quote:The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
I didn't feel this would get a lot of focus in the other thread so I'm posting it here. I don't think he put an exact date to admixture, but it appears they imply they on some level did that sort of analysis to both compare it to Pagani and to discuss the role of foreign inflow. The date of the increase of admixture in lower Egypt seems to suggest
a. Lower Egypt always had some outside influence or Northern Africa was perhaps the never reliant on people from Eurasia migrating for certain haplogroups to be present (I think some people here seem to be of that stance, and would like them to explain what data supports that position). But unless some kind of bottleneck happened how are the genetic groups described in the study increasing 1,000 years after state formation?
b. This influence which the author seems to presume is foreign in the context of early dynastic Egypt/Old kingdom increased in the Second Millennium B.C which is probably why the authors of this study attribute it to foreign migrations from the East. Considering that they mention Abusir had been occupied 1,000 years before the date of admixture (3,200 B.C) noticeable differences in genetic composition 1,000 years later was probably assumed to be the result of foreigners. The author mentions the Hyksos/Canaanites.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do people make of the very plausible inference that these samples are of Levantine settlers in Northern Egypt? Could they be a derivative mixture of in-migrating-invading Canaanites, Hyksos, Phoenicians and others that gradually adopted the culture of the indigenous Egyptians at the heels of their conquest and subsequent settlement in the North?
As you all very well know, the Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.
I very much doubt that their progeny were expelled. So, could the Copts be descendants of these Asiatics?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What do people make of the very plausible inference that these samples are of Levantine settlers in Northern Egypt? Could they be a derivative mixture of in-migrating-invading Canaanites, Hyksos, Phoenicians and others that gradually adopted the culture of the indigenous Egyptians at the heels of their conquest and subsequent settlement in the North?
As you all very well know, the Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.
I very much doubt that their progeny were expelled. So, could the Copts be descendants of these Asiatics?
The Egyptian empire extended into the Levant starting in the Middle Kingdom (if not prior) and lasted right up to the late period. So one should assume that populations from lands in the empire would be able to move into certain parts of Egypt. Not sure how much that says about the level of mixing within the Egyptian population at large.
posted
The influences that plausibly came from places outside of Africa had always been present in northern Egypt. The idea that people migrating into northern Africa never happened until Greece and Rome or even the Canaanites is absurdity. Some of that mixture dates to prehistory. Meaning that predynastic northern Egypt (with it's small numbers) might've had something of a founder effect. But anyway, the researchers are noting that that the degree of lineages they've attributed to OOA in that part of Egypt (minimum) increased near 2,000 B.C. Why are the researchers talking about foreign mixture playing a major role if the mixture we see from 1,300 B.C was the same as it'd been from the 3,200 B.C? It would've been nice to see the coalescence dates so that we could evaluate.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop trying to perpetuate the myth that the Levant was independent of Egyptian control.
The Hyksos only ruled Egypt for 108 years, while the Egyptians had dominated the Levant since the Naqada period. In the Delta, the cities like Abusir were occupied by Egyptians, the Asians were basically nomads.
The Egyptians had long been established in the Levant, especially southern Canaan since the Naqada period. The Dynastic Egyptians were also in control of this area.This is supported by the presence of Egyptian seal impressions, cylinder seals, ivory label and serekh marks from southern Canaan. This indicates the Egyptians in governing positions.
During the Old Kingdom the Egyptians were still dominating the Levant. Byblos was a center of Egyptian commerce and settlement. As late as 1300 BC, the King of Byblos Rib Adda, between 1380-1360 BC recognized the Egyptian heritage of the people of Byblos.
.. . The Egyptians established numerous colonies after they drove the Hyksos out of the Egyptian Delta. The Egyptians established more colonies between 1550- 1100, much of the Levant was re-conquered by Egyptians. The Egyptians were the major group in the Phoenician cities . They controlled Byblos, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre. Due to Egyptian control the Phoenicians spent their time spreading Egyptian culture.
.
.
Given the long history of Egyptians living in the Delta and Levant especially the urban areas, there is no way you can claim that the Egyptians at Abusir were descendants of the Hyksos when Egyptians had dominated the region for millennia, and pushed the Hyksos out of the delta 600 years before 900BC.
The Copts are probably descendants of Egyptians, who mated with Greco-Romans and later the Turks when they were Christians.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.
Before the Egyptians the Natufians had settled the Levant by 4000BC. The Natufians came from East Africa.
There is no way these people were Asians, instead of Egyptians. The Asians were mainly nomadic people. The Egyptians had been established in the Levant since the Naqada period.
.
. The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.
The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.
In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time: Haplogroup Frequency U.......... 18.5 T.......... 22.2 J ..........18.5 X.......... 0.0675 M1a....... 0.0675 H ..........0.0675 I........... 0.0675 HV......... 0.037 RO......... 0.037 K........... 0.037 N.......... 0.037
The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.
In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian mtDNA. We know that these are African clades because there is no evidence of a massive migration of Eurasians into Egypt until the Greco-Roman period as supported by the research in Schuenemann et al.
Reference:
Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
. The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt.
The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is not a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What do people make of the very plausible inference that these samples are of Levantine settlers in Northern Egypt? Could they be a derivative mixture of in-migrating-invading Canaanites, Hyksos, Phoenicians and others that gradually adopted the culture of the indigenous Egyptians at the heels of their conquest and subsequent settlement in the North?
As you all very well know, the Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.
I very much doubt that their progeny were expelled. So, could the Copts be descendants of these Asiatics?
It's possible that around by 1,800 B.C it'd be incorrect to discuss Egypt as one kingdom and civilization. The problem with calling the 14th dynasty "the 14th dynasty" is that it gets tricky here it seems. Researchers debate on when this period began and when it did it's described as foreign ruled Egypt. Even calling the Hyksos rule "dynastic Egypt" seems strange because it gives this notion to people with little understanding of Egyptian history the idea that rule was continuous among the Natives. I'm just starting to understand the debate about the 14th dynasty for reasons like this. Apparently Canaan had established itself within Egypt. Depending on the researcher dates can go back from 1,800-1700. But the idea is that Canaan established a separate kingdom within Egypt in the eastern Nile Delta.
However on the page for the 14th dynasty (on wikipedia) goes into the nature of this in more detail. It's saying Egyptologist Kim Ryholt proposes that the 14th dynasty emerged during the late 12th dynasty, c. 1805 BC, during or shortly after Sobekneferu's rule. (source is going to be needed). Ryholt (again according to wiki provides the above citation) says that by the 14th dynasty was a Cannanite controlled Egypt contemporary to the 13th dynasty took control of the Delta:
Kim Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, Museum Tusculanum Press, (1997)
They mention that some do contest this though. Or rather they insist that his methodology cannot conclusively conclude this:
quote:This hypothesis is not shared by some Egyptologists such as Manfred Bietak, Daphna Ben Tor and James and Susan Allen, who argue that the 14th dynasty cannot have emerged before the mid 13th dynasty, c. 1720 BC, after the reign of Sobekhotep IV.[2][3] In particular, they argue that the evidence from the strata levels in which 14th dynasty seals were discovered conclusively establishes that the 14th dynasty was only contemporary with the 13th dynasty in the last half century of the latter's existence, i.e. after c. 1700 BC. Additionally, Manfred Bietak has dated the inscriptions and monuments of Nehesy, possibly the second ruler of the dynasty, to around 1700 BC as well[4]
[2]Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 315, 1999, pp.47-73.4
[3] Janine Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC)" in Ian Shaw (ed.) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2000. pp.192 & 194
[4] Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period," pp.178-179, 181
Depending on the coalescence date, Ryholt may find data that backs his initial hypothesis, since Canaanite influence into the region may have predated a formal takeover of the delta. It really depends on when. If the coalescence date is later (around 1700), it would corroborate other theorists. When the authors of the study (posted on nature) talk about foreign influences, what they mean by "around 2,000" BC will do much to give us an idea on who may be correct regarding the gaps in our knowledge of the 14th dynasty most especially.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The iconography makes it clear that Canaan was dominated by the Egyptians. There is no evidence that all the Egyptians migrated out of Canaan as a result many Canaanites were of Egyptians ancestry.
As a result, this idea that "Asians", were the only people in Canaan is ludicrous.
In fact most of the people in Mesopotamia and Canaan were Kushites.
The vast majority of Asians were Kushites. The Kushites ruled much of the Middle East, all the way to China. The people in Canaan or Palestine were Kushites and Phoenicians. There is no evidence that the original Egyptians that settled Canaan ever migrated back into Egypt in mass. This view is supported by the Egyptian artefacts found in Canaan that support the domination of this area.
The people of Nubia are mostly associated with the name Kushite. The Kushites were the C-Group culture group, worshipers of Amon and Neith . The Egyptian term for these people was K-'-sh and K-'-sh-i. The Hebrews called them Kush. In the cuneiform inscriptions the Sudanese were called Kushiya.
The Kushites originally belonged to the Maa confederation. The Maaites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia called themselves Kushites.
As a result of this Kushite origin in Asia we find many place names with the term Kush, e.g.,the Kushana of Central Asia, Kashmere and Hindu Kush .
The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".
The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China. The Kushites are known in history as bowmen and great sailors. These Kushites called Group-A and Group C by archaeologists founded the earliest empire in the World, in Nubia. The first recorded empire on earth was located at Qustul, Nubia around 3300 B.C.. This is over a hundred years earlier than the founding of the Egyptian Empire.
This empire was called Ta-Seti, or the Land of the Bow.It was clear that the government and writing usually associated with Egypt was first invented in Nubia, and later carried down the Nile into Egypt. The people of Ta-Seti, were called "Steu" or "bowmen". The Egyptians called the area around Kush Tata-Neter "God's land". The Kushites took the name Kush to many regions they settled in Asia.
The most important Kushite colony was ancient Elam, i.e., hatam (Khaltam). The capital city of Elam, was called Kussi by the Elamites. In Akkadian,Elam was called Giz-bam or "the land of the bow". The ancient Chinese tribes called the Elamites:Kashti. Moreover, in the Bible in Jeremiah (xlxx,35) we find "bow of Elam".
Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains. Hatians also lived in ancient Palestine
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
Singer has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians .
Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related . The Hatti were probably members of the Tehenu tribes.
The Tehenu was composed of various ethnic groups. One of the Tehenu tribes was identified by the Egyptians as the Hatiu or Haltiu.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” . These Hatiu, may correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
The Hyksos/ Hykussos, were Hattians or Kashkas. in otherwords they were Kushites. This is obvious in their name Hykussos.That is why the Hyksos / Hykussos expected the Kushites in Nubia to support them in their war with the Egyptians.
The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara, before they conquered Egypt. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What do people make of the very plausible inference that these samples are of Levantine settlers in Northern Egypt? Could they be a derivative mixture of in-migrating-invading Canaanites, Hyksos, Phoenicians and others that gradually adopted the culture of the indigenous Egyptians at the heels of their conquest and subsequent settlement in the North?
As you all very well know, the Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.
I very much doubt that their progeny were expelled. So, could the Copts be descendants of these Asiatics?
It's possible that around by 1,800 B.C it'd be incorrect to discuss Egypt as one kingdom and civilization. The problem with calling the 14th dynasty "the 14th dynasty" is that it gets tricky here it seems. Researchers debate on when this period began and when it did it's described as foreign ruled Egypt. Even calling the Hyksos rule "dynastic Egypt" seems strange because it gives this notion to people with little understanding of Egyptian history the idea that rule was continuous among the Natives. I'm just starting to understand the debate about the 14th dynasty for reasons like this. Apparently Canaan had established itself within Egypt. Depending on the researcher dates can go back from 1,800-1700. But the idea is that Canaan established a separate kingdom within Egypt in the eastern Nile Delta.
However on the page for the 14th dynasty (on wikipedia) goes into the nature of this in more detail. It's saying Egyptologist Kim Ryholt proposes that the 14th dynasty emerged during the late 12th dynasty, c. 1805 BC, during or shortly after Sobekneferu's rule. (source is going to be needed). Ryholt (again according to wiki provides the above citation) says that by the 14th dynasty was a Cannanite controlled Egypt contemporary to the 13th dynasty took control of the Delta:
Kim Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, Museum Tusculanum Press, (1997)
They mention that some do contest this though. Or rather they insist that his methodology cannot conclusively conclude this:
quote:This hypothesis is not shared by some Egyptologists such as Manfred Bietak, Daphna Ben Tor and James and Susan Allen, who argue that the 14th dynasty cannot have emerged before the mid 13th dynasty, c. 1720 BC, after the reign of Sobekhotep IV.[2][3] In particular, they argue that the evidence from the strata levels in which 14th dynasty seals were discovered conclusively establishes that the 14th dynasty was only contemporary with the 13th dynasty in the last half century of the latter's existence, i.e. after c. 1700 BC. Additionally, Manfred Bietak has dated the inscriptions and monuments of Nehesy, possibly the second ruler of the dynasty, to around 1700 BC as well[4]
[2]Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 315, 1999, pp.47-73.4
[3] Janine Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC)" in Ian Shaw (ed.) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2000. pp.192 & 194
[4] Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period," pp.178-179, 181
Depending on the coalescence date, Ryholt may find data that backs his initial hypothesis, since Canaanite influence into the region may have predated a formal takeover of the delta. It really depends on when. If the coalescence date is later (around 1700), it would corroborate other theorists. When the authors of the study (posted on nature) talk about foreign influences, what they mean by "around 2,000" BC will do much to give us an idea on who may be correct regarding the gaps in our knowledge of the 14th dynasty most especially.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. The Egyptian influence into Canaan and the Levant extends back into the Old Kingdom. Part of the reason for the Hyksos invasion was that prior influence from Egypt. So it wouldn't be shocking the Egyptians allowed some "Near Eastern" populations (assuming we know they are from the Levant) to settle in some Northern towns. That in and of itself is not really that shocking or far fetched. So in my mind the question becomes did this presences originate in the old kingdom with settlements allowed by the state or are they the result of invasions or both. The point being that after the Egyptian state was formed their borders were relatively well controlled so large migrations of populations just couldn't happen without notice.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's one thing for Egyptian influence to be in the Levant. But what is the historical precedent from other disciplines for Canaanite influence within Egypt geographically? These events apparently got the authors to suggest Canaanite influences. the interesting thing about what Ryholt said is that Canaan influence extended into the Delta population, which then helped to make secession possible.
According to Ryholt in the preview:
quote: Fourteenth Dynasty: Canaanite kings with their residence at Avaris contemporary with the Thirteenth Dynasty. The dynasty came into being when the Canaanite population in the Delta proclaimed its own ruler during the reign of Nofrusobk, after having gradually seceded from the rest of Egypt during the late Twelfth Dynasty. The rise of this dissident dynasty and the subsequent division of Egypt ushered in the Second Intermediate Period The dynasty falls with the conquest of Avaris by the Fifteenth Dynasty.
The authors of the main paper we're discussing noted that influences date all the way back to prehistory. So I'm very aware that influences go back prior to the 2nd millennium B.C. But what they said that was so interesting was that the coalescence for an uptick of influences they attribute to foreigners comes with this time period of Egyptian history. It's a period of history where there's still seems to be considerable conflicts about hat happened. The Hyksos were able to take over as they did because Egypt had already been divided and suffering famines by the time they got there. Canaanite secession of Egypt was also as he describes a gradual process which means that they'd probably been (geographically) settling within the Delta well before they formally took over.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: It's one thing for Egyptian influence to be in the Levant. But what is the historical precedent from other disciplines for Canaanite influence within Egypt geographically? These events apparently got the authors to suggest Canaanite influences. the interesting thing about what Ryholt said is that Canaan influence extended into the Delta population, which then helped to make secession possible.
According to Ryholt in the preview:
quote: Fourteenth Dynasty: Canaanite kings with their residence at Avaris contemporary with the Thirteenth Dynasty. The dynasty came into being when the Canaanite population in the Delta proclaimed its own ruler during the reign of Nofrusobk, after having gradually seceded from the rest of Egypt during the late Twelfth Dynasty. The rise of this dissident dynasty and the subsequent division of Egypt ushered in the Second Intermediate Period The dynasty falls with the conquest of Avaris by the Fifteenth Dynasty.
The authors of the main paper we're discussing noted that influences date all the way back to prehistory. So I'm very aware that influences go back prior to the 2nd millennium B.C. But what they said that was so interesting was that the coalescence for an uptick of influences they attribute to foreigners comes with this time period of Egyptian history. It's a period of history where there's still seems to be considerable conflicts about hat happened. The Hyksos were able to take over as they did because Egypt had already been divided and suffering famines by the time they got there. Canaanite secession of Egypt was also as he describes a gradual process which means that they'd probably been (geographically) settling within the Delta well before they formally took over.
The Hyksos were Kushites namely Hatti, that had settled much of Palestine and Anatolia.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” . These Hatiu, correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti/Hurrian people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
During the Old Kingdom the Kushites were also called heqa khasut, "ruler(s) of the foreign countries".
Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.
The hyksos according to Bright, John (2000). "A History of Israel". Westminster John Knox Press ( p.60 ); and Drews, Robert (1 October 1994). "The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East". Princeton University Press(p.254 ) included Hurrians/Hattians.
The heqa khasut, "ruler(s) of the foreign countries" or Hyksos/ Hykussos, were Hattians or Kashkas. in otherwords they were Kushites. This is obvious in their name khasut which corresponds to Kaska. The name heqa khasut, was first used by the Old Kingdom to refer to the Kushite Nubian chieftains. That is why the Hyksos / Hykussos expected the Kushites in Nubia to support them in their war with the Egyptians.
quote:
Carnarvon Tablet I, and mentions the interception and capture of a courier bearing a message from Apepi at Avaris to his ally, the ruler of the Kingdom of Kush (modern Sudan), requesting the latter's urgent support against the threat posed by Kamose's activities against both their kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: It's one thing for Egyptian influence to be in the Levant. But what is the historical precedent from other disciplines for Canaanite influence within Egypt geographically? These events apparently got the authors to suggest Canaanite influences. the interesting thing about what Ryholt said is that Canaan influence extended into the Delta population, which then helped to make secession possible.
According to Ryholt in the preview:
quote: Fourteenth Dynasty: Canaanite kings with their residence at Avaris contemporary with the Thirteenth Dynasty. The dynasty came into being when the Canaanite population in the Delta proclaimed its own ruler during the reign of Nofrusobk, after having gradually seceded from the rest of Egypt during the late Twelfth Dynasty. The rise of this dissident dynasty and the subsequent division of Egypt ushered in the Second Intermediate Period The dynasty falls with the conquest of Avaris by the Fifteenth Dynasty.
The authors of the main paper we're discussing noted that influences date all the way back to prehistory. So I'm very aware that influences go back prior to the 2nd millennium B.C. But what they said that was so interesting was that the coalescence for an uptick of influences they attribute to foreigners comes with this time period of Egyptian history. It's a period of history where there's still seems to be considerable conflicts about hat happened. The Hyksos were able to take over as they did because Egypt had already been divided and suffering famines by the time they got there. Canaanite secession of Egypt was also as he describes a gradual process which means that they'd probably been (geographically) settling within the Delta well before they formally took over.
Then I believe we are in agreement. It is widely understood that the first intermediate period was an era when Northern portions of Egypt came under domination from Levantine tribes who probably were vassals for the Egyptians at some point. The weakness of the northern borders allowed for large scale incursions at time and is a big reason why later Middle Kingdom borders were reinforced and control over the Levant pushed further North. Seems as if those populations of Levantines stayed put notwithstanding the rise of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom.
posted
The Hyksos were called heqa khasut see:The World in Ancient Times: The ancient Egyptian world, by Oup Book.
I presented the following points in support of the Kushite origin of the heqa khasut:
1. I cited Drew and Bright, who said the Hyksos included Hurrians and Hattians; nationalities who said they were Kushites.
2.The primary evidence includes the Turin Royal Canon calling the Hyksos: heqa khasut, the same name they called the other Kushites in Nubia, during the Old Kingdom. Cite other text where this term was applied to other nations. The first four rulers of the Hyksos called themselves heqa khasut on their seals and a monumental doorjamb from Avaris. The Hyksos worshiped Ra.
3. Hyksos Kings were proud of their Kushite origin. in the Hyksos seals, the Kings wrote their names followed by the "Heqa Khasut". This indicates to me that the Hyksos used this name to illustrate their relationship to the Nubian Kushites. See; A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
4.The Kushite origin of the Hyksos is obvious in their name khasut which corresponds to Kaska.
5.I showed how the Hurrian and Hattian language is related to languages spoken by the Kushites.
6.The heqa khasut and Kushites in Nubia were allies. Name any other Lower Egyptians the Kushites claimed as their allies.
7. The name of Hyksos king Khyan have been found at Hattusa in Anatolia. Hatusa was a Hattian city.See: A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
8. Many sealings found in Kerma, the main Kushite city, include the names of Hyksos ruler. See; A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i thought you made a new thread about this hypothesis???? We're talking about mixture that came around the second millennium or before. The Hyksos took over around mid 1600s B.C.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: i thought you made a new thread about this hypothesis???? We're talking about mixture that came around the second millennium or before. The Hyksos took over around mid 1600s B.C.
You began the discussion of the Hyksos, that's why we are discussing it. For the life of me I can't remember a large movement of people into the Delta 4kya.
The two major invasions into the Delta were the Hyksos and People of the Sea. Both events took place after 2000.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Winters had to ruin yet another thread with his lunacy. The Hyksos were a Eurasian population in Cannan. These Levantine peoples were not Kushites and no credible historian affirms this.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What do people make of the very plausible inference that these samples are of Levantine settlers in Northern Egypt? Could they be a derivative mixture of in-migrating-invading Canaanites, Hyksos, Phoenicians and others that gradually adopted the culture of the indigenous Egyptians at the heels of their conquest and subsequent settlement in the North?
As you all very well know, the Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.
I very much doubt that their progeny were expelled. So, could the Copts be descendants of these Asiatics?
It's possible that around by 1,800 B.C it'd be incorrect to discuss Egypt as one kingdom and civilization. The problem with calling the 14th dynasty "the 14th dynasty" is that it gets tricky here it seems. Researchers debate on when this period began and when it did it's described as foreign ruled Egypt. Even calling the Hyksos rule "dynastic Egypt" seems strange because it gives this notion to people with little understanding of Egyptian history the idea that rule was continuous among the Natives. I'm just starting to understand the debate about the 14th dynasty for reasons like this. Apparently Canaan had established itself within Egypt. Depending on the researcher dates can go back from 1,800-1700. But the idea is that Canaan established a separate kingdom within Egypt in the eastern Nile Delta.
However on the page for the 14th dynasty (on wikipedia) goes into the nature of this in more detail. It's saying Egyptologist Kim Ryholt proposes that the 14th dynasty emerged during the late 12th dynasty, c. 1805 BC, during or shortly after Sobekneferu's rule. (source is going to be needed). Ryholt (again according to wiki provides the above citation) says that by the 14th dynasty was a Cannanite controlled Egypt contemporary to the 13th dynasty took control of the Delta:
Kim Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, Museum Tusculanum Press, (1997)
They mention that some do contest this though. Or rather they insist that his methodology cannot conclusively conclude this:
quote:This hypothesis is not shared by some Egyptologists such as Manfred Bietak, Daphna Ben Tor and James and Susan Allen, who argue that the 14th dynasty cannot have emerged before the mid 13th dynasty, c. 1720 BC, after the reign of Sobekhotep IV.[2][3] In particular, they argue that the evidence from the strata levels in which 14th dynasty seals were discovered conclusively establishes that the 14th dynasty was only contemporary with the 13th dynasty in the last half century of the latter's existence, i.e. after c. 1700 BC. Additionally, Manfred Bietak has dated the inscriptions and monuments of Nehesy, possibly the second ruler of the dynasty, to around 1700 BC as well[4]
[2]Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 315, 1999, pp.47-73.4
[3] Janine Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC)" in Ian Shaw (ed.) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2000. pp.192 & 194
[4] Bourriau, "The Second Intermediate Period," pp.178-179, 181
Depending on the coalescence date, Ryholt may find data that backs his initial hypothesis, since Canaanite influence into the region may have predated a formal takeover of the delta. It really depends on when. If the coalescence date is later (around 1700), it would corroborate other theorists. When the authors of the study (posted on nature) talk about foreign influences, what they mean by "around 2,000" BC will do much to give us an idea on who may be correct regarding the gaps in our knowledge of the 14th dynasty most especially.
Thanks for the replies, guys.
I now think that the Delta and the rest of Northern Egypt was extensively settled by Asiatics from the Levant and that the Copts are their descendants. I wonder if we will see experts delve into this very likely possibility.
I also doubt that Egyptian authorities will ever authorise DNA testing on early dynastic royalty -- dynasties that were dominated by the South. I'm not really surprised that posters on Forumbiodiversity have assumed the position that three [3] late dynasty samples are all that is required to overturn all the many lines of evidence that affirm that ancient Egypt started from the South.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Elliot Smith reported finding differences between Dynastic and Predynastic skeletal remains. However, his interpretation of these findings was formed by his reliance on concepts of 'racial' types prevalent at the time. More recent studies have, however, confirmed that there were significant phenotypic differences between Early Dynastic populations in Upper and Lower Egypt (Hillson 1978; Keita 1988, 1992, 1995, 1996). The timing and origin of these differences still needs to be determined. The most parsimonious explanation is that they reflect long-term differentiation between small groups operating in different environments within Egypt as postulated by Hassan (1998) and Debono and Mortensen (1990). Alternatively the differences may have resulted from the arrival of a distinct ethnic group, either in the Neolithic, associated with the introduction of domestic plants and animals by nomadic pastorialists-- or in a later period when inter-regional trade became important.
quote: "For Upper Egypt and Nubia, there is good archeological and bio-anthropological evidence for population continuity from the Mesolithic to recent times. The diachronic changes reported for Nubians conform to those predicted for micro-evolutionary change in situ (Carlson and van Gerven 1977; Nielson 1970. Morphometric characteristics from all periods are significantly different to those of their near contemporaries in the Levant and North Africa (Hershkovitz 1981: Hershkovitz et al. 1987; P. Smith 1979, 1988).
quote: Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance.
quote: The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.
posting this here to make a few points:
There had been differentiation between northern and southern Egyptians in predynastic and early dynastic times. It seems researchers are not entirely sure if this is the result of differing genetic influences or different ecological structures (perhaps a combination of the two). But following predynastic and early dynastic times Upper Egypt gradually looked similar to Lower Egypt. We can imagine the two were either morphologically similar due to cultural similarities, diet and a more homogenized ecology that wasn't there at the start. it could also mean that the Delta's genetic influences began to mix with southern Egypt which would mean as time increased the northern parts of Egypt were more similar and would be more representative of southern Egypt. Also, they mention that some of the components we see trail into prehistoric times which means it was always there in lower Egypt. If we look at the Delta's population though, there wouldn't have needed to be a major population though with just 80,000 inhabitants (3,000 inhabitants in Faiyum) 1,000 years prior to state formation.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Mr Winters had to ruin yet another thread with his lunacy. The Hyksos were a Eurasian population in Cannan. These Levantine peoples were not Kushites and no credible historian affirms this.
You don't know what you're talking about. I have cited the historians and their work that support the points below.
You can't dispute this evidence that the Heqa Khasut , were Kushites. The evidence of Heqa Khasut sealings, where the Kings provide their names and identity as Heqa Khasut prove their nationality. Cite the Egyptian texts where other foreign Kings were called Heqa Khasut
The Hyksos were called heqa khasut see:The World in Ancient Times: The ancient Egyptian world, by Oup Book.
I presented the following points in support of the Kushite origin of the heqa khasut:
1. I cited Drew and Bright, who said the Hyksos included Hurrians and Hattians; nationalities who said they were Kushites.
2.The primary evidence includes the Turin Royal Canon calling the Hyksos: heqa khasut, the same name they called the other Kushites in Nubia, during the Old Kingdom. Cite other text where this term was applied to other nations. The first four rulers of the Hyksos called themselves heqa khasut on their seals and a monumental doorjamb from Avaris. The Hyksos worshiped Ra.
3. Hyksos Kings were proud of their Kushite origin. in the Hyksos seals, the Kings wrote their names followed by the "Heqa Khasut". This indicates to me that the Hyksos used this name to illustrate their relationship to the Nubian Kushites. See; A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
4.The Kushite origin of the Hyksos is obvious in their name khasut which corresponds to Kaska.
5.I showed how the Hurrian and Hattian language is related to languages spoken by the Kushites.
6.The heqa khasut and Kushites in Nubia were allies. Name any other Lower Egyptians the Kushites claimed as their allies.
7. The name of Hyksos king Khyan have been found at Hattusa in Anatolia. Hatusa was a Hattian city.See: A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
8. Many sealings found in Kerma, the main Kushite city, include the names of Hyksos ruler. See; A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshun the statements you posted don’t support a massive migration of Asians in Egypt.
Patricia Smith, The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
quote: "For Upper Egypt and Nubia, there is good archeological and bio-anthropological evidence for population continuity from the Mesolithic to recent times. The diachronic changes reported for Nubians conform to those predicted for micro-evolutionary change in situ (Carlson and van Gerven 1977; Nielson 1970. Morphometric characteristics from all periods are significantly different to those of their near contemporaries in the Levant and North Africa (Hershkovitz 1981: Hershkovitz et al. 1987; P. Smith 1979, 1988). http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
.. Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance.
quote: The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.
These authors make it clear that changes in the population were due to “predicted for micro-evolutionary change in situ” as noted by Patricia Smith; or they “to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches “ , as noted by keita. Whereas we have contradictory evidence for a massive migration of people from the Levant into lower Egypt we have archaeological evidence of Egyptians in the Levant.
The Egyptians had long been established in the Levant, especially southern Canaan since the Naqada period. The Dynastic Egyptians were also in control of this area. This is supported by the presence of Egyptian seal impressions, cylinder seals, ivory label and serekh marks from southern Canaan. This indicates the Egyptians in governing positions.
During the Old Kingdom the Egyptians were still dominating the Levant. Byblos was a center of Egyptian commerce and settlement. As late as 1300 BC, the King of Byblos Rib Adda, between 1380-1360 BC recognized the Egyptian heritage of the people of Byblos. . The Egyptians established numerous colonies after they drove the Hyksos out of the Egyptian Delta. The Egyptians established more colonies between 1550- 1100, much of the Levant was re-conquered by Egyptians. The Egyptians were the major group in the Phoenician cities . They controlled Byblos, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre. Due to Egyptian control the Phoenicians spent their time spreading Egyptian culture.
This shows that the Egyptians dominated Lower Egypt and the Levant except for the 108 years the Hyksos ruled Egypt.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Clyde Nubians having changes attributed to in situ development doesn't mean that Lower/Northern Egyptians were not affected by prehistoric migrations. Yes there probably wasn't large scale migration, but when you're dealing with small population sizes (like there was in Faiyum and Lower Egypt 4,000 B.C), you don't NEED large scale migrations to have a population 50-70% different from what it was even 1,000 years ago. If it takes 1% migration per generation to impact the composition of a population over the course of several thousand years, then bumping that number up to about 3-5 percent would accelerate that differentiation. 3-5 percent might be too generous a number at that because the rate of change will accelerate it even faster if we're only considering a very noticeable (but partial) change to the population (and not a complete overhaul). My prediction is that 2,000 B.C is where you started seeing levels found at around 1,300 B.C. Prior to this it would've still been a noticeable contribution to northern Egypt, just not that large.
To illustrate:
3% of 80,000 is just 2,400 people in a given generation
5% of 80,000 people is just 4,000 people.
I don't think I even need to tell you how few people would need to be present in Faiyum (which is closer to the location of this study than even the Delta). But expecting 2,400-4,000 people to be born in a generation (note: generation) with foreign ancestry is not that much at all. And that's of course holding to the belief that the corridors to Africa didn't see migration into the Delta until 4,000 years B.C (which I don't buy). The farther you go back the fewer people would be needed for the type of impact I imagine happened within the Delta.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Thanks for the replies, guys.
I now think that the Delta and the rest of Northern Egypt was extensively settled by Asiatics from the Levant and that the Copts are their descendants. I wonder if we will see experts delve into this very likely possibility.
I also doubt that Egyptian authorities will ever authorise DNA testing on early dynastic royalty -- dynasties that were dominated by the South. I'm not really surprised that posters on Forumbiodiversity have assumed the position that three [3] late dynasty samples are all that is required to overturn all the many lines of evidence that affirm that ancient Egypt started from the South.
The authors state in the study itself that genetic data from southern Egypt is needed for comparisons, and that there are limitations with the data only coming from one site. I won't be surprised if much of northern Egypt in particular looked like Abusir. In fact other studies have said that after state formation upper Egypt started to resemble lower Egypt more after the early kingdoms.So even upper Egypt may have had noticeable levels of mixture by the second millennium B.C. The direction of Egyptian culture and state formation isn't really something a genetics study would be able to illustrate on it's own tho imo. They would need additional data to illustrate the direction of cultural hegemony. That sounds weird..
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [QUOTE]Thanks for the replies, guys.
I now think that the Delta and the rest of Northern Egypt was extensively settled by Asiatics from the Levant and that the Copts are their descendants. I wonder if we will see experts delve into this very likely possibility.
I also doubt that Egyptian authorities will ever authorise DNA testing on early dynastic royalty -- dynasties that were dominated by the South. I'm not really surprised that posters on Forumbiodiversity have assumed the position that three [3] late dynasty samples are all that is required to overturn all the many lines of evidence that affirm that ancient Egypt started from the South.
The authors state in the study itself that genetic data from southern Egypt is needed for comparisons, and that there are limitations with the data only coming from one site. I won't be surprised if much of northern Egypt in particular looked like Abusir. In fact other studies have said that after state formation upper Egypt started to resemble lower Egypt more after the early kingdoms.So even upper Egypt may have had noticeable levels of mixture by the second millennium B.C. The direction of Egyptian culture and state formation isn't really something a genetics study would be able to illustrate on it's own tho imo. They would need additional data to illustrate the direction of cultural hegemony. That sounds weird..
These are salient facts that certain people would rather ignore. The "Northern type" apparently became dominant all over Egypt after the 18th dynasty. The Copts are also concentrated in Middle Egypt - a region that was technically part of Upper Egypt. I think that the Copts gradually moved South into Upper Egypt from the Delta and the North - demographically eclipsing the Southern type found concentrated in Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo, Esna, Aswan and the Red sea coast.
People are acting as though the Copts are the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, based on these results. I think they are mostly descendants of the Hyksos that flooded the Delta and Northern Egypt around 1800 BC and other Levantines that were present before then.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Thanks for the replies, guys.
I now think that the Delta and the rest of Northern Egypt was extensively settled by Asiatics from the Levant and that the Copts are their descendants. I wonder if we will see experts delve into this very likely possibility.
I also doubt that Egyptian authorities will ever authorise DNA testing on early dynastic royalty -- dynasties that were dominated by the South. I'm not really surprised that posters on Forumbiodiversity have assumed the position that three [3] late dynasty samples are all that is required to overturn all the many lines of evidence that affirm that ancient Egypt started from the South.
The authors state in the study itself that genetic data from southern Egypt is needed for comparisons, and that there are limitations with the data only coming from one site. I won't be surprised if much of northern Egypt in particular looked like Abusir. In fact other studies have said that after state formation upper Egypt started to resemble lower Egypt more after the early kingdoms.So even upper Egypt may have had noticeable levels of mixture by the second millennium B.C. The direction of Egyptian culture and state formation isn't really something a genetics study would be able to illustrate on it's own tho imo. They would need additional data to illustrate the direction of cultural hegemony. That sounds weird..
I think we have more than enough data to suggest the strong flows of culture and people from the South. The early dynastic started in the South. The Middle Kingdom arose in the south to conquer the "rebellious" northern Provinces. And of course the New Kingdom arose in the South and pushed all the way into the Northern Levant. So while there may certainly have been "levantine" elements in Northern Egypt in ancient times, I wouldn't go so far to say that this produced extensive mixing in the entire country. Part of the idea of having an organized nation state meant controlling the flow of immigration.... That said, if you actually look at most ancient cultures they all had "cosmopolitan" centers where other ethnic groups were allowed to settle and or trade. That did not make the natives not the dominant population or culture. Even America notwithstanding its ideas of being a melting pot, really is still ethnically dominated by Europeans. In fact much of the Western Hemisphere is like this and so is Europe. Nations always have pockets of various ethnic groups who stay relatively homogeneous albeit with some mixing into the larger community.
Also keep in mind that Abusir was the home of the royal necropolises the old kingdom, going back to at least the 5th dynasty. Some remains from those periods would be nice as well....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are salient facts that certain people would rather ignore. The "Northern type" apparently became dominant all over Egypt after the 18th dynasty. The Copts are also concentrated in Middle Egypt - a region that was technically part of Upper Egypt. I think that the Copts gradually moved South into Upper Egypt from the Delta and the North - demographically eclipsing the Southern type found concentrated in Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo, Esna, Aswan and the Red sea coast.
People are acting as though the Copts are the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, based on these results. I think they are mostly descendants of the Hyksos that flooded the Delta and Northern Egypt around 1800 BC and other Levantines that were present before then.
They are representative from the data we have with respect to era and locality. People that were like them existed from the start, their numbers just grew at the second millennium B.C point. And even though the mixture happened in greater quantity near 2,000 B.C that still means well they lived well over a millennia as dynastic Egyptians. I don't think it's wrong to say they were an indigenous "type" so to speak and don't at present think it's fair to deny them what seems to be their place as Egyptians. However, I think nonetheless acknowledging that this type had been in Egyptian society as a noticeable component for a good part of Egypt's dynastic run doesn't really end the main debate. The nature of Egypt at state formation isn't answered by this. Some people with agendas don't want state formation to have come from the south despite all the evidence because they probably don't feel they can really use this study much in a discussion with that premise. Most seem like they'd prefer to close the chapter on Egyptology and assume their "matters" settled. But if they are forced to accept state formation came from southerners, then they have to heed the rest of the study that stresses that southern dynastic period Egyptians and Nubians need to be compared. They'll have to consider that even the authors warn that this "Sub Saharan" ancestry everyone's talking about could've just been the local genetic influences of southern Egyptians and Nubians. It might not be, but the author was rightly cautious in saying that cannot be the case. The debate continues whether they like it or not. I doubt many will like a southern origin of the state. They don't seem to feel especially comfortable with the idea that the Egyptians especially responsible for making the state had close ancestral ties to Nubia. Probably because Nubians for years have been made into the "true negro" to be compared with the Egyptians.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe we have enough data to say how much of an impact these people had in terms of numbers on Northern Egypt. First nobody knows the population size of Egypt in 2000 BC. Second, we don't have a true census of all the people in Northern Egypt and their backgrounds. While some folks claim that "egyptsearchers" claim a 100% black Egypt, I don't agree with trying to over emphasize mixture based on such a small data set. That said, I do agree that there were contacts, trade and settlement between Egypt and the Levant. But again, just one small sample set does not tell the whole picture. It doesn't take into account that Egypt dominated the Levant for many years. It doesn't take into account other populations in Northern Egypt let alone Middle Egypt and Upper Egypt.
And regardless of the claims of the authors, what was the point of the study? Why would the presence of "Sub Saharans" be important in Ancient Egypt? What populations along the Nile represent ancient "Sub Saharans"? And what populations along the Nile represent "indigenous" Nile Valley Africans that were not "sub saharan" or "levantine"? Because at this point there is no picture of what these folks consider "indigenous" Ancient Egyptians. Without the answers to these questions this paper is meaningless in terms of understanding the population history of the Nile Valley from predynastic to Late period.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that Egypt was like other regions surrounding the sea, Mediterranean-sailing people started trading with river-paddling people, developed trading colonies which grew & shrank depending on climate-politics-technology, same thing happened everywhere eventually.
The Nile's opposing current & wind & the constricting cataracts affected this differently than other major river systems, but otherwise it was the norm.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Also keep in mind that Abusir was the home of the royal necropolises the old kingdom, going back to at least the 5th dynasty. Some remains from those periods would be nice as well....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't believe we have enough data to say how much of an impact these people had in terms of numbers on Northern Egypt. First nobody knows the population size of Egypt in 2000 BC. Second, we don't have a true census of all the people in Northern Egypt and their backgrounds.
It's not exactly 2,000 BC but 150 years removed from that exact date. Not bad, I think it makes a fair estimate. You can see the gradual shifts in population density per region in Egypt.
quote:While some folks claim that "egyptsearchers" claim a 100% black Egypt, I don't agree with trying to over emphasize mixture based on such a small data set.
90 ancient remains is a small data set?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't believe we have enough data to say how much of an impact these people had in terms of numbers on Northern Egypt. First nobody knows the population size of Egypt in 2000 BC. Second, we don't have a true census of all the people in Northern Egypt and their backgrounds.
It's not exactly 2,000 BC but 150 years removed from that exact date. Not bad, I think it makes a fair estimate. You can see the gradual shifts in population density per region in Egypt.
quote:While some folks claim that "egyptsearchers" claim a 100% black Egypt, I don't agree with trying to over emphasize mixture based on such a small data set.
90 ancient remains is a small data set?
Not to mention that the decendants of these folks nowadays are found in SUDAN!!
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't believe we have enough data to say how much of an impact these people had in terms of numbers on Northern Egypt. First nobody knows the population size of Egypt in 2000 BC. Second, we don't have a true census of all the people in Northern Egypt and their backgrounds.
It's not exactly 2,000 BC but 150 years removed from that exact date. Not bad, I think it makes a fair estimate. You can see the gradual shifts in population density per region in Egypt.
quote:While some folks claim that "egyptsearchers" claim a 100% black Egypt, I don't agree with trying to over emphasize mixture based on such a small data set.
90 ancient remains is a small data set?
That is a good piece of info.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be clear, this is more of a general comment. But if you are going to argue for a change over time(like this paper) then one has to define the baseline or starting point from which the change is measured. And in this case these folks have not defined what the baseline is in terms of what they feel the "indigenous" population of Ancient Egypt would be. Hence every discussion on this boils down to "Asiatic" populations in AE or "Sub Saharan" populations in AE, but missing from all of this is the definition of what the "base" population should be. This paper is no exception to this. Hence why I deem it useless. That said we can make some general observations but without defining a "base" population in Egypt genetically then you are simply dealing with more ghosts. What most people want to know is what was the "base" genetic profile of the AE population across the board.... At least in my opinion. And that has still yet to be determined. And yes to do that you need more than 90 remains over a longer time period to do that. Albeit nobody ever has required such a genetic survey of any other ancient civilization or culture to define its overall affinity within localized geographic and ethnic regions. Which is a key point as to why all this is required to "understand" what people made up the main body of the AE population. Were they Africans, some kind of hybrid "other" or Eurasians? Really this isn't something that requires this much effort to figure out based on all the data we already have. Case in point, the Romans had a lot of non Romans who eventually became citizens of Rome, along with ancient Greece, but nobody defines Greece or Rome by the numbers of these non Greeks or Romans. And I see no constant push for DNA tests to figure out who these folks were.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just to be clear, this is more of a general comment. But if you are going to argue for a change over time(like this paper) then one has to define the baseline or starting point from which the change is measured.
Not really. Human populations are always shifting. What is the "proper" starting point? The predynastic/early dynastic? They already say a fair deal of the data's coalescence doesn't extend that long (though some of it indeed does. So as long as the data is held within the proper context of location and time period, then it's fine. Though it certainly would draw attention and citations, I probably wouldn't have felt right personally to have titled it somethin like "AE were less SSA." It probably would've been better if the title had paid more attention to location and era.
It may be useless to those whose only aim is to discuss the ongoing debate on who was responsible for state formation. But it isn't for those with some interest in how Egypt developed throughout it's entire history.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just to be clear, this is more of a general comment. But if you are going to argue for a change over time(like this paper) then one has to define the baseline or starting point from which the change is measured.
Not really. Human populations are always shifting. What is the "proper" starting point? The predynastic/early dynastic? They already say a fair deal of the data's coalescence doesn't extend that long (though some of it indeed does. So as long as the data is held within the proper context of location and time period, then it's fine. Though it certainly would draw attention and citations, I probably wouldn't have felt right personally to have titled it somethin like "AE were less SSA." It probably would've been better if the title had paid more attention to location and era.
It may be useless to those whose only aim is to discuss the ongoing debate on who was responsible for state formation. But it isn't for those with some interest in how Egypt developed throughout it's entire history.
It is not useless, but I prefer not to be naive. No other ancient civilization has folks focusing more on the 'possible immigrants' than the main body of the culture and community itself. That false dichotomy only seems to apply here, which leads to endless back and forth between Asiatics/Eurasian migrants on one hand and "Sub Saharans" on the other. This is where focusing on the "African" identity of the culture as the basis and starting point is key. Otherwise, it becomes a tug of war between two extremes and the base is totally ignored. Nobody ignores or denies the Asian character of ancient China. Nobody denies the European character of ancient Greece. Yet here we are supposed to pretend the African character doesn't matter....
But hey maybe I am missing all the DNA studies on the African, Asian and "near eastern" settlements in ancient Rome. Because that is "useful information" as you said. This won't happen though because nobody is debating the European identity of ancient Rome and therefore that identity is taken 'a-priori' fact with no "proof" in terms of DNA studies and so forth required. Same thing in China and most other ancient civilizations. And of course most of these cultures interacted with and contained other sub cultures and ethnic groups. But only here does that over take the understanding and identity of the main population and culture..... And it would be foolish to underestimate the overall implications on both the layman and professional level.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These are salient facts that certain people would rather ignore. The "Northern type" apparently became dominant all over Egypt after the 18th dynasty. The Copts are also concentrated in Middle Egypt - a region that was technically part of Upper Egypt. I think that the Copts gradually moved South into Upper Egypt from the Delta and the North - demographically eclipsing the Southern type found concentrated in Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo, Esna, Aswan and the Red sea coast.
People are acting as though the Copts are the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, based on these results. I think they are mostly descendants of the Hyksos that flooded the Delta and Northern Egypt around 1800 BC and other Levantines that were present before then.
They are representative from the data we have with respect to era and locality. People that were like them existed from the start, their numbers just grew at the second millennium B.C point. And even though the mixture happened in greater quantity near 2,000 B.C that still means well they lived well over a millennia as dynastic Egyptians. I don't think it's wrong to say they were an indigenous "type" so to speak and don't at present think it's fair to deny them what seems to be their place as Egyptians. However, I think nonetheless acknowledging that this type had been in Egyptian society as a noticeable component for a good part of Egypt's dynastic run doesn't really end the main debate. The nature of Egypt at state formation isn't answered by this. Some people with agendas don't want state formation to have come from the south despite all the evidence because they probably don't feel they can really use this study much in a discussion with that premise. Most seem like they'd prefer to close the chapter on Egyptology and assume their "matters" settled. But if they are forced to accept state formation came from southerners, then they have to heed the rest of the study that stresses that southern dynastic period Egyptians and Nubians need to be compared. They'll have to consider that even the authors warn that this "Sub Saharan" ancestry everyone's talking about could've just been the local genetic influences of southern Egyptians and Nubians. It might not be, but the author was rightly cautious in saying that cannot be the case. The debate continues whether they like it or not. I doubt many will like a southern origin of the state. They don't seem to feel especially comfortable with the idea that the Egyptians especially responsible for making the state had close ancestral ties to Nubia. Probably because Nubians for years have been made into the "true negro" to be compared with the Egyptians.
I was always of the opinion that Northern Egypt was either biracial or heavily admixed with Levantine Semites. If the authors of this study are suggesting that these Eurasian genetic components only entered Egypt on a large-scale well after the formation of the Egyptian State, why on earth are Eurocentrics thumping their chests as if this is a complete triumph?
It just means that Eurasians made a significant impact a lot earlier than we previously believed and that the Copts are not the best representatives of those that founded the Egyptian State a thousand years prior to the most impactful advent and proliferation of these Eurasian components.
Question: Which population in modern Egypt has the highest frequency of E-M78? Is it Southern Egyptians in Luxor or the Copts
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
E-V12 has a frequency of 44.3% in southern Egypt (Luxor), so I assume that this Y-DNA haplogroup has a lower frequency in the Copts of Middle and Northern Egypt. What mtdna haplogroups are considered indigenous to Egypt? And what region has the highest frequencies of these indigenous mtdna haplogroups?
I believe that Southern and Northern Egypt were occupied by two different types; the South leaned toward Lower "Nubia" and Northern Sudan; the North leaned towards the Levant. We really need autosomal samples from southern Egypt to settle this once and for all.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
Does anyone have links to the stuff she's citing here? She's saying the north and south were physically distinct when Egypt was founded (and in the early dynastic period) but that they morphologically became more unified over time. How long was it until the north and south seemed to even out more? Because at this point, we can imagine more of the mixture that was always in northern Egypt eventually started entered with more frequency the south. Which means that to get a picture of what Egypt was like at state formation, we would need Early Dynastic or Predynastic samples.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood that Northern Egypt's proximity to the Levant would have a tremendous impact, but it was admittedly surprising that African haplogroups were so insignificant in Northern Egypt at that time.
I wonder how some of these now triumphant people would react if samples were sourced entirely from Aswan with results more congruent with modern Southern Egyptians in Luxor, Aswan, Esna, Edfu, Kom Ombo and to Northern Sudan to a lesser extent.
Would it be representative? I suppose that the essential difference between the two is that the civilization sprang from the South and so that's precisely where victory can be attained.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This study was created for folks in online forums to "defeat" those "Afrocentrics" who they have been debating for a long time. It was also made for the National Geographic and History Channels of the world. To sit here and think that these people REALLY want to get down to the bottom of the AE people and where they came from is absurd. But don't hold your breath for any other mummies to be sampled even as this paper claims better success of getting DNA from ancient mummies. This paper with all its flaws will be held up as "the standard" for a few more years as they drag this out as long as they want to.
Everybody who is "in the know" should see this as a wink and a nod to certain camps online. But some folks just don't want to see that. And those who claim "objectivity" just don't want to see it.
Case in point, many of those folks argue that Copts have always been Levantine or Near Eastern and representative of what most ancient Egyptians looked like.... So for them this is just the final proof they needed.
Keep in mind how many mummies actually are sitting in various museums around the world and how many mummies were destroyed by archaeologists and so forth.
quote: How many human mummies were made in ancient Egypt?
Some people estimate 70 million mummies, but I think that's an underestimate. Mummification was carried out in Egypt, as I mentioned, for over 3,000 years. I'm sure more human mummies were made during this time period. If you look at animal mummies, several hundred thousand mummies have been found even in one cemetery.
Where have all the mummies gone? Where does the word "mummy" come from?
It comes from the Persian and Arabic words "mum" and "mumya," which describe wax or bitumen. Bitumen is this black substance that comes from the Mumya mountain in Persia. When Arabs saw mummies for the first time, they assumed that the black goo that covered them was mumya or mum, and so they called them "mumya." And that word then passed into European languages. Were mummies actually made with bitumen?
Occasionally, from about 1100 B.C. onward, they were made using bitumen from the Red Sea coast. But most mummies are not made using bitumen; they're made using resins and oils.
However, unfortunately, bitumen was regarded as a medicine. And from the 12th century onwards, both in the Middle East and especially in Europe, mummies were ground up for the bitumen that they were supposedly made with and sold as medicine. There are a lot of Materia Medica books listing mummy as an important treatment for when you have problems with your joints, blood flow, and, indeed, longevity. Mummies were used as medicine?
Medical recipes list "mummy" as an ingredient. It was even taken straight. King Francis I of France, in fact, took a pinch of mummy every day with rhubarb. And who says what's worse, rhubarb or mummy? He believed that it would make him stronger and invincible, and would stop assassins from killing him. Did this notion that mummies made good medicine lead to a lot of them being destroyed?
Hundreds and thousands of mummies were destroyed for medicine. Others were burned as kindling or wood, because there aren't that many trees in Egypt. There are 19th-century accounts of travelers who say, "Oh, it's unseasonably cold and we've run out of wood, so we have to throw a mummy on the fire." Amazing. And the Victorians also had "unwrapping" parties, didn't they?
Mummies were considered very Gothic. And in the Victorian era, when anything neo-Gothic was cool, unwrapping mummies became very stylish. So people would bring back or buy mummies from Egypt and have unwrapping parties. We have invitations saying, "Come to Lord Longsberry's at 2 p.m., Piccadilly, for the unwrapping of a mummy from Thebes. Champagne and canapés to follow." A lot of mummies were destroyed in that way.
They estimate over 70 million mummies were made in Egypt, yet folks think 151 mummies is enough to tell us anything... Right.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Pagani's samples ever disclose where in Egypt they lived? He said they had to have been in Egypt for about 3 generations minimum to be part of the study. It'd be nice to have an idea of where their ancestors up to 3 generations were living in Egypt. I believe that this study and Pagani's study could both be correct. When he masked out the data the genetic data seemed to resemble more what they could find in people (more likely) to live in Africa. It doesn't prove on it's own those lineages were there from the start. But it does suggest they existed in that neck of the woods before the slave trade. We also know Sudanese lineages seem to corroborate a local origin for these lineages. Another reason why people DON'T want Egyptian culture to have started south to north is because we already seem to HAVE genetic data on Nubians/Sudanese. If data generally suggests southern Egyptians were culturally and biologically close to Nubians what then, is this?
IMO there doesn't need a slave trade to explain this. We already know that much of the "African" lineages were there from the start. We know that southern Egyptians largely resembled these people, and started to gradually look more like Northern Egyptians the longer you go past the point of state formation. At best they're going to get Levanites that took African culture and made a civilization with that as the foundation.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They estimate over 70 million mummies were made in Egypt, yet folks think 151 mummies is enough to tell us anything... Right.
Technically they received data from 90. More data may falsify this information, but science is falsifiable. Findings produced with the scientific method can "suggest" a hypothesis is likely correct, but that doesn't have to be what actually happened. Until you find a greater quantity of mummies to compare, science will suggest this is what northern Egypt looked like until a date that nears 2,000 B.C. It actually does NOT go against the historical record. Even before these findings people were considering a wave of immigration around this date. That the North even prior to this immigration had always had some kind of lineage attributed to Levanites. Hell if memory serves distinctions between the northern and southern Egyptians prior to and early into state formation was the basis of the dynastic race theory. What they don't have is southern comparisons from Sudan and Southern Egypt. Oh well...they technically do, but what we have doesn't corroborate what they're likely aiming for that well.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If our interpretation of the entrance of these Eurasian Abusir genomes is correct... why on earth are posters on Forumbiodiversity treating this as a victory?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had to guess they believe it proves it wasn't "African." I mean you can feel free to quote anything if clarity is needed though since I'm merely assuming. What I typically see the mainstream doing is suggesting that the findings from a of given locations and eras speaks for the entire dynastic period. And that may be fine depending on where that location is or how long we're talking about. But they ignore the cautions the author places several times because they'd rather not have to think about it anymore. Dynastic Egypt was THOUSANDS of years old between Sudan and the Levant. No, you can't make the assumptions you might with a country deeply embedded in Nordic Europe that's only a couple hundred years old. To continue placing this into perspective: The United states was founded in 1776 and is nearly 250 years old. But it's already seeing a major demographic shift. It actually saw demographic shifts earlier but staved them off by racist immigration policies. By 2050 whites will be a majority minority. If we were researchers in the future, would that mean that the country wasn't founded by whites? Even if for the rest of it's history it was mestizo or mulatto? Even if for the next 2,000 years it was Mestizo, the nation would've emerged as a white country.
To be fair though the "Afrocentric" crowd has done this sort of thing too which made things a little confusing for me at the start. I acknowledge even I didn't think too much about shifting population demographics.But would finding the Amarna mummies really give us an idea on what Egypt was at state formation? Would Ramses? Could that data give us a picture for all regions in Egypt during all periods? Or even just the periods before the Late Period? The answer to that seems to be an obvious no. Their data is relevant with respect to era and location.
To their credit however, the Afrocentric position has bit more reason to carry themselves as far as I can see with the confidence it has. At least to a certain extent. If someone's asking if Egypt was at the very least to product of indigenous Africans, I believe it's very plausible to argue that it was. At their disposal seems to be the data Egypt shares with Sudan that corroborates the cultural complex was something shared with other parts of Africa deeper into the Nile Valley. And Sudan's genetic data doesn't seem to look like the stuff in this study. This is why there's a problem with state formation coming from the south and having a relationship with Sudan. Yes they have these mummies which are closer to the Levant but that's not where the initial culture or it's hegemony began. It's not going to change the argument that southern Africans brought the culture associated with Egypt to the north. Their Nubian counterparts' genetic data doesn't seem to support the picture we see in northern Egypt and that if I remember right dates farther back than these mummies. The Afrocentric crew would probably be especially wise to demonstrate cultural continuity in the area thousands of years predating the emergence of dynastic Egypt.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: If I had to guess they believe it proves it wasn't "African." I mean you can feel free to quote anything if clarity is needed though since I'm merely assuming. What I typically see the mainstream doing is suggesting that the findings a of given location and era speaks for the entire dynastic period. They ignore the cautions the author places several times because they'd rather not have to think about it anymore. But dynastic Egypt was THOUSANDS of years old. To continue placing this into perspective: The United states was founded in 1776 and is nearly 250 years old. But it's already seeing a majority demographic shift. It actually saw demographic shifts earlier but staved them off by racist immigration policies. By 2050 whites will be a majority minority. If we were researchers in the future, would that mean that the country wasn't founded by whites? Even if for the rest of it's history it was mestizo or mulatto? Even if for the next 2,000 years it was Mestizo, the nation would've emerged as a white country.
To be fair though the "Afrocentric" crowd has done this sort of thing too which made things a little confusing for me at the start. I acknowledge even I didn't think too much about shifting population demographics.But would finding the Amarna mummies really give us an idea on what Egypt was at state formation? Would Ramses? Could that data give us a picture for all regions in Egypt during all periods? Or even just the periods before the Late Period? The answer to that seems to be an obvious no. Their data is relevant with respect to era and location.
To their credit however, the Afrocentric position has bit more reason to carry themselves in such a way because it's combined with data from Sudan corroborates the cultural complex from southern Egypt was shared with Sudan. And Sudan's genetic data doesn't seem to look like the stuff in this study. This is why there's a problem with state formation coming from the south and having a relationship with Sudan. Because Nubian genetic data doesn't seem to support this picture. The Afrocentric crew would probably be especially wise to demonstrate cultural continuity in the area thousands of years predating the emergence of dynastic Egypt.
You don't have to bend so far back. E1b1a is the only thing really "missing" from modern Sudanese populations... Believe it or not, everything will make sense once/if we get more aDNA from km.t. The Copts in Sudan weren't always in Sudan... The population now referred to as the Beja weren't always 60% (give or take) Eurasian. Remember the dates for widespread Levantine geneflow into east Africa. There is a chance that the truth is much much simpler than it seems. So far you've been on point in regards to the expansion detected by numerous outlets of NearEastern and even lower Egyptian populations. For one to superimpose the Abusir_El_meleq mummies over all of predynastic-dynastic Egypt one will have quite the amount of explaining to do.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Widespread geneflow of populations commonly attributed to the Levant were found near 1,000 B.C IIRC. And that event probably would've settled things, except the authors note the coalescence in Egypt extends beyond that point. They say dates enter prehistory for some of the mixture, and increase at 2,000 B.C. How much mixture was at both points isn't specified, it's just discussed in relative terms. It could be that they were already fairly mixed in the north from the start due to their placement next to Levant since OOA migrations started.
If I were a white supremacist trying to use science to further my position... my next move would probably be to focus on getting remains from predynastic Gerzeh or Maadi for this reason. I'd have the best probability of getting away with making a sweeping statement (in white circles) and finding the genetic data I'm looking for. Predynastic Levanite settlements are in Egypt, so like I said, I believe the further north you go the more you'll find mixture--even back then. In Maadi there were Chalcolithic burials and settlements of Israelis. There seems to have also been evidence of trade with Gerzeh and Afghanistan and it's further north than Naqada I and III or the 3 states that emerged prior to unification (Thinis, Naqada and Nekhen). I'm just saying that if we get selective sampling locations in predynastic Egypt that are more towards the north and y'all still see those influences are still pretty evident you heard it here. It's best to be very aware and forthcoming about Levanite settlements so that the burdens of proof are very precisely outlined and there are no cutting corners. By trying to hold onto the north across time periods for their particular vision of "black Egypt," the "afrocentrics" placed themselves where they are in this discussion. I would even go as far as to say you probably shouldn't hold out for southern Egypt to be void of notable mixture after a certain point either.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Widespread geneflow of populations commonly attributed to the Levant were found near 1,000 B.C IIRC. And that event probably would've settled things, except the authors note the coalescence in Egypt extends beyond that point. They say dates enter prehistory for some of the mixture, and increase at 2,000 B.C. How much mixture was at both points isn't specified, it's just discussed in relative terms. It could be that they were already fairly mixed in the north from the start due to their placement next to Levant since OOA migrations started.
If I were a white supremacist trying to use science to further my position... my next move would probably be to focus on getting remains from predynastic Gerzeh or Maadi for this reason. I'd have the best probability of getting away with making a sweeping statement (in white circles) and finding the genetic data I'm looking for. Predynastic Levanite settlements are in Egypt, so like I said, I believe the further north you go the more you'll find mixture--even back then. In Maadi there were Chalcolithic burials and settlements of Israelis. There seems to have also been evidence of trade with Gerzeh and Afghanistan and it's further north than Naqada I and III or the 3 states that emerged prior to unification (Thinis, Naqada and Nekhen). I'm just saying that if we get selective sampling locations in predynastic Egypt that are more towards the north and y'all still see those influences are still pretty evident you heard it here. It's best to be very aware and forthcoming about Levanite settlements so that the burdens of proof are very precisely outlined and there are no cutting corners. By trying to hold onto the north across time periods for their particular vision of "black Egypt," the "afrocentrics" placed themselves where they are in this discussion. I would even go as far as to say you probably shouldn't hold out for southern Egypt to be void of notable mixture after a certain point either.
Here is my point. Rome had as much if not more admixture with surrounding populations including Africans and Asians as any other ancient culture. Does anybody seriously claim that the Romans weren't indigenous Europeans? Of course not. When was the last time somebody needed a DNA test to prove the Romans were Europeans? Just like nobody would seriously claim that the presence of African burial grounds in colonial America implies that Europeans didn't settle America. There were settlements in Rome and ancient Greece with many Africans, Levantines and some Asians. And we know the late periods of both Greece and Rome were heavily mixed because of the imperial expansion of both cultures. Does that make Greece and Rome less European? ALL ancient Empires had settlements, trading posts and "cosmopolitan" enclaves with populations from outside the country and within the empire as it spread out. This is not new or unique. Folks are making too much out of too little data. For one thing, Egypt had expanded way into the Levant from an early period. Therefore, some of these settlements could have been descendants of their "allies" from the Levant. Late period Egypt even before the Saite period was well known to depend on Levantine mercenaries for defense, including some Greeks. It doesn't mean that all of Northern Egypt was Levantine as if these people just freely came in waves and dominated Northern Egypt. We know full well that during the Middle and New Kingdom successive Southern Dynasties came to push back encroachment of foreigners into the North.
Not to mention, this is from Middle Egypt not Northern Egypt. Saqqarah and Dashur are NORTH of Abusir-el-Melek. Before folks make sweeping statements they need to look at the mummies from places like Saqqarah and Dashur which are old kingdom and then mummies from places like Beni Hassan which are middle kingdom. The point I was making earlier is that over 3 thousand years of course populations change but to try and make general statements about an entire population over 3000 years that may have produced hundreds of millions of mummies from just 150 remains is flawed science. Of course late period mummies were "more mixed" we already know that from historical data. But if you go by this data alone, the 25th dynasty never happened and had no impact on Egypt in the late period.... That by itself shows the flaws in limited data sets.
The fact is "Afrocentrics" didn't start this obsession with Egypt by European scholars and the racist science they created around studying Egypt. That is absurd. Napoleon and the "discovery" of Egypt by Europeans and the following years of "Egyptomania" had absolutely nothing to do with "Afrocentrics". But the typical tactic of some folks is to pretend that Europeans actions are the result of someone else forcing them to act in "extreme" ways. Right.
quote: Psamtik reunified Egypt in his ninth regnal year when he dispatched a powerful naval fleet in March 656 BC to Thebes and compelled the existing God's Wife of Amun at Thebes, Shepenupet II, to adopt his daughter Nitocris I as her heiress in the so-called Adoption Stela. Psamtik's victory destroyed the last vestiges of the Nubian Twenty-fifth Dynasty's control over Upper Egypt under Tantamani since Thebes now accepted his authority. Nitocris would hold her office for 70 years from 656 BC until her death in 585 BC. Thereafter, Psamtik campaigned vigorously against those local princes who opposed his reunification of Egypt. One of his victories over certain Libyan marauders is mentioned in a Year 10 and Year 11 stela from the Dakhla Oasis. Psamtik won Egypt's independence from the Assyrian Empire and restored Egypt's prosperity during his 54-year reign. The pharaoh proceeded to establish close relations with archaic Greece and also encouraged many Greek settlers to establish colonies in Egypt and serve in the Egyptian army. In particular, he settled some Greeks at Tahpanhes
quote: Necho II sent out an expedition of Phoenicians, which in three years sailed from the Red Sea around Africa to the mouth of the Nile. His son, Psammetichus II, upon succession may have removed Necho's name from monuments.
Necho played a significant role in the histories of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Kingdom of Judah. Necho II is most likely the pharaoh mentioned in several books of the Bible. The aim of the second of Necho's campaigns was Asiatic conquest, to contain the westward advance of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and cut off its trade route across the Euphrates. However, the Egyptians were defeated by the unexpected attack of the Babylonians and were eventually expelled from Syria.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic