posted
There is NO proof where the Afro-Asiatic language originated. The oldest Afro-Asiatic writings have been found in Egypt.
Cheddar Man was NOT a Negroid. Negroids are only 8000 years old. Mesolithic Europeans like Cheddar Man and LaBrana Man likely originated in South Asia. LaBrana man carried Y-DNA C6. Haplogroup C originated in South Asia.
posted
The Bell Beaker Culture originated from the Yamna Culture which was a mix of Middle Eastern Farmers and Eastern European hunter - gatherers. The Yamna Culture brought the Indo-European languages into Europe.
posted
I am curious ..this Abyxx/Cass dude seems to get an account rather quickly.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Dr Winters. It is not surprising that these European researchers are confused and contradictory . But Really they are not confused. They are outright lying. They know what they are doing...
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rosa Fregel, et al.(2018). Ancient genomes from North Africa evidence prehistoric migrations to the Maghreb from both the Levant and Europe. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/20/191569
Fregel et al, Argue that the “ farming and pottery production, could have been introduced into northern Morocco through sea voyaging by people from Iberia or the central Mediterranean as early as ca. 5400 BCE”, only problem with this hypothesis is that the oldest evidence for pottery comes from Morocco—not Iberia.
Fregel et al, maintain that Iberia was the source of Maghrebi civilization eventhough they admit that Andalusian Early Neolithic cultures show North African influences before the Cardial expansion into the Western Mediterranean basin. The authors constantly contradict themselves, as evidence by the reality that if North African cultures existed in Iberia prior to the Cardial expansion, how could Cardial culture be evidence of North African adoption of Iberian culture, when the North African cultures preceded Cardial.
Another problem is that not only did agro-patoral traditions in North Africa preceed the Iberian traditions --Bell Beaker pottery appears first in Africa, not Iberia. This makes their claim that North African cultures influenced North Africa and a back migration took place from Europe to North Africa without merit. This is why Fregel et al, constantly use the phrase “could” when they make claims about possible Iberian sources for North African technics and genes. This indicates that Iberians could not have introduced any genes into North Africa, but Fregel et al, pretend that the North African sites are more recent than the Iberian sites when this is not supported by the archaeological research.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You truly are a dumb F aren't you? Brain like a sieve. Nothing stays in..Asking the same stupid question day in day out.
Several points I made earlier in other therads has been discussed here. Eg that leap Frog Neolithization is absolute nonsense. I told you so.
======
The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia - Miguel Cortés Sánchez a, Francisco(2012)
The rapid expansion and area of dispersal of the early Neolithic traits suggest the use of marine technology. DIFFERENT evidences for a Maghrebian origin for the FIRST colonists have been summarized. The recognition of an early North-African Neolithic influence in Southern Iberia and the Maghreb is vital for understanding the appearance and development of the Neolithic in Western Europe. Our review suggests links between climate change, resource allocation, and population turnover
Recently, the occurrence of well dated non-cardial Neolithic sites has called into question such paradigm (Fig. 1). Examples include a number of Italian settlements, with impressa pottery, the French Languedoc (Pont de Roque-Haute, Peiro Signado, Guilaine et al., 2007) and the Spanish Levant (El Barranquet and Mas d'Is/“lower hut” Bernabeu et al., 2009). All of these sites provide evidence for neolithisation in the western Mediterranean ****PRIOR**** to the Cardial expansion. Within such context, the neolithization of the Iberian peninsula (Fig. 1) is of particular interest (e.g. Manen et al., 2007; Ramos et al., 2008; Carvalho, 2010) due to its strategic location on the confluence of Atlantic, African and Mediterranean Neolithic traditions. The study of this region may additionally provide data to test models of Neolithic migration paths and migration rates through the different continents. Interestingly, this southern Iberian early Neolithic population was established in enclaves located in areas previously occupied by Mesolithic populations that depended on a broad range of coastal resources, and appear to decline for unknown reasons at this time. What seems clear at this point is that the vestiges of this Mesolithic settlement vanished soon after the arrival of the Neolithic populations. Ourmain goal in this paper is to integrate archeological and climatic records, in particular paleoceanographical data, in order to characterize
----
Maghreb The Mesolithic to Neolithic transition on the north-African coast of the Strait of Gibraltar (Fig. 1) is NOT WELL DOCUMENTED although work along the Atlantic and Mediterranean sectors is starting to produce interesting results (e.g. Mikdad and Eiwanger, 1999; Daugas et al., 2008; López Sáez and López Merino, 2008; Rojo et al., 2010; on-going projects from the authors of this paper). At Hassi Ouenzga (Eastern Morocco), the existence of an Epipaleolithic occupation featuring ceramics of the Oran typology alongwith an economy based on hunting has been already suggested (e.g. Linstädter, 2003, 2010). As in Nerja, Cardial ceramics in the region appear later on in the sequence, (i.e., around the mid-8th millennium at Ifri Oudadane and Kaf Taht el Ghar), becoming frequent from the Eastern Rif to the Atlantic between 6.1 and 5.6 cal ka BP (Linstädter, 2008). Their conic bag-shaped bottoms and the heavy and extensive decoration, occasionally associated with the “Almagra” slip, exhibit parallels with forms found in the Algarve, and suggest contacts between both regions (Manen, 2000). Lithic assemblages, scarce for the most part, were characterized by the production of blades, although no evidences of sickles for cereal harvesting have been documented. These data suggest that the emergence of agriculture in the Western Maghreb was a mosaic process, APPARENTLY DIFFERENT from that of the Eastern Magreb (i.e., the Oran region). The earliest Neolithic of Oran featured impressed, incised and grooved ceramics. The decoration was light, often restricted to the upper portions of pots without necks and conic bases. Sometimes there
existed mammillated shaped pegs, often perforated. All of these features resemble materials found in Andalusia (e.g. Nerja,Murciélagos, Carigüela, etc.) more than those deriving from the Neolithic of the Sahara.
Neolithic in the Algarve may have taken place at around 7.4± 0.1 cal ka BP (Table 3, Fig. 4). On other southern Iberian regions (e.g., Huelva, Cadiz, Almería and the coast of Murcia) neither radiocarbon dates on short-lived Neolithic elements nor the bibliography detect settlements prior to 7.0 cal ka BP. For the western Maghreb, Neolithic radiometric dates are fairly abundant, although only one of these was obtained on a clear item of the Neolithic economy: this is the wheat sample from Kaf Taht el Ghar (7.2±0.1 cal ka BP) (Ballouche and Marinval, 2003). Its age fits well with those recorded on the coast of Malaga (Table 3, Fig. 4).
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Where's the proof Bell Beaker culture began in Africa?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
dude, actually read the frigging paper for once in your life. TOR samples are from that Almagra Pottery Neolithic on the Malaga Coast.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The recognition of an early North-African Neolithic influence in Southern Iberia "
"These data suggest that the emergence of agriculture in the Western Maghreb was a mosaic process, APPARENTLY DIFFERENT from that of the Eastern Magreb (i.e., the Oran region)"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.
Wait what? WHOT?! Maybe my inexperience with this is...what? U6, M1 and E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba? So let me see if I understand this right. Autosomal is different from uniparentals. And even if the haplogroup suggests Eurasian migration, doesnt the autosomal give an idea as how much African or Eurasian would be in a population? So...these ancient northern Africans shared autosomal with the Yoruba? Did the Natufians? Where can I read more?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Wait what? WHOT?! Maybe my inexperience with this is...what? U6, M1 and E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba? So let me see if I understand this right. Autosomal is different from uniparentals. And even if the haplogroup suggests Eurasian migration, doesnt the autosomal give an idea as how much African or Eurasian would be in a population? So...these ancient northern Africans shared autosomal with the Yoruba? Did the Natufians? Where can I read more?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.
Wait what? WHOT?! Maybe my inexperience with this is...what? U6, M1 and E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba? So let me see if I understand this right. Autosomal is different from uniparentals. And even if the haplogroup suggests Eurasian migration, doesnt the autosomal give an idea as how much African or Eurasian would be in a population? So...these ancient northern Africans shared autosomal with the Yoruba? Did the Natufians? Where can I read more?
Oshun, in a thread that you started I posted a qpgraph exposing African Ancestry in Natufians using Mota and Yorubans
Earilier in this thread (a thread that you've contributed to) it has been explained from many posters by many angles how African substructure will play a major role in shaping the genetic landscape. I tried explained the possibilities of Autosomal Affinity between populations like Natufians and Yorubans.
^^This last sentence actually just came to fruition when the Taforalt study has been released. Though statistically best modeled by Natufians and Yorubans... Taforalt AND IAM are best fitted as ancestors to both groups.
This among other things shouldn't have gone over your head. -Like Dravidski/polako (idk) treemix graphs showing SSA-like contribution to Natufians -Shuenemens Admixture run showng SSA Contribution to Natufians. -Lazaridis' preprint expressing East African contribution to Natufians.
And lastly you should consider thinking of the distribution of M78 and M2 in both MENA and "Subsahran" populations... "unmixed" SSA pops to be specific. Both of these haplogroups have relatively recent expansion dates but overlap SSA and mena populations during the Holocene (as E.D. points out above)... So whats up with the disparity among SSA's and MENAs (specifically North African) Autosomally..?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: [qb] I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.
Abusir is not in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence. TO the contrary it is quite in keeping with it- namely that when your sampling is heavily weighted towards Late Period/Northern samples you will skew the results a certain way. This is an old issue that appears in Cranial studies, as Barry Kemp's critique of the CRANID database used by forensic anthropologists demonstrated. If your evidence is loaded with samples from northern cemeteries then you get skewed results that downplay not only other data in situ, but also the historic south. They have been running this game for decades.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The thing is Abusir is touted as a first, and so a definitive.
Why are the Egyptian government and Max Planck and other genetic research institutes deliberately ignoring the Amarna and Ramesside ROYAL mummies. Full genome for Neanderthal and Denisova though.
I'm the foundress. TheGreat18thDynasty, "the greatest ruling family to ever rule anywhere,"? No whole genome because oh my STRs sced da righteousness outta the establishment intelligentsia. 'SSA' get thee behind me, get thee away. We gave you niggers the Pulitzer for hip-hop already so oh my gawd what else do they want don't they get it yet sports and entertainment no other recognition they can't do anything else
Egy gov turns down requests by all except the approved bed mates who'll suck their ... kiss.
posted
They already knew the angle people would come with for Upper Egypt, so then there was that Siwa Oasis study. The one that genetically analyzed a later, more isolated group of southern Egyptians with ties to Libya and Bedouin. By the New Kingdom cranial data shows that even a lot of Upper Egypt started to resemble modern Egypt. Certain people who want to communicate that AE demographics were the same as Modern Egypt's are much more likely to get the desired results sampling the NK and later periods, and this has been inferred from cranial data for a long time.
Official restrictions are one of the biggest problems I have had with successfully advocating the reliability of genetic data against skepticism. It's not that you technically couldn't duplicate the results which makes the use of it feel unscientific, but the red tape around the issue I've found. Most people don't have the legal liberty to sample ALL of Egypt, just the portions of Egypt where remains were taken out the country for examination or something (So I've been told).
One of the things I have found a little strange (or at least have no way of explaining) about the DNA ban is how Egyptian bans on ancient DNA testing seem irrelevant to the publications of this data. Why don't these scientists releasing this research feel any fear in releasing all this genetic information? Why hasn't the Egyptian government retaliated against the Abusir study (and others like it) if genetic research of ancient remains is banned?
I imagine this type of confusion is the main source of mistrust for the Egyptian government and ancient genetic research. It creates the feeling among many onlookers that genetic data is only going to be allowed to be published without push back if the government is cool with what it says. I honestly can't say I know what's going on or how objective that conclusion is, but at the same time, I don't have much refutations I can offer when some people say how it looks from them to them from the outside.
Modern Egyptians understandably want the vindication to have the cultural ownership of AE civilization because their ancestors lived there. It's an immense source of revenue for the country so I can only imagine what it'd mean for the world to look at the modern Egyptian people and protest that they have no right to claim AE? So I understand how information released is something that could possibly assist modern Egypt's interests over anyone else's. Can't say I know or understand everything going on, but I don't have anything to discredit it either. Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA. I am doubtful that AE were completely SSA in Old Kingdom times, but I don't think an Old Kingdom Egyptian in Elephantine would genetically be the same as a NK Egyptian in Abusir either.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA.
Which DNA markers do you use to show genetic non-resemblance?
I am doubtful that AE were completely SSA in Old Kingdom times,
Sure, and few credible people go around saying that AEs are identical to SSA peoples. Classic old timer CA DIop for example, made no such assertion. Generally claims along these lines are bogus strawmen set up to supposedly "refute."
I don't think an Old Kingdom Egyptian in Elephantine would genetically be the same as a NK Egyptian in Abusir either.
Sure, they would not be identical due to more foreign influence in NK times as various studies show, though there would be some links of continuity depending on the degree of foreign influence, in a particular area. The further north for example has long had more foreign influence.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I can only imagine what it'd mean for the world to look at the modern Egyptian people and protest that they have no right to claim AE?
Who today should have the right to claim that dynastic Egyptians are their ancestors?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't really trying to inject too much should in that comment. I just understand it'd have a very negative socioecononmic impact to Egypt if the world didn't think modern Egypt had the right to economically benefit or claim a sense of ownership of AE civilization.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptians in Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Kom Ombo and Edfu are likely the closest to the ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are likely the closest to the Upper Egyptians many come to associate with the primary forces of cultural influence, anyway.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote: Genetically most Modern Egyptians don't resemble SSA.
Which DNA markers do you use to show genetic non-resemblance?
Modern Egypt seems to look more like the Middle East than SSA. Yes, all the Natufian and Anatolia components when broken down further probably would reveal some SSA components, but I would imagine that even still, they wouldn't be best described as majority SSA. I don't mind retracting this position if need be. I admit this is a bit rough for me to wrap my head around at times.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The Egyptians in Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Kom Ombo and Edfu are likely the closest to the ancient Egyptians.
In part, yes. For instance, Thuya's exact miniFiler STR profile is found in living Upper Egyptians and Sudanis.
SSA is an amorphous code.
If actually defined by the desert but not by a set of extreme facial features, all of Sudan at least to the confluence of the Blue and White Niles is NOT SSA but all of Ethiopia and Somalia are SSA just like Gabon and Cameroon. Remember the south of Somalia, in fact, is equatorial.
posted
African identity was never defined by proximity to the Sahara. Indigenous Africans were and are found all over Africa from the North to the South. The New Kingdom was founded from the South and Southerners continued to flow into Egypt from the South into the late period. And these Southerners were the main allies that help to reunify the country and create the New Kingdom in the first place. In fact, during the New Kingdom the parts of Sudan were annexed and made DIRECTLY PART of the Ancient Egyptian state.
People keep ignoring these facts and making up all sorts of stories of wanton populations from everywhere but within Africa flowing into ancient Egypt during the New Kingdom.
Much of that flow from in the Levant was also due to the Levant being incorporated into Egypt, but most of these areas were vassal states and not directly integrated into Egyptian cosmology and culture like Sudan was. Kush was defined as the Southern Opet and the AE claimed that Amun originated in Kush. The Amun priesthood arose to dominate AE cosmology in the New Kingdom as a result. And the Great Kings wife of Amun was a Sudanese transplant, as all of these women are shown wearing "Nubian style" or "kushite" crowns....
Most of the images of the AE during the New Kingdom depicted the AE as MORE African and unambiguous, including the females. Yet people persist with this nonsense of the New Kingdom being overrun with non Africans. Of course, most books or coverage of new Kingdom art is very limited to hand picked selections.....
The concept of "Gods wife of Amun" started with Aahotep and her daughter Ahmose NEfertari. Ahmose Nefertari is almost ALWAYS depicted as coal black in her artwork. OBVIOUSLY the symbolic and literal connection between the AE and their southern allies could not be stronger at this time.... And this tradition continued in Upper Egypt even into the late period when parts of Egypt came under foreign domination. And due to the later Kushites still having the memory and traditions of Amun they were eventually able to reunify Egypt due to this connection.
quote: Ahmose-Nefertari was the first Egyptian queen to hold the title of “God’s First Wife of Amun”.[1]
This title gave her the religious and economic influence in the cult of Amun-Re.[2] Her status in the cult gave her the position of “The Divine Adoratrice” and “the Second Priesthood of Amun”, which was a financial office in which she could pass off the title of “God’s Wife of Amun”.[3]Therefore, because of these titles, Ahmose-Nefertari played an important role in the founding of the 18th dynasty.
Ahmose-Nefertari was the granddaughter of King Seqenenre Tao I and Queen Tetisheri.[4] She was also the daughter of King Seqenenre Tao II and Queen Ahhotep.[5] She was the sister of both Kamose and Ahmose. Ahmose-Nefertari may have married her brother, Kamose, who was the last ruler of the 17th dynasty.[6] Kamose’s reign was cut short when he died during the war with the Hyksos.[7] When his brother, Ahmose, came to the throne at a young age, she married him and became his “Great Royal Wife”.[8]
After King Ahmose expelled the Hyksos, he bestowed two religious titles on Ahmose-Nefertari “Second Priest” in the priesthood of Amun and “God’s Wife of Amun”.[9] In order to create the title and office of “God’s Wife of Amun”, King Ahmose had to take an obscure Middle Kingdom title and give it importance.[10] These titles he had given to his queen bolstered the cult of Amun and allowed him to exert his control on the newly unified Egypt.[11] By giving his wife power, he secured his position.[12] The rights of “God’s Wife of Amun” included an endowment of lands and goods. It also allowed Ahmose Nefertari to choose her own successors.[13] Another right of “God’s Wife” was that the right to her estate’s income was “independent of any kings who should arise in future generations.”[14] Thus, this title became connected with the Egyptian royal house.[15] It was also a royal prerogative title held only by the “King’s Chief Wife”.[16]
It is also observed that many of the late period females identified as "Gods Wife of Amun" have obvious African features, just like Ahmose-Nefertari's mummy. One example is Queen Henuttawy.... but sure, lets pretend that Southern influence in AE was diminishing during the New Kingdom....
quote: The Vulture Crown was an Ancient Egyptian crown worn by Great Royal Wives and female Pharaohs. The Vulture Crown was a crown which depicted a vulture, with its two wings hanging from both sides of the head. It was a symbol of protection from the goddess Nekhbet. These crown were frequently adorned with gold and were worn by the Great Royal Wife, high ranking priestesses and female Pharaohs. These crown were also sometimes equipped with the Uraeus, representing both Upper (Nekhbet) and Lower Egypt (the Uraeus). The first known Egyptian woman to wear this crown was Tetisheri.
Another variation with two plumes rising symbolizing Amun
These crowns became common for queens in the New Kingdom and were common in later Kushite Queens in AE.
quote: Nekhbet was the tutelary deity of Upper Egypt. Nekhbet and her Lower Egyptian counterpart Wadjet often appeared together as the "Two Ladies". One of the titles of each ruler was the Nebty name, which began with the hieroglyphs for [s/he] of the Two Ladies....[2]
In art, Nekhbet was depicted as a vulture. Alan Gardiner identified the species that was used in divine iconography as a griffon vulture. Arielle P. Kozloff, however, argues that the vultures in New Kingdom art, with their blue-tipped beaks and loose skin, better resemble the lappet-faced vulture.[3]
quote: The lappet-faced vulture or Nubian vulture (Torgos tracheliotos) is an Old World vulture belonging to the bird order Accipitriformes, which also includes eagles, kites, buzzards and hawks. It is the only member of the genus Torgos. It is not closely related to the superficially similar New World vultures, and does not share the good sense of smell of some members of that group.
The lappet-faced vulture was formerly considered monotypical, but now is separated into two subspecies. The nominate race lives throughout Africa. The subspecies T. t. negevensis, differing considerably in appearance from African vultures (as described below), occurs in the Sinai, the Negev desert, and probably north-west Saudi Arabia.
posted
You are only confused about what genomes are African and eurasian if you accept Population genetics articles on face value. Facially the IAM data implies a Eurasian presence in Egypt. But the archaeology tells a different story. It tells us that the Levant and Anatolia was just an extension of the Nile Valley Kushite nations. As a result, the Abusir, IAM data reflect the haplogroups carried by Africans not Indo-Europeans. See my latest paper Y-CHROMOSOME R1 WAS INTRODUCED TO EURASIA BY KUSHITES , https://www.academia.edu/36591534/Y-CHROMOSOME_R1_WAS_INTRODUCED_TO_EURASIA_BY_KUSHITES
It is amazing to me how AAs are so caught up in Fake Genetics Papers that lie about the history of African people , e.g., making V88 into an Indo-European genome, when the history and archaeology of the Levant and Anatolia illustrate the people were Kushites.Thusly, Early European farmers from the Levant and Anatolia were Kushites--not Indo Europeans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: African identity was never defined by proximity to the Sahara. Indigenous Africans were and are found all over Africa from the North to the South. The New Kingdom was founded from the South and Southerners continued to flow into Egypt from the South into the late period. And these Southerners were the main allies that help to reunify the country and create the New Kingdom in the first place. In fact, during the New Kingdom the parts of Sudan were annexed and made DIRECTLY PART of the Ancient Egyptian state.
People keep ignoring these facts and making up all sorts of stories of wanton populations from everywhere but within Africa flowing into ancient Egypt during the New Kingdom.
Much of that flow from in the Levant was also due to the Levant being incorporated into Egypt, but most of these areas were vassal states and not directly integrated into Egyptian cosmology and culture like Sudan was. Kush was defined as the Southern Opet and the AE claimed that Amun originated in Kush. The Amun priesthood arose to dominate AE cosmology in the New Kingdom as a result. And the Great Kings wife of Amun was a Sudanese transplant, as all of these women are shown wearing "Nubian style" or "kushite" crowns....
Most of the images of the AE during the New Kingdom depicted the AE as MORE African and unambiguous, including the females. Yet people persist with this nonsense of the New Kingdom being overrun with non Africans. Of course, most books or coverage of new Kingdom art is very limited to hand picked selections.....
The concept of "Gods wife of Amun" started with Aahotep and her daughter Ahmose NEfertari. Ahmose Nefertari is almost ALWAYS depicted as coal black in her artwork. OBVIOUSLY the symbolic and literal connection between the AE and their southern allies could not be stronger at this time.... And this tradition continued in Upper Egypt even into the late period when parts of Egypt came under foreign domination. And due to the later Kushites still having the memory and traditions of Amun they were eventually able to reunify Egypt due to this connection.
quote: Ahmose-Nefertari was the first Egyptian queen to hold the title of “God’s First Wife of Amun”.[1]
This title gave her the religious and economic influence in the cult of Amun-Re.[2] Her status in the cult gave her the position of “The Divine Adoratrice” and “the Second Priesthood of Amun”, which was a financial office in which she could pass off the title of “God’s Wife of Amun”.[3]Therefore, because of these titles, Ahmose-Nefertari played an important role in the founding of the 18th dynasty.
Ahmose-Nefertari was the granddaughter of King Seqenenre Tao I and Queen Tetisheri.[4] She was also the daughter of King Seqenenre Tao II and Queen Ahhotep.[5] She was the sister of both Kamose and Ahmose. Ahmose-Nefertari may have married her brother, Kamose, who was the last ruler of the 17th dynasty.[6] Kamose’s reign was cut short when he died during the war with the Hyksos.[7] When his brother, Ahmose, came to the throne at a young age, she married him and became his “Great Royal Wife”.[8]
After King Ahmose expelled the Hyksos, he bestowed two religious titles on Ahmose-Nefertari “Second Priest” in the priesthood of Amun and “God’s Wife of Amun”.[9] In order to create the title and office of “God’s Wife of Amun”, King Ahmose had to take an obscure Middle Kingdom title and give it importance.[10] These titles he had given to his queen bolstered the cult of Amun and allowed him to exert his control on the newly unified Egypt.[11] By giving his wife power, he secured his position.[12] The rights of “God’s Wife of Amun” included an endowment of lands and goods. It also allowed Ahmose Nefertari to choose her own successors.[13] Another right of “God’s Wife” was that the right to her estate’s income was “independent of any kings who should arise in future generations.”[14] Thus, this title became connected with the Egyptian royal house.[15] It was also a royal prerogative title held only by the “King’s Chief Wife”.[16]
It is also observed that many of the late period females identified as "Gods Wife of Amun" have obvious African features, just like Ahmose-Nefertari's mummy. One example is Queen Henuttawy.... but sure, lets pretend that Southern influence in AE was diminishing during the New Kingdom....
quote: The Vulture Crown was an Ancient Egyptian crown worn by Great Royal Wives and female Pharaohs. The Vulture Crown was a crown which depicted a vulture, with its two wings hanging from both sides of the head. It was a symbol of protection from the goddess Nekhbet. These crown were frequently adorned with gold and were worn by the Great Royal Wife, high ranking priestesses and female Pharaohs. These crown were also sometimes equipped with the Uraeus, representing both Upper (Nekhbet) and Lower Egypt (the Uraeus). The first known Egyptian woman to wear this crown was Tetisheri.
Another variation with two plumes rising symbolizing Amun
These crowns became common for queens in the New Kingdom and were common in later Kushite Queens in AE.
quote: Nekhbet was the tutelary deity of Upper Egypt. Nekhbet and her Lower Egyptian counterpart Wadjet often appeared together as the "Two Ladies". One of the titles of each ruler was the Nebty name, which began with the hieroglyphs for [s/he] of the Two Ladies....[2]
In art, Nekhbet was depicted as a vulture. Alan Gardiner identified the species that was used in divine iconography as a griffon vulture. Arielle P. Kozloff, however, argues that the vultures in New Kingdom art, with their blue-tipped beaks and loose skin, better resemble the lappet-faced vulture.[3]
quote: The lappet-faced vulture or Nubian vulture (Torgos tracheliotos) is an Old World vulture belonging to the bird order Accipitriformes, which also includes eagles, kites, buzzards and hawks. It is the only member of the genus Torgos. It is not closely related to the superficially similar New World vultures, and does not share the good sense of smell of some members of that group.
The lappet-faced vulture was formerly considered monotypical, but now is separated into two subspecies. The nominate race lives throughout Africa. The subspecies T. t. negevensis, differing considerably in appearance from African vultures (as described below), occurs in the Sinai, the Negev desert, and probably north-west Saudi Arabia.
Amun/Amma was a Kushite God.After the break up of the Maa Confederation, worship of Amun was spread across Africa and into Eurasia by the Kushites who spread civilization from the Nile Valley and North Africa into Anatolia and India
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am very surprised you guys fail to realize that population genetics is a social science instead of hard science. That is why it promotes the same Hamitic myths in relation to Africa, and its people, that were popularized by Anthropologist for the past 200 years.
Don't you see that the papers they publish are only descriptive papers, describing the haplogroups they put in their studies while they mask out any evidence of African origins of the genes. Or they rename lineages to mask the African origin of a clade, e.g., mtDNA D4, in Africa is really African M1.
You guys go into the Eurocentric forums expecting to contribute to the phylogeographical and population genetics discussions and they block you or delete your post. But like Negroes in the past with hat in hand you revisit these sites and are humiliated again and again, while you try to sit at the table with the deck stacked against you. The deck is stacked because you see population genetics as a new field, that can be helpful in understanding history when in reality it promotes white Supremacy. It is nothing but a subbranch of anthropology.
In the past researchers attempted to justify their claims via archaeogentics. That is, supporting their research with support of linguistics and archaeological research. This worked out fine until they wanted to study ancient DNA (aDNA). This was a disastrous move/ Immediately, they found that contemporary people living in Europe failed to carry genes that matched the ancient Europeans. As a result, researchers began to promote the idea that only Negroes lived in sub-Saharan Africa, especially West, east and South Africa. Blacks in Melanesia were no longer Negroes, while Northeast Africans were again "Hamites", i.e., "Black skinned whites".
Everything was moving along fine in the promotion of White supremacy via population genetics research until 2009 when Cruciani tried to reclassify most African are R1b1 clades into V88. Geneticist were able to disguise the genetic evidence that Dravidians carried M1, and promote the idea that most M1 lineages only occured outside Africa, epecially around the Mediterranean and white Berber North Africa.
Cruciani renamed much of African R1b1 :V88. This upset the Eurocentrics because they found that the so-called basal europeans mainly carried R1b1 and the other clades associated with V88.
Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.
Euronuts have no limit to their blatant and stealthily rewriting of history to "whiteout" Black and African people. The aDNA of the CHG and EF of Europe is R1b1a2. Although ISOGG 216 makes it clear this haplogroup is V88, in the research literature they are referring to this clade (R1b1a2) as R1b-P312/M269 , eventhough M269 is R1b1a1a2.
The presence of R1b1a2 in Europe is explained by the migration of the Kushites into Europe via Gibraltar and Anatolia. But, because Eurocentricswant to white Blacks out of Europe they have fooled people into believing R1b1 is a European clade, instead of V88.
Given the desire to support White Supremacy you will always be humiliated in so-called bioforums discussing population genetics because it is founded the racist concepts of the Hamitic myth.
This old thread is an interesting read...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoutout to BBH for recognizing the importance of Proto-Semitic speakers early on, as opposed to going along with the mainstream science and commentators who, almost without fail, use 'Semitic' to mean 'modern Middle East', even in anthropology, where the branch of Semitic among the Afroasiatic languages should have been a clue that the genetics of Semitic speakers would have followed their linguistic inclusion in Afroasiatic (ie they would have been indistinguishable from Africans of the primary pastoral community in terms of biology, if not also in culture).
This is something I posted on the FB group a long time ago, IIRC. It's one example of a bunch of MENA samples that I consider to be candidates of Semitic (predynastic Egyptian) ancestry. The samples come from a Chl and/or Bronze Age site from the Negev, called Kissufim.
Most of the bones were broken and distorted by soil pressure so that very few measurements could be made. However, the overall impression was that the sample from Kissufim resembles samples from other Chal- colithic sites in Israel previously described (Smith 1995). The skulls are small and the face short and broad, with small mandibles (see Fig. 10.1). Mandibular measure- ments that could be taken are presented in Table 10.3 and long bone measurements in Tables 10.4-10.6. They con- firm previous estimations of the ChaIcolithic populations as relatively slender and probably short (males 166 em and females 155 em) and demonstrate once again the overall similarity ofChaIcolithic populations from differ- ent sites in the southern Levant, including those from Byblos described by Ozbek (1975). The Human Remains http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/9.pdf
Compare with the probable descendants of Semitic speakers in MBII Palestine (note the comment on shorter faces in MBII, recalls Kissufim, but differs from typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine):
In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis. People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e
And compare to predynastics themselves (note, again, the shorter faces compared to typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine):
Figure 6.3 illustrates some of the cranial parameters of Egyptian, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age skeletal samples. Mean values and standard deviations of all measurements for Byblos and other Chalcolothic sites in the southern Levant overlap, while those from the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic sites diverge considerably. The small and incomplete data set (not all meassurements could be made on all speciments) indicates that tthe values quoted may not accurately reflect the entire range of population variation at any one site. However, the data sets available demonstrate consistent differences between samples from the Levant and those from Egypt. This is manifest in cranial breadth, upper facial height and nasal height. The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
So, Kissufim seems part of a group of sites in the Levant that stand out in terms of looking like candidates for new Egyptian (Semitic) ancestry different from the Egyptian ancestry that was already there from Natufian and earlier times. Since we're dealing with Egyptian ancestry from multiple periods, as I've just said, all of the sites will probably have Egyptian ancestry, including some 5.9ky old Semitic ancestry. But if the aforementioned skull from Kissufim (see L507 in fig 10.1) is as typical of that population as Smith claims, Kissufim is clearly among a more standout group of Bronze Age Levantines with a relatively sharp increase of 5.9ky Semitic/Egyptian ancestry.
The Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age specimens recovered from Ein Huderah (Bar Yosef et al. 1977) and Gebel Gunna (Bar Yosef et al. 1986), like those from Wadi Solal (Field 1952), share the short face and narrow cranium characteristic of Early Egyptians. The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
See the skull in in the Kissufim paper (L507 in fig 10.1). It looks more African than many dynastics, including King Tut, in some ways (see King Tut below).
posted
^ Would you say that short and broad faces is a pan-African trait? I admit to being guilty of eyeball anthropology here, but I have noticed anecdotally that a lot of African people from different regions of the continent have faces like that, and many AE sculptures do as well even if their facial features differ from equatorial Africans in other ways. Even Greek sculptures sometimes have that type of facial outline too, which makes me wonder if that's a holdover from the African admixture in Neolithic Southern Europeans.
BTW, many Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians look to me like they have short and wide faces too, so maybe it's also a pan-tropical trait (or a trait retained from ancestral AMH that some OOA populations further away from the tropics lost).
We know this is probably a mid-holocene thing because the longer face seen in Olduvai is also seen in many other African samples from the Upper Palaeolithic, like Jebel Sahaba, Kiffians, etc. They do not have shorter faces and have similar face height as Kefi's Taforalt and Afalou samples with Eurasian mtDNA (according to Kefi). Note that as soon as the Kiffians at Gobero are followed by mid-holocene Tenereans with some links to the Middle Nile/the primary pastoral community, the shorter faces appear.
Although Olduvai is different from all of them in that he has a narrow face (face is not short and also not broad), while in the aforementioned Palaeolithic samples the face is usually not narrow (it's usually not short but still broad, even in Kefi's Taforalt and Afalou).
For Upper facial height of some of the populations I mentioned (Kiffians, Tenereans, Iberomaurusians), you can look into Sereno et al (see HNP = upper facial height, in table 4)
posted
Notice that the Taforalt and Afalou samples are pooled with other Iberomaurusian samples, leading to smaller facial heights in Sereno et al. When you look up the Taforalt and Afalou samples in other works, you will see the values are larger than those reported for the pooled Iberomaurusian samples in Sereno et al.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, so shorter faces in Africa are a mid-Holocene development rather than a pan-African trait, let alone a AMH plesiomorphy like I was thinking.
That being said, if you'll allow me to go off-topic again, I do believe that a number of the other phenotypic traits that we stereotypically associate with "Negroid" or "Black" people are simply AMH plesiomorphies. At least the prognathism, broad and rounded noses, dark skin, and elongated limb proportions have to be. The evolution of different hair textures needs more study, but I believe 4C-textured hair is another AMH plesiomorphy as well, since all the populations that have evolved other hair textures (West Eurasians, East Eurasians, mainland Aboriginal Australians, and possibly North Africans as well) are of the mtDNA L3 clade, and even then 4C hair remains in some OOA populations as well.
Don't get me wrong, modern Africans have undergone plenty of phenotypic change of their own since the earliest AMH. In addition to the mid-Holocene changes in facial height you pointed out, I've observed that modern Africans don't seem to have the prominent brow ridges that you see in early AMH like the Herto or Jebel Irhoud specimens, and of course there's all the other phenotypic diversity throughout Africa that biological anthropologists have long noted. But I do believe that, were you to present the general public with an accurate reconstruction of ancestral AMH, most viewers would regard them as Black people, albeit maybe with a handful of weird features like the aforementioned beetle brows.
IMO, this is why you sometimes get reports of "Negroid" features being found in skeletal remains far removed from Africa. It's not necessarily that, say, prehistoric South Americans like Luzia really had any special affinity to modern Africans or even Australasia. It's more like they simply retained a number of the same AMH plesiomorphies that persist in much of Africa and Australasia. Those plesiomorphies are probably what underlay the "generalized modern" term I remember seeing armchair anthropologists throwing around back in the 2000s (although, ironically enough, they sometimes used the term even to describe actual African remains like the Jebel Sahaban ones). Even Angel's "Bushman-like Basic White" term might be related to that.
That said, in a West Eurasian context specifically, actual African connections are more likely especially since some of the more African-like remains do contrast with neighboring populations without said African resemblances. Even if you discount the Natufian and EEF aDNA samples we have, Natufians for example do look much more African than earlier populations in their region, as do certain Neolithic European remains like those of Nea Nikomedeia. I mention that because I don't people taking my above statements on AMH plesiomorphies as explaining African affinities in every non-African specimen.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Those plesiomorphies are probably what underlay the "generalized modern" term I remember seeing armchair anthropologists throwing around back in the 2000s (although, ironically enough, they sometimes used the term even to describe actual African remains like the Jebel Sahaban ones).
The discourse around that was rather funny in hindsight, BTW. We had that "Racial Reality" guy come here under the moniker "Evil Euro" and claim that Jebel Sahabans were actually "Caucasoid"-affiliated but simply had a "generalized modern" facial structure that would later evolve into "Caucasoid [historic] Nubians"*. IIRC, the guy he was arguing with claimed that not only were Jebel Sahabans "Negroid"-affiliated, but that historic Egypto-Nubians descended from them and therefore had to have been "Negroid" as well. I trust the attentive will notice how much more overlap there was in these debaters' positions than either of them realized.
* Back in the 2000s, I remember it was a lot more common for anti-Afrocentrics to argue that olive skin tones and other "Middle Eastern" physical traits evolved in North Africa. Some of them even claimed Keita agreed with them by pointing to his statements about indigenous African diversity (without drawing as much attention to his citing historic migrations into northern Egypt from western Asia). It seems to me that that it was mostly after we started mapping out the origins of various skin color alleles that the racist anthrobros came to endorse the Neo-Hamiticism that saturates the fandom today. Goes to show you that those guys will look for any excuse to keep North African antiquity away from the dreaded Black people(TM).
posted
I've looked into this for some time, and at the moment I am of the view that there are a bunch of ancient morphotypes that recur in the palaeolithic archaeological record. I consider the Cro Magnon type epitomized by Cro Magnon I and Mladec I (but also to a lesser extent/in modified form in for instance Kostenki 14 and some African remains) one example of such a very ancient morphotype, and I believe Olduvai is another ancient one that corresponds to Basal Eurasian. But I can see a bunch of others, as well (e.g. the AMH involved in contributing AMH mtDNAs to Neanderthals, and increasing their resemblance to AMH [e.g. large cranial size).
Right now I don't see how all these morphotypes can be reconciled in a model of humans joining in a TMRCA in the last 200ky or even 300ky, so I wouldn't put negroid features at the base of human origins.
I did a short post on moving away from my old thinking, here.
Negroid features to me seem ultimately the same as skin pigmentation, in that they don't necessarily deny relatedness (Kostenki 14 has them, Cro Magnon I doesn't have them, yet they're still in the same ballpark of relatedness) nor confirm relatedness (Kostenki 14 has them, as well as Sub-Saharan Africans).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Again props to Swenet who called it out years ago. Funny how the same Euronuts who desperately cling to the fact that North Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than some (West Africans) Sub-Saharans are awfully quiet about this.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer
You were already on page 5 of a thread talking about that
3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE) Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer
_______________________________
I didn't check to see if all 3 > of those charts at your reddit link were all in the 8 page thread though
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I've looked into this for some time, and at the moment I am of the view that there are a bunch of ancient morphotypes that recur in the palaeolithic archaeological record. I consider the Cro Magnon type epitomized by Cro Magnon I and Mladec I (but also to a lesser extent/in modified form in for instance Kostenki 14 and some African remains) one example of such a very ancient morphotype [...]
One example of a Middle Palaeolithic population with so called "precociously modern" or "derived" features that recall Upper Palaelithic AMH. But it really has nothing to do with modern or derived or archaic. All these really show is that populations thought to have emerged only in the Upper Palaeolithic (e.g. Cro Magnon), are older than commonly assumed.
Just wanted to post this before getting back on topic, lest it looks like I was going into some fringe conspiracy/pet theory territory with my previous comments.
Here we present evidence from the newly excavated Fuyan Cave in Daoxian (southern China). This site has provided 47 human teeth dated to more than 80,000 years old, and with an inferred maximum age of 120,000 years. The morph- ological and metric assessment of this sample supports its unequi- vocal assignment to H. sapiens. The Daoxian sample is more derived than any other anatomically modern humans, resembling middle-to-late Late Pleistocene specimens and even contemporary humans. Our study shows that fully modern morphologies were present in southern China 30,000–70,000 years earlier than in the Levant and Europe5–7. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15696
^These could very well have belonged to the Cro-Magnon branch I mentioned earlier, since there appears to be some affinity with UP Europeans, but it's too early to say what morphotype I would consider them to fit with. (The last sentence is also not true and seems more based on ignorant nationalism on part of the authors).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Again props to Swenet who called it out years ago. Funny how the same Euronuts who desperately cling to the fact that North Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than some (West Africans) Sub-Saharans are awfully quiet about this.
Interesting data. Looks like increased Natufian and decreased CHG in OK Egyptians is causing unexpected shifts in the genetic distance profile/pattern of affinities of ancient Egyptians. Decreased affinity with modern Egyptians and increased affinity with Arabians. I bet this would continue as the CHG goes down (e.g. Nuerat) at which point you'd get a unique situation, caused by the Natufian component, of primacy of (distant) affinity to modern Arabians (not to modern Egyptians) without any direct genetic interactions with Arabians.
Then with the right predynastic samples you might get another unexpected shift, in the form of OK Egyptians, Natufians and Arabians now showing predynastic component (in the place of the Natufian component).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Leaked new Ancient Egyptian samples from Mussauer
You were already on page 5 of a thread talking about that
3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE) Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer
_______________________________
I didn't check to see if all 3 > of those charts at your reddit link were all in the 8 page thread though
Shhh...don't interrupt they are busy congratulating each other on their mutual genius
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought I had left the "Semetic" and "Caucusus" thread... but folks didn't get the memo/can't take a hint.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancient "arabians" were proto semetic kushites first.
And the name Kushites is a MISNOMER... the Nilo Sarahans are the real KUSHITES. They built Nabta Playa... which contains the main corpus of pre dynastic E culture in stone.
Euro's busy mixing up names so its all confusing in the end.
The red sea peoples/horn of africa who are the pre proto semetics should be called Erythraics
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thought I had left the "Semetic" and "Caucusus" thread... but folks didn't get the memo/can't take a hint.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.
Why bring me in it? All I did is respond to the 23andme data in the link, showing data I hadn't seen before, with modern Egyptians lower in the list of affinities to OK Egyptians, than Arabians (which I thought was an interesting turn of events, even if you can't appreciate that). If you have a problem with what DJ said about a huge influx of Levantine ancestry, take it up with him. I never said anything about that in regards to this OK Egyptian sample.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would'nt this influx have happened after the foundation of Dynastic Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What hint are people supposed to be taking? That ancient Arabians entered the Nile Valley and helped create dynastic civilization? And why would Europeans and modern Egyptians be quiet about that? And this is supposedly based on a few samples from some leaked report that hasn't been published yet from some heretofore obscure remains. And this is supposed to be taken more seriously despite the fact that the majority of predynastic/early dynastic remains in the Upper Nile still haven't been sampled, resulting in statistical bias towards whatever data that is being provided.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the implications, why would they keep this on the hush? Would'nt this add merit to their argument?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of demographic changes in population, has anyone heard the news from 2 months ago included in the leaked data on ancient Egyptian genomes, that there was a huge influx from the Levant that altered the original Egyptian population that built dynastic civilization?? And that this influx occurred prior to the Islamic Period.
Again props to Swenet who called it out years ago. Funny how the same Euronuts who desperately cling to the fact that North Africans are genetically closer to Eurasians than some (West Africans) Sub-Saharans are awfully quiet about this.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If by "they" you mean the Eurocentrics, their premise is basically the old 'Dynastic Race Theory' that Egyptian civilization was founded by non-African Asiatics. Now, as I'm aware I haven't seen any genomic samples from the Archaic Period (Pyramid Age) much less predynastic times. But to play devil's advocate, even if we are to assume that Egyptian civilization was founded by Natufians, this said people were very distinct from later populations that we know as 'Asiatic' in historical times. As shown in the autosomal distances with modern Mahra being closest to them. But apparently starting from the Middle Kingdom, there was further influx of Asiatic far post-Natufian of course (Hyksos?).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now, as I'm aware I haven't seen any genomic samples from the Archaic Period (Pyramid Age) much less predynastic times)
I believe there is an upcoming study on the Old Kingdom from the location of Nuerat which dates to the Old Kingdom. Which apparently (according to the leaked data)`has a very high degree of Natufian DNA. Take from that what you will.
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For context.
Thanks.
The way I see it, the major takeaway is, as the '23andme' OP in your link says, that there is a massive discontinuity with modern Egyptians, when taking the oldest sample (ie the OK sample) as a starting point, and when you take the other ancient Egyptian samples as derived from the OK sample.
(^Jari, see paragraph above)
The other stuff was already discussed in the 3 abstracts thread (unless I'm missing something).
If Djehuti or Brandon still has sth to say, let's talk about it. If not, I'd like to be on my way, before any more weird, discombobulated reactions and grudge posts come barging in that have nothing to do with anything that was said.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I was told of a guy from Quora community named Ygor Coelho. He's a lawyer, but he also into ancient cultures and populations histories. What's interesting is that he seems to hold the same conclusions as Ethio-Helix in regards to Northeast African populations.
I was sent this link: Results for Kerma DNA which is in regards to the Kadruka findings.
What he wrote is very interesting and seems to support everything we discuss here in Egyptsearch.
What are your takes on it (Swenet and others)??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
I'm the foundress. 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic