New Study: White Europeans have Semitic roots

[hebrewcalendar12]

New Study: White Europeans have Semitic roots
(not a direct quote, but see below)

While I am not 100% sure I agree that this migration happened as long as 10 000 years ago (if we today are truly living only 6000 years after Adam and there were no previous civilizations), nevertheless this article is still interesting.

Direct link to the study itself:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285


Article from the Daily Mail Newspaper's website (UK):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...farmers-left-Iraq-Syria-10-000-years-ago.html

Most Britons descended from male farmers who left Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago (and were seduced by the local hunter-gatherer women)
By David Derbyshire for MailOnline
Updated: 13:37 GMT, 20 January 2010
237

Most Britons are direct descendants of farmers who left modern day Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago, a new study has shown.

After studying the DNA of more than 2,000 men, researchers say they have compelling evidence that four out of five white Europeans can trace their roots to the Near East.

The discovery is shedding light on one of the most important periods of human history - the time when our ancient ancestors abandoned hunting and began to domesticate animals.

Hunters: Chewing harder food meant hunter-gatherers has longer and narrow mandibles

The invention of farming led to the first towns and paved the way for the dawn of civilisation.

The Leicester University study looked at a common genetic mutation on the Y chromosome, the DNA that is passed down from fathers to sons.

They found that 80 per cent of European men shared the same Y chromosone mutation and after analysing how the mutation was distributed across Europe, were able to retrace how Europe was colonised around 8,000BC.

Roots: Britons are descended from farmers who migrated from the Persian Gulf 10,000 years ago according to a new study (file picture)

Prof Mark Jobling, who led the study: 'This was at the time of the Neolithic revolution when they developed a new style of tools, symmetrical, beautiful tools.

'At this stage about 10,000 years ago there was evidence of the first settlements, people stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers and started building communities.

'This also allowed people to specialise in certain areas of trade and make better tools because there was a surplus of food.'

European farming began around 9,000 BC in the Fertile Crescent - a region extending from the eastern Mediterranean coast to the Persian Gulf and which includes modern day Iraq, Syria, Israel and southeast Turkey.

The region was the cradle of civilisation and home to the Babylonia, Sumer and Assyrian empires.

Skills: Professor Mark Jobling says the settlers were more attractive to women because they could grow more food

The development of farming allowed people to settle down for the first time - and to produce more food than they needed, leading to trade and the freedom to develop new skills such as metal working, building and writing.

Some archaeologists have argued that some of these early farmers travelled around the world - settling new lands and bringing farming skills with them.

But others have insisted that the skills were passed on by word of mouth, and not by mass migration.

The new study suggests the farmers routinely upped sticks and moved west when their villages became too crowded, eventually reaching Britain and Ireland.

The waves of migrants brought their new skills with them. Some settled down with local tribes and taught them how to farm, the researchers believe.

'When the expansion happened these men had a reproductive advantage because they were able to grow more food so they were more attractive to women and had more offspring,' said Prof Jobling.

'In total more than 80 per cent of European men have Y chromosomes which descend from incoming farmers.

'It seems odd to think that the majority of men in Ireland have fore fathers from the near East and that British people have forefathers from the near East.'

The findings are published in the science journal PLoS Biology.

Dr Patricia Balaresque, a co-author of the study, said: 'This means that more than 80 per cent of European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers.'

In contrast, other studies have shown that DNA passed down from mothers to daughters can be traced by to hunter-gatherers in Europe, she said.

'To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch from hunting and gathering, to farming - maybe, back then, it was just sexier to be a farmer,' she said.

Europe was first settled by modern humans around 40,000 years ago. But other types of humans - including Neanderthals - were living in Europe hundreds of thousands of years earlier.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...raq-Syria-10-000-years-ago.html#ixzz4QUDPD7Bf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Direct link to the study itself:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285

 

[Philip_B]

From the Anglo Saxon Chronicle

The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda, from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).​

The Anglo Saxon Chronicles are some of the earliest documents of British history, begun quite possibly assembled at the instruction of King Arthur. It seems that this is a very early tradition in relation to origins.

 

[hebrewcalendar12]

Thanks Philip_B

Great comment.
I was not aware of what the Anglo Saxon Chronicles say above, so that's really interesting. It's also interesting that the Declaration of Arbroath (Scottish Declaration of Independance) makes very similar claims, even to the promised land itself, if I remember correctly.

These things are all too much of a coincidence not to be true and now the genetic evidence is proving that these claims are more than just mythology. DNA doesn't lie.

I predict that not only will it be proven more and more by other scholars, like those in this article above, that European Haplogroup R1b actually comes from the Middle East and is only relatively rare there today because those people mostly migrated to Europe in ancient times leaving little DNA behind, but ALSO that so called Semitic Y-DNA haplogroup J2 actually originates in ancient Anatolia (Asia Minor, or modern Turkey) and NOT the Middle East as now claimed by the mainstream. To this day it is high in Turkey and parts of the Caucasus, higher in fact than in modern Jew and arabs. The origin I believe, will be changed to Asia Minor once enough evidence builds up.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

From the Anglo Saxon Chronicle

The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda, from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).​

The Anglo Saxon Chronicles are some of the earliest documents of British history, begun quite possibly assembled at the instruction of King Arthur. It seems that this is a very early tradition in relation to origins.

Firstly, King Arthur was a leader of the Britons against the Anglo-Saxon invaders. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was likely compiled in the 9th century towards the end of Alfred the Great's reign of which 9 different versions remain. These were then continued by various monks and updated and revised up till at least 1154. It is made up of various sources, some contemporary, some not and although an important historical document, it has significant flaws. For instance it claims an eponymous Wihtgar as the origin of the name isle of Wight, although it is conclusively derived from the Roman name Vectis.
It shows clear bias for certain figures and obvious derivation from multiple sources in others, like listing different dates in different years for Edward the Confessor's marriage.

It is prone to mediaeval fantasy and should be cautiously used as a source for its own period, but on periods outside its scope it should be taken with much more than a pinch of salt.

Thanks Philip_B

Great comment.
I was not aware of what the Anglo Saxon Chronicles say above, so that's really interesting. It's also interesting that the Declaration of Arbroath (Scottish Declaration of Independance) makes very similar claims, even to the promised land itself, if I remember correctly.

These things are all too much of a coincidence not to be true and now the genetic evidence is proving that these claims are more than just mythology. DNA doesn't lie.

I predict that not only will it be proven more and more by other scholars, like those in this article above, that European Haplogroup R1b actually comes from the Middle East and is only relatively rare there today because those people mostly migrated to Europe in ancient times leaving little DNA behind, but ALSO that so called Semitic Y-DNA haplogroup J2 actually originates in ancient Anatolia (Asia Minor, or modern Turkey) and NOT the Middle East as now claimed by the mainstream. To this day it is high in Turkey and parts of the Caucasus, higher in fact than in modern Jew and arabs. The origin I believe, will be changed to Asia Minor once enough evidence builds up.

It has been known from contemporary Archaeology that farmers infiltrated and settled Europe gradually from the Middle East long before genetic evidence. This can be seen by the very spread of agriculture, tools and art. Later migrations are tied up with the various waves of the Indo-European language family that settled Europe at various times.
Genetic evidence here actually just corrobarates what history already thought, so is unlikely to make massive changes. Besides, haplogroups are poor markers of ethnicity, language or culture. A further problem is bottleneck ancestors like the fact that a quarter of Mongolians are likely descendants of Genghis Khan or a 7th of Irishmen of Niall of the nine hostages. This makes it difficult to track populations back to origin, as it might just have been a single individual who migrated and ended up extraordinarily fecund and successful. I don't know what you are hoping for, but a Noahide descent being shown is exceedingly unlikely.

As to the legendary descent: The Scots claimed descent from an Egyptian princess, Scotia, a daughter of the Pharoah of Exodus. Mediaeval writers claimed Britain was named for Brutus, a grandson of Aeneas of Troy.
These are laughable and ridiculous accounts which cannot be supported in any way.

Other things like the various invasions of Ireland by Tuatha de Danaan and their ilk, if euhemerised to movements of peoples, actually make some sense when examining p- and q-Celtic language groups. The idea of q-celtic entering Ireland from Spain is quite possible.
Similarly, to Roman writers Scythia was a wide arc from the Black Sea up till the Baltics and perhaps including Scandinavia. This makes a Pictish arrival from Scandinavia not beyond the pale, but unprovable.

The Idea of the Britons being from Armenia though, is likely a transcription error. This is thought to refer to Armorica, otherwise known as Brittany, and corroborates the Roman, Greek and Archaeological sources. The scribes were unfamiliar with the old name as it had become completely eclipsed by the term Brittany in the post-Roman period and thus 'corrected' it to a term they were familiar with. So while a legitimate ancient tradition, it probably refers to a move accross the channel rather than accross Europe.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I very much hope we can avoid descending into British Israelitism on this point.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As cool an idea it might be that I'm a secret Hebrew, the reality is that I'm not. If I have a drop of Jacob's blood in me then it is only due to recent history, not ancient history. I have no doubt that plenty of Europeans have some Jewish ancestry, but such ancestry would be attributed to the Diaspora.

British Israelism (and related nonsense) is unadulterated heifer dust.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Philip_B]

I think we are taking this somewhere where we do not need to go. Firstly the Hebrews were not the only Semitic group. Scythia, which I mentioned above in a quote from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle is a relatively wide area of central Eurasia to the north of the Levant, and so a long way from suggesting anything like British Israelism.

The matter of the OP addresses is referring to time zones somewhat before Abram in the land of Ur of the Chaldees and indeed before the First Kingdom of Scythia.

 

[JackRT]

unadulterated heifer dust

I suspect that is very similar to pure male bovine excrement?