posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
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?

---

quote:

---

Just like nobody would seriously claim that the presence of African burial grounds in colonial America implies that Europeans didn't settle America.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

We know full well that during the Middle and New Kingdom successive Southern Dynasties came to push back encroachment of foreigners into the North.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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".

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

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: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
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?

---

Part of this you can probably chalk up to racism, in which case you're gonna have to suck it up buttercup. You might not think it's "fair" you have to achieve a higher standard of data, but the situation is how it's gonna be right now. On the other hand Rome isn't Egypt geographically. It has not been a corridor for OOA migrations for thousands of years before Egypt began. It's not land that is physically attached to the Levant and connects two continents. It's closest neighbors are European and though it's accessible to other groups by water, accessibility by land is going to be easier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Just like nobody would seriously claim that the presence of African burial grounds in colonial America implies that Europeans didn't settle America.

---

Are you truly suggesting that the greater wealth of data for a nation as YOUNG as America is analagous to Egypt, to which our sampling, material data and written data is going to be much more sparse considering the age?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

[QUOTE][qb] 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.

---

Cept the authors inferred the mixture was present before a dynastic/cosmopolitan Egypt existed. It increased in the north near 2,000 B.C but was always present. And yes, I consider Abusir northern Egypt even if it's not considered Lower/Delta Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

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.

---

The authors don't rule out the possibility of Canaanite influences contributing to what we see here. I'm not opposed to the hypothesis that the migrations we know happened near the 2,000 BC could explain these findings. However the coalescence date would suggest Levanites contact with Egypt BEFORE dynastic Egypt, and the surrounding evidence suggests that such migrations were not just a one-way stop into the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

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.

---

But we're talking about northern Egypt within the historical context of 2,000 B.C. Where we know that there were migrations into Egypt. We know that even prior to the Hyksos these Levanite migrants began taking control of the Delta region. There's enough surrounding historical information about this period where I feel comfortable with the conclusion that the North was a major melting pot by 2,000 B.C and had enough Levanites living there to maintain secession from Upper Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

We know full well that during the Middle and New Kingdom successive Southern Dynasties came to push back encroachment of foreigners into the North.

---

They took back control of Egypt. Hell they may've expelled people who didn't wish to submit. But obviously everyone with Levanite ancestry was not expelled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

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.

---

Are you saying there's data in those areas which doesn't corroborate the author's data? Well, I have theories on that too depending on where those areas are but I'll leave you to answer that first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

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.

---

If you're not denying your data supports a falsifiable hypothesis then that's not true. Saying something like "our findings suggest that..." or "present findings support the theory that.." is not flawed science. In science we acknowledge limitations of the knowable. Scientific data may not always be capable of supporting objective reality but you accept that fallibility. There may have been millions of people mummified but only a fraction of those remains are viable for genetic analysis. What can be analyzed may not be representational but it's the extent of what scientific findings can support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

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".

---

That's not especially important to the point I was making about needing to make burdens of proof clear and concise and to establish conservative estimates. Like I said, you may not think it's fair that you have to achieve a higher standard of excellence but it's the reality of the world you live in. Whoever started the whole debate, Afrocentrics are in this debate now and where they've messed up routinely is in their assumptions that there was an African Egypt void of significant mixture until the late period (if that) across all regions and time periods. That line of thinking is very easy to call into question.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Doug

Oshun has comprehensively answered your ill-fitting Rome appeal and why it is evidently not equivalent or comparable. I'm sorry to say, but you're going around in circles - like a dog chasing its own tail. Your  assertions cannot hope to stand against 90 mtdna samples and 3 autosomal samples and the picture they paint for Northern Egypt.

Northern Egypt [at that time] was clearly Eurasian - as demonstrated by these 90 samples. Now, it goes without saying that we need samples from Luxor, Aswan, Edfu, Kom Ombo and Esna to get a conclusive and comprehensive picture of ancient Egypt's biological affinities - especially from the early dynastic period.

@the rest of the forum

At the heels of this regional specific study, some people have already concluded that ethnic black ancient Egyptians did not exist -> that there was no such thing... so I would like to ask them if they believe that the Naqadans and Badarians were Eurasian and not at all intimated with Lower "Nubians" and Northern Sudanese.

We know that the Badarians and Naqadans are regarded as representative of dynastic Egyptians, and so I wonder how these results meld with that. People who now accept that ancient Egypt was a Levantine transplant will have to argue that these neolithic and predynastic cultures were actually south Levantine transplants and not African - as we believed earlier.

People will have to furnish this Levantine transplant assertion with archaelogical and anthropological evidence.

Ancient Egypt was 5000 years old, and so the idea that these regional specific results are representative of all of geographic ancient Egypt from the beginning to the end is incredibly silly.

Alt-right groups are pointing to what they see as unsettling demographic shifts within the United States, and the United States is not even three [3] centuries old, so that should give people an opportunity to arrive at a more nuanced conclusion when the demographic changes that occur over thousand of years are duly taken into consideration.

I'm not going to now act as though the people in Luxor and Aswan were not the majority in ancient Egypt and that people like Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II,  Queen Tiye and many more never existed...

..Or that black Egyptians (ancient and modern) are just fiction.

I will concede when similar results are provided from southern samples.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Sucking up is when folks like to pretend distortions of limited data and misinformation is "good science".

---

When I said "suck it up buttercup" I was NOT saying "distortions" of limited data is "good science" I was saying that people may not like the fact that the world isn't operating on a level playing field, but you're not going to level it by merely being disgruntled. If your motive is in fighting for the minds of black people against a racial supremacist movement--if that's your main motivation for learning about Egypt, then you are going to have to achieve a higher standard. Because the people of this world--black people included will demand it against the mainstream propaganda heavily embedded that states otherwise. That's just the situation everybody's in. Then they have data like this which could easily call into question a steep argument that Egypt wasn't mixed in any regions (minimum) for much of it's history. Just imagining how unfair life is isn't going to fix anything.

quote:

---

No what I said was other empires had cosmopolitan cities and other ethnic populations as part of the "mix". It doesn't change the basic character of the civilization, where it started, who dominated it and who controlled it. By that logic, waves of Mexican immigrants changes America from a European country into something else... Finding evidence of other ethnic groups in some ancient culture doesn't "prove" that those folks created the culture or dominated it.

---

It depends on what someone's saying "defines" the character of a civilization. If someone's saying a country's origins define the character then Egypt could argued to be indigenous African with little mixture. If someone's saying that the character is relative to time and space, and that the character of a nation can be one thing at one time and region, and another in a different place and time within the country. If waves of mestizo immigrants enter and become a majority and control the country, American civilization will be Latino--yes. It doesn't mean it began as that, but that's what it would be in it's present incarnation.

quote:

---

Meaning nobody in their right mind id going to say that evidence of Africans and Asians in Rome changes Rome into a non European culture, even though they too had mixture and mixed Kings even.

---

There isn't merely evidence in northern Egypt of lineages. This wasn't just some mixture that's the result of some "cosmopolitan outpost" experience. Take the data within the context of the history going on at the time. At the time period of coalescence there was migration into the Delta. And not only was there migration, the northern parts of Egypt appointed foreign Levanite kings and had managed to secede and stave off the governing bodies of Upper Egypt. Why the hell would a strong and relatively well-populated native population (even if they had wanted to secede on their own) allow Levanites to rule over them unless these Levanites were plentiful in the area and/or they'd been gradually mingling with the native population for hundreds of years prior to this event? Perhaps you have data that can answer something that sounds implausible to me at present? I await it. The Delta just goes on to secede from upper Egypt because of a few cosmopolitan outposts? Highly unlikely. And why would Abusir, which held great cultural significance to native Egyptians (especially as a cult grounds for their death deity), be left as a cultural enclave and burial site for foreigners over their own people?

quote:

---

They "inferred" is not the same as they "proved" how many were there, how they got there or what the percentage of people at any given time.

---

Science is not going to be able create an unfalsifiable conclusion about that. Data can thus only infer or support a conclusion not "prove" so there's no way to prove it false. Science "suggests" and offers falsifiable theories that allow for later revisions to previous ideas. Some data people will take as something being "proven" but they're not thinking scientifically when they do that.

quote:

---

They themselves even urged caution about trying to make generalizations based on limited data. Again, there are PLENTY MORE mummies that can be analyzed to actually tell us more. Sounds like you want to believe this no matter what the facts might be.

---

It's not about what I "want" to believe this is about what the present data seems to suggest so far. The author doesn't just review the genetic data, he considered the historical context suggested by OTHER disciplines that infer that the north was facing outside migrations and divisions with the south. Science is falsifiable which means I'm perfectly open to there being new data that paints a different picture. But until then this is the picture that seems to be here right now.

quote:

---

But it is a hypothesis. It is not proven. Lets be consistent.

---

Science isn't here to make unfalsifiable statements (or to essentially "prove" which means no data can disprove it). His conclusions are supported by coalescence dates that DATE INTO prehistory. So yes, they do have the data to support this. It's not "just a theory" with no supporting data.

quote:

---

If the standard is that an "African" Egypt needs proof in DNA and triplicate. Then should the same standard not apply to Northern Egypt being overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC? Again nobody needs DNA to prove ancient Rome was European no matter the level of mixture, but somehow Africans need extra proof... odd how that works.

---

Rome wasn't connected to the Levant. Rome wasn't an entry and exit point for OOA migrations for tens of thousands of years before Egypt. You say Rome was European no matter the level of mixture? How mixed does your available data suggest Rome became? Not the occupied territories, but Rome proper? How diverse did the source of cultural hegemony become? If the civilization's people largely stopped being European after awhile and their leadership reflected this shift, then at that point yes--ROME was not "purely" European and after a certain point became mixed. Egypt had Levanite migrations, secession and FOREIGN rule.

quote:

---

Not my point though. We don't know when this Levantine ancestry entered for a fact and what numbers and how much of the population in any given area was "Levantine" versus "local". This study does not have nowhere near enough data to even begin to understand that and some folks are just running off like they have proof of things they don't.

---

This study takes the data it generated and places it in the context of additional data on the Canaanite expansions (and secession) into Egypt. There is enough data to plausibly provide the falsifiable conclusion that there was significant mixture in Egypt in the north (minimum) by 2,000 B.C.

quote:

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE]
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.

---

Are you saying there's data in those areas which doesn't corroborate the author's data? Well, I have theories on that too depending on where those areas are but I'll leave you to answer that first.

---

By definition this is the first full genome from ancient Egypt. Therefore there is no other data similar to it from there. The point is they should be using the new techniques to gather more data.....

---

quote:

---

Our findings suggest does not constitute proof. You seem to want science to not have to provide hard proof.

---

quote:

---

Again, if the standard is for proof of an African Egypt then this same standard should apply to any other theory right?

---

quote:

---

But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof.

---

quote:

---

And again why do Africans need such a high standard of proof to show that Egypt is in Africa and was primarily populated by Africans during much of the dynastic period (with some mixture).

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Sucking up is when folks like to pretend distortions of limited data and misinformation is "good science".

---

When I said "suck it up buttercup" I was NOT saying "distortions" of limited data is "good science" I was saying that people may not like the fact that the world isn't operating on a level playing field, but you're not going to level it by merely being disgruntled. If your motive is in fighting for the minds of black people against a racial supremacist movement--if that's your main motivation for learning about Egypt, then you are going to have to achieve a higher standard. Because the people of this world--black people included will demand it against the mainstream propaganda heavily embedded that states otherwise. That's just the situation everybody's in. Then they have data like this which could easily call into question a steep argument that Egypt wasn't mixed in any regions (minimum) for much of it's history. Just imagining how unfair life is isn't going to fix anything.

---

I am not disgruntled. I am laughing at you trying to spin your beliefs and theories into being hard proven facts when they aren't and claiming that folks need to do this so they don't seem like "angry afrocentrics". Come on man this is too ridiculous. If we are going to go by a hard standard then lets stick to that standard and not be hypocritical no? Trying to sit here and justify your position as grounded in "anti supremacist" isn't proof of anything. Either you have proof or you don't and it is pushing theories and beliefs without proof that is a hallmark of supremacists BTW. So again, like I said before, this paper is not "proof" of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt in 2000BC. Going fron one extreme to another is not being "objective".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

No what I said was other empires had cosmopolitan cities and other ethnic populations as part of the "mix". It doesn't change the basic character of the civilization, where it started, who dominated it and who controlled it. By that logic, waves of Mexican immigrants changes America from a European country into something else... Finding evidence of other ethnic groups in some ancient culture doesn't "prove" that those folks created the culture or dominated it.

---

It depends on what someone's saying "defines" the character of a civilization. If someone's saying a country's origins define the character then Egypt could argued to be indigenous African with little mixture. If someone's saying that the character is relative to time and space, and that the character of a nation can be one thing at one time and region, and another in a different place and time within the country. If waves of mestizo immigrants enter and become a majority and control the country, American civilization will be Latino--yes. It doesn't mean it began as that, but that's what it would be in it's present incarnation.

---

Seriously this isn't that complex. Cultures, civilizations and empires have "enclaves" with various ethnic groups. Finding evidence of an enclave doesn't mean that the culture was "overrun" by foreigners. Finding an Asian settlement or neighborhood in Rome doesn't mean Rome was overrun by Asians. Just like large numbers of Latinos in America doesn't automatically mean that they dominate America or really overran it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Meaning nobody in their right mind id going to say that evidence of Africans and Asians in Rome changes Rome into a non European culture, even though they too had mixture and mixed Kings even.

---

There isn't merely evidence in northern Egypt of lineages. This wasn't just some mixture that's the result of some "cosmopolitan outpost" experience. Take the data within the context of the history going on at the time. At the time period of coalescence there was migration into the Delta. And not only was there migration, the northern parts of Egypt appointed foreign Levanite kings and had managed to secede and stave off the governing bodies of Upper Egypt. Why the hell would a strong and relatively well-populated native population (even if they had wanted to secede on their own) allow Levanites to rule over them unless these Levanites were plentiful in the area and/or they'd been gradually mingling with the native population for hundreds of years prior to this event? Perhaps you have data that can answer something that sounds implausible to me at present? I await it. The Delta just goes on to secede from upper Egypt because of a few cosmopolitan outposts? Highly unlikely. And why would Abusir, which held great cultural significance to native Egyptians (especially as a cult grounds for their death deity), be left as a cultural enclave and burial site for foreigners over their own people?

---

You are speculating is what I am saying. And you can speculate all you want but that isn't hard fact. Coulda, woulda shoulda isn't proof. You seem to WANT this to be true not simply have a belief. Like I said going from one extreme: "no foreigners in Egypt" to "Northern Egypt was overrun by foreigners in 2000BC" is going from one extreme to another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

They "inferred" is not the same as they "proved" how many were there, how they got there or what the percentage of people at any given time.

---

Science is not going to be able create an unfalsifiable conclusion about that. Data can thus only infer or support a conclusion not "prove" so there's no way to prove it false. Science "suggests" and offers falsifiable theories that allow for later revisions to previous ideas. Some data people will take as something being "proven" but they're not thinking scientifically when they do that.

---

The "suggestion" of something is not proof in the sense of a large preponderance of likelihood. Again, sampling 3 mummies or 150 in the late period is not proof of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt to the point that there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt. That is simply logically absurd even without DNA testing. But you are determined to be believe what you want to believe and are of the position no further facts are required to support or defend this position. That sounds distinctly non scientific to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

They themselves even urged caution about trying to make generalizations based on limited data. Again, there are PLENTY MORE mummies that can be analyzed to actually tell us more. Sounds like you want to believe this no matter what the facts might be.

---

It's not about what I "want" to believe this is about what the present data seems to suggest so far. The author doesn't just review the genetic data, he considered the historical context suggested by OTHER disciplines that infer that the north was facing outside migrations and divisions with the south. Science is falsifiable which means I'm perfectly open to there being new data that paints a different picture. But until then this is the picture that seems to be here right now.

---

This isn't about science being falsifiable. The paper isn't making the position that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. You are the one saying this. The authors of the paper themselves said openly this isn't enough data to cover the entire Egyptian population contemporaneous to those sampled or back into history. This is you trying to piggy back your beliefs on top of this paper as if that is all that is required to support your theory.... And it isn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

But it is a hypothesis. It is not proven. Lets be consistent.

---

Science isn't here to make unfalsifiable statements (or to essentially "prove" which means no data can disprove it). His conclusions are supported by coalescence dates that DATE INTO prehistory. So yes, they do have the data to support this. It's not "just a theory" with no supporting data.

---

His conclusion wasn't that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. Seriously. The only thing this paper says was that there was that there was a presence of Levantines in the late period and evidence this presence had been in place for a while, maybe since 2000BC. That is not the same as saying Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

If the standard is that an "African" Egypt needs proof in DNA and triplicate. Then should the same standard not apply to Northern Egypt being overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC? Again nobody needs DNA to prove ancient Rome was European no matter the level of mixture, but somehow Africans need extra proof... odd how that works.

---

Rome wasn't connected to the Levant. Rome wasn't an entry and exit point for OOA migrations for tens of thousands of years before Egypt. You say Rome was European no matter the level of mixture? How mixed does your available data suggest Rome became? Not the occupied territories, but Rome proper? How diverse did the source of cultural hegemony become? If the civilization's people largely stopped being European after awhile and their leadership reflected this shift, then at that point yes--ROME was not "purely" European and after a certain point became mixed. Egypt had Levanite migrations, secession and FOREIGN rule.

---

We know there was foreign domination in Egypt, just not in 2000 BC. 2000BC is the beginning of the Middle Kingdom and the rise of another series of Southern Dynasties, who were strongly established in Middle Egypt as well. While we know there were Levantine incursions into Northern Egypt leading up to this, that does not imply Northern Egypt was "overrun" by ethnic Levantines to the exclusion of any "native" Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Not my point though. We don't know when this Levantine ancestry entered for a fact and what numbers and how much of the population in any given area was "Levantine" versus "local". This study does not have nowhere near enough data to even begin to understand that and some folks are just running off like they have proof of things they don't.

---

This study takes the data it generated and places it in the context of additional data on the Canaanite expansions (and secession) into Egypt. There is enough data to plausibly provide the falsifiable conclusion that there was significant mixture in Egypt in the north (minimum) by 2,000 B.C.

---

What is "significant" mixture by 2000 BC? How much is significant? Don't you see we don't even have the DNA profile of what an "indigenous" Egyptian was over the course of ANY time period in Egypt? So how can one say what is "foreign" mixture and what is not? And that is in addition to having a limited sample of data that is not from 2000BC. Again, you are going beyond what the paper even supports and are trying to spin it as somehow incontrovertible evidence, when it is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE][qb]
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.

---

Are you saying there's data in those areas which doesn't corroborate the author's data? Well, I have theories on that too depending on where those areas are but I'll leave you to answer that first.

---

By definition this is the first full genome from ancient Egypt. Therefore there is no other data similar to it from there. The point is they should be using the new techniques to gather more data.....

---

The authors didn't say they shouldn't be more data. The authors even mention that data from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed for a complete picture of Egypt. However people can produce some falsifiable conclusions with the results that can be change as more data becomes available. That's how science works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Our findings suggest does not constitute proof. You seem to want science to not have to provide hard proof.

---

Science CANNOT produce conclusions that ARE NOT falsifiable. Science can produce DATA (which this study HAS) but even theories like evolution must be falsifiable!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Again, if the standard is for proof of an African Egypt then this same standard should apply to any other theory right?

---

They've already discussed material from other disciplines that point to periods of migration of foreigners into the north and combine that with genetic data they produced. They have DATA that corroborates this. They have enough data to support a falsifiable conclusion.

quote:

---

But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof.

---

What the hell is "definite proof?" Science is never going to give you a non falsifiable answer. It's okay to believe something as long as you're not saying your belief will never require revisions as new data becomes available.

quote:

---

And again why do Africans need such a high standard of proof to show that Egypt is in Africa and was primarily populated by Africans during much of the dynastic period (with some mixture).

---

Because Egypt connects to the Levant and has been the entry point for OOA back-migrations for tens of thousands of years. Rome isn't connected to the Levant. It's surrounded by European countries and is in western Europe. We also know there were waves of migration from the genetic data at 1,000 B.C and this data which corroborates previous data that suggested Canaanite occupation and secession from Egypt near 2,000 B.C. You keep talking about "definite proof" but the extent of your particular brand of "black Egypt" conclusions are not supported with any "definite" proof that both major regions of Egypt throughout all of it's eras (before the Late Period) were largely unmixed. I haven't seen any data that refutes mixture from you, but you cling to this conclusion which isn't scientific. You're holding onto a preset conclusion you want and then choosing to accept data as "definitive proof" based on how well it fits.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I am not disgruntled. I am laughing at you trying to spin your beliefs and theories into being hard proven facts when they aren't and claiming that folks need to do this so they don't seem like "angry afrocentrics". Come on man this is too ridiculous. If we are going to go by a hard standard then lets stick to that standard and not be hypocritical no? Trying to sit here and justify your position as grounded in "anti supremacist" isn't proof of anything. Either you have proof or you don't and it is pushing theories and beliefs without proof that is a hallmark of supremacists BTW. So again, like I said before, this paper is not "proof" of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt in 2000BC. Going fron one extreme to another is not being "objective".

---

quote:

---

Seriously this isn't that complex. Cultures, civilizations and empires have "enclaves" with various ethnic groups. Finding evidence of an enclave doesn't mean that the culture was "overrun" by foreigners. Finding an Asian settlement or neighborhood in Rome doesn't mean Rome was overrun by Asians. Just like large numbers of Latinos in America doesn't automatically mean that they dominate America or really overran it.

---

quote:

---

You are speculating is what I am saying. And you can speculate all you want but that isn't hard fact.

---

First of all you're the one "speculating" by suggesting it's just a cosmopolitan outpost. Rather than data you have a conclusion that you've supported with no historical data. Amenemhat changed the capital from Thebes to a northern city called Amenemhat-Itj-tawy. The violent name associated with the capital "Amenemhat seizer of the two lands" and the wall Amenemhat built along the 14th nome has been referenced to support conclusions made that battles that had gone on with Asiatics reached into Egypt. Both the wall at the 14th nome and moving the capital north near the Delta supports the conclusion that not only had Asiatic infiltration of the Delta happened, but that it was unlikely to have been a breeze in the wind for Egypt to deal with. Even prior to official records of Asiatics successfully organizing into kingdoms within the Delta, there is still data that supports their presence and fighting within that region.


Sooo:

-1900s B.C shows evidence of fighting between Egypt and Asiatics from Khnumhotep's writings. An inscription by Nessumontu, a general, dated to year 24 and mentioning Senusert also mentions expeditions against the Asiatics. Apparently it reads: "I defeated the Asian troglodytes, the sand-dwellers. I overthrew the strongholds of the nomads as if they had never been." (Breasted). Amenemhat I also constructed "Walls-of-the-Ruler," which were one or more fortifications built by in the 14th nome of Lower Egypt to protect from eastern invasions or immigration.


-From 1850-1700 we see signs show up of foreign kings IN Egypt. Going by strictly the Turin canon, this date goes into the early 1700s B.C. Those researchers referencing Manetho conclude as many as 76 kings could've been part of the 14th dynasty and Ryholt mentions there was not enough space in the Turin canon to fit that many names, even if they exist. Ryholt has dated from his own seriation of the seals and concluded that the dynasty extended into the 1800s. Others go for the more conservative estimates near the 1700s.

-By 1650 we see the formal arrival of the Hyksos and they stay until around 1550. This is long term conflict between the two areas that span hundreds of years.


But I'm sure it was just a cosmopolitan experience.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

They "inferred" is not the same as they "proved" how many were there, how they got there or what the percentage of people at any given time.

---

Science is not going to be able create an unfalsifiable conclusion about that. Data can thus only infer or support a conclusion not "prove" so there's no way to prove it false. Science "suggests" and offers falsifiable theories that allow for later revisions to previous ideas. Some data people will take as something being "proven" but they're not thinking scientifically when they do that.

---

The "suggestion" of something is not proof in the sense of a large preponderance of likelihood.

---

quote:

---

Again, sampling 3 mummies or 150 in the late period is not proof of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt to the point that there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt. That is simply logically absurd even without DNA testing.

---

quote:

---

The authors of the paper themselves said openly this isn't enough data to cover the entire Egyptian population contemporaneous to those sampled or back into history.

---

quote:

---

His conclusion wasn't that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. Seriously. The only thing this paper says was that there was that there was a presence of Levantines in the late period and evidence this presence had been in place for a while, maybe since 2000BC. That is not the same as saying Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines.

---

quote:

---

We know there was foreign domination in Egypt, just not in 2000 BC. 2000BC is the beginning of the Middle Kingdom and the rise of another series of Southern Dynasties, who were strongly established in Middle Egypt as well.

---

quote:

---

What is "significant" mixture by 2000 BC? How much is significant? Don't you see we don't even have the DNA profile of what an "indigenous" Egyptian was over the course of ANY time period in Egypt?

---

quote:

---

So how can one say what is "foreign" mixture and what is not? And that is in addition to having a limited sample of data that is not from 2000BC. Again, you are going beyond what the paper even supports and are trying to spin it as somehow incontrovertible evidence, when it is not.

---

quote:

---

By definition this is the first full genome from ancient Egypt. Therefore there is no other data similar to it from there. The point is they should be using the new techniques to gather more data.....

---

quote:

---

Not just Southern Egypt and Sudan either. The idea that Northern Egypt was dominated or mostly "Levantine" by 2000 BC is nonsense. They should sample more of the Northern Cemeteries before during and after 2000 BC before even claiming something like that. Because right now it sounds like you are saying there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt after 2000 BC. That is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Again, they are not saying what you are saying. What you are saying and what they are saying in this paper are two totally completely separate and different things. YOU keep trying to pretend your theory equates to what his paper is saying when it really is not. I don't believe the authors are claiming that Northern Egypt was overrun by, dominated by, ruled by or populated mostly by Levantine "mixed" folks from 2000 BC. That is YOU saying that. They say the data is limited and not proof of anything and that includes not only Southern Egypt but Northern Egypt as well.

---

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 ago. 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 deportation. 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

---

quote:

---

But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof.

---

quote:

---

OOA Back migration? That is a contradiction in terms. Now we are talking about back migrations going back 60,000 years from this one paper? Seriously? So to me it just sounds like you believe that there were no "indigenous Africans" in Northern Africa after OOA because back migrations wiped them all out... Whatever. I still believe there is no proof of that but folks will believe whatever they want to.

---

Egypt being the most likely route of migration into and out of Africa is the reason why in (part) people hold skepticism to the absence of mixture. Well there you go. Because it's funny how you in particular don't like to imagine a migration apartheid barrier preventing what people call "SSA" lineages into the northern parts of Africa, but bristle and balk at the idea of lineages common outside of Africa entering in small or large quantities over TENS of thousands of years.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I am not disgruntled. I am laughing at you trying to spin your beliefs and theories into being hard proven facts when they aren't and claiming that folks need to do this so they don't seem like "angry afrocentrics". Come on man this is too ridiculous. If we are going to go by a hard standard then lets stick to that standard and not be hypocritical no? Trying to sit here and justify your position as grounded in "anti supremacist" isn't proof of anything. Either you have proof or you don't and it is pushing theories and beliefs without proof that is a hallmark of supremacists BTW. So again, like I said before, this paper is not "proof" of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt in 2000BC. Going fron one extreme to another is not being "objective".

---

Either I have definite "proof" or I don't? I create conclusions based on findings from researchers but I'm not making a non falsifiable claim that has no opportunity for fallibility, that's unscientific. I'm saying that there's findings outlined by the researchers that apparently supports a conclusion they make. They also discuss their findings alongside those of other authors. Which reminds me, where is the data supporting your conclusions? Or at least any findings that can refute this one?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Seriously this isn't that complex. Cultures, civilizations and empires have "enclaves" with various ethnic groups. Finding evidence of an enclave doesn't mean that the culture was "overrun" by foreigners. Finding an Asian settlement or neighborhood in Rome doesn't mean Rome was overrun by Asians. Just like large numbers of Latinos in America doesn't automatically mean that they dominate America or really overran it.

---

This isn't just any ol' settlement. What is this site Doug? A burial grounds. As in, where a culture's people deliberately placed their dead. And this isn't just any burial site, this area held great religious importance among issues surrounding death in Egypt, because it was a religious center for their death deity. WHY would this particular Abusir cemetery--which has held importance to Egyptian culture and religion since around the start of it's ENTIRE unified history, be relegated to a burial grounds for foreigners over their own people? Please provide data that would demonstrate and explain what you're talking about. Oh but that's right, you seem to think at this moment you can make conclusions without any findings to support it in a conversation, while finding no issue with demanding "hard facts" from those who've presented more than you.

quote:

---

You are speculating is what I am saying. And you can speculate all you want but that isn't hard fact.

---

First of all you're the one "speculating" by suggesting it's just a cosmopolitan outpost. Rather than data you have a conclusion that you've supported with no historical data. Amenemhat changed the capital from Thebes to a northern city called Amenemhat-Itj-tawy. The violent name associated with the capital "Amenemhat seizer of the two lands" and the wall Amenemhat built along the 14th nome has been referenced to support conclusions made that battles that had gone on with Asiatics reached into Egypt. Both the wall at the 14th nome and moving the capital north near the Delta supports the conclusion that not only had Asiatic infiltration of the Delta happened, but that it was unlikely to have been a breeze in the wind for Egypt to deal with. Even prior to official records of Asiatics successfully organizing into kingdoms within the Delta, there is still data that supports their presence and fighting within that region.


Sooo:

-1900s B.C shows evidence of fighting between Egypt and Asiatics from Khnumhotep's writings. An inscription by Nessumontu, a general, dated to year 24 and mentioning Senusert also mentions expeditions against the Asiatics. Apparently it reads: "I defeated the Asian troglodytes, the sand-dwellers. I overthrew the strongholds of the nomads as if they had never been." (Breasted). Amenemhat I also constructed "Walls-of-the-Ruler," which were one or more fortifications built by in the 14th nome of Lower Egypt to protect from eastern invasions or immigration.


-From 1850-1700 we see signs show up of foreign kings IN Egypt. Going by strictly the Turin canon, this date goes into the early 1700s B.C. Those researchers referencing Manetho conclude as many as 76 kings could've been part of the 14th dynasty and Ryholt mentions there was not enough space in the Turin canon to fit that many names, even if they exist. Ryholt has dated from his own seriation of the seals and concluded that the dynasty extended into the 1800s. Others go for the more conservative estimates near the 1700s.

-By 1650 we see the formal arrival of the Hyksos and they stay until around 1550. This is long term conflict between the two areas that span hundreds of years.


But I'm sure it was just a cosmopolitan experience.

quote:

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE][qb]They "inferred" is not the same as they "proved" how many were there, how they got there or what the percentage of people at any given time.

---

Science is not going to be able create an unfalsifiable conclusion about that. Data can thus only infer or support a conclusion not "prove" so there's no way to prove it false. Science "suggests" and offers falsifiable theories that allow for later revisions to previous ideas. Some data people will take as something being "proven" but they're not thinking scientifically when they do that.

---

The "suggestion" of something is not proof in the sense of a large preponderance of likelihood.

---

No, part of the reason why a collection of data "suggests" something is because a collection of information makes a specific scenario more likely while still making a falsifiable statement. We have the genetic data, and a discussion on it's coalescence. We have this genetic data that came from a place where it would likely reflect native Egyptians. Because what is the likelihood they're going to let a major religious site for the dead be handed to foreigners over their own people?

quote:

---

Again, sampling 3 mummies or 150 in the late period is not proof of Levantines overrunning Northern Egypt to the point that there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt. That is simply logically absurd even without DNA testing.

---

You are taking the gravesite out of it's historic and cultural context. Given where this gravesite was and it's social significance it's highly unlikely this was just some gravesite for foreigners. The mummies were also discussed in terms of coalescence, not just the date they alone came from.

quote:

---

The authors of the paper themselves said openly this isn't enough data to cover the entire Egyptian population contemporaneous to those sampled or back into history.

---

If you'd even read the name of this topic, you'd realize no one was talking about the entire Egyptian population. And yes, being they do not have southern data, they cannot paint a picture with the remains in their possession about how all of Egypt would've been like in it's past.

quote:

---

His conclusion wasn't that Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines in 2000 BC. Seriously. The only thing this paper says was that there was that there was a presence of Levantines in the late period and evidence this presence had been in place for a while, maybe since 2000BC. That is not the same as saying Northern Egypt was overrun by Levantines.

---

We have data that supports Levanites occupied northern Egypt and fended off southern kingdoms for hundreds of years. We also have data from the 1900s B.C showing they'd been infiltrating the Delta before the first records of foreign kingdoms emerged in the 14th dynasty. He nor I said indigenous Egyptians were completely ran out. I already mentioned that he said some of the lineages go back to prehistorical times. Which means they merely added to the number of certain types of genetic lineages already present. Just because two people share the same haplogroup, doesn't mean they share the same culture. One can be an incoming Canaanite, the other someone whose family had come from Egypt since the start of the dynastic era.

quote:

---

We know there was foreign domination in Egypt, just not in 2000 BC. 2000BC is the beginning of the Middle Kingdom and the rise of another series of Southern Dynasties, who were strongly established in Middle Egypt as well.

---

As history nears 2,000 B.C period onwards people can start seeing evidence of Levanite occpationand rule. Fighting and fortification of the Delta starts by the 1900s. The 14th dynasty begins at dates that 1,850 B.C to around 1700 B.C. At that point, Levanites started to control the Delta region. By 1650 you had the Hyksos which lasted until 1550. The author is saying that though there was always the presence of genetic data more commonly found outside of Africa, the increase of these lineages in Egypt occurred at this point in history. For 400 years or more, there was fighting along the Delta region.

quote:

---

What is "significant" mixture by 2000 BC? How much is significant? Don't you see we don't even have the DNA profile of what an "indigenous" Egyptian was over the course of ANY time period in Egypt?

---

Coalescence dates date into prehistory. So essentially, the lineages are "indigenous" Egyptian with respect to being present at state formation. The increase is attributed to foreign mixture because data relating to coalescence and historical data surrounding the time period. The author said it's increased coincides with Levanite migration into the area.

quote:

---

So how can one say what is "foreign" mixture and what is not? And that is in addition to having a limited sample of data that is not from 2000BC. Again, you are going beyond what the paper even supports and are trying to spin it as somehow incontrovertible evidence, when it is not.

---

The author says that the samples coalescence data coincided near 2,000 B.C and notes the historical Levanite expansions by other authors. So even if the mummies physically only date to about 1,300 the coalescence date for much of their mixture with these lineages increases at a date near 2,000 B.C.

quote:

---

By definition this is the first full genome from ancient Egypt. Therefore there is no other data similar to it from there. The point is they should be using the new techniques to gather more data.....

---

They didn't say not to. But they have enough data to make falsifiable conclusions that can be revised if any data that follows doesn't match up.

quote:

---

Not just Southern Egypt and Sudan either. The idea that Northern Egypt was dominated or mostly "Levantine" by 2000 BC is nonsense. They should sample more of the Northern Cemeteries before during and after 2000 BC before even claiming something like that. Because right now it sounds like you are saying there were no "native" Egyptians in Northern Egypt after 2000 BC. That is absurd.

---

They can like many researchers do on an expanding topic that the data so far suggests a certain conclusion. But those lineages were always native to Egypt, the discussion was carried on relative terms. Even the lineages that followed the eastern migrations had generations of mingling among the native population before they started to impact the power structure of Egypt. The author says they date into prehistory. It may always be a matter of debate whether those lineages were the hegemonic forces behind state formation or were they largely the initial recipients of a dominant southern culture, but they were members of the state from it's start. The author is saying that there was especially migration from the East around 2,000 B.C but mixture had always been there.

quote:

---

Again, they are not saying what you are saying. What you are saying and what they are saying in this paper are two totally completely separate and different things. YOU keep trying to pretend your theory equates to what his paper is saying when it really is not. I don't believe the authors are claiming that Northern Egypt was overrun by, dominated by, ruled by or populated mostly by Levantine "mixed" folks from 2000 BC. That is YOU saying that. They say the data is limited and not proof of anything and that includes not only Southern Egypt but Northern Egypt as well.

---

Actually he says that the coalescence began in prehistory and INCREASED. Mixture was always there, it just increased. "I don't believe" is not a rebuttal. The author says:

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 ago. 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 deportation. 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

---

-They do discuss large scale immigration

-They do discuss these events happening from the second millennium onwards.

-They discuss part of the lineages date to pre history.

The general idea behind the 14th dynasty is that there were Levanite kings that ruled the northern parts of Egypt too. So there wasn't just migration, they eventually came to rule the northern parts of Egypt. But I guess there was no 14th dynasty?

quote:

---

But you just said it is OK to believe something with only a suggestion and not definite proof.

---

What the hell is "definite proof?" Science is never going to give you a non falsifiable answer. It's going to give data we can make conclusions with (that should be falsifiable). It's okay to believe something as long as you're not saying your belief will never require revisions as new data becomes available.

quote:

---

OOA Back migration? That is a contradiction in terms. Now we are talking about back migrations going back 60,000 years from this one paper? Seriously? So to me it just sounds like you believe that there were no "indigenous Africans" in Northern Africa after OOA because back migrations wiped them all out... Whatever. I still believe there is no proof of that but folks will believe whatever they want to.

---

Egypt being the most likely route of migration into and out of Africa is the reason why in (part) people hold skepticism to the absence of mixture. Well there you go. Because it's funny how you in particular don't like to imagine a migration apartheid barrier preventing what people call "SSA" lineages into the northern parts of Africa, but bristle and balk at the idea of lineages common outside of Africa entering in small or large quantities over TENS of thousands of years.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Oshun, what you are saying is not the same as what this one paper says. You are putting the data from this one paper together with other sources of AE history to suggest that Northern Egypt was mostly dominated by, populated by or mixed with Levantines starting in 2000 BC. [ That is YOU saying this and not this one paper. By that same logic you could say that Upper Egypt was dominated by so called "Nubians". Personally, I believe this is a bit of a stretch and there is no hard data for it. And no I am not saying there was no mixture in Egypt.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Again, we don't even know what the DNA profile of an actual ancient "indegenous" Egyptian is from any study EVER yet folks are running around talking about every other population being in Egypt without even being able to tell us the DNA of the actual "indigenous" Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Sounds like to me that this is a red flag they are missing something. That is telling you they haven't sampled enough remains.

---

quote:

---

I mean how on earth are folks doing DNA studies of Egypt and the only thing they can talk about is "Levantines" or "SSA" but can't tell us anything about the average indigenous Egyptian DNA wise..... That is only common sense.

---

quote:

---

And yes more data is always better than mere hypothesis. That is also part of science. But there is also something called an 'a-priori' assumption and the fact is most people don't do DNA tests of ancient cultures to determine their "ethnic" background. It is assumed as a given based on the location and presence of other artifacts and elements which are enough to make such a determination. ONLY in Egypt is all this DNA required to "prove" whether the Egyptians were actually Africans and they still haven't found any indigenous Egyptians yet, which we would ASSUME by all logic would be Africans for the most part.

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Oshun, what you are saying is not the same as what this one paper says. You are putting the data from this one paper together with other sources of AE history to suggest that Northern Egypt was mostly dominated by, populated by or mixed with Levantines starting in 2000 BC. [ That is YOU saying this and not this one paper. By that same logic you could say that Upper Egypt was dominated by so called "Nubians". Personally, I believe this is a bit of a stretch and there is no hard data for it. And no I am not saying there was no mixture in Egypt.

---

Neither the paper nor I said that northern Egypt's mixture with genetic lineages being attributed to the Levant started at 2000 B.C. This commment shows you didn't read sh!t they said:

quote:

---

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

---

The study is concluding large-scale immigration happened. Furthermore it's saying that the lineages found in part date to prehistory. Which means this connection was always present. These lineages didn't start arriving in the north at 2,000 B.C. The migrations of the 2,000 B.C era apparently increased the proportion of certain lineages already within the Egyptian population from prehistoric times.

quote:

---

Again, we don't even know what the DNA profile of an actual ancient "indegenous" Egyptian is from any study EVER yet folks are running around talking about every other population being in Egypt without even being able to tell us the DNA of the actual "indigenous" Egyptians.

---

Egyptian was a nationality. They did not decide who could be part of their ethnic group by genetic lineages, or modern notions of race. This author states the lineages date into prehistory suggesting (which is all I can do without making a claim that's non falsifiable/unscientific) that they'd always been in Egypt. These lineages appear to be reflective of indigenous Egyptians of a certain era. IDK what you're expecting the the DNA profiles to tell that would change this, but I'd like to hear it.

quote:

---

Sounds like to me that this is a red flag they are missing something. That is telling you they haven't sampled enough remains.

---

It unlikely they'll ever reach a sample size representative of AE let alone AE throughout it's entire period. That's why science can only say that "available data and research suggests" a conclusion.

quote:

---

I mean how on earth are folks doing DNA studies of Egypt and the only thing they can talk about is "Levantines" or "SSA" but can't tell us anything about the average indigenous Egyptian DNA wise..... That is only common sense.

---

Egyptian was a nationality and common culture. Elements that are often deemed "Levanite" "SSA" or lineage M (which is debated in origin) can all be to the area by the time state formation took place. It sounds so far like you're making a conclusion and waiting for data to confirm it.

quote:

---

And yes more data is always better than mere hypothesis. That is also part of science. But there is also something called an 'a-priori' assumption and the fact is most people don't do DNA tests of ancient cultures to determine their "ethnic" background. It is assumed as a given based on the location and presence of other artifacts and elements which are enough to make such a determination. ONLY in Egypt is all this DNA required to "prove" whether the Egyptians were actually Africans and they still haven't found any indigenous Egyptians yet, which we would ASSUME by all logic would be Africans for the most part.

---

Egypt connects to the Levant. It is a country that lived between other Africans and Asiatic peoples. Examples like Rome that you attempted to make analogous to the situation do not have this geographic issue.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I believe that settlements from the Levant have always been in Egypt, but there's not been enough data I've seen that would suggest it reached a level of domination we see in these remains until a period near 2,000 B.C.E. Reading Smith's work, there was differentiation between southern and northern predynastic populations. So far what findings I've seen suggests they were small local groups that wouldn't become more homogenized (or similar) until after early dynastic times. Keita evaluating distances between the people of Abydos, Badari and Naqada found that these distances between populations correlated with chronology instead of geographic distance. This seems to corroborate they became more similar as time went on.

Some may suggest that determining what "distance" would mean from some kind of racialist perspective should be useless. But my main point is noting the differentiation between the groups, NOT what they would've been considered based on their features during predynastic times.

This is important imo because the author speaks of the prehistorical mixture relative to this 2,000 B.C mixture. Whatever was in the more northern parts of Egypt, mixing and/or adopting a common culture/behavior started to affect the south as early as the Old Kingdom. They started to become more alike at this point. So anyone interested in being somewhat conservative on the regional expansions of mixture in Egypt in earlier dynastic periods--you **might** even find significant mixture there. People probably would not find it on the level of Abusir, but still notable. Just saying not to be surprised at least IF that happens.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I did't say the mummmies failed to corroborate what I'm saying for the northern provinces. I said available upper nubian and southern Egyptian data does not presently corroborate that the levels of mixture seen in more northern provinces extended into the south by that period in time.

When you say there has to be a basal signature somewhere of the base population for the area, what exactly do you mean? Why does there have to be a signature? How do you know there's a "base" population that was standard for all regions across any time period?

I'm still reading about the scale of the slave trade, so far all I'm getting was 30,000 Sudanese slaves with roughly a tenth of them surviving. Even if all these slaves were southern Sudanese, this would not be enough to make northern Egypt have L lineages like that. If I cannot find any type of feasible historical event that would bring in L lineages to the extent we see in the modern population, then that would suggest that the L lineages are probably local--likely from Nubia or southern Egypt.

---

Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged |