quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^ I guess I can't force people to avoid enunciating fringe theory born on the ES forum. IMO, it does a disservice to African history. For example, there's no need to try to "steal" haplogroups origin from other people. The Beyoku post being a case in point. Ancient Egyptians being mostly African derived haplogroups like A, B and E. Ramses III being E1b1a as well as the DNA Tribes results are other cases in point. Ancient Egyptians were fully black Africans (aka like modern so-called sub-saharan Africans). No need for fringe theory for this.
While everybody can enunciate fringe theory, as I said above, it's anybody's right, I think it does a disservice to African history. It makes the whole black African origin of Ancient Egyptian look extremely fringe when in reality it is (now) completely confirmed by modern genetic analysis of aDNA from Ancient Egyptian remains.
This is one of the most "mainstream" geneticists way to view the haplogroups origin situation:
We don't even need to state fringe theory about haplogroups origin. Ancient Egyptians were mostly from the A, B, E descendant haplogroups which are usually considered African in origin (aka not the product of a back migration from Eurasia).
I don't understand what you mean by "fringe theory". There is nothing "fringe" about speculating whether certain clades truly were of African origin since their postulated 'Near-Eastern' origins are rather close to the African continent and that some early derivatives if not original upstream markers of that clade are found on the African continent as well. This is what I'm getting at! You're right about certain clades may be quintessentially African such but that doesn't mean it is somehow fringe to question the Eurasian identity of some clades. This doesn't mean I don't accept any scenarios of back-migrations as there was nothing to stop Eurasians from migrating back to Africa, however like Keita I tend to be cautious since migrations back-and-forth between Africa and Southwest Asia a.k.a. the 'Near East' seemed to have been continuous.
^^Mainstream scientists building models of African DNA patterns and migration cannot be exactly called fringe.
---------------------------------------------
certain clades may be quintessentially African such but that doesn't mean it is somehow fringe to question the Eurasian identity of some clades.
^^Indeed. And what is deemed "Eurasian" in some quarters can be heavily a product of selective sampling- such as sampling the far north of Egypt and using only those samples as "representative" of the vast majority of Egypt, excluding the historic south.
And finally, some claims of "Eurasian" this or that are exercises in biased labeling. Keita criticizes that labeling when he notes that ancient groups moved over a vast area adjacent to Africa, and moved in an out of Africa- back and forth millennia ago. He questions how such become conveniently "Eurasian".. There is still robust debate on the origin of various haplogroups. need steal anything. The labeling game so often used is like a black guy crossing over into Mexico and suddenly becomes "Hispanic", but when he moves back into Texas, the reverse doesn't happen. He is still "Hispanic".. Keita's comment below:
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Mainstream scientists building models of African DNA patterns and migration cannot be exactly called fringe. [/QB]
It's not the mainstream scientists building models of African DNA pattern which are fringe. It's the one of people like Djehuti!! Even mainstream scientists admit, as I mentioned in the other thread, that M1 could be of African origin. It's not the case with other M and N MtDNA. They are very rare in unadmixed African populations. Other populations like Europeans do have a high amount of MtDNA M and N descendants hg as well as Y-DNA F descendants hg. Related to genetic events after the main Out of Africa migration.
The good news is that if the beyoku preview of the aDNA results is true and representative of Ancient Egyptians, then we don't even need to state fringe theory about haplogroups origin and try to steal the hg for all the other populations on earth. Personally, if it wasn't the case, I would just continue to point out the cultural and religious similarity, and possibly direct influence of "SSA" in the case of Kemet, between ancestral "religions"/spirituality on earth like I do now with Ancient Greece, Rome, Shinto, South Korea, China, Aztec, Celtic, Druid, Kemet, Kush and ancient African states of course. All great civilizations which practiced ancestral traditional spiritual knowledge. In such case, I would personally exclude Ancient Egypt from the proper African history and put it in the interesting and essential, international history category. Which would be strange because it would mean DNA Tribes, DNA consultants and the Ramses III study weren't right or representative of the Kemetian population structure. It's not the proper fora for this, but I also love to read about other African civilizations history like the Wagadu state, Great Zimbabwe, Kongo, Yoruba, Bunyuoro Kitara, Timbuktu, Luba, Zulu, etc etc. I make no secret about it, especially civilizations which are not the products of Muslim and European colonisation and influence. Thus authentically African to a high degree (even if there was trading and relations with other nations). Other people have other interests which is ok too. If an African is interested in Scandinavian, Chinese or Ancient Greece history, it's all good of course. Even to see how Africans localized/africanized foreign religions like islam and christianity though syncretism, for example, can be interesting. Those civilizations are indeed very interesting. I personally, love historical movie and TV series (and books) about Ancient Rome and Vikings (other civilizations TV/Movies are more rare). Usually Ancient Greece movies are more about mythical and fantasy history of the gods and deities, than proper history of the Ancient Greece who developed mathematics, democracy, freedom of speech, etc. (probably inspired to some degree by Kemet of course).
What pushed me to joined this forum is after the DNA Tribes results were published. (Even if I read Obenga, Diop, others historians, and web sites before about the "Africanity" of Ancient Egypt). I was still looking for genetic proof which the JAMA and DNA Tribes analysis of the 18th Dynasty royal mummies results provided.
Y-DNA, A, B and E are said to be African even by mainstream geneticists.
MtDNA L, and possibly, M1, are said to be African even by mainstream geneticists.
Which happens to be the same hg that we see in Ancient Egyptians aDNA remains posted by beyoku. While the DNA Tribes, DNA consultants, BMJ Ramses III (and Unknown Man E) aDNA origin already pointed us into that direction. Now it's just about waiting for the preview study to be published. Then, to further our knowledge, as always, waiting for more aDNA study from other remains, in Ancient Egypt, Kush, the Sahara and the rest of Africa. As well as other archeological, linguistic and historical studies of course to learn more about the history of Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
the lioness, cat got your tongue or what? Why are you not answering my reply to you? You can say it if you agree. Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: If you read the what is written below the map, it talks about a gene of Sub-Saharan African origin. Have you seen it? So every genetic research thus far about adna of Ancient Egyptians comes down to the same thing. Please tell me what you think about it, the lioness. The closer you are to so called Sub-Saharan Africans, the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.
So if a particular modern Copt is closer to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. If a Russian is closer to Sub-Saharan Africans, then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. etc.
DNA Tribes didn't match modern Egypt but sub-Saharan Africans, and it's a more complete study because it study not just one gene but many of them and, as you know, it mostly matches so called Sub-Sahara (sub-coastal) Africans. That is in the Great Lakes, Southern, Western and Sahelian regions (using autosomal STR DNA).
Same thing with the peer-reviewed study (used by DNA tribes btw) which also shows Ramses III and the Unknown man E to be E-M2 (E1b1a).
This thread (the original post with the preview of DNA results) also shows the same thing. So, all research thus far show that the closer you are to "sub-Saharan" Africans, the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians. What do you think the lioness? [/QB]
One could say as sson as they said the gene was Sub Sharan African it's a wrap. I don't want to hear about Copts, get that Copt **** out of there.
Yet if you look at the whole picture it's harder to understand. If this so called "Egyptain gene" is Sub Saharan in origin why would a mulatto population, the Copts have the most of it?
According to what they are saying if the Egyptian gene is Sub Saharan in origin and the Copts have the most of it, it implies they have a particular type of Sub Saharan African gene that is more specific to Egypt than other parts of Africa, so much so that even though they are a mixed population they still have more of this gene than other Africans.
That may not be true, as with DNA Tribes there needs to be peer review and other scientists analyzing the same and new data
There is a new type of DNA testing being developed which is going to be more accurate than how it's done now.
Also in looking at what DNA Tribes says
Match Likelihood Index
Southern African 326.94 African Great Lakes 323.76 Tropical West African 83.74
This doesn't mean that Egypt was derived from these places, it means in those places you are more likely to find the same DNA as the ancient Egyptians. But they didn't mention Copts.
Similarly what zarahan said below doesn't separate Copts from other Egyptians when he makes the remark that Modern Egyptians cluster with Middle Easterners like Arabs. But the Copts are only 10-20% of modern Egyptians and they predate the Arabs in Egypt by hundreds of years
So we don't know how DNA Tribes analysis would have looked if Copts were separated. I don't know.
Copts ? Southern African 326.94 African Great Lakes 323.76 Tropical West African 83.74
Slowminded one. Phenotype and genotype are not always #
quote: The new topology of the tree has important implications concerning the origin of haplogroup E1b1. Secondly, within E1b1b1 (E-M35), two haplogroups (E-V68 and E-V257) show similar phylogenetic and geographic structure, pointing to a genetic bridge between southern European and northern African Y chromosomes. Thirdly, most of the E1b1b1*(E-M35*) paragroup chromosomes are now marked by defining mutations, thus increasing the discriminative power of the haplogroup for use in human evolution and forensics.
Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257 [...]
However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis.
[...]
Haplogroup E1b1 which is characterized by a high degree of internal diversity is the most represented Y chromosome haplogroup in Africa. Here we report on the characterization of 12 mutations within this haplogroup, eleven of which were discovered in the course of a resequencing and genotyping project performed in our laboratory. There are several changes compared to the most recently published Y chromosome tree [2]. Haplogroup E1b1 now contains two basal branches, E-V38 (E1b1a) and E-M215 (E1b1b), with V38/V100 joining the two previously separated lineages E-M2 (former E1b1a) and E-M329 (former E1b1c). Each of these two lineages has a peculiar geographic distribution. E-M2 is the most common haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa, with frequency peaks in western (about 80%) and central Africa (about 60%).
--Beniamino Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: If you read the what is written below the map, it talks about a gene of Sub-Saharan African origin. Have you seen it? So every genetic research thus far about adna of Ancient Egyptians comes down to the same thing. Please tell me what you think about it, the lioness. The closer you are to so called Sub-Saharan Africans, the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.
So if a particular modern Copt is closer to modern Sub-Saharan Africans, then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. If a Russian is closer to Sub-Saharan Africans, then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. etc.
DNA Tribes didn't match modern Egypt but sub-Saharan Africans, and it's a more complete study because it study not just one gene but many of them and, as you know, it mostly matches so called Sub-Sahara (sub-coastal) Africans. That is in the Great Lakes, Southern, Western and Sahelian regions (using autosomal STR DNA).
Same thing with the peer-reviewed study (used by DNA tribes btw) which also shows Ramses III and the Unknown man E to be E-M2 (E1b1a).
This thread (the original post with the preview of DNA results) also shows the same thing. So, all research thus far show that the closer you are to "sub-Saharan" Africans, the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians. What do you think the lioness?
One could say as sson as they said the gene was Sub Sharan African it's a wrap. I don't want to hear about Copts, get that Copt **** out of there.
Yet if you look at the whole picture it's harder to understand. If this so called "Egyptain gene" is Sub Saharan in origin why would a mulatto population, the Copts have the most of it?
According to what they are saying if the Egyptian gene is Sub Saharan in origin and the Copts have the most of it, it implies they have a particular type of Sub Saharan African gene that is more specific to Egypt than other parts of Africa, so much so that even though they are a mixed population they still have more of this gene than other Africans.
That may not be true, as with DNA Tribes there needs to be peer review and other scientists analyzing the same and new data
There is a new type of DNA testing being developed which is going to be more accurate than how it's done now.
Also in looking at what DNA Tribes says
Match Likelihood Index
Southern African 326.94 African Great Lakes 323.76 Tropical West African 83.74
This doesn't mean that Egypt was derived from these places, it means in those places you are more likely to find the same DNA as the ancient Egyptians. But they didn't mention Copts.
Similarly what zarahan said below doesn't separate Copts from other Egyptians when he makes the remark that Modern Egyptians cluster with Middle Easterners like Arabs. But the Copts are only 10-20% of modern Egyptians and they predate the Arabs in Egypt by hundreds of years
So we don't know how DNA Tribes analysis would have looked if Copts were separated. I don't know.
Copts ? Southern African 326.94 African Great Lakes 323.76 Tropical West African 83.74
. [/QB]
I kind of agree with you. It is just that modern Copts are probably from different origin. From example, many modern Copts in Sudan got y-DNA hg J which didn't originate in "sub-sahara" Africa like the "egyptian gene" according to DNA consultants (and other research of course). So the question for any modern people, in Egypt or around it, is how much do the modern population is representative of the past population. How much sub-saharan genes do they have. Since I don't know about the genetic structure of modern Copt, I can't speculate.
But what I know, and what you must agree with me, is that for any Copt, if one is closer to modern sub-saharan Africans then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. That's what the genetic studies show. Even your own post. If a Copt got admixed and got a lot of foreign genes like J, K, mtdna H, U, V, he's probably not very close genetically with Ancient Egyptians. Said in other words, if the modern Copt are the closest to "sub-Saharan" African people more than any population on earth, then it's all good. It's just basic logic using the data we have at the moment.
I will repeat it again, in another way, for example, if DNA tribes decide to use copt as a distinct population (we don't know, they may already did) and if the Copt have the highest MLI for example, then those specific copt need to be the closest to sub-Saharan Africans, because DNA Tribes already excluded modern Egyptians, North Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc from being the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA . So those Copts would need to be the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other population on earth (already in the DNA tribes database).
It's true for the Copts, but it's true for any population already in the DNA tribes database. Those modern Copts, you wish are close to aDNA from Ancient Egyptians, CANT be closer to any population already in the DNA Tribes database other than Sub-Saharan African.
Same thing with the Beyoku results, they MUST, if you believe the preview study to be accurate of course, have mostly African A, B or E y-DNA haplogroups or African L mtDNA haplogroups. If those people have European R, K, N, or whatever non African haplogroups then they don't match most of the Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
Modern sub-Saharan Africans (and possibly modern Copts, we don't know, so can't speculate) and Ancient egyptians mostly share the same hg (or the same autosomal STR) ancestors which are not shared by other population like Europeans, Eurasian, etc, beside through admixture of course.
Notice that according to Beyoku's study preview, both side, male y-DNA and female mtDNA are African. Same for the DNA tribes autosomal STR study (which study both sides since autosomal means non-sexual).
I said it many times on this forum, I don't think modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I kind of agree with you. It is just that modern Copts are probably from different origin. From example, many modern Copts in Sudan got y-DNA hg J which didn't originate in "sub-sahara" Africa like the "egyptian gene" according to DNA consultants (and other research of course). So the question for any modern people, in Egypt or around it, is how much do the modern population is representative of the past population. How much sub-saharan genes do they have. Since I don't know about the genetic structure of modern Copt, I can't speculate.
But what I know, and what you must agree with me, is that for any Copt, if one is closer to modern sub-saharan Africans then he will be closer to Ancient Egyptians. That's what the genetic studies show. Even your own post. If a Copt got admixed and got a lot of foreign genes like J, K, mtdna H, U, V, he's probably not very close genetically with Ancient Egyptians. Said in other words, if the modern Copt are the closest to "sub-Saharan" African people more than any population on earth, then it's all good. It's just basic logic using the data we have at the moment.
I will repeat it again, in another way, for example, if DNA tribes decide to use copt as a distinct population (we don't know, they may already did) and if the Copt have the highest MLI for example, then those specific copt need to be the closest to sub-Saharan Africans, because DNA Tribes already excluded modern Egyptians, North Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc from being the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA . So those Copts would need to be the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other population on earth (already in the DNA tribes database).
It's true for the Copts, but it's true for any population already in the DNA tribes database. Those modern Copts, you wish are close to aDNA from Ancient Egyptians, CANT be closer to any population already in the DNA Tribes database other than Sub-Saharan African.
Same thing with the Beyoku results, they MUST, if you believe the preview study to be accurate of course, have mostly African A, B or E y-DNA haplogroups or African L mtDNA haplogroups. If those people have European R, K, N, or whatever non African haplogroups then they don't match most of the Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
Modern sub-Saharan Africans (and possibly modern Copts, we don't know, so can't speculate) and Ancient egyptians mostly share the same hg (or the same autosomal STR) ancestors which are not shared by other population like Europeans, Eurasian, etc, beside through admixture of course.
Notice that according to Beyoku's study preview, both side, male y-DNA and female mtDNA are African. Same for the DNA tribes autosomal STR study (which study both sides since autosomal means non-sexual).
I said it many times on this forum, I don't think modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree? [/QB]
"Modern day Copts" have mixture from Levantines and Greeks.
These events are all of relative recent times. And is recorded history.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
How and what about oral traditions and other remaining fractions amongst modern Africans relating to ancient Egypt?
This is of course beside from what "you believe or personally think". Which isn't based on actual field research, but pure opinion. Hence, believe. And that's in fact the problem with "thinking" what it should be...
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
wiki:
A study of Copts group in Sudan found relatively high frequencies of Sub-Saharan Haplogroup B (Y-DNA). The Sudanese Copts are converts to Egyptian Christianity and not ethnically related to Egyptian Copts. According to the study, the presence of Sub-Saharan haplogroups may also consistent with the historical record in which southern Egypt was colonized by Nilotic populations during the early state formation.[50]
However, it is not generally accepted that Sudanese Copts are ethnically related to those of Egypt, as conversion of ethnic Nubian kings to Christianity occurred in the 6th century AD. According to tradition, a missionary sent by Byzantine empress Theodora arrived in Nobatia and started preaching the gospel about 540 AD. It is possible that the conversion process began earlier, however, under the aegis of Coptic missionaries from Egypt. The Nubian kings accepted the Monophysite Christianity already practiced in Egypt and acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Egyptian Coptic patriarch of Alexandria over the Nubian church, which in turn adopted the Coptic name for their church
[50] Hassan, Hisham Y.; Underhill, Peter A.; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca L.; Ibrahim, Muntaser E. (2008). "Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese:Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History"
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
How and what about oral traditions and other remaining fractions amongst modern Africans relating to ancient Egypt?
This is of course beside from what "you believe or personally think". Which isn't based on actual field research, but pure opinion. Hence, believe. And that's in fact the problem with "thinking" what it should be...
I said believe and personally, because it's technically possible, on the current level of knowledge, that many "sub-Saharan" African people are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Oral tradition about origin is always lets say a bit fluid. Although, since we know from mainstream geneticists and linguists that most DNA and languages originate in the same north-east African direction from sub-Sahara Africa, it provides some credential to such oral tradition (which always point to the same direction either from the north or from the north east, as far as I know). There's a lot of religious, linguistic (like similar words) and cultural aspect (like headrests), among many others, shared between Kemetians and so called sub-Saharan Africans (more like sub coastal Africans). Higher resolution of aDNA can provide some answers, as well as other archeological/linguistic/historic study, but I prefer to work with what we know for sure. Also while most modern African people (DNA and modern languages) originate in Eastern Africa (after the OOA of course), I'm not sure the timing is right for the Ancient Egypt period. Again, those timings are also very fluid since they always rely on a specific "rate of changes", which may not be similar in every situations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
wiki:
A study of Copts group in Sudan found relatively high frequencies of Sub-Saharan Haplogroup B (Y-DNA). The Sudanese Copts are converts to Egyptian Christianity and not ethnically related to Egyptian Copts. According to the study, the presence of Sub-Saharan haplogroups may also consistent with the historical record in which southern Egypt was colonized by Nilotic populations during the early state formation.[50]
However, it is not generally accepted that Sudanese Copts are ethnically related to those of Egypt, as conversion of ethnic Nubian kings to Christianity occurred in the 6th century AD. According to tradition, a missionary sent by Byzantine empress Theodora arrived in Nobatia and started preaching the gospel about 540 AD. It is possible that the conversion process began earlier, however, under the aegis of Coptic missionaries from Egypt. The Nubian kings accepted the Monophysite Christianity already practiced in Egypt and acknowledged the spiritual authority of the Egyptian Coptic patriarch of Alexandria over the Nubian church, which in turn adopted the Coptic name for their church
[50] Hassan, Hisham Y.; Underhill, Peter A.; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca L.; Ibrahim, Muntaser E. (2008). "Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese:Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History"
Of course not all Copts are similar in admixture as lioness is trying suggest.
Population genetics is based on relative selectors of the population.
We also know that a good number of European scientists are biased in their studies with selective markers.
Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group. There happen to be Egyptians who are Copts and those who happen to have admixture former to the later less or more.
Thus making Northern Egyptians cold adapted or intermediate in limb ratio and body portions.
While the ancient population of that region was close to people of the South, hence tropical adapted.
The same wiki wacky from where you ripped that post says this:
quote: Tutankhamun[edit source | editbeta] Scientists at a Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, in a in Discovery Channel documentary 2011 claimed that Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50% of European men, but less than 1% of modern-day Egyptians belong to.[16]
However, why do not 50% of European man carry the Sickle Cell disease.?
How come?
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
How and what about oral traditions and other remaining fractions amongst modern Africans relating to ancient Egypt?
This is of course beside from what "you believe or personally think". Which isn't based on actual field research, but pure opinion. Hence, believe. And that's in fact the problem with "thinking" what it should be...
I said believe and personally, because it's technically possible, on the current level of knowledge, that many "sub-Saharan" African people are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Oral tradition about origin is always lets say a bit fluid. Although, since we know from mainstream geneticists and linguists that most DNA and languages originate in the same north-east African direction from sub-Sahara Africa, it provides some credential to such oral tradition (which always point to the same direction either from the north or from the north east, as far as I know). There's a lot of religious, linguistic (like similar words) and cultural aspect (like headrests), among many others, shared between Kemetians and so called sub-Saharan Africans (more like sub coastal Africans). Higher resolution of aDNA can provide some answers, as well as other archeological/linguistic/historic study, but I prefer to work with what we know for sure. Also while most modern African people (DNA and modern languages) originate in Eastern Africa (after the OOA of course), I'm not sure the timing is right for the Ancient Egypt period. Again, those timings are also very fluid since they always rely on a specific "rate of changes", which may not be similar in every situations.
You base your "conclusions" on assumptions.
My suggestion to you is, get yourself a ticked and do some field research.
When you deal with aspects similar or close to that of ancient Egypt it all becomes a bit ironic. lol
How will you know, you are a anonymous Internet armchair student.
I do field research.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
What I am saying is that Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group, as lioness is trying to claim with that wiki quote.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
How and what about oral traditions and other remaining fractions amongst modern Africans relating to ancient Egypt?
This is of course beside from what "you believe or personally think". Which isn't based on actual field research, but pure opinion. Hence, believe. And that's in fact the problem with "thinking" what it should be...
I said believe and personally, because it's technically possible, on the current level of knowledge, that many "sub-Saharan" African people are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Oral tradition about origin is always lets say a bit fluid. Although, since we know from mainstream geneticists and linguists that most DNA and languages originate in the same north-east African direction from sub-Sahara Africa, it provides some credential to such oral tradition (which always point to the same direction either from the north or from the north east, as far as I know). There's a lot of religious, linguistic (like similar words) and cultural aspect (like headrests), among many others, shared between Kemetians and so called sub-Saharan Africans (more like sub coastal Africans). Higher resolution of aDNA can provide some answers, as well as other archeological/linguistic/historic study, but I prefer to work with what we know for sure. Also while most modern African people (DNA and modern languages) originate in Eastern Africa (after the OOA of course), I'm not sure the timing is right for the Ancient Egypt period. Again, those timings are also very fluid since they always rely on a specific "rate of changes", which may not be similar in every situations.
You base your "conclusions" on assumptions.
For you what I replied to you above, sounds like some definitive conclusions? (well, you at least put the word in quotes). Re-read what I said. I gave some arguments like the timings and the need for higher resolution for aDNA. I prefer to work with what we have 100% for sure. One way or the other, it doesn't bother me the least bit.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
What I am saying is that Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group, as lioness is trying to claim with that wiki quote.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I will say it again, since it was a long post:
Personally, I don't think most modern Africans are the direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, but I believe both Ancient Egyptians and modern so called Sub-Saharan Africans share the same ancestors. That is the A, B, E and L ancestors. If modern Copts, share those ancestors with modern Africans, then it's all good. So the question is always, how much sub-Saharan genes do they have? Do you agree?
How and what about oral traditions and other remaining fractions amongst modern Africans relating to ancient Egypt?
This is of course beside from what "you believe or personally think". Which isn't based on actual field research, but pure opinion. Hence, believe. And that's in fact the problem with "thinking" what it should be...
I said believe and personally, because it's technically possible, on the current level of knowledge, that many "sub-Saharan" African people are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Oral tradition about origin is always lets say a bit fluid. Although, since we know from mainstream geneticists and linguists that most DNA and languages originate in the same north-east African direction from sub-Sahara Africa, it provides some credential to such oral tradition (which always point to the same direction either from the north or from the north east, as far as I know). There's a lot of religious, linguistic (like similar words) and cultural aspect (like headrests), among many others, shared between Kemetians and so called sub-Saharan Africans (more like sub coastal Africans). Higher resolution of aDNA can provide some answers, as well as other archeological/linguistic/historic study, but I prefer to work with what we know for sure. Also while most modern African people (DNA and modern languages) originate in Eastern Africa (after the OOA of course), I'm not sure the timing is right for the Ancient Egypt period. Again, those timings are also very fluid since they always rely on a specific "rate of changes", which may not be similar in every situations.
You base your "conclusions" on assumptions.
For you what I replied to you above, sounds like some definitive conclusions? (well, you at least put the word in quotes). Re-read what I said. I gave some arguments like the timings and the need for higher resolution for aDNA. I prefer to work with what we have 100% for sure. One way or the other, it doesn't bother me the least bit.
I did read what you posted, try to understand my approach. It's not an insult rather a suggestion.
It will be so much more beneficial to what you already know.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
What I am saying is that Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group, as lioness is trying to claim with that wiki quote.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I did read what you posted, try to understand my approach. It's not an insult rather a suggestion.
It will be so much more beneficial to what you already know.
Instead of pompously tell me to do some field research, what don't you just laid out the main aspects that you learned through them in you posts. Your main arguments. It's hard for me to learn or to counter arguments with what you have in your head. I provide some argumentation about the timings (of DNA and linguistic data), and also about the need for higher resolution of aDNA. We are on the same side. I just go with what I got and is available to me 100% for sure. Yes, I'm willing to learn from you, other people or any new studies. For example, I learned recently about the Marin study and the Benin sickle cell gene may be present in Ancient Egypt in Ancient time (I didn't know about the Marin study). Now I include it in my knowledge/discourse. Although, I need access to the Marin study, or a quote from it, to confirm the sickle cell variety found in Ancient Egyptian remains. It's never mentioned and Swenet didn't know for sure either. Nobody provides quotes about the variety found as far as I know. Still, it's a very interesting aspect. Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
What I am saying is that Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group, as lioness is trying to claim with that wiki quote.
Good point.
It's an ethnoreligious group, a group DNA tribes distinguishes genetically in their database from Egyptian Arabs and also Egyptian Siwa berbers (but not in the Amarna article) (see Populations -Egypt)
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
If Copts, according to DNA Consultants, are closest of all people in percentage to some types of ancient Egypton DNA markers and they are only partially Sub Saharan then your statement is incorrect,
If Copts, according to DNA Consultants, are closest of all people in percentage to some types of ancient Egypton DNA markers then you might be able to say
> Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan African Coptic DNA will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
Logically some random Sub Saharan might be near 100% African and a Copt might be susbstancially less let's say 40-60& Sub Saharan yet this Copt might be closer in affinty to the Ancient Egyptians, it goes against the supposition
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I did read what you posted, try to understand my approach. It's not an insult rather a suggestion.
It will be so much more beneficial to what you already know.
Instead of pompously tell me to do some field researchs, what don't you just laid out the main aspect that you learned through them in you posts. Your main arguments. It's hard for me learn or to counter arguments with what you have in your head. I provide some argumentation about the timings (of DNA and linguistic data), and also about the need for higher resolution of aDNA. We are on the same side. I just go with what I got and is available to me 100% for sure. Yes, I'm willing to learn from you, other people or any new studies. For example, I learned recently about the Marin study and the Benin sickle cell gene may be present in Ancient Egypt in Ancient time. Now I include it in my discourse. Although, I need access to the Marin study to confirm the sickle cell variety found in Ancient Egyptian remains. It's never mentioned and Swenet didn't know for sure either. Nobody provides quotes. Still, it's a very interesting aspect.
I know traditional oral tradition and rituals as is passed on. And that of field research. But I don't like to speak of these over the Internet to anonymous people. Therefor I suggested for you to go local.
Anyway, ancient Northern Egyptian populations were similar in body stature to those from the South. Nowadays in the North they are not. Middle Egypt and the Southerners are still tropical adapted as ancient Egyptians.
quote:Northern Egyptians group with Africans: QUOTE – Smith 2002: "Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity.“
-- Smith, P.(2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admix.. In: Egypt & the Levant.. Leicester Univ. 118-28
quote: Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans
"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.
The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
--Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation.(2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
quote:"When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline."
--Barry Kemp.(2006) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. p. 54
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's possible that Copt have a type of Sub Saharan DNA that is much lesser in other Africans since they are only partially African yet according to an unconfirmed private DNA testing firm, are closest in DNA to the AEs
I'll grant you, it's possible. But as Throll Patrol said many modern Copts probably have have a mixture from Levantines and Greeks genes, while Ancient Egyptians have a mixture of Sub-Saharan African genes. Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA. Ancient Egyptians aDNA are NOT to closest to modern Egyptians (well most of them), modern North Africans, Europeans or West Asians. They are the closest with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So in baby talk: NOT Europe, NOT Western Asia, NOT the rest of North Africa, YES "sub-Sahara" Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the closer to Ancient Egyptians than all those people. They share the same ancestors.
What I am saying is that Coptic is a religion not an ethnic group, as lioness is trying to claim with that wiki quote.
Good point.
It's an ethnoreligious group, a group DNA tribes distinguishes genetically in their database from Egyptian Arabs and also Egyptian Siwa berbers (but not in the Amarna article) (see Populations -Egypt)
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan Africans will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
If Copts, according to DNA Consultants, are closest of all people in percentage to some types of ancient Egypton DNA markers and they are only partially Sub Saharan then your statement is incorrect,
If Copts, according to DNA Consultants, are closest of all people in percentage to some types of ancient Egypton DNA markers then you might be able to say
> Those who are the closest to Sub-Saharan African Coptic DNA will be the closest to Ancient Egyptians aDNA.
Logically some random Sub Saharan might be near 100% African and a Copt might be susbstancially less let's say 40-60& Sub Saharan yet this Copt might be closer in affinty to the Ancient Egyptians, it goes against the supposition
Copts are not ethnic groups, Copts are religious. Egyptians happen to have converted to Coptic. Just like others converted to Islam etc. Thus creating a pattern in mixing with related populations. Making them relate more to one or the other.
Some Copts from the North can be different in admixture to someone from Middle Egypt. If you claim the same ethnographic of Copts all over Egypt, you are clueless on population genetics.
There are Copts who hardcore claim Nubian.
You have never set foot in Egypt, or Africa as a whole. So stop your forsaking nonsense.
I posted this before, as you ignored it as usually. Tell do you understand this? And why do you reinforce your lies?
quote: Haplogroup E1b1 which is characterized by a high degree of internal diversity is the most represented Y chromosome haplogroup in Africa. Here we report on the characterization of 12 mutations within this haplogroup, eleven of which were discovered in the course of a resequencing and genotyping project performed in our laboratory. There are several changes compared to the most recently published Y chromosome tree [2]. Haplogroup E1b1 now contains two basal branches, E-V38 (E1b1a) and E-M215 (E1b1b), with V38/V100 joining the two previously separated lineages E-M2 (former E1b1a) and E-M329 (former E1b1c). Each of these two lineages has a peculiar geographic distribution. E-M2 is the most common haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa, with frequency peaks in western (about 80%) and central Africa (about 60%).
--Beniamino Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the lioness, you can't push that DNA consultant quote that much. It's clear that there's a commercial goal behind it. Their so called Egyptian gene, matches Maya Indians, Northeast Europeans, and from the look at the map "Siberian" near Alaska, some East Asian people, Australia and of course Africans. Populations which are not even related to one another beside by being human. You can't deny that. Their goal is to push their would be customers to take the "Ancient Egyptian gene" test by making every geographical populations on earth a possible possessor of that gene. Aka a very widespread gene from the looks of it. That's why I never quote them and told you that the DNA tribes test is more complete because it uses data we know about from peer reviewed studies (beside their modern population database) and they use more than one gene (they use autosomal STR aDNA data obtained from those studies). Same as Beyoku's post or the BMJ study about Ramses III and Unknown man E.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: the lioness, you can't push that DNA consultant quote that much. It's clear that there's a commercial goal behind it. Their so called Egyptian gene, match Maya Indians, Northeast Europeans, and from the look at the map "Siberian" near Alaska, some East Asian people, Australia and of course Africans. Population which are not even related to one another beside by being human. You can't deny that. Their goal is to push their would be customers to take the "Ancient Egyptian gene" test by making every geographical populations on earth a possible possessor of that gene. Aka a very widespread gene from the look of it. That's why I never quote them and told you that the DNA tribes test is more complete because it uses data we know about from peer reviewed studies (beside their modern population database) and they use more than one gene (they use autosomal STR aDNA data obtain from those studies). Same as Beyoku's post or the BMJ study about Ramses III and Unknown man E.
Lioness lacks knowledge on population genetics. This is the reason why.
Btw, I a not saying that every population of the so called "sub Sahara" is related to ancient Egyptians. Let there be no confusion about this.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There are few sources of information on the beginning of Christianity in Egypt. According to tradition, Saint Mark brought the new faith to Egypt. There may have been a second missionary in the first century AD, named Apollos. Only from the time of the bishop Demetrius (AD 189-221/2) are there more substantial sources for Christianity. These early sources indicate that the new religion was beginning to flourish in Alexandria. A catechetical school was founded at about this time, and soon became an important centre of theological research. In the second century AD there seems to have been only one bishop in Egypt, at Alexandria. Later in his career Demetrius ordained three bishops, perhaps one for each of the Greek cities in the country (Alexandria, Naukratis, Ptolemais). Over the following century the numbers increased massively; in AD 320 bishop Alexander of Alexandria was able to assemble 100 bishops in a synod, and 94 Egyptian bishops are known to have attended the synod at Serdica (AD 342) . After AD 325 the archbishop of Alexandria also had authority over areas outside Egypt, in the province of Libya. Alexandria was always an important theological centre, sometimes even more important than the new Christian capital Constantinople. Disputes between these centres seem rooted more in their views of one another, than in the substance of their beliefs and expressions of belief; mutual suspicion seems to have been the main cause of the growing rifts between churches. In AD 451 at the council of Chalcedon the teaching of the archbishop Dioscorus was condemned as monophysite, and so heretical; according to the council, archbishop Dioscorus held the views of Eutyches, whose monophysite or "one nature" teaching maintained that Christ had a single nature, and was not simultaneously human and divine. This accusation was rejected by Dioscorus, and the Coptic Church does not consider itself monophysite in the manner portrayed at Chalcedon: the end of the Coptic liturgy declares that the two natures "human" and "divine" are united in one "without mingling, without confusion, without alteration". This makes the conflict around the Chalcedon council all the more regrettable. The result was a lasting schism: the patriarchy of Alexandria became separated from the official line of the Roman Empire and its Church. From this time there are two rival patriarchs at Alexandria: a monophysite patriarch and a dyophysite (or Melkite) patriarch. In AD 482 the emperor Zeno attempted to reconcile the two factions, but without success.
Persecution and establishment
Before Christianity became a state religion under Constantine, the Egyptian Christian community suffered heavy persecution. An important part of Roman state religion was the cult of the emperor. For Jews and Christians, who both believed in one god, this practice presented a problem. However, the Jews received special exemption: they did not need to join the ruler cult, for religious reasons. The Christians were first seen as Jews, but when they became a separate religious group, they did not receive the same status. In the third century AD persecution of the Christians grew particularly intense, for example under Septimius Severus in AD 201. In the reign of Decius in AD 249 there was the first persecution across the whole empire. Under Gallienus (AD 253-268) the persecutions were reversed by an edict, by which the Christians received their freedom. However, under Diocletian (AD 284-305) there was again in AD 300 heavy persecution, so intense that the Coptic Church dates its years not to the birth of Christ (BC-AD) but to the 'Era of Martyrs', starting from the first year of the reign of the persecuting emperor Diocletian. The oppression ended finally only on the 30th April 311, when an edict was released establishing Christianity as a permitted religion (religio licita).
Under Byzantine rule, the monophysite strand of Christianity was also subject to persecution, as the imperial authorities struggled to impose orthodoxy from Constantinople. The division between monophysite and orthodox Christianity has been seen as a major factor contributing to the defeat of Byzantine forces in Egypt and Syria in the mid-seventh century, at the Arab conquest of Egypt in AD 639-642.
Christian Egyptians in the Islamic Period
During most of the Islamic Period, Christian Egyptians formed the backbone of the country's administration and many, along with people of other faiths such as Jews, rose to ministerial positions. Like all non-Moslems they paid a special poll tax. At certain periods, and despite clear Islamic teachings on tolerance, they endured certain restrictions, often because of complaints over their undue influence. Their conversion to Islam was a long process: according to the geographer Al-Muqaddasi, Copts were still in the majority in the 10th century, almost four centuries after the Moslem annexation of Egypt. The European Crusades, instigated by Pope Urban II in 1095, must have had a particularly negative impact: the local Christian population probably sided most often with their Moslem compatriots, while some Moslems sided with the Frankish invaders. The Crusades may be one main reason why more Egyptian Christians converted to Islam. Nowadays about 10 % of Egyptians are Christians following different churches, mainly the Coptic Orthodox Church. Despite sporadic times of discord, as in the reign of the eccentric but brilliant Fatimid ruler al-Hakim, the story of the Copts in Egypt reflects a generally tolerant country by comparison with the fate of religious minorities in medieval and later Europe.
The Egyptian language in Byzantine and Islamic Egypt - Coptic
The main language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire was Greek, also used by the Egyptian Christians (Copts). Some Egyptians had started to write their own language using Greek letters (old Coptic) before the advent of Christianity; Coptic later became the principal script and language of Christian Egypt below the official Greek (then Arabic) level, and it remains alive today in the Coptic Church, for liturgical use. Greek was the state language used for administration and education, until replaced by Arabic at the end of the 7th century. In the first century after the Moslem annexation of Egypt, documents might be produced in three languages, Greek, Coptic and Arabic. Coptic enjoyed a revival under Islam: most of the Coptic books in collections today date to the Islamic Period. Contrary to the common perception that Coptic was only used for liturgy, there are many Coptic texts in medicine, mathematics, and alchemy. From the 11th century onwards, Arabic was used to write Christian material often side by side with Coptic, producing biligual texts which were instrumental in the process of the European decipherment of Egyptian language by Kircher and successors such as Champollion.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QB] the lioness, you can't push that DNA consultant quote that much. It's clear that there's a commercial goal behind it.
the opposite is the case, Copts are a tiny market compared to African Americans. There is no way you can argue that an American company is being commercial, doing so by artificially emphasiszing Copts.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QB] the lioness, you can't push that DNA consultant quote that much. It's clear that there's a commercial goal behind it.
the opposite is the case, Copts are a tiny market compared to African Americans. There is no way you can argue that an American company is being commercial, doing so by artificially emphasiszing Copts.
Now you're just being ridiculous and didn't take into account the crux of my post anyway.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QB] the lioness, you can't push that DNA consultant quote that much. It's clear that there's a commercial goal behind it.
the opposite is the case, Copts are a tiny market compared to African Americans. There is no way you can argue that an American company is being commercial, doing so by artificially emphasiszing Copts.
(concise frill free post)
Unbelievable, this ignorant idiot keeps on ranting. Simply because you want to "win" the argument you've lost a long time ago already.
Egypt's Coptic Pope to pay weekend visit to Upper Egypt's Sohag
April 19, 2013, 6:21 a.m.
Source: Ahram
"During two-day visit, Coptic-Orthodox Pope Tawadros II will meet with local priests, monks and government officials, in addition to inaugurating new church.
Egypt's Coptic-Orthodox Pope Tawadros II is set to arrive in the Upper Egyptian city of Sohag late Thursday, where he is expected to stay for two days.
While in Sohag, Tawadros will stay at the White Monastery of Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite.
A spokesman for Sohag's Coptic archbishopric said the pope planned to meet with local Coptic priests and monks, before inaugurating a new church on Friday."
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Btw, I a not saying that every population of the so called "sub Sahara" is related to ancient Egyptians. Let there be no confusion about this.
It's strange because that's what I'm saying.
I'm joking, I know what you meant according to context, you mean not all Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. As I said, I don't believe most so called "sub-Saharan" Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians, but they share ancestors with them. The same ancestors Africans share with each others but not with other people on earth like Europeans, or West Asians (beside through post OOA admixture of course). That is the Y-DNA A,B, and E ancestors, and MtDNA L ancestors. To use Beyoku's study preview and the BMJ study. Or the same ancestors we, Africans, share autosomal STR DNA with.
Here's a passage from the DNA Tribes study about the 20th Dynasty royal mummies (the second study):
quote:Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.
In other words, Ancient Egyptians are closer to Africans than any other population on earth like Europeans or West Asians. Ancient Egyptians are, in a very real sense, "sub-Saharan" Africans.
This is a blow to the face of 19th/early 20th century historians who tried to tell us that Ancient Egyptians were more akin to Europeans, other North Africans or West Asians. When in fact, they are more closely related to so called sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The DNA tribes study of the aDNA data is very interesting. Because the STR alleles found in the 18th Dynasty royal mummies, which can be found throughout sub-Sahara Africa but are absent or rare in other populations on earth, are not the same ones as the ones from the 20th Dynasty royal mummies which are also rare or absent in other population on earth. As they say pretty clearly, this provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families. Beyoku's preview study post, also provide similar independant evidences. According to Beyoku's preview study both sides, female and male, haplogroups are Africans. So it's not just one side and it's diversified. I can't wait for the Beyoku's study to be published.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: The DNA tribes study of the aDNA data is very interesting. Because the STR alleles found in the 18th Dynasty royal mummies, which can be found throughout sub-Sahara Africa but are absent or rare in other populations on earth, are not the same ones as the ones from the 20th Dynasty royal mummies which are also rare or absent in other population on earth. As they say pretty clearly, this provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families. Beyoku's preview study post, also provide similar independant evidences. According to Beyoku's preview study both sides, female and male, haplogroups are Africans. So it's not just one side and it's diversified. I can't wait for the Beyoku's study to be published.
DNATribes Yuya
I never figured this out
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: DNATribes Yuya
I never figured this out
Read: They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America by Ivan Van Sertima , you will understand.
Maybe it's an example of concurrent genetic mutations (on the STR chromosome), or the genetic drift effect on some ancient (pre-OOA) str mutations. Or at worst, the admixture of Africans and native population, who self describe as natives. We would need to know which STR value matches both Africans and North Americans (natives) population (but apparently no "in-between" populations, at least not much). Personally, I would go with a rare case of concurrent genetic mutations but the genetic drift effect on some ancient (pre-OOA) DNA str alleles is possible too.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forget did they mention anything about native American? I think maybe they said nothing about those N American locations though they are on the chart If not then those yellow plots would represent the modern current population on average of those locations
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I forget did they mention anything about native American? I think maybe they said nothing about those N American locations though they are on the chart If not then those yellow plots would represent the modern current population on average of those locations
No they are populations considered native populations by them. For example, North America excludes recent European and African populations in North America. You can see it in their global STR study paper.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Btw, I a not saying that every population of the so called "sub Sahara" is related to ancient Egyptians. Let there be no confusion about this.
It's strange because that's what I'm saying.
I'm joking, I know what you meant according to context, you mean not all Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. As I said, I don't believe most so called "sub-Saharan" Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians, but they share ancestors with them. The same ancestors Africans share with each others but not with other people on earth like Europeans, or West Asians (beside through post OOA admixture of course). That is the Y-DNA A,B, and E ancestors, and MtDNA L ancestors. To use Beyoku's study preview and the BMJ study. Or the same ancestors we, Africans, share autosomal STR DNA with.
True, but the African stream does share similarities with African Americans for example. That's with you meant, right?
quote:
Here's a passage from the DNA Tribes study about the 20th Dynasty royal mummies (the second study):
Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.
In other words, Ancient Egyptians are closer to Africans than any other population on earth like Europeans or West Asians. Ancient Egyptians are, in a very real sense, "sub-Saharan" Africans.
This is a blow to the face of 19th/early 20th century historians who tried to tell us that Ancient Egyptians were more akin to Europeans, other North Africans or West Asians. When in fact, they are more closely related to so called sub-Saharan Africans.
Not just that, but seen from physical anthropology we see the same pattern.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: DNATribes Yuya
I never figured this out
Read: They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America by Ivan Van Sertima , you will understand.
Maybe it's an example of concurrent genetic mutations (on the STR chromosome), or the genetic drift effect on some ancient (pre-OOA) str mutations. Or at worst, the admixture of Africans and native population, who self describe as natives. We would need to know which STR value matches both Africans and North Americans (natives) population (but apparently no "in-between" populations, at least not much). Personally, I would go with a rare case of concurrent genetic mutations but the genetic drift effect on some ancient (pre-OOA) DNA str alleles is possible too.
Btw, I a not saying that every population of the so called "sub Sahara" is related to ancient Egyptians. Let there be no confusion about this.
It's strange because that's what I'm saying.
I'm joking, I know what you meant according to context, you mean not all Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. As I said, I don't believe most so called "sub-Saharan" Africans are direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians, but they share ancestors with them. The same ancestors Africans share with each others but not with other people on earth like Europeans, or West Asians (beside through post OOA admixture of course). That is the Y-DNA A,B, and E ancestors, and MtDNA L ancestors. To use Beyoku's study preview and the BMJ study. Or the same ancestors we, Africans, share autosomal STR DNA with.
True, but the African stream does share similarities with African Americans for example. That's with you meant, right?
I don't know what you mean by "African stream" nor what African Americans have anything to do with it (beside being a subset of African people, mostly from West Africa, who recently "migrated" to America).
Physical anthropology is nice, but due the inherent physiological diversity of African people, genetics is a stronger determinant of shared ancestry. In fact, it's undeniable.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would somebody mind making a map of some of these lineages and how they would hypothesize their spread in Africa. I am particularly interested in the migration of E1b1a, and E2. It can be amateurish with arrows and stuff.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Lets try this again. Would somebody mind making a map of some of these lineages and how they would hypothesize their spread in Africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Lioness why are you as dumb as a brick?
Lets try this again. Would somebody mind making a map of some of these lineages and how they would hypothesize their spread in Africa.
I'm somewhat new to this forum so I don't understand the full situation with the lioness. But what is the point of asking people, who are not even biologists or specialist in population structure, to make such maps?
I'm seriously not trying be blunt, just curious, but why don't you make one yourself to show the way, so to speak? You probably got equal or possibly superior knowledge about population genetics than most of us.
I don't like the lioness maps because it kind of negates the haplotypes diversity of African populations, but it seems to be what you were looking for (albeit not fully amateurish).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Lioness why are you as dumb as a brick?
Lets try this again. Would somebody mind making a map of some of these lineages and how they would hypothesize their spread in Africa.
I can make maps in Photoshop, but TBH I am not familiar with all these lineages or their movements.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Y-DNA haplogroup(s) with the highest % in that area (or is notable)
Population/language/region name in which the haplogroup is the majority or the genetic marker of movement
Migration routes are drawn according to Coastal Migration model (initially coastal route, then follow major rivers)
Y-chromosome Adam set near Cameroon according to the existence of basal A00 and A0
A few populations with no data available (extinct) are marked "?"
I already explained that your Wikipedia map is utter rubbish.
So why you keep reiterating it. Like some delusional euronut?
What even seems more funny is, you barely understand genetics. Yet, here you are to proclaim your wiki map, as ultimate prove, even though it based on some random persons opinion. Do you have any idea how sick that is?
Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170
The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution
quote: Abstract Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.”They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs. Specimens dating to ca. 20,000 BP at Ishango, possibly a similar age at White Paintings Shelter, and up to 90,000 BP at Katanda clearly fall within this same African tradition and thus indicate a very long-term continuity which crosses traditionally conceived sub-Saharan cultural boundaries.
--John E. Yellen African Archaeological Review
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230
quote: The makers of these assemblages can therefore be seen as (1) a group of Homo sapiens predating and/or contemporary to the out-of-Africa exodus of the species, and (2) geographically one of the (if not the) closest from the main gate to Eurasia at the northeastern corner of the African continent.
Although Moroccan specimens have been discovered far away from this area, they may provide us with one of the best proxies of the African groups that expanded into Eurasia[...]
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Lioness why are you as dumb as a brick?
Lets try this again. Would somebody mind making a map of some of these lineages and how they would hypothesize their spread in Africa.
make your own map lazy muthafuk
Funny how you took it so personal, as if you made that wiki map
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ he still hasn't explained why the map I posted is wrong. I hate people who bluff. last time I posted he said it was nonsense. That's what he calls an explanation, him calling something nonsense. I hate people who bluff
now he's wasting everybody's time with copy and paste he already posted and everybody has read at least ten times, no DNA as byotch beyoku requested and a dispersal chart with a similar Horn origin point, just like my map, nearly the same info which he called nonsense, a fraud in action This is the third time I caught his ass posting very similar information to mine and then saying what I posted was nonsese
you are nonsense
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic