posted
Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens Odile Loreille 1,* , Shashikala Ratnayake 2, Adam L. Bazinet 2OrcID, Timothy B. Stockwell 2, Daniel D. Sommer 2OrcID, Nadin Rohland 3OrcID, Swapan Mallick 3, Philip L.F. Johnson 4OrcID, Pontus Skoglund 5, Anthony J. Onorato 1, Nicholas H. Bergman 2, David Reich 3,6 and Jodi A. Irwin 1
quote:Abstract: High throughput sequencing (HTS) has been used for a number of years in the field of paleogenomics to facilitate the recovery of small DNA fragments from ancient specimens. Recently, these techniques have also been applied in forensics, where they have been used for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA sequences from samples where traditional PCR-based assays fail because of the very short length of endogenous DNA molecules. Here, we describe the biological sexing of a ~4000-year-old Egyptian mummy using shotgun sequencing and two established methods of biological sex determination (RX and RY), by way of mitochondrial genome analysis as a means of sequence data authentication. This particular case of historical interest increases the potential utility of HTS techniques for forensic purposes by demonstrating that data from the more discriminatory nuclear genome can be recovered from the most damaged specimens, even in cases where mitochondrial DNA cannot be recovered with current PCR-based forensic technologies. Although additional work remains to be done before nuclear DNA recovered via these methods can be used routinely in operational casework for individual identification purposes, these results indicate substantial promise for the retrieval of probative individually identifying DNA data from the most limited and degraded forensic specimens.
doi:10.3390/genes9030135 Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was able to find the full text of the paper. Excerpt below:
quote:At the time DNA testing was performed on the tooth, and for reasons previously discussed, very little had been published on DNA recovery from ancient Egyptian human remains. Only one publication including HTS and quality control measures was available in early 2016, which described the mtGenome sequencing of an Egyptian mummy from the Greco-Roman period. The individual belonged to mtDNA haplogroup I2 [80]. Two other studies describing mtDNA recovery from ancient African samples were also available at the time, but centered on skeletons from more southern regions of the continent. One described the L0d2c1c lineage mtGenome of a 2330-year-old male skeleton from South Africa [81], while the other described the recovery of a L3x2a mtGenome from the remains of a 4500-year-old individual from Ethiopia [82]. Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise. When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86]. In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht comes from a Lebanese individual. On top of this historical information offering an explanation for the observed mtDNA data are now additional, recently published, mtGenomes from Africa, and Egypt in particular. MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy. In the present study, Near Eastern influence has been found in an individual of high social status who lived in Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.
It's just one mummy, and I suppose Eurasian mtDNA trickling down to Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom isn't a complete shocker. I'm still holding out for the publication of Egyptian mummy mtDNA from a non-MN L lineage.
posted
BTW, the mummy head comes from the necropolis of Deir El-Bersha, which is in central Egypt. So you could say it's a Middle Egyptian site as well.
Front side panel of outer coffin of Djehutynakht | Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Egyptian Middle Kingdom, late Dyn. 11–early Dyn. 12 2010–1961 B.C.
Djehutynakht, tentatively identified with Djehutynakht IV or Djehutynakht V, was an ancient Egyptian "Overlord of the Hare nome" (the 15th nome of Upper Egypt) during the very end of the 11th Dynasty or the early 12th Dynasty (21st-20th century BCE). He is well known for his painted outer coffin (commonly called “Bersha coffin”) now exhibited in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston along with his other grave goods.
Once believed to have lived during the reign of pharaoh Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty, from the analysis of his furniture it has been deducted that he actually lived in an earlier period, although a degree of uncertainty still remains: it's very difficult to trace Djehutynakht's family and life events, and the only certain relationship it that with his wife, also named Djehutynakht. The name was very common in this period and six nomarchs bearing it are known, two of whom – the fourth and the fifth respectively – were married to a wife with the same name. If this nomarch was the same of Djehutynakht IV, then he lived at the very end of the 11th Dynasty and was the son of the nomarch Ahanakht I, successor of his brother Ahanakht II, and predecessor of the nomarch Neheri I. Otherwise, if he was the same of Djehutynakht V, then he lived during the late reign of pharaoh Amenemhat I of the 12th Dynasty and was Neheri I's son and successor by his wife Djehutyhotep, and the uncle of his successor Neheri II. In either cases, no children are known for Djehutynakht and his wife. See "Nomarchs of the Hare nome" for a complete genealogy.
Djehutynakht's tomb – designated 10A – was rediscovered in the Deir el-Bersha necropolis in Middle Egypt in 1915 by the American Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner who was the leader of the Harvard University – Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition. Almost nothing was left of the outer chapel but the burial chamber, although already raided of the jewelry, still contained several finely painted cedar wooden coffins belonged to Djehutynakht and his wife (above all his outer coffin, commonly called “Bersha coffin”, renowned as “the finest painted coffin Egypt produced and a masterpiece of panel painting”. Along with the coffins, in the tomb were found a head of a mummy (most likely a male one thus possibly belonging to the nomarch) as well as lady Djehutynakht's canopic chest and a great number of funerary furniture such as pottery, canopic jars, several model boats, many models of men and women in different daily life activities, and the famous group composed of a priest and many offering girls, known as “Bersha procession”. In its entirety, these objects forms the largest Middle Kingdom funerary assemblage ever found. The Egyptian government gave the whole content of Tomb 10A to the Museum of Fine Arts. During the naval trip to Boston in 1920, the collection was threatened by a fire on board, but fortunately the damage was very limited. For decades only the “Bersha coffin” and the “Bersha procession” were exhibited at the MFA; in 2009-10 the whole collection was shown in a dedicated exhibition.
posted
OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt. There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested. One mummy here and there is asinine.
But here is the key point:
quote:However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).
I guess the AE weren't African then.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt. There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested. One mummy here and there is asinine.
But here is the key point:
quote:However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).
I guess the AE weren't African then.....
I'm just waiting for the leaked Y- and mtDNA beyoku shared years back to get published. But there is another thread for that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt. There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested. One mummy here and there is asinine.
But here is the key point:
quote:However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).
I guess the AE weren't African then.....
I'm just waiting for the leaked Y- and mtDNA beyoku shared years back to get published. But there is another thread for that.
The point of this thread is that the DNA was U5 and that it could not have been indigenous to Africa(according to what you posted). And if that is true and no DNA from North Africa, including this, is from Africa then what other conclusion would you come to?
The point being sample some of the obviously black mummies and see if they carry these "non African" lineages....... Then what?
But nah.... the AE were a Eurasian transplant:
quote: The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy. In the present study, Near Eastern influence has been found in an individual of high social status who lived in Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.
quote: Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'
....
She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'
Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.
Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.
Why not test this one?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how U5b2b5 actually got into this mummy's ancestry? They mention one Lebanese individual having the haplogroup, but I'm not seeing any mtdna U lineages listed in Fernández 2014 or Haber et al, which deal with Levantine aDNA. We also know that EEFs had less U than their Paleolithic and Mesolithic European forebears did. If this guy got his U5 from the Middle East, it doesn't seem to have been a common lineage even in that region at the time.
Maybe his ancestors actually got it straight from Europe, or a European-influenced population?
EDIT: Re-reading the paper, the Lebanese individual they mentioned is actually a Phoenician from Carthage during the 6th century BC. And the writers of that paper claim that this haplogroup would have spread into North Africa from Iberia. So maybe our mummy got it from genetically Iberian-influenced Libyans?
quote: Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'
....
She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'
Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.
Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.
Why not test this one?
Even if they did that, what would be the point? Doesn't really matter which one they test. What matters, is whether the U5 carrier is ethnically Egyptian. Based on Lioness's post he is, so this result counts just like any other Egyptian aDNA result.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'
....
She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'
Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.
Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.
Why not test this one?
Even if they did that, what would be the point? Doesn't really matter which one they test. What matters, is whether the U5 carrier is ethnically Egyptian. Based on Lioness's post he is, so this result counts just like any other Egyptian aDNA.
What would matter is defining terms. If "indigenous" Nile Valley Africans have U5 in ancient Egypt then either it came from somewhere else or it was already there all along. Likewise if they test more than a handful of mummies and test a good sample across all periods and it comes out to be present in a high percentage then the question becomes whether this truly represents "Eurasian" mixture. If that Lineage is even that common..... Again, according to their own summary they are claiming this proves North Africans don't carry African DNA.... Then of course the next thing would be ancient Upper Egyptian and Northern Sudanese so-called "Nubians".... Wonder if they would also carry such "Non African" DNA.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'
....
She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'
Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.
Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.
Why not test this one?
Even if they did that, what would be the point? Doesn't really matter which one they test. What matters, is whether the U5 carrier is ethnically Egyptian. Based on Lioness's post he is, so this result counts just like any other Egyptian aDNA.
What would matter is defining terms. If "indigenous" Nile Valley Africans have U5 in ancient Egypt then either it came from somewhere else or it was already there all along. Likewise if they test more than a handful of mummies and test a good sample across all periods and it comes out to be present in a high percentage then the question becomes whether this truly represents "Eurasian" mixture. If that Lineage is even that common..... Again, according to their own summary they are claiming this proves North Africans don't carry African DNA.... Then of course the next thing would be ancient Upper Egyptian and Northern Sudanese so-called "Nubians".... Wonder if they would also carry such "Non African" DNA.
Ironically, this isn't necessarily good news for Team Euro. They basically want AE to be all transplants from the Levant, but U5 doesn't seem to appear in aDNA from that region at all. The "Lebanese individual" the OP paper claims also had U5 was a citizen of Carthage who could have easily been of Iberian descent. IMO, the U5-carrying ancestor of our mummy didn't necessarily come from the Levant. They could have come either straight from Europe (which would probably make them an oddity among AE) or from Libyan Berbers of partial European descent to the west. Either way, it may not be that U5 in this single mummy has ramifications for where most AE ancestry originated.
Good post. Instead of getting all hyped up, I forgot that U5 is most likely European in origin! How many Levantines at the time would even carry U5?
More importantly 4000 years ago is around 1900 BC(I think) wouldn't that be around the time the Phoenicians start expanding? Who knows?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens, 2018 David Reich 3,6 and Jodi A. Irwin 1
To better understand the mtDNA lineage of the mummy in the context of known Egyptian mtDNA diversity, the mummy haplogroup was compared to the mtDNA haplogroup distribution of 668 Egyptians from various modern populations [68,69,70,71,72,73]. The dominant haplogroups among this dataset were haplogroup T (11.98%) and L3 (11.23%; Table S3). Out of the 64 individuals who belonged to haplogroup U, seven belonged to haplogroup U5 (1.05%), and three (0.5%) belonged to one of the U5b subgroups (U5b1c; U5b1d1a; U5b2a5). The Djehutynakht sequence was also compared to available ancient human DNA sequences (Table S4). Not surprisingly, no direct matches to the Djehutynakht sequence have been reported. However, related U5b2b sequences have been observed in ancient human remains from Europe, and a haplogroup U5b2c1 haplotype was recently discovered in 2000-year-old remains from Phoenicia [67]. When only the mtDNA sequences recovered from ancient Egyptian human remains are considered, the Djehutynakht sequence most closely resembles a U5a lineage from sample JK2903, a 2000-year-old skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq
Phoenicia had always had strong trade links with Egypt and trading posts were probably established there as early as anywhere else. Further along the northern coast of Africa with its fertile soil and access to interior trade goods such as ivory, the ancient sources state that Utica was established in c. 1101 BCE by Sidon. Carthage, according to the same authors, was founded in 814 BCE by Tyre. Other colonies were Auza (mentioned in texts as founded by Tyre but of unknown location), Leptis Magna, Hippo, Hadrumetum, and Lixus.
_________________________
However:
Ancient mitogenomes of Phoenicians from Sardinia and Lebanon: A story of settlement, integration, and female mobility
E. Matisoo-Smith1*, A. L. Gosling1, D. Platt2, O. Kardailsky1, S. Prost3,4, S. Cameron- Christie1, C. J. Collins1, J. Boocock5, Y. Kurumilian6, M. Guirguis7, R. Pla Orqu ́ın7, W. Khalil8, H. Genz9, G. Abou Diwan8, J. Nassar8, P. Zalloua6*
Abstract The Phoenicians emerged in the Northern Levant around 1800 BCE and by the 9th century BCE had spread their culture across the Mediterranean Basin, establishing trading posts, and settlements in various European Mediterranean and North African locations. Despite their widespread influence, what is known of the Phoenicians comes from what was written about them by the Greeks and Egyptians. In this study, we investigate the extent of Phoeni- cian integration with the Sardinian communities they settled. We present 14 new ancient mitogenome sequences from pre-Phoenician (~1800 BCE) and Phoenician (~700–400 BCE) samples from Lebanon (n = 4) and Sardinia (n = 10) and compare these with 87 new complete mitogenomes from modern Lebanese and 21 recently published pre-Phoenician ancient mitogenomes from Sardinia to investigate the population dynamics of the Phoeni- cian (Punic) site of Monte Sirai, in southern Sardinia. Our results indicate evidence of conti- nuity of some lineages from pre-Phoenician populations suggesting integration of indigenous Sardinians in the Monte Sirai Phoenician community. We also find evidence of the arrival of new, unique mitochondrial lineages, indicating the movement of women from sites in the Near East or North Africa to Sardinia, but also possibly from non-Mediterranean populations and the likely movement of women from Europe to Phoenician sites in Lebanon. Combined, this evidence suggests female mobility and genetic diversity in Phoenician com- munities, reflecting the inclusive and multicultural nature of Phoenician society.
^^ Note, third from bottom U5b2b5 from Sardinia, one of xyyman's favorite islands 4090-3890 BP
__________________
^continued:
Conclusions Our analyses of ancient pre-Phoenician and Phoenician mitogenomes from Lebanon and Sar- dinia provide important clues on cultural expansion, assimilation and population mobility in the Mediterranean between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. First, we see a certain degree of con- tinuity of population ancestry between Phoenician and pre-Phoenician populations in Sardinia, which is consistent with archaeological evidence of integration between the cultures [64, 65]. However, our data from Monte Sirai, combined with our previously published result identifying a European mitochondrial haplogroup, U5b2c1, in a young man buried in a Phoenician crypt in Carthage, North Africa [17], provide evidence of several instances of unexpected, non-indigenous mitochondrial haplotypes in Phoenician burials both in and outside the homeland of Lebanon. These include the T2b3 haplotype in the BEY 197 site, Beirut, Lebanon, and the Near Eastern N1b1a5 and a northern European W5 found in Monte Sirai, Sardinia. Sardinia has been the subject of numerous genetic studies due to its important geographic iso- lation. The Sardinian population is often described as the best representation of early farmer ancestry [40, 41], and indeed, we do see the likely early farmer mtDNA lineages combined with those of the Southwestern/Central Mediterranean Mesolithic (particularly haplogroups H and possibly H1, H3 and H5), in the Phoenician samples at Monte Sirai.
____________________
Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link Alessandro Achilli,1 Chiara Rengo,1 Vincenza Battaglia,1 Maria Pala,1 Anna Olivieri,1 Simona Fornarino,1 Chiara Magri,1 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Nora Babudri,3 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,4 Ornella Semino,1 and Antonio Torroni1 2004
Abstract The sequencing of entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroup U reveals that this clade arose shortly after the “out of Africa” exit and rapidly radiated into numerous regionally distinct subclades. Intriguingly, the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely ∼9,000 years. This unexpected finding not only confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum but also reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers.
subhaplogroup U5 provided a rather intriguing result. A Yakut from northeastern Siberia (27 in fig. 1) and a Fulbe from Senegal (29 in fig. 1) harbored mtDNAs that differed at only two coding-region nucleotide positions.
Seven of the new sequences (one Berber from Algeria, two Italian, one Spanish, and three Saami) clustered into U5b1b, the subclade encompassing the Yakut and Fulbe mtDNAs. The Saami and the Yakut mtDNAs formed a minor branch distinguished only by the transition at nt 16144, the Berber and the Fulbe mtDNAs clustered in a second minor branch also characterized only by control-region mutations, and the Italian and Spanish mtDNAs formed other minor branches.
An age of ∼60 ky indicates that haplogroup U arose very soon after the “out of Africa” exit. As for U5, its sequence divergence was 8.1 ± 1.8 substitutions, corresponding to 41.4 ± 9.2 ky, a time estimate in full agreement with its proposed proto-European origin (Richards et al. 2000). It is striking that the sequence divergence of U5b1b, the subclade encompassing mtDNAs from the Saami, Yakut, Berbers, and Fulbe, was 1.7 ± 0.5 substitutions, thus corresponding to only 8.6 ± 2.4 ky.
Such a recent common ancestry of maternal lineages found in populations living as far as 9,000 miles apart and whose anthropological affinities are not at all obvious is, to say the least, unexpected. Can we provide a reasonable explanation? The recent molecular dissection of other mtDNA haplogroups reveals some clues. H1 and H3, two frequent subhaplogroups of H, display frequency peaks centered in Iberia and surrounding populations, including the Berbers of Morocco, and coalescence ages of ∼11 ky (Achilli et al. 2004). Furthermore, their frequency patterns and ages resemble those reported for haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 2001a)—which, similar to U5b1b, is extremely common only in the Saami (together, U5b1b and V encompass almost 90% of the Saami mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1996; Tambets et al. 2004). Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ∼15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans.
The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations Authors C. Coudray 2008
Eurasian U macrohaplogroup is subdivided into U1 to U9 (with the exception of U6 restricted to North Africa) and K lineages. U has an extremely broad geographical distribution and accounts for about 20% of European mtDNA sequences (Herrnstadt et al. 2002). In this study, it is represented by four haplogroups: U2, U3, U4 and U5. U2 can be found at low frequencies in populations of western Asia and the Caucasus. Here, it was observed only in the Berbers from Bouhria, by two subclades, U2b (1 sequence) and U2e (2 sequences). U3 is observed at 1.1% (U3a) and 1.3% (U3) in samples from Figuig and Siwa, respectively. This haplogroup has a frequency peak in the Near East (Achilli et al. 2007). U4 haplogroup is spread at moderate frequencies all over Europe, western Siberia, and southwestern Asia (Richards et al. 2000). Only one sequence from Bouhria belongs to U4. U5, one of the most ancient subhaplogroup of U, occurs in most cases as occasional haplotypes that are derived from European lineages (Achilli et al. 2005; Richards et al. 2000). In 16.7% of Siwi samples, it appears as U5b, a lineage suggesting back-migration of people from Europe to the South (Torroni et al. 2006). One Berber from Asni also bears this sequence. K lineages are observed at 3.8%, 5.7% and 11.5% in samples from Asni, Bouhria and Siwa, respectively.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
U5 18% (Coudray 2008) (Also M1 and L3, others see above Siwa DNA graphic)
Look at the Siwa graphic previously posted, note all the possibilities for the Y side, including Haplogroup B2a1a1a1, R1b (V88 according to another article) as well as various E lineage including M81
. ____________________
A comment on a Trip Advisor blog:
One of the two oldest oracles in the world (the other is in Dodona, Greece), it is famous for informing Alexander the Great that he was the Son of Amun. The temple is not as exotic as other major monuments in Egypt, but may be more important than most. The ancient people of Siwa were called Ammonians. They are discussed in Herodotus. Other references to Siwa can be found in Virgil's Anead and biographies of Alexander and the poetry of Pioneer. Siwa is in many ways more Phoenician and Greek than Egyptian. Let you mind take you to the past as you wonder around the ruins.
In this we have a portion of the water of the river which is not the smallest nor the least famous, and it is called the Sebennytic mouth. There are also two other mouths which part off from the Sebennytic and go to the sea, and these are called, one the Saitic, the other the Mendesian mouth. The Bolbitinitic, and Bucolic mouths, on the other hand, are not natural but made by digging. Moreover also the answer given by the Oracle of Ammon bears witness in support of my opinion that Egypt is of the extent which I declare it to be in my account; and of this answer I heard after I had formed my own opinion about Egypt. For those of the city of Marea and of Apis, dwelling in the parts of Egypt which border on Libya, being of opinion themselves that they were Libyans and not Egyptians, and also being burdened by the rules of religious service, because they desired not to be debarred from the use of cows' flesh, sent to Ammon saying that they had nought in common with the Egyptians, for they dwelt outside the Delta and agreed with them in nothing; and they said they desired that it might be lawful for them to eat everything without distinction. The god however did not permit them to do so, but said that that land was Egypt where the Nile came over and watered, and that those were Egyptians who dwelling below the city of Elephantine drank of that river. Thus was it answered to them by the Oracle about this: and the Nile, when it is in flood, goes over not only the Delta but also of the land which is called Libyan and of that which is called Arabian sometimes as much as two days' journey on each side, and at times even more than this or at times less.
The Nile then, besides the part of its course which is in Egypt, is known as far as a four months' journey by river and land: for that is the number of months which are found by reckoning to be spent in going from Elephantine to these "Deserters": and the river runs from the West and the setting of the sun. But what comes after that point no one can clearly say; for this land is desert by reason of the burning heat. This much however I heard from men of Kyrene, who told me that they had been to the Oracle of Ammon, and had come to speech with Etearchos king of the Ammonians: and it happened that after speaking of other matters they fell to discourse about the Nile and how no one knew the sources of it; and Etearchos said that once there came to him men of the Nasamonians (this is a Libyan race which dwells in the Syrtis, and also in the land to the East of the Syrtis reaching to no great distance), and when the Nasamonians came and were asked by him whether they were able to tell him anything more than he knew about the desert parts of Libya, they said that there had been among them certain sons of chief men, who were of unruly disposition; and these when they grew up to be men had devised various other extravagant things and also they had told off by lot five of themselves to go to see the desert parts of Libya and to try whether they could discover more than those who had previously explored furthest: for in those parts of Libya which are by the Northern Sea, beginning from Egypt and going as far as the headland of Soloeis, which is the extreme point of Libya, Libyans (and of them many races) extend along the whole coast, except so much as the Hellenes and Phenicians hold; but in the upper parts, which lie above the sea-coast and above those people whose land comes down to the sea, Libya is full of wild beasts; and in the parts above the land of wild beasts it is full of sand, terribly waterless and utterly desert. These young men then (said they), being sent out by their companions well furnished with supplies of water and provisions, went first through the inhabited country, and after they had passed through this they came to the country of wild beasts, and after this they passed through the desert, making their journey towards the West Wind; and having passed through a great tract of sand in many days, they saw at last trees growing in a level place; and having come up to them, they were beginning to pluck the fruit which was upon the trees: but as they began to pluck it, there came upon them small men, of less stature than men of the common size, and these seized them and carried them away; and neither could the Nasamonians understand anything of their speech nor could those who were carrying them off understand anything of the speech of the Nasamonians; and they led them (so it was said) through very great swamps, and after passing through these they came to a city in which all the men were in size like those who carried them off and in colour of skin black; and by the city ran a great river, which ran from the West towards the sunrising, and in it were seen crocodiles. Of the account given by Etearchos the Ammonian let so much suffice as is here said, except that, as the men of Kyrene told me, he alleged that the Nasamonians returned safe home, and that the people to whom they had come were all wizards. Now this river which ran by the city, Etearchos conjectured to be the Nile, and moreover reason compels us to think so; for the Nile flows from Libya and cuts Libya through in the midst, and as I conjecture, judging of what is not known by that which is evident to the view, it starts at a distance from its mouth equal to that of the Ister: for the river Ister begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that it divides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillars of Heracles and border upon the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset of all those who have their dwelling in Europe): and the Ister ends, having its course through the whole of Europe, by flowing into the Euxine Sea at the place where the Milesians have their settlement of Istria. Now the Ister, since it flows through land which is inhabited, is known by the reports of many; but of the sources of the Nile no one can give an account, for the part of Libya through which it flows is uninhabited and desert. About its course however so much as it was possible to learn by the most diligent inquiry has been told; and it runs out into Egypt. Now Egypt lies nearly opposite to the mountain districts of Kilikia; and from thence to Sinope, which lies upon the Euxine Sea, is a journey in the same straight line of five days for a man without encumbrance; and Sinope lies opposite to the place where the Ister runs out into the sea: thus I think that the Nile passes through the whole of Libya and is of equal measure with the Ister.
Hence the Egyptians make the image of Zeus with the face of a ram; and the Ammonians do so also after their example, being settlers both from the Egyptians and from the Ethiopians, and using a language which is a medley of both tongues: and in my opinion it is from this god that the Egyptians call Zeus Amun. The Thebans then do not sacrifice rams but hold them sacred for this reason; on one day however in the year, on the feast of Zeus, they cut up in the same manner and flay one single ram and cover with its skin the image of Zeus, and then they bring up to it another image of Heracles. This done, all who are in the temple beat themselves in lamentation for the ram, and then they bury it in a sacred tomb.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^You still believe analyzing aDNA that doesn't fully corroborate previous Ideas and Negro philosophies is useless?
I believe they should sample all mummies and stop playing silly mind games. What they have done is found a couple mummies that show certain DNA lineages and basically said that therefore all AE were non African Eurasian transplants.
OK. So how does a "powerful woman" from Elephantine play into this? How would the early populations at Ta Seti (Elephantine) and Luxor and Nubt play into this. I am talking about the fact of obviously black skinned folks in Upper Egypt and obviously black skinned mummies we KNOW were black Egyptians. Are they going to be "sub saharan" or do they carry the SAME DNA profiles? The question of black skin in AE is not "dismissed" by DNA. Never was even a concern of mine. At this point the narrative is that Sub Saharan" DNA flowed into Egypt after the Roman era. So where did all the blacks in the Dynastic Era come from?
Again, Queen Nodjmet an obviously black late period mummy is an example of the long tradition of Southern queens determining legitimacy in AE.
Or maybe that is just embalming tricks.... They didn't actually look like that.
But seriously for this idea of AE being a Eurasian transplant all the facts should match up. The mummies should be obviously white. The art should show obvious Levantine pictures across the board. And the culture should show reverence for and legitimacy of Queens from Eurasian lands with Eurasian ancestry. And the temples and traditions should be showing reverence to Eurasian deities and tradition from overseas as well. And they don't.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Again, Queen Nodjmet an obviously black late period mummy is an example of the long tradition of Southern queens determining legitimacy in AE.
Nodjmet was an ancient Egyptian noble lady of the late 20th-early 21st dynasties of Egypt, mainly known for being the wife of High Priest of Amun at Thebes, Herihor. Herihor claimed “kingship” – although only inside the borders of the Temple of Amun at Karnak – Nodjmet effectively became his “queen”: her name was inscribed inside a cartouche and later she bore titles such as Lady of the Two Lands and King's Mother.
Nodjmet was one of the first mummies discovered at the Deir el-Bahari cache (TT320) in the 19th century. The body is that of an old woman. She had been embalmed with a new mummification technique which involved the use of fake eyes and the packing of the limbs. The fake eyes were constructed out of black and white stones, in order to give the mummy a more life-like appearance. Her limbs and face were also coloured to show appearance of liveliness. Although Nodjmet was an old woman, a wig and false eyebrows (made out of human hair) were placed to achieve a look of youthfulness.
Egyptian army officer and High Priest of Amun at Thebes Herihor and wife Nodjmet adoring the god Osiris in the afterlife. From the Book of the Dead papyrus of Nodjmet, c. 1050 BC.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.
Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.
And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.
Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.
And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?
Swenet the overall gist of the post is that the AE were primarily (From this DNA) non African transplants. Do you agree with that?
My point is that obviously this is false.
Egyptian culture originated in the South. So we need DNA from those southern folks to "confirm" indeed that North African DNA is "Non African" is my point. The underlying agenda behind this DNA and most of the other DNA is to show that when you think of AE you should think of Eurasian looking people and this goes for all "North Africa". That is the point. Obviously that is false as well.
And Southern Egypt and Upper Sudan along with the Sahara are all part of North Africa. So are we going to say that Sub Saharan DNA starts at Aswan now and that this was a boundary between Africans and Eurasians based on DNA? Doesn't that sound stupid?
U5 DNA does not equal "non black skin" in most AE populations prior to or during the dynastic. U5 DNA does not PROVE skin color.
I know for a fact there were plenty of BLACK AE at all levels through all periods in dynastic Egyptian history. The fact that some folks would sit here and pretend that this is NOT the case is the problem.
So what kind of DNA did those black folks have is the question? The fact these folks were African was never in question. I don't know how you see a handful of DNA studies and automatically jump to that conclusion. Do L lineages in Ancient Greece make them Blacks and Non Europeans? Do E lineages in Europe make them non Europeans? Come on now with retarded nonsense. We all know that is not how this works. But that would be the only way to say that the AE as "North Africans" were not African and therefore Eurasians is the point. If someone is going to say that then they should prove it with more than one or two pieces of DNA and all the facts should line up and they don't. Still.
And the bigger issue is folks that believe Europeans who desire to see the AE as "white Eurasian" transplants are doing so based on some "objective science". Don't talk that retarded nonsense to me. They have been picking out whatever data they can claim to support this since they went to Egypt whether it be pottery or cherry picked art, or cherry picked mummies or absolutely nothing at all. And I don't look at how they handle the DNA as being any different. The joke is still on them to explain how so many blacks got into AE prior to the increase of "sub saharans" after the Roman era. The game is over. These clowns just don't want to admit it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, what makes someone genetically "African?" I've read research that's now saying L3 was the result of a back migration. Okay well if the L3 Africans aren't Near Eastern transplants and get to be "real Africans" and not "non African transplants," how come anybody outside of Haplogroup L, whether they've been in Africa for tens of thousands of years and morphologically no different from other Africans is not? No one cares about Haplogroup R in Cameroon. Even if the subclade was born in Africa, the general attitude was that haplogroup R wasn't. But no one complains about their "Africanity." Anyways, always be very careful of how much context you have.
quote:When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86]. In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht comes from a Lebanese individual.
They are telling you to your face there was evidence of immigration from Palestine in the Old Kingdom and Predynastic. They found Near Eastern styled dwellings like I said. Who imports a house? THEN imagine 1,000 years of this going down. State formation began roughly 1,000 years before this mummy lived or died. For any of you holding out for a genetically uniform "African" set of haplogroups, especially in northern Egypt (which yes includes parts of Upper Egypt as far as I'm concerned) you will likely be disappointed. There's too much archaeology in the north that showed influence from the Near East. Think of all the data the Abusir researchers fell back on when they talked about how it fit with the archeological record. They know they're going to find this. And this is probably why researchers like Keita didn't touch ideas of the north and south being uniform with a ten foot pole despite many Afrocentrics screaming that it was coonery.
I don't think anyone just stumbled on this data. Before they tested the DNA they reviewed the morphology of the mummies to see where they'd likely relate to. They found a cline that was north to south and also found that over time the northern type features became more dominant. So what does that mean? The longer you extend from state formation and the further north you go the more likely you'll find this genetic type.
2000 B.C is 1,000 years past the initial formation of the state. Northern Egyptians had more than enough time to navigate south and intermarry with southerners. Many "Upper Egyptians" were unrelated tribes, etc that were then converted to "Naqada culture" before the end of the predynastic by violence or assimilation. They didn't bring the culture to the region though. Afrocentrics ought o Stop thinking of predynastic Egyptians as people who were a singular cultural monolith. In fact stop thinking of the Egyptians that way too. It'd be better to look at the Egyptians as a diverse group of people whose local history will often anchor them to their predynastic ancestors. Culturally lower Egyptian enclaves such as Abusir existed in Upper Egypt so it will be up to you guys when this data comes out, to have a better idea of the local history than these researchers put out. The Abusir paper was a lot better about putting the data into a more general historical context for the country, but was poor in offering the local history that would've made the results seem a bit less left field. I expect most other papers will not even give you as much as the Abusir researchers did.
Finally, Levanite immigration into Egypt was starting by 2,000 B.C and into the second millennium which the researchers on the Abusir data point out. Take for instance the Oryx nome right above the nome we're talking about.
Egyptian art of the nomarch receiving foreigners. When waves of Near Easterners were undoubtedly in fear of their lives because of climate change anyone can probably imagine that they probably came in fair numbers. So please understand what you're dealing with: 1,000 years of mixing with Levanite influenced (if not transplanted) northern Egyptians and immigrants from the Near East. Review the record that shows this type becomes more dominant after the creation of the state.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.
Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.
And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?
You're right, a few Eurasian mtDNAs in early Egypt shouldn't be a shocker. After all, even in the leaked sample, there were a few Eurasian uniparentals sprinkled among all the African ones.
But I will admit that even I was a bit shaken by this. It wasn't so much the presence of U5 lineage in one Middle Kingdom mummy so much as the fact that the only other two Middle Kingdom mtDNAs that have been published so far (to the best of my knowledge) are M1, the Africanity of which is uncertain. Two M1 and one U5 might not make up a large sample size for the Middle Kingdom, but you have to admit Team Euro has gotten lucky so far with the published uniparentals.
I'm still holding out for the publication of an L3 lineage from the next mummy. If it's any other type of L lineage, I want to see how the Euros react.
First, what makes someone genetically "African?" I've read research that's now saying L3 was the result of a back migration. Okay well if the L3 Africans aren't Near Eastern transplants and get to be "real Africans" and not "non African transplants," how come anybody outside of Haplogroup L, whether they've been in Africa for tens of thousands of years and morphologically no different from other Africans is not? No one cares about Haplogroup R in Cameroon. Even if the subclade was born in Africa, the general attitude was that haplogroup R wasn't. But no one complains about their "Africanity." Anyways, always be very careful of how much context you have.
quote:When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86]. In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht comes from a Lebanese individual.
They are telling you to your face there was evidence of immigration from Palestine in the Old Kingdom and Predynastic. They found Near Eastern styled dwellings like I said. Who imports a house? THEN imagine 1,000 years of this going down. State formation began roughly 1,000 years before this mummy lived or died. For any of you holding out for a genetically uniform "African" set of haplogroups, especially in northern Egypt (which yes includes parts of Upper Egypt as far as I'm concerned) you will likely be disappointed. There's too much archaeology in the north that showed influence from the Near East. Think of all the data the Abusir researchers fell back on when they talked about how it fit with the archeological record. They know they're going to find this. And this is probably why researchers like Keita didn't touch ideas of the north and south being uniform with a ten foot pole despite many Afrocentrics screaming that it was coonery.
I don't think anyone just stumbled on this data. Before they tested the DNA they reviewed the morphology of the mummies to see where they'd likely relate to. They found a cline that was north to south and also found that over time the northern type features became more dominant. So what does that mean? The longer you extend from state formation and the further north you go the more likely you'll find this genetic type.
2000 B.C is 1,000 years past the initial formation of the state. Northern Egyptians had more than enough time to navigate south and intermarry with southerners. Many "Upper Egyptians" were unrelated tribes, etc that were then converted to "Naqada culture" before the end of the predynastic by violence or assimilation. They didn't bring the culture to the region though. Afrocentrics ought o Stop thinking of predynastic Egyptians as people who were a singular cultural monolith. In fact stop thinking of the Egyptians that way too. It'd be better to look at the Egyptians as a diverse group of people whose local history will often anchor them to their predynastic ancestors. Culturally lower Egyptian enclaves such as Abusir existed in Upper Egypt so it will be up to you guys when this data comes out, to have a better idea of the local history than these researchers put out. The Abusir paper was a lot better about putting the data into a more general historical context for the country, but was poor in offering the local history that would've made the results seem a bit less left field. I expect most other papers will not even give you as much as the Abusir researchers did.
Finally, Levanite immigration into Egypt was starting by 2,000 B.C and into the second millennium which the researchers on the Abusir data point out. Take for instance the Oryx nome right above the nome we're talking about.
Egyptian art of the nomarch receiving foreigners. When waves of Near Easterners were undoubtedly in fear of their lives because of climate change anyone can probably imagine that they probably came in fair numbers. So please understand what you're dealing with: 1,000 years of mixing with Levanite influenced (if not transplanted) northern Egyptians and immigrants from the Near East. Review the record that shows this type becomes more dominant after the creation of the state.
I personally do not agree with this generic flow of history as being primarily a "Northern" flow of immigrants into Egypt and therefore "ovurrunning" or changing the local population into Non Africans by the later dynastic. Again, for such a thing to be true ALL the facts need to line up and they dont.
First the First Intermediate period was a period of instability in all of Egypt but especially in the North. The north was fractured into multiple competing Dynasties. What restored the unity of the country? Southerners. The Middle Kingdom openly stated in multiple instances that Southern Queens were the legitimacy and stability for the throne. The Prophecy of Neferti is but one example. Then you have the famous lady from Elephantine I posted earlier. Another example of royalty and legitimacy of the throne coming from the South. And in full context elaphantine was in the first nome of Egypt which was Ta Seti, which was like Plymouth rock in America. You don't see legitimacy to the throne or stability in the country EVER flowing from Northern provinces. All during the dynastic era, Northern provinces were the source of INSTABILITY in the country. So claiming that Levantines flowing into Egypt was the basis of Egyptian culture and stability is false. They might have been there but claiming that Egypt revolved around assimilation of these people is NONSENSE. Egypt depended more on assimilation of more southern people than Northern ones. So why on earth would Levantines dominate in AE during this time more than Southerners? Look at the tombs of Beni Hasan, they don't show any Levantines there outside of the FOREIGNERS you showed in the picture. If Levantines were truly as dominant in Egypt as you say they would have depicted themselves as such and elevated Levantine ancestry and culture to dominance and they did not because the Southerners kicked out such invaders.
During the 2nd intermidiate period you had more instability during the invasion of Levantine invaders. And again we see stability and culture restored from the South.
Where is there any temple or priesthood in Egypt that originated in or got its primacy from the Levant? None. The main religious centers of Amun originated in the South and was tied to an origin in Sudan during the 18th dynasty with priests and priestesess being associated with the south and legitimacy to the throne. The 18th dynasty comes to power using Southern Allies. The first queen of this era was often depicted as jet black symbolizing many things along with symbolizing legitimacy to the throne as the wife of Amun the Southern deity (tied to Sudan). Now where do you ever see that kind of power and elevation to ANY Levantine princess or priesthood? Never. So during this period there would have been even more flows of populations into Egypt from the South with the allies. Hathor and Isis and the Great Royal Wife and Gods Wife of Amun are all deities and roles stemming from Southern cultural roots which the AE upheld. They are also the basis of the "immaculate conception" concept in later Christianity. They are direct challenges to and rejection of Northern and foreign intrusions into the country. (In fact they got exported out of the country later by the Romans).
Also, I suggest that folks read the records of the wars during the late 2nd itermediate period between the Southerners and Northern invaders. Those facts contradict everything you are saying. The Eurasian invaders came in, disrespected local tradtions, tried to usurp power and authority from the South and replace it with non local power and authority and were ultimately expelled. And this has ALWAYS been the nature of Levantine/Eurasian interaction with native Egyptian populations and culture.
And this continues into the Ramessid era as the verious Indo European cultures came to threaten the Egyptian state including the Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians and so forth. Again, the Southerners were the staunchest allies in this period. The Ramessid era started with a Southerner named Seti who was honoring the priesthood and tradition of Set from Nubt in Upper Egypt. He came with allies from the Medjay. This is all stated in his own annals and by later descendants on the year 400 stela. And again during the late period you see the most unambiguously black mummies of any period in AE history. And the priesthood of Amun and the Great Harem of Amun under southern priests stayed strong in this period right up to and after the Kushite period, when the last Southerners came to restore the AE culture. No Levantine populations have EVER been elevated to the status and prestige equated to Southerners in AE. EVER. To say this just is false. Therefore claims of Levantine women rising to become queens and birthing new dynasties are false and contradicted by the facts but that does not stop folks from repeating them.
If what you are saying is true then Northern Dynasties would have been the basis of prestige and culture in the country. Northern ancestry would have been the basis of legitimacy to the throne. Norhtern dieties and Northern priesthoods and cults would have run the country but they didn't. Any time Northerners tried to control the country for themselves it triggered conflict, instability and war with the South. That is a fact and no amount of postulating and theorizing will change that.
What you are saying is tantamount to saying that Asian and African immigrants into Rome changed Rome from being a European culture dominated by Europeans. It didn't. It would also mean immigration to America changes it from a white European dominated culture and population. It doesn't. Once a group is in power they tend to stay in power and resist outside forces trying to overthrow them and AE was no different. Groups in power tend to have their own traditions of identity, culture and bloodline and overthrowing that requires complete domination or destruction not "assimilation" or "immigration". And to be perfectly honest Europeans want Egypt to be white from DAY ONE all the way to the Kushites. That is their vision of ancient Egypt and if it takes REMAKING DNA to all be Eurasian, then so be it. In their minds it is justified and this isn't about 'immigration' of Eurasians in later periods, in their minds the culture and identity originated in Eurasians from the start and it was "Negroes" that caused the fall of the country. That has ALWAYS been the view of racists toward Egypt. In fact that is the underlying point of more "sub saharan" mixture after the Roman era. As if to say "Negroes" never were there before that because "Eurasian" DNA was dominant.
You cant just make up facts at will to try and change the flow of AE history. None of the facts I mentioned are new facts. They have always been there. People pretending this handful of DNA changes something is the problem. Not to mention if you find mummies that re unquestionably black and African with U5 then what?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]I personally do not agree with this generic flow of history as being primarily a "Northern" flow of immigrants into Egypt and therefore "ovurrunning" or changing the local population into Non Africans by the later dynastic. Again, for such a thing to be true ALL the facts need to line up and they dont.
First the First Intermediate period was a period of instability in all of Egypt but especially in the North. The north was fractured into multiple competing Dynasties. What restored the unity of the country? Southerners. The Middle Kingdom openly stated in multiple instances that Southern Queens were the legitimacy and stability for the throne. The Prophecy of Neferti is but one example. Then you have the famous lady from Elephantine I posted earlier. Another example of royalty and legitimacy of the throne coming from the South. And in full context elaphantine was in the first nome of Egypt which was Ta Seti, which was like Plymouth rock in America. You don't see legitimacy to the throne or stability in the country EVER flowing from Northern provinces. All during the dynastic era, Northern provinces were the source of INSTABILITY in the country. So claiming that Levantines flowing into Egypt was the basis of Egyptian culture and stability is false. They might have been there but claiming that Egypt revolved around assimilation of these people is NONSENSE.
Who controlled Egypt is rather irrelevant. Leadership extending into the south doesn't prevent northerners from migrating out of the delta and northern portions of the Valley if they want. It wouldn't prevent climate change and the immigration of Near Easterners who populated the Delta to survive. I'm talking about why Egypt's people genetically were a certain way.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE] Egypt depended more on assimilation of more southern people than Northern ones. So why on earth would Levantines dominate in AE during this time more than Southerners? Look at the tombs of Beni Hasan, they don't show any Levantines there outside of the FOREIGNERS you showed in the picture. If Levantines were truly as dominant in Egypt as you say they would have depicted themselves as such and elevated Levantine ancestry and culture to dominance and they did not because the Southerners kicked out such invaders.
We really don't know how great Levanite mixture was in the most densely populated areas of southern Egypt. However looking at cranial analysis, Levanite affinity was gradual and happened over time. And because a people were assimilated into a southern culture during the process of becoming part of the state, the state remained part of the identity of the people even as demographics changed. Changes in the south didn't have to happen simply by foreign invasion, but in combination with Levanite influenced/transplanted lower Egyptians were migrating throughout THEIR country. Beforehand their culture was considered technologically behind the south. Now they had a chance to move into the valley being of the same citizenship as the valley dwellers. Why do you think they couldn't they over the span of 1,000 years move further south?
quote:You cant just make up facts at will to try and change the flow of AE history. None of the facts I mentioned are new facts. They have always been there. People pretending this handful of DNA changes something is the problem. Not to mention if you find mummies that re unquestionably black and African with U5 then what?
Then that means "blacks" weren't really bound to Africa and weren't always related to modern Sub Saharans.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]I personally do not agree with this generic flow of history as being primarily a "Northern" flow of immigrants into Egypt and therefore "ovurrunning" or changing the local population into Non Africans by the later dynastic. Again, for such a thing to be true ALL the facts need to line up and they dont.
First the First Intermediate period was a period of instability in all of Egypt but especially in the North. The north was fractured into multiple competing Dynasties. What restored the unity of the country? Southerners. The Middle Kingdom openly stated in multiple instances that Southern Queens were the legitimacy and stability for the throne. The Prophecy of Neferti is but one example. Then you have the famous lady from Elephantine I posted earlier. Another example of royalty and legitimacy of the throne coming from the South. And in full context elaphantine was in the first nome of Egypt which was Ta Seti, which was like Plymouth rock in America. You don't see legitimacy to the throne or stability in the country EVER flowing from Northern provinces. All during the dynastic era, Northern provinces were the source of INSTABILITY in the country. So claiming that Levantines flowing into Egypt was the basis of Egyptian culture and stability is false. They might have been there but claiming that Egypt revolved around assimilation of these people is NONSENSE.
Who controlled Egypt is rather irrelevant. Leadership extending into the south doesn't prevent northerners from migrating out of the delta and northern portions of the Valley if they want. It wouldn't prevent climate change and the immigration of Near Easterners who populated the Delta to survive. I'm talking about why Egypt's people genetically were a certain way.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE] Egypt depended more on assimilation of more southern people than Northern ones. So why on earth would Levantines dominate in AE during this time more than Southerners? Look at the tombs of Beni Hasan, they don't show any Levantines there outside of the FOREIGNERS you showed in the picture. If Levantines were truly as dominant in Egypt as you say they would have depicted themselves as such and elevated Levantine ancestry and culture to dominance and they did not because the Southerners kicked out such invaders.
We really don't know how great Levanite mixture was in the most densely populated areas of southern Egypt. However looking at cranial analysis, Levanite affinity was gradual and happened over time. And because a people were assimilated into a southern culture during the process of becoming part of the state, the state remained part of the identity of the people even as demographics changed. Changes in the south didn't have to happen simply by foreign invasion, but Lower Egyptians also migrating throughout THEIR country. They were Egyptian nationals after the state was formed, why couldn't they over the span of 1,000 years move further south?
quote:You cant just make up facts at will to try and change the flow of AE history. None of the facts I mentioned are new facts. They have always been there. People pretending this handful of DNA changes something is the problem. Not to mention if you find mummies that re unquestionably black and African with U5 then what?
Then that means "blacks" weren't really bound to Africa and weren't always related to modern Sub Saharans.
What you are saying sounds nice, but the point is that for any specific individual person or persons in AE the facts and evidence should match up before we try and make broad claims about who was and wasn't "African" in AE. We can theorize all day but immigration from the South (And even the West) was present in AE as well. There is no need to pretend that the North was the only place where immigrants came from. And a jet black mummy in Egypt is not something I would label as "Eurasian" matter how much theoretical immigration you claim happened in AE. It doesn't make sense to even suggest that would be something anybody SHOULD suggest. Again, the facts I posted contradict the idea that open immigration of Levantines was taking place into Egypt and that AE like any other culture on the planet would simply ignore its own "roots" and culture to let anybody come in and sit on the throne or change the established order. And this is why I pointed out all the wars in Egypt between North and South. You cannot sit here and ignore that and pretend that doesn't matter. Just like a black woman isn't going to become Queen of England in the next 100 years either. People in power and especially hereditary kingdoms don't just do that. The Romans didn't do it, the Greeks nor anybody else did it and they all had extensive immigration from Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Just like those cultures wouldn't put black African king and queen on the throne or in charge, neither would the AE just put a Levantine or Eurasian on the throne either or just blindly accept assimilation of these people into the culture. And their own documents about the Levantines sweeping into the country is something their own documents attest to as something they were against.
And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying. Again, facts and science have really nothing to do with it and if you think it does you are out of your mind. To them Upper Egypt AND Lower Egypt were Eurasian and therefore not African or black. That should be obvious by now. You can say what you want to say about Afrocentric "conspiracies" but Europeans have been openly stating their goal to have the world see the AE as having been white Eurasians from the time they set foot there and this includes all the predynastic as well. That fact has not changed.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no need to pretend that the North was the only place where immigrants came from. And a jet black mummy in Egypt is not something I would label as "Eurasian" matter how much theoretical immigration you claim happened in AE.
Why would being jet black mean they had to be born in Africa? Have you seen an Adamanese? You're trying to imply blacks are only black if their ancestors never left Africa when you know that many ancient humans leaving and migrating back to Africa would've been morphologically "black" and assortment of other colors as time went on. So leave the "black" part out. And those two brothers from Cairo looked like modern Near Easterners and northern Egyptians living in Cairo today. That phenotype was OLD to Egypt.
Even if the north wasn't the only place immigrants came from we have an idea that the north and Near East were influencing parts of the valley from the available genetic evidence. Available genetic evidence corroborates the cranial record that says the valley started to look more like northern Egypt over time. It may never have looked exactly the same, but the northern type became more dominant. I haven't a clue why you are saying the evidence should match when the genetic data and cranial data are both saying the same thing. Nothing you've said would've prohibited northerners from migrating into the Valley. Even if the southern Egyptians didn't allow foreigners into their lands they'd deny Levanite influenced/transplanted northern nationals the ability to move freely through the country and marry whom they pleased further south? Why do you believe that?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You're trying to imply blacks are only black if their ancestors never left Africa when you know that many ancient humans leaving and migrating back to Africa would've been morphologically "black" and assortment of other colors as time went on. So leave the "black" part out. And those two brothers from Cairo looked like modern Near Easterners and northern Egyptians living in Cairo today. That phenotype was OLD to Egypt.
Even if the north wasn't the only place immigrants came from we have an idea that the north and Near East were influencing parts of the valley from the available genetic evidence. Available genetic evidence corroborates the cranial record that says the valley started to look more like northern Egypt over time. It may never have looked exactly the same, but the northern type became more dominant. I haven't a clue why you are saying the evidence should match when the genetic data and cranial data are both saying the same thing. Nothing you've said would've prohibited northerners from migrating into the Valley. Even if the southern Egyptians didn't allow foreigners into their lands they'd deny Levanite influenced/transplanted northern nationals the ability to move freely through the country and marry whom they pleased further south? Why do you believe that?
I am not implying anything. The FACT is that blacks in Africa are not the result of migrating Eurasians. That is silly talk.
You are trying to make this "theoretical" conjecture into hard facts. What I am saying is you are making generalizations. I never said that there were NO Levantines in dynastic Egypt. What I am saying is that the traditions and culture of AE was not Levantine or Eurasian and the people who created it did not uphold and identify with Eurasia as the basis of or origin of their culture, identity or legitimacy for ruling the country. You can make up any nice sounding hypothetical argument you want. That is not how life works. People are ruthless when it comes to maintaining power and no culture or civiization on earth has willigly gave up power to outsiders not connected to the culture, especially when it comes to HEREDITARY rule which is directly tied to blood and kinship. It hasn't happened anywhere on eart h and it didn't happen in AE either. That does not mean there were no Levantine migrants. It just means you cant make generalizations about Levantine immigration as if AE was some democracy or melting pot that openly accepted anybody and everybody into the country and especially into power. They did not.
And again, the overarching theme these people are pushing is that the AE were never Africans to begin with, so whatever theories you are proposing have nothing to do with what these people are ultimately saying to begin with.
To them the AE culture and identity was ALWAYS Eurasian oriented and based and Africans never had anything to do with it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.
But you just answered this supposition. If ancient humans were morphologically black whether they were African or Eurasian, and the southern phenotype was "black" then what does that mean regardless of what DNA you find? If we found out AE were found to be morphologically and genetically Adamanese tomorrow, but not genetically related to modern SSA, what race would that be?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.
But you just answered this supposition. If ancient humans were morphologically black whether they were African or Eurasian, and the southern phenotype was "black" then what does that mean regardless of what DNA you find? If we found out AE were found to be morphologically and genetically Adamanese tomorrow, but not genetically related to modern SSA, what race would that be?
Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies. What they are ACTUALLY saying and what you are saying is two different things. You can try all day to make this sound "objective" and "scientific" but we all know that has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you really pay attention to these folks, the Southerners and Northerners were both white Eurasian in origin in the first place so black skin was a "foreign" entity......
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE] I am not implying anything. The FACT is that blacks in Africa are not the result of migrating Eurasians. That is silly talk.
That...is so ridiculous. Even today many blacks living in East Africa have Eurasian haplogroups. We know they mixed. We know it's possible. We know many modern blacks are the result of migrating Eurasians and review of V88 we know at SOME point there was a back migration to get there unless haplogroup R itself came from Africa.
quote:You are trying to make this "theoretical" conjecture into hard facts. What I am saying is you are making generalizations. I never said that there were NO Levantines in dynastic Egypt. What I am saying is that the traditions and culture of AE was not Levantine or Eurasian and the people who created it did not uphold and identify with Eurasia as the basis of or origin of their culture, identity or legitimacy for ruling the country.
And I...don't care? That wasn't what was being argued. It has nothing to do with the point.
quote: You can make up any nice sounding hypothetical argument you want. That is not how life works. People are ruthless when it comes to maintaining power and no culture or civiization on earth has willigly gave up power to outsiders not connected to the culture, especially when it comes to HEREDITARY rule which is directly tied to blood and kinship. It hasn't happened anywhere on eart h and it didn't happen in AE either. That does not mean there were no Levantine migrants. It just means you cant make generalizations about Levantine immigration as if AE was some democracy or melting pot that openly accepted anybody and everybody into the country and especially into power. They did not.
And eventually the Egyptians DID retaliate. It didn't stop Levanite settlement and what I assume also mixed families. it's not that important that I do so as I am mostly talking about immigration in combination with northern. Egyptian national. immigration. Northern Egyptians had been citizens of the same country as the Valley dwellers for 1,000 years. Why couldn't they move south? Why couldn't they find spouses in the Valley. I'm waiting.
quote: And again, the overarching theme these people are pushing is that the AE were never Africans to begin with, so whatever theories you are proposing have nothing to do with what these people are ultimately saying to begin with.
To them the AE culture and identity was ALWAYS Eurasian oriented and based and Africans never had anything to do with it.
I'm sorry but huh? I thought you were talking about their race. Now you're talking about them being African. What does all that have to do with them being black if you're saying an ancient human with U5 as their haplogroup can be black?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.
If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians.
Doug...how in the hell would they, indigenous Africans be able to mix with Eurasians if there was no back migration of people with Eurasian descent? The U5 implies a back migration, it doesn't however tell you how the back migrants looked. The darker skin could also be from the back migrants because ancient Near Easterners and Europeans HAD DARK SKIN. Look at the Soqotri or Cheddar man. Yes they could've inherited dark skin from back migrants.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE] I am not implying anything. The FACT is that blacks in Africa are not the result of migrating Eurasians. That is silly talk. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb]
That...is so ridiculous. Even today many blacks living in East Africa have Eurasian haplogroups. We know they mixed. We know it's possible. We know many modern blacks are the result of migrating Eurasians and review of V88 we know at SOME point there was a back migration to get there unless haplogroup R itself came from Africa.
Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:You are trying to make this "theoretical" conjecture into hard facts. What I am saying is you are making generalizations. I never said that there were NO Levantines in dynastic Egypt. What I am saying is that the traditions and culture of AE was not Levantine or Eurasian and the people who created it did not uphold and identify with Eurasia as the basis of or origin of their culture, identity or legitimacy for ruling the country.
And I...don't care? That wasn't what was being argued. It has nothing to do with the point.
quote: You can make up any nice sounding hypothetical argument you want. That is not how life works. People are ruthless when it comes to maintaining power and no culture or civiization on earth has willigly gave up power to outsiders not connected to the culture, especially when it comes to HEREDITARY rule which is directly tied to blood and kinship. It hasn't happened anywhere on eart h and it didn't happen in AE either. That does not mean there were no Levantine migrants. It just means you cant make generalizations about Levantine immigration as if AE was some democracy or melting pot that openly accepted anybody and everybody into the country and especially into power. They did not.
And eventually the Egyptians DID retaliate. It didn't stop Levanite settlement and what I assume also mixed families. it's not that important that I do so as I am mostly talking about immigration in combination with northern. Egyptian national. immigration. Northern Egyptians had been citizens of the same country as the Valley dwellers for 1,000 years. Why couldn't they move south? Why couldn't they find spouses in the Valley. I'm waiting.
You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over. How on earth would that mean MORE Eurasian DNA moving north? Don't you see how that contradicts common sense? That only would be valid if the Southerners were Eurasian to begin which they weren't. Again, the facts don't really support what you are saying. You are making a broad generalization with theoretical arguments and not pointing at any specific FACTS. Can you show me the tombs of the Eurasian generals and Nobles who are openly shown in the 18th dynasty as OPENLY being EUrasian? WHere are all these folks at then? Name them please. Give me the tombs and artifacts that show this.
Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote: And again, the overarching theme these people are pushing is that the AE were never Africans to begin with, so whatever theories you are proposing have nothing to do with what these people are ultimately saying to begin with.
To them the AE culture and identity was ALWAYS Eurasian oriented and based and Africans never had anything to do with it.
I'm sorry but huh? I thought you were talking about their race. Now you're talking about them being African. What does all that have to do with them being black if you're saying an ancient human with U5 as their haplogroup can be black?
I didnt say anything about race.
Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.
quote: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.
"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.
This has ALWAYS been the point of view of mainstream academic anthropology towards AE. Your theoretical arguments really are meaningless on this point. No blacks means no blacks, Eurasian, African or otherwise and certainly does not include black East Africans.
Also here is a recent paper on Sudanese DNA. It doesn't call them back migrating black Eurasians:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.
Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.
And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?
Swenet the overall gist of the post is that the AE were primarily (From this DNA) non African transplants. Do you agree with that?
My point is that obviously this is false.
Egyptian culture originated in the South. So we need DNA from those southern folks to "confirm" indeed that North African DNA is "Non African" is my point. The underlying agenda behind this DNA and most of the other DNA is to show that when you think of AE you should think of Eurasian looking people and this goes for all "North Africa". That is the point. Obviously that is false as well.
And Southern Egypt and Upper Sudan along with the Sahara are all part of North Africa. So are we going to say that Sub Saharan DNA starts at Aswan now and that this was a boundary between Africans and Eurasians based on DNA? Doesn't that sound stupid?
U5 DNA does not equal "non black skin" in most AE populations prior to or during the dynastic. U5 DNA does not PROVE skin color.
I know for a fact there were plenty of BLACK AE at all levels through all periods in dynastic Egyptian history. The fact that some folks would sit here and pretend that this is NOT the case is the problem.
So what kind of DNA did those black folks have is the question? The fact these folks were African was never in question. I don't know how you see a handful of DNA studies and automatically jump to that conclusion. Do L lineages in Ancient Greece make them Blacks and Non Europeans? Do E lineages in Europe make them non Europeans? Come on now with retarded nonsense. We all know that is not how this works. But that would be the only way to say that the AE as "North Africans" were not African and therefore Eurasians is the point. If someone is going to say that then they should prove it with more than one or two pieces of DNA and all the facts should line up and they don't. Still.
And the bigger issue is folks that believe Europeans who desire to see the AE as "white Eurasian" transplants are doing so based on some "objective science". Don't talk that retarded nonsense to me. They have been picking out whatever data they can claim to support this since they went to Egypt whether it be pottery or cherry picked art, or cherry picked mummies or absolutely nothing at all. And I don't look at how they handle the DNA as being any different. The joke is still on them to explain how so many blacks got into AE prior to the increase of "sub saharans" after the Roman era. The game is over. These clowns just don't want to admit it.
Of course their comments on AE genetics are false and/or ignorant of continued Eurasian input over time to the point where they might be passing off immigrant DNA as 'Egyptian'. But I don't expect the average geneticist to know that. How could they, given the selective aDNA reports that have come out? The Egyptian government releases DNA/gives access to samples for its own reasons and based on its own considerations (including nationalist ones). I wouldn't pay much attention to what opinionated geneticists low in the chain of command have to say about Egyptian population affinity. They're just sequencing DNA that has been pre-selected for them, if not pre-screened.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^^ Arabian J lineage not found in 4,500 yo Mota Man from Ethiopia who was E and L
However as I have shown Egyptian Siwa berbers are not for carrying U5 (and other Y DNA) unlike other Hap U ancestries North Africa in many regions being U6
The Siwa may be the modern day connection of modern Egyptian region people to this new analysis of the mummy bearing U5
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.
If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.
Apologies for sounding defensive, but if this line was addressed towards me, I don't think I ever denied at least some degree of change over the course of dynastic history as a result of increased Eurasian admixture. Who knows, maybe we'll find out I was wrong about Eurasian mtDNA haps in pre-New Kingdom Egypt amounting to "a few". When I wrote my previous post, my expectations were based on beyoku's leaked Old to Middle Kingdom data. That list had "a few" unambiguously Eurasian uniparentals speckled among the African ones.
posted
By the way, do you know how to read that graph you posted? I don’t know if it is meant to be read like a traditional PCA graph. The label for modern Cretans may be placed close to the one for 11th dynasty Thebes, but they’re connected by a dotted line that seems to imply a difference factor (“reduced coefficient of racial likeness”) between 3.5 and 5 between them. It’s a bit confusing, to be honest.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else.
You said they're "not the result of" Eurasia which is not the same thing as saying they did not get all their ancestry from a place.Okay so let's hypothetically assume the genetic data for southern Egypt matches the north, then what? What are you going to do with that morphological data that says they're black? Throw it out because it wasn't "African black?"
quote: You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over.
Didn't I tell you that the northerners were mingling with southerners BEFORE the mass migration of foreigners? Did you not just read them say that northerners had Levanite settlements indicative of that affinity which date into the predynastic? You aren't listening. I specifically said that morphological changes were starting in the OLD KINGDOM with parts of Upper Egypt. So even if there were Upper Egyptian forces coming to take back the north the "army" would've included admixed Upper Egyptians who were admixed because the NORTH had plenty of people who had distant ties to the Levant and was mingling with UPPER EGYPT. THEN you're just assuming that every foreigner who'd immigrated to Egypt AND their assimilated offspring just packed up and left. I mean hey, it's not like climate change wasn't going to kill them. The data doesn't support the absence of Levant. It's not just them doctoring DNA. They put Levanite settlements, pottery and CRANIA there too? When does all that start sounding like deNile to you? Why are the Abusir mummies genetically the way they are if it was "African" in all of Upper Egypt? I don't care about who was openly a Levanite. Their DNA says what it says. So why does their DNA say what it does? Why were there Levanite settlements in the predynastic with Levanite material culture and crania that had affinity to the Levant. Answer all of that. Answer why Upper Egypt gradually started taking on a more northern look. Go ahead. Complaining about the power of the south doesn't answer anything.
quote:Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.
Ugh the fcking butthurt. Stop.
quote:I didnt say anything about race.
Sure you haven't :
quote:Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies. Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.
quote: And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.
If you know what they are morphologially, it doesn't matter what they're "ultimately saying" on race. This is what Diop was trying to get people like you to understand because he knew it'd get you sidetracked. He believed they were black Africans but already acknowledged that his point did not rest on whether or not there was a technical back migration. There is already so much data that says the south was morphologically "black" and there's so much data that shows an African cultural affinity. So someone who looks morphologically (black) African and culturally African with Eurasian DNA is perhaps the most you'll be getting from these results, even if they are the same in the early south.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.
A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains From Palestine Excavated at Tell Duweir (Lachish) by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition
D. L. Risdon Biometrika Vol. 31, No. 1/2 (Jul., 1939), pp. 99-166
. Comparisons by rmfficients of rac.ial likeness. Tlie method of Karl Pearson’s coefficient of racial likeness has been applied extensively to series of ancient Egyptian crania. Risdon (1039) has given comparisons made in that way for twenty-two male series, including three from sites outside Egypt, and the treatment below is almost re.stricted to comparisons between these and the two new .series described in the present paper. The procedure fol- lowed in applying the method described in several pajjers in Biomctrika was adopted without modification.*
In deriving a classification of a number of cranial, or living, aeries from the coefficients of racial likeness found between them, it has been ahown repeatedly that the most sug- gestive arrangement is obtained if the clo.sest resemblances of the series, indicated by coefficients below a certain value, are alone taken into account. Risdon has given a diagram (1939, Eig. 3) showing all the reduced coefficients less than .'5-0 between the twenty-two sei'ies with which he dealt. There are fifty -three of this lowest order among the 231 ( = 22 X 21/2) comparisons. The addition of the two new aeries to the classification referred to only requires a knowledge of the reduced coefficients less than 5-() between them and tlie twenty-two series.
It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.
If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.
Apologies for sounding defensive, but if this line was addressed towards me, I don't think I ever denied at least some degree of change over the course of dynastic history as a result of increased Eurasian admixture. Who knows, maybe we'll find out I was wrong about Eurasian mtDNA haps in pre-New Kingdom Egypt amounting to "a few". When I wrote my previous post, my expectations were based on beyoku's leaked Old to Middle Kingdom data. That list had "a few" unambiguously Eurasian uniparentals speckled among the African ones.
So, you think that a representative sample of AE throughout the dynasties will have an uniparental profile that is more African, or at least significantly more African than non-Omotic/non-Nilo-Saharan Ethiopians? We are clearly talking about different things when we are talking about change. Based on your Tut reconstruction, it is no wonder that you're surprised by this U5 carrier. Sometimes it looks like you get it but other times you say something in regards to dynastic Egypt and you completely lose me.
As far as the illustration I posted, it shows Egyptians of the Lower Egyptian morphological type (or, at least, samples dominated by/averaging as that type) on a cline between Egyptians of the Upper Egyptian type (predynastics and dynastics) and Europeans (Cretan). The samples of the Lower Egyptian type include samples from Upper Egypt (e.g. Thebes). So Upper/Lower Egyptian in this context really means morphological type, not geography. As far as the numbers, larger numbers mean more phenotypical distance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else.
You said they're "not the result of" Eurasia which is not the same thing as saying they did not get all their ancestry from a place.Okay so let's hypothetically assume the genetic data for southern Egypt matches the north, then what? What are you going to do with that morphological data that says they're black? Throw it out because it wasn't "African black?"
Seriously? East Africans are "hypothetically" black? Thats the best laugh I have had in a long time.... That's good comedy. When you can show me the evidence the black skin in East Africa came from Eurasia then fine. Otherwise I can't take you seriously on this point.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote: You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over.
Didn't I tell you that the northerners were mingling with southerners BEFORE the mass migration of foreigners? Did you not just read them say that northerners had Levanite settlements indicative of that affinity which date into the predynastic? You aren't listening. I specifically said that morphological changes were starting in the OLD KINGDOM with parts of Upper Egypt. So even if there were Upper Egyptian forces coming to take back the north the "army" would've included admixed Upper Egyptians who were admixed because the NORTH had plenty of people who had distant ties to the Levant and was mingling with UPPER EGYPT. THEN you're just assuming that every foreigner who'd immigrated to Egypt AND their assimilated offspring just packed up and left. I mean hey, it's not like climate change wasn't going to kill them. The data doesn't support the absence of Levant. It's not just them doctoring DNA. They put Levanite settlements, pottery and CRANIA there too? When does all that start sounding like deNile to you? Why are the Abusir mummies genetically the way they are if it was "African" in all of Upper Egypt? I don't care about who was openly a Levanite. Their DNA says what it says. So why does their DNA say what it does? Why were there Levanite settlements in the predynastic with Levanite material culture and crania that had affinity to the Levant. Answer all of that. Answer why Upper Egypt gradually started taking on a more northern look. Go ahead. Complaining about the power of the south doesn't answer anything.
What you said and what has been proven is two different things. I understand perfectly well what you are saying but none of it has been proven is the point. You keep arguing a hypothetical with no proof. Mixture and immigration into AE over time nobody ever was really arguing. I think you are missing the entire point completely. What I am saying is that the people making these papers ARE NOT SAYING THAT. What they are saying is that the AE were always EURASIAN to begin with.
Your theoretical postulations are nice sounding like I said. But the fact is Southerners have been immigrating into AE since before AE. So you can't just pretend only one group of immigrants had an impact on AE and like I said, the facts on record about interactions between North and South consistently show Southern resurgence in power and PEOPLE over and over again. Again, while theoretical arguments sound nice, you have to prove that say Amenshotep III and Tiye for example were not truly indigenous card carrying African Egyptians versus continuously making hypothetical statements. Like I said there is no line of evidence for Levantine blood through Levantine queens being the basis of royal legitimacy. But there is evidence and lots of it for Southern Queens and southern blood being the basis of royal legitimacy. Those are facts not hypotheticals.
At the end of the day we need all the data given all the mummies that are available and should be sampled. No need to sit here and continually deal with hypothetical arguments. This is silly.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.
Ugh the fcking butthurt. Stop.
What your butt hurts because you can't deny that fact? Stop BSing yourself thinking you can just arm wave facts that don't support you. It is a bad look. I am talking about proven documented facts you want to stay on hypotheticals.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:I didnt say anything about race.
Sure you haven't :
quote:Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies. Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.
quote: And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.
If you know what they are morphologially, it doesn't matter what they're "ultimately saying" on race. This is what Diop was trying to get people like you to understand because he knew it'd get you sidetracked. He believed they were black Africans but already acknowledged that his point did not rest on whether or not there was a technical back migration. There is already so much data that says the south was morphologically "black" and there's so much data that shows an African cultural affinity. So someone who looks morphologically (black) African and culturally African with Eurasian DNA is perhaps the most you'll be getting from these results, even if they are the same in the early south.
What do you mean if? These mummies are available. They have been studied. Why do you keep saying if and but as if there haven't been plenty of mummies already identified as being "southern" or even "nubian" in affinity? I mean you had the X-Ray Atlas of royal mummies saying this. You keep pretending that there is some 'missing facts' about black folks being in Egypt from day one. Your insistence on talking about hypotheticals what ifs and buts or maybes is just ducking the facts not addressing them......
Like I said, if what you are saying is true then all the FACTS should support it, not edge cases. U5 does nothing to disprove black African people being the majority population throughout dynastic history, just like L lineages in Europe doesn't disprove that most Europeans are white. You just aren't making any sense.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
:
Printer-friendly view of this topic