posted
So the Maasai carry the same frequency of Sub-Saharan ..eh! Yoruban ancestry such “Eurasians” like Bedoiuns, Yemenis and Jordanians etc. Even the Pima Native American carry Yoruban ancestry but the Abusir doesn’t. Wait! The Abusir are closest to…Bedoiuns and Natufians.. lol! Yeah! Keep on dream. SMH
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ EVERYONE!! Globally has YRI ancestry see above
Dataog Africa The Datooga, known as the Mang'ati in Swahili, are a pastoralist Nilotic people of Manyara Region, Arusha Region, Mara Region, and Singida Region of Tanzania. In 2000 the Datooga population was estimated to number 87,978.[1] There are at least seven Datooga tribes:
Supplemental Figure 7. Population structure. ADMIXTURE (Alexander 2009) analysis of population structure was run using a range of K from 3 to 18, with K=12 having the lowest cross-validation error (* in figure). Shown is the ancestry proportion for all runs. A. All populations in the combined the 104 Qatari genomes, 1000 Genomes (excluding Human Origins duplicates), and Human Origins dataset, labeled by study and region. B. Detail of populations from panel A having detectable ancestry in a “Bedouin” component that represents the majority of ancestry in Q1 (Bedouin), Bedouin B, and Saudi populations. C. Detail from panels A and B for K=12
quote:Originally posted by capra: the Abusir mummies DID have Yoruba you unbearably stupid dishonest clown
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetics and science will make liars of you people. Squashed like a bug……..
quote:Originally posted by capra: the Abusir mummies DID have Yoruba you unbearably stupid dishonest clown
quote:Originally posted by capra: why are you lying about Abusir mummies then, dipshit?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course you got nothing, you never have a fucking thing. really, who do you think you are fooling?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: of course you got nothing, you never have a fucking thing. really, who do you think you are fooling?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 51b2 was found to be unusual in several respects. The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 51b2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Möllers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).
posted
^^^^wonder if the Nubian immigrant was tested as well?? One has to wonder if these so called non SSA populations in Abusir were just tropical Africans related to populations who settled outside Africa
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.
Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.
But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".
No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".
Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 51b2 was found to be unusual in several respects. The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 51b2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Möllers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.
Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.
But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".
No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".
Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
Egypt was a nation with boundaries. "Nubian" is a term like "European." In relation to Egypt it means the people who lived south of the Egyptian nation.
Maybe you think they thought a grave was Nubian because of the nature of the of human remains. However if we look at more of the quote, it is reveled that it was due to artifacts found therein:
quote: Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 5 lb2 was found to be unusual in several respects. It was the only circular grave in the entire cemetery, a shape more characteristic of burials in southern Upper Egypt and Nubia. The grave goods included two black-mouthed jars of Nubian type (Mollers and Scharff 1926: pi. 16.96-7) and a palette of unusual shape (Mollers and Scharff 1926: pi. 33.330), more commonly found in Nubian burials. The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 5 lb2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Mollers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).
posted
I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.
Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.
But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".
No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".
Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.
Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.
But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".
No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".
Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
Agreed and welcome back.
Just pointing out the obvious that this new round of DNA studies hasn't really changed the status quo as far as the status quo is concerned. To "mainstream" science AE was a transplant from somewhere outside of Africa. Everything they have done since Napoleon has been to reinforce that view in one way or another. Using selective DNA and arbitrary non-historical terms like "Nubian" is part of that.
This is why they have not sampled or published any actual DNA from remains in ancient Upper Egypt and Sudan. It would go against the narrative they are trying to tell that this region was the boundary between "black Africans" as represented by so-called "nubia" and "other" as represented by the AE.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1
A trump card for what?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What Nubians (from what periods) were subject to genetic studies that showed them to carry J1 lineages? I've looked into this and it seems that Sudanese Arabs (Nubians mixed with Arabs) have substantial J1 lineages but this does not seem to be the case for the other Nubian groups - Nubians that are not Arab.
You would have a strong case if these J1 lineages were found in the predynastic and dynastic remains of Nubians. That Sudanese Arabs (a recent group) have J1 lineages cannot be used to assert that ancient Nubians in Egypt and Sudan had J1 lineages -- at least not in the frequency observed in Sudanese Arabs.
People here are talking about Eurasian Soqotri type people being present (and possibly dominating) Upper Egypt and only then mixing with "incoming" Sudanese populations - as though we have evidence of any Eurasian populations being there first.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
What Nubians (from what periods) were subject to genetic studies that showed them to carry J1 lineages? I've looked into this and it seems that Sudanese Arabs (Nubians mixed with Arabs) have substantial J1 lineages but this does not seem to be the case for the other Nubian groups - Nubians that are not Arab.
You would have a strong case if these J1 lineages were found in the predynastic and dynastic remains of Nubians. That Sudanese Arabs (a recent group) have J1 lineages cannot be used to assert that ancient Nubians in Egypt and Sudan had J1 lineages -- at least not in the frequency observed in Sudanese Arabs.
People here are talking about Eurasian Soqotri type people being present (and possibly dominating) Upper Egypt and only then mixing with "incoming" Sudanese populations - as though we have evidence of any Eurasian populations being there first.
Your ancestors were from Sudan right? and maybe your were born there? So what do you think of the idea that "Nubian' is a term that shouldn't be used?
Also:
quote:
wikipedia:
Nubians
In 2015, Sirak et al. also analysed the ancient DNA of a Christian-period inhabitant of Kulubnarti in Nubia. The scientists found that the medieval specimen was most closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Further excavations of two Early Christian period (AD 550-800) cemeteries at Kulubnarti, one located on the mainland and the other on an island, revealed the existence of two ancestrally and socioeconomically distinct local populations. Ancient DNA analysis of specimens from these burial sites found that the mainland samples predominantly carried European and Near Eastern mtDNA clades, such as the K1, H, I5, and U1 lineages; only 36.4% of the mainland individuals belonged to African-based maternal haplogroups. By contrast, 70% of the specimens at the island burial site bore African-based clades, among which were the L2, L1 and L5 mtDNA haplogroups
Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.
As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a last hope for Ancient Egyptians having SSA DNA
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1
A trump card for what?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nubia is not in 'SSA'.
Ethiopia and Somalia are in 'SSA' at the exact same latitude as Gabon & Cameroon.
STRs show living Somalis matching Amarna's. So there's your 'SSA' DNA in Ancient Egypt.
The fact is, Sudanis and 'SSAs' followed fertile landscapes into the Sahara region ~10,000 yrs ago.
They created the Sudani-Saharo Neolithic.
~6000 years ago these Sudani & some of the others moved into the Nile Valley sparking the civilization we call Ancient Egypt.
North Africans were conquered and forced to join the Ancient Egyptian state founded by Nile Valley Sudanis. North Africans had jack shit to do with it except a small part in what was to become Middle Egypt.
Relying on North Africa is "a roundabout way to establish a white, Mediterranean origin for Egyptian civilization."
posted
You see I dont think this is necessarily the case most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians. At the same time I can see where you are coming from as Mainstream Egyptology and Anthropology seems to blatantly ignore the Green Sahara civilizations and origins/connections to Egypt. If they did they'd have to admit that at least some if not all of Egypt's culture started in Africa and that so called Nubians(Nilites) and Lybians(Berbers)were responsible for the creation of Egypt as much as Tawny/Leukoderm North African types.
Here is a good though low budget documentary that sums it up
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.
Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.
But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".
No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".
Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
Agreed and welcome back.
Just pointing out the obvious that this new round of DNA studies hasn't really changed the status quo as far as the status quo is concerned. To "mainstream" science AE was a transplant from somewhere outside of Africa. Everything they have done since Napoleon has been to reinforce that view in one way or another. Using selective DNA and arbitrary non-historical terms like "Nubian" is part of that.
This is why they have not sampled or published any actual DNA from remains in ancient Upper Egypt and Sudan. It would go against the narrative they are trying to tell that this region was the boundary between "black Africans" as represented by so-called "nubia" and "other" as represented by the AE.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.
As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.
.
,
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies
As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom) they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC. There are four more J2 carriers
**note this is mtDNA J2 not the more familiar Y DNA J
quote:
Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).
---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please list the Libyan contributions to the formation of Ancient Egyptian civilization.
Ancient Egypt is Sudani Nile Valley civilization. Ancient Egypt is not 'Berber' North African civilization.
AEs shunned North Africa as desert chaos ghostland never including it in Kemet. Nubia was considered Kemet.
Libyans play little if any part in AE until after the New Kingdom after beaten into submission by Ramses and other pharaohs. And still no civilizing influence from them. They adopted AE culture 2000 years after it's Sudani creation. So how is AE a North African civilization?
Where is anything written like The North African cultures of this period, which are found as far west as Casablanca, are not sharply distinct from those of Egypt. There was probably exchange over the whole area and no central political authority. The cultural demarcation with the Libyan, which becomes notable west of the delta in Naqada II probably accompanies the beginning of state organization in Egypt.
Sorry to bog quick lipped posts down by taking time to actually research and quote from a real book. I know that's not where ES is at now but I'm a 20th century 2nd millennium fossil into Africana 21 centuries 3 millennia Anno Domini.
posted
Can we really ascribe the formation of AE to Berbers? It was started in the South by people whose ultimate origin is in central Sudan. Virtually every material feature of AE was a product of the South. Every other group came later. It's absurd to now pretend that it's been demonstrated that "tawny" North African types created AE and that all that is left now is to parcel Southern peoples with equal credit.
That's inverted and perverse. What other civilization is treated this way? Look at how quickly the demographics are changing in the US and that should help people contextualise what happened in certain regions of Egypt over a 5k year period.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.
As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.
.
,
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies
As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom) they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC. There are four more J2 carriers but of later periods and no J1s
quote:
Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).
---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa
We've gone over this before, lioness
These samples were from Northern Egypt and are samples following a long period of foreign domination (political & perhaps demographic) in the North by the Canaanites and then the Hyksos. The Upper Egyptians of that time had to grapple with Eurasian invasions, *settlements* and domination from the 12th Dynasty until the 18th Dynasty.
The Abusir mummies could be the descendants of Levantine invaders and some coastal Berbers. Copts are probably descended from this mixture.
If they can get early Dynasty Southern Egyptian samples (as large as the Abusir study) and they show the same profile as the Abusir mummies... then I'll be convinced.
I don't trust Europeans when it comes to African history, because they still have a strong anti-African bias in their studies. Westerners are trying to find, insert and glorify themselves in African history.
Swenet has done a tremendous job exposing their bias and deception; they do this by ignoring certain things, play dumb or fail to contextualise.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you got me wrong, I dont think Tawny types created A/E Im saying this is what Egyptology believes which goes against Dougs comment that they consider A/E as coming from non Africans. Like I said the mainstream Egyptology view is A/E=Modern Egypt.
Also when I say Berbers I mean Native Lybians or Green Saharan people, not necessarily modern day Berbers.
A/E was a product of the South....Ok but Where in the South? I think it was various sites in the south that contributed to A.Egyptian culture
I think A.Egypt was a product of Northern, Western, Southern, and Nile Valley Dwelling Africans.
I get what you are saying though, what got me about this whole Abusir study was the various sensational titles that suggested that A/E was somehow a transplant out of Africa that Even Modern Egyptians were not the true creators of A.Egypt. I read articles claiming that Egyptology was going to have to "Redefine" everything etc. As if the DNA of some late dynastic mummies from one site in Egypt will overturn the mountain of evidence that proves A.Egypt was a native product of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Can we really ascribe the formation of AE to Berbers? It was started in the South by people whose ultimate origin is in central Sudan. Virtually every material feature of AE was a product of the South. Every other group came later. It's absurd to now pretend that it's been demonstrated that "tawny" North African types created AE and that all that is left now is to parcel Southern peoples with equal credit.
That's inverted and perverse. What other civilization is treated this way? Look at how quickly the demographics are changing in the US and that should help people contextualise what happened in certain regions of Egypt over a 5k year period.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the Green Saharans? Wan Muhuggiag, Gilf Kebbir, etc.
Do you guys not consider these places as significant to the formation of Kemet?
What else should we call these Africans who resided in Egypts western frontiers if not Lybians?
Dont get me wrong I dont think North Africans created A/E, I only brought up North Africans because this is what Egyptology believes and teaches.
I mean we have the Qutsul Incense Burner in A Group Nubian rulers grave. A/E was created both Old, New( and even Late Dynasty by 25th Kushites) by Africans from Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan... No amount of sensationalist Late Dynasty mummies will over turn that..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Please list the Libyan contributions to the formation of Ancient Egyptian civilization.
Ancient Egypt is Sudani Nile Valley civilization. Ancient Egypt is not 'Berber' North African civilization.
AEs shunned North Africa as desert chaos ghostland never including it in Kemet. Nubia was considered Kemet.
Libyans play little if any part in AE until after the New Kingdom after beaten into submission by Ramses and other pharaohs. And still no civilizing influence from them. They adopted AE culture 2000 years after it's Sudani creation. So how is AE a North African civilization?
Nile Valley culture runs south to north. Do I have to list them or one can pick up Baines & Màlek's book for those details and read:
narcotic two forms the turning point in the development of pre-dynastic Egypt. It is the first culture to have contacts with other countries, while it's spread over the entire Nile Valley North of Gible El silsila and into the delta. There is also social stratification and a development of significant population centers notably here accomplice copters Nakata and are reduced. It is on the other hand the last. During which there was some cultural uniformity extending south of the first cataract. The Nubian cultures of this. With your found as far south as cartoon, are not shopping distinct from those of Egypt. There was probably exchange over the whole area and no Central political Authority. The cultural demarcation with the Nubian a group, which becomes notable south of Gamal El silsila in the Carter 2, probably a company's the beginning of State organization in Egypt and the definition of a political Frontier. This process leads into the early dynastic period, and which Egypt is United, within boundaries comprable to those of later periods, under a single ruler. There is no sharp cultural break between the Carter 2 and the early dynastic period, even though the transformation over the centuries is almost total.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You see I dont think this is necessarily the case most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians.
Do you have a quote of the past 10 years of an Egyptologists saying this?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn Saharan pump.
quote:What about the Green Saharans? Wan Muhuggiag, Gilf Kebbir, etc.
Sudani not Libyan. From the old Cambridge. From the Maroc/W Sahara border to Libya's Awbari and onto Al Jawf, everything south of that line is Sudani culture not Libyan.
Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic culture. This is not about colour and facial features. It's about culture, and Amazigh culture of any time period bears not even the slightest resemblance to Nile Valley cultures of any time period.
The Nile Valley is not North Africa. It is East African and not desert. The Nile is East Africa's desert oasis.
A Great Lake is one Nile source. The Great Lakes begin in Malawi East Africa. The White Nile issues from Lake 'Albert', Uganda and the DRCongo.
Ethiopia is home to two of the remaining major sources of the Nile, Lake Tana's Blue Nile and the all important silt bearing Black Nile or Atbara river.
Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.
As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.
.
,
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies
As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom) they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC. There are four more J2 carriers but of later periods and no J1s
quote:
Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).
---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa
We've gone over this before, lioness
These samples were from Northern Egypt and are samples following a long period of foreign domination (political & perhaps demographic) in the North by the Canaanites and then the Hyksos. The Upper Egyptians of that time had to grapple with Eurasian invasions, *settlements* and domination from the 12th Dynasty until the 18th Dynasty.
The Abusir mummies could be the descendants of Levantine invaders and some coastal Berbers. Copts are probably descended from this mixture.
If they can get early Dynasty Southern Egyptian samples (as large as the Abusir study) and they show the same profile as the Abusir mummies... then I'll be convinced.
I don't trust Europeans when it comes to African history, because they still have a strong anti-African bias in their studies. Westerners are trying to find, insert and glorify themselves in African history.
Swenet has done a tremendous job exposing their bias and deception; they do this by ignoring certain things, play dumb or fail to contextualise.
I went back to my post and deleted the remark I made about J1 because that was mtDNA J2 not the more familiar Y DNA J2
Now as regarding YDNA they did analyze three of the mummies
So we have the uniparental :
sample
JK2134 Y DNA J mtDNA J1d
JK2888 YDNA E1b1b1a1a2 mtDNA U6a2
JK2911 YDNA J mtDNA M1a1
__________________________
This article is not enough to make generalizations about the ancient Egyptians but the authors did anyway
I'm just just showing the raw data again with the Y DNA
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
you can easily find the Egyptologist view on the race of the Egyptians. They believe Ancient Egypt=Modern Egypt in terms of race, if you dont know that then I dont know what to say,
Here is what head-hancho Egyptologist has to say....
"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.
"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa,"
If you're gonna play dense lioness Im just going to ignore you.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again what do you want me to call these people...??
I chose Lybians because its the name of African people who came from the Western Fringes of Egypt
has nothing to do with Amingza people, I f-ked up by using "Berber" in that comment, but other than indigenous North-western Africans I dont know of any other label to use to refer to them.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn Saharan pump.
Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic culture. This is not about colour it's about culture and Amazigh culture of any time period bears not the slightest resemblance to Nile Valley culture of any time period.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians.
I don't think so. You found a Hawass quote from 2007. I said past 10 years
I don't think recent Egyptologists are all saying things like this. Most try to avoid getting into the socio-polictal constructs "white" and "black". If you look at recent books by professional Egyptologist many of them do consider southern influence, stop straw manning
** exception, this Abusir study where they try to use it to make too broad generalizations
And remember it was the Hawass team that predicted Ramses III E1b1a in 2012
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Again what do you want me to call these people...??
I chose Lybians because its the name of African people who came from the Western Fringes of Egypt
has nothing to do with Amingza people, I f-ked up by using "Berber" in that comment, but other than indigenous North-western Africans I dont know of any other label to use to refer to them.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn Saharan pump.
Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic culture. This is not about colour it's about culture and Amazigh culture of any time period bears not the slightest resemblance to Nile Valley culture of any time period.
Unlike North Africa Egypt was following a river
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I read some of the postings. Kind of sad that some people are more interested in putting people down than actually seeking truth. Further more, I wonder if such persons have ever really worked on a science research team. (Primary research)
I will try to set some facts straight concerning current DNA studies lead by German scientist Johannes Straus. He is a Professor at the University of Tubingen and the Director of Paleogenetics at the Max Planck Institute. Max Planck Association(Genetics ,Human Evolution and Eugenics), has a long history of science fraud, including the falsification of data, statistical manipulations to support preconceived conclusions and just out right lying. The Max Plank/Keiser Wilhelm Association was founded on Scientific Racism. (See Eugene Fischer and Ernest Rudin) This falsification of Science formed the basis of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Regime. As a result of Psychotic Psychologist, and deranged geneticist, Hitler's Nazi government was able to justify the murder of millions of people, including women and children. It is interesting to note here, that the University of Tubingen created some of the most murderous medical doctors the world has ever seen. Tubingen doctors and professors were responsible for the murders of hundreds of innocent children, in Nazi Germany (in the name of Racial Hygiene). Right now Max Planck Association in Germany is in the middle of "Damage Control", trying to apologies for all the "dirty science" and Nazi Associations that have come to light. Not to mention the brains of Auschwitz victims that were found in their lab refrigerators in 2017. (Can't make this sh-- up!) Max Planck Associations have recruited former Nazi presidents during the periods of 1945 to 1972. A great many of their presidents were directly associated with the murder of thousands of people during the Nazi era of Racial Hygiene. (Scientific Murder) In conclusion, Max Planck DNA studies are suspect. Mormon controlled DNA science is suspect. The Mormons entertain racist, white supremacy doctrines and philosophies. The Nazis entertain racist, white supremacy ideologies. I simply cant trust their brand of science. Nor will I trust the KKK or even the Arch Bishop of California! Oops! Hotep!
Posts: 46 | From: Berkeley Ca | Registered: Aug 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
It's not about our personal beliefs. It's about what we can make a case for. And based on familiarity with the data I know you will have a hard time proving there was substantial "added SSA" ancestry in Egypt in between the Natufian period and the formative period of Pharaonic Egyptians. There is certainly no evidence for more added SSA ancestry than added Eurasian ancestry in any period after that (except the Post-Ptolemaic increase of ~20% SSA announced in the 2017 paper).
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Sue me...
surely there was some SSA ancestry mediated through nubian pastoral culture/nabta playa?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
If you go there and click at the top "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods"
it goes to the original 2017 article:
Abstract Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes....
___________________
Now scroll down near the end:
__________________ Supplementary Material
Supplementary Data 1: Sample Name
Click here to view. ___________________
click that and you can see the samples
take note, the first place on the chart #1 is not one of the mummies It says: 1. Sample Name/Haplgroup/Date
So the count of 91 is reduced by that heading which occupies the top spot. This corresponds exactly to the chart I posted based on this
I don't know why the L3f1b one is not on that Y-full site but they only list 87 and I have shown that they originally published a 90 sample, not 91 just disregard the numbers. The numbers are irrelevant to why that L3f1b is in the Y-full but not in the 2017 study
If you want to pursue it further I can give you some email address on the pm
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic