I'ma just come out and say say what I believe might happen. Granted I only have a short-abstract to go off of, I feel like we'll see some elucidation on the Coptic cluster so often considered African. the Egyptian sample will cluster closely to their near eastern bank both Prehistoric and extant and possibly become more distinct later in history. They will also have other Eurasian components and a very very low if any SSA affinity. I don't think they'll shed much light on any other presumably North African correspondence.
I don't believe that they'll base their findings solely off of YRI DNA, I sure to god hope they don't but if they do and include other SSA populations like maybe the Maasalit, or even the Luhya we'll see this near eastern affinity pop up commensurately.
So yeah, Continuity: ✔️ Additional OOA components/clustering: ✔️ Low levels of SSA admixture: ✔️ SSA populations used as a reference: ?? - It seems like I might be wrong here, and they are basing this off of YRI, they used similar terms they did with Lazaridis 2016. In terms of MtDNA, L actually disappears during roman period and resurfaces after?????
But the most important thing to note here is continuity... What ever is to be said or speculated about these Late Intermediate Fayum samples has to be applied to the contemporary Egyptian population and more significantly VICE-VERSA.
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
...African lineages such as? ...and from where? ...Most Closely related to whom & how?
...once again is anyone gonna take a crack at Defining SSA?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Cass and the other Klannites can rejoice if similar results appear for the Predynasyic/Old Kingdom aDna. I don't see any reason to be *shook* by this or believe it to be a "worst case scenario". Especially considering this period also correlates with the onset of massive Eurasian backflow.
But on the other hand, it would be nice to confirm that this sample (including the older specimens within it) isn't representative of the whole AE population throughout time. If any sign appears that these sampled individuals had more foreign ancestry than the average AE, it would be easier to swat the trolls aside.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am personally for certain that these samples do not represent ethnic/native Egyptian. Again, they appear to be from the delta region that received Eurasian migrants throughout time. COULD it be possible that some of these sampled mummies descend from Hyksos migrants who came before the New Kingdom period? Either way I doubt this is representative for Upper Egyptians during the periods the study has.
Also, even if Ramesse III was not E1b1ba, he would still be E1b1b. Both which are African paternal ancestries. And Ramesse III came from a period well after the New Kingdom and IIRC was from Lower Egypt. If anything this seems to revive the dynastic race theory to SOME extent.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Cass and the other Klannites can rejoice if similar results appear for the Predynasyic/Old Kingdom aDna. I don't see any reason to be *shook* by this or believe it to be a "worst case scenario". Especially considering this period also correlates with the onset of massive Eurasian backflow.
I'm not arguing for strong Levant/south-west Asian ties, but strong regional continuity in Egypt. The PCA shows ancient Egyptians are somewhat (though not massively) distant to modern Egyptians, which is a surprise to me, however although I cannot see the PCA plot clear enough because it is a blur - the closest match to the ancient samples could be with modern Copts. If so, this study still supports strong Egyptian regional continuity since the Copts are an Egyptian sub-population. Because Copts are an ethno-religious group they might plot closer than the rest of ethnic Egyptians because of their more strict endogamy that has maintained closer biological ties to the ancients. That Copts = the closest population to resemble ancient Egyptians is what old posters like Rahotep on this forum argued here 5+ years ago and I adopted this position in 2013. Regardless, the mtDNA data/image that is not blurry shows "substantial continuity" between pre-Ptolemaic and Ptolemaic Egyptians as I predicted.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Indeed, it was too blurry for me. But these were lower Egyptian samples. To put into perspective the location of the samples: they were only 150 miles from Hyksos capital of Avaris. Canaanites were entering Egypt by 1800 BC and made an independent realm by 1720 BC into Faiyum. This locations is between these points of known foreign influences. So Eurocentric people are thinking an area North of the Cananite leadership in Faiyum and just 150 miles away from the century ruled Hyksos capital is going to be representative of Egypt's origins, or even the biological makeup of the rest of Egypt during the time periods of sampling???
That is the Delta. It's possible that increases in ancestry erroneously being dubbed "SSA" (since it's entry into the region likely predates the Sahara) was local. Or at least in part, anyway. Even if a limit were of course available to SSA in Egypt, Near Eastern affinities before North African? Definitely the Delta. We would ideally have more upper Egyptian and Nubian samples to compare. But it's very likely Egyptians further south have (like they do today) more African affinity. What genetic samples we do have of Ancient southern Egyptians from this time period aligns them more to Africans than Near Easterners.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Indeed, it was too blurry for me. But these were lower Egyptian samples. To put into perspective the location of the samples: they were only 150 miles from Hyksos capital of Avaris. Canaanites were entering Egypt by 1800 BC and made an independent realm by 1720 BC into Faiyum. This locations is between these points of known foreign influences. So Eurocentric people are thinking an area North of the Cananite leadership in Faiyum and just 150 miles away from the century ruled Hyksos capital is going to be representative of Egypt's origins, or even the biological makeup of the rest of Egypt during the time periods of sampling???
That is the Delta. It's possible that increases in ancestry erroneously being dubbed "SSA" (since it's entry into the region likely predates the Sahara) was local. Or at least in part, anyway. Even if a limit were of course available to SSA in Egypt, Near Eastern affinities before North African? Definitely the Delta. We would ideally have more upper Egyptian and Nubian samples to compare. But it's very likely Egyptians further south have (like they do today) more African affinity. What genetic samples we do have of Ancient southern Egyptians from this time period aligns them more to Africans than Near Easterners.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The indigenous people in Upper Egypt [not the Copts] in Cairo and Alexandria, are the best representatives of the ancients, and this is a position widely held. The Upper Egyptians and the Nubians of Upper Egypt form a cluster and best represent what the ancient Egyptians looked like -- Northeast Africans similar to North Sudanese, Afar, Oromo, Somalis and many other Northeast African groups. Upper Egypt is undeniably a far better representative of ancient Egypt than Lower Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I am personally for certain that these samples do not represent ethnic/native Egyptian. Again, they appear to be from the delta region that received Eurasian migrants throughout time. COULD it be possible that some of these sampled mummies descend from Hyksos migrants who came before the New Kingdom period? Either way I doubt this is representative for Upper Egyptians during the periods the study has.
Also, even if Ramesse III was not E1b1ba, he would still be E1b1b. Both which are African paternal ancestries. And Ramesse III came from a period well after the New Kingdom and IIRC was from Lower Egypt. If anything this seems to revive the dynastic race theory to SOME extent.
@Nodnard @Punos_Rey
Thoughts?
I myself was reminded of the late dynastic Egyptian tendency to depend on foreign mercenaries for their military. Not sure if these mercenaries would have been mummified, but they seem to have been numerous enough to eventually predominate the Egyptian forces.
quote:The XIX and XX Dynasties saw some of the most spectacular exploits of Egyptian power but also its decline, with Egypt barely able to defend its frontiers and relying heavily on mercenaries. By the middle of the 12th century sixty percent of the soldiers were non-Egyptians.
...
The resurgence of Egyptian power after the occupations of the country by Libyans, Kushites and Assyrians was mostly based on the hiring of foreign mercenaries from the east and north: Ionians and Carians, Jews, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and others. They were deployed when native forces were considered to be unreliable. Jewish contingents were stationed at Elephantine and Aramaeans at Syene after Egyptian troops had deserted and fled into Nubia.
posted
Very interesting. Genetically speaking, these mummies are basically already like Sudanese Copts as far as I can see. In line with what Need4speed was saying.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes they predominated the forces, but they didn't make a sizable amount of the population of Egypt, even if they'd all lived in the Delta. By the 12th century (presumably BCE) 60% of the military was foreign. Ramses II's army at Kadesh would have counted 20,000. So about 12,000 would've likely been foreign. Compare to the demographics of Egypt.
Even if we were to assume all the foreign military lived in the Delta, and they all took Egyptian spouses, that would've only changed the population by 1%. It'd take a veeery long time to see the demographics of Egypt to change by just the military. In fact, it's not until the reign of Shoshenq according to the link that the military was of a considerable size. 600,000 people by then (and again how many of them were truly living in Egypt). I also must ask, even if they had been living in Egypt, how does this factor with the Delta becoming 20% more "SSA" from the Late Period to the Roman period? Would a combination of local southern Egyptians and Nubian soldiers/rulers bear explanation to this? The irony of it all is that 600,000 people by 900 BC and the population stats a few centuries prior reach 2.9 million. 600k would've been roughly 20% of the population. But then, that's still assuming all of the military was composed of Africans towards the south (it wasn't) and that all the military resided in the Egyptian Delta (they didn't). I presume a mixture of Southern Egyptian and Nubian influences. Just as it's important to remember the years of Near Eastern migration and rule from groups like the Cananites and Hyksos, it's also important to know that since 1,300 BC Nubians ruled Egypt for 400 years and were previously often hired as archers for a growing military that'd become increasingly reliant on foreigners. The problem going forward for many Eurocentric thinkers is going to be that Nubians and Southern Egyptians had been better representatives of predynastic and early dynastic Egypt and IIRC cluster together. As long as Eurocentrics can remain ignorant about this, they can continue the fantasy, I suppose.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
155 individuals sampled over a period of almost 2000 years is not a representative sample of anything. This is what I said in the beginning. They took a few samples from here and there and are trying to extrapolate based on a very limited data set.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
These indigenous Upper Egyptians are far better representatives of the ancients than the Copts of Lower Egypt -- a population that mixed with the Greeks and other Eurasians over a millennia.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
155 mummies over an almost 2000 year time span is certainly not a representative sample of ANYTHING. These folks are simply making absurd conclusions based on limited data. This is exactly what I was saying a few pages ago.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M. It actually IS representative of a LOT! very Strong levantine - near Eastern signals coupled with other OOA (Iranian, Anatolian) influence and they show levels of continuity into some modern Egyptians. ...bro, it's what beyoku and I were saying all over again. Don't diss the data, apply it. ----
Also so called SSA influence (maternally) decreases during the roman period before resurfacing presumably. I don't know the significance (whether p-value or sample number) of the increase shown in from Pre-Ptolemaic to Ptolemaic samples so I don't know whether or not it's safe to assume gradual levels of mixing with natives or whatever.
I'm personally comfortable with this, Less space in between for speculation, more closer to the truth no matter how we look at this. Looking at demographic history as well as depictions, practices and relationships not only of AE but contemporous levantine populations and how they correlate with modern cultural groups IN and out of Egypt, I gotta say it's shocking but not surprising. It presents an obstacle, but a very very favorable conclusion as well.
-Nice posts Oshun
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I am personally for certain that these samples do not represent ethnic/native Egyptian. Again, they appear to be from the delta region that received Eurasian migrants throughout time. COULD it be possible that some of these sampled mummies descend from Hyksos migrants who came before the New Kingdom period? Either way I doubt this is representative for Upper Egyptians during the periods the study has.
Also, even if Ramesse III was not E1b1ba, he would still be E1b1b. Both which are African paternal ancestries. And Ramesse III came from a period well after the New Kingdom and IIRC was from Lower Egypt. If anything this seems to revive the dynastic race theory to SOME extent.
@Nodnard @Punos_Rey
Thoughts?
I myself was reminded of the late dynastic Egyptian tendency to depend on foreign mercenaries for their military. Not sure if these mercenaries would have been mummified, but they seem to have been numerous enough to eventually predominate the Egyptian forces.
quote:The XIX and XX Dynasties saw some of the most spectacular exploits of Egyptian power but also its decline, with Egypt barely able to defend its frontiers and relying heavily on mercenaries. By the middle of the 12th century sixty percent of the soldiers were non-Egyptians.
...
The resurgence of Egyptian power after the occupations of the country by Libyans, Kushites and Assyrians was mostly based on the hiring of foreign mercenaries from the east and north: Ionians and Carians, Jews, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and others. They were deployed when native forces were considered to be unreliable. Jewish contingents were stationed at Elephantine and Aramaeans at Syene after Egyptian troops had deserted and fled into Nubia.
posted
SMH at Doug saying the data don't represent nothing. If they were 95% L and 5% J/K/H/R what would you say to a euroclowns that said "the results don't mean anything" ? LMAO.
SMH at folks arguing this data will be different from other ancients when this is the only published genomic SNP data we have. Mutherfvcker how you know they gonna be different?
SMH at folks ignoring the data all together and posting pictures. Pictures can't help you right now.
"Don't diss the data, apply it" - Respect. LOL. On Facebook they ducking and covering.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol people are scrambling to explain this, lets be honest if you believe that the Egyptians never had any non African/Eurasians in it this might be a problem for you, also lol at folks claiming that this over turns the spread of Afro-Asiatic..like what??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: WHO is ignoring the data? Nobody is CONFIRMING they are going to be different but just going off what we already know.
How do we know they are representative for the general AE population?
WE dont know if they are representative of the entire AE. WE DO KNOW they are representative of AE in that time period so long as they are Ethnic Egyptians.
Take a glance at the thread. Take a look at the folks that Poo poo the data and hypothesize how they would be if the was the EXACT opposite. A domination of L lineages to the tune of 90+%. ES collective head would explode.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Yes but how do we know they are Ethnic Egyptians, further considering that the Roman Period, New Kingdom and modern Copts/Muslim Egyptians have MORE SSA ancestry how is this over turning anything esp. as one poster is claiming that Afro-Asiatic being non African..lol
Maybe Im confused or out of my league but how is this IMO over turning anything, sure its not the results some folks may like but how is this a worst case senario...I guess Im asking how is this proof that Ancient Egyptian people and culture came from West Eurasians?
Also what up with you and your "ES Collective" theories...We already called you out on explaining what this "ES Collective" theory is and you never answered. So what gives dude...you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against ES boogymen when maybe 3 posters fit your conspiracies...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, one thing for sure this is a blow to Pan Africanism and the African "Conscious" movement who uphold A. Egypt as some pure black entity...lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repost Since Beyoku seems to have missed it...
I would like to know this as well, I was going to ask but you beat me to it..
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES" Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views. Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between. What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: WE dont know if they are representative of the entire AE. WE DO KNOW they are representative of AE in that time period so long as they are Ethnic Egyptians.
I'm aware of this especially reading through that Forumbiodiversity thread. However, my main point is that those who are simply theorizing about these results(i.e saying they COULD be West Asian migrants and not ethnic Egyptians) shouldn't be seen as "Afrocentrics in denial." I understand there are some in this thread doing very that. But those like me, Nodnard, Jari, Oshun, lioness, Ish, Puros_rey and others aren't doing that.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Take a glance at the thread. Take a look at the folks that Poo poo the data and hypothesize how they would be if the was the EXACT opposite. A domination of L lineages to the tune of 90+%. ES collective head would explode. [/QB]
I agree with this as evident by that Amarna mummes thread which was 20+ pages long. But also people on the Eurocentric side heads are ALSO exploding. I like many posters on Forumbiodiversity such as you, lol_race, Gihanga_Rwanda, neespeed111, and others. But there are some Eurocentrics in that thread(like the owner himself) JUMPING to conclusion and saying these results PROVE that AA originated near the Caucasus! When for one there is a very large timeline gap between the date of these samples and the divergence of proto-AA. Basically what I am saying is that it goes both ways.
But still I am having a hard time figuring out who these Africentrucs you are referring to denying these results besides the few in this thread.
Anyways these posts by Gihanga_Rwanda and Truthcentric in my personal opinion adds some hints.
quote: That's the real question imho, particularly since both Copts and Egyptian Muslims possess comparable levels of East African ancestry (~15%), which obviously didn't arrive with the Arab slave trade and last I checked the Kushites didn't overrun Egypt in the Roman era. I guess we'll have to wait for more comprehensive sampling of ancient Egyptian remains, but I have a feeling that these samples from Abusir aren't entirely representative of the ancient inhabitants of the Lower Nile Valley. We know that some ancient Egyptians had significant SSA ancestry, given the results of the Amarna mummies from Upper Egypt; DNAtribes used PopAffiliator and STRUCTURE with CODIS markers, which isn't a sufficient way to estimate exact admixture proportions, but is enough to place samples in "continental" groups.
I'd note that the earliest of these samples were dated to 1388 BC, which follows the documented influx of the "Hyksos" - likely Semitic speakers from what is now Palestine - to the eastern Delta by around 1800 - 1650 BC. These Semitic speakers were gradually "localized" but left a significant impact on Egypt, at least through their technical innovations (e.g. Horses and chariots most notably). I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the sequence is intriguing.
I am not sure if you have an opinion or a running theories?
Truthcentric
quote: While the paper might shed more light on this once it gets published, I'd hesitate before generalizing this sample from one site in northern Egypt to the whole ancient Egyptian population across time. Especially if none of the samples are older than the New Kingdom, and most are Third Intermediate to Roman period in age.
As the original abstract acknowledged, the time period covered by the sample was a time when Egypt received increased influence and immigration from foreigners. We already know from other sources that, by the 12th century BC, foreign mercenaries already made up ~60% of the Egyptian army. I dunno whether any of these are represented in the mummy sample, but if non-Egyptians already make up the majority of your armed forces by the late New Kingdom, you've got to have plenty of them moving into your country.
And then there's this graph from a 2007 Zakrzewski study showing significant differences in cranial traits between Late Period Egyptians and predynastic through Middle Kingdom ones. The Late Period sample is clearly the outlier in this study at least:
But like you said this is one of the FEW aDNA results for AE population and so we should not discard them. I agree 100% with that.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Repost Since Beyoku seems to have missed it...
I would like to know this as well, I was going to ask but you beat me to it..
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES" Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views. Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between. What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
Agreed. I as a neebie been asking him this too. On ES you have a varying amount of views just like any other site.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone.
^look at the dates ...is this significant?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
Smh lol What about also not even knowing what SSA is genetically. ..or even caring to know, but rather loosely throw the term around remixing its definition based on context.
...But I'll just hold my corner down, over here and post relevant bits of info periodically.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
I only seen Doug M in my "black thread" doing those things.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
Im confused on this point can you elaborate?
quote:The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
Ok maybe when it comes to the Artwork left by the Egyptians sure, but we have'nt had any Genetic studies except on the DNA tribes stuff, As far as I know we relied heavily on Body Proportions and Linguistics.
quote:The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
Now I know you are full of sh@t because there have been threads on the fact that there are Dark Skinned Negroid(So Called) people native to Asia and the Americas who are Gentically distinct from Africans. Hell we made a thread on this topic that was deleted with counless examples of this. WTF are you talking about.
As far as the populations existing inside Africa with little to no SSA ancestry I dont think anyone outside of the hardcore Pan Africanists like Amun-ra, Doug and maybe XXY man hold to that theory. Hell I think most people here have said countless time that there is more genetic difference between African Tribes that there are between non Africans and Africans in some cases...
fk out of here...
quote:I could go on but I wil stop here
Yeah, you're big and bad on ForumBio Diversity mocking ES, what ever the forum is a shell of its former self. Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesnt matter really, its cool to make fun of ES now, so suddenly we all are a bunch of collective Afrocentrics who believe SSA populated the globe...
Anyway my question still stands...How is this, a population of Delta Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate proof that A.Egypt is West Eurasian? Anyone?? Oshun, Swenet??
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
I only seen Doug M in my "black thread" doing those things.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Agreed 100%. But chill with the insults. Anyways, I understand that Egyptsearch fell off and has been invaded by certain radicals. But when you visits these other forums the hate they have for ES is like we screwed their wives or something.
Again ES like any other site has varying views. Yeah, we may be a little behind on certain bio-anthropology discussions based on Africans. But we still have varying views nonetheless.
When reading through GOOD threads on Forumbiodiversity it gets VERY annoying seeing posters be like "take that vile Afronuts of ES!" When most posters on there aren't able to defend themselves.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Anyway my question still stands...How is this, a population of Delta Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate proof that A.Egypt is West Eurasian? Anyone??
It doesn't, at least not yet... however, it suffocates the Idea that there was a Non-"SSA" & Non-Eurasian-derived African population holding down the Nile for 5 millennia.
^...And I mean "SSA" in the most loosely way possible lol
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Jari 1 - they ignored call the ancient DNA pointing out discontiuity how you couldn't apple DNA to skin color and physical features.
2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings.
3 - yeah most folks knew the distinctions in genetic affinity between dark skinned Africans and non Africans BUT they made the assumption that dark skinned folks in Egypt would be part of that SSA diversity. I made that assumption as well. But once Natufian popped it was quite clear of the possibility of something different. ES basically got left in the dust and now everyone is getting caught with their pants down because so far nobody has a good explanation as to why AE has far less mtdna L than Egyptians today.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Anyway my question still stands...How is this, a population of Delta Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate proof that A.Egypt is West Eurasian? Anyone??
It doesn't, at least not yet... however, it suffocates the Idea that there was a Non-"SSA" & Non-Eurasian-derived African population holding down the Nile for 5 millennia.
^...And I mean "SSA" in the most loosely way possible lol
^^^^^Yeah but who outside of the most radical posters here uphold that, like Zarahan said that is a really simplistic view of ancient Egypt. I for one have said countless times there were Eurasians in Egypt from the Unification and beyond...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Jari 1 - they ignored call the ancient DNA pointing out discontiuity how you couldn't apple DNA to skin color and physical features.
Again you are wrong most people here argued caution on using Skin Color and features as opposed to genetics as with the case for folks arguing for Olmecs and Luitza etc.
quote:2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings.
Again what ancient DNA as far as I can tell the only thing we had was DNA tribes and Ramses III being e1b1a which is an African marker..
quote:3 - yeah most folks knew the distinctions in genetic affinity between dark skinned Africans and non Africans BUT they made the assumption that dark skinned folks in Egypt would be part of that SSA diversity. I made that assumption as well. But once Natufian popped it was quite clear of the possibility of something different. ES basically got left in the dust and now everyone is getting caught with their pants down because so far nobody has a good explanation as to why AE has far less mtdna L than Egyptians today.
I did assume this, but considering where the population was taken from Im to too shocked.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its claimed on another forum the closest PCA match is with Bedouin and seems likely if you zoom on the blurry image. There were two Bedouin samples in the study A + B. Unfortunately I don't think they used an Egyptian Copt sample.
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: I am sort of confused about this chart. I have read papers that suggest that Basal Eurasians have no affinity to sub-Saharan Africans.
The last time we talked I wasn’t sure to what extent Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to Africans:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: The component that is introducing most of the intermediateness of modern northeast Africans is Eurasian, Basal Eurasian, Omotic, Nilo-Saharan, in that order. Basal Eurasian and Eurasian may be a tie according to some studies, I'm not sure. Dynastic AE who had more Nilo-Saharan and Omotic than Basal Eurasian, would be closer to Africans than to Eurasians.
I said the bolded part because the Natufian sample’s affinities made me unsure about how much Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to SSA groups. But there is actually something else going on with the Natufian sample. Basal Eurasian does, in fact, contribute affinity to SSA groups. I will talk about this extensively some time in the near future.
Whats ups man,
Thanks for the input. That Tunisian sample that you posted, where did you get that sample from? Its position is interesting considering it doesn't have any input from SSA even though it is intermediate. It is similar to Mota's position, even though Mota does not have any Eurasian ancestry.
One things I have also seen and heard discussed is the African ancestry in west Eurasian populations that it not captured by normal k's. I think there was a thread about that on this forum. Supposedly west Eurasians pull more towards Africans that East Eurasians (they do though) because of African ancestry that is being mixed in with there mainline Eurasian ancestry. Do you hold to this theory that Europeans pull more towards Africans then Asians do because of this unaccounted african ancestry... could these ancestry be indigenous north african ancestry like Egyptians had in you opinion.......
Honestly, there are many opinions on what basal Eurasian is.... honestly I am agnostic on the basal Eurasian issue... I lean to an african view of it but I am not totality convinced by it yet........
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Its claimed on another forum the closest PCA match is with Bedouin and seems likely if you zoom on the blurry image. There were two Bedouin samples in the study A + B. Unfortunately I don't think they used an Egyptian Copt sample.
No... Authors tend to keep their samples routine, Bedouin samples are from the near east most likely one from Yemen, the other from Isreal.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
I agree too..
The idea of pre-dynastic southern egyptians having no affinity to SSA groups doesn't make any sense.. especially concerning there craniofacial clustering. Look at the beja people they would be pretty close to the southern Egyptians..they have about 40-50% SSA genetics...
There is alot of speculation concerning ancient migration routes, natufians etc... and I have seen many different explanations concerning these findings. Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
There is no proof of any Dynastic Race theory, nor do Upper Egyptians "turn out" to be "Eurasian" or the so-called "basal eurasian." The idiots on the web who keep grasping for straws along these lines remain debunked idiots, whose primary "strategy" these days is repetition of that debunked nonsense. But even spotting them assorted "eurasian" claims, they are STILL PITIFUL. In any event the people closest ethnically to the Egyptians are the Nubians- as credible scientific studies show time and time again. Trying to "distance" Kemet from "sub-Saharan" Africa still fails on this point, and turns out to be an exercise in irrelevance when the dark Nubians come into view.
modern nubians LIVING TODAY IN EGYPT. Any talk about "today's" Egyptians must include these Egyptian citizens who are already living in Egypt now, at the present time. They are not "foreigners"- they are Egyptian citizens just like the Arab era types that now claim the title. They are just as much "native Egyptians" as anyone in Egypt today claiming the title.
Native sons of today's Egypt..
Caesar says: Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
Whatever "speculation" others may do, the scientific data on hand is already clear and debunks much of that bogus "speculation." And predynastic mummies have ALREADY been tested for well nigh over a century. They show close relationships with fellow Africans further south. No more "testing" is "needed." The data is already in, and has already been exhaustively documented.
Native sons of Egypt.. Ancient of modern, makes no difference..
2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings
Not really. ANd ancient DNA is simply one other line of evidence that has to take its place alongside and be cross-checked against detailed data from other lines. It would be naive to jump on aDNA as the "last word" on anything. ANd all the old biases we see now in modern DNA studies or cranial or skeletal studies, such as selective sampling, or misleading labels, or "true negro" stereotypes, would STILL be problems with aDNA. It is naive to tout aDNA as this oh so authoritative line of data.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Im saying, my question is who are the people/samples they are labeling SSA, are groups like the Beja and other Nubians included in these studies.
Honestly if they test predynastic Lower Egyptians I wont be surprised if they turn out with Eurasian affinity in those groups, Ive believed this to be the case for a while now and its something that some folks here might have to come to terms with, but all the evidence so far for the culture of Upper Egypt is that it and her peoples stemmed from inner Africa, their DNA being Eurasian would go against the Archaeological and Linguistic evidence we have, this isnt some Afrocentrist pipe dream, most mainstream Archaeologists uphold the Green Sahran origin for A.Egypt
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
I agree too..
The idea of pre-dynastic southern egyptians having no affinity to SSA groups doesn't make any sense.. especially concerning there craniofacial clustering. Look at the beja people they would be pretty close to the southern Egyptians..they have about 40-50% SSA genetics...
There is alot of speculation concerning ancient migration routes, natufians etc... and I have seen many different explanations concerning these findings. Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, which is why I dont get these sweeping Generalizations like..."Ancient Egypt less SSA than Modern Egypt" when we have the DNA of RamsesIII and the Amarna Mummies with African Markers, or did these Eurocentrist suddenly forget that. If anything this proves that Egypt was inhabited by various people. What is telling is that these same folks who claimed for years that Modern Egyptians are the same as the Ancients are suddenly singing a new tune...Wait I thought you guys were protecting A.Egptians heritage from the evil Afrocentrtics funny how fast they jump shift when the Egyptians turn out to be closer to their ancestors over modern Egyptians....but yeah its evil Afrocentrics trying to steal people's heritage...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
There is no proof of any Dynastic Race theory, nor do Upper Egyptians "turn out" to be "Eurasian" or the so-called "basal eurasian." The idiots on the web who keep grasping for straws along these lines remain debunked idiots, whose primary "strategy" these days is repetition of that debunked nonsense. But even spotting them assorted "eurasian" claims, they are STILL PITIFUL. In any event the people closest ethnically to the Egyptians are the Nubians- as credible scientific studies show time and time again. Trying to "distance" Kemet from "sub-Saharan" Africa still fails on this point, and turns out to be an exercise in irrelevance when the dark Nubians come into view.
modern nubians LIVING TODAY IN EGYPT. Any talk about "today's" Egyptians must include these Egyptian citizens who are already living in Egypt now, at the present time. They are not "foreigners"- they are Egyptian citizens just like the Arab era types that now claim the title. They are just as much "native Egyptians" as anyone in Egypt today claiming the title.
Native sons of today's Egypt..
Caesar says: Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
Whatever "speculation" others may do, the scientific data on hand is already clear and debunks much of that bogus "speculation." And predynastic mummies have ALREADY been tested for well nigh over a century. They show close relationships with fellow Africans further south. No more "testing" is "needed." The data is already in, and has already been exhaustively documented.
Native sons of Egypt.. Ancient of modern, makes no difference..
2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings
Not really. ANd ancient DNA is simply one other line of evidence that has to take its place alongside and be cross-checked against detailed data from other lines. It would be naive to jump on aDNA as the "last word" on anything. ANd all the old biases we see now in modern DNA studies or cranial or skeletal studies, such as selective sampling, or misleading labels, or "true negro" stereotypes, would STILL be problems with aDNA. It is naive to tout aDNA as this oh so authoritative line of data.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient DNA for early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egyptians will be out in the next few years. If those results are very similar to the New Kingdom of Egypt samples we now have [assuming the New Kingdom Egyptian samples are closest to Levant Bedouin - we don't yet know because the PCA image is blurry], then a modern sort of Hamiticism is what is going to be the new scholarly consensus-
The Hamitic model = agriculture/domesticates were brought into Egypt from the Levant, sometime around 6000 BCE, with a large-scale migration of people (for sake of a better word "Hamites".) At the moment scholars acknowledge most agriculture/domesticates arrived in Egypt from the Levant, but large-scale migration of peoples is rejected for small-scale trade and commercial contact. Ancient DNA though could force scholars to adopt the large-scale migration view; this had already been in literature (Seligman etc.) during the first half of the 20th century.
These New Kingdom of Egypt samples are not only a blow or proving problematic to Afrocentrists, but the Egyptcentrists (like Brace et al, and myself since 2013) who were arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, i.e. strong genetic continuity.
I am more than prepared to revise my views in light of new genetic data and embrace a modern "Hamiticism", where Neolithic Egypt was settled by a large number of migrants from the Levant - who probably also brought with them Afroasiatic language(s). The Afrocentrists on this forum however will still be moaning at the DNA when its completely falsified their claims. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic