quote: Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
posted
Lol @ the spammers of DNA Tibes of this forum who believed for 5 years—against many warnings of several forum members—that DNA Tribes' Amarna results can be taken literally.
Newbies have an excuse for not knowing any better. The spammers who have been posting here for many years, don't.
----
Only a matter of time before this aDNA data reaches Kemp and other academics who were emailed with "admit the AE were 'black' in the western sense, or else". Let's see about that book project then.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly it is pretty shocking considering that they have mtDNA as part of their argument. I can buy them confusing an autosomal "Basal Eurasian" component for Near Eastern ancestry in these remains. But if they have uniparental haplogroups of actual Eurasian origin, "Basal Eurasian" can't account for that. It just doesn't make sense to me, especially given what all the other data was pointing towards.
It's going to be a tense half-month as we wait for more information on these findings.
posted
You expect aDNA from during and after the Third Intermediate Period to not contain any Eurasian mtDNAs?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You expect aDNA from during and after the Third Intermediate Period to not contain any Eurasian mtDNAs?
Of course I expect the presence of Eurasian mtDNA in AE remains from that period. Just not at a higher proportion than modern Egyptians. But again, we will see what's up with it all when the stuff gets published.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noticed Beyoku had a different tone recently, especially in regards to the "list" he posted before I joined... Is this it? Or is there more?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I interpreted it as that these specific mummies have less SSA than modern Egyptians, not that they have MORE Near Eastern. They always report less SSA as more Near Eastern—as if it is a trade off. But you're right. We won't know until we see the specifics.
But if they really DO have MORE Near Eastern ancestry in the place of modern Egyptians' Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali, Basal Eurasian, etc., these mummies can hardly be ethnically Egyptian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Noticed Beyoku had a different tone recently, especially in regards to the "list" he posted before I joined... Is this it? Or is there more?
My ideas have changed from YEARS ago when that data was leaked. Regardless of what I said about that specific list of lineages that does not let Afrocentricity off the hook for thinking that AE was ALL sub Saharan, ALL the time......ignoring ALL the ancient DNA outside of Africa showing discontinuity, and ignoring African sub Structure all together. ES has been repreating that same mantra over and over when its quite clear that that idea is no longer tenable.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope people here DO NOT interpret me sounding like an "Afrocentric crybaby" because I ALWAYS knew the DNAtribes results were not to be taken literally as Sub-Saharan in their results were only used as "proxies" since they had the most "African" DNA. That did not mean the AE had affinity with them just that they were a good proxy with hardly any Eurasian DNA.
But moving on to what I really wanted to say... Aren't the remains from the late dynastic to Roman period? So it isn't surprising that we would see this much Near Eastern ancestry in my honest opinion.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
....I would like to have some historical context applied though for which A few explanations can be provided for this. But it's probably too early for speculation.
Ehem*Nubia Ehem*Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
This argument is NOT new. Remember the Dakhla Oasis data that was interpreted that way? The difference is this study should be robust based on WHO is working the data. I doubt they will make the same mistake as Ryan Parr.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
Why are you always biting off my posts? And you don't know that they're Eurasian. I said if they don't have regional ancestry they're not Egyptian. Then you come around and say it's a fact that they're Eurasian. It's not a fact that they're Eurasian. It's a fact that these tested mummies are not Sub-Saharan African. Live with it. And stop biting my posts. Read papers and book and come up with your own ideas.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It's a fact that these tested mummies are not Sub-Saharan African. Live with it" lol!
It is NOT a fact . SMH
It is not what you may think it is. We have seen many abstracts like that. But when we get the full paper it is completely different. It is impossible for the AEians to be anything but SSA or North Africans. Keep in mind E1b1b found in the 8000 year old Natufians. Natufians are North Africans with some SSA (NO MORE SSA ANCESTRY). Does not mean “no” SSA ancestry. Remember King Tut was R1b, lol!. Amarna’s carry SSA STRs. Also Rameses III and Man E was E1b1a.
Don’t read too much into this abstract until you get the paper. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Turks. These facts cannot change no matter how they try to spin it.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet get off my dick, we're speaking about late intermediate subjects sharing more near eastern ancestry than modern or even Roman period Egyptians... if your ancestry is from the near east, then are you not of Eurasian decent?
And you think too highly of yourself... Half the time I don't believe you understand wtf your talking about as it relates to biology in general... I don't have a desire to share the same ideas as you, much less "bite" you.. Gtfoh, with that bull ****.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: " It's a fact that these tested mummies are not Sub-Saharan African. Live with it" lol!
It is NOT a fact . SMH
It is not what you may think it is. We have seen many abstracts like that. But when we get the full paper it is completely different. It is impossible for the AEians to be anything but SSA or North Africans. Keep in mind E1b1b found in the 8000 year old Natufians. Natufians are North Africans with some SSA (NO MORE SSA ANCESTRY). Does not mean “no” SSA ancestry. Remember King Tut was R1b, lol!. Amarna’s carry SSA STRs. Also Rameses III and Man E was E1b1a.
Don’t read too much into this abstract until you get the paper. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Turks. These facts cannot change no matter how they try to spin it.
It's crazy because I honestly don't see how any of this sh!t matters right now.... Why are we even talking about armanas... Look at the recorded history of AEgypt during the late intermediate period!! ...the concern is the increased SSA affinities and what it entails about the demographic structure during the Roman period...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Euronuts are probably having a field day right now...lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: We have seen many abstracts like that. But when we get the full paper it is completely different.
I agree a 100%, gramps. Best is just to wait and see as far as what "Near Eastern" means. But, like I said, what we know is that these mummies are not primarily like modern day SSA.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I interpreted it as that these specific mummies have less SSA than modern Egyptians, not that they have MORE Near Eastern. They always report less SSA as more Near Eastern—as if it is a trade off. But you're right. We won't know until we see the specifics.
But if they really DO have MORE Near Eastern ancestry in the place of modern Egyptians' Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali, Basal Eurasian, etc., these mummies can hardly be ethnically Egyptian.
My suspicions exactly. You know as well as I do that often times these experts are quick to call certain genetic elements 'Near Eastern' because they happen to found in the Near East when in fact they originated in Africa, even if North Africa. Recall that Y-DNA clade E-M215 (E1b1b) was originally thought to be "Near Eastern" upon its discovery.
Even Keita back in the early 2000s wrote such: There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I hope people here DO NOT interpret me sounding like an "Afrocentric crybaby" because I ALWAYS knew the DNAtribes results were not to be taken literally as Sub-Saharan in their results were only used as "proxies" since they had the most "African" DNA. That did not mean the AE had affinity with them just that they were a good proxy with hardly any Eurasian DNA.
But moving on to what I really wanted to say... Aren't the remains from the late dynastic to Roman period? So it isn't surprising that we would see this much Near Eastern ancestry in my honest opinion.
Yep. As late as 2013 Bekada et al were still going around calling E-M81 and E-M78 "Near Eastern". MtDNA L3 has also suffered that same treatment as late as 2014. mtDNA M1 almost always gets that treatment. We really don't know anything at this point, other than that modern Egyptians have more SSA ancestry than these samples.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Euronuts are probably having a field day right now...lol
Yeah just like how they had a field day when they mistakenly thought Tut carried Y-hg R1b or years before that when they thought E-M215 was a Eurasian clade. LOL Yes I'm sure they are partying until reality hits them once again. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
Also Swenet sometimes get caught up in …bs. The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roman period, not that the AEian had “no’ SSA ancestry. Stop mis-directing Lioness-eh-Swenet! Lol!
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The increased/recent SSA ancestry is the only thing that is really surprising me. But once again Eurasian ancestry shouldn't be surprising.
Lets not forget that after the Kushite dynasty was crushed the Assyrians conquered Egypt and I believe they started settling. Could the "Near Eastern" ancestry be from the Assyrians? And mind you this was during the Third Intermediate Period.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Also Swenet his sometimes get caught up in …bs. The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
It says that the ancient sample (as a whole) had less SSA than living Egyptians. It doesn't say anything about a gradual increase in SSA ancestry in the ancient samples. You made that up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will make some prediction here. They probably sampled a high number of mummies. And found some mtDNA H(Eurasian?). If it is mtDNA H. It will NOT be H1 or H3 but more like H2. mtDNA H is African Saharan. With a clear demarcation line along the Nile. H1 and H3 to the West of the Nile and into Western Europe. Other MtDNA H lineage into the Levant and Arabia.
Remember DNATribes changed their classification into European, West Asia(Levant Turks) and Saharo-Arabia. ‘Arabia is an extension of Africa’. These mummies will NOT be Turks! They will be Africans(Admixed Sub-Saharan Africans and North Africans). Even within the Maghreb there are indigenous populations with increased or decreased SSA and “Eurasian” ancestry. The abstract is a distraction. To be ignore until it is published. Where is Lucas Martin when you need him?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I asked Lioness. Who wrote your book report as a kid? Wtf are you talking about?
The title of the paper – “Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an******* Increase****** of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in ******Post*****-Roman Periods” Krause et al.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Also Swenet his sometimes get caught up in …bs. The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
It says that the ancient sample (as a whole) had less SSA than living Egyptians. It doesn't say anything about a gradual increase in SSA ancestry in the ancient samples. You made that up.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
Xyyman debunking his own initial claim:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Increase****** of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
Again, the abstract doesn't say anything about a gradual increase of SSA ancestry in the ancient sample, only that living Egyptians have more SSA ancestry than this pooled ancient sample.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any timetable for when this will be released? And didn't Beyoku post some research about Egyptians containing indigenous dna? what happened to that?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Any timetable for when this will be released? And didn't Beyoku post some research about Egyptians containing indigenous dna? what happened to that?
The symposium is on March 29 to April 2 according to Beyoku's link.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet! Swenet! Swenet! I will make it simple! The author is stating that beginning in Roman Period there was an increase in SSA Ancestry in Egytptians implying Romans brought in slaves from SSA or the Roman were sub-saharans. “Since” means from the Roman period “ONWARDS” to present. Not from the Roman period going backwards in time. Tsk! Tsk! Did you really finish school?! I make you out to be a hustler? Are you?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thank you for debunking yourself, gramps.
Xyyman's initial claim:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
Xyyman debunking his own initial claim:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Increase****** of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
Again, the abstract doesn't say anything about a gradual increase of SSA ancestry in the ancient sample, only that living Egyptians have more SSA ancestry than this pooled ancient sample.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Euronuts are probably having a field day right now...lol
Yeah just like how they had a field day when they mistakenly thought Tut carried Y-hg R1b or years before that when they thought E-M215 was a Eurasian clade. LOL Yes I'm sure they are partying until reality hits them once again.
Three weeks into the Third month of 2017 and there's a possibility that researchers are still referring to North-african/Neolithic components as non-african or near eastern... Interesting.
You don't think they'd eyeball the unique African component easily in these old samples, considering Egyptians tends to form unique/ Coptic clusters? - if I was a betting man I'd say that that particular cluster gets foggy in these samples... Rather that than throw the researchers under the bus for such a poorly constructed or intentionally misleading abstract.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elmaestro _ if you are familiar with the authors you should be well aware they are not simply speaking of Mitochondrial DNA.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Always pretending to be something he is not. Like the inside scoop of forthcoming papers.
From the paper Quote: “Here we ***mtDNA** and ***nuclear DNA** from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt”
"poorly constructed or intentionally misleading abstract." .....of course it is intentional.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Three weeks into the Third month of 2017 and there's a possibility that researchers are still referring to North-african/Neolithic components as non-african or near eastern... Interesting.
^This is exactly what I mean. Constantly updating his views in response to others' posts. First it's a "fact" that these mummies are "Near Eastern", now he's saying the fault lies with the researchers. He's doing this all the time as if online debates or conversations are an acceptable main source of information. They aren't. If you don't read any papers or books and you come here to update your views based on what others say and then pass them off a conclusion you already arrived at... that's biting, period.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
.... .... .... I believe that the sample in this upcoming paper has near eastern ancestry.
.... I'm getting the impression that not every here does. .... ..... I'm addressing the unlikelihood of them stating that the samples are near Eastern when they aren't.
.... I have the same views as I did when I posted my very first comment on this page.
What are you talking about swenet. There's no debate to be even had at the moment.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perfect time to point out why reading and not discussing isn't optimal for learning... Boy swenet read my post in two separate segments treating each paragraph as a separate narrative and failed to understand my position OR I haven't communicated my position effectively which lead to his confusion... So of course I had to break it down in hopes that he can learn how much he doesn't know what the **** he's talking, about at least as if refers to me.
And poof we're all just a bit smarter.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are yall trying to CHANGE THE DATA. You have to change your narrative. Look at the authors and see what Ancient DNA they have published in the past few years.
Take a look at THOSE samples and take a guess at what these samples would look like to come to the conclusion they have.
Its like yall scared to even hypothesize what that data would look like. It will not go away if yall just stick yall heads in the sand. BTW Where is Amun Ra?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am more interested in the mtDNA. What haplogroup
If they are calling North Africans “Eurasians/Neolithics” then there is no further discussion needed.. Because we are all familiar with the label Saharo-Arabia. We know the Levantine Natufians are North Africans.
What is more interesting from that symposium is the talks about the aDNA of Central Africans from the late stone age. And the results may be surprising as they implied. I would like to be a fly on that wall.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Why are yall trying to CHANGE THE DATA. You have to change your narrative. Look at the authors and see what Ancient DNA they have published in the past few years.
Take a look at THOSE samples and take a guess at what these samples would look like to come to the conclusion they have.
Its like yall scared to even hypothesize what that data would look like. It will not go away if yall just stick yall heads in the sand. BTW Where is Amun Ra?
I predict "near eastern ancestry" in this study includes Egyptian.
Also I'm not scared of anything since my pre-2013 position was ancient Egyptians were significantly West Asian ("Caucasoid") admixed; if it turns out "near eastern ancestry" in this study does not include Egypt (but is West Asia), I'll revert back to my old view. However I don't think this will be the case, the craniometrics argues against it.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
AmunRa will just claim since the earliest DNA samples from this study are Third Intermediate Period, since these samples are "late" - ancient Egyptians were already heavily admixed at that point. This is already being done by butt hurt negrocentrists on anthro forums and blogs.
Butthurt negrocentrist on eurogenes. LOL
quote:Sure there is.
* The Hyskos Dynasty (ca. 1650 BCE to 1545 BCE) * Egypt's political boundaries extended into modern Lebanon ca. 1450 BCE in the Hittite era. * Bronze Age Collapse sent migrants from the North to Egypt (although the ethnically Mycenean Greek Philistines were diverted to what is now the Gaza strip). * Egypt has vigorous trade and diplomatic relations in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the Phoenician era and the Roman era.
Sub-Saharan admixture was probably greater pre-1800 BCE.
posted
True, but the people the Egyptians descend from and that the academic communities agree on(Archaeologists, Linguists and Geneticists) are the Saharan peoples of the Green Sahara period. These same people migrated to "West Africa" so if a Negrocentric wanted they could claim a distant, very distant btw, relationship with Ancient Egyptians..
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery in 19th Century Egypt: The Khedivate (1805-82)
Slavery existed for much of the 19th century in Egypt. Slavery in the Khedivate was not unlike slavery in Ancient Egypt. The great bulk of the labor force was the landless peasantry. Slaves were a small part of the labor force and concentrated in a few specific activities. Slavery followed the pattern set during earlier historical periods, most recently Egypt's position as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery was similar in Egyopt to that of the wider Arab world. The Mamuluks were destinctive to Egypt. Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. Slavery gradually disappeared in Egypt during the 19th century. Formal abolition was just part of this transition. Although defeated by the Ottomans and Napoleon, the Mamluks still had considerable influence in Egypt and important positions. They were annililated in a great massacre conducted by Muhammed Ali (1811). This ended their rule as a ruling aristocracy. They continued to play an important role in the military and government administration. Many Mamluks and other white make slaves were owned by Turks (non-Arab Ottomans) and increasingly wealthy Egyptians. [Baer, p. 147.] The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall populstion of about 5 million people. About half of Egyptian slaves were concentrated in Egyot. The number of slaves in Cairo has been estimated at 12,000-15,000 in a city of about 350,000 people. Female slaves might be kept in harems. Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer] The supression of the slave trade was largely brought about by the British. The first major step was the First Anglo-Egyptian Convention (1877). One focus of the effort was the Sudan. Sudan was seen by Egyptian officials as a part of Egypt. The Sudan was more traditional than Egypt itself and a more austere form of Islam widely followed. And the slave trade was an important part of the economy whoch was not the case in Egypt. British governors were appointed in the Sudan. The most notable was Charles "Chinese" Girdon. Special missions were dispatched to supress the slave trade. The Mahdist revolution delayed the effort in the Sudan (1881). More aggressive steps were taken after the establishment of the British Protectorate (1882).
Slave Usage
Slavery existed for much of the 19th century in Egypt. Slavery in the Khedivate was not unlike slavery in Ancient Egypt. The great bulk of the labor force was the landless peasantry. Slaves were a small part of the labor force and concentrated in a few specific activities. Egyptian slaves included men and women as well as various racial and ethnic groups. Many of the white male slaves were Mamelukes. Although defeated by the Ottomans and Napoleon, the Mamluks still had considerable influence in Egypt and important positions. They were annililated in a great massacre conducted by Muhammed Ali (1811). This ended their rule as a ruling aristocracy. They continued to play an important role in the military and government administration. Many Mamluks and other white make slaves were owned by Turks (non-Arab Ottomans) and increasingly wealthy Egyptians. [Baer, p. 147.] Female slaves might be kept in harems. Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer] Destinctive Aspects
Slavery followed the pattern set during earlier historical periods, most recently Egypt's position as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery was similar in Egyopt to that of the wider Arab world. The Mamuluks were destinctive to Egypt. Egypt's geographic position was also detinctive, providing access to slaves from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Independence
Muhammed Ali was appointed as the Ottoman pasha or govenor of Egypt. The French invasion showed the Ottoman weakness (1898) and destroyed the Mamelukes as a miklitaery force. Mohammed Ali gradually built his power base and moved Egypt toward independence. This was a gradual process, but essentially schieved by 1805. Slave Population
The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall populstion of about 5 million people. About half of Egyptian slaves were concentrated in Egyot. The number of slaves in Cairo has been estimated at 12,000-15,000 in a city of about 350,000 people. Source of Slaves
Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. White slaves in the 18th century were obtained from Barbary Pirate raids on European shipping and coastal communities. Egyptians were not major partipants in Barbary piracy, but some of the captives taken by the pirates reached the Cairo slave market. This source was closed off by first the American-Barbary Wars and ultimately French colonization of Algeria (1830). Circassian white slaves reached Egypt from the eastern coast of the Black Sea and from the Circassian settlements of Anatolia through Istambul. There were several sources of African slaves. This included routes across the Sahara and the Indian Ocean/Red Sea. Slave Trading
The slave dealers in Egypt were mainly individuals from Upper Egypt/Sudan and the Saharan Oases. They were largely Bedouin and villagers from Bulayra province. They specialized in black or white slaves. They were organized in a guild with a shaykh. Cairo was the center of the Egyptian slave trade and slaves wwre sold year round. There was also an annual event--the mawlid of Tanta. [Baer] Supression of the Slave Trade
Slavery gradually disappeared in Egypt during the 19th century. Formal abolition was just part of this transition.The supression of the slave trade was largely brought about by the British. The first major step was the First Anglo-Egyptian Convention (1877). One focus of the effort was the Sudan. Sudan was seen by Egyptian officials as a part of Egypt. The Sudan was more traditional than Egypt itself and a more austere form of Islam widely followed. And the slave trade was an important part of the economy whoch was not the case in Egypt. British governors were appointed in the Sudan. The most notable was Charles "Chinese" Girdon. Special missions were dispatched to supress the slave trade. The Mahdist revolution delayed the effort in the Sudan (1881). More aggressive steps were taken after the establishment of the British Protectorate (1882). Sources
Baer, Gabriel. "Slavery in nineteenth century Egypt," Journal of African History Vol. VIII, No. 3 (1967), pp. 417-41.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does all of this "Sub-Saharan" talk have to do with ancient Egypt's origins? Ancient Egypt was a product of populations immediately south of Egypt -- in Saharan Upper Egypt, North Sudan, Eastern desert and the Western desert.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I interpreted it as that these specific mummies have less SSA than modern Egyptians, not that they have MORE Near Eastern. They always report less SSA as more Near Eastern—as if it is a trade off. But you're right. We won't know until we see the specifics.
But if they really DO have MORE Near Eastern ancestry in the place of modern Egyptians' Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali, Basal Eurasian, etc., these mummies can hardly be ethnically Egyptian.
I really hope you turn out to be right. Because if results like these were coming from predynastic Upper Egyptian remains---with "Near Eastern" unequivocally meaning non-African---nothing in the world would make sense to me anymore.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW this is a comment I posted on the original Sarkoboros blog post (it is currently awaiting moderation):
quote:With regards to the talk on Egyptian aDNA, I have to wonder what “Near Eastern” would entail. A couple of years back, there was a study by Pagani et al that found even the *indigenous African* ancestry in modern Egyptians has a stronger affinity to “Out of Africa” populations than does that of West/Central Africans etc., because it was from Northeast Africa that “Out of Africa” splintered off.
Of course, given the Third Intermediate to Roman Period age of these Egyptian remains, there probably is some real non-African ancestry in there. But given the above, I think there’s also chance that some of this “Near Eastern” ancestry could really be indigenous African, but of a Northeast rather than stereotypically sub-Saharan type.
posted
It doesn't really debunk that Egypt was created by Africans that were not separated by a Sahara that didn't exist (or had only existed briefly). There's a lot of data that would suggest in-situ development and the remains are simply not old enough to suggest otherwise. What this does do is potentially provide a blow to those who assumed heavy (and uninterrupted) indigenous African genetic continuity within Egypt from the predynastic era (both upper and lower Egypt).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: It doesn't really debunk that Egypt was created by Africans that were not separated by a Sahara that didn't exist (or had only existed briefly). There's a lot of data that would suggest in-situ development and the remains are simply not old enough to suggest otherwise. What this does do is potentially provide a blow to those who assumed heavy (and uninterrupted) indigenous African genetic continuity within Egypt from the predynastic era (both upper and lower Egypt).
That's what I would have thought too, but you always have to be prepared for surprises.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew it was a matter of time before Eurocentrics like Lioness would bring up slavery as a way to explain the results. The Funny part is Egypt had large numbers of White Slaves, as alluded to in her article, so one can easily argue Egypt was "Whitened" by European slaves...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Even if there was 0% mtDNA L in this sample, there are scenarios in which that can happen without changing much as far as my views are concerned. But I don't think we even need to go there. There are enough lines of evidence in place that let us know that, even in the worst case scenario (let's say 0% L lineages in this sample), such a result can't hold true for the entire AE population.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic