egyptian border just pass the first cataract, there were peoples darker than Egyptians but lighter than Ethiopians say from the regions near the ancient city of Meroe.

    With the explosion of ancient DNA in the last 12 years, DNA research is now clearly clearing up much of what people argue about regarding who was who in antiquity, etc. Such people try fit modern ideologies about racial/ethnic differences and thus their identifies back into ancient peoples for their own political ideologies. The Posth et al 2021 paper "The origin and legacy ofthe Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect" analyzes some 48 Estruscan samples, 40 are local origin (from Central to North Italy) similar to the Latins from the Antonio et al 2019 paper on ancient Rome, 8 were outliers, a few clustering with Central Europeans and some with Punics/North Africans. So Herodotus's Anatolian or Trojan origin theory of the Etruscans was not true.

    Sirak et als 2021 "Social stratification without genetic differentiationat the site of Kulubnarti in Christian Period Nubia" documents evidence supporting what Philostratus reported some 400 years earlier, that is these Christian Nubians from circa 600-800AD (in area near 2nd cataract) were in terms of admixture 57% Eurasian and 43% Nilotic (African) and that the Eurasian admixture dates back at least the the Levant Bronze Age and came down from Egypt into Nubia.

    So not looking to get into an argument but citing the ancient Greek and Roman writers is always something that I personally think should be done carefully in context and not taken as "Gospel". In my view, it is always a good idea to see what other ancient writers said about something. In my experience if one writer says X, often times another says Y. Furthermore, many of the accounts written down by Historians such as Herodotus were based on folklores, sailor tales, wives tales, oral traditions of peoples, etc and thus questionable at times (think of the giant ants he wrote about, based on probably sailors tales of Greeks who went to Egypt and went into areas and reported back with exaggeration what they saw).


    Now with respect to Cheddar Man, he was not genetically related to peoples of sub-saharan Africa or even Horn Africans if you want to distinguish them from Western, Central, Southern and other Eastern Africans given their unique genetic history of back migration from West Asia to the Horn. He is not exactly like any modern population today, but closest to NW Europeans (British isles and Northern Europeans (Scandinavians) due to him being a European HG. His Y DNA was I2, common among Mesolithic Western European HG and is maternal was U5, very common in Western Eurasia and also found in North Africa. His skin tone was likely darker probably due to not having the snps for lighter skin tone on SLC24A5 and SLC45A2; however someone more up to date on Cheddar might have definitive information on that one. However, in 2018 additional work was done and it was suggested his skin tone could have been more intermediate. Regardless of what his skin tone was or was not, skin tone is a "phenotype" not something that can be used to categorize Cheddar into Population A vs. B vs. C, etc.

    Regards.
    You commit an error about ancient greeks !!!!!!!!

    GREEKS were right about etruscans too and never said they are troyns but lydians
    and lydians , pelasgians , lemnos people ( who are pelasgians) were recognised to be of the same stock etruscans genetically futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/archeologie-fin-mystere-origine-descendance-etrusques-12132/ and linguistically ( lemnian cognate etruscans) lemnian speakers being pelasgians ( notice also pelasgians being ancestors of albanians before aryan illyrians come and coming from anatolia the same way lydians the ancestors of etruscans according to herodotus, albanians too are related etruscans ... )

  17. #167
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.

    Posth et al. 2021


    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

    Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-has...ient-etruscans

    Archeology magazine summary of the paper: Again Herodotus theory is not supported.


    https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...ery-1.10236713

    The fact that the Etruscans had significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia (Early European Farmer) ancestry is not surprising as that ancestral source population was in Central Italy, and all of what is modern Italy today (Sicily and Sardinia) dating back 8,000 years ago.

    Now where there Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily in the Iron age, yes? but those did not start till circa 8th century BC. The Etruscan civilization pre dates Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily that over time could have impacted the genetic profile of peoples say in Lazio at least given Greek Settlements were in what is modern Campania who scholars based on archeological and historical records credit with the founding of the city of Naples.

  18. #168
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    No they did not. All that stuff you are citing is not relevant. Provide the cite from any Greek writer Pre-Roman that said what you are saying they said. Furthermore, if you want to be taken serious, I suggest you find citations from legitimate scholarly research published in academic journals in the fields of archeology and history and genetics/DNA rather than the what you are presenting here when you post.
    Are you saying Beja who is attested by ancient egyptians scriptures are not indigenous of east egypt ?
    Are you saying a native semite egyptian can' t say the truth about ancient egyptians if he says bejas are modern still desendants of ancient egyptian population as in this link qr.ae/pGEFsq even if he proves it with a museum inscription in Egypt qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-af18d0516fa6193040224d48feeb6825-lq ?

    Are you saying Tillmar is not a scholar ? because he said ancient egyptians and nubians and bejas and oromos and darfuris and somalis have the same ev 32 haplogroup ?

    Are you saying ancient egyptians didn' t say Pount is the origin of their culture , Ta netjeri in their langage , the land of god in their langage ? do you think historian Brian Brown ("La Sagesse des égyptiens" New York 1923 .) is a liar ? or Richard Pankhurst ( "Les frontières de l’Éthiopie » 1997 ) ?
    Are you saying ancient depiction of pountites as being brown like ancient egyptians and common blacks is not true without having proof ?

    Anout Diodore of Sicily he said this :
    It is maintained that the Ethiopians are the first of all men, and that the proofs of this are evident. First of all, everyone being more or less in agreement that they did not come from abroad, and that they were born in the country itself, we can rightly call them Autochthones; then it seems obvious to everyone that the men who inhabit the South were probably the first to come out of the bosom of the earth. For the heat of the sun drying the moist earth and rendering it suitable for the generation of animals, it is probable that the region nearest to the sun was the first populated by living beings. It is also claimed that the Ethiopians were the first to teach men to venerate the gods, to offer them sacrifices, to perform pumps, sacred solemnities and other ceremonies, by which men practice divine worship. They are therefore everywhere famous for their piety; and their sacrifices appear to be the most pleasing to the divinity. In support of this we have the testimony of the almost oldest and most admired poet of the Greeks, who represents to us, in his Iliad, Jupiter and the other immortals going to Ethiopia to receive the offerings and the feasts which the Ethiopians offer them every year: "Jupiter crossed the ocean yesterday to go to the brave Ethiopians who were preparing a feast for him. All the gods followed him. We note that the Ethiopians have received, from the gods, the reward of their piety, never having suffered the yoke of any foreign despot. Indeed, they have always preserved their freedom; and, thanks to their union, they were never subjugated by the sovereigns who marched against them, and none of whom succeeded in his enterprise. I The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians descend from one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris; and they add that this country was, at the beginning of the world, only a sea; but then the Nile, carrying in its floods the silt brought from Ethiopia, gradually formed landfills. Based on what happens at the mouths of the Nile, they clearly demonstrate that all of Egypt is the work of this river: every year the ground is raised by the contribution of silt, and the soil expands at the expense of the sea. They say, moreover, that most Egyptian customs are of Ethiopian origin, as the colonies preserve the traditions of the metropolis; that respect for kings, considered as gods, the rite of funerals and many other customs, are Ethiopian institutions; finally, that the types of sculpture and the characters of writing are also borrowed from the Ethiopians. The Egyptians have in fact two kinds of particular writings, one, called vulgar, which is learned by everyone; the other, called sacred, known to priests alone, and which is taught to them from father to son, among the secret things. Now, the Ethiopians use both scripts indiscriminately. The order of priests is, in the two nations, established on the same bases. Those who are dedicated to the worship of the gods perform the same purifications; they shave and dress alike, and they all carry a plow-like scepter.
    Herodotus himself saw ancient egyptians as having black skin and woolly hair (Herodotus, 2.104)
    herodotus said about Egypt this "It is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat. ..." {endnote 1: The History of Herododus, translated by George Rawlinson. New York. Tudor, 1928, p. 88.}
    To demonstrate that the Greek oracle is of Egyptian origin, Herodotus advances another argument: "Lastly, by calling the dove black, they [the Dodonaeans] indicated that the woman was Egyptian. ..." {endnote 2: Ibid., p. 101.} The doves in question symbolize two Egyptian women allegedly kidnapped from Thebes to found the oracles of Dodona and Libya.

  19. #169
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    No I am not in error. I suggest you read more. And No they were wrong about the Etruscans. A recent DNA paper refutes Herodotus's theory. I suggest you go read the paper.

    Posth et al. 2021


    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

    Science Alert article summarizing the paper. Herodotus theory is not supported.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-has...ient-etruscans

    Archeology magazine summary of the paper: Again Herodotus theory is not supported.


    https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...ery-1.10236713

    The fact that the Etruscans had significant Neolithic ancestry from Anatolia (Early European Farmer) ancestry is not surprising as that ancestral source population was in Central Italy, and all of what is modern Italy today (Sicily and Sardinia) dating back 8,000 years ago.

    Now where there Greek settlements in Italy and Sicily in the Iron age, yes? but those did not start till circa 8th century BC. The Etruscan civilization pre dates Greek settlements in Southern Italy and Sicily that over time could have impacted the genetic profile of peoples say in Lazio at least given Greek Settlements were in what is modern Campania who scholars based on archeological and historical records credit with the founding of the city of Naples.
    you comitted errors again !
    i Never told about greek settlements in central italy ( greeks settle in sicily not in central italy ) but about pelasgians which are genetically and linguistically linked to lemnians which are linked to lydians genetically and to etruscans linguistically

    Futura science is a reasonable site ruled by french scientists , it is better than your sources saying etruscans are from the steppe of russia !

  20. #170
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. Petronius, a Roman writer pointed out that a non Ethiopian could not pass for an Ethiopian by merely painting is body with black paint/color. An Ethiopian not only has black skin and flat nose, but other facial phenotypes like an Ethiopian (lips, head shape, etc). To make this point, ancient Greek and Roman writers who new of peoples in India pointed out that while Indians South of the Ganges had dark skin tones similar to African Ethiopians, there noses and hair differed.

    The most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman texts of Black Africans that the ancient Greeks and Romans encountered is a work by Professor Frank Snowden Jr.. A black American scholar who studied ancient Greek and Latin and was a Dean at Howard University, a leading HBCU in the USA. His work "Blacks in Antiquity" published by Harvard University Press in 1970 is the most complete review of all the extant Greek and Roman writers that totally examines all those extant texts regarding descriptions of "Aethiopes" relative to other ancient peoples they encountered. At no time were the Egyptians, who had darker skin tone yes than Europeans, described with the same phenotype descriptions (e.g., head, nose, hair, etc.) as Ethiopians (Black Africans). Yes, I am aware than Egypt for a time was ruled by Kings from ancient Nubia/Cush who were from the ancient city of Meroe. Those were indeed "Ethiopians".

    My sources point out what the DNA of 48 Etruscans show, 40 of them were local from Central Italy and had source ancestry from Early European Farmers with some Steppe admixture. They were not Greek migrants from Anatolia. Period. And whatever the linguistic affinity of the Etruscan language to other languages, Language does not necessarily correlate with ancestry. The Etruscans and Latins were genetically similar, but spoke different languages.

    And the Greeks settled in Sicily, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania and Puglia for the record.

  21. #171
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    And the last thing about the Egyptians in this thread that I am going to say. There are numerous DNA studies that have been published on ancient Egypt, with some samples going back to about 2,000 BC. None of them show these ancient samples were genetically related to peoples South of the First cataract of the Nile. Now, I am aware that there needs to be more studies from more regions of Egypt and from periods further back. But none of the DNA evidence today supports your points. As for that Historian, I am not saying he is a liar, I am saying he perhaps is wrong.

    Just do a quick search on ancient DNA studies done on Egypt. After you have read them, then perhaps I will discuss them.

  22. #172
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Pre roman greeks also said Meluhhans live all along Ganges which is in North india and were blacks ( asiatic ethiopians / long haired ethiopians ) and are same elamites ( which we know are ancestors of dravidians ) and sumerians ( Cephenes/blacks of euphrate and south irak met by Hellanicus )

    Only Romans say later blacks were in south egypt only ( what is faked because Beja tribe live in east egypt from red sea gulf to Nubians far south region... ) and say blacks in india are only in south what is faked cause the Nishada / Munda live in east of india and in their langage human = black person ŋuri lu rüö, cek kulu rüök, Kurukh in Nepal are black dravidians too and Brahui are black dravidians of afghanistan / Pakistan region near BALOUCHISTAN and there were Nihali , Korku and Adivasi in north india

  23. #173
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani View Post
    No I did not commit and error. Herodotus was incorrect. The Etruscans were not from Anatolia. Get over it. And Herodotus did not say the Egyptians were "black skin" he said darker skinned. And in addition, Greek writers never called them Aethiopes. However, they were not as dark as the peoples how lived on the border between Egypt and Nubia (first cataract) and the peoples on the border region were lighter than the peoples in Ancient Kush whose kingdom was near the ancient city of Meroe (near 4th cataract). When Herodotus is describing Ethiopians (Black Africans) he is describing peoples South of first cataract. As I noted before, the ancient Greek writers starting with Xenophanes, who actually lived before Herodotus, Greeks were describing Ethiopians with anthropological descriptions other than just skin tone. He was the first to point out the flat-noses of Black Ethiopians. .
    Fake herodotus said this : For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision saying egyptians are colchians ,colchians are dark skinned and wooly haired and colchians since practised circumcision the same ancient egyptians and ethiopians and we know arabs and berbers are not blacks and don' t practise circumcision until Mohamed came and only jews practise circumcision , and no one except them did it in semites tribes and sumerian tribes which are sons of ubaidians which in turn are first people of irak and qatar and bahrein except to no one the same way veddoids 50000 years ago as showed here in light pink and deep pink
    and dravidians where some tribes still practised circumcision and australian aborigines who pratice it and have the same origin from africa as veddoids and dravidians and Mundas https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/jharkhand-mundas-may-be-ancestors-of-oz-aborigines/story-26TXdlmJjCScJgq3KNAciM.html

    https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/a...alian-origins/

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210427...eologiques.asp

    also look genese de l' inde (Paris, Payot, 1997) of Bernard Sergent

    chapter (pp. 45-84) on dravidians and melano indians





  24. #174
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-10-21
    Posts
    29


    Country: Cote d'Ivoire



    Quote Originally Posted by Doggerland View Post
    There is no Sumerian sample available today but early Neolithic samples from the eastern Fertile Crescent in the Zagros Mountains:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417496/

    It is likely that those people where a part of the Sumerian ancestry.

    They had a broad and also long face, flat, narrow forehead. A slim, long, hooked nose. They had broad lips, a large mouth. Brown eyes, brown skin, wavy to curly hair.

    .
    How do you know it ?, a french student told this is not written in the site
    Can you talk us about it ?
    THANKS !

  25. #175
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Posts
    1,227

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2A3

    Ethnic group
    Italian-Sicily-South
    Country: United States



    Adian808: you have reading comprehension problems. I said Herodotus theory on the Etruscans was not correct. The DNA evidence on that is pretty clear. As for the Egyptians and the use of the word "melagochroes" does not mean "black" it means "dark". So in the context of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I said nothing regarding whether he was wrong. It is that you are misquoting him.

    Professor Frank Snowden who wrote the book I cited above "Blacks in Antiquity" published this paper in 1989 that points out that the "afro-centrist" translation of "melagochroes" as "black" is not correct. He as I stated cites all of Herodotus works regarding Egyptians and Ethiopians and all the other extant writers of ancient Greece. The Egyptians were darker than the Greeks themselves, that is true, but it is also clear that they were not as dark as Ethiopians. I suggest you read the article. I am not interested in aliens.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2630857...o_tab_contents


    I also repeat, go read the ancient DNA studies on Egypt.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •