...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is a world of difference between "Hamiticism" and my position on this -- a position actually informed by the material evidence from a range of disciplines. You really should stop with this campaign of false equivalence, my friend.

Let's examine the essential differences, shall we:

I maintain that the ancient Egyptians are derived from Afrasian population (s) from within Northeast Africa itself and that what we can identify as 'Egyptian' shortly before the Dynastic period developed almost concurrently with ethnically and culturally indistinguishable predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.

I maintain the obvious position that out of these closely related predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.. those that later formed an integral part of the Egyptian State eventually became the most successful, the most innovative, the most ingenius, sophisticated and materially advanced cultures at the heels of the Dynastic period.

The wholly patronizing and self-serving "Hamitic" myth pushed forward the idea that a small group of unrelated and undoubtedly superior "Eurasians" found a primitive African population in Egypt and enobled them by providing all the essential ingredients of civilization when they established themselves as the elite of an inferior underclass mass of indigenous Africans - thereby founding the splendour that was Dynastic Egypt.

Drop the pretense that they are essentially the same.

What you outlined is not inconsistent with Hamiticism at all. You posted a Neolithic/pre-Dynastic time-line arguing for Upper Egypt and Nubian (north Sudan) biological ties. This is still consistent with a Hamiticist arguing for an Epipaleolithic migration into North Africa from the south Levant/Arabia. Where do you think Stone Age North Africans (Saharans) came from?

Most the Hamitic proponents I used to know 5-6 years back on Hamitic-Union were Egyptians, Nubians, Somalis, Beja and Sudanese Arabs; the admin of this forum I knew is a Somali.

Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38

Origin of the Hamites
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/8

Paleo-Hamites and Proto-Hamites
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/10 [/QB]

I've clearly amused you long enough, Cass. The "Hamitic" myth is not even remotely tenable and has long been discarded, so get with the times and simply forget about it. None of the precursors to Dynastic Egypt came from "Eurasia". You can go as far back as the Epipaleolithic or any other period of your choosing prior to Dynastic Egypt and you will invariably be confronted with the insurmountable fact that they were never "Eurasians". Get over it.

The Berber language is derived from a Northeast African homeland and the various Berbers I showed you in the other thread most likely represent the original Berbers of the Maghreb. Even the light-skinned Berbers of the Coast are predominantly African paternally.

I'm trying to understand why the European mind has this disturbing, almost maniacal need to insert himself into ancient African history using "Eurasian" as a Trojan horse.

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand why the European mind has this disturbing, almost maniacal need to insert himself into ancient African history using "Eurasian" as a Trojan horse.

And yet you're trying to insert Sub-Saharan Africans into Egypt. So its OK with connecting Egyptians to peoples thousands of miles south of the Sahara, but not south Levant peoples a lot geographically closer? lol. This is just pan-African politics again. The way you politicalize "Eurasians" vs. "Africans" isn't normal.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand why the European mind has this disturbing, almost maniacal need to insert himself into ancient African history using "Eurasian" as a Trojan horse.

And yet you're trying to insert Sub-Saharan Africans into Egypt. So its OK with connecting Egyptians to peoples thousands of miles south of the Sahara, but not south Levant peoples a lot geographically closer? lol. This is just pan-African politics again. The way you politicalize "Eurasians" vs. "Africans" isn't normal.
You need psychological help, my friend. Ancient Egyptians were part of the Afrasian group of Northeast Africans, and the last time I checked a map, the source of Egyptian civilization (Upper Egypt) was clearly closer to North Sudan than it is to the Levant.

You can pretend that Afrasians in Upper Egypt and North Sudan have absolutely no links to Afrasians in the Horn to your heart's content, but it won't change the simple fact that the ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" in any way... your facile protestations notwithstanding.

Nothing has been "politicized"; facts were simply stated. Facts matter. Here are the facts:

The ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" ; they were indigenous Northeast Africans and were indistinguishable from "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan in the predynastic period. This cannot be said of the Levant.

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand why the European mind has this disturbing, almost maniacal need to insert himself into ancient African history using "Eurasian" as a Trojan horse.

And yet you're trying to insert Sub-Saharan Africans into Egypt. So its OK with connecting Egyptians to peoples thousands of miles south of the Sahara, but not south Levant peoples a lot geographically closer? lol. This is just pan-African politics again. The way you politicalize "Eurasians" vs. "Africans" isn't normal.
You need psychological help, my friend. Ancient Egyptians were part of the Afrasian group of Northeast Africans, and the last time I checked a map, the source of Egyptian civilization (Upper Egypt) was clearly closer to North Sudan than it is to the Levant.

You can pretend that Afrasians in Upper Egypt and North Sudan have absolutely no links to Afrasians in the Horn to your heart's content, but it won't change the simple fact that the ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" in any way... your facile protestations notwithstanding.

Nothing has been "politicized"; facts were simply stated. Facts matter. Here are the facts:

The ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" ; they were indigenous Northeast Africans and were indistinguishable from "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan in the predynastic period. This cannot be said of the Levant.

I don't need ancient Egyptians to be "Eurasian", since I've criticized this since 2013 [an essay I then wrote was on their Saharan origin]. What I'm simply pointing out is the Hamitic model-pushes back the settlement/migration of "Caucasoids" into North Africa 20,000 years ago (e.g. Coon, 1962), so its not actually fatal to an autochthonous (native Saharan) model because of the time depth; Hamiticists argue for long-term continuity in Egypt from the Epipaleolithic to modern times. Coon for example, discussed the strong biological continuity from ancient to modern peasantry in Egypt:

"One may expect to find a racial continuity between the landed peasants of ancient Egypt and the modern Fellahin. This continuity should be, and is, as great as that between ancient Mesopotamia and modern Iraq."

Therefore if ancient DNA of Egyptians does show strong Levant affinity, I would just (re)adopt Hamiticism as I argued pre-2013. But it is not a Hamitic or "Eurocentrist" position to argue for biological discontinuity between early Dynastic and late Dynastic Egyptians as Afrocentrists argue. The reason Afrocentrists argue modern Lower/Middle (northern) Egyptians are substantial recently "Eurasian" admixed through population replacement or large-scale gene flow by Ptolemaic Greeks, Romans or Arabs etc. - is because living northern Egyptians are unambiguously not "black" in pigmentation (but light brown) so they don't easily fit Afrocentrist's "Black Egypt" fantasy, so they *have* to be foreigners. However, northern Egyptians today are barely different in pigmentation to their ancient Egyptian ancestors:

"I have encountered arguments that the ancient Egyptians were much 'blacker' than their modern counterparts, owing to the influx of Arabs at the time of the conquest, Caucasian slaves under the Mamlukes, or Turks and French soldiers during the Ottoman period. However, given the size of the Egyptian population against these comparatively minor waves of northern immigrants, as well as the fact that there was continuous immigration and occasional forced deportation of both northern and southern populations into Egypt throughout the pharaonic period, I doubt that the modern population is significantly darker or lighter, or more or less 'African' than their ancient counterparts." - Ann Macy Roth) BUILDING BRIDGES TO AFROCENTRISM: A LETTER TO MY EGYPTOLOGICAL COLLEAGUES
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/afrocent_roth.html

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 8 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:


Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38

Origin of the Hamites
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/8

Paleo-Hamites and Proto-Hamites
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/10

^ what a pile of garbage.
Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tyrannohotep
Member
Member # 3735

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tyrannohotep     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ what a pile of garbage.

Which is why people in this thread shouldn't dignify Cass with responses at all. His sole agenda seems to be aggravating people with arguments he knows can be easily debunked. Ignore him and find something else to talk about.
Posts: 4098 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand why the European mind has this disturbing, almost maniacal need to insert himself into ancient African history using "Eurasian" as a Trojan horse.

And yet you're trying to insert Sub-Saharan Africans into Egypt. So its OK with connecting Egyptians to peoples thousands of miles south of the Sahara, but not south Levant peoples a lot geographically closer? lol. This is just pan-African politics again. The way you politicalize "Eurasians" vs. "Africans" isn't normal.
You need psychological help, my friend. Ancient Egyptians were part of the Afrasian group of Northeast Africans, and the last time I checked a map, the source of Egyptian civilization (Upper Egypt) was clearly closer to North Sudan than it is to the Levant.

You can pretend that Afrasians in Upper Egypt and North Sudan have absolutely no links to Afrasians in the Horn to your heart's content, but it won't change the simple fact that the ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" in any way... your facile protestations notwithstanding.

Nothing has been "politicized"; facts were simply stated. Facts matter. Here are the facts:

The ancient Egyptians were not "Eurasians" ; they were indigenous Northeast Africans and were indistinguishable from "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan in the predynastic period. This cannot be said of the Levant.

I don't need ancient Egyptians to be "Eurasian", since I've criticized this since 2013 [an essay I then wrote was on their Saharan origin]. What I'm simply pointing out is the Hamitic model-pushes back the settlement/migration of "Caucasoids" into North Africa 20,000 years ago (e.g. Coon, 1962), so its not actually fatal to an autochthonous (native Saharan) model because of the time depth; Hamiticists argue for long-term continuity in Egypt from the Epipaleolithic to modern times. Coon for example, discussed the strong biological continuity from ancient to modern peasantry in Egypt:

"One may expect to find a racial continuity between the landed peasants of ancient Egypt and the modern Fellahin. This continuity should be, and is, as great as that between ancient Mesopotamia and modern Iraq."

Therefore if ancient DNA of Egyptians does show strong Levant affinity, I would just (re)adopt Hamiticism as I argued pre-2013. But it is not a Hamitic or "Eurocentrist" position to argue for biological discontinuity between early Dynastic and late Dynastic Egyptians as Afrocentrists argue. The reason Afrocentrists argue modern Lower/Middle (northern) Egyptians are substantial recently "Eurasian" admixed through population replacement or large-scale gene flow by Ptolemaic Greeks, Romans or Arabs etc. - is because living northern Egyptians are unambiguously not "black" in pigmentation (but light brown) so they don't easily fit Afrocentrist's "Black Egypt" fantasy, so they *have* to be foreigners. However, northern Egyptians today are barely different in pigmentation to their ancient Egyptian ancestors:

"I have encountered arguments that the ancient Egyptians were much 'blacker' than their modern counterparts, owing to the influx of Arabs at the time of the conquest, Caucasian slaves under the Mamlukes, or Turks and French soldiers during the Ottoman period. However, given the size of the Egyptian population against these comparatively minor waves of northern immigrants, as well as the fact that there was continuous immigration and occasional forced deportation of both northern and southern populations into Egypt throughout the pharaonic period, I doubt that the modern population is significantly darker or lighter, or more or less 'African' than their ancient counterparts." - Ann Macy Roth) BUILDING BRIDGES TO AFROCENTRISM: A LETTER TO MY EGYPTOLOGICAL COLLEAGUES
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/afrocent_roth.html

You still don't get it, do you? I don't care how much stock you put into a widely discredited hypothesis... one that was entirely divorced from reality and very much politicized.

Your grasping at straws; you so desperately want the "Hamitic" *myth* to be true, and so you absurdly contend that merely pushing the timeframe back somehow makes it all the more palatable. You're sucking at the hind tit of a dead cow.

Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin and were ethnically virtually identical in the predynastic period. Upper Egyptians created the civilization and were the overwhelming demographic majority until at least the time of the Ptolemies. Your pathetic appeals to the Delta will not help you.

Even if the Delta was wholly and unconditionally acceded to "Eurasians" of the Levant, Northeast Africans invariably win with Upper Egypt. Your Delta Egyptians were not organised, were less sophisticated, were poorer, were conquered and were a minority for all of Dynastic Egyptian history. Upper Egypt renders your screeds redundant. Your "Eurasian" Egypt is thus a fantasy.

I'm trying to sympathise with your attempts to massage your prejudice G-spot with the Delta Egyptians, but satisfaction of this nature is not in the cards.

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ what a pile of garbage.

Which is why people in this thread shouldn't dignify Cass with responses at all. His sole agenda seems to be aggravating people with arguments he knows can be easily debunked. Ignore him and find something else to talk about.
You're right.
Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If your insanity had real-world counterparts... you would be the equivalent of an African-American (*gasp*, the horror, I know) asserting that the United States was founded and established by 13% of the population -- African-Americans.

You essentially wish to define a Nation by its minority by placing an inordinate emphasis on the Delta, as if Upper Egypt did not exist. You simply can't wish them away. Now, I have come to believe that the current dominant phenotype in Egypt has been there since at least the start of the Dynastic period and that Delta Egyptians most likely have a connection to the ancient past and glory of ancient Egypt, however, their phenotype only became dominant after the Ptolemies - at or after the second Intermediate Period. The mahogany-brown to dark-brown skin of Upper Egyptians and Lower "Nubians" was dominant.

You wish to argue that Northeast Africans are not black? Go ahead - it's no skin off my nose.

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Delta actually started competing with the Valley's population around the time of this study (1250 B.C). 40% of Egypt lived in the Delta at that point. Wasn't that about 1,000 years before Ptolomeic Egypt? However compared to Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egypt, the figure nearly doubled. The Delta's population was only 24% of Egypt and nearly NO ONE lived in Faiyum. Only 6,000 people (less than one percent). Middle Kingdom saw a gradual increase of nearly 10 percent in the Delta(33%). The trend of population growth in the Delta would continue and by 150 B.C it eclipses the valley.

Was the population growth since Predynastic Egypt mostly local or foreign in the Valley, Delta and Faiyum ? To what extent did nearby "Nubians" or Levanites contribute to upper and lower Egypt?

Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
The Delta actually started competing with the Valley's population around the time of this study (1250 B.C). 40% of Egypt lived in the Delta at that point. Wasn't that about 1,000 years before Ptolomeic Egypt? However compared to Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egypt, the figure nearly doubled. The Delta's population was only 24% of Egypt and nearly NO ONE lived in Faiyum. Only 6,000 people (less than one percent). Middle Kingdom saw a gradual increase of nearly 10 percent in the Delta(33%). The trend of population growth in the Delta would continue and by 150 B.C it eclipses the valley.

Was the population growth since Predynastic Egypt mostly local or foreign in the Valley, Delta and Faiyum ? To what extent did nearby "Nubians" or Levanites contribute to upper and lower Egypt?

Lower Egypt almost equalized with Upper Egypt very late into Dynastic Egyptian history. The Delta probably became capable of hosting a substantial population when the required advances necessary to drain the swamps and marshlands were developed and deployed.

The far less significant Delta was likely demographically compromised very early on by Asiatics in the Levant. "Nubians" and Upper Egyptians were virtually identical. Nearly identical "Nubian" cultures like Ta-Seti were absorbed into Egypt -- becoming the first nome of Dynastic Egypt.

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the New Kingdom Egyptian samples c. 1300 BCE are closest in their autosomal DNA to Neolithic/Ancient/Modern Levantines, then those affinities were there as far back as the Epipalaeolithic when Afro-Asiatic speakers settled in Egypt. Carleton Coon & Hamiticists vindicated...

Of course though these Afrocentric psychos will cling to a "massive migration" scenario of Asiatics pouring into Egypt (2nd millennium BC). It will be funny when we get older samples and they more or less show the same Levantine affinities. Afronuts will then be screaming.

This is though all a big if since Krause et al. 2017 has not yet been published and I still think its possible the closest PCA match to the New Kingdom Egyptian samples = Egyptian Copts, or Sinaitic (not Levant) Bedouin; the Sinaitic Bedouin extend to the Nile Delta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#In_Egypt

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You still don't get it, do you? I don't care how much stock you put into a widely discredited hypothesis... one that was entirely divorced from reality and very much politicized.

Your grasping at straws; you so desperately want the "Hamitic" *myth* to be true, and so you absurdly contend that merely pushing the timeframe back somehow makes it all the more palatable. You're sucking at the hind tit of a dead cow.

You missed where I said I don't believe in Hamiticism. Haven't for 4 years. What I though said is if the ancient DNA supports it - I will (re)adopt it. I have a backup at least... As someone else said here: whatever these DNA results, they aren't going to be as much a problem to so called "Eurocentrists" as Afrocentrists.

quote:
Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin and were ethnically virtually identical in the predynastic period.
You're running away from the fact early Dynastic Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to Nubians both in literature and art. How could both be "black"?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
If the New Kingdom Egyptian samples c. 1300 BCE are closest in their autosomal DNA to Neolithic/Ancient/Modern Levantines, then those affinities were there as far back as the Epipalaeolithic when Afro-Asiatic speakers settled in Egypt. Carleton Coon & Hamiticists vindicated...

Of course though these Afrocentric psychos will cling to a "massive migration" scenario of Asiatics pouring into Egypt (2nd millennium BC). It will be funny when we get older samples and they more or less show the same Levantine affinities. Afronuts will then be screaming.

This is though all a big if since Krause et al. 2017 has not yet been published and I still think its possible the closest PCA match to the New Kingdom Egyptian samples = Egyptian Copts, or Sinaitic (not Levant) Bedouin; the Sinaitic Bedouin extend to the Nile Delta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#In_Egypt

So you believe That the Copts will plot perfectly into this sample (Abusir Mummies) even better than the Bedouin groups? "Say it louder so we all can hear you!"
Posts: 600 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
If the New Kingdom Egyptian samples c. 1300 BCE are closest in their autosomal DNA to Neolithic/Ancient/Modern Levantines, then those affinities were there as far back as the Epipalaeolithic when Afro-Asiatic speakers settled in Egypt. Carleton Coon & Hamiticists vindicated...

Epipalaeolithic Europeans = Modern Europeans? What would a difference in Epipalaeolithic Europeans mean for settlements, cities and expression of civilization 6-1k B.C in Europe?

Also, New Kingdom Northern Egyptian samples showing affinities to Levanites (and not North Africans) would be reflection of the population history of Northern Egypt which could've existed from predynastic times.

quote:
Of course though these Afrocentric psychos will cling to a "massive migration" scenario of Asiatics pouring into Egypt (2nd millennium BC).
Asiatics didn't have to pour in by the second millennium. Research suggests that the Delta area and Faiyum doubled in size. Rather than "mass migration" it's possible that the North was always more diffused compared to southerners who had more affinity to Nubians, or that small-scale migration over the course of thousands of years gradually changed the North.

quote:
It will be funny when we get older samples and they more or less show the same Levantine affinities. Afronuts will then be screaming.
If those samples aren't in southern Egypt or in Northern Sudan and aren't at least 2k BCE I don't see them screaming. the "African Egypt" hypothesis has really held to the idea that Egyptian culture came from the south and moved northward, even as far East into the Levant (Canaan). Even if Northerners had always mixed with Levanites, interest is not really on the usurped north as much as southern Egypt.

P.S: Syrian L lineages are present as late as 2k BP. So the Levant wasn't likely doing nothing but giving genetic material, it was likely receiving it too. But then..where'd the L lineages in Syria come from if Northern Africans didn't really have L lineages???

Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Also, New Kingdom Northern Egyptian samples showing affinities to Levanites (and not North Africans)

Are you sure about this?
Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So you believe That the Copts will plot perfectly into this sample (Abusir Mummies) even better than the Bedouin groups? "Say it louder so we all can hear you!" [/QB]

I'm still guessing the closest match to these ancient Egyptian samples on the PCA is Copts. The reason Copts are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the modern Egyptian sample is because they are more endogamous. Were Copts included (and separated from modern Egyptians) in the study?

Also, Abusir isn't even Lower Egypt, but Middle. So LOL @ Afrocentrists trying to argue these results are down to foreigners in the Delta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusir

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry I should've said "would be" not "is" since I meant that more in a hypothetical situation. I'll edit that.
Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I see what you mean now. You were making a "if that's the case, then" argument as opposed to expressing a view you hold.
Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So you believe That the Copts will plot perfectly into this sample (Abusir Mummies) even better than the Bedouin groups? "Say it louder so we all can hear you!" [/QB]

I'm still guessing the closest match to THESE ancient Egyptian samples on the PCA is Copts. The reason Copts are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the modern Egyptian sample is because they are more endogamous. Were Copts included (and separated from modern Egyptians) in the study?

[...noise]

OK I'ma ask this once more for certainty... Is this your final answer are you locked in! lol
You did see the predicted MtDNA hgs, right?

-Btw, I respect your opinion, and your position in regards to the OP in specific... so don't take offense to me questioning you like this... Just wish you didn't put so much effort into derailing

Posts: 600 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Also, Abusir isn't even Lower Egypt, but Middle. So LOL @ Afrocentrists trying to argue these results are down to foreigners in the Delta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusir

That is being so stupidly technical. What kind of straw grabbing is that. It is still Northern Egypt.

 -

Wiki is saying this was how lower Egypt was defined in ancient times.

 -

Wasn't Memphis the capital of lower Egypt? Isn't Abusir further North than Memphis and Lisht. It's not in the Delta (barely), but it's still Northern Egypt.

Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Asiatics didn't have to pour in by the second millennium. Research suggests that the Delta area and Faiyum doubled in size. Rather than "mass migration" it's possible that the North was always more diffused compared to southerners who had more affinity to Nubians, or that small-scale migration over the course of thousands of years gradually changed the North.

That argument only works if you're talking about very different population-sizes. I don't see any evidence this was the case for north vs. south ancient Egypt. From Butzer’s (1976) estimates, he has pre-dynastic Egyptians at 866,000; 1,614,000 during Old Kingdom, 1,966,000 for Middle Kingdom and up to 3,000,000 for New Kingdom.

Memphis is pretty far north in Middle Egypt, not that far from the Delta, estimates vary-

[quote]According to T. Chandler, Memphis had some 30,000 inhabitants and was by far the largest settlement worldwide from the time of its foundation until around 2250 BCE and from 1557 to 1400 BCE. K. A. Bard is more cautious and estimates the city's population to have amounted to about 6,000 inhabitants during the Old Kingdom.[quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Egypt#Population

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Asiatics didn't have to pour in by the second millennium. Research suggests that the Delta area and Faiyum doubled in size. Rather than "mass migration" it's possible that the North was always more diffused compared to southerners who had more affinity to Nubians, or that small-scale migration over the course of thousands of years gradually changed the North.

That argument only works if you're talking about very different population-sizes. I don't see any evidence this was the case for north vs. south ancient Egypt. From Butzer’s (1976) estimates, he has pre-dynastic Egyptians at 866,000; 1,614,000 during Old Kingdom, 1,966,000 for Middle Kingdom and up to 3,000,000 for New Kingdom.
Now this is a bit ironic...You're looking at the estimated numbers of Egypt in it's entirety and not with respect to region. First, the north and south were not equals with respect state formation and both had more (or less) physical access to different groups of people. The idea is that since predynastic times Northern Egyptians could've interacted more with the Levant, and Southern Egyptians probably had more contact with Nubia which is generally considered to be closest to biologically and culturally to predynastic Egypt. This would in turn create a spectrum of related people within Egypt that varied locally regarding affinities. Faiyum (Middle Egypt) and the Delta had far fewer people and many of those people were usurped and absorbed by Southern Egypt. Faiyum only had less than 10,000 people and then exploded in number to 61,000 in 1,800 BC. Obviously the Delta as a whole fares better, but it was still originally nowhere near the size of the valley.

quote:
Memphis is pretty far north in Middle Egypt, not that far from the Delta, estimates vary-

[quote]According to T. Chandler, Memphis had some 30,000 inhabitants and was by far the largest settlement worldwide from the time of its foundation until around 2250 BCE and from 1557 to 1400 BCE.

But this doesn't really change the general population of the North being much more sparse. Unless Memphis held an amount of people comparable to the rest of the valley then Memphis doesn't change the weaker numbers we generally would see in the Delta or at Faiyum. Adding the extra 22k from Memphis into the delta with the Faiyum population and 83% still live elsewhere. Though the point isn't even who had more, but was is plausible for such population figures to eventually diffuse as they expanded. And THEN that's not an end-all either (more on that later). Regardless of number, as long as migration and intermarriage accounts for a certain percentage of births within the country, it will eventually change the population. It just becomes easier to imagine the fewer people we're workubg with. 1% intermarriage per generation will slowly diffuse a population over the course of several thousand years. Is it impossible to imagine a predynastic (4k BC) Egypt with only 80,000 people in the Delta and Faiyum possibly having 3-5% or so of their children from people living in the Levant per generation? Is it impossible to imagine that 3-5% (2,400- 4,000 stereotypical "Levanites" void of "African" lineages) could've changed the character of northern Egypt during the predynastic? And even if we were to suppose mixing with the people next to them only started in the early dynastic instead of the pre dynastic, that would've been meant that perhaps 11,000 people from the Levant would've needed to create families in Egypt per generation. Something like this couldn't have happened over the course of 2-4 thousand years despite evidence of geneflow in both directions? Given it's placement to the Levant, and how few numbers they'd have needed to pull if off, I believe it could have happened. I also believe the same could've happened between southern Egypt and "Nubia."

We could ponder this further, but I imagine it's largely moot to do so unless you're simply interested in understanding for knowledge's sake. The people whose culture was chiefly responsible for hegemony and unification were more southern. What the north was, is usually regarded as more irrelevant. "African Egypt" hypothesizers are not going to really let go of southern Egypt's origins, no matter how large a population lived in the North.

Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug said the term early European farmer is okay, just as long as you don't say EEF. But these terms mean the same thing.

Imagine how salty and confused someone has to be to resort to these contortions and backflip gymnastics.

Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers in a European context. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia. But the study of EEF is not focusing on that and therefore those AFRICAN RELATIONSHIPS are not being considered and are left out on purpose. But of course, rather than you seeing that as a deliberate omission, you will sit here and pretend to have discovered something everyone already knew: that there was an African component within the early farmers of the levant and that African genetic component got carried into Europe with farming. But whatever. If it isn't obvious the folks behind the terms EEF and Basal Eurasian are implicitly filtering African dna ancestry out of those meta populations it is because you don't want to admit that these are flawed theoretical frameworks.
Posts: 7111 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers in a European context. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia.

where is Doug's evidence that there was significant African admixture in early european farmers?
Early European farmers go back to starting around 7000 BC
These were people who had Out Of Africa ancestry going back over 40,000 years ago. If Africans go into some other part of the world and stay for that long they transform into non-Africans.

Sill Human beings are highly similar wherever in the world you go, "non-Africans" are similar to Africans.
So technically Donald Trump is largely African.

So are we supposed mention that? Dont forget Donald Trump's Africaness?

Posts: 31609 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug said the term early European farmer is okay, just as long as you don't say EEF. But these terms mean the same thing.

Imagine how salty and confused someone has to be to resort to these contortions and backflip gymnastics.

Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers in a European context. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia. But the study of EEF is not focusing on that and therefore those AFRICAN RELATIONSHIPS are not being considered and are left out on purpose. But of course, rather than you seeing that as a deliberate omission, you will sit here and pretend to have discovered something everyone already knew: that there was an African component within the early farmers of the levant and that African genetic component got carried into Europe with farming. But whatever. If it isn't obvious the folks behind the terms EEF and Basal Eurasian are implicitly filtering African dna ancestry out of those meta populations it is because you don't want to admit that these are flawed theoretical frameworks.
So, because an African origin is not considered (which is a complete lie, BTW), I can't co-opt the concept and discuss it strictly in terms of the affinities of the ancestry in question?

You're not even making sense as usual and you're lying when you say an African origin wasn't considered. Do you even hear yourself talk? You keep going on these confused rants but it always boils down to non-sequitur toddler logic. I can't use the concept because of biases on the part of those who introduced it? If everyone in science started throwing tantrums about widely used terms, everything would grind to a standstill. How old are you to keep repeating these dumb ass arguments as a barrier to conversation? Because that's all you're trying to do: impede conversation and understanding. You're too incompetent to even try to dispute more substantive matters as evidenced by your butthurt evasiveness around the purple component and the many patently false things you've said in your opinionated posts.

You known damn well why you want to run away from the discussion. It's a dead end for you. You were caught red-handed trying to say Basal Eurasian "was never really in Africa". So explain the purple component then. You never did because you're all talk and no substance. You're full of bs and you know it. So of course you want to retreat to a more defensible position and claim your only issue is with the terminology. But no one believes you. You're just flip flopping and shape shifting as usual.

Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And notice how Doug deliberately avoided the considerable shared drift of East Africans with Stuttgart, to the exclusion of most other SSA populations. Instead of replying to this post, Doug deliberately picked the convenient post to respond to, talking about "no mas, no mas". He's trying to end the discussion before his fallacies get exposes because he knows I'm just going to keep pummeling him with EEF and North African shared drift.
Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So you believe That the Copts will plot perfectly into this sample (Abusir Mummies) even better than the Bedouin groups? "Say it louder so we all can hear you!"

I'm still guessing the closest match to THESE ancient Egyptian samples on the PCA is Copts. The reason Copts are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the modern Egyptian sample is because they are more endogamous. Were Copts included (and separated from modern Egyptians) in the study?

[...noise]

OK I'ma ask this once more for certainty... Is this your final answer are you locked in! lol
You did see the predicted MtDNA hgs, right?

-Btw, I respect your opinion, and your position in regards to the OP in specific... so don't take offense to me questioning you like this... Just wish you didn't put so much effort into derailing

The it's "Afrocentric" smithing is getting hilarious.


quote:
Abusir | Necropolis in Cairo Egypt

Location:
Abusir is located at 1.2 miles north of Saqqara, but still at some distance to the south of Giza. Its three main surviving pyramids can easily be seen from the funerary complex of Horus Netjerkhet.

https://www.memphistours.com/Egypt/WikiTravel/Attractions-Cairo/wiki/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


https://www.granger.com/results.asp?search=1&screenwidth=1600&tnresize=200&pixperpage=40&searchtxtkeys=abusir&lastsearchtxtkeys=Abusir&lstorients=132


However, the eurocentric dogma:


 -


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.


https://www.archeobooks.com/products/abusir-xxiii-the-tomb-of-the-sun-priest-neferinpu-as-37#

Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
If the New Kingdom Egyptian samples c. 1300 BCE are closest in their autosomal DNA to Neolithic/Ancient/Modern Levantines, then those affinities were there as far back as the Epipalaeolithic when Afro-Asiatic speakers settled in Egypt. Carleton Coon & Hamiticists vindicated...

Of course though these Afrocentric psychos will cling to a "massive migration" scenario of Asiatics pouring into Egypt (2nd millennium BC). It will be funny when we get older samples and they more or less show the same Levantine affinities. Afronuts will then be screaming.

This is though all a big if since Krause et al. 2017 has not yet been published and I still think its possible the closest PCA match to the New Kingdom Egyptian samples = Egyptian Copts, or Sinaitic (not Levant) Bedouin; the Sinaitic Bedouin extend to the Nile Delta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#In_Egypt

Yawn,… you and your false narratives. smh


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


Since you love Wiki that much:

quote:


DNA history of Egypt

Copts

A 2015 study by Dobon et al. identified an ancestral autosomal component of West Eurasian origin that is common to many modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations in Northeast Africa. Known as the Coptic component, it peaks among Egyptian Copts who settled in Sudan over the past two centuries. Copts also formed a separated group in PCA, a close outlier to other Egyptians, Afro-Asiatic-speaking Northeast Africans and Middle East populations. The Coptic component evolved out of a main Northeast African and Middle Eastern ancestral component that is shared by other Egyptians and also found at high frequencies among other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Northeast Africa (~70%). The scientists suggest that this points to a common origin for the general population of Egypt. They also associate the Coptic component with Ancient Egyptian ancestry, without the later Arabian influence that is present among other Egyptians.[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#Copts
Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers in a European context. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia.

where is Doug's evidence that there was significant African admixture in early european farmers?
Early European farmers go back to starting around 7000 BC
These were people who had Out Of Africa ancestry going back over 40,000 years ago. If Africans go into some other part of the world and stay for that long they transform into non-Africans.

Sill Human beings are highly similar wherever in the world you go, "non-Africans" are similar to Africans.
So technically Donald Trump is largely African.

So are we supposed mention that? Dont forget Donald Trump's Africaness?

So how does that fit into the back migration theory? Hmmm?
Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You still don't get it, do you? I don't care how much stock you put into a widely discredited hypothesis... one that was entirely divorced from reality and very much politicized.

Your grasping at straws; you so desperately want the "Hamitic" *myth* to be true, and so you absurdly contend that merely pushing the timeframe back somehow makes it all the more palatable. You're sucking at the hind tit of a dead cow.

You missed where I said I don't believe in Hamiticism. Haven't for 4 years. What I though said is if the ancient DNA supports it - I will (re)adopt it. I have a backup at least... As someone else said here: whatever these DNA results, they aren't going to be as much a problem to so called "Eurocentrists" as Afrocentrists.

quote:
Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin and were ethnically virtually identical in the predynastic period.
You're running away from the fact early Dynastic Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to Nubians both in literature and art. How could both be "black"?

If anyone is running away, it's you, mate.

This is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.

There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.


The ancient Egyptians specified the various kingdoms and people of the South and used terms like Kush, Setjau, Wawat, Medjay, Irem, Kaau and so on; some of these people exactly resembled the ancient Egyptians while others looked like the pitch-black Dinka or the Nuba of Kordofan.

Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.


"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.


Lower "Nubians" and Puntites from Northeast Sudan or Eritrea were identical to the ancient Egyptians and were both distinct from the "Nubians" much further afield. The "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and Northeast Sudan were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians in or outside Africa.

These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or the Horn) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:

 -

 -

 -

Ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors

 -

 -

 -


Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people in 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.

Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.


Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?


 -


You're trying to pretend that the pitch-black people that were most likely the ancestors of the Dinka and Nuba were the only "Nubians" and that the "Nubians" that were identical to Upper Egyptians did not exist. There is no evidence that Lower "Nubians" were ever distinguished from Upper Egyptians.


Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."


Which is in line with this:

"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. "(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

Pseudo Aristotle: " Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two."

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug said the term early European farmer is okay, just as long as you don't say EEF. But these terms mean the same thing.

Imagine how salty and confused someone has to be to resort to these contortions and backflip gymnastics.

Dude I don't want to go on another 20 page back and forth with you constantly pulling straw men. Obviously nobody is claiming that there were no farmers in Europe. The point is that the term EEF is specifically designed to illustrate the genetic ANCESTRY of those farmers in a European context. Which means African populations in nearby locations are not considered as part of EEF. Now OBVIOUSLY there was African admixture among populations in the Levant going back many thousands of years and African DNA elements elsewhere in Eurasia. But the study of EEF is not focusing on that and therefore those AFRICAN RELATIONSHIPS are not being considered and are left out on purpose. But of course, rather than you seeing that as a deliberate omission, you will sit here and pretend to have discovered something everyone already knew: that there was an African component within the early farmers of the levant and that African genetic component got carried into Europe with farming. But whatever. If it isn't obvious the folks behind the terms EEF and Basal Eurasian are implicitly filtering African dna ancestry out of those meta populations it is because you don't want to admit that these are flawed theoretical frameworks.
So, because an African origin is not considered (which is a complete lie, BTW), I can't co-opt the concept and discuss it strictly in terms of the affinities of the ancestry in question?

You're not even making sense as usual and you're lying when you say an African origin wasn't considered. Do you even hear yourself talk? You keep going on these confused rants but it always boils down to non-sequitur toddler logic. I can't use the concept because of biases on the part of those who introduced it? If everyone in science started throwing tantrums about widely used terms, everything would grind to a standstill. How old are you to keep repeating these dumb ass arguments as a barrier to conversation? Because that's all you're trying to do: impede conversation and understanding. You're too incompetent to even try to dispute more substantive matters as evidenced by your butthurt evasiveness around the purple component and the many patently false things you've said in your opinionated posts.

You known damn well why you want to run away from the discussion. It's a dead end for you. You were caught red-handed trying to say Basal Eurasian "was never really in Africa". So explain the purple component then. You never did because you're all talk and no substance. You're full of bs and you know it. So of course you want to retreat to a more defensible position and claim your only issue is with the terminology. But no one believes you. You're just flip flopping and shape shifting as usual.

Swenet, I am not really concerned about specific data points. Like I said, you as an amateur on the net trying to use these terms outside the original context of which they were created in the papers and studies that defined them doesn't qualify that usage as valid. For the 15th time, the issue I have is with the original authors and how they defined the terms in a Eurasian only fashion with no African mixture as part of the ancestry, especially going back to OOA and the various OOA populations in Eurasia. But then on top of that, you have decided that these terms with their glaringly obvious omissions of African mixture are better able to describe African genetic ancestry which is just blatantly backwards. Like I said, if Europeans can model their ancestry and leave out African DNA then why can't Africans model their ancient ancestry and leave out Eurasian DNA. Of course there was mixture between the two over time but somehow that doesn't stop Eurasians from leaving out the African side to model intra Europan population dynamics. So if we want to understand the intra African population dynamics then folks need to do the same thing in Africa. But some folks are hypocrites when it comes to that part......

I said this before and I am not going to keep repeating myself.

I said this in the when to use black and not to thread regarding those populations of Africans who shared affinities with those who left and mixed with those who brought the neolithic revolution to Europe. Those populations who never left were still best described as African. This is the same issue and you just like going around in circles trying to defend illogical terminology just because you want to "win" something. That is why you keep throwing data points around which have nothing to do with the point unless they either support or don't support your use of terminology. That is why I am focusing on the semantics because this is an important issue. The scientific community has not evolved into some broadly objective community that is truly concerned about facts and logic. And this is where you fall on your face with EEF and Basal Eurasian. So sure, go ahead and pretend this is about data points and me avoiding something, while you avoid the blatant hypocrisy in calling EEF and Basal Eurasian which are defined in a strictly non African context. Because if they weren't they would have listed out African populations and geographic areas near Europe as reference populations for EEF and Basal Eurasian but they don't. No amount of spinning and your own home brewed data points is going to change that.

Posts: 7111 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You still don't get it, do you? I don't care how much stock you put into a widely discredited hypothesis... one that was entirely divorced from reality and very much politicized.

Your grasping at straws; you so desperately want the "Hamitic" *myth* to be true, and so you absurdly contend that merely pushing the timeframe back somehow makes it all the more palatable. You're sucking at the hind tit of a dead cow.

You missed where I said I don't believe in Hamiticism. Haven't for 4 years. What I though said is if the ancient DNA supports it - I will (re)adopt it. I have a backup at least... As someone else said here: whatever these DNA results, they aren't going to be as much a problem to so called "Eurocentrists" as Afrocentrists.

quote:
Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin and were ethnically virtually identical in the predynastic period.
You're running away from the fact early Dynastic Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to Nubians both in literature and art. How could both be "black"?

LOL SMH You don't know you are talking about. You created your own title loon eurocentric theory, based mostly on outdated and debunked stuff. While ignoring actual facts.

That is why you keep running away from:


Egypt's first mummies

 -


http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery/egypt-s-first-mummies

Posts: 18497 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And notice how Doug deliberately avoided the considerable shared drift of East Africans with Stuttgart, to the exclusion of most other SSA populations. Instead of replying to this post, Doug deliberately picked the convenient post to respond to, talking about "no mas, no mas". He's trying to end the discussion before his fallacies get exposes because he knows I'm just going to keep pummeling him with EEF and North African shared drift.

That is you making such claims Swenet based on data you pulled which may or may not be out of context. That has absolutely nothing to do with Basal Eurasian and EEF being defined partly as a result of "less Neanderthal mixture" which implies African genetic ancestry with Africans being explicitly defined as not being mixed with Neanderthals..... Again, this isn't an issue with Stuttgart. The issue is that the original Eurasians came from Africa and had waves of mixture with later populations of Africans at various points in time, including some African mixture during the Neolithic, which makes the concept of Basal Eurasian and EEF which filter our these African relationships flawed.

As for Stuttgart, that is you making these observations so don't drag me into your home made research. I don't need to validate your theories and that has nothing to do with my point so no I am not avoiding it. You should fully qualify your own position and stop playing games. What is the full data set that is represented by that chart? What do the colors mean and what paper does this chart come from? Does that paper agree with your position? I find it odd you keep pulling these snippets of data from one or two different studies but don't post all of the data. Then you try and run around like you have dropped such gems of knowledge. I always post full references not just a single chart or picture. That is useless and means nothing. It is you who keep using these antics to avoid the issue being discussed. And the point being why are you so worried about Eurasian mixture in Africa but don't have any problem modeling Eurasian history and leaving African mixture out. Why don't you worry about that contradiction first before coming at me again. Mixture is a two way street. The problem is these studies such as those related to Basal Eurasian and EEF keep modelling the interaction between Europe and Africa by downplaying the African mixture and African basis of Eurasian populations and then over emphasizing Eurasian mixture in African populations. So you can't have it both ways. And this is exactly why I have problem with basal Eurasian and EEF as they are defined AND your attempts to model African biological history around Eurasian DNA. Why can't you do what the Europeans do and model African DNA history without Eurasian input? That is better way of modelling which African populations were involved in various parts of Africa at different points of time.

Not to mention that almost all scholars claim humans originated in East Africa in the first place. And likely exited Africa from there. So I don't get your point. How does daddy become the child son? That is not possible unless you are using backwards data. And that is what I am saying. Of course Africans have always existed all over Africa so Sub Saharan means nothing in this discussion.

And here let me fill in the details on your little charts:
quote:

Tracing the migrations of anatomically modern humans has been complicated by human movements both out of and into Africa, especially in relatively recent history. Gallego Llorente et al. sequenced an Ethiopian individual, “Mota,” who lived approximately 4500 years ago, predating one such wave of individuals into Africa from Eurasia. The genetic information from Mota suggests that present-day Sardinians were the likely source of the Eurasian backflow. Furthermore, 4 to 7% of most African genomes, including Yoruba and Mbuti Pygmies, originated from this Eurasian gene flow.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/820?sid=c9734109-ea3d-4fd0-bb83-21c6f0bcfb33

Which had to be corrected by the way, which just proves my point and shows you are just being silly.

quote:

In the Report “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa,” the results were affected by a bioinformatics error. A script necessary to convert the input produced by samtools v0.1.19 to be compatible with PLINK was not run when merging the ancient genome, Mota, with the contemporary populations SNP panel, leading to homozygote positions to the human reference genome being dropped as missing data (the analysis of admixture with Neandertals and Denisovans was not affected). When those positions were included, 255,922 SNP out of 256,540 from the contemporary reference panel could be called in Mota. These changes are reflected in the corrected Fig. 2B, fig. S6, and table S5. Tables S6 and S7 have been removed from the corrected Supplementary Material, because there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti. The conclusion of a migration into East Africa from Western Eurasia, and more precisely from a source genetically close to the early Neolithic farmers, is not affected. However, the geographic extent of the genetic impact of this migration was overestimated: The Western Eurasian backflow mostly affected East Africa and only a few Sub-Saharan populations; the Yoruba and Mbuti do not show higher levels of Western Eurasian ancestry compared to Mota. Hence, the title and abstract of the published paper did not accurately represent the geographical extent of the admixture, and both have been corrected accordingly. The authors acknowledge Pontus Skoglund and David Reich for detecting these problems.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6275/aaf3945

And my point is since you don't get it, is that these researchers have just changed their methodologies in order to say UP FRONT that they are not including African gene flow into Europe as part of modeling Eurasian population history. Therefore they cannot be called out on "missing data". But that still calls into question why they go through so much effort to weed out African DNA ancestry in Eurasia. That is an issue to me. Yet at the same time they are constantly playing games with African DNA data to try and overemphasize Eurasian ancestry in ancient African populations. Not to mention "West Eurasians" also have heavy African mixture in the first place....

Posts: 7111 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not.

Ethnically Egyptian soldiers:

 -


Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:

[URL=http://s328.photobucket.com/user/takhent/media/YooniqImages_100691363_zpsfwhizawl.jpg.html]  -


Kushites portraying themselves


 -


 -


 -


The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.


"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. (Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Neolithic rock art paintings in South-west Egypt ("cave of swimmers") show that the ancestors of the AE painted themselves as black and brown -- just like other Africans.

 -


 -


Bushmen rock art

 -


Northwest Sahara rock art

 -


Chad rock art

 -

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ancient Egypt as a whole will be won or lost in the South -- where it all began. I don't see the "Eurasian" crowd winning in Southern Egypt if genetic samples are taken from this area... the most important area in Dynastic Egyptian history. Northern Egypt approaches irrelevance when compared to the South. It's just a fact.

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Essentially. Aborigines would not be representative of the group that founded modern (mainstream) Australian civilization. Native Americans would not be representative of who formed modern (mainstream) American civilizations. These indigenous groups were usurped by people that came to live alongside them and they were forced to eventually live within dominant European cultures. Even if after hundreds or thousands more years descendants in certain areas were to have diffused phenotype/genotype that varied between the two groups (e.g many modern Latinos), those with affinities to one group ("white" Latinos) would be more representative of those that were in the dominant culture.

It's not a completely analogous situation. Northern Egyptians always had access to southern Egypt in addition to the Levant so there was always a continuity and spectrum of that connected them I would imagine. Still, your general point of the significance of the south still stands as far as I can tell. If Southern Egyptians samples were genotypically very different from Northern Sudanese and were Levanite instead, that'd go against linguistics and archeology that suggests development of the state didn't come from incoming Levanites, no matter how they influenced the North. The archeological evidence places the formation of the culture that'd give birth to Egypt in Northern Sudan. Over the course of many years the evidence points to an upward momentum taking place, as well as a general sense of continued contact between Egypt and Sudan.

Posts: 1588 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. Doug is beyond incompetent. I'm starting to think Doug is a troll.

This all started when Doug said I was trying to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa. I posted evidence on evidence demonstrating shared drift between early farmers and some Africans. Doug's response? He ran away from the issues at hand. Now all of a sudden Doug's only problem is with Lazaridis' terminology. I never said I supported their terminology (I simply used it in order to discuss the underlying concepts), so this is just more evidence that Doug is a cognitively challenged troll.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

^Here is Doug's original pretext for having a problem with what I said. He was clearly talking about the genetic affinities of EEF and how this supposedly presents a problem for relating this population to Africa. Somewhere along the line he started lying about what the conversation is about and retreated to what he thought was a more defensible position. but he just ended up looking like a shape shifting turd.
Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have seen this before. In an argument about very specific genetic details one side obfuscates, appeals to the crowd about European Racism and basically argues a point that "All humans are African."

I experience this all them time when I ask these clowns to simply NAME what mtdna is African and Eurasian. They don't want to name them because if they do what they are looking for will not be on that list of 90 mummies.

Posts: 2071 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^And my whole thing is, if this forum was supposedly on track all this time, why did they never talk about the often distinctive affinities of dynastic Lower Egyptian samples? Why were people making threads like the one below, surprised about things that were never controversial to begin with?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009423

In a couple of months people will all say they knew the Abusir sample was going to come out like this all along. But past threads say otherwise.

Posts: 7460 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a quick note.

The Abusir we're talking about is
the one between el Lahun and
Meidum, where, Senwosret at
the former and Sneferu at the
latter, built their pyramids.

Not to be confused with either
the Abusir near Memphis nor
the one in the central Delta.

Abusir is the about the most
southern site north of Badari,
where loads of Levantine pottery
was found from the Naqada
pre-dynastic.


The Fayum proper, shows both late
Paleolithic and Neolithic settlement.
One of Holocene Egypt's earliest
cultures developed there. It owed
little to Sudan derived cultures that
had influence as far away as the
central Sahara or that moved back
and forth between Lower Nubia
and the nearby Egyptian Western
Desert (think Nabta Playa).

Considering Sudan and Sahara
(coastal + inland) peoples and
cultures, I find a village of 600
folk in Greece/Macedonia c.
6000 BCE to be an odd source
of Green Sahara or pre-dynastic
genomes, industries, language,
social culture, architecture, or
spirituality etc.

Posts: 3774 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun:
Asiatics didn't have to pour in by the second millennium. Research suggests that the Delta area and Faiyum doubled in size. Rather than "mass migration" it's possible that the North was always more diffused compared to southerners who had more affinity to Nubians, or that small-scale migration over the course of thousands of years gradually changed the North.

That argument only works if you're talking about very different population-sizes. I don't see any evidence this was the case for north vs. south ancient Egypt. From Butzer’s (1976) estimates, he has pre-dynastic Egyptians at 866,000; 1,614,000 during Old Kingdom, 1,966,000 for Middle Kingdom and up to 3,000,000 for New Kingdom.
Now this is a bit ironic...You're looking at the estimated numbers of Egypt in it's entirety and not with respect to region. First, the north and south were not equals with respect state formation and both had more (or less) physical access to different groups of people. The idea is that since predynastic times Northern Egyptians could've interacted more with the Levant, and Southern Egyptians probably had more contact with Nubia which is generally considered to be closest to biologically and culturally to predynastic Egypt. This would in turn create a spectrum of related people within Egypt that varied locally regarding affinities. Faiyum (Middle Egypt) and the Delta had far fewer people and many of those people were usurped and absorbed by Southern Egypt. Faiyum only had less than 10,000 people and then exploded in number to 61,000 in 1,800 BC. Obviously the Delta as a whole fares better, but it was still originally nowhere near the size of the valley.

quote:
Memphis is pretty far north in Middle Egypt, not that far from the Delta, estimates vary-

quote:
According to T. Chandler, Memphis had some 30,000 inhabitants and was by far the largest settlement worldwide from the time of its foundation until around 2250 BCE and from 1557 to 1400 BCE.
But this doesn't really change the general population of the North being much more sparse. Unless Memphis held an amount of people comparable to the rest of the valley then Memphis doesn't change the weaker numbers we generally would see in the Delta or at Faiyum. Adding the extra 22k from Memphis into the delta with the Faiyum population and 83% still live elsewhere. Though the point isn't even who had more, but was is plausible for such population figures to eventually diffuse as they expanded. And THEN that's not an end-all either (more on that later). Regardless of number, as long as migration and intermarriage accounts for a certain percentage of births within the country, it will eventually change the population. It just becomes easier to imagine the fewer people we're workubg with. 1% intermarriage per generation will slowly diffuse a population over the course of several thousand years. Is it impossible to imagine a predynastic (4k BC) Egypt with only 80,000 people in the Delta and Faiyum possibly having 3-5% or so of their children from people living in the Levant per generation? Is it impossible to imagine that 3-5% (2,400- 4,000 stereotypical "Levanites" void of "African" lineages) could've changed the character of northern Egypt during the predynastic? And even if we were to suppose mixing with the people next to them only started in the early dynastic instead of the pre dynastic, that would've been meant that perhaps 11,000 people from the Levant would've needed to create families in Egypt per generation. Something like this couldn't have happened over the course of 2-4 thousand years despite evidence of geneflow in both directions? Given it's placement to the Levant, and how few numbers they'd have needed to pull if off, I believe it could have happened. I also believe the same could've happened between southern Egypt and "Nubia."

We could ponder this further, but I imagine it's largely moot to do so unless you're simply interested in understanding for knowledge's sake. The people whose culture was chiefly responsible for hegemony and unification were more southern. What the north was, is usually regarded as more irrelevant. "African Egypt" hypothesizers are not going to really let go of southern Egypt's origins, no matter how large a population lived in the North.

You haven't taken into account the south Levant was also (more) sparsely populated; it wasn't like Mesopotamia. Population sizes were probably very similar in south Levant and north Egypt (google some data). But for your argument to work- south Levant would have to have had a much larger population, compared to north Egypt. Not the case. Also, going along with Butzer's (1976) estimates, already by c. 1800 BCE [Middle Kingdom], north Egypt wasn't greatly dissimilar to south Egypt: of a 2 million total, 1.2 million lived in south/0.8 million in north (60 vs. 40%). The great disparity in population size between north and south (80 vs. 20%) is only observed 4000 - 2500 BCE; it doesn't give you enough time to work with. Note when I use the same argument (about gradual accumulative ancestry over many generations) for Multiregionalism to deny Out-out-Africa migrations, I use a time-frame of up to a million years or more, not 1500...lol
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Ancient Egypt as a whole will be won or lost in the South -- where it all began. I don't see the "Eurasian" crowd winning in Southern Egypt if genetic samples are taken from this area... the most important area in Dynastic Egyptian history. Northern Egypt approaches irrelevance when compared to the South. It's just a fact.

If ancient northern Egyptians were predominantly Levantine, why wouldn't southern Egyptians have a sizable amount? The former mixed with the latter, so at the very least there will be a moderate-to-high Levantine ancestry in southern Egyptians.

Anyway, the reason I think this is still false, is we now have National Geographic 2017 genetic data (based on a large amount of samples all across Egypt) showing modern Egyptians as a whole are nearly 70% native/'North African'. Secondly, the Krause et al. 2017 PCA could have the New Kingdom Egyptian samples closest to Copts.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
National Geographic did not say they were 70% native/North African they said they were 70% of what modern North Africans have reported in their database. They include modern Greeks, Israelis, Spaniards and Italians in their definition of North Africans.
Posts: 679 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009423
The reason for those poor results is lack of measurements/variables. As far as I am aware, there have been two major studies of FORDISC on ancient Egyptian crania. Klases (2014) used only 16 measurements and got a classification accuracy of 7/25 (28.0%), while Naar et al. (2006) used 24? measurements and got a classification accuracy of 55/111 (49.5%) [a further 16 crania (14.4%) were classified as Egyptian but did not meet the minimum threshold of typicality and posterior probabilities]. When you use all of Howell's 57 measurements, you get high classification accuracies, always above 50% and typically 60-80%, sometimes even 90%:

quote:
It is clear that the number of variables selected strongly affected the discriminatory capacity of the analysis.There was more than a 30% difference between the classifications based on 57 variables and the ones based on 11. In the first case the mean correct classifications were always higher than 90%.
-On the Misclassification of Human Crania: Are There Any Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation?

Williams et al. in their study on Nubian skulls only used 11 out of the 57 measurements, that's why their classification accuracy was the lowest, something like 20%.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Ancient Egypt as a whole will be won or lost in the South -- where it all began. I don't see the "Eurasian" crowd winning in Southern Egypt if genetic samples are taken from this area... the most important area in Dynastic Egyptian history. Northern Egypt approaches irrelevance when compared to the South. It's just a fact.

If ancient northern Egyptians were predominantly Levantine, why wouldn't southern Egyptians have a sizable amount? The former mixed with the latter, so at the very least there will be a moderate-to-high Levantine ancestry in southern Egyptians.

Anyway, the reason I think this is still false, is we now have National Geographic 2017 genetic data (based on a large amount of samples all across Egypt) showing modern Egyptians as a whole are nearly 70% native/'North African'. Secondly, the Krause et al. 2017 PCA could have the New Kingdom Egyptian samples closest to Copts.

You're running around in circles. You're trying to maintain two contradictory positions. Are Northern Egyptians Levantine derived or are they predominantly North African? Choose one of these propositions.

Let's assume that we're proceeding with the understanding that we can reconstruct the genetic profile of the ancient Egyptians based on the Nat-Geo 'study' on modern Egyptians...

..Well, that would mean that even Northern ancient Egyptians were not predominantly Levantine if the modern population in the North is genetically at least 65% North African, as you argued earlier. We can then safely assume that this North African component was higher than 65% in Dynastic Northern Egyptians. A figure in excess of 75% is not unreasonable.

The figures for the South would invariably also be higher. The largely mahogany-brown people of the South (whose pictures I've shown) are likely the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, in light of their lower exposure to the Levant. The Copts further North than the Saidi in Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo and Aswan are not going to beat them in this regard. Not going to happen.

You can either maintain the Levantine position or the North African position, but you can't simultaniously maintain both, unless you wish to get paradoxical and argue that the indigenous North African component increased over time - supplanting the non-indigenous Levantine ancestry.

Ancient Egypt was established by predynastic Upper Egyptian cultures; these Upper Egyptian and 'Nubian' predynastic cultures were nearly identical and were undeniably (Northeast) African - not "Eurasian". This is what you must come to terms with.

Posts: 1367 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Doug is beyond incompetent. I'm starting to think Doug is a troll.

This all started when Doug said I was trying to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa. I posted evidence on evidence demonstrating shared drift between early farmers and some Africans. Doug's response? He ran away from the issues at hand. Now all of a sudden Doug's only problem is with Lazaridis' terminology. I never said I supported their terminology (I simply used it in order to discuss the underlying concepts), so this is just more evidence that Doug is a cognitively challenged troll.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

^Here is Doug's original pretext for having a problem with what I said. He was clearly talking about the genetic affinities of EEF and how this supposedly presents a problem for relating this population to Africa. Somewhere along the line he started lying about what the conversation is about and retreated to what he thought was a more defensible position. but he just ended up looking like a shape shifting turd.
If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point. You didn't define the term but you keep pretending that somehow you can use it outside of its original context as if you are the original author of the term when you aren't. You keep trying to post data as if it supports your point but it doesn't. That is why you posted that half baked study on East Africans that had to be updated because of "mishandling of data". So what you are trying to do is say that any Eurasian ancestry in East Africa from around the Neolithic is EEF. But here is the problem. EEF covers a wide range of populations all of whom are not the same. Swiss and Germans are included in EEF along with Anatolians and Levantines. So which of these populations would have introduced EEF into East Africa? And how can you tell from the data that has been provided that this relationship is not mostly or partly the result of African DNA that was also part of "Basal Eurasian" ancestry in the Levant and EEF? You simply make no sense. If EEF and Basal Eurasian are defined by leaving Afrian DNA out then what you are calling "EEF Like" could simply be the residual DNA of African DNA lineages that spanned Africa and Eurasia. Like I said mixture is a two way street and any time folks start promoting models and terminology that imply one way mixture between Africa and Eurasia I have a problem with it. I especially have a problem with hypocrites that have no problem with proposing a pristine and pure biological history of Eurasia free of African DNA but constantly keep playing up and promoting the smallest amount of Eurasian DNA in Africa.

That doesn't mean that mixture didn't occur it means how and when that mixture occurred and where and when it happened or who was involved is often mislabeled or distorted because of terminology and methodology.

Africans were already moving towards agriculture in Africa long before the neolithic and some of these patterns of survival eventually had an impact in the Levant during the Neolithic. Leaving out that African component in the Neolithic simply is a distortion of the facts.

Bottom line EEF and Basal Eurasian are describing the genetic impact of the Neolithic on Europe which blatantly proves that Europeans have had substantial genetic influence from populations in the Levant (hint: Syria and the origin of "Europa") and that genetic influence included African DNA as well. HOWEVER, nobody to date has shown that the spread of agriculture in Africa was accompanied by a similar wave of genetic influence. That is another reason why I am against using EEF and Basal Eurasian in an African context. Not to mention any DNA from the third intermediate of Egypt is far too late to prove anything about what happened in the early dynastic or predynastic which would be closer to the Neolithic. Which makes labeling populations long after the Neolithic as EEF and Basal Eurasian questionable.

Posts: 7111 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Doug is beyond incompetent. I'm starting to think Doug is a troll.

This all started when Doug said I was trying to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa. I posted evidence on evidence demonstrating shared drift between early farmers and some Africans. Doug's response? He ran away from the issues at hand. Now all of a sudden Doug's only problem is with Lazaridis' terminology. I never said I supported their terminology (I simply used it in order to discuss the underlying concepts), so this is just more evidence that Doug is a cognitively challenged troll.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

^Here is Doug's original pretext for having a problem with what I said. He was clearly talking about the genetic affinities of EEF and how this supposedly presents a problem for relating this population to Africa. Somewhere along the line he started lying about what the conversation is about and retreated to what he thought was a more defensible position. but he just ended up looking like a shape shifting turd.
If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point. You didn't define the term but you keep pretending that somehow you can use it outside of its original context as if you are the original author of the term when you aren't.
I don't call myself a nigger or any varition of the term. I don't use the term to address my friends. When the KKK comes in a bar with a gun saying "All Niggers leave or die" should I stay seating drinking my beer assuming that term does not apply to me? LOLZ.
Posts: 2071 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ And at the same time Doug salty folks don't accept his "Black" terminology. SMHTIBO.
Posts: 2071 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3