posted
You can now for free read the following papers:
=Peabody Museum=
Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link
Volume 28, no. 2. 1958. The Living Races of the Sahara Desert, by L. Cabot Briggs. Link
Volume 23, no. 3. 1950. The Mountains of Giants: A Racial and Cultural Study of the North Albanian Mountain Ghegs, by Carleton S. Coon. Link
Volume 16, no. 2. 1940. Contributions to the Racial Anthropology of the Near East, by Carl C. Seltzer. Link
Volume 13, no. 3. 1936. The Racial Characteristics of Syrians and Armenians by W. B. Cline, C. S. Coon, J. M. Andrews, and W. C. Dupertuis, by Carl C. Seltzer. Link
=Harvard African Studies=
Volume 7. 1925. The Ancient Inhabitants of the Canary Islands, by Earnest A. Hooton. Link
Volume 9. 1931. Tribes of the Rif, by Carleton Stevens Coon. Link.
There's also five uploaded volumes of Varia Africana. LinkPosts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Can you get something from the past 50 years at least.
Some of these sources are invaluable like L. Cabot Briggs. some concepts introduced in these texts were never revisited or revised and are poorly quoted in mainstream anthropology etc. A LOT of what genetics is showing and is ABOUT to show are directly related to some of the things written and forgotten in these sources.
You probably read these but just posting this as a PSA for those who don't feel compelled to check em out.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link
This is why the Afrocentric argument is bogus. It's clear that in the period between 4000BC and dynastic Egypt, Egypt was closer to late dynastic Egyptians and modern Egyptians than to most other Africans below the Sahara. And it's clear why this is the case. Eurasian migration to Egypt (which eventually gave rise to modern Egyptians) brought back Egyptian ancestry. This is what was explained to people over several years with the breakdown of EEF-related DNA, for instance in the 'when to use black' thread.
The recent Keita critique leads nowhere. It changes nothing about the fundamental reality of the dominant ancestry in Egypt and North Africa in general, which was not wiped out by backmigration to Egypt. (A pure form of that ancestry was simply partly replaced with a less pure form of that ancestry, with only some backmigration ancestry actually being Eurasian). You can clearly see this in this paper because the admixed Giza sample is still closer to the Naqada sample than the Bantu-speaking sample is to either. The Bantu sample is not even close. Late Egyptians are not to Naqada what one-drop African Americans are to West Africans. The former hybrids would not pass for relatively 'pure' Eurasians like WHG/SHG/EHG, the way that one-drop Aframs might pass for whites or latinos. The paper shows that admixture in modern or late dynastic Egypt is not an argument that supports Afrocentrism. It's largely irrelevant for the Afrocentric position. It's only relevant in terms of CHANGE over time, but there is nothing supporting change of the biblical proportions that Afrocentrics have in mind when they try to push back against the Abusir results. The gap in between both Egyptian samples and the Bantu-speaking sample is going to be reflected in the genetic results. It's irrelevant what ancient Egyptian aDNA sample (north, south, Old Kingdom, etc.) they publish when it comes to this reality, so I don't see how the Keita critique changes anything that will help an Afrocentric position. You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.
Oh, and as far as these papers, they should have never given me access. Harvard better block my IP while they still can. They have no idea... Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link
fifteen years ago an ES member made a thread on this paper back in 2003
Michael Crichton: Egyptian and African Negro Crania
quote:Originally posted by bayside:
In 1966 Michael Crichton, a brilliant pre-med student, did a thesis on the late Naqqada period crania of Upper Egypt. This is the same Michael Crichton, by the way, whom would later go on to write the book Jurassic Park! He studied crania from the exact same cemetery Brace got his samples from. But unlike Brace, rather than finding them strongly Europoid with only minor Northeast African tendencies, Crichton found the crania to posses distinctly Negroid characteristics and he found them to cluster near Africans than Europeans.
more at link
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Afrocentrics have no leg to stand on if their argument is that the ancient Egyptians were genetically close to Bantus.
Please forgive my confusion and my questions:
Are you saying that Egyptian ancestry was brough back to Egypt by Eurasian migrants via the EEF related ancestry of the Eurasian backmigrants?
What conclusions could we draw if the Y-DNA of the Abusir mummies is also Eurasian - Haplo J for example?
I expect to see Y-DNA Em-78 and Em-35 in any genetic study on AE, but what other haplogroups can we expect of a population that is between IAM-like and Abusir-like?
What maternal haplogroups define indigenous North African ancestry?
The Mtdna profile of the Abusir mummies is overwhelmingly Eurasian - close to Bedouins. Do we expect this to be the case in early Dynasty samples - even in the South?
I was astonished to discover that Em-78 is more prevalent in Lower Egypt than it is in Upper Egypt. Is this something that you guys anticipated?
What do we now make of the idea that AE was a Sudanese transplant? What connects AE ancestry with predynastic Sudanese cultures?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
@Mr.Glass if you post a chart please put the article title and author under it, thanks
.
Nat Commun. 2017; 8: 15694. Published online 2017 May 30. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15694 PMCID: PMC5459999 PMID: 28556824 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Verena J. Schuenemann,1,2
_______________
Figure 4 Principal component analysis and genetic clustering of genome-wide DNA from three ancient Egyptians.
(a) Principal Component Analysis-based genome-wide SNP data of three ancient Egyptians, 2,367 modern individuals and 294 previously published ancient genomes, (b) subset of the full ADMIXTURE analysis (Supplementary Fig. 4). ___________________________________
We have an article here focused on mitochondrial DNA
Of the 3 mummies out of the 90 they also tested Y STR and one was E1b1b1
So a third of the Y they tested was North African Yet to them North Africans don't exist in their conclusions only "SSA" is compared
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
My old buddy who used to post here SirInfamous modified it for clarity:
"I thought I would edit the PCA and remove the magnified rectangle in Figure a for clarity. This gives us an idea how homogeneous the West Eurasian genetic cluster is, which includes present North Africans. It also demonstrates just how vast the differences are between the Ancient Egyptians and Modern Sub-Saharan groups. Even East Africans from the Horn such as Somalis show no strong ties to Ancient Egyptians." Link
If you look at the physical anthropology data he has compiled you also see modern Somalis aren't closely similar to ancient Egyptians in cranial non-metric & dental non-metric studies.
Posts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
I'm not speaking of Horners. I'm speaking of the relations between predynastic Upper Egyptian cultures like the Badarians and Naqadans to the A-Group culture of "Nubia" and those of Nabta Playa.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.
It may not be vindication if you define the "Afrocentric" position as the commonplace one saying all native African ancestry should look quintessentially SSA. But keep in mind that Eurocentrics see any characterization of AE as (fundamentally) indigenous Africans as "Afrocentric". At this point, I don't really care whether any AE population clusters right next to Bantu in any study. If the African ancestry in ancient Egyptians and Nubians turns out to be more like that of IAM or Taforalt than SSA, that will be personally fine with me. The problem only comes in when they try to argue that the "Basal Eurasian" ancestry that is going to be the common denominator between IAM, Taforalt, and Egypto-Nubians is bona fide Eurasian rather than African.
Speaking of which, I thought you had a critique of IAM's ancestry being characterized as OOA based on a claimed presence of Neanderthal introgression. What were the details of that again? All I can remember is that it had something to do with the Neanderthal comparative sample being used having some African AMH-like ancestry.
posted
Many 19th and early 20th-century anthropologists you guys would label as "evil Eurocentrics" or "racists" were actually arguing for an autochthonous North African origin for ancient Egyptians.
Samuel Morton: "changed his opinions [from 1846-1851] as to feel assured that the primordial Egyptians were not an Asiatic, but an aboriginal population, indigenous to Nile-land." - Types of Mankind, Nott et al. 1854 p. 229
Samuel Morton's letter to George Gliddon, 1849:
"[T]he Egyptian skulls...compel me to recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. They never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."
Morton, Gliddon, Nott etc clarified that in their revised view the ancient Egyptians were an aboriginal race to North Africa that physically looked intermediate between the Caucasian Asiatic and Negroid in their racial classification.
Posts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
The Afrocentrics have no leg to stand on if their argument is that the ancient Egyptians were genetically close to Bantus.
Please forgive my confusion and my questions:
I don't mind genuine questions or genuine curiosity.
quote:Are you saying that Egyptian ancestry was brough back to Egypt by Eurasian migrants via the EEF related ancestry of the Eurasian backmigrants?
Yes. This applies to EEF ancestry (e.g. R-V88, E-V13 and Y-DNA G in modern Egypt), but this also goes for other other groups like J carriers. I just talk about EEF more because, out of all farmer groups in West Eurasia, we know most about EEF in terms of skeletal, haplogroup and autosomal affinities. They're the clearest example of backmigration involving Egyptian (and North African) ancestry. When it comes to other populations (like Y-DNA J carriers) it's more complex. See my comment on J carriers below.
quote:What conclusions could we draw if the Y-DNA of the Abusir mummies is also Eurasian - Haplo J for example?
Do you mean what about J carriers in terms of bringing back Egyptian ancestry? It also applies to them. J comes from Mesolithic Iranians and Caucasus people. We know a little bit about what some of these Mesolithic Iranians looked like. Some look like a mixture between EHG and certain Africans. See here:
Direct paedomorphic transformations—large, high-vaulted, mesocrane with big forehead and reduced face (Mixed Apine), as in Hotu 3, at Jericho, or at Offnet and Teviec in central and western Europe. --The People, Angel 1971
Translation to common English: what Angel is talking about is hybrid people in Mesolithic Iran and Palestine, who look like Jericho Man below, with shortish upper faces, globular heads and wide foreheads. They are not found in older periods, so they must represent a mixture that emerged around that time, which then decreased in population size during the Neolithic when the African OOA populations were a bit different. (Different in terms of having clearer links with later ancient Egyptians).
So, to relate it back to Y-DNA J. That hg itself is not African, but prior to its spread the ancestral Y-DNA J people mixed with Africans. This ancestry is still in all J carriers today, whether their hg profiles show evidence of it, or not. When the admixture happens that early (i.e. during the formative period of a hg), it stays with and spreads with that hg.
quote:I expect to see Y-DNA Em-78 and Em-35 in any genetic study on AE, but what other haplogroups can we expect of a population that is between IAM-like and Abusir-like?
At this point I would say L3*, L3k, E-M35, and M1 as the main African component, with Eurasian hgs representing most of the rest. Contrary to many others here, I would not put A-M13 as important in ancient Egypt's SSA component (although I could be wrong). SSA in Egypt IMO would come mainly in the form of Omotic-type ancestry, and only a relatively smaller part would be A-M13. We've discussed that recently, here. Limited E-M2 was also in the SSA part of ancient Egypt, with influx during the Middle Kingdom and 15000 years ago. The Middle Kingdom influx was discussed here.
quote:What maternal haplogroups define indigenous North African ancestry?
See above. There are some mtDNAs that we can't detect today, that will be found in the future. These mtDNAs belonged to people who were dominant in North Africa before 33kya. They contributed ancestry to North Africans, but their hgs didn't survive to the present day. But they are in that list of indigenous North African hgs. It's just that we haven't found their hgs yet. Although A-P305 (previously called A0) may be part of their genetic legacy.
quote:The Mtdna profile of the Abusir mummies is overwhelmingly Eurasian - close to Bedouins. Do we expect this to be the case in early Dynasty samples - even in the South?
No, not in my point of view. The two ancient Egyptian half brothers were M1. And in neighboring Libya the little mtDNA fragments we have show a change from Neolithic to later times, with the former being homogeneous, and neither SSA-like, nor Eurasian. The latter (late Bronze Age Libyan samples) were like modern coastal North Aricans and Eurasians. There is not enough genetic resolution to translate this ancient libyan hg information into specific haplogroups. But it's consistent with my prediction above of M1, L3*, L3k type hgs in the Egyptian African component. But I see this pastoral Libyan hg profile as likely being comparable to predynastics, mtDNA-wise. Dynastic Egyptians were cosmopolitan and therefore more mixed and less homogeneous in their mtDNA profile, compared to these pastoral Libyans. The Abusir sample is comparable to the late Bronze Age Libyan sample, so all older dynastic Egyptians could have been both overlapping and in between these pastoral and late Bronze Age Libyans.
quote:I was astonished to discover that Em-78 is more prevalent in Lower Egypt than it is in Upper Egypt. Is this something that you guys anticipated?
I don't think that's accurate with a large enough sample. But I can see that some northern Egyptian samples will have more of it than some southern samples. This is because 1) southern Egyptians have more recent admixture with SSA populations (e.g. in Sudanese-Egyptian Copts B-M60 has lowered their E-M78) and 2) hgs are not always reliable indicators of ancestry. Southern Egypt also has inherited more Post-Roman and Middle Kingdom E-M2, which also affects their percentage of E-M78. Below is a graph showing northeast African E-M78 percentages only (all other hgs are excluded from the analysis).
quote:What do we now make of the idea that AE was a Sudanese transplant? What connects AE ancestry with predynastic Sudanese cultures?
I don't see that as being true. I see the African side of most North Africans in the last 10ky as mainly drawing ancestry from this population (pre-Mesolithic al Khiday), to varying degrees. I don't see Nubians as genetically ancestral. There is not enough data yet, but Nubians seem to have mainly been a mixture of the aforementioned ancestral population (i.e. pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) and Nilotes. Predynastic Egyptians SEEM to have mainly been a mixture of the aforementioned ancestral population (i.e. pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) and Omotic-like populations. This is based on the varying amounts of Omotic-type ancestry that was found in Mesolithic Eurasia (highest in the recently sampled Natufians [some analyses show these Natufians as having ~10% Mota-like]). Cushitic speaking Ethiopians are a mixture of the aforementioned ancestral population (i.e. pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) + Nilotes, + Mota-like. This is a simplification, of course. All these populations (e.g. Egyptians, Nubians, Cushitic speakers, Maghrebis) have the same ancestry types, but just in different proportions. Closeness to Egyptians in northeast Africa is going to depend on similar proportions, not on who has or doesn't have any one particular ancestry type.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Indigenous North Africans is precisely what the AE were, and I can't see any reasonable person denying this.
Their Y-DNA is African (Em-78 and Em-35) and their Mtdna must have been dominated by M1.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.[/qb]
It may not be vindication if you define the "Afrocentric" position as the commonplace one saying all native African ancestry should look quintessentially SSA. But keep in mind that Eurocentrics see any characterization of AE as (fundamentally) indigenous Africans as "Afrocentric". At this point, I don't really care whether any AE population clusters right next to Bantu in any study. If the African ancestry in ancient Egyptians and Nubians turns out to be more like that of IAM or Taforalt than SSA, that will be personally fine with me. The problem only comes in when they try to argue that the "Basal Eurasian" ancestry that is going to be the common denominator between IAM, Taforalt, and Egypto-Nubians is bona fide Eurasian rather than African.
Speaking of which, I thought you had a critique of IAM's ancestry being characterized as OOA based on a claimed presence of Neanderthal introgression. What were the details of that again? All I can remember is that it had something to do with the Neanderthal comparative sample being used having some African AMH-like ancestry.
I don't remember saying that IAM are a population with a unique OOA type ancestry (if that's what you mean). I think they are a 'regular' E-M35 type pastoral population broadly similar to others at that time in coastal North Africa.
I think I said that Neanderthals share ancestry with IAM that is African in origin and that this is the reason for the inconsistent Neanderthal admixture results of IAM. I've bumped the PM you're talking about. See your inbox.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.
It may not be vindication if you define the "Afrocentric" position as the commonplace one saying all native African ancestry should look quintessentially SSA. But keep in mind that Eurocentrics see any characterization of AE as (fundamentally) indigenous Africans as "Afrocentric". At this point, I don't really care whether any AE population clusters right next to Bantu in any study. If the African ancestry in ancient Egyptians and Nubians turns out to be more like that of IAM or Taforalt than SSA, that will be personally fine with me. The problem only comes in when they try to argue that the "Basal Eurasian" ancestry that is going to be the common denominator between IAM, Taforalt, and Egypto-Nubians is bona fide Eurasian rather than African.
Speaking of which, I thought you had a critique of IAM's ancestry being characterized as OOA based on a claimed presence of Neanderthal introgression. What were the details of that again? All I can remember is that it had something to do with the Neanderthal comparative sample being used having some African AMH-like ancestry.
I don't remember saying that. I think I said that Neanderthals share ancestry with IAM that is African in origin and that this is the reason for the inconsistent Neanderthal admixture results of IAM. I've bumped the PM you're talking about. See your inbox. [/QB]
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Though when I was talking about IAM being characterized as OOA, I was referring to Fregel et al calling them OOA, not you.
posted
Ok, I misread. I see what you mean. See the PM and also see Taforalt's Neanderthal %, which has come out since then. The weirdness persists with the Taforalt sample, which has the same so-called 'Neanderthal' as PPN and somehow less of it than Ballito Bay.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I simply cannot thank you enough for going to all the exhausting trouble of providing me with a very clear picture (educating me) on this matter point by point.
This is the kind of detailed, nuanced analysis I love and appreciate. I don't think anyone should feel threatened by the fact that the AE had some Eurasian genes alongside African haplogroups like Em-78, Em-35, L3, L3k and M1.
You have provided a full spectrum analysis and break-down of all the questions I asked, and I am richer for it. Bless you, Swenet.
To be honest with you, I will admit that I was emotionally inclined to believe that AE was a Sudanese transplant, but I now see that this may be wrong.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: To be on honest with you, I will admit that I was emotionally inclined to believe that AE was a Sudanese transplant, but I now see that this may be wrong.
Al-Khiday is still located in the modern nation of Sudan. So is a large chunk of the proto-Afrasan homeland if we go by Ehret's scenario. So in a sense, AE are (at least partly) of Sudanese descent, just not the Nilotic/South Sudanese type.
posted
^I would like to see some further justification of any claim that the AE were not nilotic and/or saharan in origin, and by that I mean something more than skull shapes.
I also still have yet to experience the sheer terror some of you seem to think those supporting an African origin have of the AE not being 100% African or identical with modern southern groups. I'm just waiting for the same stringent purity standards to be applied outside of Egypt. *shrugs*
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Indigenous North Africans is precisely what the AE were, and I can't see any reasonable person denying this.
Their Y-DNA is African (Em-78 and Em-35) and their Mtdna must have been dominated by M1.
. Why are you saying their mtDNA must have been M1? That is circular logic based on assumption
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I would like to see some further justification of any claim that the AE were not nilotic and/or saharan in origin, and by that I mean something more than skull shapes.
I also still have yet to experience the sheer terror some of you seem to think those supporting an African origin have of the AE not being 100% African or identical with modern southern groups. I'm just waiting for the same stringent purity standards to be applied outside of Egypt. *shrugs*
We kind of discussed that already. "African purity" is primarily an issue from my experience because many factions within Afrocentrism (experts or no) that frequently equate African with black. If someone isn't African or partly African they're not black or only partially black. IMO It's all just subtle race talk. And not only is it race talk it's the type that ignores the possibility of a black history outside of Africa, to which other posters here have stated there most certainly is.
I'm more of the view that time and proximity from the Levant would be important and don't agree with any pigeonholing of a genetic profile across time and geography. I don't think there was one "true" genetic profile for all Egyptians. It changed over time, change didn't affect all of Egypt the same, and in a general sense there would be more Levanite influences in the north and more distinctly Sudanese influences in the south. Culturally Ta-Seti extended into Sudan. It's highly doubtful that the southern frontiers of Egypt lacked Sudanese influence when they annexed portions of their land into Egypt from the start and apparently adapted portions of Sudan's royal traditions.
But I do find it strange that Ta-Seti had so much in common with Abydos, Naqada and Hierakonopolis to be considered so distantly related. I don't buy that a land so proximal and similar lacked a relationship to southern Egypt while northerners were more representative. Towards unification the complete collapse of Ta-Seti culture, the absence of the A-group and its original reach into Sudan would potentially implicate that Sudanese had some role in the development in southern Egypt and that Sudanese became part of southern Egypt before unification.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is exactly what I meant when I said I have no problems with genuine questions. Somehow there seems to be a misconception where some think I have a problem with genuine questions, even though I've always made myself available for questions. It's the transparently disingenuous games above (Tyrannohotep) that I have a problem with. I've asked for clarification several times over the years re: evidence for his "Upper Nubian" origin of pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday. Evidence is never forthcoming. But it's always Tyrannohotep who bring it up again months or years later, trying to "secure" an origin as far south as possible.
I advise genuinely interested people to read the Irish abstract and the Donatella Usai materials about the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday closely. The population in question is simply found at that site during a short wet spell and then disappears from that site until related "Lower Nubian" and "Kushite" populations show up in mid-Holocene and Bronze Age times. None of the other Sudanese sites with Mesolithic remains (including the al Khiday site itself) have anything linked to the pre-Mesolithic people. So, no, there is no evidence that the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday people were "Upper Nubian". There is only evidence of pre-Mesolithic people entering the al Khiday site from outside, and then disappearing again, taking their burial and other customs with them. Meaning, the succeeding people were unlike the pre-Mesolithic people. The succeeding Mesolithic people even destroyed their graves, trying to make fire pits. How is use of a site for a short time consistent with an origin of these people at that site?
We find the customs of these pre-Mesolithic people in coastal North Africa (including the Maghreb) and among the Natufians before the pre-Mesolithic al Khiday people. Tyrannohotep knows this very well. We have talked about this. Yet he keeps trying to play geological games, knowing full well Mesolithic Sudan was dominated by people ancestral to modern Nilotes.
Anyway, I've said what I have to say in regards how I see the origin of these populations. I'm not interested in convincing people. I post the evidence and it's up to people to decide for themselves. So go ahead. Put your own extra sauce on what I said and make it seem like I'm distorting the origin of the al-Khiday population, when it's really you who is distorting things. You've been trying to peddle this for years. So go ahead. Tell these people how it's really Upper Nubia and Lake Turkana. The more south, the better, right? Who cares what the evidence says.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is exactly what I meant when I said I have no problems with genuine questions. Somehow there seems to be a misconception where some think I have a problem with genuine questions, even though I've always made myself available for questions. It's the transparently disingenuous games above (Tyrannohotep) that I have a problem with. I've asked for clarification several times over the years re: evidence for his "Upper Nubian" origin of pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday. Evidence is never forthcoming. But it's always Tyrannohotep who bring it up again months or years later, trying to "secure" an origin as far south as possible.
I advise genuinely interested people to read the Irish abstract and the Donatella Usai materials about the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday closely. The population in question is simply found at that site during a short wet spell and then disappears from that site until related "Lower Nubian" and "Kushite" populations show up in mid-Holocene and Bronze Age times. None of the other Sudanese sites with Mesolithic remains (including the al Khiday site itself) have anything linked to the pre-Mesolithic people. So, no, there is no evidence that the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday people were "Upper Nubian". There is only evidence of pre-Mesolithic people entering the al Khiday site from outside, and then disappearing again, taking their burial and other customs with them. Meaning, the succeeding people were unlike the pre-Mesolithic people. The succeeding Mesolithic people even destroyed their graves, trying to make fire pits. How is use of a site for a short time consistent with an origin of these people at that site?
We find the customs of these pre-Mesolithic people in coastal North Africa (including the Maghreb) and among the Natufians before the pre-Mesolithic al Khiday people. Tyrannohotep knows this very well. We have talked about this. Yet he keeps trying to play geological games, knowing full well Mesolithic Sudan was dominated by people ancestral to modern Nilotes.
Anyway, I've said what I have to say in regards how I see the origin of these populations. I'm not interested in getting people to believe me. So go ahead. Put your own extra sauce on what I said and make it seem like I'm distorting the origin of the al-Khiday population, when it's really you who is distorting things. You've been trying to peddle this for years. So go ahead. Tell these people how it's really Upper Nubia and Lake Turkana. The more south, the better, right?
Gee, all I said in the last post was that al-Khiday (as well as part of the territory Ehret assigns to his proto-Afrasan homeland) was located in the geographic region now called Sudan. Not that that they were ethnically related to Nilo-Saharans like the Mesolithic Nubians (e.g. Jebel Sahaba). If I ever said anything implying that AE had their origins from the territory now covered by Sudan recently, it was because of Ehret's reconstruction of the proto-Afrasan homeland. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Ehret.
But you know what? If you're going to turn on me like this, I am not going to put up with your BS anymore. I, along with many other posters in this community, am damn tired of your whinging about "Afrocentrics" (not to mention "Darwinists"). Leave this forum like you claimed you were going to a long time ago. We don't want to hear from you again.
posted
^Your angry posts read like toddler tantrums. I'm addressing your obsessive posts recently about PAA in Eritrea/Ethiopia and Lake Turkana, And your obsessive history of spinning the al Khiday site as a homeland. What is it with these obsessive posts trying to place PAA and the pre-Mesolithic al Khiday as far south as possible?? Is playing geographical games with African cultures therapeutic for you, somehow?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Swenet
I simply cannot thank you enough for going to all the exhausting trouble of providing me with a very clear picture (educating me) on this matter point by point.
This is the kind of detailed, nuanced analysis I love and appreciate. I don't think anyone should feel threatened by the fact that the AE had some Eurasian genes alongside African haplogroups like Em-78, Em-35, L3, L3k and M1.
You have provided a full spectrum analysis and break-down of all the questions I asked, and I am richer for it. Bless you, Swenet.
To be honest with you, I will admit that I was emotionally inclined to believe that AE was a Sudanese transplant, but I now see that this may be wrong.
I'm glad to have been of help. I hope you continue reading and researching this and even verifying what I said is correct. When you've looked it up, you will be able to articulate and defend your take on the data from a deeper place of knowing and understanding. When people come along with misinformation you'll be able to pick it apart based on sources and arguments that will resonate more with you than I will ever be able to explain it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Indigenous North Africans is precisely what the AE were, and I can't see any reasonable person denying this.
Their Y-DNA is African (Em-78 and Em-35) and their Mtdna must have been dominated by M1.
We now know their MtDNA haplogroup frequencies and M1 wasn't common:
Note the "Pre-Ptolemaic" include samples (n = 44) that date back as far as 1388 BCE.
And if you look at the PCA I posted - you will see ancient Egyptians plot genetically closest to modern Bedouin, Palestinians and Lebanese.
It's exactly the same for ancient Nubians:
"Principal component analysis was performed for sample KulR17 using 523 SNPs referenced against the Human Genome Diversity Project dataset. From this analysis, the geographic ancestry of this individual was estimated to be closer to Middle Eastern/and Central and South Asian populations than to any African population." (Sirak et al. 2015)
Posts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
I simply cannot thank you enough for going to all the exhausting trouble of providing me with a very clear picture (educating me) on this matter point by point.
This is the kind of detailed, nuanced analysis I love and appreciate. I don't think anyone should feel threatened by the fact that the AE had some Eurasian genes alongside African haplogroups like Em-78, Em-35, L3, L3k and M1.
You have provided a full spectrum analysis and break-down of all the questions I asked, and I am richer for it. Bless you, Swenet.
To be honest with you, I will admit that I was emotionally inclined to believe that AE was a Sudanese transplant, but I now see that this may be wrong.
When did Ancient Egypt stop being a Sudanese transplant?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Your angry posts read like toddler tantrums. I'm addressing your obsessive posts recently about PAA in Eritrea/Ethiopia and Lake Turkana, And your obsessive history of spinning the al Khiday site as a homeland. What is it with these obsessive posts trying to place PAA and al Khiday as far south as possible?? Is this therapeutic for you, somehow?
I believe you are referring to my mentioning Roger Blench's theory of proto-Afrasan origins, which located it in Ethiopia. But I don't believe I clung to that theory for very long. Nor did I argue, even back then, that this population would have been biologically SSA. Nor have I denied that there were populations elsewhere in North Africa that shared a common cultural heritage with proto-Afrasans, even if I ended up seeing proto-Afrasan itself as originating along the southwestern Red Coast like Ehret said.
That is the last thing I will say in this conservation. Good bye, and good riddance to you.
posted
Tyrannohotep, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you. Your attempts to push PAA and pre-Mesolithic al Khiday as far south as possible over the years are on record. Sometimes it looks like you're trolling. For some reason you think people aren't seeing it.
I said what I had to say. I hope just you being bi-polar, stand by what you said.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Glass: We now know their MtDNA haplogroup frequencies and M1 wasn't common:
Are you implying that data to represent all of Egypt across time? The Abusir samples were the descendants of Lower Egyptians that had ties to the Levant dating to the predynastic and were then under foreign Asian rule for centuries before the first mummies were sampled. I'm not going to be aghast to find non African ancestry in older southern samples but I don't agree with pigeonholing their ancestry in this way.
quote: It's exactly the same for ancient Nubians:
"Principal component analysis was performed for sample KulR17 using 523 SNPs referenced against the Human Genome Diversity Project dataset. From this analysis, the geographic ancestry of this individual was estimated to be closer to Middle Eastern/and Central and South Asian populations than to any African population." (Sirak et al. 2015)
Again same issue here: Time and place. This is a Christian sample? If the "Coptic" component connects much of Northeast Africa and peaks in people who were originally from northern Egypt (Copts) and not from Sudan, this would suggest against founder populations among Nubians having already been a transplant of the Near East. Instead it would suggest their ancestors lacked this component and were distinct from northern Egypt, homogenizing relatively over time from their proximal neighbors to received this ancestral component later from Egypt and other more northern areas.
Another area of confusion is where did the type of ancestry from the Amarnas and Ramses come from if Sudan was as Near Eastern as northern Egypt? I'd also expect modern Nubians to be more homogenous with Copts and other northern Egyptans if their populations all of these populations were equally Near Eastern from the start.
May I ask what predynastic or Neolithic data you have? Correct me if I'm wrong but Hassan found Neolithic Sudanese to have African influences as well and these influences remained in samples following the Meroitic. It would be interesting to explore the common origin of both Nubians and Egyptians as both containing Near East influences. However Sudan wasn't absent of African influences either and I doubt it's influences were insignificant.
IDK just thought to share this thought it was interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: When did Ancient Egypt stop being a Sudanese transplant? [/qb]
Northern Egypt was probably never a Sudanese transplant. At best, the predynastic kingdoms near Ta-Seti had a common ancestor.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:The isotopic analyses (i.e. δ18O values; Figure 5) indicate that the pre-Mesolithic individuals lived in a different climate with a greater amount of rainfall, whereas in Neolithic and Meroitic samples the values show an increase in aridity. Isotopic values are in accordance with the Holocene climatic trend established on the basis of independent palaeoclimatic data (Verschuren 2003). A literature review has identified isolated cases of prone burials in Natufian cemeteries (13 000-8000 BC) (Bocquentin 2005), a very ancient skeleton at Wadi Kubbanyia, southern Egypt (c. 20 000 BC) (Wendorf & Schild 1986) and one individual from Dolni Vestonice, Czech Republic (24 000 BC) (Klima 1987). A comparison with these examples suggests a late Pleistocene or very early Holocene date for Al Khiday 2. However, nowhere else does this ritual show the dimensions recorded at Al Khiday 2, making this site one of the most important in the context of African archaeology.
Nothing here says "Egypt is a transplant from Upper Nubia via the al Khiday people". The pre-Mesolithic people are different in time and climatic setting from all the other inhabitants of site, who used it during more arid periods.
quote:Tooth avulsion was observed in the majority of the 94 pre-Mesolithic individuals, involving the maxillary central incisors. However, only three of the 32 Neolithic individuals had avulsed teeth, targeting the mandibular central incisors, while none of the 43 Meroitic individuals showed evidence of avulsion practices.
^Again, this site is not a homeland. The later occupants were different culturally and ethnically. We don't see hints that this site or sites close by were closely related to the pre-Mesolithic people.
quote:Here, we present new data on Saharan population history using an independent data type: the presence and pattern of incisor avulsion, documented for the first time at sites in the southern Sahara Desert. At Gobero (Republic of Niger) both males and females were affected with no side or arcade preference. The frequency of affected individuals did not change through time; however the practice became exclusively male-focused and expanded to include the lateral incisors during the Middle Holocene. Comparison of the pattern and prevalence of avulsion at key Late Pleistocene sites from throughout northern Africa indicates the practice was restricted to the Maghreb. Our interpretation of these data suggests some Maghrebi migrants re-settled the southern Sahara, but over time, new groups entered the Sahara initiating a complex, multi-ethnic community dynamic in which some individuals enhanced the signal of social identity by extracting a greater number of teeth, thus producing a highly visibly modified countenance.
quote:Data on the presence or absence of avulsion are presented by site in Fig. 4. The pattern is stark and clear. Avulsion was found fre- quently in the Maghreb during the Late Pleistocene, but does not occur in any Late Pleistocene sample from the Nile Valley, East Africa or West Africa. Incisor avulsion was also not documented in any of the Early Holocene samples from West and East Africa. In fact, we found no evidence that Late Pleistocene Africans any- where in the continent practiced incisor avulsion, with the excep- tion of the Iberomaurusian peoples who did so at a nearly 100% rate. Previous to our work at Gobero, incisor avulsion was also lar- gely undocumented from Early Holocene sites from the western and central Sahara. While many of these sites preserved very few individuals (Petit-Maire and Dutour, 1987), Dutour’s (1989a) work in the Hassi-el-Abiod region of Mali produced a large sample of human remains that date from around 7–8kya, none of which exhi- bit incisor avulsion. Therefore, the fact that individuals buried at Gobero as early as 9.5kya practiced incisor avulsion is indeed sig- nificant. It suggests some cultural or biological connection between some of the peoples that settled the southern Sahara during the Early Holocene Humid Period and their contemporaries in the Maghreb. Whether this reflects evidence for direct migration of Maghrebi peoples into the south-central Sahara is difficult to ascer- tain.
^Nope, no evidence here either that the pre-Mesolithic al Khiday were culturally anything like other Sudanese of this time period,
The al-Khiday site is simply the southernmost site where people of this type and culture temporarily used and then abandoned a cemetery. Somehow, you leave it to some, this wider cultural context involving Egypt, Maghreb, Natufians and possibly UP Europeans is turned on its head to where it says something completely different. The al Khiday site is among the youngest sites showing all these features (not the oldest site), so it can't be a homeland of this population. But when I point this out, trolls want to have an attitude, like you wasn't trying to push the origin of these people as far south as possible.
If this wasn't so sad it would be funny the lengths people are going to distort the data. But this is very sad and very serious. Some apparently can't be trusted to relay correct information about the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday population. They keep repeating the same falsehoods obsessively over the years, even when they're told it's not true.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Glass: We now know their MtDNA haplogroup frequencies and M1 wasn't common:
Are you implying that data to represent all of Egypt across time? The Abusir samples were the descendants of Lower Egyptians that had ties to the Levant dating to the predynastic and were then under foreign Asian rule for centuries before the first mummies were sampled. I'm not going to be aghast to find non African ancestry in older southern samples but I don't agree with pigeonholing their ancestry in this way.
quote: It's exactly the same for ancient Nubians:
"Principal component analysis was performed for sample KulR17 using 523 SNPs referenced against the Human Genome Diversity Project dataset. From this analysis, the geographic ancestry of this individual was estimated to be closer to Middle Eastern/and Central and South Asian populations than to any African population." (Sirak et al. 2015)
Again same issue here: Time and place. This is a Christian sample? If the "Coptic" component connects much of Northeast Africa and peaks in people who were originally from northern Egypt (Copts) and not from Sudan, this would suggest against founder populations among Nubians having already been a transplant of the Near East. Instead it would suggest their ancestors lacked this component and were distinct from northern Egypt, homogenizing relatively over time from their proximal neighbors to received this ancestral component later from Egypt and other more northern areas.
Another area of confusion is where did the type of ancestry from the Amarnas and Ramses come from if Sudan was as Near Eastern as northern Egypt? I'd also expect modern Nubians to be more homogenous with Copts and other northern Egyptans if their populations all of these populations were equally Near Eastern from the start.
May I ask what predynastic or Neolithic data you have? Correct me if I'm wrong but Hassan found Neolithic Sudanese to have African influences as well and these influences remained in samples following the Meroitic. It would be interesting to explore the common origin of both Nubians and Egyptians as both containing Near East influences. However Sudan wasn't absent of African influences either and I doubt it's influences were insignificant.
IDK just thought to share this thought it was interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: When did Ancient Egypt stop being a Sudanese transplant?
Northern Egypt was probably never a Sudanese transplant. At best, the predynastic kingdoms near Ta-Seti had a common ancestor. [/QB]
We all know about Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt being separate cultures before unification. However, the impetus for Dynastic Egypt was Upper Egypt, and the relevant predynastic cultures of Upper Egypt were a series of neolithic cultures all tied to the Sudan.
When Ancient Egypt was described as a Sudanese transplant, that was a description of its archaeological and cultural ties to the Sudan. As far as we know there exists no ancient genetic data to refute such a claim. We have no ancient DNA from neither neolithic Nubia nor neolithic Egypt. All we have are genetic bloggers, who like to talk a lot and who have a bunch of strong opinions and easily rattled personalities.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
"When did Egypt stop being a Sudanese transplant" ↓ "Only Egyptian culture was a Sudanese transplant" ↓ "Only Upper Egyptian culture was a Sudanese transplant" ↓ "Only Upper Egyptian culture leading to pharaonic culture was a transplant"
Notice that the moment when they start measuring 'culture' is conveniently nitpicked to the period when the there is evidence of cultural diffusion from the south. One could just as easily have defined pharaonic culture later, when the diffusion goes the other direction. So why do they start measuring 'culture' from the early Neolithic onward? That is completely arbitrary and wilful. The case could be made that pharaonic culture wasn't formed during the Neolithic, but during the Naqada period, when diffusion went mainly in the other direction. Then what?
I'm glad to see Oshun wasn't fooled by this sleight of hand and goal post shift to culture. There is no one-sided genetic or cultural exchange or replacement across the Egypto-Nubian border to the point where we can talk about transplants.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really are trying to win as many posters as possible to the Holy Church of Swenet, aren't you?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would have been more accurate if you said lurkers. I'm definitely trying to show the lurkers your sleight of hand.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan Author: Yousif, Hisham; Eltayeb, Muntaser
Thesis
University of Khartoum 2009
.... To shed light on these aspects, ancient DNA (aDNA) and present DNA collection were made and studied using Y-chromosome markers for aDNA, and Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers for present DNA. Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, BM60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed.
...Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events X
Haplogroup A-M13 of Y-chromosome which defines Nilotic and other populations in East Africa (Underhill et al., 2000) was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. YAP insertion appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup F-M89 which defines the Eurasian haplotypes was observed among samples from Christian period. Though limited in Number, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, followed by influx of north/eastern African populations during Meroitic and post-Meroitic, and then by arrival of Eurasian populations throughout the Christian period.
In Y-chromosome terms this means in the simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian haplogroups which are defined by the ancestral haplogroup F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. For extant DNA, the PCA plot of Y-chromosome defines two major genetic episodes for Sudanese populations who speak Nilo-Saharan langauges , one is the predominace of haplogroup A-M13 and B-M60 among those groups and the other is defined by the other important haplogroup which is the E-M78. The frequency and wide spread of haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 makes an excellent marker for early events in population affinities. And to test for hypothesis such as whether the Nilotics have a continuous history in the Sudan and East Africa or whether there was a re-entery to the Nile basin from the Great Sahara following the deterioration of the climate in that region. Haplogroup B-M60 appears to be more characteristic to the Nile Valley as being more associated with populations along the Nile and may equally give clues into past demographic events. Haplogroup E-M78 the other defining haplogroup in the PCA, has an African origin in northeastern African, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa (Cruciani et al., 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations it has exceptionally high frequency in few populations like those coming from western Suadn and particularly Darfur area and the Beja. The analysis of M78 subclades among Sudanese suggests that two subclades, E-V12 and E-V22, which are very common in northern African (Cruciani et al., 2007), might have been brought to Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000 8,000 years ago. Sudden climate change might have forced several Neolithic cultures/people to shift northwards to the Mediterranean and southwards to the Sahel and Nile Valley (Dutour et al., 1988; Rando et al., 1998). E-V32 which is supposed to be originated in East Africa is the most frequent subclade among Sudanese. The Masalit possesses by far the highest frequency of haplogroup E-M78 and of the E-V32 subclade, suggesting either a recent bottleneck in the population or a proximity to the origin of this subclade. Both E-V13, which is believed to originate in western Asia with its low frequency in North Africa, and E-V65 of North African origin (Cruciani et al., 2007), were not found among Sudanese, these data suggest that haplogroup E-M78 has been brought to Sudan by two episodes; one from the north after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 8,000-6,000 years ago, the second one may have come from Ethiopia after the collapse of the kingdom of Meroe on the Nile by the Axumite people during the 4th Century AD (Kobishchanov, 1979). The other group to show high frequency of haplogroup E-V32 are the Beja who shows genetic affinity with Ethiopians including Oromo and Amhara populations ( Semino et al., 2002) which consent the historical evidence of contact between Ethiopia and Sudan (Hassan, 1968, 1973; Passarino et al., 1998) and the fact that they speaks two languages that branches from the Afro-Asiatic family, thus reinforcing the strong correlation between linguistic and genetic variation in this study
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^I would like to see some further justification of any claim that the AE were not nilotic and/or saharan in origin, and by that I mean something more than skull shapes.
I also still have yet to experience the sheer terror some of you seem to think those supporting an African origin have of the AE not being 100% African or identical with modern southern groups. I'm just waiting for the same stringent purity standards to be applied outside of Egypt. *shrugs*
It's a lil preemptive to say anything about the (un)relatedness between Predynastic or even MSA egyptians and "Nilotic" populations dating to that time period. You have to keep in mind some major possibilities. Modern nilotes such as south sudanese populations can be a poor examples of early North-east sudanic people. This is in no relation to their language phylum or culture but strictly based on genetics (and maybe physical anthro.) I've been trying to relay the point that taking certain modern populations AS IS and using them as representative of long term continuity is counterproductive. The same ancient crania and mandibles losely categorized as Negroid or African and generally used to show distinction from Eurasians, North Africans, and AEgyptians when analyzed amongst modern "SSA" populaions also show distinction. - In other words ancient Africans particularly the ones that lack khoisan traits don't cluster perfectly with Modern Africans whether they're "pure SSA" or not.
No data outright speaks against AE being partially derivative of ancient Sudan/sahara yet. There's more surprises on the way aDNA wise... no need to jump to the Hamitic theories yet.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Are you implying that data to represent all of Egypt across time? The Abusir samples were the descendants of Lower Egyptians that had ties to the Levant dating to the predynastic and were then under foreign Asian rule for centuries before the first mummies were sampled. I'm not going to be aghast to find non African ancestry in older southern samples but I don't agree with pigeonholing their ancestry in this way.
Ok, but most Afrocentrists until very recent were claiming late dynastic Egyptians were indigenous. They've been falsified. Remember Pagani et al. 2015? that they loved to quote until...
"The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date" (Schuenemann et al. 2017)
Posts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
A Sudanese Transplant in the Delta
I remember but can't cite 'Gafsian' contributions to sites in southern Middle Egypt.
Couple a days ago I came across this in the Oxford Hist of AE
quote: There was probably a break in occupation between levels 1 and 2 at Merimda. Level 2, known as the Mittleren Merimdekultur and considered by the excavator to be related to Saharo-Sudanese cultures, is marked by a denser occupation of the site, with simple oval dwellings of wood and wickerwork, well-developed hearths, storage jars sunk in the clay floors, and large clay-coated baskets in accessory pits serving as granaries. Contracted burials were also located among the dwellings. Ceramics are radically different from the previous period because they are straw tempered, but the shapes were still simple. Nearly half of the pottery was polished, and none of it appears to have been decorated. The lithic industry is predominantly bifacial. Concave-base arrowheads appear for the first time at Merimda. A large number of artifacts in bone, Ivory, and shell have been found, and threee-barbed harpoons are typical. Agriculture continues as the basic economic activity, but, judging from the number of bones, cattle become more important, while fishing and hunting are both still well attested. No radiocarbon dates are available, but a date between 5500 and 4500 BC has been suggested by the excavator.
.
I jus dunno. Sudani-Saharo or Saharo-Sudanese or Neolithic of Sudanese Tradition. Can you have such a thing and 'Sudan' (code word for inner Africa) types of people not be its creators and spreaders? I dunno how.
In this far north case I suppose culture over demics. Maybe a few pioneer 'Sudanese' ventured toward the coast. They would introduce their cultural technology ultimately derived from 'Mesolithic' Khartoum forebears. Probably too few in number for any demic impact.
Not certain what oasis E-M2 (D'Atanasio2018) implies or reflects on this?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Unknown nameless purported Afrocentrics? Again? The Bogey Man!!
quote:Originally posted by Glass: but most Afrocentrists
Collecting dues before taking names?
I typed the Pagani quote and searched this forum...
quote:Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on 28 December, 2015 04:08 AM:
Recent genetic studies have been extraordinary for us who wanted more proof Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans not migrants from the Middle East and Europe. Recent studies have found no substantial amount of Eurasian admixture in Egypt before around 750 years ago. It means Ancient Egyptians were truly indigenous Africans not migrants from Middle East or Europe.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] But , in addition, modern Egyptians are the most foreign infiltrated African population in the Northern part of the continent. And unlike some Afro-centric I don’t use “books” to make that claim. I use available scientific data. There is NO significant genetic footprint of Greeks, Romans, Vandals, Gauls or whatever existing in modern Egyptians.
My interpretation – These invasions were overated or overstated.. Just as the so called Arabian expansion in North Africa or the Bantu expansion. Etc.
There only genetic or scientific evidence of foreign occupation in North Africa are the J2 which correlates with the Ottomans. This I agree with Mike.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
As regards so-called "updated" 2015 data showing "white" or Caucasoid Egypt, or that moderns are almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED. Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions
"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously. " -- Luca Pagani et al. 2015. Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians. e American Journal of Human Genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 96, Issue 6, p986–991
quote:Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on 03 April, 2016 06:27 PM:
We know that modern Egyptians (are on average) 80% non African and the entrance of this non-African DNA has been documented to 1400 years ago -- when the Arabs conquered Egypt. He has yet to provide evidence of a mass migration of Eurasians into Egypt prior to the Greek conquest.
Plenty more quotes like this.
A few of these posters were acknowledging non-African ancestry in Achaemenid & Ptolemaic Egyptians, but absolutely none for New Kingdom, Intermediate Period and Saite Period for which we now have ancient DNA that shows late 2nd millennium BC and early 1st millennium BCE ancient Egyptians plot closest genetically to prehistoric/ancient/modern Levantine populations and modern Bedouin.
Posts: 13 | From: Earth | Registered: Sep 2018
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
These are ES members.
Where out in the world are your "most Afrocentrists"?
Their publications?
If you mean some black people posting on ES just say so.
If you mean Blackcentric bloggers say so.
I don't know any credentialed Afrocentric academics the least interested in population genetics.
Late 20th century politically active black historians like Diop, ben Jochannan, and Williams all recognized late dynastic non-black Egyptian nationals.
I imagine Afrocentrics follow their lead or else are rootless and ungrounded pseudo-Afrocentrics.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Are you implying that data to represent all of Egypt across time? The Abusir samples were the descendants of Lower Egyptians that had ties to the Levant dating to the predynastic and were then under foreign Asian rule for centuries before the first mummies were sampled. I'm not going to be aghast to find non African ancestry in older southern samples but I don't agree with pigeonholing their ancestry in this way.
Ok, but most Afrocentrists until very recent were claiming late dynastic Egyptians were indigenous. They've been falsified. Remember Pagani et al. 2015? that they loved to quote until...
"The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date" (Schuenemann et al. 2017)
Some did perhaps. But in my observing what you quoted as examples of this behavior, it may be worth my time mentioning to you that the examples of such conduct you bring up based their opinion on scientific research available at the time. Even Keita's talking about the Amarna STRs which offer credibility to the idea of a SSA component existing. When people read about the Amarna data, See Ramses III's haplogroup data AND see the Pagani study, many assumed that this was a closed case based on that available data. Changing one's position in light of new data is how one retains the ability to think at least somewhat scientifically right? I don't consider the Egyptians to have ever been homogenous. There may be components they mostly have to varying degrees, but I don't see them ever being the equivalent of a Han Chinese. The closest to that would've been during the predynastic before southern expansion, where more isolated bands of smaller communities existed before unification that were more closely related. Pagani's observations and Keita mentioning this "SSA" profile failing to match the profiles along slave trade routes may support particular African components that existed during ancient times and has some kind of common ancestor with SSAs. The ancestors of Pagani's samples may have had this component moreso than the Abusir samples. It's possible to consider that all these researchers provide some truth, and aren't in refutation of one another at all. However to see it that way requires people to put behind them the attitude that Egyptians (ancient or otherwise) are/were all this, or all that.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Glass: we now have ancient DNA that shows late 2nd millennium BC and early 1st millennium BCE ancient Egyptians plot closest genetically to prehistoric/ancient/modern Levantine populations and modern Bedouin.
that is biased and if we look at the detail below, the data rather than author's remarks we see why
Earliest samples Abusir El-Meleq
You refer to one article about one location which is largely not older periods and biased toward mtDNA rather than sldo including the paternal Y-DNA
What about the Y DNA in this article, the 3 samples of the 90 also tested for nuclear DNA?
posted
"Melting pot" societies did not exist in the ancient world like they do today. Partly and primarily because ancient societies weren't as mobile today and second because most ancient cultures weren't built on explicit models of colonization.
Ancient Bablyon, Greece, Rome and Egypt were primarily indigenous cultures who did have some level of mixture due to immigration and conquest. Rome conquered parts of the Levant and North Africa so of course Romes population was not all "Roman". Same with Greece. Ancient Egypt also had conquered territories in the Levant and therefore some populations of Levantine origin were present as well throughout the dynastic period. But in all of these cultures the primary ethnic component at the core of the culture was primarily indigenous and homogenous. Rome proper was the core of the Roman state just as Athens was the core of ancient Greece and Upper Egypt (Luxor/Thebes) was the core of ancient Egyptian culture.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic