What's new

THE MYTH OF NORTH AFRICA AS ARAB,UNCOVERED

The Semitic J allowed those African men E to join and to marry their women.

Maybe.

But if you think about it, unlike modern times, there weren't really an intermediate race between E and J when they first came into contact.

So it becomes difficult to imagine that they would readily mingle with a completely alien race.

And seeing how traditional ME people were always very patriarchal, it becomes more unlikely that they would allow a completely alien people marry their women.


Could wars be a possibility?

(Pure speculation)
Maybe the Sahara wasn't a desert -- which led to large numbers of sub-Saharans inhabiting North Africa. Caucasian tribes (back-to-Africa migration) could have attempted to displace the native blacks and succeeded to an extent - but any defeat in any of the multiple battles fought would mean losing their women to the E.

Later on J victory, the mixed subSaharan-Arab children could have been absorbed and integrated into the Caucasian society. Maybe that's how E got introduced?!
 
.
@@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::> @ChineseTiger1986 @Chinese-Dragon @The SC @EgyptianAmerican

Just thought that you might find this useful.

It confirms everything that I have said so far in this thread.

Almost every ethnic group is included.

Must see:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

Here is an National Geographic one:

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

The latter unfortunately does not have data from KSA but they have from Kuwait and if you compare Kuwait with Egypt they are very, very similar.

"EGYPTIAN
populations_Egyptian_575.png


This reference population is based on samples collected from native Egyptians. As ancient populations migrated from Africa, they passed first through southwest Asia. The 65% Mediterranean and 18% Southwest Asian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the 7th century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian peninsula. The 14% sub-Saharan African indicates intermixing with African populations to the south."

"KUWAITI
populations_Kuwaiti_575.png


This reference population is based on samples collected from native Kuwaitis and reflects the great genetic diversity of this region, as it was a crossroads for several migratory groups. As some ancient populations migrated from Africa, they passed first through Southwest Asia en route to the rest of Eurasia. Some populations stayed in the Middle East and southwestern Asia, over time developing unique genetic patterns. The 57% Mediterranean and 27% Southwest Asian components found in our reference Kuwaiti population reflect these ancient patterns. The 4% Northern European percentage is representative of some interaction with European populations, either via populations to the northwest or from migrations through the steppe zone to the northeast. The 2% Northeast Asian component likely arrived via the migrations of groups originating in that region, such as the Turks and Mongols. The Silk Road also may have served to disperse east Asian genetic patterns further to the west. Finally, the 8% sub-Saharan African component reflects the relatively close proximity of Kuwait to Africa, and may have been increased by the Arab slave trade during the 8th-19th centuries."

KSA would be even closer to Egypt due to simple geography and the very close ties between Hijaz (most populous region of KSA that has little if nothing in common Eastern Arabia that Kuwait belongs to) and Egypt.
 
. .
@@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::> @ChineseTiger1986 @Chinese-Dragon @The SC @EgyptianAmerican

Just thought that you might find this useful.

It confirms everything that I have said so far in this thread.

Almost every ethnic group is included.

Must see:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

Here is an National Geographic one:

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

The latter unfortunately does not have data from KSA but they have from Kuwait and if you compare Kuwait with Egypt they are very, very similar.

"EGYPTIAN
populations_Egyptian_575.png


This reference population is based on samples collected from native Egyptians. As ancient populations migrated from Africa, they passed first through southwest Asia. The 65% Mediterranean and 18% Southwest Asian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the 7th century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian peninsula. The 14% sub-Saharan African indicates intermixing with African populations to the south."

"KUWAITI
populations_Kuwaiti_575.png


This reference population is based on samples collected from native Kuwaitis and reflects the great genetic diversity of this region, as it was a crossroads for several migratory groups. As some ancient populations migrated from Africa, they passed first through Southwest Asia en route to the rest of Eurasia. Some populations stayed in the Middle East and southwestern Asia, over time developing unique genetic patterns. The 57% Mediterranean and 27% Southwest Asian components found in our reference Kuwaiti population reflect these ancient patterns. The 4% Northern European percentage is representative of some interaction with European populations, either via populations to the northwest or from migrations through the steppe zone to the northeast. The 2% Northeast Asian component likely arrived via the migrations of groups originating in that region, such as the Turks and Mongols. The Silk Road also may have served to disperse east Asian genetic patterns further to the west. Finally, the 8% sub-Saharan African component reflects the relatively close proximity of Kuwait to Africa, and may have been increased by the Arab slave trade during the 8th-19th centuries."

KSA would be even closer to Egypt due to simple geography and the very close ties between Hijaz (most populous region of KSA that has little if nothing in common Eastern Arabia that Kuwait belongs to) and Egypt.
Nat Geo also released this:

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/

Egyptians:

capture-jpg-700x.jpg


Kuwaitis:

capture-jpg-700x.jpg
 
.
Maybe.

But if you think about it, unlike modern times, there weren't really an intermediate race between E and J when they first came into contact.

So it becomes difficult to imagine that they would readily mingle with a completely alien race.

And seeing how traditional ME people were always very patriarchal, it becomes more unlikely that they would allow a completely alien people marry their women.


Could wars be a possibility?

(Pure speculation)
Maybe the Sahara wasn't a desert -- which led to large numbers of sub-Saharans inhabiting North Africa. Caucasian tribes (back-to-Africa migration) could have attempted to displace the native blacks and succeeded to an extent - but any defeat in any of the multiple battles fought would mean losing their women to the E.

Later on J victory, the mixed subSaharan-Arab children could have been absorbed and integrated into the Caucasian society. Maybe that's how E got introduced?!

The xenophobia was only developed in the recent historical time, but during the prehistorical time, the Homo sapiens tribes were scarce and they were threatened by those other human species such as the Neanderthal.

J and E were still both sapiens, so the solidarity was important when you had to face a common non-sapiens enemy such as the Neanderthal.
 
Last edited:
. .

Genetically (in terms of haplogroups) Arabia, North Africa and most of the Mediterranean is identical in the sense that the same haplogroups are found in all 3 areas. Just with different frequencies.

The National Geographic map I posted is much more accurate.

Besides forget about National Geographic, basically every single DNA test confirms that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians cluster closely. Several users have already posted several sources that confirm this.

Even racist European anthropologists long before DNA was invented grouped Arabids as a subgroup of the Mediterranean people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

Also this spreadsheet which is much more detailed and from a much bigger sample also show the very close affinity as described before.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

Y-Haplogroups:


World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png



Overall DNA/genome

Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are next to each other before anyone else.



Some results from your average Arabs (much larger samples too)

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/arabworlddnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/arabworlddnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/arab-tribes/about/background

And vice-versa, they intermixed..

Exactly which is why they are the two by far most common haplogroups and found in large frequencies in every single Arab country from Oman to Morocco.

Anyway there is no point discussing the obvious with non-Arabs here with an agenda. Obviously not even an complete moron would be dumb enough to argue that neighboring peoples who have lived next door to each other for millennia and intermarried do not share any close relationship. Contrary to history, geography, genetic tests etc. I guess my distant Egyptian ancestry is also made up despite family records proving otherwise and despite the fact that I have an extensive family tree that 99% of all people would envy. Similar to most other locals in Hijaz.
 
. .
Genetically (in terms of haplogroups) Arabia, North Africa and most of the Mediterranean is identical in the sense that the same haplogroups are found in all 3 areas. Just with different frequencies.

The National Geographic map I posted is much more accurate.

Besides forget about National Geographic, basically every single DNA test confirms that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians cluster closely. Several users have already posted several sources that confirm this.

Even racist European anthropologists long before DNA was invented grouped Arabids as a subgroup of the Mediterranean people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

Also this spreadsheet which is much more detailed and from a much bigger sample also show the very close affinity as described before.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

Y-Haplogroups:


World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png



Overall DNA/genome

Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are next to each other before anyone else.



Some results from your average Arabs (much larger samples too)

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/arabworlddnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/arabworlddnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/arab-tribes/about/background



Exactly which is why they are the two by far most common haplogroups and found in large frequencies in every single Arab country from Oman to Morocco.

Anyway there is no point discussing the obvious with non-Arabs here with an agenda. Obviously not even an complete moron would be dumb enough to argue that neighboring peoples who have lived next door to each other for millennia and intermarried do not share any close relationship. Contrary to history, geography, genetic tests etc. I guess my distant Egyptian ancestry is also made up despite family records proving otherwise and despite the fact that I have an extensive family tree that 99% of all people would envy. Similar to most other locals in Hijaz.
Good grief, relax lol.

There's no agenda here.

I already provided you an incredibly useful link that pretty much says the same thing but in a different way. You're misinterpreting data as always. >_<
 
.
If anyone was still in doubt and somehow "missed" post 128 and all the previous ones in this thread:

Saudi Arabians:

Paleoafrican: 0% South Asian: 0% West Asian: 27,9% Southeast Asian: 0% Sub-Saharan: 0% Atlantic-Baltic: 0% Red Sea: 34,6% East Asian: 0% Mediterranean: 37.5% Siberian: 0%

Egyptians:


Paleoafrican: 0,6% South Asian: 0% West Asian: 24,4% Southeast Asian: 0,2% Sub-Saharan: 12,2% Atlantic-Baltic: 1% Red Sea: 24% East Asian: 0% Mediterranean: 37.5% Siberian: 0%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

The sample was 12 Egyptians and 20 Saudi Arabians. So not 100% accurate but as I wrote earlier and as every single DNA tests shows, Saudi Arabians and Egyptians cluster with each other very, very closely in every DNA test that I have seen whether public or private. As far as haplogroups the two largest haplogroups in both countries and all Arab countries are J and E.

As far as maternal haplogroups the same ones are found in both KSA/Arabia and Egypt and much of the Arab world.

I have posted by now I believe at least 10 difference sources that confirms this as have other users here.

So people are free to judge on their own now. Let's not even talk about common history, geography, ancient human migrations etc.

In short the conclusion = not similar at all.:lol:

I swear on my mother's life go take this discussion with professors in genetics and they will laugh at you if you suggest that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are not closely related let alone other Arabs of the region. Or that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are somehow more closely related with non-Arabs and people that live 1000's of km away from them.

It is an insult against common logic.

Sorry, I cannot take some of the threads on this forum seriously and certain posts of certain members. Wasted enough of my time already on this.

After all we Arabs learnt "a lot in this thread" by a few of those geniuses.

@Kuwaiti Girl fair enough. No harm done but you must be blind (no disrespect) if you cannot see the agenda of those 2 Iranian users in this thread. It screams of obsession and meddling from miles away. You know it, I know it and every educated person knows it.

And I am not a pan-Arabist by any means as I take much more pride in ancient pre-Islamic history of the Arab world and our peoples. Not that I don't admire our Islamic history that shaped human history tremendously and that of the Arabs and our culture but you get the point. I don't take it lightly when some Papuan or Eskimo (examples) try to teach me the history of my people and region or try to steal/change our history due to bias, hatred or obsession. No people take that lightly. I simply won't accept it. Or when some Pakistani in the UK tells me who is an Arab or not or that Hijazi Arabs are not real Arabs but Jews originally or whatever he wrote. Or that we come from Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
.
We know that our behaviour, or the circumstances in which we find ourselves, can change our genetic make-up.

There are important differences between us and our Neanderthal and Denisovan relatives

For instance, most Europeans only developed a tolerance to lactose when our ancestors started to eat more dairy produce. Genetic changes can also occur when large populations are faced with devastating diseases such as the Black Death in the 14th Century, which changed the genes of survivors.

In a similar vein, Hublin proposes that modern humans, at some point, benefited from key genetic changes.

For the first 100,000 years of our existence, modern humans behaved much like Neanderthals. then something changed. Our tools became more complex, around the time when we started developing symbolic artefacts.

We now have genetic evidence to suggest that our DNA changed at some point after we split from the common ancestor we shared with Neanderthals.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we-the-only-human-species-still-alive
 
.
If anyone was still in doubt and somehow "missed" post 128 and all the previous ones in this thread:

Saudi Arabians:

Paleoafrican: 0% South Asian: 0% West Asian: 27,9% Southeast Asian: 0% Sub-Saharan: 0% Atlantic-Baltic: 0% Red Sea: 34,6% East Asian: 0% Mediterranean: 37.5% Siberian: 0%

Egyptians:


Paleoafrican: 0,6% South Asian: 0% West Asian: 24,4% Southeast Asian: 0,2% Sub-Saharan: 12,2% Atlantic-Baltic: 1% Red Sea: 24% East Asian: 0% Mediterranean: 37.5% Siberian: 0%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q1LKZqeQRS28WjwyAQPs5I7QBUWv3Q3mF9bVpJp6eX0/edit#gid=0

The sample was 12 Egyptians and 20 Saudi Arabians. So not 100% accurate but as I wrote earlier and as every single DNA tests shows, Saudi Arabians and Egyptians cluster with each other very, very closely in every DNA test that I have seen whether public or private. As far as haplogroups the two largest haplogroups in both countries and all Arab countries are J and E.

As far as maternal haplogroups the same ones are found in both KSA/Arabia and Egypt and much of the Arab world.

I have posted by now I believe at least 10 difference sources that confirms this as have other users here.

So people are free to judge on their own now. Let's not even talk about common history, geography, ancient human migrations etc.

In short the conclusion = not similar at all.:lol:

I swear on my mother's life go take this discussion with professors in genetics and they will laugh at you if you suggest that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are not closely related let alone other Arabs of the region. Or that Saudi Arabians and Egyptians are somehow more closely related with non-Arabs and people that live 1000's of km away from them.

It is an insult against common logic.

Sorry, I cannot take some of the threads on this forum seriously and certain posts of certain members. Wasted enough of my time already on this.

After all we Arabs learnt "a lot in this thread" by a few of those geniuses.

@Kuwaiti Girl fair enough. No harm done but you must be blind (no disrespect) if you cannot see the agenda of those 2 Iranian users in this thread. It screams of obsession and meddling from miles away. You know it, I know it and every educated person knows it.

And I am not a pan-Arabist by any means as I take much more pride in ancient pre-Islamic history of the Arab world and our peoples. Not that I don't admire our Islamic history that shaped human history tremendously and that of the Arabs and our culture but you get the point. I don't take it lightly when some Papuan or Eskimo (examples) try to teach me the history of my people and region or try to steal/change our history due to bias, hatred or obsession. No people take that lightly. I simply won't accept it. Or when some Pakistani in the UK tells me who is an Arab or not or that Hijazi Arabs are not real Arabs but Jews originally or whatever he wrote. Or that we come from Pakistan.
I really hope you don't think Haplogroups have anything to do with modern-day post-Westphalian ethnicity lol.

Haplogroups J1 and J2 spread across the region during the Ice Age. There were no "Arabs" during the Ice Age. >_<
 
.
Eurasian Origins of Berbers and modern North Africans.

Essentially, about ten thousand years ago a population wave from the near East swept over North Africa, bringing in gracile Mediterranean people in the Capsian era. A later wave of immigration occurred in the Neolithic when the expanding farmers from the near east ploughed their way across North Africa, some leaving artwork in the central Sahara to mark their passage. As far as DNA studies can tell, the Arab invasions that converted North Africans to Islam made virtually no impact to the population; essentially they converted the local population and didn’t replace them. There was a only trace contribution made to North Africa by Europe during the Barbary slavery era, but quite a significant amount of sub Saharan maternal ancestry was added. The modern North African is mainly Eurasian in ancestry, and cluster with Europeans and west Asians. To quote Cavalli Sforza..

Berbers are located primarily in the northern regions of Algeria and Morocco, but somewhat to the interior, usually not far from the sea. . Berbers are believed to have their ancestors among Capsian Mesolithics and their Neolithic descendants, possibly with genetic contributions from the important Neolithic migrations from the Near East. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the Berber (Afro-Asiatic) language was introduced by the Neolithic farmers

Anyway, this page has a few links to DNA studies of North Africans.

Abstract
The process by which pastoralism and agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent over the past 10,000 years has been the subject of intense investigation by geneticists, linguists and archaeologists. However, no consensus has been reached as to whether this Neolithic transition is best characterized by a demicdiffusion (witha significant genetic input from migrating farmers) or a culturaldiffusion (without substantialmigration of farmers). Milk consumption and thus lactose tolerance are assumed to have spread with pastoralism and we propose that by looking at the relevant mutations in and around the lactase gene in human populations, we can gain insight into the origin(s) and spread of dairying. We genotypedthe putatively causal allele for lactose tolerance (–13910T) and constructed haplotypes from several polymorphisms in and around the lactase gene (LCT) in three NorthAfrican Berber populations and compared our results with previously published data. We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralistsfrom the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin withEuropeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans.

Mitochondrial DNA heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers
Berbers live in groups scattered across NorthAfrica whose origins and genetic relationships with their neighbours are not well established. The first hypervariablesegment of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region was sequenced in a total of 155 individuals from three Tunisian Berber groups and compared to other North Africans. The mtDNA lineages found belong to a common set of mtDNA haplogroups already described in NorthAfrica. Besides the autochthonous North African U6 haplogroup, a group of L3 lineages characterized by the transition at position 16041 seems to be restricted to North Africans, suggesting that an expansion of this group of lineages took place around 10500 years ago in NorthAfrica, and spread to neighbouring populations. Principal components and the coordinate analyses show that some Berber groups (the Tuareg, the Mozabite, and the Chenini-Douiret) are outliers within the NorthAfrican genetic landscape. This outlier position is consistent with an isolation process followed by genetic drift in haplotypefrequencies, and with the high heterogeneity displayed by Berbers compared to Arab samples as shown in the AMOVA. Despite this Berber heterogeneity, no significant differences were found between Berber and Arab samples, suggesting that the Arabization was mainly a cultural process rather than a demographic replacement.

Genetic studies have emphasized the contrast between North African and sub-Saharan populations, but the particular affinities of the North African mtDNA pool to that of Europe, the Near East, and sub-Saharan Africa have not previously been investigated. We have analysed 268 mtDNA control-region sequences from various Northwest African populations including severalSenegalese groups and compared these with the mtDNAdatabase. We have identified a few mitochondrial motifs that are geographically specific and likely predate the distribution and diversification of modern language families in North and West Africa. A certain mtDNA motif (16172C, 16219G), previously found in Algerian Berbers at high frequency, is apparently omnipresent in Northwest Africa and may reflect regional continuity of more than 20,000 years. The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic.The Mauritanians and West-Saharans, in contrast, bear substantial though not dominant mtDNAaffinity with sub-Saharans.

This is actually a bit innacurate, as the approximate arrivalof a lot of the Eurasian DNA , excluding U, coincides withthe Neolithic expansion and arrival of the Capsian culture about 10,000 years ago (from Cranio facial studies of ancient Magrebian skulls). The Capsians show a gracile build and small face traceable to the eastern Mediterranean.



The faces of modern North Africa.
===========================================================
There are more studies in the link, all of them are very interesting//
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/

Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography

Abstract
World-wide phylogeographicdistribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands.

Results
Divergence times, geographic origin and expansions of the U6 mitochondrial DNA clade, have been deduced from the analysis of 14 complete U6 sequences, and 56 different haplotypes, characterized by hypervariable segment sequences and RFLPs.

Conclusions
The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghriband the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades(U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/
 
.
Sunshine, I am not bullshiting because I am from the land of Indus, its the archologist themselves (if you don't belive in Islamic scholars) are putting Indus way above in timeline from both Babylon and Egypt. I don't want to put you down further but since you are quite delusional about your civilization, Indus was three times bigger then contemporary Babylon and Egypt "combined"! To add insult to injury, some archecologist believe that Nile was actually "civilised" by a tribe of Indus, just like ancient Hebrews were a tribe of Indus.

No shame in being down the pecking order, your lots did create their own civilization.


Dude stop, just because your civilization is "bigger" which no doubt it was does not make it older. You are acting delusional, the vast majority of Historians and archeologists agree that Egypt is far older then Indus. Nothing is wrong with that and that does not make Indus any worse then it was before.

But acting like your civilization "civilized" mine when we are far older then you is ridiculous and absolutely insane. I suggest you stop at this delusion at once.

Your evidence is off of Christian fundamentalist Young creationism which has been debunked over and over again. So stop.

The Quran supports REAL science, which is Evolution and that the Earth is not 10,000 years old.

Only Idiot christians believe that dumb logic.


Scientists: Geological evidence shows the Great Sphinx is 800,000 years old
http://www.ancient-code.com/scienti...e-shows-the-great-sphinx-is-800000-years-old/

 
Last edited:
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom