Siberian Graveyard's Secret (More Redheads)

International Herald Tribune ^ | 1-8-2003

[happygrl]

Who were these Caucasians?

Berbers.

St. Augustine was a North African. He was not Arab, nor were the Carthaginians.

Iberians, perhaps ?

I don't know enough about the Berbers, but they are NOT Arabs or Semites.

Remember, North Africa became Arab when the Arab Muslims poured out of Arabia and took their cause all the way to Spain. It was not Arab previously.

[blam]

I think they were there for a real long time...we probably don't even have a name for them. Cro-Magnon, maybe.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Marie Antoinette]

Bump in the night!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Obviously a superior, warrior species.

I knew that.

[suem2]

Please add my name to this list.

Thank you.

[farmfriend]

Consider yourself added. If you ever change your mind, or I get you on the wrong list, just let me know.

[industrialvxn]

I found this site that says red heair comes from Black/Africans and that some of the Vikings were Black/African. I don't really beleive this, what do you think?
the site: http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/red_hair.htm
The site might be a joke.

[blam]

July bump.

[Cronos]

Also, I read recently that the incident of red-headedness in Libya is the same as it is in Ireland. (strange)

Well, the Vandals did conquer or at least settle down in North Africa

[Cronos]

I've heard that theory about Red-heads having a slight Neanderthal genes, but there doesn't seem to be any proof for that.

[Cronos]

I think the native (pre-Arabic) language of North Africa is related to Gaelic and Breton. Some proto-Celts probably wound up in N. Africa.

Not only proto Celts, but actual Celts would have invaded North Africa when THEY were being pushed from the Celtic homelands in what is now Germany and Eastern Europe, by the Germanics

[Cronos]

Phoenix derived from Phoenicians

Hate to put the damper on those speculations, but the etymology of the word phoenix is as follows:
Middle English fenix, from Old English, from Old French both from Medieval Latin fnix, from Latin phoenix, from Greek phoinix.

The English word Phoenician is derived from the latin word Punic (as in the Punic wars). The Phoenicians didn't call themselves Phoenicians, they were Canaanites, though

from here

The Phoenicians were probably Semitic -- neither Europeans nor Africans Before going into the long and, sometimes, controversial origin of the Phoenicians, two things musts be made clear. The Phoenicians do not have their origin in Europe or in Africa. They were neither European nor where they black Africans. Their origin is probably Semitic though some references trace them back to as far away as India about 10,000 BC. Further, the Phoenician colonies which spread all over the coastline of the Mediterranean and even the Atlantic coasts were inhabited by Phoenician Semitic immigrants. No one can claim that the Phoenicians of North Africa were black or the Phoenicians of Spain, Gibraltar, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta...etc. were European. Statues, bursts, and artwork of the Phoenicians are found all over this website and upon close observation one can clearly see how closely they resemble the inhabitants of the shores of present day Mediterranean. (Note the images of the young Phoenician man and woman below). There are some who use the Bible for genealogical reference and actually believe Biblical characters such as Noah, Shem, Ham...etc. really existed and thereafter the Semites came from Shem and the Hamites from Ham...etc. These claims are categorically rejected and have no basis in purely scientific genealogical studies of ethnic origins and races. The Bible is about religion and many parts of the Old Testament should be looked at in that light. The Bible should not be taken as literally true. It is mostly mythological yet didactic

[Cronos]

Here's another marvelous bit of speculation. Haven't really had the time to weigh it's merits, but I'm just tossing this idea into the mix:

Phoenician Origin of the Celts

Note: The excerpts and conclusions which are herewith provided are mere speculations. They are kindly presented by a scholar who wishes to remain anonymous. The author/compiler of this Web site presents them for your consideration. They do not necessarily represent his opinion even when he is open to higher criticism.

There are contradictory leads regarding the 'Celtic connection' to the Phoenicians, and they need to be considered as mere leads even when they may seem confusing to individuals who are already familiar with contradictory leads. There seems to be an ongoing debate, among the experts, regarding the origins and definition of the 'Celts'. Therefore, it is imperative to examine what is herewith presented in this light.Are the Phoenicians and Celts possibly related?

The Phoenicians and the Celts may have originated in the Indus Valley, and also the Knossus Civilization of Crete, circa 2600 BC, plus perhaps the Sumerians, who came by sea to Sumer around 3800 BC. Or... perhaps the Phoenician, but NOT the original "Celts" were from the Indus Valley, and today's Celts are actually a mixture of the Phoenicians plus a "pre-Celtic" group. This and many other related questions remain open.

The following information asserts the above idea and excerpts are presented for debate.

"Today a complete unanimity of opinion among physical anthropologists that the term Celt, if used at all, belongs to the brachycephalic (round headed) darkish population of the Alpine (Swiss) highlands..... totally lacking in the British Isles." -- W.Z. Ripley, Races of Europe. 124, 126, 305.

"....scientific anthropologists and classic historians have proved that the "Celts" of history were the non-Aryan, round-headed, darkish small statured race of south Germany and Switzerland, and that the "Celts" properly so called are "totally lacking in the British Isles." Thus, to speak as is so commonly done, of "Celtic ancestry," the "Celtic "temperament," and "Celtic fire" amongst any section of the natives of these islands, is, according to anthropologists merely imagination. "The term "Celt" or "Celt" is entirely unknown as the designation of any race or racial element of language in the British Isles, until arbitrarily introduced there a few generations ago. Nor does the name even exist in the so-called "Celtic" languages, the Gaelic, Welsh and Irish. It is, on the contrary, the classic Greek and Latin title of a totally different race of a totally different physical type from that of the British Isles, and that the word was only produced there by unscientific phlogistic and ethnologists some decades ago...." -- L.A. Waddell, "Phoenician origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons", p 127f.

"It will thus be noticed that this "Celtic" area corresponds generally in Scotland with the area in which the "Picts" suddenly disappeared, and in whose place have suddenly appeared the people called "Celts". In Ireland also the "Celtic" area generally corresponds with that part of the country specially associated with the Bans, Van or Early Feins, who, we have found, were Picts. "This new line of evidence leads us to the conclusion that the early "Celts" or "Kelts" were presumably the early Picts calling themselves "Khaldis" or "Khaltis". They were a primitive people, who, I find from a mass of evidence, were early "Chaldees" or Galat (1) and "Gal (2)" of Van and Eastern Asia Minor and Mesopotamia in the Stone Age." -- L.A. Waddell, "Phoenician origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo- Saxons", p. 139.

History tells us that England was settled by the Phoenicians who sailed to England to mine the tin. The Phoenicians invaded England in 1103 BC and when they arrived they found England to be inhabited by the Picts. Picts were a small people and were considered aborigines. Over a period of time the Phoenicians were assimilated. Today the small descendants of this intermarriage between the Picts and the Phoenicians have been incorrectly termed Celts.

".......the daring Phoenician pioneers were not Semites as hitherto supposed, but were Aryans in Race, Speech and Script. They were, besides, disclosed to be the lineal blood ancestors of the Britons and Scots -- properly so-called, that is, as opposed to the aboriginal, dark Non-Aryan people of Albion, Caledonia, Hibernia, the dusky small-statured Picts and kindred "Iberian" tribes. -- p. vi of "The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons" (1924)

It is incorrect to say "British royalty". The royal line is English. The English are Anglo-Saxons from Germany. They came to England about the 5th Century. The British are descendants of the Britons from Phoenicia.

[Cronos]

This may have been due to canabalism which was not unhear of in Asia

CAnnabilism was practised int he British isles until the 18th century (there was the family of cannibals that were caught then).

however, Kuru is found amongst the stone age tribes in Papua New Guinea who are Afroid no Caucasoid or Mongoloid

[Cronos]

Remember that North Africa was invaded by Arabs and already had an indegeonous population that is/was Caucasian

North Africa has always been and IS Caucasian. arabs are Caucasians as well -- Semitics are Caucasians. The BErbers are supposed to be descendents of Vandals, so the correct term would be that the pre-Arabic population were Aryan, which I'd say they were -- for the MOST part, but there must have been other influences.

[Cronos]

"You find a fair number of Jews with red hair."

IMO Jews are no longer purely SEmitic -- especially EUropean Jews. Don't forget that:

1. They have been wandering in Europe for 2000 years
2. There MUST have been intermarriages, even if a few and this adds up in a msall community over 2000 years
3. The Kazars converted to Judaism in the first centuries AD and then when their kingdom was broken up, they moved into Europe, so many of the European Jews would have been Kazars and not descendents of Jacob

[Cronos]

I read that some people believe the Northern Tribes were proto-Celtics...what is your 'take' on that?

Blam -- you should stop reading 18th century British propaganda. Celts are an Aryan people, the Northern Tribes were Semitic.

[Cronos]

I believe the Northern Tribes mostly settled in Afganistan/Kurdistan/Pakistan. There are strong linguistic, genetic, and cultural matches between Jews and Parthans (and other groups) in Afganistan/Pakistan. Genetically, Kurds are the closest people to Jews in the world. The remainder of the Norhtern Tribes either returned and assimilated into Judah, or dispersed throughout the nations.

Got to stop you there -- Kurds are most definitely NOT SEmitics -- they're Aryan and related to the Persians and Azeris.

As for Pathans, that has been proven that they are not linked to the Jewish peoples either linguistically or genetically. The most likely candidates for the northern tribes would be either amongs the Judeans themselves or IRAQIS.

Why? When the northern tribes were exiled by the Assyrians, the Assyrian practise was to take the people from one end of the Empire to the other -- and the other end woudl ahve been Babylonia -- and there is proof that Israelis were settled there. Since the locals were also SEmitic, I think the Israelis would have merged with the local population over time. When the Judaens also joined them, some would have come back with them (the Judaens were under capticity for a shorter time so would not have assimilated that easily)

So, your most likely candidates for the lost tribes would be Iraiqis - maybe SAddy had some Jewish blood in him -- would be a good one to spring on him, eh?

[Conservative4Ever]

They thought that by eating the brains of their dead that they could retain the wisdom, etc. of that person.

Well then Kerry and Clinton are safe...they are idiots.

Red