quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 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
First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Second. Why are you guys harping so much on this study? What is it that you expect to find that is so earth shattering? That the AE weren't Africans?
I have been asking this since the beginning of the thread and nobody has answered it.
And lastly since when is SSA a marker of "true" African anything? Why is it relevant when comparing DNA from one part of Africa to DNA from OUTSIDE of Africa?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: 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.
Stop clowning. How does 155 individual mummies from a time period over 2000 years represent anything? Do the math. If those 155 mummies were spread equally over the span of 2000 years that gives you about 8 individuals for every 100 year span. How is that "representative" of an entire population at any given point of time. And not only that I am sure that these mummies cluster around certain time frames which means it is even less consistent over time. To do a study like this you would need to sample all mummies recovered from all time period and all locations within Egypt, royal and otherwise. This is statistically interesting but this doesn't amount to enough to generalize what the entire population of Egypt was like at any single point of time over that 2000 year period.
And I don't recall anybody arguing that there were NO FOREIGNERs in Egypt during the dynastic era.
So I still don't understand why some folks keep running this claim that there is "earth shattering" data being released that will challenge some peoples ideas. Some people like who?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again its going to depend on where they take the samples, like I said before Predynastic/Early Dynastic Lower Egyptians will more than likely have affinities to Levantine populations, this isnt me reacting to the recent news, this is something Ive said years ago that there were pockets of Eurasians in Lower Egypt from the Unification and beyond. So unless these samples say UPPER and Lower Egyptians were Eurasian, they arent saying anything that archaeology already has proven.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: 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: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Hahah Swenet well if predynastic and Old Kingdom aDna shows zero links to SSA I will personally do a reenactment of that gif for every one here, I don't know what others fixations on the Natufians are I'm mostly focused on AE atm. Hoping aDna in that directon materializes by the end of the year
Well, at least you're not lying that you "knews it alls along" like some are doing. Watch for it in ancient DNA threads. They're always present. Even when it runs counter to claims they've made elsewhere.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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.
I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth and using me as a scapegoat for nonsense.
Sounds like some folks are butt hurt because I called them on their shenanigans. They go around parroting any terminology coming out of the scientific community no matter the history of their distortion of data but African people and scientists are supposed to walk on eggshells and be so careful about how they say things? GTFOH with that mess.
I have said since the when to use black and not to that folks should be consistent with how they label things. And unfortunately some folks must have got their feelings hurt. But that is a sign of childishness. There is no way to communicate if folks don't have a consistent definition of what terms mean. This is just common sense.
All the rest of this argumentation over straw men and phantoms is just some folks trying to seem like they are super intelligent because they are up on the latest studies and minute to minute debates and publications on other sites and twitter. Unfortunately some of them may feel bruised that somebody like me doesn't see them as the be all and end all of knowledge and language so they must be upset. Whatever it is, you don't see me running around talking about folks on ES about anything they have said on anything. Anything I need to say I can say it to you directly.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zarahan please explain how those stupid collages somehow debunk nearly 100 mummies who have very little Mtdna L. SO little in fact that the little mtdna L found in modern Egyptians greatly exceeds many of these mummies some of which are 3000 years or older?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| 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.
Here is the key point:
quote: 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.
Why are you dividing up Africans? I mean are you even serious? Why do you keep throwing up Sub Saharan Africa as a marker for what defines a true African. You folks keep making up straw men arguments for thing NOBODY has said.
At the end of the day, this issue of the Ancient Egyptians should be considered settled. By and large we know that the Dynastic Egyptians were Africans. Does that mean there wasn't any non African ancestry in various individuals within Dynastic Egypt? Of course not. But the idea that suddenly there is going to be this great revelation that DNA is going to show us how the AE weren't Africans is ludicrous. It is not really worth anybody's time. Yet some folks are determined that this is the biggest most earth shattering event in AE historical study....
Miss me with that nonsense.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Lol I think that what Swenet and Beyoku have been trying to get you to say for a while now..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calm Down, All Im saying is that this is what I think, IMO, what you and Beyoku/Swenet have been disagreeing about...Im not putting words in your mouth so you need to chill bro its really not that serious
Dont shoot the messenger.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Lol I think that what Swenet and Beyoku have been trying to get you to say for a while now..
How can anyone get me to say something I have always been saying?
I have been saying this since before even joining this forum.
Again you guys need to stop putting me in your mouth for nonsensical reasons.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Doug, want to address why you're such a flip floppin' shape shifter?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Is it me or did they botch aspects of her nose and upper face?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
When you read between the lines, Doug's supposedly purely skin pigmentation-based use of 'black' and his aversion to using the term 'SSA' are all part of his sneaky agenda to translate pan-African ideas to genetics. But when you call it out he starts fuming and talks about his usual distractions (e.g. "whu you mean, Swenet, the term 'African' is a dirty word now?" and "I didn't say that Basal Eurasian was mixed, Nature magazine did").
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 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. ----
First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Second. Why are you guys harping so much on this study? What is it that you expect to find that is so earth shattering? That the AE weren't Africans?
I have been asking this since the beginning of the thread and nobody has answered it.
And lastly since when is SSA a marker of "true" African anything? Why is it relevant when comparing DNA from one part of Africa to DNA from OUTSIDE of Africa?
This is stupid.
Oh... My... god.
-90 samples over a 1,600 year period does mean something, you said it didn't, that's a lie it DOES mean something. Analyze the contemporary Egyptian sample populations typically used by these Scientists. Look at how they may be positioned in relation to the findings of this paper. Consider the scenarios and possible conclusions that can be set up by a study like this.
-Fvck what you personally think about "SSA" as a label for a second at look at how SSA is being used BY THE RESEARCHERS!!! What defines it and how does that define WHAT THE RESEARCHERS CONSIDER EURASIAN on the other hand!!
-Now knowing all of that apply all of the above to what you know or think you know about the demographic history of East Africa and more specifically the Nile Valley. Look at the Neighboring regions... where are the footprints of supposed Native Egyptians >5,000 years ago IN EAST AFRICA... Can it be detected? why or Why not
You are worried about politics and semantics... Dude. Drop it and adopt a position in alignment with what is now known.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel it's fair to predict that the northern parts of Egypt probably always had "Eurasian" mixture. Though it would be a bit strange to find samples of DNA found in SSA from Syria, but nowhere in North Africa following the Green Sahara, I could imagine that DNA was exceptionally limited. I guess it wouldn't really be any major blow to how I imagine predynastic Egypt could've potentially been.
So far, a gradual dispersal from Sudan from the Green Sahara seems to be the narrative for the south's origins (where apparently a lot of the culture that made Egypt came from). A more mixed North that would probably have been a mixture of Africans and mulatto Eurasian an African lineages. In the South you could probably find North African ancestry with some mixture from what people are trying to call "SSA."
Most ancient civilizations did not have a monolithic lineage. Modern ones that do often used as a foundation civilizations that weren't. So I don't think it wise to ask if every Egyptian ancestor came from Africa. You don't ask that for Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia or the United States. There is no one that questions if Greece and Rome are "true Europeans" or if Mesopotamia was "True Near East." Of course you find lineages from the middle East and North Africa in Southern Europe. You find African lineages that include SSA in the Levant and Syria. You find Native American and Africans in the founding of America. But who was the majority? In the case of America this question would be irrelevant since most of the people living in the Americas when it was founded were Native Americans. So then the question would be where did the dominant culture predominantly originate? Where did those groups get most of their cultural behaviors?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no reason to toss any of that aside tyrannohotep. At all. This time period again correlates with a larger influx of Eurasians(with smaller amounts in previous time periods). Taking this as representative of all AE or as the standard for the average AEs genetic profile is ridiculous. Again people in here rejoicing about trumping "afrocentrists" or as Cass so eloquently puts it, "the blacks"(seeing as how for many of you those two are synonyms) should wait for predynastic/old kingdom DNA before rejoicing.
Considering the influx of more southernly Africans during the Saharan Slave Trade and the Islamic Conquest, I'm not altogether surprised these mummies are "less"(keyword) sub-saharan than Modern Egyptians who are still overwhelmingly admixed last time I checked.
Edit: regarding Lower Egyptians, iirc they were still an indigenous population despite having some morphological differences with Upper Egyptians and Nubians, so even with Eurasian admixture/affinities you still have a base indigenous component for Lower Egyptians.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Im trying to say, considering all the older evidence such as body proportions and linguistics etc. that point to a Saharan/Nile Valley origin for AE how is this over turning that?? Sure it goes against what many here thought would be the results but how is this over turning the previous evidence to the point where folks are claiming Afro-Asiatic is Eurasian and even reviving the Dynastic Race Theory....
I know people like to Harp on AmunRa et al, but folks who have been claiming for years to "Defend" modern Egyptians from Afrocentrists should be put in the Same flip-flopping boat...if anything this is showing how quick these so called white knights of poor old Modern Egyptians were nothing but "We Wuz Kangs" Eurocentrics trying to steal AE history all along. They did the same **** with King Tut's R1b without being properly called out on it..
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Can you PM me an email address to address your post on? I'm going to wrap up here now that I know what the aDNA results are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: 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.
I agree to, I do believe that southern pre-dynastic Egyptians will have Eurasian affinity. If if there isn't any admixture, I think that indigenous Saharan ancestry is on the borderline between SSA and Eurasian. Look at Mota, he isn't supposed to have any Eurasian and he pulls towards Eurasians somewhat. Saharan dna would pull more toward Eurasians then mota will.
Also I these results show us that Egypt was alot more cosmopolitan then thought... although these are lower Egyptians near the late period.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
IDK It just feels weird trying to say a set of DNA makes someone "SSA" or "Eurasian." The racialization of haplogroups without respect to other disciplines may present a problem with telling history. Tichitt was occupied by Mande and most ppl would say they're SSA. But Mande like the Soninke moved south from the Sahara. So now their genetic profile would magically be indicative that they'd been Sub Saharans?? Can Afrrican Americans not be mostly African but have an R haplogroup? Are V-88 carriers Eurasian migrants or are they Africans??? IDK I guess it just sounds confusing. I don't claim to be a guru of knowledge or anything, it just sounds strange.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist. [/qb]
I already tried that. I first proposed the closest (modern) population to the New Kingdom samples in the PCA was Copts. Although not confirmed, it now seems probable it is Bedouin. So I then proposed they were Sinaitic Bedouin [some Sinaitic Bedouin tribes also have a history of settling in the adjacent Nile Delta]. Someone else though pointed out the Bedouin sample is more likely to be from Syria, or Israel.
If we are actually dealing with (modern) Levant populations being closest to the New Kingdom samples, I'm not sure why folks are so hostile to "Hamiticism" anyway. Levant/east-Mediterranean people are predominantly brownish skinned, black haired, brown eyed. Its not as if the Hamitic model is proposing white people settled in Egypt. We know most Afrocentrists despise white people on this forum, but what they got against brown Levant people? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I agree to, I do believe that southern pre-dynastic Egyptians will have Eurasian affinity. If if there isn't any admixture, I think that indigenous Saharan ancestry is on the borderline between SSA and Eurasian. Look at Mota, he isn't supposed to have any Eurasian and he pulls towards Eurasians somewhat. Saharan dna would pull more toward Eurasians then mota will. "
Wait what? On what basis??? Especially considering predynastic Egyptians known affinities to Nubian populations and continuing sources of SSA geneflow through the Nile's tributaries?? This I gotta hear
And again, Egypt was an imperial nation, how is this "showing us that Egypt was more cosmopolitan than previously thought"??
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
We know most Afrocentrists despise white people on this forum, but what they got against brown Levant people?
Considering your admitted neo-nazi antics on this forum and others I wouldn't be one to talk.
And its absolutely hilarious that people like you lop in people purposing an African origin for AE as "afrocentrists" in an automatic attempt to discredit them especially if that person is of SSA descent/relation.
Btw you do know the Hamitic race is claimed to have originate in Africa right??? And even ignoring that there is a WEIGHT of evidence pointing to indigenous origin AND primarily local development with some foreign influences.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| 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.
If so though, the reason would be a question of "why" we see those lineages. If we're going to say "this haplogroup means you're SSA" what would've been the historical explanation for 90% L lineages? We have an explanation for the "Near Eastern" ancestry by mainstream science. The study prefaces the results with a discussion of foreign inflow to Egypt.
What was found was a large proportion of haplogroups called Near Eastern, and they date to a time after Hyksos and Caananite rule. These foreigners were based in Avaris and Faiyum and their rule an occupancy began centuries well before these samples were taken. Their influence and genetic footprints could've extended into upper Egypt, but it would be very expected to see them in lower Egypt at that timebecause of their presence there for at least 500 years. We know there was some contact with the Near East since before Egypt, but linguistics don't agree with diffusion of Egypt as a whole. Rather it seems to work with the idea they had enough contact to adapt agricultural patterns from the East into their own way of doing things.
L lineages probably would garner a different reaction because here is no comparable explanation I've read that could explain how foreigners with L lineages affected Egypt to that degree. We have an explanation for where Near Eastern affinities came from. Then there's the whole bits about body plans etc. IF there were a bunch of L lineages what would be the explanation for that? Hell what is the explanation for the increase of lineages being classified as SSA now?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's great to have more ancient DNA from Ancient Egypt. I can't wait to read the full report. It's unfortunate it's not native Ancient Egyptians dynasties before foreign dynasties.
Thus far those are the only studies on native dynasties we have: (BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes analysis 1, DNA Tribes analysis 2). You can also add the old Paabo study which also determined "Sub-Saharan" Africans affiliations for the 12th Dynasty mummies. We also have ancient DNA from Sudan. It doesn't show any non-African Y-DNA haplogroup before the christian era.
We also have studies (Pagani, Pickrell) using modern populations dating the Eurasian portion in modern Egyptians to around 1500BC.
This upcoming study basically tell us that Assyrians, Persians, Ptolemaic-Greeks and Romans are Eurasians. We still need ancient DNA from native Ancient Egyptians!
We already knew Ancient Egypt got progressively more Eurasians, cosmopolitan and were eventually under foreign rules with time. Especially since the Hyksos dynasties, especially in Lower Egypt. The situation could be similar to Mesopotamia where ancient DNA seems to suggest there was population replacement. The MtDNA of ancient Mesopotamia seem to be more related to the modern indian subcontinent than modern people now living the Mesopotamia area (modern Syria). The only way to know for sure is to have more ancient DNA from native Egyptians dynasties (especially royals or people with confirmed native status since Ancient Egypt was a bit cosmopolitan with various people including Libu, Aamu and Kushites living on the territory). For example, there was some "Libyan" or Aamu dynasties/occupation in Lower Egypt during the second intermediate period. Maybe many people in Lower Egypt or in specific towns in Lower Egypt are their descendants.
People often forget that foreign dynasties like the Hyksos or during the intermediaries periods sometimes lasted some 100 years which is enough for population replacement and completely changing the ethnic make up of a region. Population sizes in ancient times were much smaller than today and without the state system working for you with the irrigation centered on the Nile, it's easy to get bumped out of a nice spot along the Nile.
Still, while population replacement can happen rapidly in those times, it would have make more sense if there was a significantly larger portion of African DNA in pre-ptolemaic specimen (there is some African DNA but apparently it's very small).
Main points (*without access to the study) - It's not native Egyptians dynasties* - It's only from one site Abusir - It's in Lower Egypt where there was always more foreign people. - Low level of African admixtures in those specimen*
So basically, with the little we know from this study. We are almost at the same place we were before it in relation to the origins of Ancient Egyptians. The low number of Ancient DNA studies we already have on native Egyptians and royalties shows a preponderance of African admixtures. Ramses III and the screaming mummy being from the African Haplogroup E (e1b1a). Results confirming DNA Tribes own analysis of Ramses III and son aDNA (using autosomal DNA not Y-STR). In term of archeology, Ancient Egypt shows cultural continuity with the Green Sahara, Gilf Kebir/Cave of Swimmers, Nabta Playa, Kadruka, Tasian-Badarian, Naqada cultures.
I'm always here to find the truth about the origin of Ancient Egyptians. If they were mostly Eurasians or Africans since Dynasty one, so be it. I just want the truth and thus we need more ancient DNA from native Egyptians times preferably royals and from various regions. Why is it so long??
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Plus, a predominance of L lineages in any AE sample would be consistent with what the data was saying before. And (as I mentioned on the ForumBiodiversity thread), we know there is physical anthropological evidence for population change in Egypt during the period covered by the sample's time range.
So yes, it seems very probable that this one sample from the "Abusir" site (not sure if this is the town of Abusir near Cairo, or the Abusir el-Malek site near the Fayum) may not represent the entire AE population throughout the country's long history.
Let's say someone found a sample of skeletal remains from one site in the Maya homeland that yielded predominantly L lineages when their aDNA was sequenced. And suppose no one had sequenced aDNA from anywhere in the Maya area before. Maybe someone like Clyde would hold this up as evidence that the ancient Maya were Africans. But if all the other data available pointed to a Native American (specifically Mesoamerican) origin for the Maya, it's reasonable to question how representative this one sample of "Maya" remains with mostly L lineages would be of the entire ancient Maya population.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can also add the old Paabo study which also determined "Sub-Saharan" Africans affiliations for the 12th Dynasty mummies.
Can i see this study?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can also add the old Paabo study which also determined "Sub-Saharan" Africans affiliations for the 12th Dynasty mummies.
Can i see this study?
I believe his citation comes from this old Keita essay:
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
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.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
References Cited:
Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986
Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990
Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987
Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993
Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annuals of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987
Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984
Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, Doug, want to address why you're such a flip floppin' shape shifter?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Is it me or did they botch aspects of her nose and upper face?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
When you read between the lines, Doug's supposedly purely skin pigmentation-based use of 'black' and his aversion to using the term 'SSA' are all part of his sneaky agenda to translate pan-African ideas to genetics. But when you call it out he starts fuming and talks about his usual distractions (e.g. "whu you mean, Swenet, the term 'African' is a dirty word now?" and "I didn't say that Basal Eurasian was mixed, Nature magazine did").
I never mentioned the word black in this thread. You guys are the one's throwing around straw men when everybody knows you are parroting this study which is using terminology like SSA. Yet you are going to sit here and try and act like it is folks on this forum that have anything do do with the contradictions that come from the folks creating those papers. But because you swear that somehow these people and papers are so "superior" in their language you will sit here and try and pretend to nit pick every word I write as if Africans and African scholars are the source of this confusion.
That is why I called you on that nonsense in the when to use black thread. There is no flip flop other than the folks blindly running around chasing their tails trying to pretend to have something that isn't there.
Folks are parroting Nature and all these other scholars coming on this forum and throwing it in folks faces at how "ground breaking" this stuff is yet when challenged you these folks throw up a whole bunch of tantrums. Tantrums about stuff they didn't write as if these papers and the terminologies are "their" research. In reality I am critiquing the source of the confusion but some folks are so determined to throw these papers in peoples faces instead of following logical debate.
Then they get mad when somebody challenges them when in reality it isn't anything they had to do with in the first place that is being challenged like "Basal Eurasian" and these other concepts are not their idea.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: 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. ----
First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Second. Why are you guys harping so much on this study? What is it that you expect to find that is so earth shattering? That the AE weren't Africans?
I have been asking this since the beginning of the thread and nobody has answered it.
And lastly since when is SSA a marker of "true" African anything? Why is it relevant when comparing DNA from one part of Africa to DNA from OUTSIDE of Africa?
This is stupid.
Oh... My... god.
-90 samples over a 1,600 year period does mean something, you said it didn't, that's a lie it DOES mean something. Analyze the contemporary Egyptian sample populations typically used by these Scientists. Look at how they may be positioned in relation to the findings of this paper. Consider the scenarios and possible conclusions that can be set up by a study like this.
-Fvck what you personally think about "SSA" as a label for a second at look at how SSA is being used BY THE RESEARCHERS!!! What defines it and how does that define WHAT THE RESEARCHERS CONSIDER EURASIAN on the other hand!!
-Now knowing all of that apply all of the above to what you know or think you know about the demographic history of East Africa and more specifically the Nile Valley. Look at the Neighboring regions... where are the footprints of supposed Native Egyptians >5,000 years ago IN EAST AFRICA... Can it be detected? why or Why not
You are worried about politics and semantics... Dude. Drop it and adopt a position in alignment with what is now known.
Stop twisting my words. If you aren't going to stick to what I said stop replying to me. How many people were lived in Egypt over the course of that 1,6000 year period? Lets just say it was 1 million per a generation of 20 years. That means you are talking about 90 individuals from a total population set of 80 million. Or we can go 1 million per generation of 40 years, then it is still 90 out of 40 million. So how does 90 individuals out of 40 or 80 million represent a "representative" sample of anything. I am not saying that it doesn't MEAN anything I am saying that there isn't enough data to extrapolate to an entire population over that amount of time.
Similarly the data from DNA tribes if accurate only really applies to those mummies that were sampled and cannot truly be extrapolated to the entire population of AE as a whole. And I don't think that anybody has even claimed that. So I don't get all this tit for tat back and forth rhetoric because to date, I don't see anybody saying any of the things you keep claiming they are saying.
That is common sense and I don't understand why you keep pretending this is so earth shattering. Some folks had Eurasian ancestry in AE. So what? Like I asked before does that mean that the AE were not predominantly Africans? I mean that is the bottom line. All this nonsense about SSA this or SSA that and Basal Eurasian this and that is irrelevant. Do YOU think the AE were primarily Africans or not? I know what I personally think but what do YOU think? How does this data affect what YOU think? Don't worry about what everybody else thinks and especially what I think. What is your conclusion?
I am not interested in running in circles. Get to the point. Stop acting like an errand boy for other people and their research.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| 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'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: 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.
Predynastic genetic evidence will affirm that the ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans like "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Beja of the Red sea coast and other Northeast Africans in the Horn. I can't wait until they take samples from Upper Egypt -- the region that created ancient Egypt. Upper Egypt [not the Delta] holds the keys to the origins of ancient Egypt. There will be no revival of the "Hamitic theory", so you can keep on dreaming.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im honestly not against what you are saying but my thing is we know the culture of Egypt came from the South, also we know that the South conquered the North during the unification. I keep asking this question but it seems to be falling on deaf ears....HOW IS THIS OVERTURNING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA Beyoku keeps harping on Black Egypt This and Black Egypt that, so why not answer the question, further how does these results relate to Ramses III and the Amarna Samples being more African...
As far as folks not liking whites etc...
COME ON CASS...lets be honest if it came out tommorrow that Egypt was settled by a Dynastic Race of West Eurasians then Eurocentrics will blow up the Internet with Blond Blue Eyed Egyptians and claim Egypt as European like they did with Tuts R1b and like they did with the Minoans...
Lets now play games shall we.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist.
I already tried that. I first proposed the closest (modern) population to the New Kingdom samples in the PCA was Copts. Although not confirmed, it now seems probable it is Bedouin. So I then proposed they were Sinaitic Bedouin [some Sinaitic Bedouin tribes also have a history of settling in the adjacent Nile Delta]. Someone else though pointed out the Bedouin sample is more likely to be from Syria, or Israel.
If we are actually dealing with (modern) Levant populations being closest to the New Kingdom samples, I'm not sure why folks are so hostile to "Hamiticism" anyway. Levant/east-Mediterranean people are predominantly brownish skinned, black haired, brown eyed. Its not as if the Hamitic model is proposing white people settled in Egypt. We know most Afrocentrists despise white people on this forum, but what they got against brown Levant people? [/QB]
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: Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Zarahan please explain how those stupid collages somehow debunk nearly 100 mummies who have very little Mtdna L. SO little in fact that the little mtdna L found in modern Egyptians greatly exceeds many of these mummies some of which are 3000 years or older?
For starters why don't you explain the silly view of this alleged mystical, monolithic "collective ES narrative" regarding various issues. As for the mummies with little mtDNA "L", that is nothing surprising in that there has always been gene flow and interchange with the Levant and Middle East at some level. even in early times, and in any event there are plenty of people without mtDNA L that can pass for, and in some cases are dark skinned "sub-Saharan" Africans. I never subscribed to any pristine pure theory of nothing but a "Eurasian free" Egypt nor do many posters here, that you keep claiming, as if there is some sort of monolithic "collective narrative" that drives all thought.
sudaniya says: It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Indeed. I don't see any monolithic "collective narrative" along those lines. Dubious claims of such many boost "HBD" or racist ravings of the allegedly "bad" monolithic "crowd" on Egyptsearch, but few folk who have spent time reading a cross-section of the many posts here, and differences of opinion, and/or emphasis are being fooled.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari says: I keep asking this question but it seems to be falling on deaf ears....HOW IS THIS OVERTURNING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA
It does not overturn the clear evidence of Egypt as an African civilization, based on that archaeological and physical data. As has been said before aDNA is just one of many data lines. Some want to use the social construct term "black"- but that as has been said even by establishment Egyptologists, is an entirely reasonable term to use, based on commonly accepted American and European social construct frameworks for ethnicity or race.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Not trying to incite any more butthurt verbal diarrhea from Doug. Because that is exactly what would happen.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
I'm officially your cheerleader for time being.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Zarahan please explain how those stupid collages somehow debunk nearly 100 mummies who have very little Mtdna L. SO little in fact that the little mtdna L found in modern Egyptians greatly exceeds many of these mummies some of which are 3000 years or older?
For starters why don't you explain the silly view of this alleged mystical, monolithic "collective ES narrative" regarding various issues. As for the mummies with little mtDNA "L", that is nothing surprising in that there has always been gene flow and interchange with the Levant and Middle East at some level. even in early times, and in any event there are plenty of people without mtDNA L that can pass for, and in some cases are dark skinned "sub-Saharan" Africans. I never subscribed to any pristine pure theory of nothing but a "Eurasian free" Egypt nor do many posters here, that you keep claiming, as if there is some sort of monolithic "collective narrative" that drives all thought.
I'm not saying beyoku's saying this, but the insistence to prove Egypt had NO Eurasians in early times before anyone can say it was African is essentially Eurocentrics setting a bar their own haven't been able to produce. They demand a "true Negro" civilization, but will not produce a monolothic European/West Asian ancient civilization. Not saying there aren't any closer to that now, but many of them at least looked to southern Europe (or civilizations that were) while they were still developing. It also doesn't help supremacists in that European civilizations were not formed first in areas with more monolithic lineages. So how does that reconcile with suggesting European identity is basis for achievement? Wouldn't the ones with more monolithic ancestry have developed first? Why did they use the south for theirs? Greeks and Romans show mixture from the East, from Europeans and Africans. Of course many Eurocentrics will try to reconcile this by incorporating stupid lingo like "Caucasoid" or "white" to insist they were all one group all along. But even America with it's dependence on Africans and Native Americans has been classified a white civilization. white settlers learning from Native Americans how to survive of the land so that they don't die doesn't mean America wasn't a white civilization. Incorporating Native American ideas into legal custom didn't mean America wasn't a white civilization. But let Egyptians adapt Near Eastern patterns in stuff like agriculture and it's still such a riveting question of who they were, when linguistics doesn't support widespread diffusion. If the conquered North had Eurasian ancestry Egypt wasn't black. But an America that conquered lands from Native Americans is still white.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
Nilotics like the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Samburu and so on are "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I've read that some Saharan people adjacent to Egypt could have contributed to ancient Egypt but I have yet to see anything specific.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. One would think the concept of pre-OOA African ancestry would be intuitive to anyone who thought about the ramifications of OOA theory, but instead there's this tendency to assume that all native African ancestry is SSA-affiliated and any ancestry that isn't has to be full-blown OOA. Even the label "Basal Eurasian" implies that simplistic binary (though to be fair, it was first identified in remains that were geographically Eurasian).
I would have hoped Pagani et al 2015 would have woken people up to the possibility that there is African ancestry that has a closer affinity to OOA than does other African ancestry. But if the reaction I got from Sarkoboros after commenting on his blog is any indication, there is still a lot of inertia and resistance to such a simple concept. And frankly the pan-Africanists we have here---while indisputably contributing to that resistance---aren't necessarily its loudest voice from what I can see.
Yes this is pretty much the gist of what I have been guessing about North Africans for years now.
Of course on the other side you have Euronuts like Casstrated and Real Naught, who make the other conclusion that Africans who lack the stereotypical Sub-Saharan profile must therefore be Eurasians more related to European Nords. Though to be fair I speculate that whatever affinity they have to Germanic groups like Zalavar and Berg may stem from Neolithic times ala 'Basal Eurasians' such as the Neolithic German Stuttgart man who possessed "negroid" cranial features.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Human malaria in Egypt also dates back to the Pharaonic times as shown by:
aDNA analysis, which identified Plasmodium falciparum in ancient Egyptian mummy tissue samples, from about 4000 years ago. Paleopathology of soft-tissue biopsies, of 16 mummifies recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064-656 BC) to the Roman period (30 BC-300 AD), substantiated the endemicity of malaria in this area due to the presence of the lake Quarun and to the particular nature of its irrigation system. The presence of malaria antigens was also confirmed in samples from the Marro's Egyptian collection of predynastic mummies (3200 BC) collected from the archeological sites of Assiut and Gebelen (located in Upper Egypt) and maintained at the anthropological and ethnographic Museum of Turin, Italy. Also ancient P. falciparum DNA was identified in mummified skeletons from Thebes-West dating from the new kingdom to the late period (1500-500 BC) and in 18th Dynasty royal mummies.
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'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
This segregation / separation has been played from the start. It is the obsession with the "true negro / real African".
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Nilotics like the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Samburu and so on are "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I've read that some Saharan people adjacent to Egypt could have contributed to ancient Egypt but I have yet to see anything specific.
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology." Source: (Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008. Volume 137 Issue 3, Pages 316 - 323)
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
To put things in perspective, I'll post this old study.
quote: To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Sequences of the first hypervariable segment (HV1) of the mtDNA control region and a polymorphic HpaI site at position 3592 allowed us to designate each mtDNA as being of “northern” or “southern” affiliation. Proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan. At slowly evolving sites within HV1, northern-mtDNA diversity was highest in Egypt and lowest in the southern Sudan, and southern-mtDNA diversity was highest in the southern Sudan and lowest in Egypt, indicating that migrations had occurred bidirectionally along the Nile River Valley. Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. Spatial autocorrelation analysis demonstrates a smooth gradient of decreasing genetic similarity of mtDNA types as geographic distance between sampling localities increases, strongly suggesting gene flow along the Nile, with no evident barriers. We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north.
—Matthias Krings, Abd-el Halim Salem et al.
mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?
Volume 64, Issue 4, p1166–1176, April 1999
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Folks are still playing games.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
How do you know this: "in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago."
Is the study out?
Are people really discussing or poo pooing the results without Seeing this image? Yall are really playing games. ON this site over the past 10 years ES has collectively associated Ancient Egyptians "African" Biologically affinity primarily by its connections to Sub Saharan Africans. NOT contemporary North Africans.
In the last 10 years of ES Ancient Egyptian Cranial affinities and how they relate to "Africa" has nearly always been how they relate to Sub Saharan Africans not the Maghreb........only a few folks saw AE as its OWN distinct entity.
Whoever right now (zarahan) is talking about "we always knew there was going to be Eurasian geneflow " perhaps did not see the chart above because are not talking about "Influence"..........we are looking at an mtdna Profile that seems to be an outside TRANSPLANT. I dont know of ANY population in Africa right now that has Mtdna L levels in the ZERO to THREE percent range. This is in the range of Southern Europeans. You cannot reasonably act as if these result were to be expected......act as if they are no big deal if they are ethnic Egyptians - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME - Questioning if they are actually Ancient Egyptians because there is no African maternal base. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/qb]![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic