posted
I came across this book while browsing on Amazon: “Ancient Egypt in Africa”, edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid.
Here’s the synopsis:
quote: Geographically, Egypt is clearly on the African continent, yet Ancient Egypt is routinely regarded as a non-African cultural form. The significance of Ancient Egypt for the rest of Africa is a hotly debated issue with complex ramifications. This book considers how Ancient Egypt was dislocated from Africa, drawing on a wide range of sources. It examines key issues such as the evidence for actual contacts between Egypt and other early African cultures, and how influential, or not, Egypt was on them.
Some scholars argue that to its north Egypt's influence on Mediterranean civilization was downplayed by western scholarship. Further a field, on the African continent perceptions of Ancient Egypt were colored by biblical sources, emphasizing the persecution of the Israelites. An extensive selection of fresh insights are provided, several focusing on cultural interactions between Egypt and Nubia from 1000 BCE to 500 CE, developing a nuanced picture of these interactions and describing the limitations of an 'Egyptological' approach to them.
By (zarahan)- Enrique Cardova (Entebbe, Uganda) - See all my reviews This review is from: ANCIENT EGYPT IN AFRICA (Encounters With Ancient Egypt) (Paperback) Excellent roundup of scholarship and hard data showing African foundations of Ancient Egypt. Just some examples of this detailed scholarship....
".. but his [Frankfort's] frequent citations from African ethnography- over 60 are listed in the index- demonstrate that there is a powerful resonance between recent African concepts and practice on one hand, and ancient Egyptian kingship and religion on the other.."
Rowlands (Chapter 4) provides much additional evidence suggesting that 'sub-Saharan Africa and ANcient Egypt share certain commonalities in sunstantative images and ideas, yet whose cultural forms display differences consistent with perhaps millennia of historical divergence and institutionalization'.
"First, kingship in Egypt was 'the channel through which the powers of nature flowed into the body politic to bring human endeavour to fruition' and thus was closely analogous to the widespread African belief that 'chieftains entertain closer relationship with the powers in nature than other men' (Frankfort 1948: 33, ch. 2). Second, the Egyptian king's metaphorical identification as an all powerful bull who tramples his enemeis and inseminaes his cow-mother to achieve regeneration was derived from Egyptian ideas and beleifs abut cattle for which best prallels can be found in some, but not all, recent African societies.."
"Like the chiefs discussed by Rowlands, the king combines 'life giving forces with the power to kill" (Rowlands, CHaptr 4:52). Overall, this Egyptian concept of kingship, so akin to African models, seems very different to that held in the ancient Near ast (Frankfort 1948; Postgate 1995)"
"In conclusion, there is a relative abundance of ancient materials relevant to contact and influence, as well as striking correlations between ancient Egyptian civilization and the ethnography of recent and current sub-Saharan communities, chiefdoms and states... Perhaps the fact that commonalities do exist suggests that, because of great time depth and different organization, these commaniities may result from inherently African processes."
--David O'Connor, Andrew Reid (2007) ANCIENT EGYPT IN AFRICA. pp 15-22
OTHER MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS SUPPORT THE WORK ABOVE- EXAMPLES:
Conservative mainstream Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows ancient Egypt derived from an African cultural sub-stratum
[QUOTE:]
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28
MORE MODERN SCHOLARS..
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." --Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. p. 10)
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula." --Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"Over the long run of northeastern African history, what emerges most strongly is the extent to which ancient Egypt's culture grew from sub-Saharan African roots. The earliest foundations of the culture that was to evolve into that of dynastic Egypt were laid, as we have already discovered, by Afrasan immigrants from the general direction of the southern Red Sea hills, who arrived probably well before 10,000 B.C.E. The new inhabitants brought with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grasses or grains as food. They also introduced a new religion Its central belief, in the efficacy of clan deities, explains the traceability of the ancient Egyptian gods to different particular Egyptians localities: originally they were the deities of the local communities, whose members in still earlier times had belonged to a clan or a group of related clans." --Christopher Ehret. (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. p. 93
".. how is it come about that Neolithic Saharan civilizations, ancient Egypt and modern Black African civilizations share cultural features? .. Today however, essentially autochthonous explanations are preferred based on what we call the substratum theory, whereby all the civilizations in question, even in their differences and peculiarities share a common cultural substratum as occurs in the northern world among Indo-European civilizations." --CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in: Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272.
BUT THERE ARE WEAKNESSES- specifically authors who add little to the body of data, and the exclusion of other scholars who have done a far amount of work in the field. They do not appear, but tangential authors so. For example, Martin Bernal of "Black Athena" is given a slot but adds little to the subject- which deals with Egypt and Africa not any so-called "Black Athena" argument of Egypt and Ancient Greece. Why Bernal appears is a mystery especially (window dressing perhaps?) when many others with more pertinent research could have been added.
Also excluded as scholar Timothy Kendall has noted in a review elsewhere, are the conservative Afrocentric scholars in the United States who have done a fair amount of work in the question, some quite detailed, and some not in agreement with the highly influential Cheikh Anta DIop. Kevin Macdonald gets a slot and critiques Chekih Anta Diop on his argument that some peoples of West Africa migrated from the Nile Valley due to foreign invasions or environmental distresses.
But his argument involves building up somewhat of a strawman on a point that Diop never emphasized much, while ignoring much core central themes of Diop's work. In this he certainly looks like he is "critiquing" Diop, but why not address his core central ideas? As to "inner Africa" did Egypt have any compelling "cultural contact" with "the African interior" beyond Nubia? Since archaeological data is not plentiful of say roads, ships or trade beyond Nubia then the strawman setup allows MacDonald to appear as if he is "shooting down" Diop. But his argument has several strawman aspects as follows:
1) Diop did not place heavy emphasis on "Inner Africa" and visible links with Dynastic Egypt, but in any event his concept of the movement of peoples from the general Nile Valley zone having an impact across the continent is not unreasonable in broader context, and is so supported by modern scholarship. In fact Macdonald quotes Diop:
"The idea that a central dispersal located approximately in the Nile Valley is worth consideration. In all likelihood.. [until ca 7000 BC].. Black mankind first lived in branches in the Nile basin before swarming out in successive spurts towards the interior of the continent."
Hardly earth-shattering stuff to "refute". Diop thought the idea was worthy of consideration, but placed little central emphasis on it. It is curious that Macdonald focuses on such a tangential issue while ignoring the core central themes of Diop's work on Egypt IN Africa. And Diop first introduced the idea in 1955- repeated in 1974's Civilization or Barbarism. Diop at this time did not have access to the huge amount of scholarship on the Sahara and the Nile Valley that came after the early 1970s. But even so his dating is not that far off from modern scholars like Frank Yurco who noted that the Sahara acted as a "climatic pump"- alternatively pushing and pulling people into and out if the Nile Valley and larger region, or from 2006- Kruper and Kropelin's "Climate Controlled Holocene Occupation of the Sahara". In fact Kruper and Kropelin 2006 show- QUOTE:
"after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day." --Kruper and Kropelin 2006. Climate Controlled Holocene Occupation of the Sahara.
Diop was not active in the field to access late 1980s data - having died in 1986 and much of his published work being earlier reprints, but modern scholarship does indeed show that the Nile Valley zone, including the overall Saharan zone incorporating parts of the Nile Valley, is part of the climatic process that helped shape the African continent, including dispersal of peoples. Thus in broader context it could be said that Diop is not that far off from modern scholarship's findings. Yorba tribes do not have to be shown moving from Memphis to Ghana to establish the movement of peoples West from the all-important Sahara, including pastoralists, circa Diop's Nilo-Saharan zone 7000BC. Note that Diop places the radiator of movement "approximately in the Nile Valley" - this would incorporate the broad Saharan zone adjacent to or surrounding said Nile Valley. Modern studies have refined this to the broad Saharan belt that included the Nile Valley but Diop's ranging is not greatly off the mark.
2) Why is "inner Africa" some sort of litmus test as to Diop, van Sertima or the concept of a deep African cultural sub-stratum in the Nile Valley? Few European scholars are going insinuating that since ancient Greek temples or language do not appear in ancient Sweden or Britain then that means Sweden or Britain are not part of European civilization or culture. Just because hymns to Osiris fail to be found on cave walls in Kenya does not in the slightest bit weaken the fact that the peoples of both Kenya and the Nile Valley are part of one African reality- (DNA, cultural, limb proportion etc) diverse indeed, but ultimately one- just as Greeks and Swedes form part of a European reality. Diop indeed was opposed to Eurocentric models of "splittism" by insinuation- splitting Africa up into little chunks which can then be regrouped in such a way as to deny or minimize commonality.
3) Why does "compelling cultural or material contact" with "Inner Africa" lying "beyond Nubia" serve as some sort of validator of Diop or "Afrocentric" work? What's wrong with areas NEAR to Egypt showing the deep-rooted African cultural patterns and commonalities? Since when is "beyond Nubia" a point of validation? How come the same litmus test is seldom applied to say European peoples like Greeks to validate common patterns based on the Mediterranean basin in agriculture, culture, material artifacts and so on? The ancient Greeks had the greatest impact in areas comparatively CLOSE TO Greece- North Africa, Anatolia, Italy and the Balkans. Unlike the more land-based Egyptians, their islands were more sea-based and thus it was natural for them to use the broad seafaring belt of the Mediterranean to facilitate that influence. Even so, the bulk of their ancient impact was in that general Medit zone. Few people are going around saying that the Greeks should show temples in ancient France to "prove" they are European, or that the ancient peoples of Gaul should likewise be huddling around such temples as "proof" they also are European.
4) MacDonald's narrow commentary avoids the central underpinning of Diop's approach- the African character of the ancient Egyptians. Macdonald dodges this to focus on a tangent- links between dynastic Egypt and "inner" Africa as if that encompasses some sort of "litmus test" of Diop's work. The lack of trade caravans or pyramid buildings flowing from Egypt to say Senegal is MARGINAL to his overall work. Diop showed a DEEP AFRICAN CULTURAL SUBSTRATUM that extended from the Nile Valley across a vast belt of adjacent territories into the Sahara, East Africa and touching West Africa via the Sahara. Other scholars in the same book (O'Connor, Wengrow etc) show just such deep linkages. Diop also acknowledges how the Nilo-Saharan zone was part of the climatic ferment that moved peoples out to other parts of the continent including westward. Diop doesn't need Egyptian temples or boats around the Gulf of Guinea in West Africa to validate his position. Future scholarship since the 1960s would of course add more refinements, as DIop himself expected, and such scholarship supports his overall work on several points.
5) Numerous African areas near to Egypt and sharing culture material and population with Egypt- the Sahara, etc are also "SUB-SAHARAN" OR lie within the tropical zone. Indeed, almost one-sixth of Egypt lies within the tropical zone which for all practical purposes extends even further north (Thompson 1997- Applied Climatology). The peoples therein are tropical Africans, or came from "sub-Saharan Africa in the early era. Trying to play some sort of "geographic apartheid" game where lack of pyramids in Ghana is insinuated to conjure a vast segregation of the Nile Valley from "interior Africa" is a dubious ploy. The Sahara was always a moving target- and donated people and culture to vast swathes of the continent including West Africa.
6) Macdonald paints a picture of few technological developments flowing out of Egypt to "Inner Africa" but he has his direction wrong, and misses the central theme of this book, and indeed of Diop's theme of Egypt in Africa. It is Egypt IN Africa. The cultural and technological developments that gave rise to Egyptian civilization flowed from "inner" Africa to Egypt via the Saharan zone. That is what laid the basis from the tool kits, to the animal husbandry, to the proto-agriculture in protecting, storing and harvesting wild grains, to the domestication of African breeds of cattle, to techniques like mummification, to divine kingship, to numerous aspects of Egyptian religion like the cattle cults, animal gods etc. All this is well established by mainstream scholarship after Diop's main works. The STARTING point is Africa, not Egypt which is a CHILD of Africa, as the title of the book by scholar Ivan van Sertima notes. Africa is the source of all the above- that is where Egyptian civ begins. This is a crucial concept in Diop's work- that things BEGIN WITH AFRICA. Environmental pressures such as the "climatic pump" play a part in this story and such beginnings laid the basis for various other developments later. Macdonald misses or avoids this crucial point in Diop's work, rendering his "critique" less than useful.
And yes, pyramids do appear in "sub-Saharan" Africa such as in the greater Meroe complex - including Naqa and Musawwarat es Sufra part of a cultural region extending into Egypt from the Sudan over the centuries. The move of the desert southwards over decades has obscured the fact that numerous so-called "sub-Saharan" peoples were once well represented far to the north. They do not suddenly become "Eurasian" because the desert continues to move south at various cycles or speeds.
The southward move of the Sahara desert obscures several "sub-Saharan" cultural developments: QUOTE:
[i] "Across the continent, the Sahara is spreading southward at a rate of more than three miles a year." -A. Guzman (2013) Overheated: The Human cost of climate change. p lxxiv
"Excessive grazing of cattle and goats by an ever-expanding human population is the main reason for the Sahara's southward expansion at a rate of 5.5 to 8 km per year." Wolfe, Hertz and Starr (2004) General Biology. p 1224.
" a 1975 survey by the United Nations found the desert to be expanding southward at 5.5 kilometers per year in the Sudan.." Goudie and Cuff (2001) Encyclopedia of Global Change, p. 253.
__________________________ ___
So-called "sub-Saharan" cultures once moved far to the north. As one mainstream scholar notes:
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant." --J. Vogel (1997) Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa. pp. 465-472
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: I came across this book while browsing on Amazon: “Ancient Egypt in Africa”, edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid.
Here’s the synopsis:
quote: Geographically, Egypt is clearly on the African continent, yet Ancient Egypt is routinely regarded as a non-African cultural form. The significance of Ancient Egypt for the rest of Africa is a hotly debated issue with complex ramifications. This book considers how Ancient Egypt was dislocated from Africa, drawing on a wide range of sources. It examines key issues such as the evidence for actual contacts between Egypt and other early African cultures, and how influential, or not, Egypt was on them.
Some scholars argue that to its north Egypt's influence on Mediterranean civilization was downplayed by western scholarship. Further a field, on the African continent perceptions of Ancient Egypt were colored by biblical sources, emphasizing the persecution of the Israelites. An extensive selection of fresh insights are provided, several focusing on cultural interactions between Egypt and Nubia from 1000 BCE to 500 CE, developing a nuanced picture of these interactions and describing the limitations of an 'Egyptological' approach to them.
Did anyone read this book? If yes, tell me what do you think of it?
I never had the pleasure of reading the book, but I believe the moderator Ausar has. It's shamefully ridiculous that a book with such a title had to be written. It's like if someone were to write a book entitled Ancient Greece in Europe, as if one needed to explore Greece's European roots! To think that Egypt's African identity has been obscured and suppressed for so long. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan-Enrique Cardova,:
2) Why is "inner Africa" some sort of litmus test as to Diop, van Sertima or the concept of a deep African cultural sub-stratum in the Nile Valley? Few European scholars are going insinuating that since ancient Greek temples or language do not appear in ancient Sweden or Britain then that means Sweden or Britain are not part of European civilization or culture. Just because hymns to Osiris fail to be found on cave walls in Kenya does not in the slightest bit weaken the fact that the peoples of both Kenya and the Nile Valley are part of one African reality- (DNA, cultural, limb proportion etc) diverse indeed, but ultimately one- just as Greeks and Swedes form part of a European reality. Diop indeed was opposed to Eurocentric models of "splittism" by insinuation- splitting Africa up into little chunks which can then be regrouped in such a way as to deny or minimize commonality.
The thing that "Westernize" was conquest of Europe by the Romans and a later Renaissance and enlightenment where Greek and Roman ideas in writing were revived and introduced into Western Europe.
Early Northern and Central European cultural roots is a separate issue from the Greek and Roman empires. DNA and genetic ancestry is a separate issue periods, deep into the prehistoric. One thing is biological roots the other is the spread of a man made culture. "Greco-Roman" "Classical Thought" is something that was brought into Europe by Roman invasion, rediscovered and revived and integrated into European thought hundreds of years later. Saying that the foundation of Egyptian culture is African culture is different from saying Egyptian thought and technology which had unique features was then spread into Africa (with the exception of Nubia) by invasion or other Africans interest in it. Egyptian dynastic culture did not spread into Africa like Greco-Roman culture spread into Europe. If you want to say Egyptian civilization was founded on African civilization then an analogous comparison would be to say the foundation of Neolithic Western European culture was a Greek culture but this was a culture far before any of the Greek philosophers or classical temples, all farming villages at that time, before writing. However Greece and Rome are not the only foundations of Western Civilization. A huge part is Christianity which came from Judaism with possible influences from Egyptian Atenism and Persian Zorastrianism. The distinctive thing being the belief in one god and no others and idea the Egyptians tried but rejected. Also sin, hell, forgiveness, salvation and religious law. The Bible is a large part of Western civilization and spread all throughout Europe. The Europeans translated the old Greek and Roman texts. This sort of thing did not happen with dynastic Egypt spreading all across Africa or Egyptian gods seeping all across Africa coming from Egypt. The Egyptian borrowed some local African gods but that is come from the other direction. Egypt is not the Greece and Rome of Africa. Not unless Africans choose to make it that with a major interest and integration of dynastic Egyptian culture into their own
wiki:
The Greeks contrasted themselves to their Eastern neighbors, such as the Trojans in Iliad, setting an example for later contrasts between east and west. In the Middle Ages, the Near East provided a contrast to the West, though Hellenized since the time of Alexander the Great, and ruled from Rome and Constantinople.
Concepts of what is the West arose out of legacies of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Later, ideas of the west were formed by the concepts of Latin Christendom and the Holy Roman Empire. What we think of as Western thought today originates primarily from Greco-Roman and Germanic influences, and includes the ideals of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, as well as Christian culture. The West as a geographical area, of populations, is less clear. There is some disagreement about what nations should or should not be included in the category, and at what times. Many parts of the Eastern Roman Empire are considered Western today, but were obviously Eastern in the past.
In Homeric literature, and right up until the time of Alexander the Great, for example in the accounts of the Persian Wars of Greeks against Persians by Herodotus, we see the paradigm of a contrast between the West and East.
Nevertheless the Greeks felt they were the most civilized and saw themselves (in the formulation of Aristotle) as something between the wild barbarians of most of Europe and the soft, slavish Middle-Easterners. Ancient Greek science, philosophy, democracy, architecture, literature, and art provided a foundation embraced and built upon by the Roman Empire as it swept up Europe, including the Hellenic World in its conquests in the 1st century BC. In the meantime however, Greece, under Alexander, had become a capital of the East, and part of an empire.
In the early 21st century, with increasing globalism, it has become more difficult to determine which individuals fit into which category, and the East–West contrast is sometimes criticized as relativistic and arbitrary.[
The Renaissance (UK /rɨˈneɪsəns/, US /ˈrɛnɨsɑːns/, French pronunciation: [ʁənɛsɑ̃s], from French: Renaissance "re-birth", Italian: Rinascimento, from rinascere "to be reborn")[1] was a cultural movement that spanned the period roughly from the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. Though availability of paper and the invention of metal movable type sped the dissemination of ideas from the later 15th century, the changes of the Renaissance were not uniformly experienced across Europe.
As a cultural movement, it encompassed innovative flowering of Latin and vernacular literatures, beginning with the 14th-century resurgence of learning based on classical sources.
Renaissance humanists such as Poggio Bracciolini sought out in Europe's monastic libraries the Latin literary, historical, and oratorical texts of Antiquity, while the Fall of Constantinople (1453) generated a wave of émigré Greek scholars bringing precious manuscripts in ancient Greek, many of which had fallen into obscurity in the West. It is in their new focus on literary and historical texts that Renaissance scholars differed so markedly from the medieval scholars of the Renaissance of the 12th century, who had focused on studying Greek and Arabic works of natural sciences, philosophy and mathematics, rather than on such cultural texts.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: I came across this book while browsing on Amazon: “Ancient Egypt in Africa”, edited by David O'Connor and Andrew Reid.
Here’s the synopsis:
quote: Geographically, Egypt is clearly on the African continent, yet Ancient Egypt is routinely regarded as a non-African cultural form. The significance of Ancient Egypt for the rest of Africa is a hotly debated issue with complex ramifications. This book considers how Ancient Egypt was dislocated from Africa, drawing on a wide range of sources. It examines key issues such as the evidence for actual contacts between Egypt and other early African cultures, and how influential, or not, Egypt was on them.
Some scholars argue that to its north Egypt's influence on Mediterranean civilization was downplayed by western scholarship. Further a field, on the African continent perceptions of Ancient Egypt were colored by biblical sources, emphasizing the persecution of the Israelites. An extensive selection of fresh insights are provided, several focusing on cultural interactions between Egypt and Nubia from 1000 BCE to 500 CE, developing a nuanced picture of these interactions and describing the limitations of an 'Egyptological' approach to them.
Did anyone read this book? If yes, tell me what do you think of it?
I never had the pleasure of reading the book, but I believe the moderator Ausar has. It's shamefully ridiculous that a book with such a title had to be written. It's like if someone were to write a book entitled Ancient Greece in Europe, as if one needed to explore Greece's European roots! To think that Egypt's African identity has been obscured and suppressed for so long.
I know its a shame...Its because Ancient Egypt was gloried for so long by non Africans, and now that the African identity is coming out more and more they just can't imagine it.
I was recently in a debate with a Euronut and I posted sources after sources which were PEER REVIWED that the Ancient Egyptians were African. Yet all he could do is talk trash and say Afrocentrism is taken seriously. He couldn't even debunk any of mu sources, but lie and say I was misinterpreting them(like most Euronuts say when they are cornered).
He couldn't provide any sources of his own, but just project and trash talk. I think the Eurocentrics have no argument left for them when it comes to Ancient Egypt. They have nothing...I mean my god...Ancient Egypt has African WRITTEN ALL OVER IT!!
You really do not even need anthropology/science to prove Ancient Egyptians were African. Just look at the art, names, geography and culture.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah it’s really annoying that Egypt is hardly treated as an African civilization. Just because some of the modern people want to be in the Middle Eastern world doesn’t mean it was always like that in the past (and of course, not all moderns feel that way). It shouldn’t even need to be an issue that Egypt is in Africa, and the same can go for Ethiopia, Somalia and the rest of the Horn, and Sudan, when the racists try to steal African history away from us.
I think besides the history of racism against blacks, the other thing is that people who take Egypt out of Africa seem to think that ancient Egyptians were based on one type of people: represented by some light-skinned modern northerners, many of them immigrants. They believe that the people in the cosmopolitan cities of Lower Egypt are the “true Egyptians”, only because they seem to be shown more on the news. They ignore the fact that there are many in the rural areas of Upper Egypt who are real Egyptians that didn’t mix as much. They think that these darker-skinned folk only look that way because of the recent Arab slave trade. Stupid, because they ignore the fact that Egyptians and southerners like Sudanese have been in close contact, sharing the same roots since prehistoric times.
And yeah, Son of Ra, I hate that argument that those ignorant people have: that we’re interpreting things wrong, that’s the only reason why so much evidence points to African heritage. lol.
@Lioness: Thanks. I didn’t realize that review was written by that member here.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: They ignore the fact that there are many in the rural areas of Upper Egypt who are real Egyptians that didn’t mix as much.
It does sounds nice, everything is possible, but I'm still waiting to have the proof of that. I think it's dangerous to take myth and wishful thinking as facts until they are proven.
Obviously, I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. But it's not what the 3 genetic study about Ancient Egyptian aDNA shows thus far (which included modern Egyptians, including Copts).
That is the
1)DNA Tribes/JAMA study 2)DNA Tribes/BMJ study 3)BMJ study about Ramses III and other Unknown man E mummy being E1b1a (E-M2)
We know that the current people living around modern Mesopotamia are not the same as the one behind the ancient civilization (from around India, it seems). They talk about in the study of population replacement.
quote: The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
quote:This[preceding dental study] showed a stable population until after the Mongolian invasion which resulted in a large depopulation of northern Mesopotamia in the 13th century CE. The final major change occurred during the 17th century with Bedouin tribes arriving from the Arabian Peninsula.
According to current aDNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies any population genetically close to Ancient Egyptian would have to be close to modern sub-Saharan Africans (more than any other populations on earth). That is the genetic results thus far. Beyoku's preview study also points in the same direction, but there's nothing official about it out yet. Ramses III being E1b1a, is also very telling (not that all Ancient Egyptians were E1b1a of course, it just show that he sprung from a population with E1b1a in it. This means with other African hg like A, B and E and mtDNA L. Beyoku's preview study results, demonstrate my thinking about it).
The Mesopotamia example, is another proof that population can change a lot of 5000 years. For example, the populations in West Africa, Southern Africa, Eastern Africa, Modern Egypt, North Africa, etc are completely different than they were 5000 years ago.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ you have one of the E charts up with the highest densities in West Africa, Egypt is in North East Africa. In your opinion this mean the ancestors of the Amarna family were West African or that West Africans to an extent came from dynastic Egypt?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ you have one of the E charts up with the highest densities in West Africa, Egypt is in North East Africa. In your opinion this mean the ancestors of the Amarna family were West African or that West Africans to an extent came from dynastic Egypt?
As I said, in the post you replied to, modern population composition (aka populations genetic structure) in West Africa as well as the rest of Africa (or the world for that matter) were different than 5000 years ago. Since then there has been a lot of movements, migration, admixture, etc all over Africa and the world in general.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ you have one of the E charts up with the highest densities in West Africa, Egypt is in North East Africa. In your opinion this mean the ancestors of the Amarna family were West African or that West Africans to an extent came from dynastic Egypt?
As I said, in the post you replied to, modern population composition (aka populations genetic structure) in West Africa as well as the rest of Africa (or the world for that matter) were different than 5000 years ago. Since then there has been a lot of movements, migration, admixture, etc all over Africa and the world in general.
Bantu expansion 1st and 2nd phases
It's confusing because you are talking about ancient Egyptians and then putting that chart up in the same post. assuming that a chart made representing that same clade's distribution of the Amarna period would have a significantly different looking frequency pattern over Africa (and looking similar to the bantu expansion migration pattern ) The more relevant period is pre-bantu expansion>
Genetic and Demographic Implications of the Bantu Expansion: Insights from Human Paternal Lineages Gemma Berniell-Lee*, Francesc Calafell*†, Elena Bosch*†, Evelyne Heyer‡, Lucas Sica§, Patrick Mouguiama-Daouda‖, Lolke van der Veen¶, Jean-Marie Hombert¶, Lluis Quintana-Murci# and David Comas*†¶ . Accepted March 30, 2009.
lbeit (particularly in comparison with mtDNA) variation at the Y-chromosome has not yet been thoroughly investigated in Africa, a number of Y-chromosome haplogroups, such as E1b1a (previously named E3a), E2, and B2a, have been proposed as paternal signatures of the Bantu expansion (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Beleza et al. 2005). Other paternal lineages (such as B2b or different clades within A) have been mainly observed among hunter-gatherers and suggested to represent ancient remnants of the paternal diversity in sub-Saharan Africa prior to the Bantu expansion (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). In addition, lineages belonging to Eurasian haplogroup R have been found in northern Cameroon and have been claimed to result from back migrations from Eurasia into Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002)....
Besides this asymmetrical and opposite gene flow unmasked from uniparentally inherited markers, it has been shown that there is a substantial common and deep maternal ancestry between Bantu agriculturalists and Pygmies for the mtDNA, whereas not such a deep ancestry is found for Y-chromosome male lineages. Mitochondrial L1c lineages, prevalent in west Central Africa and found in both groups, have been dated back to 70,000 years (Batini et al. 2007; Quintana-Murci et al. 2008), suggesting a common ancient origin for Bantu agriculturalists and Pygmies. In contrast, the common paternal lineages found in west Central African samples are essentially recent. Only traces of haplogroup A and basal E-M96 are found in both groups, but these haplogroups only account for 5% and 10%, respectively, in Pygmies and 0.5% and 1% in Bantu agriculturalists. This lack of ancient paternal lineages among west Central Africans suggests that the Bantu expansion erased most of the ancient diversity present in the region before the massive demic expansion. In addition, these results clearly indicate that the consequences of the Bantu expansion are more visible from the paternal side than from the maternal side, suggesting that the demic movements associated with the Bantu expansion involved more males than females.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah it’s really annoying that Egypt is hardly treated as an African civilization.
But the earliest European Egyptologists who studied and gazed on Ancient Egyptian artifacts and hieroglyphs all attested to the fact that the AEs were indigenous Africans--as phenotypically distinct from West Asians(Arabs et al.). The most prominent ones were those who accompanied Napoleon on his military expedition into Egypt: Champollion, Denon, Volney, etc. In fact, Volney and Denon(the artist who copied thousands of busts and paintings) both wrote that the AEs were--as they put it--"negroids". Much of this is summarised in 18th century anthropologist, James Cowles Prichard's The Natural History of Mankind. All this recognition that the AEs were indigenous blacks goes all the way back to Herodotus and other Greek writers--Lucian, etc.
The notion that the AEs were not black should be leveled at Hollywood that creates films for the ignorant masses. Hollywood directors and not up to the intellectual level of Volney, Denon, and others so their portrayal of the AEs as other than what they actually were is to be expected from individuals whose goal is to pander to the cultural norms of a race-obsessed and biased U.S.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah it’s really annoying that Egypt is hardly treated as an African civilization.
But the earliest European Egyptologists who studied and gazed on Ancient Egyptian artifacts and hieroglyphs all attested to the fact that the AEs were indigenous Africans--as phenotypically distinct from West Asians(Arabs et al.). The most prominent ones were those who accompanied Napoleon on his military expedition into Egypt: Champollion, Denon, Volney, etc. In fact, Volney and Denon(the artist who copied thousands of busts and paintings) both wrote that the AEs were--as they put it--"negroids". Much of this is summarised in 18th century anthropologist, James Cowles Prichard's The Natural History of Mankind. All this recognition that the AEs were indigenous blacks goes all the way back to Herodotus and other Greek writers--Lucian, etc.
The notion that the AEs were not black should be leveled at Hollywood that creates films for the ignorant masses. Hollywood directors and not up to the intellectual level of Volney, Denon, and others so their portrayal of the AEs as other than what they actually were is to be expected from individuals whose goal is to pander to the cultural norms of a race-obsessed and biased U.S.
Hollywood is not the only one to blame for the white-ing of Egypt. I believe the most important figure was James Henry Breasted.
It was Breasted who taught the upper classes that the Egyptians were part of the European world so he could get funding for his research projects from rich folks. He was quite the promoter as testified too by the success of the Oriental Institute.
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: They ignore the fact that there are many in the rural areas of Upper Egypt who are real Egyptians that didn’t mix as much.
It does sounds nice, everything is possible, but I'm still waiting to have the proof of that. I think it's dangerous to take myth and wishful thinking as facts until they are proven.
Obviously, I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. But it's not what the 3 genetic study about Ancient Egyptian aDNA shows thus far (which included modern Egyptians, including Copts).
But we know that Upper Egypt experienced less admixture compared to Lower. Back in dynastic times, the bulk of the Egyptian population lived in the valley, much more than in the delta region. It was the delta region that experienced a larger influx of migration, from dynastic times onwards: I’m sure you’ve seen this:
quote: Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times.
-Keita (2005) pp.564
quote:However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a, with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results.
-S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce (2005) "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1", History in Africa 32, pp.221-246
quote: A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations. This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt. ...Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times.
-Irish (2006)
The delta region of Lower Egypt, being closer to the Mediterranean world, had more non-African immigrants. That’s why Lower Egypt has relatively higher numbers of light-skinned peoples today.
I'm not disputing the studies showing E1b1a in Ancient Egyptian populations, but I don't see how that explains your argument about modern Egyptians, today.
Let me ask you: how do you explain the greater numbers of dark-skinned Egyptians in the modern Upper Egyptian population, if it wasn’t due to higher immigration in the Lower region?
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah it’s really annoying that Egypt is hardly treated as an African civilization.
But the earliest European Egyptologists who studied and gazed on Ancient Egyptian artifacts and hieroglyphs all attested to the fact that the AEs were indigenous Africans--as phenotypically distinct from West Asians(Arabs et al.). The most prominent ones were those who accompanied Napoleon on his military expedition into Egypt: Champollion, Denon, Volney, etc. In fact, Volney and Denon(the artist who copied thousands of busts and paintings) both wrote that the AEs were--as they put it--"negroids". Much of this is summarised in 18th century anthropologist, James Cowles Prichard's The Natural History of Mankind. All this recognition that the AEs were indigenous blacks goes all the way back to Herodotus and other Greek writers--Lucian, etc.
The notion that the AEs were not black should be leveled at Hollywood that creates films for the ignorant masses. Hollywood directors and not up to the intellectual level of Volney, Denon, and others so their portrayal of the AEs as other than what they actually were is to be expected from individuals whose goal is to pander to the cultural norms of a race-obsessed and biased U.S.
Agreed. It’s ironic that the first Euro Egyptologists, living in a world that was more racist than today, accepted that the Egyptians were black. Yet today we have to fight so much to get this acknowledged.
Nearly all ancient descriptions lumped Egyptians in the same group as Nubians or Ethiopians, from Biblical times (having Egypt and Ethiopia as children of Ham, not children of Shem like most Middle Easterners). And Greeks like Herodotus noted their “negroid” features like black skin, thick lips etc...
The modern media really does have a role in perpetuating the myth that only northerners looked like the ancients. Yes, northerners are true Egyptians today, I’m not denying them that, but the fact is that nearly all the portraits and sculptures of ancient times show people resembling the darker-skinned folk we can still see today. Yet to the ignorant people, these darker-skinned Egyptians are only results of the slave trade....right.
With big Hollywood movies like Charlton Heston’s “Ten Commandments” (I’d say it’s the most popular film on Ancient Egypt) using white actors, it only reinforces this image in people’s minds. And like Clyde Winters mentioned, later Egyptologists like Breasted contributed to this.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it looks like the cat's outta the bag and is attacking the Euronuts! LOL
For one, mainstream Egyptologists from Wilkinson, to Redford, to Shaw, and host of others have written various works on the African identity of Egypt. And on another note you now have the DNA Tribes findings on the Amarna royals showing allele frequencies rare to absent in modern Egyptians with affinities with Africans from the Great Lakes!!
The Euronut lies are unraveling before everyone's eyes.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hollywood is not the only one to blame for the white-ing of Egypt. I believe the most important figure was James Henry Breasted.
It was Breasted who taught the upper classes that the Egyptians were part of the European world so he could get funding for his research projects from rich folks. He was quite the promoter as testified too by the success of the Oriental Institute.
Here's Breasted in his own words on the AEs and their origins. These citations are from his "History of Egypt".
The forefathers of the people with whom we shall have to deal were related to the Libyans or north Africans on the one hand, and on the other to the peoples of Eastern Africa, now known as Galla, Somali, Bega, and other tribes.
Breasted also had this to say; Again the representations of the early Puntites, or the Somali people on the Egyptian monuments show striking resemblances to the Egyptians themselves.
But this is where the escape hatch provided by the idea of the African Hamitic type[ Tutsis, Masai, Amhara, Galla, Somali, Buganda, etc,] comes into play: The conclusion once maintained by some historians that the Egyptian was of African negro origin is now refuted, and evidently indicated that at most he may have been slightly tinctured with negro blood, in addition to OTHER ethnic elements already mentioned This last statement could make sense only if "the other ethnic elements--though African were not "negro". That is the essence of the Hamitic thesis: Masai, Tutsis, Galla, Buganda, Amhara, Somali, etc. are Africans--but they are not "negro". See Seligman's "The Races of Africa". A clearly bogus hypothesis because such phenotypical differences that it is based on are 1) found all over Africa, and 2) such differences--the pseudo-anthropologists focus mainly on nasal indices and facial length/breadth ratios--are also found to the same degree among East Asians and parts of South Asia.
On language: Breasted writes that the the original African language of the AEs was overlayered with Semitic inputs to produce its final structure now as "Afro-Asiatic". In Breasted's time such languages were know as "Hamito-Semitic".
Breasted is wrong here because according to the modern research of Ehret and others Semitic has its origins in East Africa--what is now known as Ethiopia. This makes sense because of the clear linguistic differences between Persian(Farsi)) and Semitic. The Persians were conquered by invading Arab armies whose language was Arabic--a branch of Semitic--but though Islam was imposed on them(Persians) they retained their language. same for the Turks. The language of Iran is Indo-European. The language of Turkey is Turkic.
The point: Semitic crossed over into the Arabian Peninsula from East Africa and eventually morphed into Arabic as one of it branches. This language was eventually adopted by Eurasian nomads pushing South from Asia into the Arabian peninsula.
These Eurasian nomads through conquests imposed Arabic--as a branch of Semitic--all over portions of West Asia.
In sum, Breasted, based on the evidence, could not make the case for a Euro-origined Egypt. In fact, he had to admit that they were African through and through-even if he had to implicitly invoke the spurious "Hamitic hypothesis".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: Let me ask you: how do you explain the greater numbers of dark-skinned Egyptians in the modern Upper Egyptian population, if it wasn’t due to higher immigration in the Lower region?
Don't take it in a bad way. But I don't have to explain it to you. Not in the sense, that I'm cowering away from giving you an explanation, but in the sense that you're the one who must prove than modern egyptians are genetically close to Ancient Egyptians. Some populations living in modern Egypt, let's say to the south, like Beja, Nubians, may as well be closely related to Ancient Egyptians like all Africans. It's very possible. But understand my position, it must not be based on nothing or wishful thinking. The populations compositions (population genetic structure) changed a lot in Africa, modern Egypt and all over world in the last 5000 years. The Mesopotamia example is a case in point. In the study that talk about population replacement.
So you can see from the Mesopotamia example and other genetic analysis that modern population are often not representative of ancient population. A 5000 years gap is a very large gap.
As for being dark-skinned. Many people not directly related to Africans are dark-skinned. Some Native Americans, Saudi Arabians, Pakistan people, Indians, etc. To analyse of the closeness of African people, the best way I guess is to do genetic analysis. Some other dark skinned individuals, especially in Africa like in Southern Egypt, may be admixed between African and non-African, giving them some African genes like skin color. Since those people are partly African, they would cluster with Ancient Egyptians (and other Africans) to some degree.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aye...To finally put this to rest. Yes modern Egyptians for the most part are related to Ancient Egyptians. Saying that all modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians is void. Some modern Egyptians have Ancient Egyptian ancestry, but mostly those from Upper Egypt and not those from Cairo. Like blingdogg clearly said Lower Egyptians absorbed more foreign people and foreign admixture than Lower Egyptians. Yes modern Egyptians may have more Eurasian admixture now, but it does not mean they do not have Ancient Egyptian/African ancestry.
The Y-DNA of modern Egyptians is still very African. Especially those of Upper Egypt.
This indicates that Upper Egyptians still have Ancient Egyptian ancestry and thus are NOT different from the Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QUOTE]Originally posted by blingdogg: [qb] Let me ask you: how do you explain the greater numbers of dark-skinned Egyptians in the modern Upper Egyptian population, if it wasn’t due to higher immigration in the Lower region? [QUOTE] Don't take it in a bad way. But I don't have to explain it to you. Not in the sense, that I'm cowering away from giving you an explanation, but in the sense that you're the one who must prove than modern egyptians are genetically close to Ancient Egyptians.
Once again I don’t understand you, Amun-Ra The Ultimate. Just as in my other thread on Narmer you seem to completely misunderstand things.
I specifically said that modern Egyptians (both Upper and Lower) are descended from the ancients, but Lower Egypt absorbed more foreign immigrants over time, compared to Upper Egypt. I told you that people of the big cities are not the best representatives of what the ancients looked like, and showed you the studies regarding that. You’re the one who disputed it, and said there was no evidence for it.
I don’t need to “prove than modern egyptians are genetically close to Ancient Egyptians”, when nearly every study will confirm that modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancients, so of course they will be genetically close to the ancients. The issue that people debate is “how genetically close” the moderns are, and which groups in modern Egypt best represent the ancients, and in which time period. I showed you confirmation that modern Upper Egyptians are genetically closest to the ancients, and by the late dynastic and Roman periods, Lower Egypt had changed much more.
And I know you really like that DNA Tribes study and map, but it doesn’t have to do with anything we were discussing. Tell me, what did that, and your statement about Rameses have to do with what I was saying?
quote: Some populations living in modern Egypt, let's say to the south, like Beja, Nubians, may as well be closely related to Ancient Egyptians like all Africans. It's very possible. But understand my position, it must not be based on nothing or wishful thinking. The populations compositions (population genetic structure) changed a lot in Africa, modern Egypt and all over world in the last 5000 years. The Mesopotamia example is a case in point. In the study that talk about population replacement.
So you can see from the Mesopotamia example and other genetic analysis that modern population are often not representative of ancient population. A 5000 years gap is a very large gap.
Yes, a population is not going to remain static in a 5000 year time frame. But you don’t seem to get that that’s what I’ve said all along!
Nothing I've said is based on “wishful thinking”, but based on studies like the ones I showed.
Egypt did not experience population replacement, and I don’t know why you would say such a thing. The people absorbed outside immigrants in varying degrees for a long time, but they are still the descendants of the ancients.
quote: As for being dark-skinned. Many people not directly related to Africans are dark-skinned. Some Native Americans, Saudi Arabians, Pakistan people, Indians, etc. To analyse of the closeness of African people, the best way I guess is to do genetic analysis. Some other dark skinned individuals, especially in Africa like in Southern Egypt, may be admixed between African and non-African, giving them some African genes like skin color. Since those people are partly African, they would cluster with Ancient Egyptians (and other Africans) to some degree.
Ok. Agreed, but I’m not saying all dark-skinned people are Africans. Some peoples like southern Indians can be as dark or darker than Africans.
Genetics studies in Africa can help, but just as important is studying culture. And the ancestors of early Egyptians sharing cultural heritage with other northeast Africans like the Nubians and other Sudanese, ties the Ancient Egyptians with Africa. And that shared African culture (the topic of this thread, regarding that book) is what interests me most, much more than genetics.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Aye...To finally put this to rest. Yes modern Egyptians for the most part are related to Ancient Egyptians. Saying that all modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians is void. Some modern Egyptians have Ancient Egyptian ancestry, but mostly those from Upper Egypt and not those from Cairo. Like blingdogg clearly said Lower Egyptians absorbed more foreign people and foreign admixture than Lower Egyptians. Yes modern Egyptians may have more Eurasian admixture now, but it does not mean they do not have Ancient Egyptian/African ancestry.
The Y-DNA of modern Egyptians is still very African. Especially those of Upper Egypt.
This indicates that Upper Egyptians still have Ancient Egyptian ancestry and thus are NOT different from the Ancient Egyptians.
posted
As I've noted many times, the legacy of Egypt's white-wash also includes various other Africans acknowledged to be closely related to the Egyptians, as lamin has already shown.
What irks me as well as stuns me is that even today in the 21st century there are websites that describe the Beja and their Medjay ancestors as well as Ethiopians and Somalis as "Hamites from Asia". Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I specifically said that modern Egyptians (both Upper and Lower) are descended from the ancients, but Lower Egypt absorbed more foreign immigrants over time, compared to Upper Egypt.
For me, while I agree with some part of your post, this is another attempt to whitewash the history of Ancient Egypt. Simply another twist of the hamitic myth. The idea is to show that those people like modern Egyptian or even some east Africans who "absorbed" foreign immigrants (as we all know) are closer to Ancient Egyptian than unadmixed black Africans. All this while genetic as well as anthropological, linguistic, historic, cultural, religious geographic analysis show otherwise.
On the genetic front, I mainly use those studies: That is the
1)DNA Tribes/JAMA study 2)DNA Tribes/BMJ study 3)BMJ study about Ramses III and other Unknown man E mummy being E1b1a (E-M2) 4)Beyoku preview study to a lower degree
quote: I told you that people of the big cities are not the best representatives of what the ancients looked like, and showed you the studies regarding that. You’re the one who disputed it, and said there was no evidence for it.
It's possible that some populations somewhere in modern Egypt, lets say in the south, or some Copt, cluster more with Ancient Egyptians than "city" Egyptians. Genetic evidence thus far, show that they will cluster more with Ancient Egyptian as much as their foreign admixture is low. Because Ancient Egyptians cluster with African populations, not much with other populations and African populations cluster with one another. Obviously this is just another way to say than Ancient Egyptians *are* African in a very real sense.
quote:
I don’t need to “prove than modern egyptians are genetically close to Ancient Egyptians”, when nearly every study will confirm that modern Egyptians are the descendants of the ancients, so of course they will be genetically close to the ancients. The issue that people debate is “how genetically close” the moderns are, and which groups in modern Egypt best represent the ancients, and in which time period. I showed you confirmation that modern Upper Egyptians are genetically closest to the ancients, and by the late dynastic and Roman periods, Lower Egypt had changed much more.
As I said, if those people cluster with Ancient Egyptian, which is possible, it is because they cluster with other African populations. For example, we know from other study that Mozabite populations genetically cluster a bit with African people, so they will cluster a bit with Ancient Egyptians.
quote:
quote: Some populations living in modern Egypt, let's say to the south, like Beja, Nubians, may as well be closely related to Ancient Egyptians like all Africans. It's very possible. But understand my position, it must not be based on nothing or wishful thinking. The populations compositions (population genetic structure) changed a lot in Africa, modern Egypt and all over world in the last 5000 years. The Mesopotamia example is a case in point. In the study that talk about population replacement.
So you can see from the Mesopotamia example and other genetic analysis that modern population are often not representative of ancient population. A 5000 years gap is a very large gap. [/qb]
Yes, a population is not going to remain static in a 5000 year time frame. But you don’t seem to get that that’s what I’ve said all along!
Nice to see we agree on things. In Africa and the world in general, there's been a lot of migration and admixture, etc since 5000 years ago. This also include the north and the south of modern Egypt. People the closest to Africans, in those or any regions, will cluster with Ancient Egyptians.
quote: Egypt did not experience population replacement
Mesopotamia did experience population replacement. And from the genetic studies thus far (DNA Tribes/Jama, DNA Tribes/BMJ, Ramses III = E1b1a(E-M2)) modern Egyptians don't cluster much with ancient Egyptians.
quote: Genetics studies in Africa can help, but just as important is studying culture. And the ancestors of early Egyptians sharing cultural heritage with other northeast Africans like the Nubians and other Sudanese, ties the Ancient Egyptians with Africa. And that shared African culture (the topic of this thread, regarding that book) is what interests me most, much more than genetics. [/QB]
Of course, as long as it doesn't hang on wishful thinking but science. Genetic is only a confirmation of what can be seen through other scientific disciplines like archeology, history, linguistic, geography, etc. Most Egyptologists seem to admit the shared cultural heritage of Ancient Egypt and modern Africa. People who share a cultural heritage, usually share a genetic heritage as well, since they were part of the same population.
So there's indeed a cultural as well as linguistic and genetic (etc) unity (shared origin) between African people (including Ancient Egyptians). Ancient Egyptians are not a separate race of people like in the hamitic myth, but people who are truly Africans and they cluster with African people (not with other populations) aka they are Africans. They share the same origin, historic, cultural and genetic heritage.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
We didn't say that they were closer to the Ancient Egyptians, but that the Ancient Egyptians are their ancestors. For examples...An African American is closely related to a Yoruba from modern day Lagos,Nigeria than an Irishmen from Ireland. But that Yoruba is not that AA's ancestor.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Amun-Ra The Ultimate
We didn't say that they were closer to the Ancient Egyptians, but that the Ancient Egyptians are their ancestors. For examples...An African American is closely related to a Yoruba from modern day Lagos,Nigeria than an Irishmen from Ireland. But that Yoruba is not that AA's ancestor.
Modern Egyptians as a whole are admixed people with foreign elements. So many of them are actually mostly, if not almost wholly, descendant of foreign people. Genetic results thus far show that modern Egyptians don't cluster much with African people and Ancient Egyptians. It may be possible that some populations in modern Egypt (Beja, Nubians, other populations in the south,etc) cluster with Africans and Ancient Egyptian people. We know Beja and Nubians cluster with African people for sure (and also possess some foreign admixture).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Amun-Ra The Ultimate Modern Egyptians as a whole are admixed people with foreign elements. Thats what me and blingdogg been saying for the longest, that was basically our argument...
So many of them are actually mostly, if not almost wholly, descendant of foreign people. Again this is what we've been saying...Those from Cairo are heavily admixed. The Delta region has always been a spot for foreign invasions and foreign immigrants. That has never been the case for Upper Egypt. Which is why they absorbed the LEAST foreign admixture. Descendants of the Ancient Egyptians didn't just disappear. SOME of them are still in Upper Egypt with some foreign admixture.
Genetic results thus far show that modern Egyptians don't cluster much with African people and Ancient Egyptians. There were only a few genetic studies and again we are arguing that Ancient Egyptians are the ancestors of some modern Egyptians, not that modern Egyptians cluster the closet to the Ancient Egyptians.
It may be possible that some populations in modern Egypt (Beja, Nubians, other populations in the south,etc) cluster with Africans and Ancient Egyptian people. We know Beja and Nubians cluster with African people for sure (and also possess some foreign admixture).
Most Upper Egyptians still carry significant African genes. Also I remember the mod Ausar who is Egyptian himself saying in an old thread that there was this Egyptian ethnic group in Upper Egypt that still practiced parts of the Ancient Egyptian culture and some of the words in the Arabic language they spoke were Ancient Egyptian. Don't remember the ethnic group name.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
No, whitewashing would mean I’m arguing that the Egyptians used to be a white or European people in the past. The Hamitic myth states that a superior white race invaded and conquered primitive Africans and taught them civilization. That is all completely the opposite of what I’m saying, and against what any serious study will show.
Again, you’re misunderstanding what’s being posted. I never said modern Egyptians are closest to ancients because they’re admixed with foreigners; what I and Son of Ra are showing you is that modern Egyptians are descended from the ancients, but those from the north absorbed more immigrants than those in the south. I don’t know how many times I need to say this to you.
What you seem to be arguing is that Egypt went through complete population replacement and that is why moderns are a different people than ancient Egyptians; as if modern Egyptians are a totally different population. If that is your claim (which I hope is not.....), you need a lot more evidence to back it up. What proof do you have of population replacement in Egypt, besides DNA Tribes? And don’t tell me you don’t have to prove anything to me, because no one can be taken seriously if they just claim things without backing it up.
The fact that ancients cluster closely genetically with other Africans doesn’t exclude other population groups in their total genetic make-up. DNA Tribes makes that point clear, that other peoples are involved.
I think you’re relying too much on the DNA Tribes and BMJ studies, as if no other research matters. There’s more to look at than just those studies because they don’t explain the whole picture.
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re getting what I and Son of Ra are saying.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As I've noted many times, the legacy of Egypt's white-wash also includes various other Africans acknowledged to be closely related to the Egyptians, as lamin has already shown.
What irks me as well as stuns me is that even today in the 21st century there are websites that describe the Beja and their Medjay ancestors as well as Ethiopians and Somalis as "Hamites from Asia".
Definitely. These people think that they can prove Nubians and others were/are "Caucasoid/Hamites", and so that makes Egyptians as a result also "Caucasoid/Hamites". It's pathetic.
And sadly I think what also plays into the hands of these fools is how some African groups have legends of Berber or Arab ancestors from the east or north who established their civilization (not true). While in the past it may have helped Muslim African states gain acceptance in the wider Muslim/Arab cultural world for economic and political advantages, it only fuels the arguments of Eurocentrics.
On a side-note, I remember browsing the net once and finding a website called “hamiticunion”. The members there seem to be real Horners, but actually believe they are Hamites, descended from superior Eurasians! It’s sad, but at least I know in my real life experiences that not all Horners are brainwashed like that.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
For awhile i was not to clear myself on the admixture etc... of modern egyptians and even nubians in egypt,but it as been cleared up enough overtime.
I know now that in modern egypt most nubians do have some of admixture,but there are some that do not,while in sudan most do not and in kenya,chad etc.. no outside admixture.
I am not clear about the beja of egypt yet but i know sudan most do not have outside foreign admixture.
For the egyptians Ausar said before that he believe that most of the admixture for the native egyptians happen during the greek/roman period.
I do not know how true that is but the greeks did play a huge part.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the common sentiment that today's Upper Egyptians have more genetic continuity with the ancient populations than their northern compatriots, but I swear there was a genetic study that found even modern Upper Egyptians to differ substantially from most sub-Saharan populations, a finding which differs a lot from the DNA Tribes results on ancient Egyptians. I've no doubt that Upper Egyptians today have darker skin and closer genetic affinity to the ancients than their compatriots in the Delta, but Amun-Ra isn't totally wrong when he says there's not that much affinity between ancients and moderns in general.
Incidentally, many of the STRs used in this study are the same ones that tied ancient Egyptians to sub-Saharan Africans in the DNA Tribes analysis.
Mind you, I'm not saying darker skin and other African physical traits in modern Upper Egyptians weren't inherited from the ancient populations. However they are still far removed from the ancients even if it's to a lesser degree than the modern northerners.
posted
I already posted a chart which showed Upper Egyptian Y-DNA is predominately African..
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I already posted a chart which showed Upper Egyptian Y-DNA is predominately African..
I would say the autosomal STR data I just shared with you gives a clearer picture of overall population affinity than the Y-DNA data. Furthermore, not only can non-Africans possess African haplogroups, but it's possible that whomever put that chart together is mistaken about which haplogroups count as African.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I already posted a chart which showed Upper Egyptian Y-DNA is predominately African..
I would say the autosomal STR data I just shared with you gives a clearer picture of overall population affinity than the Y-DNA data. Furthermore, not only can non-Africans possess African haplogroups, but it's possible that whomever put that chart together is mistaken about which haplogroups count as African.
many posters on Egyptsearch say there are no non-African haplogroups
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Please explain who these "many" are your lyinass. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I already posted a chart which showed Upper Egyptian Y-DNA is predominately African..
I would say the autosomal STR data I just shared with you gives a clearer picture of overall population affinity than the Y-DNA data. Furthermore, not only can non-Africans possess African haplogroups, but it's possible that whomever put that chart together is mistaken about which haplogroups count as African.
Perhaps, but mind you the STR and other autosomal data come from individual royals who in turn come from select families or clans in ancient Kemet. I'm not suggesting that their is a disconnect between these royals and the larger populations but I am curious as to what is the nature of the discrepancy between moderns and the ancients. Recall other threads which talk about genetic disparities between ancient groups and their modern successors such as the ancient Etruscans and modern Tuscan Italians or the more recent thread on ancient Mesopotamians affinities to Indians in contrast to modern Mesopotamians.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: @Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
No, whitewashing
[...]
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re getting what I and Son of Ra are saying.
I fully understand what you're saying. But maybe you don't realize it but you're whitewashing the history of Ancient Egypt.
Just look at this thread, instead of talking about Ancient Egypt in Africa aka in Sub-Sahara Africa, since this is the subject of the book. You prefer to talk about modern Egyptians which we know are admixed with Eurasian people. You could have talked about (admixed) Horn Africans with the same results. So the way you talk is very close to the Hamitic myth. Instead of talking about most African people, which are genetically (as well as culturally, and historically of course) close to each other, you prefer to talk about populations which we know are admixed with foreign element to various degree.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra:
Most Upper Egyptians still carry significant African genes. Also I remember the mod Ausar who is Egyptian himself saying in an old thread that there was this Egyptian ethnic group in Upper Egypt that still practiced parts of the Ancient Egyptian culture and some of the words in the Arabic language they spoke were Ancient Egyptian. Don't remember the ethnic group name.
I agree with everything you said. Using words like "most" "significant" may be too strong due to the lack of studies backing it up (I still need to look thoroughly at the Keita study you posted). But there's definitely some populations in Southern Egypt that are closely genetically affiliated with Africans and thus Ancient Egyptians. Maybe most of it, who knows. Beja and Nubian in southern Egypt certainly have some Africans genes as well as non-African genes. But as a whole, modern Egyptians don't have that much African genes. They also don't match Ancient Egyptian mummies aDNA. People in the South do have a higher percentage of African genes, but they also do have foreign admixture. Like Horn Africans, we know Southern Egyptians population are also admixed to various degree. In fact, even many populations in the North of Sudan are admixed to various level as well(a bit to a lot). Many other Africans are also, to various degree. "Recent" Admixture is great for humanity, but it's not very good to identify the genetic relationship with Ancient Egyptians. Genetic studies thus far, among other disciplines, show close affiliation between Africans (so-called sub-Sahara Africans) with Ancient Egyptians. Aka Ancient Egyptians *are* Africans.
So the situation in modern Egypt did change a lot of the last 5000 years. There's been numerous foreign invasions/migration (Assyrians,Greeks,Arabs,British, etc) which changed the genetic make up of both northern and southern Egyptians to various degree. More in the north of course, but in the south too.
There's also been a lot of migration movement/admixture/genetic drift within Africa and in the world in general in the last 5000 years. Even West Africa and Southern Africa were sparsely populated at that time. Immigration from the Eastern Africa and the Sahara, changed the ethnic composition and genetic make up of those regions as well (with less foreign input due to distance and geographic position).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I already posted a chart which showed Upper Egyptian Y-DNA is predominately African..
I would say the autosomal STR data I just shared with you gives a clearer picture of overall population affinity than the Y-DNA data. Furthermore, not only can non-Africans possess African haplogroups, but it's possible that whomever put that chart together is mistaken about which haplogroups count as African.
The chart posted by Son of Ra do stipulate that the hg V, XI and IV are African (E-P2/PN2 derived) and are the ones found among many people in Southern Egypt. I will need look at it more (since the study use numbers from other studies, so you don't know which population they use, their genetic make up, etc).
We know Ramses III (and Unknown man E) is E1b1a/E-M2 which is also E-P2/PN2 derived.
(There's probably also many A and B Y-DNA chromosome in Ancient Egyptians too (Beyoku's preview of the study do show that, DNA Tribes shows it indirectly))
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun Ra. I think they were suggetsing something along the lines of that a modern Egyptian who was half foreign, that their Egyptian half would still show more genetic affinity with the ancient Egyptians, Copts for instance
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blingdogg: @Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
No, whitewashing
[...]
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re getting what I and Son of Ra are saying.
I fully understand what you're saying. But maybe you don't realize it but you're whitewashing the history of Ancient Egypt.
Just look at this thread, instead of talking about Ancient Egypt in Africa aka in Sub-Sahara Africa, since this is the subject of the book. You prefer to talk about modern Egyptians which we know are admixed with Eurasian people. You could have talked about (admixed) Horn Africans with the same results. So the way you talk is very close to the Hamitic myth. Instead of talking about most African people, which are genetically (as well as culturally, and historically of course) close to each other, you prefer to talk about populations which we know are admixed with foreign element to various degree.
No, you seem to be fixated on ideal, fictitious groups of people who are 100% African genetically with absolutely no admixture from neighboring populations. It’s like you can’t accept the fact that there are black people with varying degrees of non-African genes, yet they are still black people.
And once again you’re putting words in my mouth, claiming to know what I “prefer”. I’m a bigger fan of civilizations like Songhay, Kanem-Bornu, Funj, Kongo, Asante, Oyo, etc... than Egypt, but most people on this forum rather talk about Egypt and genetics. I’m discussing topics that are being brought up in this thread, going where it leads to. I even said above that I don’t like discussing genetics, but much rather talk about African culture and history. Of course you missed that. By the way, you're the first to bring genetics into the thread, with those DNA Tribes reports not me.
I’m not “whitewashing” (a term you don’t seem to understand) Egyptian history, while you seem to be living in a dream that there were never any foreigners in the region even in ancient times. Even small groups of immigrants from say Palestine would have left a genetic mark, which may or may not have affected phenotype.
quote: It is to be expected simply on the grounds that people tend to marry those from their neighbourhood. In the south of Egypt the population would have been close to, and would have ultimately merged with, that of northern Nubia. One trait was presumably a darkening of skin colour. As one moved north so local populations should, in general, have diverged more from those further south. This ought to mean if all factors worked equally (and they might not have done) that the population of the north-eastern Nile delta merged with that of southern Palestine. -Kemp (2005) pp.51
I celebrate the diversity of African history, and don’t see a problem with some population groups, ancient and modern, having Eurasian admixture, which is a fact. They’re still African.
Keep holding on to the DNA Tribes study like it’s your holy Bible and ignore what others are saying. I’ve read older threads here and as people like Swenet and beyoku proved over and over, you barely even grasp the basics of that study lol. Egyptian Old Kingdom and New Kingdom Ancient DNA results So quit pretending.
Posts: 100 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: For awhile i was not to clear myself on the admixture etc... of modern egyptians and even nubians in egypt,but it as been cleared up enough overtime.
I know now that in modern egypt most nubians do have some of admixture,but there are some that do not,while in sudan most do not and in kenya,chad etc.. no outside admixture.
I am not clear about the beja of egypt yet but i know sudan most do not have outside foreign admixture.
Many Sudanese have African genes, but many do have foreign admixture as well. For example, according to the Hassan (2008) study some Sudanese Nubian have 41% of the J haplogroup associated with Saudi Arabia and the Near East (all while Nuba, Fulani, Dinka and Haussa in Sudan got 0% of it, according to the Hassan study).
It's also noteworthy that there's already have been a study about ancient Kushite/Nubian/Sudanese aDNA. Which you can download there. At first, it talks about modern genetic make up then mentions aDNA study:
quote: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 mainly from Asia and Europe , evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.
I think the text is clear enough. But clearly it mentions haplogroup A-M13 has the most prevalent hg among ancient Kushite. Then other African and foreign admixture were introduced in ancient and modern Sudan.
A-M13 in Sudan is mostly prevalent among modern Dinka (62%), Shilluk (53%) and Nuba (46%) in Sudan.
Personnally, I think Kushites were composed of A-M13, maybe to a high percentage, but also other A, B and E hg, as most African populations.
Here's a nice table for the Hassan study. As most genetic study, they use what I consider a small number of people, but it's still valuable information which answers some of your interrogations about modern Sudanese genetic composition. http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/study_hassan2008.htmPosts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptian skull classifications from the pre to the late dynastic series:
NONE of the skulls from the predynastic (EPD, LPD) to the Middle Kingdom (MK) classify as the Late dynastic series, and none of the Late Dynastic skulls classify into the other skull sets from earlier periods. This is damning evidence. Statistics don't lie. Zakrzewski algorithm does not recognize any of these skulls as falling in the variations of the Late dynastic series. Somewhere along the line from the MK to the late dynastic period there were gradual changes and/or dramatic breaks in continuity that require substantial demographic changes to explain these results. The descendants of these exact same demographic changes are calling themselves Egyptians nowadays and demand that Ancient Egyptian characters on TV be moulded in their likeness). Well, we're not buying it. Zakrzewski's data measures cranio-facial dimensions, which map physical appearances. Dental dimensions or dental non-metric traits don't tell you whether a population looked African in their faces.
Ancients are NOT the moderns and haplogroups mean nothing if you cannot interpret them properly. You need to cross compare haplogroups profiles with that same population's autosomal ancestry, otherwise you're prone to make mistakes. Case in point: the Ouldeme who are nearly 100% R1b have little to no genetic relationships with R1b Europeans in their overall genome that other non R1b bearing Chadic and Niger Congo speaking Africans don't have. Ouldeme R1b percentages are a vestige from the past when a Eurasian group infiltrated their population ~7k years ago, and its totally unrepresentative of their current genetic makeup--which is nearly 100% African or very close to that number. See Tishkoff 2009.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You seem to forget pretty quickly, that you're the one who mentioned "light-skinned modern northerners, many of them immigrants" . Son of Ra did post a good table of the Keita study showing that modern Southern Egyptian may have more African haplogroups than their northern counterpart, thus more representative of the ancient population (before foreign conquest/migration of Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt). I have the Keita study but need to check it more. If the Keita study is confirmed then I agree with you and Son of Ra that many modern southern Egyptian populations have African genes (thus Ancient Egyptian genes).
As for the genetic studies, I do use what is available. I posted a Sudanese study above but studies on Ancient Egyptian mummies are restricted to those as far as I know:
1)DNA Tribes/JAMA study 2)DNA Tribes/BMJ study 3)BMJ study about Ramses III and other Unknown man E mummy being E1b1a (E-M2) 4)Beyoku preview of a study (not published).
As I said in this thread. Beyoku's breakdown of Old Kingom and Middle Kingdom haplogroup composition is what I imagine the situation to be approximately for the Ancient Egyptian population in general. Same thing for the DNA Tribes and the BMJ study (Ramses III being E1b1a).
quote: OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
We can see a mostly African Y-DNA (A, B and E) and mtDNA (L, M1) haplogroups with some foreign ones like J, R and T (associated with an African L mtDNA hg on their mother side).
I must say, that I am indeed more than very satisfied with the aDNA studies results thus far. I'm very happy about them. It's hard to imagine Ancient Egyptians being more African.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The descendants of these exact same demographic changes are calling themselves Egyptians nowadays and demand that Ancient Egyptian characters on TV be moulded in their likeness). Well, we're not buying it.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say those Pharaonist ideologues have done as much if not even more damage to the reconstruction of ancient Kemet than the Eurocentric racism we've tended to hate on. If it weren't for the Pharaonist nationalists in Egypt, I suspect Western academia would feel far more comfortable publically acknowledging Kemet's (Black) African roots.
quote:The Pharaonist movement or Pharaonism is an ideology that rose to prominence in Egypt in the 1920s and 1930s. It looked to Egypt's pre-Islamic past and argued that Egypt was part of a larger Mediterranean civilization. This ideology stressed the role of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea. Pharaonism's most notable advocate was Taha Hussein.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: For awhile i was not to clear myself on the admixture etc... of modern egyptians and even nubians in egypt,but it as been cleared up enough overtime.
I know now that in modern egypt most nubians do have some of admixture,but there are some that do not,while in sudan most do not and in kenya,chad etc.. no outside admixture.
I am not clear about the beja of egypt yet but i know sudan most do not have outside foreign admixture.
Many Sudanese have African genes, but many do have foreign admixture as well. For example, according to the Hassan (2008) study some Sudanese Nubian have 41% of the J haplogroup associated with Saudi Arabia and the Near East (all while Nuba, Fulani, Dinka and Haussa in Sudan got 0% of it, according to the Hassan study).
It's also noteworthy that there's already have been a study about ancient Kushite/Nubian/Sudanese aDNA. Which you can download there. At first, it talks about modern genetic make up then mentions aDNA study:
quote: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 mainly from Asia and Europe , evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.
I think the text is clear enough. But clearly it mentions haplogroup A-M13 has the most prevalent hg among ancient Kushite. Then other African and foreign admixture were introduced in ancient and modern Sudan.
A-M13 in Sudan is mostly prevalent among modern Dinka (62%), Shilluk (53%) and Nuba (46%) in Sudan.
Personnally, I think Kushites were composed of A-M13, maybe to a high percentage, but also other A, B and E hg, as most African populations.
Here's a nice table for the Hassan study. As most genetic study, they use what I consider a small number of people, but it's still valuable information which answers some of your interrogations about modern Sudanese genetic composition. http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/study_hassan2008.htm
There some talk about this below from some past threads.
Yes i do agree that 41% of sudanese nile nubians have J1. Most sudanese nile nubians do not have outside admixture. Some in egypt do not either. I know or seen the study.
Most nubians in the sudanese nile as well as many of the black arabs do not have outside admixture.
Keep in mind there now other recent africans in egypt and most of them do have outside admixture,OF COURSE they are native to egypt and tye come from countries like sudan,southern sudan etc...
The sudan info i give and others give is more clear and detailed in the links below.
The first thread i got the info wrong about what J1 the study was talking about.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
LOL
Printer-friendly view of this topic