steve789

You would like a definition of "some"? Would you like a definition of "not all"? How about a list of Greeks who wre cremated..its much larger then the ones who were mummified, starting with the Ptolemies.

Thats' becasue the Greek travelled aroung the Med.....and the Egyptians not so much. That why you will find Greek foot prints in the mid east but not african in rome.... So I guess that is your explanation for the Iranians being clustered with the Europeans too, their traveling roots? You will find Roman ones in the mid east. Hate to break it you but the Greeks were not the only people to travel the world. And that genetic marker as it was stated to you is not found outside the Balkan region, its a marker shared by Albanians, Western Anatolians, Serbs, Greeks etc. "According to Cruciani et al. [11] most Greeks and other Balkan people belong to a specific cluster a within haplogroup E-M78 that is found in lower frequencies outside the Balkans and marks migrations from the Balkan areas not into it. E-M123 and its daughter haplogroup E-M34 originated in the Anatolia in prehistoric times. As for haplogroup J, most Greeks belong to J-M172 and its subclades which is associated with Neolithic population movements. The results show the majority of Greeks belong to a specific cluster of gene pool that is found within the Balkans. The present study is a survey of polymorphism in 5 Greek population groups using 2 minisatellite and 10 tetranucleotide microsatellite loci. The general pattern of the allele frequency distribution (Table 2) appears to be similar to what has been reported for other European populations (Buscemi et al. 1994; Rose et al. 1996; Perez-Lezaun et al. 1997). The number of alleles detected, 121, provides a higher level of genetic information compared with classical markers." -Genetic studies in Greek population samples using 12 highly polymorphic DNA loci: Human Biology, Wayne State University Press Feb 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Egypt Mummification is an Egyptian religious ritual. That not all Greeks in Egypt followed. Again I see you leave out parts that contradict you. "Although cremation violated Egyptian beliefs, some of the Greeks who lived in Egypt cremated the corpses of their dead. Funerary urns, or what were known as "hydria," were used to hold the ashes of the deceased. "

Funny how you leave out the parts that contradict your arguments: "Even though they adopted Egyptian customs to a certain degree, the Ptolemaic kings and queens were Greek. They spoke Greek and they thought that Greek culture and peoples were better than Egyptian culture and peoples. Greek became the state language, and cities were renamed." "The arrival of the Greeks brought an unprecedented amount of change in Egypt as they overlaid the existing society with that of their own. At first glance, the Græco-Macedonian period seems to lack the romance and awe of the Pharaohs who came before"

All that is apropos to nothing. Genetic evidence can tell someone who my mother was......and where my ancestors came from....but that doesn't preclude the fact that the differences genetically between humans is minute. In other words the mummy, like Cleopatra, are Greek. It apropos to everything, as stated before Egypt was the home of many multicultural and multiethnic people, especially during the Greco-Roman times when Alexandria became the cultural central place of the world. So the likelihood of that mummy's mom being of any ethnicity, which included Caucasian origins from other regions of the world, such as Northern Africa, Central Asia, Middle East etc. was just a high but the results pinpointed her genetic connection to Europe, not Africa, Central Asia the Middle East or where ever. Apropos to nothing. Egypt was ruled by greeks from the time of Alexandria. The mummy was probably a 3rd generation greek immigrant. The greeks from the time of ptolemy the first went whole hog into egyptian culture. It is very unlikely that other culture that passed through egypt but did not adopt Egyptian culture would be mummified. Notwithstanding, the genetic differences between African Egyptians and Greeks is minimal. Enough to place them geographically, but not much more. And certainly not enough to place values on them, like Scooter would have us. Actually not true. The Greeks are the ones who had little to do with Egyptian culture. They Hellenized most everything about Egypt and made native Egyptians into second hand citizens. "Even though they adopted Egyptian customs to a certain degree, the Ptolemaic kings and queens were Greek. They spoke Greek and they thought that Greek culture and peoples were better than Egyptian culture and peoples. Greek became the state language, and cities were renamed. In fact, the word "Egypt" is a Greek word (the Egyptian word is "Kmt" or Kemet). On the whole, native Egyptians occupied the lowest social positions. The Ptolemies, though, as well as their Greek administrators, were highly tolerant and even interested in foreign religions. The most enduring cultural product they produced was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures; the Ptolemies were interested in the Hebrew religion because of the large number of Jews living in Egypt at the time. Because of this translation, the Hebrew scriptures became one of the most important documents in the history of Western culture; had they ignored the book, it would probably have faded into the dust of history within a few hundred years." Washington State University http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PTOLEMY.HTM "The achievements of the Greeks in the ancient world, by no means few, may have reached their peak in the city of Alexandria. No less a ruler than its namesake, Alexander III of Macedonia (Alexander the Great), Alexandria dominated the eastern Mediterranean world culturally, politically, and economically for more than nine hundred years, the latter three hundred of which it competed with even the eastern capital of the Byzantine Empire, the famous Constantinople. .... The arrival of the Greeks brought an unprecedented amount of change in Egypt as they overlaid the existing society with that of their own. At first glance, the Græco-Macedonian period seems to lack the romance and awe of the Pharaohs who came before, but it was during this time, between Alexander's conquest and the Arab takeover of Alexandria in AD 642 that Egypt made some of its most significant contributions to the classical world, as well as absorbing its influences." Tour of Egypt http://www.touregypt.net/alexhis1.htm The genetic difference differences between African Egyptian and Greeks are many and far apart. This is why DNA revealed this mummy's mom was not a native Egyptian but of Greek European origins. Most credible geneticists agree. Confirmed also by Professor R. Villems: "Namely, the latter(Crete) lacks mtDNA lineages that are, though not abundant, but certainly omnipresent in Egypt, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestinians). By and large, most of these variants of mtDNA are also absent or very rare in Anatolia and in the mainland Greece. On the contrary, Cretans and Cypriots share their basic maternal ancestry as far as the main European mtDNA haplogroup H is concerned; it is the dominant variety also in both islands. We can also refute any strong Egyptian influence to the mtDNA pool of Cretans, Greece: it should have brought a considerable variety of sub-Saharan lineages (about 20% in Egypt), as well as manifest in a much lower frequency of haplogroup H. - Third Yearly Meeting of the Co-ordinators of the Centers of Excellence in Cyprus, May 19-21 2003 Three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, argued that the scientific limitations of Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[13] stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.", making specific allusion to the findings on Greeks (among others) as "anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Plus that chart you provided by Luca Cavalli-Sforza regarding the Iranians closeness to Europeans puts Greeks even further away from North African populations. Greeks share a genetic marker that is most commonly found in populations within the Balkan region and rarely outside it. Greek traditions was to cremate the dead, a tradition most Greeks of Egypt followed, even the Ptolemies maintained the standard Greek practice that was also in line with Roman ritual, rather than adopting Egyptian practices: 'Although cremation violated Egyptian beliefs, some of the Greeks who lived in Egypt cremated the corpses of their dead. Funerary urns, or what were known as "hydria," were used to hold the ashes of the deceased. Hydrias were distinguished by their colors; they were painted in crimson, red and black; the bodies and necks of the urns were usually decorated with geometrical or floral patterns; sometimes with animals, birds or legendary themes. The neck of the urn was sometimes decorated with an artificial flower garland and gilded leaves. Inscriptions on the hydria gave information about the deceased person, for instance his name and his occupation. The urns were sealed with white gypsum that bore the seal of the factory that produced it. The hydrias are dated from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period and up to the end of the first century BC. http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWe...d=1&story_id=51 Also it is a fact that many other cultures pass through Egypt and left their marks long before the Greeks arrived. And Egypts multiculture and multiethnic populations was at its highest under Greco-Roman rule because as it was stated before that was the time period Egypt became the center of the world culture and education. By the time the Ptolemies came to power, Egypt saw the Hyskos, Assyrians, Lybians, Nubians, Persians, Ethiopians and many others in its mix. http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Dynastic_Period_of_Egypt

All that is apropos to nothing. Genetic evidence can tell someone who my mother was......and where my ancestors came from....but that doesn't preclude the fact that the differences genetically between humans is minute. In other words the mummy, like Cleopatra, are Greek. It apropos to everything, as stated before Egypt was the home of many multicultural and multiethnic people, especially during the Greco-Roman times when Alexandria became the cultural central place of the world. So the likelihood of that mummy's mom being of any ethnicity, which included Caucasian origins from other regions of the world, such as Northern Africa, Central Asia, Middle East etc. was just a high but the results pinpointed her genetic connection to Europe, not Africa, Central Asia the Middle East or where ever.

But would you take blood or an organ from a person of your race but not of another race? Seriosely, I want to know? But then you probably dont think you could be genetically closer to a black person than a white one, that somehow offends you. You proved exactly what I was talking about regarding the typical political dogma by individuals who let their emotional reasons take over when genetic differences in humans is brought up. First and for most, I never stated in any of my messages that I'm offended of other races, nor for either myself to donate blood or be a recipient of blood from a black, yellow, red, white, or whatever person, nor did I ever claim that I don't believe in multi-racial relations nor that people who are of multi-ethnic origins are inferior to others. Second of all trying to deny that there are genetical differences between people is blind to reality. Thirdly I stated time and again that even between the same groups of people, be they black white green yellow purple European African Asian etc., differences exist.

See if you can find a credible source for this. I expect you won't. Let me rephrase it: Dribble typical of the political dogma by individuals who let their emotional reasons put them in denial of genetic differences in humans. Now that's funny given even that article you provided backs this up. Its a fact that researchers found that differences in DNA can provide enough information to identify the geographic ancestry of individuals. By the way ancient Egypt was the home of many different people from Africa, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Central Asia and Caucasian populations exist in all, but it was from a specific European region that these researchers pin pointed the origins of the Egyptian mummy's mom, not from the Middle East or Africa or Central Asia. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/16/m...=20070316084500

Why do you keep posting links that are irrelevant to the argument, what ever your argument might happen to be? Typical political dogma response by those in denial of genetic differences in humans based upon emotional reasons. Scientists were able to identify that Egyptian baby mummy's mom as a Caucasian from Europe and not a Caucasian mummy's mom from Iran or Arabia based upon the geographic regions of human cluster subpopulations that often correspond to individual populations.

Are you by any chance, quite short? Nope. Are you?

Are you saying they are not ? I love how the political correctness crowd likes to play this "we are the same" game but can't explain the differences, both genetically and ethnically, in humans. Nope, they only give the "its all cosmetics". Riigghttt. Go on believing that. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975009/

You know what would have been really surprising? Greeks of non caucasian non white european orgins....or finding out that non white greeks aren't really non-greeks, that would be suprising too.....only less so.... The whole year I was there, I didn't meet one none white European Greek who was of Greek origins that was not of foreign extraction, so if you know of any then please inform us.

Is that your argument? That skin tones vary between people? Among other things but given you are one of those who likes to fool himself into believing genetics differences between people are "minimum" it does not surprise me that you would try to lump everyone as the 'same'. I still can't believe you tried to pull that bull that Iranians are closer related to Danish then their Nordic brothers.

I never said they didn't have differences, just that the differnence are minimal. What I maintain is the asssertion that skin colour has something to do with caucasoid is false, which is what you tried to pass off. Or that Caucasian means white, which Scooter would have his fellow nutbars believe...... Please don't put words in my mouth, I stated and made bold so you would comprehend EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE. Notice Caucasian wasn't made into bold lettering, go back and re-read how I wrote it for verification. I was under the assumption people would make the connection by "White European" that is what I was talking about, not that Caucasians means only whites. Guess I was mistaken. Like it or not unlike what the PC world likes to fool everyone into thinking, skin tone, among other things, does vary between people, including between people who are Caucasoid, and between people who are Negroid and between people who are Mongoloid etc.. Trying to deny that is as stated before denying reality.

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry. Not even close. I have never heard any credible genetic scientist ever make the claim that Danish people are closer related to Iranians then they are to Scandinavians. Genetically the Danes are FAR more closely related to Scandinavians then they ever were to Iranians. But the first authority you relied on does........... I believe a lesson is needed on the different MtDNA and YDNA Haplo-subgroups that exist. Cavalli-Sforza findings again do not change what was stated to you from the start - not ALL Caucasoids are the same.

Don't know about Indians, though given the many tribes that existed in the continent I would venture to claim fighting between them was more then just once or twice, but I know for a fact in China's history internal fighting between different Chinese ethnicity took place more then just once or twice. Why China has over 5,000 years history and it wasn't until the year 221 BC that internal fighting between different Chinese Dynasties ended under the sword of Qin Shi Huang who unified them under one Empire. Not that the ethnic fighting between them ended, far from it. As long as China's history is, so is her peoples ethnic conflicts, upto modern times. I don't believe ethnic groups fighting among each other has anything to do with race, nor did one ethnicity have more conflicts then the others. Its human nature. Wars were fought and have been fought since the beginning of history by all humans and animals alike. :-)

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry. Not even close. I have never heard any credible genetic scientist ever make the claim that Danish people are closer related to Iranians then they are to Scandinavians. Genetically the Danes are FAR more closely related to Scandinavians then they ever were to Iranians. "[Haplogroup I] lineages are nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central Europe." Viking invasions of England were common, and Danes even ruled a section of England for a time, called the Danelaw. The Norman invasions after 1066 brought more Viking genes, as the Normans were Vikings who had previously settled in France. However, the lineage extending down into central Europe would also include the Angles and Saxons, who invaded England at the end of Roman times. The ancestors of Gordon Pace of Canada, whose DNA matches the John of Middlesex group, trace to near the English/Welsh border. A British study found heavy concentrations of Danish/Anglo Saxon genes in this area. (The Angles and Saxons came from an area bordering on Denmark and their DNA cannot be clearly separated from the Scandinavian DNA.) Haplogroup I Y-chromosomes have also been found among some populations of the Europe and Anatolia at frequencies exceeding 10% particularly among Germanic, Slavic, Uralic, as well as among the Romance-speaking populations of France, Romania, Moldova, and Sardinia, the Albanian-speaking population of Albania, the Greek-speaking population of Greece, and Turkic peoples of Anatolia. http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/genetics.htm Haplogroup R1b - originated prior to or during the last glaciation, when it was concentrated in refugia in southern Europe and the Aegean. It is the most common haplogroup in Europe, but has been found at low frequency as far away as Iran and Korea. In southern England the frequency of R1b is about 70%; in parts of Spain, Portugal, Wales and Ireland, it is as high as 90%; and in parts of north-western Ireland it reaches 98%. The R1b clade appears to have a much higher degree of internal diversity than R1a, which suggests that the M343 mutation that derives R1b from R1* may have occurred considerably earlier than the SRY1532 mutation that defines R1a. R1b (previously called Hg1 and Eu18) is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...22/10/1964/FIG6 http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Danish...ixed_columns=on Haplogroup U (mtDNA): - Haplogroup U is believed to have arisen somewhere in Near East around 50,000 to 55,000 years before present. It is found throughout Europe, and contains many subgroups, each reflecting unique geography and history. Haplogroup U5 Haplogroup U5 was the very first mtDNA haplogroup to settle Europe, approximately 40,000 years ago, at a time when many other mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups were arising far to the East. Haplogroup U5 originated somewhere between Turkey and the Ukraine, possibly in the Balkan region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_...9#Haplogroup_U5 Haplogroup U7 Many European populations lack Haplogroup U7, but its frequency climbs over 4% in the Near East and up to 5% in Pakistan, reaching nearly 10% level in Iranians. In India, haplogroup U7 frequency peaks at over 12% in Gujarat, the westernmost state of India, while for the whole of India its frequency stays around 2%. Expansion times and haplotype diversities for the Indian and Near and Middle Eastern U7 mtDNAs are strikingly similar. The possible homeland of this haplogroup spans Indian Gujarat and Iran because from there its frequency declines steeply both to the east and to the west. If the origin were in Iran rather than in India, then its equally high frequency as well as diversity in Gujarat favors a scenario whereby U7 has been introduced to the coastal western India either very early, or by multiple founders. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Metspalu2004.pdf# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_...9#Haplogroup_U7

Again what you posted does not disprove what I stated before, even between Caucasoid people There Are Differences and for anyone to try and claim otherwise is blind to reality. 1) Iranian people were once found throughout Eurasia, the Balkans, Caucasus regions, ME, and the fact that Europeans settled in Iranian lands and intermarried with Iranians since ancient times, its a given there will be Iranic peoples who are closely related to Europeans. 2) "Genetic testing of Iranian peoples has revealed many common genes for most of the Iranian peoples, but with numerous exceptions and regional variations. Genetic studies conducted by Cavalli-Sforza have revealed that Iranians cluster closely with European groups and more distantly from Near Eastern groups. Preliminary genetic tests suggest common origins for most of the Iranian peoples. Basically, the findings of this study reveal many common genetic markers found among the Iranian peoples from the Tigris to the areas west of the Indus. This correlates with the Iranian languages spoken from the Caucasus to Kurdish areas in the Zagros region and eastwards to western Pakistan and Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The extensive gene flow is perhaps an indication of the spread of Iranian-speaking peoples, whose languages are now spoken mainly on the Iranian plateau and adjacent regions. These results relate the relationships of Iranian peoples with each other, while other comparative testing reveals some varied origins for Iranian peoples such as the Kurds, who show genetic ties to the Caucasus at considerably higher levels than any other Iranian peoples except the Ossetians, as well as links to Europe and Semitic populations that live in close proximity such as the Arab and Jews.[30][39][40][41] Ultimately, genetic tests reveal that while the Iranian peoples show numerous common genetic markers overall, there are also indications of interaction with other groups, regional variations and cases of genetic drift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics This is what is stated. Reserch on mtDNA, carried out in several Middle Eastern countries, proves a common origin of Iranian, Central Asian, and Anatolian populations, and reveals genetical links to other West Eurasian populations.[38] At the same time, influence from South Asia or Eastern Asia is either absent or negligible. A large-scale research by Cavalli-Sforza (as shown above) also reveals genetical similarities between all Eurasian speakers of Indo-European languages, including speakers of Iranian and Indo-Iranian languages; but this does not necessairily prove a common Indo-European origin for these populations and may be due to common Non-Indo-European ancestors (see Paleolithic Continuity Theory) who were later linguistically Indo-Europeanized (q.v.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

No, no you are not aware at all. First off, caucasoid has nothing to do with genetics. Ask a geneticist if you will. It is an obsolete term no longer used in science. Whether you choose to incude skin colour is your business, no one will stop you being wrong. And yes, Greeks are caucasians, so are turks, Albanians, Iranians....etc etc..... ...And if I were you I wouldn't post so many useless links, unless you want to get a warning form the mod. I do not believe I ever stated that Turks, Albanian, Iranians are not of Caucasian origins, now did I. Iranians though do not share a European genetic link that has shown Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Serbians, and other Balkans people from that region to share. That is taken from the research work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza-probably the world’s leading expert on studies of this sort. "Discovery Channel :: News - Archaeology :: Mummy's Mom Was European" http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/16/m...=20070316084500 As it was stated before based upon genetic testing Caucasoids are not all the same. Thanks for the warning and taken about the links.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians....... Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks.......... Try again, slowly.......complexion, skin tone, colour have nothing to do with what Caucasian means. I admit it is an obsolete term but it refers to someone who is Caucasoid, which refers to the shape and features of a skull and bones. And all those links are unnecessary. Read what I stated before: of EUROPEAN Caucasian white origins based upon among other things facial features. Yes I am aware that Caucasian is based upon facial bones and genetics but there is difference between Caucasian groups of people. Caucasoid do not all look the same. The links were for the pleasure of any man out there who enjoys watching beautiful women. Period.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians....... Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone. ----- links to YouTube videos deleted