Re: Ubaidian origins ? Help needed !
From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: Kevin Ettery: "Re: AUSTRALIA LED BY MURDERERS, HENCE 9.2 QUAKE !"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- In reply to: Saggiga: "Ubaidian origins ? Help needed !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:09:43 GMT
sag_giganospam@yahoo.de (Saggiga) says in
news:90e61c3.0501141630.b32b402@posting.google.com:
> Philip Deitiker (Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam) wrote :
>
>>Maybe so but he fled then west then south, then north then
>>here and there, are you saying that everytime he stepped
>>someplace he had to flee. Eventually his descendant did return
>>to Ur, and then they left again.
> Please make the effort to read Abrams' biography. I wrote one on
> my web page.
>
>>> I already wrote that sumerians "may" come from the indus
>>> valley by ships.
>>But that claim is without any scientifically meaningful
>>substantiation. I cannot see a reasoning to conclude the Indus
> Before living in "Sumer", sumerians lived in Dilmun which has
> been reckognized as the island of Bahrain. They used ships to
> move between the two places. Bahrain is situated between Sumer
> and the Indus Valley. Take a map or read my web site.
That is a recently popular and speculative opinion. I frankly think
that this opinion has little merit. They try to link the burial with
snakes as a sign that it was the garden of eden. Such popular
attempts to discover mythical places invariably end in new popular
myths.
Myth is myth, and the adam and eve story is so far removed in
origin from its writing in babylon during the 1st millenium BC that
that it is impossible to know where the story was first told, and
what real (or fictional) event it was derived from.
Given this a wise person allows the information that is objective
come forth over time with reasonably open mind to origins. Currently
the most objective information is genetic. And this information links
the wheat strains of europe and asia minor with the genetics of the
peoples of Iraq. And thus it is reconcilable information and trumps
here-say and other information. The omani, OTOH who were probably the
predominant population prior to the sumerian population, have a
markedly afro-indian ocean character.
> Wrong. India was firstly occupied by Austro-Asiatics before 3000
> BC (like Munda, Nicobarese and Mon-Khmer).
India was first occupied negroid-australo morphology between 68 and
130 ky ago. The earliest date for human presense in asia is in
Liujiang with a late date of 68 kya and a most probable date of 113
kya. The genetic divergence amoung Andaman Islanders, possibly the
oldest of the austronesia-negrito group is 65 kya with a CH LCA of 5
my, however this calibration is most likely a higer than actual
muation rate and the Andaman islanders are likely in the 100 to 130
ky range. Of course India was colonized by humans before this.
> At one time (4000
> BC), the Austro-Asiatic domain probably extended unbroken from
> China to India to Malaysia. Austro-Asiatics have been later
> invaded by Dravidians
> (3000 BC), Indoeuropeans (2000 BC) etc.
The Negroid Austronesian morphology evolved over time into dravidian.
Just as the same morphology evolved into chinese, ryukyuan, and south
american, each with some admixture. The 'BC' context is irrelevant,
the Tamil Nadars have a number of HLA types, in fact the vast
majority of HLA types have nothing to do with either types now found
in pakistan or other parts of india, tibetians, etc. It is generally
agreed amoung all molecular geneticists who support OoA or mostly OoA
(the overwhelming majority) that this amount of time suffices for the
evolution of regional groups. Indeed one of the more extreme examples
of the rate of morphological evolution would be the evolution of the
Irish from West African and SE european peoples within a period of
probably 35 ky. Therefore the degree of evolution is a combination of
both time within a place and selection pressure (Ireland being north,
of relatively low sunlight, but being off the gulf stream not
particularly cold for its latitude favors depigmentation). Southern
India, being 10 to 20' from the equator favors dark skin, dark eyes
and black hair, i.e. the dravidians, and in particular the tribals
and untouchables in the region. The HLA of pakistan reflects diverse
origins for peoples, however some of the HLA are nodal to the region
and are not of eastern asia origins. These HLA suggest that the
Aryian invasion was admixing and not displacive, in fact most of
indian genetics shows in-situ evolution. Gisele, if you are kind
enough to ask her can discuss the M and B mtDNA haplogroups found in
india and their relationship with other peoples in eastern asia.
These types indicate a singular and long term presence. HLA
patterns of the untouchable class and the non-indic tribals show a
greater level of genetic uniqueness at HLA relative to the entirety
of europe, however some tribal groups do show some affinities with
central asian and west asian. With several unique allelotypes and
allelic diversity intermediate between asiatics and africa, once
again a strong indicator of a long term presence. There are amoung
several groups in southern india a strong linkage equilibration, much
greater than europeans and siberians and middle easterners but less
so than africa. This information taken along with morphological
comparisons of southern indians and negroid austronesians suggest
strongly that you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>Every person is asia is an afroasiatic of ancestral origin,
>>more so everyone is of african origin. It says nothing. What
>>specific culture are you refering to.
> You dont seem to know about afroasiatic languages ?
When linguistic groupings stop changing and everyone agrees on those
groupings I will consider language information as pertinent. I have
heard individuals like V. Sarich claim they can trace language groups
back 1 million years. The more intelligent critiques of these studies
suggest that 5000 years there is significant deterioration of the
branch similarities and by 7000 years deciphering common languages
becomes difficult, by 15,000 years one is devinating tea leaves.
Since the molecular genetic information suggest migrations in the
ranges between 160 kya to present, it is very difficult for anyone
who seriously studies migrations to rely on linguistics. Sometimes
linguistics and genetics agree, more often admixture between genetic
groups is accompanied by language family without roots.
I have a paper that links the Basque languages with asian and NW
native american tongues and corroborates with HLA. The fact is that
the HLA movements were in the 20 ky range and the linguistics are the
languages they claim are similar are hit and miss on the genetics
anyway.
The difference between language and genetics is this. If I admix
two peoples they might
1. Take one language
2. Take the other language
3. Take varying parts of either
4. Creolize and create a complete new language within in generations
not intelligable to either parent language.
1. The genetics always reflects the ratio of admixture. and genes
take 10,000s of years to recombine to form hybird genes from the two
starting groups, if they even do this. Admixtures of people trap
unequivocably trap elements from the parent populations that are
eternally preserved. Language does not.
>>I am trying to unsheild your ignorance and concretizing
>>thinking of a junior wannabe scientist.
> Young doesnt mean stupid.
>
>>Indeed the Irish/Basque/and Cornish cluster very tightly
>>together genetically and no geneticist will refute this.
> Agreed :
Interpretation 'I did a search on the web and suddenly realized I
stuck my big fat foot in my mouth'
> before the IE invasions,
There is no evidence of a bronza age invasion of Ireland.
> the irish population was
> related to the Basques and the Berbers.
The irish and basque ARE related. The basque and sardinians ARE
related, the basque and the french ARE related, the basque and the
iberians ARE related, the basque and Flemish ARE related, like Irish
and Cornish and Scotts ARE closely related. The Czech and the Basque
are related. The haplotype frequencies in the Basque suggest that the
basque ARE the primary ancestors of the following:
Irish, Cornish, Scots
-by recent exoadmixture Scandinavians, Slavs, Russians.
Flemish
Danes
Secondary ancestry in the Irish is not from eastern europe or
anatolia. The Irish carry the Cw16 allele as part of the A29 cw16 B33
haplotype in which Cw16 evolved in africa, this haplotype is recent
and has preferentially found on the far western coast of europe, it
probably came with pastoral herding since it is found in the Irish
and not derivative Scandinavians. It is more abundant in the basque
and the basque are the highest frequency group. Therefore one could
suggest that not only was there one migration from the basque but
two. The closest related peoples in africa to these 'recent' african
haplotypes live in ivory coast and senegal region of africa. Aside
from these two groups there are a smattering of low frequency
haplotypes that are of central european or ambiguous origin. The same
is true of the cornish, or the scots (what little information we
have).
The genetics is unambiguous. In addition, the direction of geneflow
from the apparent expansion (i.e. end of the last ice age) appears to
support migratory gene flow from the isles into europe, and while,
for example eastern european, french and german haplotypes are found
in eastern asia, No Irish haplotypes is found in east asia or in pure
indigeonous american populations, and yet there are very well
preserved superTypes Nodal to the Irish that have spread into
scandinavia, russia, balkans and just about anywhere the vikings
traveled or did business. Including the silk road close to china.
There is better molecular evidence that there was an invasion from
Ireland to other lands than from other lands into Ireland.
The five predominant haplotypes in the Basque, Irish and Cornish
are also within the top frequency haplotypes the other members of the
triad. The claim has been made for instance that the phonecians
settled Ireland by certain levantiphiles. This is not true, Nodal
haplotypes of phonecia are either not present in the Irish, or
present at 'diffusive' frequencies. The claim has been made that
Ireland was settled by celts from the black sea region; however there
are almost no nodal haplotypes to the black sea found in Ireland,
With extensive alternative model I was able to find one, that could
have been, but it was nodal to austria and greece. The claim has been
made that peoples from the stepps invaded ireland and settled. There
is better evidence that peoples from the stepps invaded alaska and
settled by HLA (or more likely intermixed with siberians that then
immigrated to alaska).
> There is a strong
> genetic relationship between Basques and Berbers.
> "38.9% of Y-chromosome lineages in the North Welsh town of
> Abergele were found to belong to North African-specific
> haplogroup 21."
Yes, Tunisia and Berbers appear to be the african source of west
europeans. By HLA the relationship group extends from just east of
egypt to morroco to senegal and back. There is an eastern cluster
that has a relatioshipe with greece the middle east and regions of
central asia.
The last time I checked Wales is not part of Ireland. For your
information the cornish are the most preroman isolate in England, by
genetics and by their own account. Wales is the site in which ealier
admixes of european and native britons were pushed during subsequent
conquest. Cornwall however was distal from these invasions and is
more genetically representative of the pre-Civil period of european
history (aka romans, normans, vikings, . . . .).
Y chromosomal studies are unreliable sources of information, Y
chromosome has effective population size 1/2 of mtDNA and about 1/6th
that of HLA, it can spread by serials cycles of patrilinear expansion
without affecting the genetic makeup.
>>>They were semitic population since thousands of years.
>>The semites are a artificial terminology.
> I wrote semitic populations, meaning people who spoke semitic
> languages.
And you continue to write that even though you have been corrected on
this matter.
> ps : I still try to answer to usenet messages, but google groups
> makes a failure : Unable to retrieve message
> Xns95DDA74ABF7A3prd@128.249.2.19
> I have tried with IE and Firefox but that seems to come from
> google groups :-(
> I have to retype the group names, subject and the whole message.
> Is there another way to post answers in the usenet ? Thanks in
> advance.
Yes, your ISP needs to have a Usenet News provider. If you read the
information about them on their site, search for UseNet. they will
show you how to access and post. I use Xnews which means I don't need
a google interface. It has enhanced killfile capability such that
when I get tired of see nonsense from blabbering newbies who like
words like WRONG and TRUTH and thing the world started 6004 years ago
in the garden of eden.
For your own benefit I recommend you take an interrogative stance
before you become 'stereotyped' by the critical denizens of the
UseNet.
If your ISP is google, or uses google as the news provider, your
screwed.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
- Next message: Kevin Ettery: "Re: AUSTRALIA LED BY MURDERERS, HENCE 9.2 QUAKE !"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone"
- In reply to: Saggiga: "Ubaidian origins ? Help needed !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
