posted
^I haven't been on the site for a few days, so I missed out on that info, but I have seen it after reading back a few pages, this is why deleted the post prior.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: 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.
I don't know of many poster like that on this site.
What has been stated may times over was, Southern Egyptians are close to ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
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.
I wonder of which poster you speak? What has been posted was that they are more related to people Sahara-Sahel regions.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
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 have never seen Zarahan make any of these homogeneous claims, but I could be wrong.
I remember he posted this source:
quote:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'… we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
—Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: 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
The region they sampled had a logical outcome. So of course that profile is coherent, since it was a South European colony.
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.
The contemporary North Africans that have been consistently associated with the ancient Egyptians by ES posters have been the "Nubians" of Upper Egypt and North Sudan and the people of the Horn. The Horn is technically part of "Sub-Saharan" Africa. Are the contemporary North Africans in the Maghreb biologically closer to the ancient Egyptians than these populations?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ................... 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?
NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
posted
@ sudaniya - Why are you asking ME that question if you can Click the Link and read all for yourself where the samples sit? Why are people making arguments and trying to make counter posts when they havent even seen the pertinent data?
This is the worst. It dont think I have ever seen folks run from data so hard.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that we know the region the samples are from we are one step closer to understanding the paper, which means we can solve and resolve issues.
Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire Imperium :: places :: Abusir el-Meleq
Due to the presence of the lake Quarun and to the particular nature of its irrigation system, it has been speculated that the Fayum, a large depression 80 kilometers south- west of modern Cairo, was exposed to the hazards of malaria in historic times. Similarly, it has been speculated that, in the same area, also human tuberculosis might have been far more widespread in the antiquity than in its recent past. If these hypotheses were confirmed, it would imply that frequent cases of co-infection between the two pathogens might have occurred in ancient populations. To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads 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). Soft tissue biopsies were used for DNA extractions and PCR amplifications using well-suited protocols. A partial 196-bp fragment of Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 gene and a 123-bp fragment of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex insertion sequence IS6110 were amplified and sequenced in six and five of the sixteen specimens, respectively. A 100% concordance rates between our sequences and those of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex ones were obtained. Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis. Here we extend back-wards to ca. 800 BC new evidence for malaria tropica and human tuberculosis co-occurrence in ancient Lower Egypt.
—Albert Lalremruata
Molecular Identification of Falciparum Malaria and Human Tuberculosis Co-Infections in Mummies from the Fayum Depression (Lower Egypt)
posted
Why are you trying to make it your strongest point that everyone is running away from the data? Nearly 75% of the people here accept the results...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: *double post*
Actually, when you start looking into it, the outcome is not strange from what we already know.
quote: “The ekphora is a Greek rite, and in many respects the portraits reflect an interest in Greek culture. In the Fayum it is likely that the portraits represent members of a group of mercenaries who had fought for Alexander and the early Ptolemies and were granted land after the Fayum had been drained for agricultural use in the early years of ptolemic rule.”
—Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt By Susan Walker, PP24.
quote: “The Fayum, a flourishing metropolitan community in ancient Egypt, consisted of Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Libyans, and others. A significant Greek population had settled in Egypt following its conquest by Alexander, eventually adopting the customs of the Egyptians. This included mummifying their dead. A portrait of the deceased, painted either in the prime of life or after death, was placed over the person's mummy as a memorial.”
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.* “
Irish JD (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote: "Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times
—Joel D. Irish, Michael A. Schillaci et al
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 139:235–243 (2009)
Further Analysis of the Population History of Ancient Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Why are you trying to make it your strongest point that everyone is running away from the data? Nearly 75% of the people here accept the results...
Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore we have folks saying they are CERTAIN that the mummies sampled aint even native Egyptians. The data is THAT big of a deal.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Why are you trying to make it your strongest point that everyone is running away from the data? Nearly 75% of the people here accept the results...
Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore we have folks saying they are CERTAIN that the mummies sampled aint even native Egyptians. The data is THAT big of a deal.
I think people have been trying to figure out the study and the outcome, since the data was lacking.
Do you have any data on physical anthropology on the region, Abusir el Meleq, during the time of these samples?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ................... 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?
NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
Ah, so Bedouins are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt based entirely on samples close to the Levant from the New Kingdom to the Roman period? Interesting. I wonder what samples sourced entirely from Upper Egypt close to North Sudan would say on this matter. I do not assert that the ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I have consistently asserted that the ancient Egyptians were closer to Northeast African populations starting from Upper Egypt down to the Horn.
Upper Egypt -as we all know- is where the civilization sprang from. Upper Egypt formed the overwhelming demographic majority for the bulk of ancient Egyptian history, and so any assessment that does not source samples [none] from the most important region of ancient Egypt, is not going to rewrite the narrative on the founding population of ancient Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ................... 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?
NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
Ah, so Bedouins are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt based entirely on samples close to the Levant from the New Kingdom to the Roman period? Interesting. I wonder what samples sourced entirely from Upper Egypt close to North Sudan would say on this matter. I do not assert that the ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I have consistently asserted that the ancient Egyptians were closer to Northeast African populations starting from Upper Egypt down to the Horn.
Upper Egypt -as we all know- is where the civilization sprang from. Upper Egypt formed the overwhelming demographic majority for the bulk of ancient Egyptian history, and so any assessment that does not source samples [none] from the most important region of ancient Egypt, is not going to rewrite the narrative on the founding population of ancient Egypt.
The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ there is 13000 year old Levantine data that is pretty similar to Bedouins. Game over.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore we have folks saying they are CERTAIN that the mummies sampled aint even native Egyptians. The data is THAT big of a deal. [/QB]
And YET.. I've seen people like Jari himself state that they always believed Lower Egypt had Eurasian influence going back to PREDYNASTIC times.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
I definitely concede that these results are a little surprising, but I do want to wait for results from Upper Egypt before treating relatively late period samples from a region that has been subject to incursions from the Levant from almost the very beginning, as representative. We know that ancient Egyptian rulers struggled mightily with keeping hostile Asiatics out all throughout the dynastic period, and that incursions that started out as a drip became a far more significant stream under the aegis of the Ptolemies through to the Roman period.
Even before this period, the ancient Egyptians also naturalised Asiatics and allowed them to serve as soldiers and scribes. Asiatics formed almost two thirds of its armed force in later periods and these people would have settled closer to their point of entrance -> in or around the Delta.
I will gladly update my views when data sourced from Upper Egypt with similar results is presented to us. Upper Egypt is key. It is undoubtedly the more significant region.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It becomes more interesting the more I find on Abusir.
0411464
ARCHAEOLOGY. Relief with hieroglyphs at the entrance to the tomb of Amon Pen (Dynasty XIX), Abusir Necropolis, Egypt. Egyptian civilisation, New Kingdom, Dynasty XIX. Full credit: De Agostini / S. Vannini / Granger, NYC
Abusir XXIII, The Tomb of the Sun Priest Neferinpu (AS 37)
Miroslav Barta et al., Abusir XXIII, The Tomb of the Sun Priest Neferinpu (AS 37), Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Prague 2014
This publication is the latest monographic outcome of a long-term project of survey and research of the archaeological site of Abusir, focusing on a particular set of cemeteries located at Abusir South. The present volume of the Abusir series concentrates on the mastaba of Neferinpu (AS 37). It aims to present primary data and their basic analysis and interpretation acquired during the tomb examination by the Czech Institute of Egyptology during two subsequent seasons of 2006 and 2007 and followed by some minor campaigns in 2012 and 2013 and a specific analytical campaign in September 2014 carried out by the Japanese team from Tokyo University of Science. The mastaba was built by a sun priest and official Neferinpu who reached the peak of his career during the reign of Nyuserra and Djedkara.
lol. Note the other thread when I said most Sub-Saharan Africans are going to plot more distant to AE than Europeans because of their greater geographical distance. Afronuts protested, but look where Ethiopian Jews plot on the above. The image is blurry to work out most populations, but Ethiopian Jews are visible (grey) as outliers, centre bottom of PCA. There's no close ancient Egyptian genetic ties to East African populations.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
lol. Note the other thread when I said most Sub-Saharan Africans are going to plot more distant to AE than Europeans because of their greater geographical distance. Afronuts protested, but look where Ethiopian Jews plot on the above. The image is blurry to work out most populations, but Ethiopian Jews are visible (grey) as outliers, centre bottom of PCA. There's no close ancient Egyptian genetic ties to East African populations.
Note that Abusir el Meleq is not the entire of Egypt. In fact it is lower Egypt and a Roman colony, Euronut! lol smh
quote:To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads 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).
Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis.
—Albert Lalremruata
Molecular Identification of Falciparum Malaria and Human Tuberculosis Co-Infections in Mummies from the Fayum Depression (Lower Egypt)
Btw that screen image is a cluster on w. Neol & Br Age Levant. STRUCTURE: important Natufian component, some Anatolian, Iran Neol
quote: Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
--Lazaridis et al.,
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Interesting... I would really be shocked if there's widespread symmetry both geographically and temporally - going south & back to predynastic times, but when I read the abstract most of it clicked the first time... and became very clear as I started paying more attention to extant populations as well as so called "recorded history."
quote: "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."
...going to post how I connected dots in a second, but the reason why I personally believe some things are flying over heads is because of the reluctance(fear??) to GENETICALLY Identify what Subsaharan African is.
"- remove all of the Non-African Dna from contemporary east Africa, what is left?"
posted
If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
The paper represents the location of Abusir el-Meleq, a Greek-Roman colony. As we know Greeks came before Romans, and during the Roman time so-called sub Saharan African DNA increased in that region as the paper suggests. We also know that sub Saharan African were part of the Roman empire. Pre-Ptolemaic is the Greek period.
substantial mtDNA continuity from pre-Ptolemaic to Ptolemaic, L increased post-Roman
quote:The Arc of Egyptian and Greek Interaction in the First Millennium Preludes to Greek presence in Egypt are seen in the land reclamation and settlement of the western Delta beginning in the Third Intermediate Period and the new prominence of that area with the capital of Dynasty 26 at Sais. From the seventh century B.C., Egyptian rulers encouraged a flourishing Mediterranean trade involving Greeks from many islands and city-states: the coastal cities Canopus and Thonis/Heracleion, with large immigrant populations, served as gateways for trade down the westernmost Canopic Nile branch to the Egyptian/Greek trade city Naukratis near Sais and onward to the great city of Memphis. Conflict with imperial powers Assyria and Persia in the Near East dominated the same centuries, and the Egyptians relied on Greek alliances and troops to help fight their expansion. After more than a century of conquest and rule by the Achaemenid Persians, Egypt shook off these overlords and independent Egyptian dynasties 28–30 ruled for sixty years, before being reconquered by the Persians in 343 B.C.
Then, when Alexander the Great of Macedon set out to dismantle the Persian empire, he took Egypt in 332 B.C., initiating the Macedonian dynasty of the Ptolemaic Period. On the death of Alexander’s last heirs, his conquests were divided among his generals: the Ptolemaic dynasty begins in 304 B.C., when one of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy, became Ptolemy I of Egypt. Thereafter, kingship was handed down through Ptolemy’s descendants until 30 B.C., when Roman takeover followed swiftly on the defeat of Cleopatra VII (89.2.660).
Examining Egyptian art during these 300 years reveals strong continuities in its traditions but also interactions with Greek art, whose forms and styles swept the world with Alexander’s armies. The encounter of the two cultures had many aspects and phases, and is easiest to comprehend by looking first at the new ruling class, its involvements and concerns, and then at religion and the arts in the greater land of Egypt.
quote:Centuries old Beachy Head Lady's face revealed
An exhibition exploring the origins of ancient skeletons in Sussex, including a woman from sub-Saharan Africa buried in Roman times, has opened.
The face of the so-called Beachy Head Lady was recreated using craniofacial reconstruction.
Eastbourne Borough Council's museum service was awarded a grant of £72,000 by the Heritage Lottery Fund for the Eastbourne Ancestors project.
The aim was to identify the gender and age of each skeleton in its collection.
Detailed scientific analysis of more than 300 skeletons of people who lived in the south of England thousands of years ago has undertaken by scientists and archaeologists.
Testing of the bones and teeth has identified the national or regional origins, age, gender, state of health, diet, and in some cases, how they died.
Most of the skeletons are Anglo-Saxon, from about 1,500 years ago, but some are Neolithic and more than 4,000 years old. The Beachy Head Lady was discovered in the East Sussex beauty spot in 1953, and she is thought to have lived around AD245. Jo Seaman, heritage officer at Eastbourne Borough Council, said: "This is a fantastic discovery for the south coast.
"We know this lady was around 30 years old, grew up in the vicinity of what is now East Sussex, ate a good diet of fish and vegetables, her bones were without disease and her teeth were in good condition."
The Beachy Head Lady forms part of an exhibition at the Eastbourne Museum which is opens on 1 February at the Pavilion.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
If thats ultimately the case Beyoku/Jari then what can we even say? Might as well just let the Euronuts/Arabists/Levantine Hamites(lmfao) have AE. UNTIL then though I'm not ceding anything. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
^^^ I understand this, what Im saying is...IF it comes out that Upper Egyptians, esp. predynastic Upper Egyptians are distinct from other NE Africans esp. if they are distinct from folks like Sudanese and Beja then I honestly dont know what to say, it would go against every historical and archaeological evidence. Hell You cant say these people(The Lower Egyptians sampled) evolved Eurasian DNA in Africa like Beyoku was suggesting with Basal Eurasian because the results have them distinct even from other Modern NA and the Copts who have some Minor EA ancestry that the samples seem to lack, Beyoku is right its pretty significant and interesting
Now IMO I dont think this will be the case for Upper Egypt from the fact that its so close to Sudan and Sudansese aka SSA people but if it is then...lmao....Sh@@@@t...
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: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
I definitely concede that these results are a little surprising, but I do want to wait for results from Upper Egypt before treating relatively late period samples from a region that has been subject to incursions from the Levant from almost the very beginning, as representative. We know that ancient Egyptian rulers struggled mightily with keeping hostile Asiatics out all throughout the dynastic period, and that incursions that started out as a drip became a far more significant stream under the aegis of the Ptolemies through to the Roman period.
Even before this period, the ancient Egyptians also naturalised Asiatics and allowed them to serve as soldiers and scribes. Asiatics formed almost two thirds of its armed force in later periods and these people would have settled closer to their point of entrance -> in or around the Delta.
I will gladly update my views when data sourced from Upper Egypt with similar results is presented to us. Upper Egypt is key. It is undoubtedly the more significant region.
Historically as well was bio and physical anthropology there has to be a different outcome:
quote: Egypt in the Late Period (ca. 712–332 B.C.)
Kushite Period, or Dynasty 25 (ca. 712–664 B.C.)
From ca. 728 to 656 B.C., the Nubian kings of Dynasty 25 dominated Egypt. Like the Libyans before them, they governed as Egyptian pharaohs. Their control was strongest in the south. In the north, Tefnakht’s successor, Bakenrenef, ruled for four years (ca. 717–713 B.C.) at Sais until Piankhy’s successor, Shabaqo (ca. 712–698 B.C.), overthrew him and established Nubian control over the entire country. The accession of Shabaqo can be considered the end of the
Third Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Late Period in Egypt.
Nubian rule, which viewed itself as restoring the true traditions of Egypt, benefited Egypt economically and was accompanied by a revival in temple building and the arts that continued throughout the Late Period. At the same time, however, the country faced a growing threat from the Assyrian empire to its east. After forty years of relative security, Nubian control—and Egypt’s peace—were broken by an Assyrian invasion in ca. 671 B.C. The current pharaoh, Taharqo (ca. 690–664 B.C.), retreated south and the Assyrians established a number of local vassals to rule in their stead in the Delta. One of them, Necho I of Sais (ca. 672–664 B.C.), is recognized as the founder of the separate Dynasty 26. For the next eight years, Egypt was the battleground between Nubia and Assyria. A brutal Assyrian invasion in 663 B.C. finally ended Nubian control of the country. The last pharaoh of Dynasty 25, Tanutamani (664–653 B.C.), retreated to Napata. There, in relative isolation, he and his descendants continued to rule Nubia, eventually becoming the Meroitic civilization, which flourished in Nubia until the fourth century A.D.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No idea when the data'll be published and available beyond screenshots of a slide presentation by an attendee, but here is the abstract for the next conference presentation.
,
quote:
The 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2017) Programs > 2017 > Podium Session > Podium Abstract
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
VERENA J. SCHUENEMANN1,2, ALEXANDER PELTZER3,4, WOLFGANG HAAK4, STEPHAN SCHIFFELS4 and JOHANNES KRAUSE1,4. 1Archaeo- and Paleogenetics, Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tuebingen, 2Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment, University of Tuebingen, 3Integrative Transcriptomics, Center for Bioinformatics, University of Tuebingen, 4Department for Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
April 20, 2017 9:45, Balcony I/J
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Particularly, in the first millennium BCE, Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Here we present mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans from Middle Egypt recovered with High-throughput sequencing methods that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Eastern populations than present-day Egyptians, who admixed with Sub-Saharan populations in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and opens the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Once it's officially published in a journal this data may help pin point origins of the folk that africentric Chancellor Williams, and others, long ago told us increasingly came to be the new breed majority population of Egypt before the Christian era.
The nationalized non-founder Egyptians from Levantine and Arabian peninsula parentage are pretty much known from history and are even shown in the art as Egyptians.
I'd think most of them originate from immigrants looking for a better life in the then 1st World economy of Egypt. Sure many came in a burst during invasion or conquest but I think most were from a continuous trickle going back to pre-dynasty days.
AE records show them everywhere in the social structure from slave to vizier.
Schuenemann's data may go beyond the AE art and written docs to help ID island and north Mediterranean input and even Caucasus/Black Sea input.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: @Ish
^^^ I understand this, what Im saying is...IF it comes out that Upper Egyptians, esp. predynastic Upper Egyptians are distinct from other NE Africans esp. if they are distinct from folks like Sudanese and Beja then I honestly dont know what to say, it would go against every historical and archaeological evidence. Hell You cant say these people(The Lower Egyptians sampled) evolved Eurasian DNA in Africa like Beyoku was suggesting with Basal Eurasian because the results have them distinct even from other Modern NA and the Copts who have some Minor EA ancestry that the samples seem to lack, Beyoku is right its pretty significant and interesting
Now IMO I dont think this will be the case for Upper Egypt from the fact that its so close to Sudan and Sudansese aka SSA people but if it is then...lmao....Sh@@@@t…
I get your point.
Btw Copts aren't an ethnic group, they are a religious group.
quote:"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote: "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
--AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007), Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] @ Oshun
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.
Those changes were probably in situ. Notice that plot has only 4 variables, and cranial index is known to change significantly without much, if any, gene flow; Neolithic vs. Bronze Age British:
This sharp increase in % of brachycephaly during Bronze Age is not the result of migration.
----
Note that in non-metric studies (Hanihara), and dental (Irish), the "E series" from Giza plot very close to Early Dynastic samples. But all this skeletal data for strong continuity might though have to be re-interpreted if the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic Egyptian ancient DNA have them closest to Levant/Bedouin; a clearer image of the PCA has still not been posted, so I won't jump to conclusions. Note though that while modern Egyptians are somewhat more distant than I expected on that PCA, they aren't massively so. I would love the blurry closest sample to AE, to be Copts or Sinaitic Bedouin, to reinforce my IBD model, but they are probably Levant Bedouin (from Syria or Israel).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Note that in non-metric studies (Hanihara), and dental (Irish), the "E series" from Giza plot very close to Early Dynastic samples. But all this skeletal data for strong continuity might though have to be re-interpreted if the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic Egyptian ancient DNA have them closest to Levant/Bedouin; I clearer image of the PCA has still not been posted, so I won't jump to conclusions..
It will not be much different from this data:
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. “
—Irish JD (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote: "Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times
—Joel D. Irish, Michael A. Schillaci et al
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 139:235–243 (2009)
Further Analysis of the Population History of Ancient Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I would love the blurry closest sample to AE, to be Copts or Sinaitic Bedouin, to reinforce my IBD model, but they are probably Levant Bedouin (from Syria or Israel).
You can also scroll up above. This on the same page, smh
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QB] Ps @Jari,
[QUOTE]Centuries old Beachy Head Lady's face revealed
Agh. yea. But when they did a craniometric study on hundreds of Roman British skeletons only a small % closely matched Sub-Saharan African populations (most closely matched European populations: Norse, Berg, Zalavar.) So black people in Roman Britain were like 5% (if that) of the entire population. Is this even news?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Agh. yea. But when they did a craniometric study on hundreds of Roman British skeletons only a small % closely matched Sub-Saharan African populations (most closely matched European populations: Norse, Berg, Zalavar.) So black people in Roman Britain were like 5% (if that) of the entire population. Is this even news?
My point is that there was interaction between sub Sahara Africans and Roman empire. Greeks and Romans also only made up a small percentage at Abusir.
quote:
Meet the Beachy Head Lady at Eastbourne Ancestors A rare and unexpected discovery in the UK of a sub-saharan African dating back to Roman times, found at Beachy Head. Analysis shows she grew up here - what's her story?
quote: "• 27 B.C.–14 A.D.The principate of Augustus is established. Rome is transformed into a city of marble. The Roman frontiers are expanded and semiconquered territories reinforced. Augustus reconciles with Parthia (22–19 B.C.), and his campaign against Garamantes in Africa is successful (19 B.C.). Many social and religious reforms are enacted. Gaul and its frontiers are organized (15–13 B.C.). The imperial mint at Lugdunum is founded (15–14 B.C.)."
quote:"Our work developed from a programme of research focused on an early Saharan civilisation known as the Garamantes, located in southwestern Libya (Mattingly 2006, 2011). We have previously identified two Garamantian sites as having urban characteristics, Old Jarma and Qasṛ ash-Sharrāba, and have speculated on the existence of further Saharan towns (Mattingly and Sterry 2013). In the case of Jarma, we have presented a detailed urban biography of the site (Mattingly et al. 2013: 505–544). The specific aims of this paper are to provide a fuller evaluation of what is known historically about Zuwīla and to present in detail the available archaeological data and a more precise chronology for the site. In its final section we advance a plausible sequence of development of this important Saharan oasis centre based on all the currently available evidence. A gazetteer of archaeological monuments is provided as Appendix 1 and a summary of the material dating evidence as Appendix 2.
The early medieval period has generally been considered pivotal in the extension and intensification of trans-Saharan trade and this has also been linked with the spread of Islam from the Maghrib across the Sahara (Austen 2010: 19–22). On the southern fringes of the Sahara there is firm evidence of trans-Saharan contacts in the earlier first millennium AD at sites such as Kissi in Burkina Faso and Culabel and Siouré in Senegal (MacDonald 2011; Magnavita 2013).
[...]
The Roman sources refer to kings of the Garamantes and to their metropolis at Garama (Old Jarma in the Wādī al-Ajāl, 250 km to the west of Zuwīla), strongly suggesting that Garamantian power was exercised over an extensive area (Figure 2). We have argued that there was in this period a Garamantian state that controlled the various oasis zones of Fazzān (Mattingly 2003: 76–90, 346–351, 2013: 530–534). As we shall see, there is evidence to show that Zuwīla originated as an oasis settlement in this period (contra Lewicki 1988: 287 and Levtzion and Hopkins 2000: 460) and that it had arguably grown to be a centre of above average size by the Late Garamantian period."
--David J. Mattingly, Martin J. Sterry & David N. Edwards (2015) The origins and development of Zuwīla, Libyan Sahara: an archaeological and historical overview of an ancient oasis town and caravan centre, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 50:1, 27-75, DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2014.980126
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.
We will have to see once the data is released.
Like I said and I stand by what I said, this is not enough to generalize the whole population of a country not only now but over 1300 year period and definitely not to cover 3,000 years of history before that.
The only thing this tells me is that they have the technology to get rather reliable dna from mummies so they should go ahead and do DNA samples on all mummies that exist in all the museums and research centers around the world. You need more data before making any kind of absolute conclusion on anything.
No I am not "rejecting" or denying anything. But this slide is the problem:
151 mummies from a 1311BC to 386AD Is not a large enough sample set to cover ALL Egyptians over such a long period.
But yes according to what has been put out so far it does appear to be that these mummies are strongly Eurasian.
And like I also said, the TIP was when the Kushite 25th dynasty conquered Egypt. Are we to believe this profile covers the Kushites as well?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldnt say that, we have to take this into account with other Data we have
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
If thats ultimately the case Beyoku/Jari then what can we even say? Might as well just let the Euronuts/Arabists/Levantine Hamites(lmfao) have AE. UNTIL then though I'm not ceding anything.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Anyone that tells you that linguistics can not tell a person's heritage is a liar. Anthropology and linguistics can provide keen insight into Afro-American origins. Even though we speak American English our language, Ebonics betrays our African heritage.
DNA can tells us much about family relations and the baby's daddy and mama, but using it to determine populations is problematic, because African people carry, just about every gene carried by Native Americans and Eurasians. The only differences between these genes may include some mutations, but the clades, are the same but given different names, e.g., R1 among Europeans is called V88 among Africans , and haplogroup M1 among Africans is called D4 among East Asians.
The research indicates that many Afro- Americans speak Ebonics. Ebonic speakers use an African morphology and syntax analogous to that found among Niger-Congo speaking people in West Africa, and an English vocabulary.
As a result these Afro-Americans have a different orthography, phonetic system and deep grammatical structure from Standard American English (SAE). This causes manifold Ebonic speakers to have difficulty grasping the correct SAE phonemes represented by its symbols and reading in general. This failure to match Ebonics and SAE interfers with the development of reading fluency among some speakers of SAE.
The psychological literature makes it clear that our ability to use language will determine our success in school. It is therefore language that allows us to determine strategies for problem solving, word meanings, factual knowledge and procedures for doing things.
There is an innate mechanism for learning language. Language in humans is an instinct that results from interaction between a child and his environment, culture and ethnic origin. This process provides the child with the necessary phonemic elements to create words to name objects.
During the slave trade African slaves were brought to America from West Africa. In this area people speak the Niger-Congo languages.
During much of the slavery period African slaves were usually isolated from white Americans. But it is believed that the English spoken in the south and west counties of Britain may have been the model of English acquired by the slaves in Virginia.
Years of social separation of African Americans and whites, first during slavery, and later due to segregation led to a continuity of Niger-Congo linguistic features among many African Americans. Traditionally Ebonics is seen as a form of SAE with a transformed phonology or surface structure pursuant to the transformational theory of linguistics developed by Chomsky.
This view of Ebonics is false. Ebonic speakers use an African 1) morphology and syntax, and 2) a vocabulary that is English.
Ebonics has evidence of Niger-Congo influence in grammatical features, vocabulary survivals, consonant clustering avoidance and absent phonics. In Ebonics the word dig, is used to mean understand. This corresponds to the Wolof word "dega" 'to understand'. For example, lets compare sentences:
SAE: Do you understand English?
Ebonics: D'ya dig black talk?
Wolof: Dega nga olof?
In African languages, to acknowledge that everything is all right you would say "waw" along with the emphatic particle "kay", this would be pronounced "Wow Kay". This corresponds to the American use of the phrase "OK", to signify "all right, certainly".
Because of dialect differences Ebonics has many features unique to Afro-Americans, that point to their African origins.
Given the reality of English dialects you can now recognize that Ebonics is just another dialect among many. The major difference is that Ebonics is based on a Niger-Congo superstratum, and use an English vocabulary to provide mutual intelligibility.
This clearly indicates that Ebonics and SAE are mutually intelligible, but like German and Norwegian (which belong to the same family of languages as English) they are mutually distinct because of our African origin.
I think that was more intended for Swenet. I agree 100 about Ebonics except for one thing. White people in the south developed aspects of Ebonics too. So even if the anthropologist arent whistling dixie and Badarian looked more ethiopioid (whatever that means) than congoloid (ditto) it does not eclipse linguistic analysis or whichever negro Egyptian model.
You have probably seen this, but this is for others.
Now if you are saying Mboli's reconstructions were booty, then again, its worth a debate.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Not quite. If the falling tree is defined on whether it is still standing then its pretty clear what happened. It really doesn't matter who is defining it if it is NOT an abstract and based on some clear MEASUREMENTS. [/QB]
Do you have a schematic of these measurements? Is it consistent over time? Is it competent? When does Mectoid begin and congoloid end, can someone be both negroid and Mediterranean?
That was called a negroid head shape. But he has a narrow nose bridge by some standards so can he be Caucasoid or ehtiopoiod trump the headshape.
Caucasoid
Negroid
If I am trying to blackwash that skull I look at the head alone and say look... Negroid. If I'm spoofing white people I would say "typically negroid in its measurements" and maybe throw in some big words and names of bones. The same would be true with prognathism.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 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.
I agree except for the any region part. I surmised that there were more foreign hoods even in the Predynatic period and that foreign was not always new inner African immigrants.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, So I finally got caught up reading the pages of this thread that I missed...
So here is the gist I got...
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.
Bedouin A (Kuwait 2, presumably) and Bedouin B (Kuwait 3). The large Yoruba-like component in Kuwait 3 doesn't help it score much better than Mediterranean European samples in terms of affinity to Natufians. Kuwait 2, on the other hand, with a lower SSA to North African ratio, scores among the best as far as the available samples. Although you can tell by the high Fst scores that there is a lot of room for improvement (a score of 0,073 is not at all close and implies distance). **BTW, the bright green component here roughly corresponds to North African. Look how much North African there is in the Middle East today.** So you can see why I'm not fazed by the finding of so called 'Near Eastern' in ancient Egyptian samples.
In other words, some folk here make the mistake of stereotyping indigenous Africans into a genetic monolith or type in this case 'Sub-Saharan' which is exactly what Keita has been warning people against for over a decade now. From the data I've been recieving from this forum for years, I too have come to the conclusion that a good amount of genetic diversity in Africa as a whole much less 'Sub-Sahara' has been lost since the Holocene through founder effect of major population expansions so it should come as no surprise that that modern day people from the 'Great Lakes' region show little autosomal affinity with ancient Egyptians despite whatever paternal clades they may share. Also, I am unsurprised that North Africans in general share some distinction from modern sub-Saharans genetically or that there was major genetic input or influence in Southwest Asians from North Africans.
And lastly, LOL @ the idiot Englishman Cass whose great hope in this latest study is again dashed-- that the samples come from late period mummies who may very well not even represent indigenous Egyptians! This is the EXACT SAME problem he has with his reliance on the Howells' sample which I've shown here.
Like I said, I won't be holding my breath soon unless we get data from mummies of the older periods of Egyptian history especially from the formative periods and particularly those of Upper Egypt.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Like I said, I won't be holding my breath soon unless we get data from mummies of the older periods of Egyptian history especially from the formative periods and particularly those of Upper Egypt.
The fact that The Lioness was fighting over this Bedouin image actually being a Nubian slave is much telling. Click the link:
Head of a Beduin from Syria KhM 3896b TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
If PN2 has low margins it would be weird, since physical anthropology claimed different. But indeed it's a good question, are they deemed to be foreign when it is low? I say no, since we have people in Africa who carry A and or B and no E.
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
quote: “Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No idea when the data'll be published and available beyond screenshots of a slide presentation by an attendee, but here is the abstract for the next conference presentation.
,
quote:
The 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2017) Programs > 2017 > Podium Session > Podium Abstract
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
VERENA J. SCHUENEMANN1,2, ALEXANDER PELTZER3,4, WOLFGANG HAAK4, STEPHAN SCHIFFELS4 and JOHANNES KRAUSE1,4. 1Archaeo- and Paleogenetics, Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tuebingen, 2Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment, University of Tuebingen, 3Integrative Transcriptomics, Center for Bioinformatics, University of Tuebingen, 4Department for Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
April 20, 2017 9:45, Balcony I/J
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Particularly, in the first millennium BCE, Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Here we present mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans from Middle Egypt recovered with High-throughput sequencing methods that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Eastern populations than present-day Egyptians, who admixed with Sub-Saharan populations in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and opens the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Once it's officially published in a journal this data may help pin point origins of the folk that africentric Chancellor Williams, and others, long ago told us increasingly came to be the new breed majority population of Egypt before the Christian era.
The nationalized non-founder Egyptians from Levantine and Arabian peninsula parentage are pretty much known from history and are even shown in the art as Egyptians.
I'd think most of them originate from immigrants looking for a better life in the then 1st World economy of Egypt. Sure many came in a burst during invasion or conquest but I think most were from a continuous trickle going back to pre-dynasty days.
AE records show them everywhere in the social structure from slave to vizier.
Schuenemann's data may go beyond the AE art and written docs to help ID island and north Mediterranean input and even Caucasus/Black Sea input.
However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Interesting.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
No the y DNA will not be equally as low in P-n2, and unless we are concluding that Ancient Egypt is simply a transplant of the levant, then yes they're foreign.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nodarb says: ut 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.
Sure, SOME people may have this idea, which I have tangled with before and opposed. They paint themselves into a corner by insisting on some pristine state. But many other folk do NOT subscribe to any such "pure" model, which is why the notion of some sort of "collective ES consciousness" is rather dubious, and talk about "y'all" this and "y'all" that is equally shaky as well.
Beyoku says: 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.
There you go again with claims about some mystical "ES consciousness." FOr the past ten years there has actually been a lot of debate on the topic- and indeed Keita's 1990s studies on ancient crania in North Africa has been booted about ES ad infinitum. Everyone who has been around knows that Keita related AE to the Maghreb, and did not subscribe to any "pure negro" state based on crania. Some people agreed with Keita. Others were more lukewarm or skeptical. There is no "collective unconscious" on this.
As for how AE relates to Africa, sure, that has always been a part of ES, as part of the larger debate against Eurocentric models that seek to downplay or outright deny such relationships. And indeed assorted Eurocentrics from Madilda to Evil E apeared to do battle on such. You yourself have noted the same relationships in your debates against assorted Eurocentrics- the exact same thing you accuse this mystical ES consciousness of doing, And a number of folk have always recognized the link with "North Africa," some using Keita's "Supra-Saharan" format. That is nothing new. As for AE as its own distinct entity? I don;t know any denying it has its unique features, but there have been Euros that want to make AE out to be an anomaly, and divorce it from the locales that laid the foundations. That too is a standard distortion in both academic and popular literature as Keita himself, and numerous other SCHOLARS point out- just like some folks here. Its not just "ES" making any such corrective view against some sort of alien AE, distinct from Africa. Lotsof scholars are involved- Keita, Gatto, Celenko, Morkot, Tyson-Smith 2001. Who says people on ES "deny" AE as a distinctive entity? Where is this mystical "denial"?
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
MK A-M13 L3x MK E-M75 L2a1 MK E-M78 L3e5 MK E-M78 M1a MK E-M96 L4a MK E-V6 L3 MK B-M112 L0b
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic