Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

cleanup tag

I added this because the section is difficult to read with all the bold and upper case. It needs to be edited to be more readable. --Kerowyn 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"History"

There is a section called "The Tribes in history" that is mostly about Biblical content. There is serious controversy over whether any portion of the Hebrew Bible can be considered reliable history. I strongly suggest separating out the Biblical material, which is currently scattered around the article, into a section of its own (near the top), separate from the (differently controversial) modern claims about genetics. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Eureka?

For several hours I have been checking the Bible and Josephus for any mentions of the Ten Lost Tribes and what occured to them. 2 Kings 17 definitely rules out the possibility of the Samaritans being the Ten Lost Tribes (they may have intermarried with the priest sent to Samaria by the King of the Assyrians, but this does not change the general status). Tobit 1:18-25 mentions that Sennacherib killed many of the children of Israel after the failed attack on Judah, and from the context it sounds like he was killing Israelites even before the defeat. After Sennacherib's death it sounds like Israelites were still being slain in Assyria (Tobit 2:2-9). There were many other occasions before Christ (Maccabees) and after (during the revolt of the Jews against the Romans, well narrated by Josephus) that Jews were slain and massacred. Ezra 6:14-22 may shed some light on the subject:

14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. 16 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy. 17 And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses. 19 And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. 20 For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves.

21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat, 22 And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

St. Paul refers to the tribes in an interesting manner (Acts 26:6-7):

6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7 This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me.

St. James addresses his epistle in the following manner (James 1:1):

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

The slaughter of the Israelites in Assyria before the end of the Babylonian Captivity would probably not leave very many Israelites left of the Ten Northern Tribes. The mention of Assyria is quite unusual in Ezra, as Persians are mentioned in all other cases. I checked three versions of the Bible, and they all have "Assyria" in that instance. Another interesting point is Ezra mentions twelve he goats for a sin offering, but goes further to mention that it was because of the twelve tribes, whereas if there was only Benjamin, Judah, and Levi, it would seem more fitting to have three he goats for the tribes there present. Gotta go--you can figure it out. JBogdan 00:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I just gave this page a major overhaul. I removed the clean up and other tags. Please feel free to restore them if you think it is necessary. I have tried to present all of the different theories in a clear way, but since I am not an expert on any of them, my changes should be proofed. Please do not completely remove any particular section without discussing it here. — Reinyday, 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of Tribes of Dan and Manasseh

While I'm not changing the article myself in deference to the current inuse template, the article should definitely mention highly notable claims that two of the 10 tribes, the tribes of Dan and Manasheh, have been found and are no longer lost. The Israeli Rabbinate and government have accepted claims that the Beta Israel or Falasha people from Ethiopia are Jews of the Tribe of Dan, and that a remnant of the Tribe of Manasheh exists in India as the Bnei Menashe. Both groups have extensive WP articles and a lot of activity in recent history; this content should definitely be part of this article. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the inuse tag, so please feel free to edit away. Both of these groups are mentioned in the article, but only briefly. — Reinyday, 00:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish Beliefs

Are these geographical descriptions of the tribes referring to their encampments in the desert because the locations I'm familiar with as to their inheritances in the land itself do not agree with this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphe (talk • contribs) .

• I don't know. I was just cleaning up the existing text. Please feel free to change it if it is wrong. — Reinyday, 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Theory about Ancient Israelites in Ancient Japan

There is a theory about Ancient Israelites visiting Japan over 2000 years ago. If any of this is true, part of the Lost Tribes have been in Japan also. Not only that, this theory claims that the Lost Tribes have influenced (helped create) the Japanese Shinto religion and the Japanese Imperial Family, among other important things in Japan.

Please see the following for reference, regarding this theory:

Chapter 1: Israelites Came To Ancient Japan

Chapter 2: The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Myanmar, and China

Chapter 3: Did the Lost Tribes of Israel Come To Ancient Japan?

Chapter 4: Various Other Similarities Between Ancient Israel and Ancient Japan

Please note that none of this stuff seems to be proven.... It's just a lot of coincidences. But some of it may be worthy of mention in the article about the Ten Lost Tribes.--Endroit 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people from various backgrounds visited Japan through the silk road in the ancient times. You can still see a number of ancient Arabic and Persian artifacts at Shousouin Temple in Nara. So, Israelis may or may not have come to Japan. However, it is not really proven in anyway, and, even if proven, it doesn't make Japanese people (including myself) Jews. --TokyoJapan 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Jewish migration through Japan is interesting, but I don't think this is the right article for that content. There are no claims that they are specifically a "Lost Tribe", which is the subject of this article. — Reinyday, 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the tribes from Mizoram

this page does not mention about the lost tribes of Israel, which came to Mizoram in India. they, in fact, now form a part of Israeli army fighting Lebanon and others now. nids 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please feel free to add this section, since you seem familiar with it. — Reinyday, 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the Bnei Menashe. They're mentioned in the article at Ten Lost Tribes#Bnei Menashe --Shirahadasha 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian rape

This article has been raped by Christians 10x over. Could they please stop raping the article. This article has nothing to do with Christians. There are many people of many nations that also show interesting in Judaic background but we don't see them raping it. So we ask you nicely, please stop. 203.214.133.79 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please think before you post. No one has been sexually molesting this article. 67.142.130.33 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How could they anyways?

Not to mention, what gives you the idea that they are only Christians

Interesting article

Link removed

Christian speculation using scripture to argue that the Han Chinese are the lost tribes, from what I can tell on a quick read, if anyone was wondering; nothing here that looked to me to merit more than a quick read. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm not the one who removed the link to it, though. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The theory of ten lost tribes of Israel has created Racial-Biblicalism and disregard for fact. - Mohammad al-Assad

Merger of Israelite Diaspora

• Support. Separate articles appear to be a WP:POV fork --Shirahadasha 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, they can cover two different although related topics. Mathmo ^Talk 07:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as the two different topics? --Shirahadasha 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE these are very unrelated topics I am interested in the lost tribes but not that much interested in that of the Israelite Diaspora also the study of these things is by different fields of scholars most professors who know a lot about the diaspora know little about the lost tribes other than they were from the south--Java7837 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE. The two topics are totally separate. The historical concept of the "Ten Lost Tribes" is a significant topic in its own right, and been greatly discussed for centuries. So i feel that this article should remain separate. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tribal descent patrilineal only? Unlikely.

The reference to membership in the tribes being patrilineal, without reference to the possibility that that membership could also be matrilineal, implies that tribal membership is only patrilineally determined, which is unproven. Without both the mother and the father, there can be no Israelite of any tribe. The reason for the apparently patrilineal descent of the tribes could have been that these sons of Israel chose wives within their own tribes. That is likely, given that the Bible says that each tribe had their own land, and that people closer together tend to marry each other more often. I strongly suggest including the possibility that tribal descent is not exclusively patrilineal. Mcampbell422 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish section

NPOV here or religious propaganda forum? Why tagged for cleanup?

Hello. Is this a FACTUAL encyclopedia article (with OBJECTIVE information about this topic)? Why is it tagged for cleanup? Is it NPOV here or MISUSED as a religious propaganda forum? Isn't it a fact that the TEN LOST TRIBES are not Jewish? How about an NPOV cleanup (replacing IRRELEVANT religious propaganda with OBJECTIVE factual information about this topic)? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• No!!!! It is not a fact that the 10 Lost Tribes are not Jewish. Most people believe that they are Jewish. That is why your change to make this article reflect your Kurdish theory was tagged as not having a neutral point of view (NPOV). — Reinyday, 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I came in to do some cleanup, and did a little, but the lead section looks to me to be a representation of one, probably fringe, theory. I didn't bother going any further. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a mainstream theory. Pretty much WP:CB if not WP:DUMB --Shirahadasha 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I made it a subsection and called it a theory. — Reinyday, 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE Disputed

Where is any actual dispute about the objective facts presented in the lead section? Calling this set of facts "a theory", or "dumb" in no way disputes the truth of the facts presented. Why not dispute the RELEVANCE of all of the IRRELEVANT religious propaganda which follows thereafter? The Ten Lost Tribes are not Jewish, so what NPOV relevance could such a large amount of religious propaganda possibly have (in a factual encyclopedia article)? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that DNA evidence shows that the 10 lost tribes are now living in Kurdistan as ethnic Kurds. This claim is completely unsourced. Unsourced claims are not permitted in Wikipedia and must be deleted. See WP:Reliable Sources , WP:No Original Research, and WP:Verifiability. We are giving you an opportunity to provide sources as a courtesy. Where are your sources for this claim? Please identify sources describing the DNA analyses that are claimed. What kind of DNA analysis was performed? By whom? And what was compared with what? WP:NPOV requires presenting all relevant points of view (POVs) held by scholarly sources, not just the POV one personally believes to be correct and therefore "truly" neutral. WP policy explicitly disagrees with your claim that religious POvs are to be dismissed or discounted as "propaganda", particularly in an article whose notability comes from its relevance to religion. --Shirahadasha 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hrhdavid, your Kurdish theory is a theory. It's great that you have some citations, but there are numerous other theories about the Ten Tribes, so your theory cannot be posited as fact. — Reinyday, 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RE *Hrhdavid, your Kurdish theory is a theory. — Reinyday, 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Reinyday: Though your NPOV editing job is otherwise commendable, HOW IS IT that the set of objective facts (with objective references)about the Kurds are called by you "a theory"? Upon what basis is such a set of VERIFIABLE facts blindly labeled a theory by you? The only motive for such behavior would be to try to EQUATE this set of objective facts with the opposing and contradictory THEORIES propounded by the religious ideologists. The equating of objective FACTS with opposing ideologist THEORIES is NOT NPOV. Objective facts should take precedence (in a supposedly FACTUAL encyclopedia article) over contradictory and opposing ideologist THEORIES, don't you agree? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hrhdavid, thanks for the compliment on my editing. I do not want to get into an argument with you on this subject. My edit of all sections was NPOV, and unlike you, I don't have an opinion on this subject. Every section in this article is a theory. Each section says people "claim" or "believe" they are a lost tribe; it is never stated as fact. Unfortunately, since you wrote Isn't it a fact that the TEN LOST TRIBES are not Jewish?, I am pretty concerned that you don't really understand what a fact is. It isn't even a fact that there were ten lost tribes, so how could it be a fact that they weren't Jewish? Whose definition of Jew are you using? It makes no sense to claim that as a fact. Also, it is difficult to read your message when you capitalize many words and phrases. I'm going to edit your section now. Please understand that it is not a "fact" that any inheritance would be paternal only. Nor is your particular way of deifining "lost" a fact. — Reinyday, 05:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I correct myself. I did find evidence of a tradition that inheritance is paternal, and have modified the article accordingly. My apologies for my mistake. — Reinyday, 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Kurdish section

Few objections:

• One of the "documents" referenced is a wikipedia page - I'm not entirely sure but I believe it's bad form to use a wikipedia article as a reference (as oppose to a "see also")
• are believed to positively and objectively show who they are (and where they live) - adding "positively and objectively" to the sentence adds nothing and seems to be an attempt to bias the reader
• The following:

These Ten Lost Tribes are Kurdish Hebrews. They are not Jewish and are not Jews - who are matrilineal (mother to daughter) descendants from females who have been accepted as being Jewish because of having been part of old Jewish communities. In fact, the Kurds are almost entirely Sunni Muslims.

The land of ancient Israel (now the nations of Israel, Palestine, and parts of Lebanon and Jordan) belongs to the Tribes of Israel (according to the Old Testament). The Jews are therefore rivals for possession of the Israeli part of this land of ancient Israel.

is not in any way NPOV.

In essence this whole section (with only two external references, both for one of the four claims referenced above) is original research intended to promote this theory rather than describe it. --Black Butterfly 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. — Reinyday, 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I also find all this "positvely and objectively" etc. seems more sales than exposition. Also agree it appears to be OR. The author is the one who is connecting otherwise disparate sources to form a theory. The author needs to cite a published source who puts the pieces together, otherwise we have an OR problem. --Shirahadasha 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Ideologues and Religious Propaganda vs the Kurdish Section of this article

The Wikipedia NPOV information sections mention this very matter of ideologues trying to "filibuster" articles (by means of excess volume) - while falsely accusing anything else as NPOV. I am the author of the relatively small Kurdish section, which I believe would be supported in a formal NPOV dispute process to the exclusion of the numerous unsupported ideologue propaganda statements that contradict the facts therein (and the authoritative references that support them).

Please note that I have refrained from deleting or editing any of this large volume of unsupported, irrelevant and contradictory ideologue propaganda, but have seen repeted deletions and editing of the relatively tiny section on the Kurds - which completely changes and destroys the information presented therein. Such destructive editing is the opposite of NPOV. If it continues, then the only avenue left is a formal NPOV dispute process that justly will reduce this excessively long article down to the supported factual material relevant to this topic.

Cordially, --Hrhdavid 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can't reach agreement, perhaps we should invoke the dispute process and find out if this is so. --Shirahadasha 04:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hrhdavid, please feel free to open any sort of formal review of this article. I have just again attempted to clean up the section of the article you are editing. Please do not remove links to relevant Wikipedia articles or remove the formatting of references. Please understand that the Bible is not considered to be a historical document by all (see The Bible and history). Please do not remove the link to Genetic origins of the Kurds as it is obviously relevant. Please note that you state that "the majority of male Kurds have a genetic inheritance that is believed to be found only among male patrilineal descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel" but actually it is only one tribe, the Cohanim, who are not one of the lost tribes, and it is disputed (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Also, I don't understand "the Kurds contain the Ten Lost Tribes (instead of being the Ten lost Tribes)". What does that mean? Lastly, claiming that we are Ideologues or Propagandists is incivil and inapropriate. You are promoting a particular idea whereas we are trying to compile a comprehensive encyclopedic article. It is not a fact that the Lost Tribes exist, so it will never be a fact that a certain group is a Lost Tribe. This is all theory. — Reinyday, 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrhdavid - The only ideologue here is you.

I - and others - have not expressed any objection to the presence of this section, but rather, the fact that (a) it is written in a largely POV way (although the latest revision is moderately less so); and (b) no reputable source (or in fact, ANY source) has been provided to back up this claim.

If you can find a reputable writer who has investigated and published information on these claims, bring them forward and use this article to DESCRIBE them. This is not the place to promote your own theory.

Also, someone (you?) has removed the NPOV tag on this section. Am going to restore it now. --Black Butterfly

NPOV tag was removed again without resolution of this discussion. Restored. --Shirahadasha 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish Section Dispute -- Reprise

The NPOV problem has been substantially improved. The remaining problem seems to be WP:OR. No source has been cited, reliable or otherwise, which connects the four documents together and draws a theory out of them. So far as can be verified, an editor may have been the first person to connect these documents together and the theory may represent the editor's own original research. I propose deleting the entire section if a source for the theory is not identified soon. --Shirahadasha 07:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This dispute has gone on for two months and no-one has produced a source to establish that anyone other than an otherwise unpublished Wikipedia editor holds the theory in question, despite numerous warnings repeated in several subparts of this Talk page, and elsewhere. Deleting per WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I restored a small Kurdish section with information on the DNA testing, which is verifiable. — Reinyday, 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize for having replaced what you restored, Reinyday, but the fact that DNA testing was mentioned did not make what it claimed verifiable, although it might have appeared that way on first glance. The source that was cited, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin,"Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?" HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen 51:2-3 (Urban & Fischer Verlag, 2000): 156-162, is one that I have seen cited only on British Israelite-type websites, and cannot be found in PubMed, for example. I would like to read it if it were possible to find a copy. Frankly, I doubt that it contains any information that is not widely known today, in this fast-moving field. I didn't realize that there had been such extensive discussion of the whole Kurdish topic. I have tried to present only factual and up-to-date information, with relevant and easily accessible, widely accepted sources. I realize that it may be a bit lengthy, but in fact it would require a much longer article to do justice to this topic. I wish I knew more about the reasons people have tried to link the Kurds and the Jews in this way, it would be worth saying something about that. If you can suggest ways to improve what I've written, I'll be interested, though of course I hope it won't be deleted wholesale. I'm inexperienced at Wikipedia, and just trying to make an honest contribution, to replace what I felt was too inaccurate and misleading to leave as it was. -- Iris-J2 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic interpretations

This section needs to be sourced and cleaned up or otherwise deleted. Not one example is given and it seems the author is just pulling stuff out of his/her behind. For example, I deleted the following sentence: "Among the well-known believers of such ideas have been individuals such as the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh." Although McVeigh came across Christian Identity and White Supremacists in the anti-government circles he frequented, there is no evidence to my knowledge that he actually was a member of these groups or subscribed to their general ideologies, much less the specific ideology regarding the Lost Tribes that the author of this section is hamhandedly attempting to describe.

Out of Context

Most of these adherents differentiated between the terms "Jew" and "Israelite" suggesting that Jews usurped the identity of the true chosen people of God. The verses of Revelation 2:9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.and 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. provided for them a basis for their beliefs rooted in scripture. They also focused on Genesis chapter 38, the story of Judah, one of the original 12 sons of Jacob (Israel) and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, claiming that this story could be a cause of separation between certain seed lines of the family of Judah, since Judah intermarried with a Canaanite woman.

That is taken out of context. When they say the slander of those who say they are Jews but are not Jews, this is talking about Jews who are insincere in how they follow their religion, or hates him or herself because they are Jewish. In addition, the part about Judah and Tamar doesn't remove the fact that Judah's descendents are still descendants of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.182.211 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Koreans and the Lost Tribe of Dan

Hello all. I'm a student at Hebrew University, and there are a lot of Koreans here. So I asked why and was told by one student that there is a belief that Koreans are a lost tribe of Dan because of an early Korean King named Dan or something to that effect. anyone have any sources? Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

to be sure...while Lost Tribe theories do have their comedic value...this was a serious request for sources about Asian/Korean Lost tribes theories... Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=185 and http://www.israelite.info/Source_Documents/MainPageSourceDocuments_Folder/Spartan.htm are not reliable sources. Please provide sources quoting serious, scholarly works. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. It is good to have your input. I'll see what i can do. howevr, my impressionw was that Wikipedia was open to reasonable ideas based on objective data. These websites seem to meet that standard. I'll try to get some better sources, but it does seem to me that these websites's statements are based on the work of people who have taken time to do some research and examine various concepts. I realize they seem a bit out-ofthe-ordinary, but they do seem to me to be somewhat credible. However, I'm happy to look a little deeper, and try to find some better sources. Thanks for your comments. --Sm8900 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spartans as Jews paragraph has to go. The above mentioned website has no scholarly relevance. I will remove this paragraph in two weeks unless the poster can quote a reliable source.evangeline.a (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC) evangeline.a

I couldn't see any point waiting that long so I just deleted. The links were (1) a whacko prophecy website, (2) a quotation from the book of Maccabees, and (3) a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia that specifically says that the claim of Spartans being descendants of Abraham was false. None of this supports the claims in the graf. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bene Ephraim

All claims of them even existing go back to Here, and it's a personal website held to no accountability. Much less is there evidence in either THAT site or the Wiki site of [Bene Ephraim] that supports the claim that they are decended from Jews, please find a source THEN post. Or create a NEW section discussing CLAIMED Tribes. CheskiChips (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in separate sections discussing claimed tribes. What part of the section titles "Groups claiming descent from specific Lost Tribes" and "Groups claiming descent from a non-specific Lost Tribe" and "Groups that others claim are descended from Lost Tribes" is unclear? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they don't belong on the same page at all! They are not speaking of the same thing, I should say new page, not section. CheskiChips (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Ten Lost Tribes on the one hand, and Ten Lost Tribes on the other hand. Yeah, they're the same thing. And the claims about them are about them, so they bear mentioning in the main article, just like everything else that is about them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See my post above under "Igbo Jews". There has to be at least some semblance of notability for these claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Disclaimer - Not everyone from that ethnic group claims lineage"

I would appreciate it if this article was cleaned up a little and had a few disclaimers and more accurate wording in place, especially with its insistence on wholesale generality of various ethnicities and groups of people on claiming Jewish lineage. My main contention is simply that the people who claim to descend from the Lost Tribes of Israel are really quite small in number as compared to the generality who really couldn't care less or don't know anything at all about a slightly vague and contentious if not slightly conspiratorial topic. My case in point is myself and my people. I am from Azad Kashmir, I have met many Pashtuns and Pakistanis and the vast majority of the Pashtun people are Muslim through and through and in no way claim any descent from Jews. Not that they would particularly care, but it's just the article makes it seem as if there are whole groups of people, especially with such a large demographic like Pashtun who claim this lineage, it simply isn't there. Pashtuns don't go around claiming descent from the Lost Tribes of Israel, nor do Kashmiri's by and large. All I ask is for a more accurate wording and not to be so general about talking about huge groups of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's currently in dispute CheskiChips (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

House of Israel

When any evidence can be provided of this it should be mentioned again, currently the article only says "They claim to be decended of Jewish people." Look at House of Israel, none of the evidence citations come from really reliable sources. Their mere existence according to that argument is in doubt, let alone evidence for some kind of historical trace. If Wiki pedia allowed people to put everything they 'heard' it would not work. Just because it claims religious connection, it should be no different! CheskiChips (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Their existence is in doubt only in the minds of obnoxious pointmaking editors. That said, they probably don't belong in this article, since, iirc, they claim to be descendants of Jews from the Maghreb who fled south from muslim persecution. Tomer^talk 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ques re diffs

Can anyone please tell me what changes are indicated in all the paragraphs highlighted in green here? Can't spot 'em. sorry, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs that seem to have no changes probably contain some kind of a null edit, like a line return. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what it is. I just checked. Some kind of glitch in the sortware? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I got it. What's going on is that the editor is adding an additional space between two words, usually at the end of a sentence. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Or something is, see [1]. Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Which Suggests that the Ten Tribes were not Lost

I noticed that this article does not make mention of the fact that there are many who believe that when Cyrus the Conqueror issued the decree described in Ezra 1 that this decree allowed Israelites who had been carried away by a now defunct empire and who resided in the lands which were now part of the Medo-Persian empire to return to the land of their fathers.

Luke 2:36 asserts that Anna was of the tribe of Asher. 4.154.74.183 23:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) James Shewmaker

The idea of lost means that nobody knows exactly what happened to them. Also, by the traditional accounts, most of them 'ran away' from the Assyrian Empire, to places unknown, long before the Persians appeared on the scene. AllenHansen (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the term is some what suggestive.

- During Jeremiah's time many fleed to Egypt. (Jeremiah 24:1, 8-10)

- A number of exiled Levites priests fleed went into Gerizim.//When Manasseh refused to give up his Samaritan wife, he went into exile. The priests who also refused to separate from their Samaritans wives followed him also.(Neh 13:28)

- Quoting a reference book here: “During the reign of Israelite King Pekah at Samaria (c. 778-759 B.C.E.), Assyrian King Pul (Tiglath-pileser III) came against Israel, captured a large section in the N, and deported its inhabitants to eastern parts of his empire. (2Ki 15:29) This same monarch also captured territory E of the Jordan and from that area “he took into exile those of the Reubenites and of the Gadites and of the half tribe of Manasseh and brought them to Halah and Habor and Hara and the river Gozan to continue until this day.”—1Ch 5:26.”

Maybe the far Persian regions, or even the Indus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.153.114 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - this page is to discuss additions to the article, rather than discussing the subject itself. If you have some reliable sources on this that discuss the idea that the lost tribes were not lost, great. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost or not

For consideration:

1Kings 19:18 (NIV) "Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel- all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by No938 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sooooooo, you think the article should be changed/edited/improved how, exactly? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of the article needs to be moved as proposed. What should be left are the introductory sections to 17th century. What needs to be added/expanded are:

• Section on textual evidence in the Tanach
• Section on textual analysis in the Talmud and elsewhere in rabbinic sources
• Section on anthropology
• Section on archaeology
• Section on population dynamics and migrations

The claimants need to be replaced with the hypothesis and each evaluated based on some tangible evidence. As it is what is available is just lots of opinions and original research--Meieimatai? 12:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

it is always helpful to discuss any revisions, before making significant changes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

bedouin in Jordan

I would like to see more information provided on the bedouin in Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete or serious fix

This article does a serious disfavour to Wikipedia. Someone needs either to delete it altogether or do some substantial rewriting - especially the introductory section. This article is a joke. Derekwriter 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The opening stuff was unreverted vandalism, which is now gone. I agree the article isn't very good, but it's tolerable with the removal of the vandalism, I think. john k 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Too much speculation in the article to justify keeping it here as is.--DominusEtDude 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This article, unfortunately, is a magnet for British Israelism cranks and their ilk. Wikipedia has a number of fields of such articles. Believe me, the rubbish that keeps cropping its head up in this article is "very tame" by comparison to the crap that single-issue zealots insist on trying to cram into other areas of wikipedia (the range of circumcision-related articles comes immediately to mind...) Have a beer and keep the faith.  :-) Tomer^talk 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the section on British Israelism to shorten it and remove some of the potential overlap with the main british israelism page. I have also added references. Debate and discussion on this issue should be directed towards the main british israelism page. Waitingwatch (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I gave it what I hope is a "serious fix". — Reinyday, 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio Church of God POV

Hello, this seems to be a lot of content on a very obcure POV. Notability needs to be established. If notable, perhaps a 1-3 sentence summary would suffice unless it can be shown that this POV is well known. --Shirahadasha 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the disputed text in full:

In the 1920s, Herbert W. Armstrong published the belief that the 10 tribes of Israel (Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Mannaseh, Naphtali, Rueben, Simeon and Zebulon), constituting the majority of the ten displaced tribes, after their captivity by the Assyrians, had eventually migrated to northern and western Europe and constitued large portions of the nations that now exist in those areas. These tribes were most commonly referred to as the "House of Israel" in the scriptures as separate from the "House of Judah". The House of Judah was composed of the tribe of Judah, Levi and portions of Benjamin, and generally known as the Jews in later centuries. The House of Judah was sent into captivity beginning in the 6th century B.C. by the Babylonian Empire and their subsequent history is well chronicled by secular and biblical records. Regarding the "Lost Ten Tribes, Mr. Armstrong stated that the nations of Britain and the United States of America has in part been populated by the descendants of Ephraim and Mannaseh, the two sons of Jacob. According to Mr. Armstrong, the national destinies of all of the these tribes were outlined in chapter 49 of Genesis. These beliefs were in large part based on the specific biblical promises made to Abraham and his descendants as recorded in the chapters of Genesis. This belief also formed an essential basis for his understanding of Bible prohecy and its fulfillment in the "latter days". Armstrong on his radio and TV show 'The World Tomorrow' offered a free book called 'The United States and Britain in Prophecy' that explained these beliefs in detail.

After Armstrong's death in 1986, the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach Sr. and Jr. rejected many beliefs that Mr. Armstrong had held and the doctrine of the ten tribes was among them . Several churches were formed from former Worldwide Church of God members who departed and most of these churches continue to accept this doctrine. Among these are the Philadephia Church of God which publishes a similar treatise explaining their belief (see [2]). In this publiation, the Twelve Tribes mystery is explained. After the Philadelphia Church of God began printing Armstrong's material in 1997, the Worldwide Church of God promptly sued stating that they had the copyright to the material. The Worldwide Church of God won and then sold the rights to the Philadelphia Church of God in 2003. Two other churhes, the Living Church of God and the United Church of God, also publish material on the biblical evidence for lost ten tribes.

--Shirahadasha 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong was pretty well-known during his life. See Ambassador College and The Plain Truth. I'd say his name was almost a household word in the 1960s in the U.S. I think he was a total loony on this topic, but he was a notable loony. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\\

Do we need the full content or would it suffice to have a brief summary and point to the main article for details including church history, interchurch disputes, and other matters. Is the present summary adequate? --Shirahadasha 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary is fine with me. FWIW, he's probably a more notably loony than some of the ones we give space to here, but I guess that's why he gets his own article(s). - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the Radio Church of God section, and I think it should be put back in. Jonathan Tweet 00:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Jonathan. Radio Church of God info should rather be confined to the main British Israelism page.Waitingwatch (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

saka connection

there is no basis for removing the section on the saka connection based on some mythical connection with british israelism, as claimed by the edit summary. the two theories have no link or overlap at all, as shown by the fact that the Saka material contained numerous facts and data not shown in the slightest bit in the section on british israelism. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, the text used here for Saka Connection is almost identical to what was contained on the British Israelism page. (See this link.) Keep in mind that the part on the Lost 10 Tribes page about British Israelism is only a brief intro.

What bothers me about this piece of writing on the Lost Ten Tribes page is that it doesn't give any kind of clear explanation of what it is trying to say, nor why this is different to British Israelism. If you really want to keep this then I'd encourage you to edit this section to provide a more clear summary of what exactly the argument is? The Israelites became Cimmerians? It would be helpful if you explain who teaches / believes this theory, and whom the modern day claimed descendants of Cimmerians are that are claiming this link to Israel? Eastern Europeans?

FYI - British Israelism teaches that deported Israelites became Scythians / Cimmerians and that these Scythians / Cimmerians migrated westwards and became modern day Western Europe. Waitingwatch (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument is clear, and no need for more clarification, while any more clarification is welcome!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

the scythian hypothesis is part of several valid theories on the Ten Lost Tribes, including british israelism. therefore it has a legitimate place here, as is it is a valid hypothesis regarding this topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, what is problematic is that no-one seems to be able to say which theories, which people, etc. other than British Israelism. I am open to keeping the text but someone really has to come forward and explain more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

here's one answer; try the page at this site. http://jewsandjoes.com/our-scythian-ancestors-identified-with-israel.html --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve - this link helps. The argument is essentially the same as British Israelism but the difference is that BI claims that Lost Israelites became Western Europeans (R1b genetic haplotype) whereas the website at that link claims that they became Europeans in general. (Haplogroup R.) Are these the only people that believe this or are there other groups with different nuances? Depending on the answer we can think about adding this info to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

hi. thanks for your question. i can tell you that there a variety of groups who take various aspects of this datam, and use it for a number of theories and/or hypotheses, not just BI. the problem is that not all of them have references on the web. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Samaritanism

Samaritanism? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupid me! There's a whole section, small but nice. (Giggling evilly!) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mormons

Mormons believe that the ten lost tribes were scattered over much of the world. Today Israelites are found in all countries of the world. Many people do not know that they are descended from the ancient house of isreal. This is one of many reasons mormons do so much research on ancestry. It is true that most mormons believe that the tribe of ephriam settled in northern Europe. The book of mormons history of ancient americas is the supposed to be the book (or stick)of joseph that is talked about in Ezekiel 37 16-17. This is because Lehi was a descendent of Joseph who left Jerusalem with another houshold from Manasseh. American indians are not part of the "Lost Tibes" per the normal definintion but if the Book of Mormon is correct they are part of "Scattered Israel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.95.76 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the statement about Mormon beliefs is no longer in the article. I believe that the Mormons do believe that at least some Native Americans are descendants of the Lost Tribes. Not a topic on which I'm very knowledgable, but if I'm right it belongs here: there are certainly more people who adhere to Mormon beliefs than to some that are already mentioned in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I also was surprised to find that this had been removed. I have restored the content. — Reinyday, 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mormons don't believe that the Native Americans are the Lost Tribes. They assert that they descend from four different Jewish families that allegedly sailed to America. Nothing to do with the Ten Tribes, so the Mormon theory is off-topic here.

Added Mormon content. Native Americans, through Lehi, are descended from Manasseh. Northern Europeans are descendents of the lost tribe of Ephraim. I tried to be brief and broad, with details to be found on other respective pages. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jonathan Tweet 02:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The LDS belief is that the people of the Book of Mormon are mainly descendants of Manasseh and Ephraim, but who lived in Judah and weren't taken into captivity. The opening events of the BofM are supposed to have happened a little bit before the Babylonians captured Jerusalem, significantly later than the 10 tribes. The BofM does not state that they are part of the lost tribes and the LDS church doesn't teach that they are. I'm removing it. AllenHansen (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lost Tribes, according to the Old Covenant

Well, the Bible says which tribes remained: Judah and Benjamin - and the non-territorial levites, who were the priestly class (what later disappered by allowing non-jews to be priests). They are the only named surviving tribes for the state Judah in the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.27.75 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Several other lists

There's much scope for improvement to the coverage of this question, but it's a bit tricky.

The article currently gives two lists of the twelve tribes, and they're certainly the best known, and widely assumed to be the whole story. Unfortunately this common assumption is false.

The two lists given are the OT lists from Genesis and Joshua, as stated in the text. Genesis is the list of the sons of Jacob, aka Israel. Joshua instead lists the land allocations, leaving out Levi and splitting Joseph, in response to Jacob's promise to that effect.

Revelation 7:5-8 lists the twelve tribes as Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin. Note that both Joseph and Manasseh are listed, but not Ephraim, and that Levi is counted as one of the twelve, but Dan is omitted, making twelve.

There are also several other lists later in the OT. The first tribe to be omitted is Simeon, left off the list in Deuteronomy 33:1-29, but there are only eleven tribes listed there. Simeon seems to have fallen from favour as a result of joining Levi to avenge Dinah, and their allotment after the conquest appears to be an afterthought of some of the desert that Judah, whose lands surround them, didn't want. Benjamin is simlarly under a cloud shortly after this, and appears to have been absorbed by Judah as presumably was Simeon, but Benjamin is included in all lists in the Bible and is today widely regarded as the other unlost tribe. Paul is of course of this tribe. 2 Kings 17:18 however notes that "only Judah was left".

Levi seems at least as unlost as Benjamin, but there you are.

Zebulun is missing from 1 Chronicles 2–7, and Asher and Gad are both missing from 1 Chronicles 27:16-22. That latter list is also remarkable in that a separate tribe of Aaron is included, probably reflecting the growing importance of the Kohens at the time of writing.

There's also evidence that Manasseh was itself split and regarded as two tribes at one stage, one East of the Jordan and the other West of it, making three tribes in the House of Joseph.

The explanation IMO is that Israel is a military structure for most of this history, and like any army in a long combat is continually reorganising to meet operational needs. The twelve tribes represent the twelve divisions of the army, each with its commander, and each with its traditional recruiting base. One of their regulations is that their supreme commander will always have exactly twelve senior officers reporting directly to him, and this seems quaint to us but it made sense to them. And seen in this way, it all makes sense.

But that's my own OR. Not quite sure how to fix the article... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

IP edits

This article is about the Lost Tribes, not about British Israelism. Yes there should be a discussion of that, but detail should go in the BI page. The stuff about the Declaration of Arbroath is simply false. The IP has added that "Conflict between the worlds of academia and religion over this issue begin with the Declaration of Arbroath which was written in 1320." It's not at all clear what this means. There was virtually no difference between 'academia' and 'religion' at this time. Academics were clerics. The DOA was drawn up to provide a heroic history for the Scots in line with inherited Gaelic myth. It says nothing whatever about lost tribes. It merely dates the migrations of the Gaels to events in the Bible, in line with standard medieval practice. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, particularly the last two sentences. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted text

I deleted the "Saka Connection" as this is the same as what the British Israelites believe. However, after deleting Seeker of Truth undid the delete claiming that these are different. What I propose is that someone adds a line or two in this section detailing how (if?) it is different from British Israelism. British Israelism believes that the "lost ten tribes" became the Scythians and Cimmerians and that they went on to become Western Europeans. If "The Saka Connection" believes differently, e.g. that the Scythians and Cimmerians stayed in Eastern Europe, then someone should say so. If no-one clarifies this and this subject remains ambiguous then I propose deleting it again. Who knows more about this theory? Waitingwatch (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As no-one is coming forward with explanation for why this theory is different from what is used in British Israelism I am proposing re-deleting the text.Waitingwatch (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the following text that somebody added.

The Bible states that the JEWISH PEOPLE would become a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS in Genesis (Bereshis), The 10 TRIBES exiled by the Assyrians (Asshur), were assimulated and scattered into many lands more than 2,000 years ago. The prophets all testify to their return. Ezekiel makes reference to the 2 DIVIDED KINGDOMS becoming ONE NATION in the land of ISRAEL.

Most IDENTIFIABLE JEWS today, do not know specifically which TRIBE they belong to. They know 10 TRIBES are missing, but are not so willing to accept those who testify to being those peoples. HOW CAN PEOPLE MISSING FOR OVER 2,000 YEARS BE CARRYING OUT THE PRACTICES OF JEWS TODAY?? They were not around for the destruction of the 1ST OR 2ND TEMPLE!!! They were disobedient lawbreakers. Who exactly would these peoples be today???

REMEMBER SHEM HAS MIXED WITH HAM AND JAPETH. ABRAHAM WAS AN IRAQI not an ISRAELI, although the land of ISRAEL was promised to his descendants. Even IDENTIFIABLE JEWS today are not IRAQI in their origins, SO WHAT MIGHT THE 10 TRIBES BE TODAY???? Selah!!!

The prophets in the Bible state quite accurately and in depth that the 10 tribes will return and will be a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS. If one would open one eyes and not be short-sighted by race one might recognise one's brothers.

It is possible that there is some useful information in there, but it certainly does not fit reasonably into the article in its current form. I put it here so that anyone minded at incorporating the actual information in a reasonable manner can have another go at it. TerraGreen 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The text you've deleted belongs to me: Jackie Brooks. You mention that there is some useful information there, but does not fit reasonably into the article - why remove all of it. If it is useful you could have edited in, instead of denying people useful information. Friday 10 March 2006

Deleted the section on Biblical support because it was entirely nonsensical. I apologize for not logging the full text here; I meant to. In any case, although it did contain a few Bible quotes that vaguely applied, it was just an incoherent springboard for the same kind of stuff listed above. It doesn't have a place here. -KD--216.43.17.100 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have one great problem in Semitizing us the Pakhtuns. Before Islam came we followed Aryan religions, spoke an Aryan language were ethnicaly Aryan. Now we follow the compassionate religion Islam (a Semitic) religion but our language and ethincity remains Aryan. Some of us have Semitic (Arab-Jewish) names due to Islam and also our language has picked up Arabic words. Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages and very close. So the Pathans an Aryan Race can not be made Jews the Semites. Gul Khan Afridi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.0.197 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this -- I doubt that the anon editor will read this, but the article does not claim that this is true, it reports, as an encyclopedia should, that some sources have made the claim. That's the job of an encyclopedia. Quite possibly most of the claims of the article are wrong, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the claims doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the reference on Pashtun Isrealite heritage is in the non-specific tribe section, but while reading it, I noticed that it very specifically names the tribe of Joseph as its link. SO it doesn't make sense to me why it is in this category and not in the section related to claims descending from the Tribes of Joseph. Also as to the comment above, The Islamic tradition is to adopt Arabic names which are NOT Semetic, The ISREALITE names are not the ISHMAELITE names of Arabs. IF there exist SEMETIC names there, it's more likely because ISREALITES were there, NOT because of Islam. IT is NOT a traditional muslim custom to adopt Semetic names but Arabic ones. Also the Aryan "race" is even more untraceble than the Semites, but as DW states the validity of the claims are not relevant to the reality that the claims exist and so belong in the section reporting such claims. IF there are Pashtuns claiming Aryan descent then it should be noted in Aryan and or Pashtun articles not here in the Lost Tribes of Isreal article unless a statement is posted that cites a reference to citations for studies or publications that use the Aryan theory to disprove the Semetic connection(eg perhaps proving the Aryans were there and somehow the groups could not have coexisted or supplanted each other.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.202.55 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)