Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 109

Thread: On the origin of E-M183

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    100
    Sex
    Location
    Azerbaijan
    Y-DNA
    E-Y37093
    mtDNA
    F2f

    Azerbaijan
    E-M183 occured 14 Kya, but it's TMRCA is 2.6 Kya only. Such situation called "bottleneck" and states autosomal status quo only for later period.
    Modern Maghreeb peoples autosomal portrait us not the same as 14 Kya of course.

    Levantine inclusions traced to late Islamic period.

  2. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    105
    Sex
    Location
    Land of Gomer
    Ethnicity
    Amorite
    Y-DNA
    E-M183
    mtDNA
    U4b

    Quote Originally Posted by Farroukh View Post
    E-M183 occured 14 Kya, but it's TMRCA is 2.6 Kya only. Such situation called "bottleneck" and states autosomal status quo only for later period.
    Modern Maghreeb peoples autosomal portrait us not the same as 14 Kya of course.

    Levantine inclusions traced to late Islamic period.
    Apart from Palestinian refugees, there was never a "wide" Levantine migration in Post-Carthage Maghreb.

  3. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    105
    Sex
    Location
    Land of Gomer
    Ethnicity
    Amorite
    Y-DNA
    E-M183
    mtDNA
    U4b

    While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Archeology of society in the Holy Land, Page 65
    Arensburg (1973) suggested that the Natufians and their descendants formed a 'core' population in Israel that could be traced down to recent periods, but was added to, or temporarly displaced at certain times.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Archeology of society in the Holy Land, Page 69
    Most of the MBII samples that have been studied are dated to the MBIIB or MBIIC. Specimens studied here are derived from Efrat, Nahal Refaim, Tel Dan, Ganei HaTa'arucha, Megiddo, Sasa and Hazor (see Figure 4.). They show significant differences from all of the earlier populations in this region in craniofacial characteristics.In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurementsshown in Figure 5, abd the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of microevolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Archeology of society in the Holy Land, Page 69-71
    From the MBII to recent periods the archeological and written records suggest very rapid change as well as considerable admixture.Space limitation preclude a detailed discussion of all the population samples associated with the different cultures identified, but a brief overview is presented here. For the Late Bronze Age there are a few specimens from Megiddo (Hrdlicka 1938) and Tel Dan (Arensburg, 1973) that appear to be intermediate in physical characteristics between the MBII and the Iron Age Phoenicians from Achziv. They are, however, too few for detailed analysis and were ommited from the statistical calculations

    The Iron Age is represented by the Phoenicians Achzib (Smith et al. 1993), a small sample of the First Temple Jews from Jerusalem (Aresnburg and Rak 1985) and the large Iron Age sample from Lachish (Risdon 1939). The Iron Age Phoenicians from Achzib most closely ressemble Late Bronze Age sample from Megiddo, followed by the MBII samples, whereas Lachish more closely ressembles the 'core' population represented both by the pre-MBII populations and by the more recent Arab population. The First Temple Jews from Jerusalem appear to lie between the two, but the sample is too small for rigorous statistical analysis [Plate 8).

    It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.
    Last edited by Shamayim; 03-10-2019 at 05:34 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Shamayim For This Useful Post:

     Farroukh (03-11-2019)

  5. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    100
    Sex
    Location
    Azerbaijan
    Y-DNA
    E-Y37093
    mtDNA
    F2f

    Azerbaijan
    But why don't you consider Arabian invasion in Maghreeb and islamization factor of Levantine/Arabia admixture?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Farroukh For This Useful Post:

     Missouri1455 (03-11-2019)

  7. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    223
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Shamayim View Post
    While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!








    It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.
    There's a big evidence that most of these Levantine effects most likely happend 2500-3000 years ago; but we should also never rule out the Levantine effects of post islamic invasions; because modern Maghrebi genome is shifted far from isolated Berbers such as Chenini-Douriet who are seen as proxy berber; so we can't fully dismiss a post Islamic admixture.

    msw218f1.jpg
    Last edited by Missouri1455; 03-11-2019 at 03:27 AM.

  8. #26
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    3,738
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA
    J1-YSC234 (Z18271+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamayim View Post
    While i was reading "The Archeology of society in the Holy Land" i found some interesting passages!








    It seems clear that all current Bronze Age samples (Lazaridis et al. 2016; Haber et al. 2017) aren't Semitic speakers and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters, if Lachish samples (Amorites) are tested one day, they will be packed with E-M81 and E-M123. I'd like to add that it is not the first time that geneticists test the "wrong" site (Schuenemann et al. 2017) and end-up with an elevated amount of J instead of E.
    The only thing that is clear so far is your unfamiliarity with Levantine archeology.

    First off, the samples from Ayn Ghazal predate the MBA II period, the dates range from the EBA III to the EBA IV/MB I, in case you've already forgotten these samples are J2b1-M205 and J1-Z2324 (so these lineages definitely did not arrive during the MB II, they arrived earlier). More importantly, the intrusive MB II population that is mentioned here is closely linked to the MB IIA-B/C transition which saw the return to an urban lifestyle throughout the region, the cultural assemblage associated is tied to Amorite settlement, here is a map of the sites exhibiting the hallmarks of the Amorite cultural assemblage:

     


    This cultural assemblage originated in the Northern Levant and spread southwards. More importantly, Ugarit was continually occupied starting from the MB IIB (it had previously been a necropolis), all the way down to the LBA collapse with no interruption by which time we have written evidence of the Ugaritic language. Likewise, Tell eḍ-Ḍabʿa (Avaris) basically looks like a large Amorite settlement, this coincides with the arrival of the NW Semitic-speaking "Asiatics" in Egypt and indeed, Avaris was the capital of the XVth dynasty (the Hyksos dynasty). The MB IIA-B/C transition also coincides with the appearance in the highlands of historical Judea-Samaria of toponyms which follow a pattern widespread in the Amorite kingdoms of Syria, this too is bound to be associated with the Amorite cultural assemblage and probably some form of migration from the north. The coastal areas were not affected by this intrusive group (as you can see on the map) and retained older patterns in the place names, more to the point the Sidonian samples date back to the MB IIB/C period, as you can see Sidon did not have the Amorite cultural assemblage and its re-urbanisation was a local phenomenon, in other words these samples are unlikely to have arrived with the MB II migrants (Amorites). This is further evidence that J1-L862 and J2b1-M205's presence in the Levant predates the MB II period.

    Long story short: You have no idea what you're talking about and are misinterpreting the evidence in order to promote a strange narrative where a typically NW African branch of E-Z827 closely tied to the spread of Libyco-Berber somehow becomes Canaanite. If you're going to peddle absurd theories, you might as well try to put some effort into it.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 03-11-2019 at 04:36 AM.
    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  9. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     beyoku (03-11-2019),  drobbah (03-11-2019),  hartaisarlag (03-11-2019),  Kelmendasi (03-11-2019),  Megalophias (03-11-2019),  Michalis Moriopoulos (03-11-2019),  palamede (03-11-2019),  Power77 (03-11-2019),  Pribislav (03-13-2019),  Ruderico (03-11-2019),  Tz85 (03-12-2019)

  10. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    105
    Sex
    Location
    Land of Gomer
    Ethnicity
    Amorite
    Y-DNA
    E-M183
    mtDNA
    U4b

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    The only thing that is clear so far is your unfamiliarity with Levantine archeology.
    First off, the samples from Ayn Ghazal predate the MBA II period, the dates range from the EBA III to the EBA IV/MB I, in case you've already forgotten these samples are J2b1-M205 and J1-Z2324 (so these lineages definitely did not arrive during the MB II, they arrived earlier). More importantly, the intrusive MB II population that is mentioned here is closely linked to the MB IIA-B/C transition which saw the return to an urban lifestyle throughout the region,
    I did not mention Ayn Ghazal samples, I did talk about Coastal Canaanites (Sidon_BA) who as a reminder are dated between 3750 to 3650 BP i.e. MBAIIB (1700 BC). The pre-MBA population of Israel, including Sidon, was closer to the IA Lachish samples than to the post-MBA coastal populations of Israel. This claim was made by fully-fledged archeologists and anthropologists, not by me btw.
    As for Ayn Ghazal samples, not only are they outside of the Natufian core area but they were most likely descended from natives displaced by Proto-Canaanitic Natufians.

     

    the cultural assemblage associated is tied to Amorite settlement, here is a map of the sites exhibiting the hallmarks of the Amorite cultural assemblage:
    Your map confuses Amorite settlements with Hanean settlements and even Hurrian settlements (Hazor, Schechem, Megiddo). Again, the Amorites were a group of the Jebusites who themselves were a group of the Haneans, what laymen mistakenly call Amorites. The Amorites/Jebusites inhabited the central part of Israel i.e. Lachish, Hebron, Eglon, Jerusalem and Jarmuth.

    This cultural assemblage originated in the Northern Levant and spread southwards. More importantly, Ugarit was continually occupied starting from the MB IIB (it had previously been a necropolis), all the way down to the LBA collapse with no interruption by which time we have written evidence of the Ugaritic language. Likewise, Tell eḍ-Ḍabʿa (Avaris) basically looks like a large Amorite settlement, this coincides with the arrival of the NW Semitic-speaking "Asiatics" in Egypt and indeed, Avaris was the capital of the XVth dynasty (the Hyksos dynasty). The MB IIA-B/C transition also coincides with the appearance in the highlands of historical Judea-Samaria of toponyms which follow a pattern widespread in the Amorite kingdoms of Syria, this too is bound to be associated with the Amorite cultural assemblage and probably some form of migration from the north. The coastal areas were not affected by this intrusive group (as you can see on the map) and retained older patterns in the place names, more to the point the Sidonian samples date back to the MB IIB/C period, as you can see Sidon did not have the Amorite cultural assemblage and its re-urbanisation was a local phenomenon, in other words these samples are unlikely to have arrived with the MB II migrants (Amorites). This is further evidence that J1-L862 and J2b1-M205's presence in the Levant predates the MB II period.
    Ugarit, like other cities in the Levant, was multiethnic. There were several languages (Hurrian, Hititte, Akkadian, Egyptian) spoken there beside "Ugaritic". The so-called Amorite kingdoms in Syria were in fact Yamin and Sim'al Kingdoms, the actual Amorites from Lachish were identical to the 'core' E1b1b population and unrelated to MBAII invaders. Your so called Bronze Age Amorite migrants are merely Hurrians.

    Long story short: You have no idea what you're talking about and are misinterpreting the evidence in order to promote a strange narrative where a typically NW African branch of E-Z827 closely tied to the spread of Libyco-Berber somehow becomes Canaanite. If you're going to peddle absurd theories, you might as well try to put some effort into it.
    What is clear to me, is that you're quite adept at sophistry and strawmaning. You strawmaned my entire view based on the fact that i mistakenly mentioned "Lazaridis et al. 2016" and conveniently ignored what came right after: "and that Coastal "Canaanites", their descendants, are language shifters". I understand that you deeply want to be "Afroasiatic" but it appears that you are the descendant of Pre-Canaanitic language shifters, not E-Z827 Hamites.
    Last edited by Shamayim; 03-11-2019 at 07:51 PM.

  11. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    105
    Sex
    Location
    Land of Gomer
    Ethnicity
    Amorite
    Y-DNA
    E-M183
    mtDNA
    U4b

    Quote Originally Posted by A Companion to the Ancient Near East, Page 130-131
    Two great confederations were active in the region of present-day northeastern Syria: the Bensimalites, ‘‘The Sons of the North,’’ who originally occupied the region of the triangle of the upper Habur tributaries, and the Benjaminites, ‘‘The Sons of the South,’’ who occupied the Syrian steppe along the Euphrates, from the zone around Mari, known as The Banks of the Euphrates, upstream between the Euphrates and the Balih River (Anbar 1985: 24). The Bensimalites at some time came to occupy the Middle Euphrates and were then called Yaradu, ‘‘those who descended,’’ and displaced some groups of the Benjaminites, subjecting those who remained. This factwas at the origin of the Benjaminite hostility toward the Bensimalites. The Mari rulers Yahdun-lim and Zimri-lim, of Bensimalite ancestry, thus gave themselves the title King of Mari and of the land of the Haneans with which they tried to reclaim at the same time the sovereignty over the urban state of Mari as well as over all the tribal groups, including Bensimalites and Benjaminites, both of them under a common denomination of Haneans (Charpin and Durand 1985: 337)
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters to the King of Mari, Page 15
    Zimri-Lim was a Simªal and his kingdom in essence a Simªal government that subjugated the Yamina living within the borders of the kingdom. There were about one dozen Simªal clans.39 Groups constituting the clan of Nihad are called subclans by Anbar.40 In 24 235, two members of the Amurru clan are classified as Yabasu, so Amurru appears to be a sub-clan of Yabasu.
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters to the King of Mari, Page 34-35
    The use of the designation “Hana” presents an interesting semantic field that was discovered step by step and still presents difficulties. Kupper, in his classic study of 1957 on nomadism in Mari,103 encountered passages in which Hana and Yamina are contrasted and concluded that the term “Hana” designates a tribal unit on the same level as Yamina and Simªal. This view became untenable when the expression “Yamina Hana” was found. I. Gelb concluded that an originally ethnic designation “Hana” had developed into the generic term “nomad, Bedouin.”104 Charpin and Durand concluded from the same evidence that “Hana” must designate a tribal unit above the Yamina and Simªal.105 As more passages were published, the usefulness of Gelb’s translation became ever more apparent and was adopted generally, as well as by Durand, who then declared that the term did not designate ethnicity. 106 I believe we should retain Gelb’s, Charpin’s, and Durand’s original conclusion and allow both meanings of “Hana” to coexist. In fact, contexts indicate three meanings: (1) the ancestral tribal unit from which the Simªal and Yamutbal, and probably also the Yamina and Numha, considered themselves to be descended; (2) pasturalists or nomads, regardless of tribal identity; and (3) Simªal pasturalists. The first meaning is clearly attested in sources outside Mari. Hana, spelled Hia- na, appears as an ancestor of Amorite tribal groups, including the Numha, Awnan, and Yahrur, in a late Old Babylonian text that lists the recipients of offerings given and organized by the king of Babylon for his ancestors.107 In the Assyrian king list, Hana, here spelled Ha-nu-ú, appears as one of seventeen kings in the past “who dwelt in tents.” The relevant passage probably dates to the time of Samsi-Adad.108 At Mari, this meaning is attested in A.3572,109 if I understand the passage correctly: Hittipanum, a servant of Atamrum, king of Andarig in the Hilly Arc, writes Bahdi- Lim, the governor of the district of Mari, complaining about Hana, who took some property belonging to a Yamutbal: “[Yamutbal] and Simªal have always related as brothers and are divisions110 of Hana. And, without being aware (of this), Hana pillaged household goods of your brothers, the Yamutbal. Are the Yamutbal not your brothers?” If brotherhood with Simªal implies descent from Hana, the Numha were presumably also regarded as being a group of Hana, because they likewise declared themselves to be a “brother of Simªal” (A.3577).

    In view of the correspondence of terms—the Simªal as northerners and the Yamina as southerners—the Yamina may also have been considered as descendants of Hana. If so, Hana would essentially equal our term “Amorite.” An intriguing passage in 28 95 may be relevant here, too: inhabitants of the city of Kiduh in the land of Apum in the center of the Northern Plains were described as follows: “Those men are sons (dumu.mes) of Hana (Hanaki). They are not citizens of his (Ili-Estar’s) land (of Suna).”

    Below is a graph summarizing the Hanean genealogy:
    Attachment 29294

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Shamayim For This Useful Post:

     palamede (03-11-2019)

  13. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    30
    Sex
    Location
    Canada
    Ethnicity
    Arab
    Nationality
    Tunisia
    Y-DNA
    J-YSC76 J-ZS1727
    mtDNA
    H7

    Tunisia Canada Quebec Saudi Arabia Palestine Egypt Jordan
    TMRCA of E-m81 is between 1900 and 2300 years, exactly the time Carthaginian cities collapsed.
    we can imagine an immigration from south or from interior part of North west Africa i(the mountains and deserts).
    Samples in the levant with E-m81 descend certainly from Fatimide berber spldiers who conquered Egypt and parts of the Levant.
    The Euro-asiatic autosomal of the e-m81 samples is due to the mtdna not to ydna. 80% of feminine samples in North Africa are of Euro-Asiatic and Middle-eastern origin.
    Remember the ancient Greek called people living in the carthaginian frontier Mauri and ethiopians : They were Black
    The Libyan inscriptions found in dugga in Tunisia are of an unknown language which is the sister of Berber and Egyptian but not berber. We assume that those Mauri/Mauritanians were the brothers of fulani and ancient west Egyptians. R-V88 of the Fulani/Siwa must have lived in North west africa too. It is responsible for the spread of chadic languages and perhaps berber.
    the berber e-m81 and libyan e-v65, in my opinion lived between Egypt and Libya perhaps close to the Lake chad.
    Nothing links Berbers to Phoenicians in coastal cities in north west africa, even the name Lbw or Libyans in Punic appeared after the invasion of Rome, no text before the invasion mentions them or an other tribe.
    the collapse of Carthaginian cities and the advance of "Numides" which means Nomads was due in part to the Berbers.

  14. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    105
    Sex
    Location
    Land of Gomer
    Ethnicity
    Amorite
    Y-DNA
    E-M183
    mtDNA
    U4b

    Quote Originally Posted by sam-iJ-ZS1727 View Post
    TMRCA of E-m81 is between 1900 and 2300 years, exactly the time Carthaginian cities collapsed.
    we can imagine an immigration from south or from interior part of North west Africa i(the mountains and deserts).
    Samples in the levant with E-m81 descend certainly from Fatimide berber spldiers who conquered Egypt and parts of the Levant.
    The Euro-asiatic autosomal of the e-m81 samples is due to the mtdna not to ydna. 80% of feminine samples in North Africa are of Euro-Asiatic and Middle-eastern origin.
    Remember the ancient Greek called people living in the carthaginian frontier Mauri and ethiopians : They were Black
    The Libyan inscriptions found in dugga in Tunisia are of an unknown language which is the sister of Berber and Egyptian but not berber. We assume that those Mauri/Mauritanians were the brothers of fulani and ancient west Egyptians. R-V88 of the Fulani/Siwa must have lived in North west africa too. It is responsible for the spread of chadic languages and perhaps berber.
    the berber e-m81 and libyan e-v65, in my opinion lived between Egypt and Libya perhaps close to the Lake chad.
    Nothing links Berbers to Phoenicians in coastal cities in north west africa, even the name Lbw or Libyans in Punic appeared after the invasion of Rome, no text before the invasion mentions them or an other tribe.
    the collapse of Carthaginian cities and the advance of "Numides" which means Nomads was due in part to the Berbers.
    E-M81 is clearly linked to the Amoritic expansion as demonstrated above. As for E-M81 being linked to blackness, the populations with the highest frequencies of E-M81 are also the whitest, the most Arab-admixed and Native-admixed populations are typically more SSA-looking which isn't surprising considering that the Arab homeland is right next to Ethiopia, and that J* and J1 peak among two black populations, namely Socotris and Yemenis. Blackness in North Africa is linked to three sources: Natives (E-V65), Arabs (J1) and West Africans (E-M2).

    Here's a few quote of ancient authors on the phenotype of Libyans, here the word Libyan isn't ethnic but geographic and most likely designated the E-M81 Canaanites:

    Quote Originally Posted by Scylax, Periplous
    And there live around it all the Libyans and a city beyond towards the sun’s setting; for all these people are said to be fair, frugal and very beautiful.
    Note that Scylax speaks of "a city beyond towards the sun's setting" i.e. the West, here he is clearly talking about the Westernmost Libyans aka the Moors/Amorites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo
    Greatly, indeed, did Phoebus rejoice as the belted warriors of Enyo danced with the yellow-haired Libyan women, when the appointed season of the Carnean feast came round.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucan, Pharsalia
    This band with Libyan, that with auburn hair ; Red so that Caesar on the banks of Rhine ; None such had witnessed; some with features scorched ; By torrid suns, their locks in twisted coil.
    The Egyptians had already noted that North Africa wasn't homogeneous but that there were two populations: the Black Tehennu linked to E-V65, and the White Temehu linked to E-M81.
    Quote Originally Posted by Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics: Papers of the Third International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Page 249
    It would seem that Atlantic itself was not a homogenous unity, judging from Libyans depicted by the Ancient Egyptians; Thus the Tehenu were of Mediterranean type and physically ressembled the Egyptians while the fair Temehu, shown wearing long learther cloacks, seem to have belonged to a different civilization. Perhaps the word afawwu 'cloack' in Shilha belongs to the language of the Temehu.
    White Temehu
    Libyan_from_Rameses_II_mortuary_temple2.jpg

    Black Tehenu
    Tehenu.png

    The Iron Age Maghreb crania are almost identical to the Lachish crania that differs significantly from the much closer Iron Age Phoenician crania from Achziv. Culturally speaking, Iron Age North Africans and Lachish Amorites were the only populations to practice angular trephination, this practice set them apart from the whole Mediterranea.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Analysis of Crania From Tell-Duweir Using Multiple Discriminant Functions
    F3.PNG
    The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted. Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series receiving a very small percentage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cranial deformation and trephination in the Middle East
    The kind of cranial trephination found at the site of Timna in the Negev, which refers to sometime between the end о the Iron Age and end of the Roman period, is of the angular type (Ferembach, 1957), similar to the trephination in two of the skulls from Lachish. Hence it differs from the round trephining found in all the Hellenistic — Roman specimens. As previously noted the angular trephination especially appears to be associated with a very low rate of survival, indicated by lack of healing of the wound in the skull, and may have been practiced for ritual rather than for therapeutic reasons. Ferembach has remarked that the Lachish and Timna trephinations were identical with those found in North Africa in the 3rd century B.C.E. dolmens of Roknia and in modern Berber crania from the Aures mountains.
    Last edited by Shamayim; 03-13-2019 at 02:16 PM.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. X2M'N Origin?
    By Maximilian in forum X
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 08:44 PM
  2. Ancestral origin and Haplogroup origin
    By Smilelover in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 10:26 AM
  3. Origin of E ?
    By #YoloSwag in forum E
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-16-2016, 12:28 PM
  4. Origin(s) of Y-DNA J
    By Agamemnon in forum J
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 11:08 PM
  5. DE/YAP+ origin?
    By Ezana in forum Other
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-14-2012, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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