Haplo Thread

Why did IJ replace C and E so bad? Also, why did J adopt E lingo?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Idk probably just intermixed the languages and bwc is better for non white woman non white men are pretty bad in bed as well white men are more passionate romantic freaky different etc

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What haplogroup is the guy on the left?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      J

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Shouldn't CHG be haplo I?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          no, maybe G though

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Afroasiatic is almost certainly not an E language. It's a Nostratic, so Eurasian laguage. Who knows what happened that E1b1b became the dominant Afroasiatic lineage.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Haplogroup e used to be even more dominant in Arabia etc

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Haplogroup e used to be even more dominant in Arabia etc
        no it wasnt, this is literally a meme made up by afrocentrists who claim they wuz black

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          E was once the majority in Arabia. J near completely replaced proto West Asians

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We don't know that.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We know natufians were E and modern Arabs are mostly natufian with 15% CHG and are sort of uniformly J not E.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Natufians from the Levant. They did not live in Arabia. We don't have any Arabian samples.
            PPN in the Levant was mostly E1b1b, PPN in Anatolia G2a, now we have PPN samples from Iraq and they are J.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          No I’m talking about Cushitic people honers dark skin cuacsiods not Blacks Haplogroup e is not the original Bantu Haplogroup it was a and b

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Black = African Americans who are Bantus/west Africans

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not Haplogroup e they were a and b Hamitic people used to be all over east Africa parts of Sudan Yemeni etc

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      But got replaced by j native Arabians look like horn of Africans which used to be all in Yemeni and all over east Africa and Sudan so wouldn’t surprise me the amount of mixing that happened

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It is an E language. E men conquered CHG Proto-Arabs just like they are conquering Europeans today.

      Soon R1beta will pretend to be the true Semites like J1ncels do.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        just because your ancestors got raped by horners doesnt mean everyone did

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          If afroasiatic is E, why are most of them I?

          [...]
          It's not about that. DE is simply very deeply removed from CF and its languages. Afroasiatic is considered Nostratic - belonging to the same macrofamily as other Eurasian languages - including Kartvelian, Dravidian, Sumerian, whatever and the Eurasiatic languages such as Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic.
          There's simply no way for E to be the original Afroasiatic speakers.

          I'm guessing some kind of proto-proto Afroasiatic was brought to Africa by West Eurasians at some early date. Maybe by Aurignacians.

          You will never be an Afroasitic woman. You will always be a self-hating CHG cattle;

          >S10769.E1.L1 Megiddo_MLBA E1b
          >S10770.E1.L1 Megiddo_MLBA E1b
          >The two Megiddo individuals with the next lowest Neolithic Levant component (I10769 and I10770, brothers) were found near the monumental tomb that was likely related to the palace at Megiddo, raising the possibility that they might be associated with the ruling caste.

          >Level H-15, Late Bronze I. The sampled burial, with two individuals (I10769 and I10770), was found above the monumental tomb of Level H-16; those who dug it were probably aware of this association.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Egyptian elite samples (Hawass et al. 2012) are all E1b1a, Semitic elite samples (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Andalusian/Berber elite samples (Silvio et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Cushitic elite samples (Sirak et al. 2021) are almost all E1b1b with a few T.

            It's over CHGcels.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Egyptian elite samples (Hawass et al. 2012) are all E1b1a, Semitic elite samples (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Andalusian/Berber elite samples (Silvio et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Cushitic elite samples (Sirak et al. 2021) are almost all E1b1b with a few T.

            It's over CHGcels.

            You really aren't good at this. Like, lol. Two skeletons found near a monumental tomb, not even inside it is a proof that E1b1b were Semitic elites, lol?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            let's see what we have her:
            1. a paper citing some observations on a burial
            2. some cuck crying

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, you cited it. Do you really think elites would be buried outside of the monumental tomb? Also, the main difference between these two guys is their lower Natufian ancestry. They are more CHG than others. The authors actually think they could be Hurrians, not Semites.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >nooooo my butthurt opinion is more relevant than an actual paper
            el oh el, get some butthurt cream on your hurt ass

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But I just said what they claimed in the paper. You are the one who disagree with it. The paper claims that these E1b1b guys are not Semites, but possibly Hurrians ruling over Semites (Canaanites) carrying mostly J1.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            ok, we'll make it easy on you, show me your paper, the one you wrote on the subject
            el oh el

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe. They were found inside the burial site of the royal family.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They weren't. If they were post all those grave goods they were buried with.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Semitic elites were buried without grave goods to avoid being desecrated.

            >I, Tabnit, priest of Astarte, king of Sidon, the son of
            >Eshmunazar, priest of Astarte, king of Sidon, am lying in this sarcophagus.
            >Whoever you are, any man that might find this sarcophagus,

            >don't, don't open it and don't disturb me,
            >for no silver is gathered with me, no gold is gathered with me, nor anything of value whatsoever

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In the month of Bul, in the fourteenth year of the reign of king Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians
            ...
            >may he not search in it after anything because nothing whatsoever has been placed into it. And may he not move the coffin of my resting-place, nor carry me

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed, a ruler of Taanach (a town located immediately to the south of Megiddo) mentioned in a 15th century BCE cuneiform tablet found at the site and the rulers of Megiddo and Taanach mentioned in the 14th century BCE Amarna letters (found in Egypt) carry Hurrian names (a language spoken in the northeast of the ancient Near East, possibly including the Caucasus) (Na’aman, 1994b). This provides some evidence—albeit so far only suggestive—that at least some of the ruling groups in these (and other) cities might have originated from the northeast of the ancient Near East.

            They have slightly less Natufian than other samples which is why they think they might be Hurrians. The paper claims something complete opposite to what you say.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            By the way, this is your "elite" E1b1b burial.

            >Simple pit burial, containing two individuals
            They were not buried inside the tomb. There's actually a sample from the tomb, but it's a woman.

            >Masonry-constructed chamber tomb with multiple inhumations

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Most burials are simple pit or jar burials. I1669 and I1770 are considered to be elite because of their location not because the way they were buried.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The elite samples have as much Semitic ancestry as the other samples, you are confusing them I2200 and I10100 who are commoners.

            >We divided the 26 high-coverage individuals from Tel Megiddo into the following groups, on the basis of geographic location, archaeological period, and genetic clustering in PCA (Table S1): Intermediate Bronze Age (Megiddo_IBA, a single individual), Middle-to-Late Bronze Age (Megiddo_MLBA, 22 individuals), Iron Age (Megiddo_IA, a single individual), as well as the two outliers, Megiddo_I2200 and Megiddo_I10100, which were each treated as a separate group.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not. Did you even read the paper? I don't know why you do this. Why you shitpost so much about this topic.

            The Megiddo outliers are Aryans, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.
            >The two Megiddo individuals with the next lowest Neolithic Levant component (I10769 and I10770, brothers) were found near the monumental tomb that was likely related to the palace at Megiddo, raising the possibility that they might be associated with the ruling caste.
            Literally from the paper you cite so often. Literally the same samples you claim are Semitic elites while quoting a paper that considers them possibly related to Hurrian elites.
            Why are you so dishonest? This part is right before the one you quoted.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >possibly related to Hurrian elites
            Their headcannon doesn't make sense. E1b1b was present in the Levant long before the arrival of the Hurrians, furthermore, E1b1b has never been found in the Caucasus.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's been found in some samples from Caucasus.

            Your headcanon makes even less sense. We have J dominated Levant from the time when it was inhabited by Semites. Now we have one Assyrian sample, with J and few other samples that are probably Arameans. Also with J.

            Yet you claim that all those people were not Semties, but the very few E1b1b guys were the only Semites. It's complete nonsense.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            it's funny how some people try to argue with their feefees against actual research papers, lmfao

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The paper disagrees with you, you know that? It literally says that the haplogroup you associate with Semites belonged to Hurrians who ruled over them. Why do you ignore that?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Egyptian elite samples (Hawass et al. 2012) are all E1b1a, Semitic elite samples (Agranat-Tamir et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Andalusian/Berber elite samples (Silvio et al. 2021) are all E1b1b, Cushitic elite samples (Sirak et al. 2021) are almost all E1b1b with a few T.

            It's over CHGcels.

            >E(lites) were toppled by impoverished J1(okers) fighting SOCIE(1b)TY.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If afroasiatic is E, why are most of them I?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          *J

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          *J

          It's not about that. DE is simply very deeply removed from CF and its languages. Afroasiatic is considered Nostratic - belonging to the same macrofamily as other Eurasian languages - including Kartvelian, Dravidian, Sumerian, whatever and the Eurasiatic languages such as Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic.
          There's simply no way for E to be the original Afroasiatic speakers.

          I'm guessing some kind of proto-proto Afroasiatic was brought to Africa by West Eurasians at some early date. Maybe by Aurignacians.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >why did J adopt E lingo
    mass cucking of J by E

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *