posted
To those who don’t get it. The migration path and origin of all major uniparental markers have been resolved with a few minor exceptions. Africans in the Sahara has ALL the major haplogroups found in Eurasia . From mtDNA L to H1 etc. Lineage found in far East Asia has not be found in Africa. Of course mtDNA X found in Native Americans is perplexing and needs to be resolved. DNA R1b-M269 has to be worked out the closeest done so far was work by Busby et al. But I am leaning towards an African origin also because of the distribution pattern of the older brother(Brotha) R1b-V88.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
mtDNA L has been found in the 8000year old farmers in the Levant and in Ancient Anatolia and ancient Iberians and Bell Beaker Britain. Are we to believe it will not be found ON the continent of Africa amongst the Abusir. What?, somehow it fly over (migrated) to the Levant and Anatolia and Europe by teleporting over Egypt? WTF. Even today it is found in high frequency in the Levant and Arabia. Reich…listen up man! Stop playing. loll!
I got a bridge to sell you……
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Dayr al-Barsha Project (2002-present) is an international and interdisciplinary research endeavor directed by the Egyptology department at Leuven University, Belgium. The site of Dayr al-Barsha in Middle Egypt, from which the project derives its name, is in fact only one of several archaeological sites in the region that are under study by the project. […]
quote: Although the study of stone quarries is gaining increasing importance in Egyptian archaeology, quarry logistics, particularly as concerns transport facilities, has hitherto hardly been investigated. In the case of the quarry roads in the greater Dayr al-Barsha region (Middle Egypt), distinguishing between roads related to quarry exploitation from those resulting from other periods of use (in this case mainly related to funerary cult and Late Antique-Early Islamic Period monastic communities) poses another methodological problem. In this paper the use of very high spatial resolution satellite (VHSRS) technology is combined with archaeological methods to investigate the interplay between limestone quarries and roads in the study region. Remote sensing affords significant advantages over traditional survey techniques by visualizing the spatial context, whereas the spectral information content of the imagery adds information on road characteristics.
Results indicate that spectral content is of less importance for road detection in desert-like conditions than the spatial resolution of the imagery. Filtering techniques have an additional value, but in general enhancement techniques such as histogram equalization are most important for mapping road networks in the greater Dayr al-Barsha region. Based on spectral and morphological characteristics, six road types could be identified, a seventh being located using traditional techniques. Ground verification in conjunction with archaeological evidence clarified the spatial context and functions of the routes in the pharaonic and later periods, serving cemetery, quarry and settlement logistics.
Apart from one Middle Kingdom processional road, most roads have their origin in New Kingdom quarry activities. The road pattern we discovered provides important indications on how the stone transport was organized in a practical way. Many quarries in Dayr Abu Hinnis were not connected to harbours along the Nile, but to a long desert road that facilitated talatat transport to an area in northern Amarna. When the abandoned quarry complexes were turned into settlements in the Late Antique-Early Islamic Period, the resident communities selected parts of the existing road system for inter-site transport and transport from and to the Nile Valley. New paths were only rarely developed.
—Véronique De Laet, Gertrud van Loon, Athena Van der Perre, Iris Deliever, Harco Willems, 'Integrated remote sensing investigations of ancient quarries and road systems in the Greater Dayr al-Barsha Region, Middle Egypt: a study of logistics', Journal of Archaeological Science 55 (2015), 286-300.
According to this blog, that is U5b2. Remember how Ramses iii was related to Bell Beakers at the STR yet still of a greater African mold? Saharan haplogroups that crossed the Mediterranean with less competition.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Half of that analogy ain't hitting. Don't stretch the page with large pictures and stay on topic...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My bad. I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of NE Africa in this gradation:
Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians
Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of NE Africa in this gradation:
SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians
I think a triangle would illustrate it best since these populations have three types of ancestry (Eurasian, sub-Saharan, and North African).
This is how I would imagine the affinities to plot out (assuming we disregard the unpublished profile). Of course, the point representing dynastic Egyptians would be a pooled sample in this hypothetical scenario. I expect the dynastic Upper Egyptian type to lie closer to the Saharan/predynastic point of the triangle, whereas something like the Abusir-el-Meleq results would lie closer to the modern Egyptian/Eurasian point.
BTW, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, is how do you reconcile predynastic Egyptians being more African in your triangle than Ethiopians are, despite their similar positions in metric analyses? What is your analysis? Or did you place the predynastic sample more or less based on intuition?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: BTW, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, is how do you reconcile predynastic Egyptians being more African in your triangle than Ethiopian, despite their similar positions in metric analyses? Or did you place the predynastic sample more or less based on intuition?
It probably was intuition (and probably a personal bias towards predynastics being predominantly Saharan in ancestry) more than anything else. But now that you mention it, I wonder whether modern Horners' additional SSA ancestry might pull them further away from Eurasians in those analyses. Figure 4.18 in Haddow's thesis on dental morphology has an example of this, where the Ethiopian sample pulls a bit towards SSA.
On the other hand, when looking up graphs on this topic, I did come across one which shows Tigreans as positioned slightly closer to Sedment and the "E" series than Nubians and predynastic Egyptians appear.
This graph from Irish's Jebel Moya study also shows Tigreans as leaning a bit more towards "E" and Sedment than do the predynastic/Nubian series.
So I guess there are a couple of exceptions out there to the trend you mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: BTW, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, is how do you reconcile predynastic Egyptians being more African in your triangle than Ethiopian, despite their similar positions in metric analyses? Or did you place the predynastic sample more or less based on intuition?
It probably was intuition (and probably a personal bias towards predynastics being predominantly Saharan in ancestry) more than anything else. But now that you mention it, I wonder whether modern Horners' additional SSA ancestry might pull them further away from Eurasians in those analyses. Figure 4.18 in Haddow's thesis on dental morphology has an example of this, where the Ethiopian sample pulls a bit towards SSA.
On the other hand, when looking up graphs on this topic, I did come across one which shows Tigreans as positioned slightly closer to Sedment and the "E" series than Nubians and predynastic Egyptians appear.
Yes. I wanted to know if you had thought about that and deliberately reflected it in that triangle. For something you just did based on intuition, it fits well with something I've been thinking for some time. If you think about it, Horners have acquired new SSA and Eurasian ancestry very recently, after migrating to Horn. Your triangle reflects that, given their position 'south' and 'east' of the predynastic sample. IF predynastics are relatively unchanged compared to their Late Palaeolithic ancestors, and Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers have changed more relative to the same ancestors, then the close position of these groups in metric PCA is not necessarily a measure of close genetic relationship. If you think about it, these Horner populations have increased SSA ancestry AND increased Eurasian ancestry. The phenotypical changes associated with these sources of admixture could have canceled each other out, so that Horners and predynastics are similar in metric PCA, but dissimilar in autosomal ancestry component proportions. So, for instance, a population that is ~60% Basal Eurasian, some SSA-like and some Eurasian (Naqada) could have a similar net position in metric PCA as a population with ~40% SSA-like, ~35% Eurasian and ~25% Basal Eurasian (Lowland East Cushitic speakers). You can also flip it around and say that if predynastics are relatively unchanged compared to their Palaeolithic ancestors (i.e. only minor Eurasian) and if they physically resemble Cushitic speakers, then thy almost certainly have to be maxed out in Saharan ancestry because 1) they are roughly what Afroasiatic pastoralists were before they migrated to the Horn and 2) they didn't have the extra Nilo-Saharan, Omotic and Eurasian admixture that ancestors of Ethiopians inherited in the Horn.
Some more examples to drive the point home. The Afalou and Taforalt samples are similar, broadly speaking, but have different internal structure. Afalou have more broad heads (Levant[?]), but also an increase of southern African features compared to Taforalt. The extra SSA-like features are supposedly expressed lopsidedly in the female Afalou sample. The Iron Age Maghrebi and the E Series samples have similar net affinities, but dissimilar internal structure. The Iron Age Maghrebi sample is more heterogeneous, and more dissimilar to the Lachish sample. If you recall, a substantial amount of Lachish crania could be accommodated in the E-series but few in the Iron Age Maghrebi sample (see Keita's 1988 analysis), even though the centroids of the three populations were very similar. I think the same thing applies to predynastics and the modern east/northeast African populations they cluster with in metric PCA. You pretty much voiced my thoughts with that triangle
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Oshun, again, when I speak I am speaking about the fact that mainstream Egyptology as quoted by Hawass, has always been openly and publicly promoting that the AE were white from day one.
And maybe, in the north, many if not most would've passed for white or "Arab" today. It doesn't really matter what they want to say. What matters is what they can prove. Very early on researchers saw that there were two morphologies in ancient Egypt and have repeatedly reported what they called a cline. To explain this, they did not DENY the morphology of the initial southern "negroid influenced" phenotype. Instead they created "dynastic race" and placed the north as the creators of dynastic culture and all these "blacks" they were finding in a position of cultural inferiority. It was only AFTER too much evidence was coming back from the field, that this theory was abandoned and Egyptology disclosed the role of the south. Even if academically, researchers know that racially the initial founders of Egypt were black by focusing on northern samples and time periods where Upper Egypt would have more northern influence, you can create a picture the public wants (minus the Afrocentrics that aren't really offering too much in tourist dollars anyway). The public believes in a monolith of Egypt, with no complexity in local or regional population history. This is what the Afrocentric community gets calling Keita and anyone else that saw it coming "coons" and "academic sellouts."
quote:Like I said and you keep ignoring the most obvious evidence of blacks in AE come from the late period If what you are saying was true, then those mummies would be white. But they are not. Facts trump theory. And those mummies affirm what I am saying about continuous Southern migrations throughout the Dynastic eras.
I have no idea what you're talking about. They're saying blacks came early IN THE SOUTH but much of the south lost the "negroid features" it once had. And if you go to Egypt, this is true. A lot of Upper Egypt today doesn't look "negroid" even if it does start looking that way the closer you get to Sudan.
quote:But separate from that at the same time, Levantine migration does not discount and erase Southern migrations either or even Western migrations. Population dynamics is not based on one vector it is based on multiple. All lines of evidence have to be looked at not just one.
I'm looking at what the record says. The record says that the "negroid" features in were changing or disappearing in parts of Upper Egypt in the Old Kingdom times. It doesn't matter ultimately where this was coming from. Be it Libyans, northern Egyptians, what have you. That we know a change happened is the most important part. Saying "it's not right" doesn't change what is.
I am saying that I can prove continuous flows from the South throughout the dynastic era and blacks in AE right up to the late period even before the Kushites took over which was ANOTHER Southern infusion. These are FACTS, not proposals, not suggestions, not guessing about "negroids". I am not sure why you think that these facts are not already there or in question. Yes there was mixture in parts of Egypt. But the facts remain there were plenty of blacks in Egypt throughout the dynastic era as well and the facts are ALREADY to prove it and no DNA is going to DISPROVE it. DNA is not skin color nor race. I am not waiting for DNA to "prove" the skin color of folks found in AE. The proof is already there. This is the part you are missing. Don't get me wrong though, I do agree there was Levantine migration over time. However, as I said also, that does not mean it totally changed the overall population of Lower Egypt so drastically as to mean population replacement. And sure that means some folks had lighter skin in some areas. But lets not kid ourselves, there were still plenty of blacks as well.
The only issue the DNA of the mummies in Egypt will answer is how many of the so-called Eurasian DNA lineages are also "indigenous" to African. That's the only question I am really concerned about. Their skin color I am not really worried about. My bet is on a combination of both indigenous African lineages labeled previously as "Eurasian" plus lineages labeled as "Sub Saharan". And of course there will be some truly Levantine lineages found at some point. But these lineages on this mummy may not really be Levantine. That is the other point.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can prove flows from the south but geography is not phenotype. It is not a proposal that the "negroid" features were lost in Upper Egypt over time. These were observations made on the crania. Portions of Upper Egypt was changing in the Old Kingdom and any pulse of Upper Egyptians coming to take back the north would've been northern mixed Egyptians. Northern Egyptian inflow to major areas like Abydos as early as the first dynasty was not a "proposal" but observations. As one united country people can MOVE within their country and the Lower Egyptian types started to become more dominant over time. There were plenty of blacks throughout the dynastic era, yes. Can you even argue they were it's originators? Yes. But plentiful doesn't mean the dominant population, especially as time went on during the Egyptian period. For a lot of Upper Egypt those features were lost over time.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You can prove flows from the south but geography is not phenotype. It is not a proposal that the "negroid" features were lost in Upper Egypt over time. These were observations made on the crania. Portions of Upper Egypt was changing in the Old Kingdom and any pulse of Upper Egyptians coming to take back the north would've been northern mixed Egyptians. Northern Egyptian inflow to major areas like Abydos as early as the first dynasty was not a "proposal" but observations. As one united country people can MOVE within their country and the Lower Egyptian types started to become more dominant over time. There were plenty of blacks throughout the dynastic era, yes. Can you even argue they were it's originators? Yes. But plentiful doesn't mean the dominant population, especially as time went on during the Egyptian period. For a lot of Upper Egypt those features were lost over time.
I am talking about facts you keep hypothesizing about something I never said didn't happen. And the part you are missing is that Southerners from OUTSIDE Egypt came into the North as allies to help push back the invaders. This is the part you are missing. And those black elements stayed dominant well into the late period of AE. You can keep making up all kinds of hypotheticals you want. The facts haven't changed. Where did all these obviously black mummies the most black mummies of any period come from in the 21st and 22nd dynasties if these folks were so mixed? You want some examples? Like I said the facts are already there. This isn't even a debate.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your right it's not. Because observations researchers have made on race go in one ear and out the other. it's not a hypothesis that the south lost it's "negroid" features over time but an observation of available data. Even if outsiders from the south came into the north as allies, this doesn't mean they stayed to affect the phenotype in any significant magnitude. And if they were settling, they weren't settling uniformly within Upper Egypt. When we consider that the deep south had the strongest cultural ties to Sudan since predynastic times, any Sudanese mercenaries that could choose to settle in Egypt after the war would probably have felt most at home much farther south than the hare nome, in the deep south where population density in Upper Egypt was unsurprisingly highest. The record, like I said before, does not show what you're talking about. The one hypothesizing against the available data is YOU. You're talk of black mummies in the 21st and 22nd dynasty (where you don't say), has nothing to do with the fact that Upper Egypt wasn't monolithically "black" until Greeco Roman times.
And as for this guy, they kind of knew what they were going to get with him. Phenotypically he doesn't have the "look" we would attribute to Egyptian guys farther south like Tut.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: How old was Villabruna? ~14000yo Where was he located? ~ Italy What is his Y-Haplogroup? ~ R-V88 Is Villabruna a Berber? – yes, sources cited. Pigmentaion – probably black Eyes – blue Like Cheddar man - yes
Does it make sense? These are the FACTS. YOU explain it.
These European racist researchers like Reich can play the mind and labelling game with you but I am unto their tricks. The STR profile is clear. Berbers are Africans. “Eurasian” DNA is NOT of European or Asia origin. I told you people the bigger problem Skoglund 2017 created was not Tanzanian_3100BP but Malawi-Hora-8100BP. Notice the Siwa Berbers carry underived U5*. L1b is found in Britain Royalty going back 3500BC. The woman had a reshaoed head. The Neolithic of Iberia were Tropical peoples. Ask Sergi and Coon etc. I am not the anthropologist here. SMH!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...
How old was Villabruna? Where was he located? What is his Y-Haplogroup? Is Villabruna a Berber? How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..?
Great post. They know these people were Africans. That's why they talk about genetic data and ignore the archaeological evidence indicating a African migration into Europe--not the other way around. Researchers, I think it was Cruciani, who recognized a long time ago that U5 was associated with V88.
The discovery of U5 in this mummy supports the presence of haplogroup U among the Abusir Meleq mummies.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
v88 is haplogroup R. Unless the entire R haplogroup came from Africa don't that mean there was a back migration somewhere along the line?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Your right it's not. Because observations researchers have made on race go in one ear and out the other. it's not a hypothesis that the south lost it's "negroid" features over time but an observation of available data. Even if outsiders from the south came into the north as allies, this doesn't mean they stayed to affect the phenotype in any significant magnitude. And if they were settling, they weren't settling uniformly within Upper Egypt. When we consider that the deep south had the strongest cultural ties to Sudan since predynastic times, any Sudanese mercenaries that could choose to settle in Egypt after the war would probably have felt most at home much farther south than the hare nome, in the deep south where population density in Upper Egypt was unsurprisingly highest. The record, like I said before, does not show what you're talking about. The one hypothesizing against the available data is YOU. You're talk of black mummies in the 21st and 22nd dynasty (where you don't say), has nothing to do with the fact that Upper Egypt wasn't monolithically "black" until Greeco Roman times.
And as for this guy, they kind of knew what they were going to get with him. Phenotypically he doesn't have the "look" we would attribute to Egyptian guys farther south like Tut.
You keep making up theoretical arguments. Nobody has done any cranial studies on this mummy. One image from the casket does not prove what the person looked like. What you are doing is trying to postulate and theorize about how much mixture happened with the Levant during the course of the dynastic era based on one piece of DNA. I am not theorizing or postulating. What I am pointing out facts that are not subject to change and revision. U5 DNA in this mummy and one image on the casket does not PROVE 'race' and does not prove skin color. You are making wild arguments based on theory and conjecture not any hard facts other than one DNA lineage. Now if this mummy had been cranially analyzed and that cranial analysis supported what you are saying then fine, for THIS mummy. But at this point we don't have that. Likewise, if we did nave some evidence for the skin color of the mummy and so forth and it was proven to be very different from Southern Egyptians then fine as well. I am not arguing that this isn't possible. What I am saying that this hasn't been PROVEN to be what you say it is. You are postulating and making maybe, might and could be arguments without any hard facts. Again, there are plenty of FACTS from the middle kingdom showing obvious ties to the South. Mentuhotep had multiple queens with Ties to the south. You have the prophecy of Neferti talking of a Pharaoh being born from a Queen of the South. You have the mummy of the important lady from Elephantine I already posted on this thread. These aren't speculations these are multiple lines of evidence and facts contradicting what you are saying.
The 18th Dynasties Southern Border ended just past Kerma. That means that populations between Aswan and the 4th cataract were PART of Egypt. This is where more Southerners were brought into the Kingdom. So-called "Nubians" or local rulers and their children were educated and trained in the Egyptian royal court to become Egyptians. There are pictures of whole groups of Southerners as members of the Egyptian army. You cannot show me how this was happening with vassals or subjects from the Levant to the same scale or level of cultural and social integration within Egypt. And again these are hard facts not subject to change based on speculation.
And likewise the point behind this is the AE felt better working with their cousins to the South than working with Levantines. The Levant was a very chaotic place with Asiatics, Indo EUropans and other warlike folks running around and they couldn't be counted on as good allies. So the South was a natural choice for them to use as close allies.
So again, the hard facts of a strong black presence within AE right up to the late period hasn't gone anywhere. It hasn't changed and isnt going to change. This is where your speculating should stop. Speculation isn't facts. That said, yes Egypt also had territories in the Levant and obviously Levantine types would have migrated into Egypt, but that does not make them more dominant than the local populations of Egypt even in the North or change the core of the AE culture which was in the South and ORIENTED to the South. Again, no amount of migration from and settlements in Asia and Africa made ancient Greece non European. No amount of settlements in and migration from Asia and Africa made Rome non European. No amount of immigration from Asia and Africa has made America non European. Immigration does not mean that the core of a culture in a nation and the ethnic core of the culture changes, especially in ancient times.
All you are doing is focusing on theorizing about Levantine mixture but ignoring ALL the facts about Egyptian culture and history that we already have that are not subject to change. Those black late period mummies are not going to change because of some DNA. The only thing the DNA of these mummies is going to tell us is whether black skinned Africans in AE had genes currently labeled as "Sub Saharan" or genes currently labeled as "Eurasian". And if one of these obviously black mummies has U5, then that TOTALLY contradicts your point that a mummy with U5 automatically means "Eurasian" or "Levantine" mixture or even looks.
Again how does U5 in this mummy prove it was more "Levantine"?
Likewise here is the extract of Keitas cranial analysis. It does not say that Northern Egyptians were "Levantine" or Levantine like.
quote: We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt. The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.
And speaking of craniometry the X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies also makes that case that many of the Ramessid era mummies showed strong similarities to "Nubian"(Southern) skulls. These are not new facts. These are old facts. I am not talking about one mummy and speculating.
quote: SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
The New Kingdom royal mummies suggest that the Pharaohs were continuing to intermix, both with people from the north and the south.
The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
These aren't mummies of the "lay people" in AE, so it doesn't tell us what the general population looked like. And I am totally not saying there was no mixture with Levantines in parts of the North. I am just saying there is no absolute evidence on the extent and scope of this mixture that we can point to right now to tell us how any particular group of AE would have looked at any particular time in the North. Right now you are just relying on speculation and the DNA so far does not necessarily prove what you think it does. I personally think cranial studies and DNA studies of BOTH AE remains and Levantine remains would be required to actually show this. And when Keita speaks of Northern Crania vs Southern Crania during state formation he was not talking about Levantines.
Both crania were closer to each other than to any other population at the start. Over time it changed but how much and where or when is still an open question. But yes this mixture did happen and I am not denying it.
But again, what you are saying is not really what these papers and what main stream Egyptology is saying. Mainstream Egyptology is not saying that Southern Egypt was originally black or Negroid or even African. They are not saying this. They will never say this. So your point about mixture over time is not really what they are pushing. I have said this before and you also keep ignoring it.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You keep making up theoretical arguments. Nobody has done any cranial studies on this mummy.
Oh for goodness sake, I'm using my eyes, Doug. You can too y'know. This man used real life colors to depict himself with peach colored skin and hair that's practically straight. Not not the dark brownish reds that Tut and other southerners would come to use.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: One image from the casket does not prove what the person looked like.
Course when the images show wooly haired dark skinned Egyptians you are either not saying a word when posters claim they're black, or are on the bandwagon.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What you are doing is trying to postulate and theorize about how much mixture happened with the Levant during the course of the dynastic era based on one piece of DNA.
And the negroid affinity in crania leaving much of Upper Egypt throughout the dynastic period. You'll of course continue to omit that from discourse in hopes to dislodge the source of your butthurt.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The 18th Dynasties Southern Border ended just past Kerma. That means that populations between Aswan and the 4th cataract were PART of Egypt. This is where more Southerners were brought into the Kingdom. So-called "Nubians" or local rulers and their children were educated and trained in the Egyptian royal court to become Egyptians. There are pictures of whole groups of Southerners as members of the Egyptian army.
What was that Doug? Selectively saying BUH DA ART SAIZ and then when someone shows you art of a PEACH skinned, loose haired nomarch you say it doesn't matter because of "the crania?" What a joke. No you wanna stick to "the crania" then stick to it. The record says much of (not all, but a lot of) Upper Egypt lost it's "negroid affinity" in the dynastic era. That was the crania research and now you're trying to use double standards.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You cannot show me how this was happening with vassals or subjects from the Levant to the same scale or level of cultural and social integration within Egypt. And again these are hard facts not subject to change based on speculation.
Reports say the crania becomes more northern like over time in much of Upper Egypt. This MAN shows Northern Egyptian and Levanite features though he is living in Upper Egypt. We already know that there was a huge migration from the Levant into Egypt that triggered war. We know many of these migrants were already coming to do work in nearby nomes like the Oryx nome. We already know prior to them, Lower Egypians were influencing the phenotype of portions of Upper Egypt by dynasty one. History is not without many different potential explanations. Whichever explains it, the point is that the record shows the negroid affinity leaving parts of Upper Egypt. That is documented.
quote:Likewise here is the extract of Keitas cranial analysis. It does not say that Northern Egyptians were "Levantine" or Levantine like.
[QUOTE] We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt.
This says "Upper Egyptians" were the ones sampled, not Lower Egyptians. So from the first sentence, you're already off to a bad start.
quote: The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.
This doesn't contradict anything I said.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And speaking of craniometry the X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies also makes that case that many of the Ramessid era mummies showed strong similarities to "Nubian"(Southern) skulls. These are not new facts. These are old facts. I am not talking about one mummy and speculating.
Oh but you are, Doug. You are speculating that nobles that often ruled as far south as Thebes were representative of every nome of Upper Egypt. "Old facts" are talking about the crania becoming more northern like over time. Otherwise this is a very irrelevant thing to post.
quote: SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
Contradicting nothing I said.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And I am totally not saying there was no mixture with Levantines in parts of the North. I am just saying there is no absolute evidence on the extent and scope of this mixture that we can point to right now to tell us how any particular group of AE would have looked at any particular time in the North.
What research we have suggests the north was much more homogenous across the dynastic period. Upper Egypt on the other hand experienced much more phenotypic variety throughout time.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Both crania were closer to each other than to any other population at the start. Over time it changed but how much and where or when is still an open question. But yes this mixture did happen and I am not denying it.
Then. Why. Do. You. Keep. Responding? The whole point made was that portions of upper Egypt began mixing with northerners and began to morphologically change. The whole point is, knowing that NORTHERNERS were mixing with Upper Egypt, we can explain this man's appearance as being northern influenced. Why do you fight it, when it does nothing to benefit your point in doing so? Practically every study they've released thus far involve Lower Egyptians living in Upper Egypt, two mummies in Cairo, isolated Oasis dwellers that had contact with Libyans and Bedouin and now this. What is the theme? Samples that have northern influences are being rapidly released. As has been already told to you, they've been sitting on unpublished genetic data for a long time. You think they really needed that Abusir study to show them it was possible to do it?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But again, what you are saying is not really what these papers and what main stream Egyptology is saying. Mainstream Egyptology is not saying that Southern Egypt was originally black or Negroid or even African. They are not saying this. They will never say this. So your point about mixture over time is not really what they are pushing. I have said this before and you also keep ignoring it.....
Mainstream Egyptology have numerous perspectives. It's surprisingly easy to find research that says southerners were "negroid" or black in their appearances. Because they're unlikely to debunk that, the only thing they can really do is complain about how these "blacks" aren't "African blacks" because they're not genetically related to most modern African blacks. The hope is, that people like you will be so caught up in talking about blackness in terms of Afrocentrism like you normally do, that you'll lose sight of the morphological affinity of the original samples. White Egypt will be propped on a pedestal, but now with "white Negroids" a most assuredly stupid idea.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a previous study of non-metrical variation it was found that the Egyptians (i.e. series of Egyptian crania from different excavations now on British collections) changed very little through Pre-dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom times. Only in the New Kingdom (when there was considerable immigration into the Nile Valley) was the earlier stability upset.
We also have this graph from Zakrewski 2007, which shows relatively subtle change from the early predynastic to Middle Kingdom, followed by accelerated change between the Middle Kingdom and Late Period:
quote:Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.
BTW, the 1st dynasty Abydos study by Keita cautions that the presence of "northern" crania in the royal tombs could reflect political marriages among the elite rather than a change in the larger population. See page 252 in the study itself (here).
posted
Apparently northern names were found in the Abydos tombs, which indicated northerners had moved into the area. One thing to note is again, the nomarch doesn't look anything like the Egyptians south and he is Middle Egyptian like the Abusir samples. If Middle Egypt was described cranially as looking northern,then we shouldn't be surprised if the entire Hare nome genetically/phenotypically resembled him. Look at his hair and skin and you will notice he looks very different from Tut and the southern type south of Thebes. He looks like the "Cairo" type, types found further north. This study's ability use him to "represent" Upper Egypt is relying on the Abusir study. But the Abusir mummies were Lower/Middle Egyptians living in Upper Egypt.
quote:Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.
[/QB]
If anyone has the full Batrawi 1946 PM/post please.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Eurasians” were in deeeeeeep sub-saharan Africa Loooong before the creation of the AE civilization. South Africans 1200BP carried 20% European ancestry.
Quote: “We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000- year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier**** in**** Africa or the Near East. We fit the remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as **most closely related** to the Ethiopia_4500BP (p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is white European woman with mtDNA L2a carrying close to 60% EUROPEAN ancestry. You can’t get more African than L2a…right? Lol! SMH
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanzania_Luxmanda is New Kingdom, South_Africa_1200BP is freaking *Abbasid*, and we've seen your K=3 idiocy a hundred times. go away.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: In what Dynasty did the Northern phenotype dominate?
Probably none. Genetically it could be post 17th.
There was no northern state (Lower Egypt) before the Lower Nile Valley was subdued by nation builders from the southern region.
The Narmer Palette political document shows southern phenotypes in Narmer, Tjet, and the serpopard handlers. Captured or dead northerners have different features.
These northerners lived everywhere above 29° N ever since Last Humid Maximum Gafsians took to the region.
Another phenotype is also on the Palette. And of course it varies from the others. A mid-point in a south to north African cline.
The forgers of Dynastic Egypt incorporated everybody into the state as equals. The 2nd Dynasty was northern, from Tanis.
Other northern origin dynasties • 9-10th Heracleopolis ________ established northern kingdom frontier deep into Upper Egypt's 18th nome • 21st Tanis • 22nd Bubastis • 23-24th Tanis • 26th Sais
'Asians'? The famous painting in Khnum Hotep II's tomb shows them intercepted by customs and security. These Aamu of Shu were checked in in the Eastern Desert anywhere as far south as Wadi Hammamat. Khnum administered the 11-12th Dynasty Eastern Desert,keeping desert Chaos at bay for Balance.
Northern Upper Egypt (Middle Egypt) was midranged phenotypes from the beginning. The northern dynasties surely facilitated northern interests throughout the length of the kingdom.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: this is the reason
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.
there is a brand new article that does discuss that
and it says:
" In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups "
^^ so this is wrong, they do have significant admixture form Eurasians ???
northeastern parts of the region = "Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja"
Can you read? The quote says that southern Sudanese differ from northern ones in having little to no Eurasian ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: there is a brand new article that does discuss that
No. The paper doesn't even come close to doing any type of granular analysis. And what you're doing right now is typical of the hubris you tend to display whenever you think European bioanthropologists have your back on an anti-African position. You will double down no matter what and pretend you weren't debunked 50.000 times before on the same topic. Look at your legendary post count.
Posts: 32884
A lot of that astronomical number is simply you coming back repeatedly trying defend some anti-African position because it was written by European bioanthropologists who you believe by default.
No, there isn't a brand new article analyzing northern Sudanese genomes at a granular level. But there is a brand new article that shows the premise of your "new article" is bogus. Let me break it down for you in baby steps, so you'll have no excuse or credibility when you try to feign ignorance later (although you will no doubt try to do so anyway, because you're just like many other people on ES in this regard).
A-M13 is classic Nilote Y chromosome
A-M13 carriers (ancestors of modern day Nilotes) migrated to, and spread out in North Africa, starting 15-10ky ago
Ancestors of Afroasiatic speakers had already settled parts of North Africa 15-10ky ago
Recent study hones in on the internal structure of A-M13, the classic Nilote marker (see above)
Recent study confirms old suspicions A-M13 migrated to North Africa within the last 15-10ky, from some place in Sub-Saharan Africa
Recent study adds to the existing literature by introducing new resolution (clarity) to the A-M13 found in Afroasiatic speakers
Recent study results reflect that the pastoralist ancestors of Ethiopians couldn't have had most of the A-M13 their descendants carry today.
Most of the A-M13 they carry today, was inherited in (or en-route to) the Horn
This eliminates Nilote ancestry from typifying core North African ancestry; it simply arrived too late
Let's now look at the premise of your "new paper"
It says that northern Sudanese are European + Nilote
As I have just indicated, Nilotes are relatively late arrivals
Your "new" paper therefore implies that Afroasiatic speakers were European transplants before 15-10ky ago, and that new Nilote arrivals turned them in what they are today
This is completely at odds with the uniparental profiles of these populations, which show evidence of a third population (not to mention, others).
Therefore, the premise of your new paper is not only bogus, but it also makes no sense to mention that type of paper as an example of granular analysis.
It's the exact opposite of granular analysis, because they reduce multiple admixture events to just the most easily detectable ones.
Even worse, in typical Euro tradition of studying African diversity, they don't even acknowledge that they make an assumption of backmigration and that other interpretations, or combinations, are possible. This forces people on the ground to clean up after them, and do their job for them when people spread their misinformation.
So, no. No granular analysis. Just the same old anti-African propaganda you love to spam because anything white is alright by default. But we'll see how long contrary information sticks this time, before you relapse again to anything white is alright on African diversity.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
......Genetic evidence points to an early admixture event in the Nubians, concurrent with historical contact between North Sudanese and Arab groups. We estimate the admixture in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups
please get it together
Swenet is trying to use me as cover as he pursues a covert sneak tip Dynastic Race argument against Doug, It's not going to work my brotha
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: Tryin to stir this up again ??? That was done with like 20 posts ago
I skipped your post days ago because there were simply more interesting things to comment on. If I don't understand someone's post the first time reading it, I'm not going to going to keep reading it again unless that person is usually onto something. In your case, I didn't know what you were talking about. You now post the same quote again above, and again, I don't know why you repost it or what significance you think it has. This is exactly the type of post I would skip and then maybe come back to later to understand what you're trying to say.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet you're still not getting it , read
quote:Originally posted by the lioness, :
Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations
Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson
......Genetic evidence points to an early admixture event in the Nubians, concurrent with historical contact between North Sudanese and Arab groups. We estimate the admixture in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups
please get it together
Why are you attracting my attention to the bolded line. No one knows. Only lioness. I'm not saying no admixture occurred, I'm saying more populations were involved than they account for. And the reason why that is important is because without accounting for these other populations, you can't understand how African these populations are. So why is that bolded line relevant here?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
a) We find a strong genetic divide between the populations from the northeastern parts of the region (Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja)
b) and populations towards the west and south (Nilotes, Darfur and Kordofan populations).
In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you just did a big bulleted attack on me
Poor you. I thought real Lionesses could take it
Jokes aside, I did that bulleted post because somewhere I'm still trying to figure out if you genuinely don't have the information or if you're being picky about what you choose to believe. At least now that I've made it simple, you can't blame it on the jargon or style of explanation. There comes a point where not being seasoned is no longer an excuse. Basics are basics and should be easy to grasp for anyone. East Africans are not African versions of African Americans: they are not two-way mixtures as all these papers are implying.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Here's the relevant part: about North and South
a) We find a strong genetic divide between the populations from the northeastern parts of the region (Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja)
b) and populations towards the west and south (Nilotes, Darfur and Kordofan populations).
In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups
Okay. Go on. I'm still waiting on the punch line. How are you tying this to the conversation? You still have to fill in the blanks.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You keep making up theoretical arguments. Nobody has done any cranial studies on this mummy.
Oh for goodness sake, I'm using my eyes, Doug. You can too y'know. This man used real life colors to depict himself with peach colored skin and hair that's practically straight. Not not the dark brownish reds that Tut and other southerners would come to use.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: One image from the casket does not prove what the person looked like.
Course when the images show wooly haired dark skinned Egyptians you are either not saying a word when posters claim they're black, or are on the bandwagon.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What you are doing is trying to postulate and theorize about how much mixture happened with the Levant during the course of the dynastic era based on one piece of DNA.
And the negroid affinity in crania leaving much of Upper Egypt throughout the dynastic period. You'll of course continue to omit that from discourse in hopes to dislodge the source of your butthurt.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The 18th Dynasties Southern Border ended just past Kerma. That means that populations between Aswan and the 4th cataract were PART of Egypt. This is where more Southerners were brought into the Kingdom. So-called "Nubians" or local rulers and their children were educated and trained in the Egyptian royal court to become Egyptians. There are pictures of whole groups of Southerners as members of the Egyptian army.
What was that Doug? Selectively saying BUH DA ART SAIZ and then when someone shows you art of a PEACH skinned, loose haired nomarch you say it doesn't matter because of "the crania?" What a joke. No you wanna stick to "the crania" then stick to it. The record says much of (not all, but a lot of) Upper Egypt lost it's "negroid affinity" in the dynastic era. That was the crania research and now you're trying to use double standards.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You cannot show me how this was happening with vassals or subjects from the Levant to the same scale or level of cultural and social integration within Egypt. And again these are hard facts not subject to change based on speculation.
Reports say the crania becomes more northern like over time in much of Upper Egypt. This MAN shows Northern Egyptian and Levanite features though he is living in Upper Egypt. We already know that there was a huge migration from the Levant into Egypt that triggered war. We know many of these migrants were already coming to do work in nearby nomes like the Oryx nome. We already know prior to them, Lower Egypians were influencing the phenotype of portions of Upper Egypt by dynasty one. History is not without many different potential explanations. Whichever explains it, the point is that the record shows the negroid affinity leaving parts of Upper Egypt. That is documented.
quote:Likewise here is the extract of Keitas cranial analysis. It does not say that Northern Egyptians were "Levantine" or Levantine like.
[QUOTE] We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt.
This says "Upper Egyptians" were the ones sampled, not Lower Egyptians. So from the first sentence, you're already off to a bad start.
quote: The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.
This doesn't contradict anything I said.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And speaking of craniometry the X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies also makes that case that many of the Ramessid era mummies showed strong similarities to "Nubian"(Southern) skulls. These are not new facts. These are old facts. I am not talking about one mummy and speculating.
Oh but you are, Doug. You are speculating that nobles that often ruled as far south as Thebes were representative of every nome of Upper Egypt. "Old facts" are talking about the crania becoming more northern like over time. Otherwise this is a very irrelevant thing to post.
quote: SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
Contradicting nothing I said.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And I am totally not saying there was no mixture with Levantines in parts of the North. I am just saying there is no absolute evidence on the extent and scope of this mixture that we can point to right now to tell us how any particular group of AE would have looked at any particular time in the North.
What research we have suggests the north was much more homogenous across the dynastic period. Upper Egypt on the other hand experienced much more phenotypic variety throughout time.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Both crania were closer to each other than to any other population at the start. Over time it changed but how much and where or when is still an open question. But yes this mixture did happen and I am not denying it.
Then. Why. Do. You. Keep. Responding? The whole point made was that portions of upper Egypt began mixing with northerners and began to morphologically change. The whole point is, knowing that NORTHERNERS were mixing with Upper Egypt, we can explain this man's appearance as being northern influenced. Why do you fight it, when it does nothing to benefit your point in doing so? Practically every study they've released thus far involve Lower Egyptians living in Upper Egypt, two mummies in Cairo, isolated Oasis dwellers that had contact with Libyans and Bedouin and now this. What is the theme? Samples that have northern influences are being rapidly released. As has been already told to you, they've been sitting on unpublished genetic data for a long time. You think they really needed that Abusir study to show them it was possible to do it?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But again, what you are saying is not really what these papers and what main stream Egyptology is saying. Mainstream Egyptology is not saying that Southern Egypt was originally black or Negroid or even African. They are not saying this. They will never say this. So your point about mixture over time is not really what they are pushing. I have said this before and you also keep ignoring it.....
Mainstream Egyptology have numerous perspectives. It's surprisingly easy to find research that says southerners were "negroid" or black in their appearances. Because they're unlikely to debunk that, the only thing they can really do is complain about how these "blacks" aren't "African blacks" because they're not genetically related to most modern African blacks. The hope is, that people like you will be so caught up in talking about blackness in terms of Afrocentrism like you normally do, that you'll lose sight of the morphological affinity of the original samples. White Egypt will be propped on a pedestal, but now with "white Negroids" a most assuredly stupid idea.
Oshun you just claimed that this mummy represents an orange haired person in Egypt. Are you serious? Do you really think you have proven that this person was a orange haired Eurasian? How many times have folks claimed Egyptian mummies have had blonde hair and been totally wrong?
YOU need to prove that a) this mummy had Eurasian features like very light skin and orange hair and b) U5 DNA is tied to those features.
You have done neither. All you are doing is saying that these things "COULD" be proof of those things. And yes it is quite possible. But that is all it is right now. A possibility.
But how does that one mummy contradict what I said? How does that contradict how the Middle Kingdom arose from the South? How does it contradict all the FACTS of all the black mummies and black people flowing into Egypt from the South?
Were there any blacks as soldiers, traders and other things in Rome? Does that change the fact that Rome was white? Does the fact that Rome had colonies in Africa make Rome not European?
One or two mummies or even a couple doesn't make Egypt mostly white in the Middle Kingdom or during the dynastic era.
Again, to PROVE that you need more than one or two mummies with POSSIBLE Eurasian features and MAYBE some DNA from Eurasia. Again, none of which has "HARD PROOF" at this point. Most studies of Egyptian crania comparing the North and South say these differences are indigenous to the Nile Valley and over time became differentiated by flow of Eurasians into the Nile Valley by the Persian and Greek Eras.
And bottom line, the Dynastic Egyptian culture ended when the black population and culture from the South ceased to be in control of the country. Northern gene flow and Eurasians destroyed it. This was always the threat to AE existence and is why they always tried to stem the flow of Asiatics or Eurasians into the country.
Throughout the dynastic Era the AE themselves wrote of Asiatics swarming into the Delta and Lower Egypt. But hey did not look at this in a good way and the also looked at this as the basis for strife in the country. To them Upper Egypt was the core of the culture from which restoration would arise:
quote: Several of these sentences indicate that the Egy'ptians are not merely fighting against foreigners, but against their own countrj'men too. Mention is twice made of the "enemies of the land": The fire has mounted up ofi high, its burning goeth. forth against the enemies of the land {7, i); No craftsmen work, the enemies of the land have spoiltQ) its craftsQ) (9,6). By this expression rebels are perhaps meant; so too we read; Men have ventured to rebel against the
Uraetis, the of Re, which pacifies the two lands (7, 3 — 4). Something of this kind must also
be intended by the mysterious allusion in A few lawless m.en have ventured to despoil the land of the kingship (7,2 — 3). With traitors within, Egypt has also to face the aggression of foreign invaders from the North: The Desert is throughout the Land. The nomes are laid waste. A foreign tribe from abroad has come to Egypt (3,1). The Delta is overrun by Asiatics: The Marshland iii its entirety is not hidden. The North land can boast of trodden ways. What shall
one do} Behold it is in the hands of{}) those who knew it not like those who knew it. The
Asiatics are skilled in the arts of the Marshlands (4, 5 — 8). So deep a root have these barba- rians taken in the land, that they are no longer distinguishable from true Egyptians': The tribes of the desert{}) have become Egyptians{)) everywhere (1,9). There arc no Egyptians anywhere (3, 2). Tents{}) are what they {the Egyptians) have made like the desert tribes {\o, i — 2). It is tempting to conclude from one injured passage (3,10 — 11) that the Egyptian kingdom recog- nized by the writer was at this time restricted to the country between Elephantine and Thinis: Elephantine and ThinisQ) [are the dominion of] Upper Egypt, {yet) without paying taxes owing to civil strife. Nor is this limited area immune from the disasters that liave befallen Lower Egypt: The ship of the [Southerners] lias gone odriftQ) The towns are destroyed. Upper Egypt has become dry [wastesT] (2, 11).
So right there by the AE in their own words there were Eurasians in the country who became "As Egyptians". But they were never seen as "the source of and basis of the culture. This was always seen as something from the South. Again, this is why I keep saying the cultural core of AE was in the South.
Another document describing the chaos after the End Middle Kingdom. Again, these documents do state that "foreigners" and "asiatics" were flowing into the North. But again, the general gist is that the AE themselves viewed this negatively in general. And restoration again flows from the South with Southern (black) allies. That said this document also spends a lot of time discussing ethnicity and the mixing of cultures in Lower Egypt along with the Egyptians views towards Asiatics/Levantines in general. Worth a good read overall.
quote: The Egyptian period under examination is the Twelfth to early Fifteenth Dynasties. This thesis adheres to Shaw’s sequence of pharaohs for Dynasty 12,11 and Ryholt’s reconstruction of the sequence of Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate Period kings (Table 1).12 While the Middle Kingdom includes Dynasty 12, the Thirteenth Dynasty has been proposed to belong fully or partially to the Second Intermediate Period, the beginning of which remains conjectural. The thesis follows its division by Ryholt into two stages: (1) a weakened Egyptian state and its disintegration into two main kingdoms, the Fourteenth Dynasty in the north and the Sixteenth Dynasty in the south; and (2) the rise of the Fifteenth Dynasty in the north, with its capital at Avaris, and the Seventeenth Dynasty in the south, with its capital at Thebes. Overlap between Dynasties 13‐17 is not unfeasible. Correlating with the Egyptian period is the Levantine MBA, for which a number of terminologies exist. This study employs the traditional tripartite division, namely MBIIA‐C.13 It is recognised that this terminology is not commonly applied by researchers studying the Northern Levant, who typically divide the MBA into MBI (~MBIIA) and MBII (~MBIIB‐C). However, for continuity’s sake, the tripartite division is utilised in discussion to finds from the north. Table 2 provides the various terminologies used in describing Levantine chronology
So yes, there were Eurasians that flowed into the North as attested by the AE themselves. I never claimed otherwise. What I KEEP SAYING is that the basis of and stability of the culture of the Dynastic era came from the South and this is what the AE themselves say and this is what the flow of history shows and this is what all other facts show. Finding some "Eurasian" mummies is not going to change that. The flow of AE culture is it arose in the South, moved north expanded into the Levant. Then over time Asiatics moved into the North and also parts of the country fractured into competing kingdoms. Southern kings then arse to reunify the country. This is the repeating pattern. The dynastic era ends when the Southern kings are no longer able to hold the country together..... That is the story of AE. Just like the Western Roman empire fell once Rome the city fell or Greece fell once Athens fell. No different.
What I am arguing against is using "conceptual" theories instead of hard facts to show that any specific mummy from any specific era in Egypt is "Eurasian". The tools and science exist in terms of cranial studies, DNA and other science to prove this. DNA from one mummy does not prove this. You have not proved this. That does not mean that I don't agree that there was mixture in AE. It just means that one mummy here or one mummy there does not prove anything about the entire make up of the North at any particular time.
For example, many cities in America have experienced changes in Demography over time. We already know that to be a general case. But to come in 5000 years later and say some skeleton is "Asian", "black", "Native American" or "European" sufficient evidence to back it up is wrong. All the facts and data should match up with multiple lines of Evidence supporting it.
Also, look at ancient Rome or Greece. Nobody is going around digging up cemeteries where various ethnic populations are buried to claim that the presence of Asians or Africans or other Non Roman populations in ancient Rome or Greece changes the overall flow of Roman or Greek history. Same here. Immigration into and non AE populations in AE at different points of time does not change the overall flow and narrative of AE history. These facts we already know. We already know that the overall flow of AE history and we already know how the culture arose and how they viewed the world. These facts have not changed because of DNA from a few mummies.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: [QB]Tanzania_Luxmanda is New Kingdom, South_Africa_1200BP is freaking *Abbasid*, and we've seen your K=3 idiocy a hundred times. I can't stand you. Although I agree here is an African carrying L2a and had 60% "European" ancestry. Not to mention Malawi_Hora_8100BP who carried 15% European ancestry with mtDNA L0*
Skoglund stated: “We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000- year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier**** in**** Africa or the Near East. We fit the remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as **most closely related** to the Ethiopia_4500BP (p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Capra are you disagreeing with Skoglund that Luxmanda did not carry 38% "Eurasian" ancestry? And that She carried African L2a?
He stated the origin could be IN Africa. So we have a Sample carrying 38%(really close to 60%) European ancestry and has mtDNA L2a
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Oshun you just claimed that this mummy represents an orange haired person in Egypt. Are you serious? Do you really think you have proven that this person was a orange haired Eurasian? How many times have folks claimed Egyptian mummies have had blonde hair and been totally wrong?
Doug wtf are you talking about? I never said the mummy has orange hair. I said he had peach skin and straight (black) hair. A sharp contrast to the dark brownish red complexions of the Egyptians further south in lands like Thebes. You hypocritically demand proof the mummy had very light skin, but have no problems using artistic evidence to show black African Egyptians. As I said, this nomarch used very lifelike colors to represent himself. He used a peach skin most modern whites and arabs use to represent themselves and had straight black hair. And, if you haven't been listening to other posters the northern type of crania which is much more heavily influenced by the Levant, was apparently well represented in Middle Egypt, where this man lived.
quote:But how does that one mummy contradict what I said? How does that contradict how the Middle Kingdom arose from the South? How does it contradict all the FACTS of all the black mummies and black people flowing into Egypt from the South?
How were all those questions relevant to a thing I was saying is a better question. What I was saying before you decided to respond to me had nothing to do with where the kingdoms of Egypt came from. It simply offers some historical context for what we're seeing. Your the one hung up on "racial ownership" of Egyptian civilization right now, not me. I'm reviewing the historical context for what we're seeing and apparently, older researchers were saying Middle Egypt had plenty of people like this.
quote: Again, to PROVE that you need more than one or two mummies with POSSIBLE Eurasian features and MAYBE some DNA from Eurasia. Again, none of which has "HARD PROOF" at this point. Most studies of Egyptian crania comparing the North and South say these differences are indigenous to the Nile Valley and over time became differentiated by flow of Eurasians into the Nile Valley by the Persian and Greek Eras.
No, it's not "possible DNA." They found it. It's Eurasian. So lets review:
-Researchers reviewing crania say Middle Egypt was filled with the northern type Egyptians
-Abusir data from Middle Egypt comes back filled with Eurasian haplogrous I imagine most egyptologist expected to be in the north as well...and released data near Cairo with some similar data.
-Another genetic survey of Middle Egypt (this nomarch) has the same results.
-Artistic depictions of the guy show him to have the northern type phenotype (peach colored skin and straight hair).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Oshun you just claimed that this mummy represents an orange haired person in Egypt. Are you serious? Do you really think you have proven that this person was a orange haired Eurasian? How many times have folks claimed Egyptian mummies have had blonde hair and been totally wrong?
Doug wtf are you talking about? I never said the mummy has orange hair. I said he had peach skin and straight (black) hair. A sharp contrast to the dark brownish red complexions of the Egyptians further south in lands like Thebes. You hypocritically demand proof the mummy had very light skin, but have no problems using artistic evidence to show black African Egyptians. As I said, this nomarch used very lifelike colors to represent himself. He used a peach skin most modern whites and arabs use to represent themselves and had straight black hair. And, if you haven't been listening to other posters the northern type of crania which is much more heavily influenced by the Levant, was apparently well represented in Middle Egypt, where this man lived.
quote:But how does that one mummy contradict what I said? How does that contradict how the Middle Kingdom arose from the South? How does it contradict all the FACTS of all the black mummies and black people flowing into Egypt from the South?
How were all those questions relevant to a thing I was saying is a better question. What I was saying before you decided to respond to me had nothing to do with where the kingdoms of Egypt came from. It simply offers some historical context for what we're seeing. Your the one hung up on "racial ownership" of Egyptian civilization right now, not me. I'm reviewing the historical context for what we're seeing and apparently, older researchers were saying Middle Egypt had plenty of people like this.
quote: Again, to PROVE that you need more than one or two mummies with POSSIBLE Eurasian features and MAYBE some DNA from Eurasia. Again, none of which has "HARD PROOF" at this point. Most studies of Egyptian crania comparing the North and South say these differences are indigenous to the Nile Valley and over time became differentiated by flow of Eurasians into the Nile Valley by the Persian and Greek Eras.
No, it's not "possible DNA." They found it. It's Eurasian. So lets review:
-Researchers reviewing crania say Middle Egypt was filled with the northern type Egyptians
-Abusir data from Middle Egypt comes back filled with Eurasian haplogrous I imagine most egyptologist expected to be in the north as well...and released data near Cairo with some similar data.
-Another genetic survey of Middle Egypt (this nomarch) has the same results.
-Artistic depictions of the guy show him to have the northern type phenotype (peach colored skin and straight hair).
You are reaching Oshun by trying to tie together different factoids as proof of something. Do you know how many AE portraits have peach or brownish colors in their portraits? Does that "prove" that s the skin color the actually had? No. You are simply jumping to conclusions. Like I said, I never denied there was any mixture with Levantines in AE. However, to say that Northerners were more "Levantine" from the start is FALSE. You keep making leaps and bounds of logic from limited facts. And you have not proven that most of Lower Egypt was of Levantine ancestry and or light skinned in the Middle Kingdom. No amount of hand wringing and arguing and debating straw men is going to change that. This is all I am saying. U5 does not prove this. One "orangish" portrait does not prove this. Orangeish portraits from the Old kingdom does not prove this. Who are this guys parents? What else do we know about him? Where are the other lines of evidence to support what you are saying about THIS mummy let alone all the other populations from Northern Egypt at the time? Where are any other mummies from the same time period in Northern Egypt? Have any other major tombs from the Middle Kingdom in Lower Egypt been found with mummies that can be sampled and analyzed(other than Abusir)? Right now you are hinging a whole lot on one mummy here and a few from Abusir which is my only point.
YOU need to have more data and evidence to show what you are saying which is that by the Middle Kingdom most of the people in Lower Egypt were light skinned Levantines. The line of reasoning you are using does not prove anything. U5 by itself and one orangeish portrait on a mummy coffin does not prove anything. This is what you are missing. And certainly none of that does not change what we already know about the Middle Kingdom and Dynastic history overall.
Note here is the famous image of Mentuhotep, an upper Egyptian from the Middle Kingdom:
So much for the differences in depiction based on art.
Again, the point is how many mummies do we have from the middle Kingdom and why aren't they sampling all of them? No need to sit here and obsess over one dam mummy. One mummy here or there does nothing to show the actual pattern of DNA distribution over the entire population of AE in any era let alone the entire Dynastic period. If they can sample DNA from a damaged mummy they can sample DNA from the more well preserved mummies as well. And that is when we can actually have a serious discussion about what DNA was common in AE, regardless of skin color. To me this is just folks trying to rehash the same nonsense over and over again using hand picked data that means nothing in the bigger scheme of things. Not saying YOU are doing that but you seem overly intent on trying to use ONE mummy as if that is enough to generalize over millions of people in the Middle Kingdom era. It is not. And what we have now isn't enough to even prove what you claim about ONE mummy.
Like I said we already know the overall flow of AE history. DNA is not going to change that flow. The only thing DNA is going to tell us is what kind of lineages were present and when and whether those lineages or truly "Eurasian" in origin or "African". SubSaharan really has nothing to do with it. This is the only thing we do not know based on the facts we already have. That is the only thing DNA is going to tell us and not this 'headline grabbing' nonsense these scientists are trying to claim which is just sensationalism trying to pretend that some "new" and "shocking" facts are being found which is what they have been saying since day one of setting foot in Egypt. In other words they have always been trying to find ways of painting the AE as Eurasians with "new" and "shocking" proof. They did it with mummy unwrapping and the beginnings of anthropology in Morton and Glidden. They did it with pottery with Petrie and others. And now they are doing it with DNA. And really this is really a case closed as far as I have said already we already have the facts most people still trying to push this "new" and "shocking" angle are just not making sense as nothing has really changed from what we already know.
Again, this has nothing to do with race. It has to do with facts. Saying that the Han Dynasties were light skinned Chinese is consistent with the FACTS of geography, culture, history, biology and anthropology. Same thing with saying the Romans were white Europeans. So goes the same with saying the AE were black Africans. That overall scope of geography, biology, culture and anthropology really has not changed. The presence of non Africans in AE at any time period does not really change that is all I am saying. This is part you just don't want to admit. I am not talking about anybody else now but YOU. We already know that Egyptology as a whole pushes propaganda but right now YOU are still trying to push something as if it contradicts what we ALREADY KNOW and has already been proven.
America as a "melting pot" has not changed the fact the fact that their core history, culture, identity and power is tied to Europe. No matter if Africans, Native Americans and Asians or mixtures there of exist in large numbers in the country. The founding fathers and the primary culture in the country is still tied to the European roots of the people that created it. Same thing with Rome. No matter how many non Europeans or Non ROmans became citizens, Rome was still primarily culturally, biologically and socially tied to he roots of Roman power in Rome itself. Same in AE culture. Same in Chinese culture. Same in Indian culture. Same in MesoAmerican culture. All cultures have core identity and history no matter how many "others" enter the culture it does not change how they identify themselves and the roots and origins of said culture. Only in AE are folks trying to pretend that these things don't matter and everybody and anybody could be elevated in the culture contradicting everything we know about not only AE but every other culture on the dam planet. All cultures protect their own roots and core history and identity. That is what makes a culture last and stay intact. Immigration and others from elsewhere does not change that, except when those "others" are invaders and take over. Then the culture and identity gets changed. This is a fact of history and applies as much to Ancient Egypt as any other culture on earth.
posted
So peach skin and long straight hair isn't viable evidence, but artistic evidence counts when you and other posters are proving how black Egypt was with pictures of wooly/curly haired, dark skinned people. It's only "faulty evidence" when someone does the same thing but presents a different view for certain parts of Egypt. You are complaining about each bit of data that supports this, but do not accept that it is the combination of data that gives us a clear picture
-Near Eastern settlements, so they just imported Near Eastern houses?
-Near Eastern DNA
-Crania similar to the Near East in Middle/Lower Egypt
-THEN the artistic evidence.
ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence from the start. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago. Your pictures of Mentuhotep are indeed darker, weren't those Middle Kingdom rulers from Thebes? Thebes is not Middle Egypt. We're not talking about all of Upper Egypt.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So peach skin and long straight hair isn't viable evidence, but artistic evidence counts when you and other posters are proving how black Egypt was with pictures of wooly/curly haired, dark skinned people. It's only "faulty evidence" when someone does the same thing but presents a different view for certain parts of Egypt. You are complaining about each bit of data that supports this, but do not accept that it is the combination of data that gives us a clear picture
-Near Eastern settlements, so they just imported Near Eastern houses?
-Near Eastern DNA
-Crania similar to the Near East in Middle/Lower Egypt
-THEN the artistic evidence.
ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago.
I am done with this line of debate. My point has been made multiple times. You just keep trying to reiterate things as if it changes what I am saying:
quote: America as a "melting pot" has not changed the fact the fact that their core history, culture, identity and power is tied to Europe. No matter if Africans, Native Americans and Asians or mixtures there of exist in large numbers in the country. The founding fathers and the primary culture in the country is still tied to the European roots of the people that created it. Same thing with Rome. No matter how many non Europeans or Non ROmans became citizens, Rome was still primarily culturally, biologically and socially tied to he roots of Roman power in Rome itself. Same in AE culture. Same in Chinese culture. Same in Indian culture. Same in MesoAmerican culture. All cultures have core identity and history no matter how many "others" enter the culture it does not change how they identify themselves and the roots and origins of said culture. Only in AE are folks trying to pretend that these things don't matter and everybody and anybody could be elevated in the culture contradicting everything we know about not only AE but every other culture on the dam planet. All cultures protect their own roots and core history and identity. That is what makes a culture last and stay intact. Immigration and others from elsewhere does not change that, except when those "others" are invaders and take over. Then the culture and identity gets changed. This is a fact of history and applies as much to Ancient Egypt as any other culture on earth.
Basically your argument is that even if the culture didn't start in the North, the presence of Levantines was there in the North since the Predynastic and after unification the country as a whole became more blended with Levantines in the general population to the point that AE identity no longer had any strong ties to the Southern roots of the culture in general and as part of the identity of the people in the country. The AE stopped identifying themselves by those roots and just accepted anybody and everybody into the culture to the point where the population became so thoroughly mixed with Levantines that distinguishing Lower Egyptians from Upper Egyptians based on skin color wasn't possible and that both Lower and Upper Egyptians were more thoroughly mixed with Levantines and did not care about any specific cultural unit or ethnic population as the core of the culture and roots of AE identity.
I am saying that is completely false. And the only point of the obviously black mummies from the later periods was to show how that is false. You just keep making no sense. There are no "new facts" that are going to be found next week, next year or 100 years from now that are going to prove that. Papers and scholarship already exist showing the scope and impact of Levantine influence in AE. Just like there is AE influence on Babylon and Assria. Doesn't change anything at all about what I said about culture and identity.
You can reword it all you want and try and rehash it all day. It still doesn't change the facts we already know.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, you don't know what I'm arguing or you're deliberately propping strawmen. Where did anyone say that as the country became more Levanite (during the dynastic period) the general population lacked a cultural interest in preserving the southern character of the country? Northern and Middle Egyptians identified with the culture just as the southerners did. That's how it was from the start, even as northerners were Levanite influenced from the start. They'd been assimilating to the south's culture long before the dynastic era and didn't have issues like RACE to keep them from identifying with it. It's not that they didn't care about cultural units. They had nomes to preserve local identity and did fight off Levanites that wouldn't assimilate. But it wasn't RACIAL. They didn't care about preserving phenotypes. No one's saying that the "black phenotype" was completely erased, but it lost it's dominance in many parts of Egypt as time went on.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence from the start. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago. Your pictures of Mentuhotep are indeed darker, weren't those Middle Kingdom rulers from Thebes? Thebes is not Middle Egypt. We're not talking about all of Upper Egypt.
As far as I remember, though Lower Egyptians shared greater affinities with Mediterranean and Levantine populations, they still were mostly related to Upper Egyptians. And despite the morphological differences, neither Upper or Lower Egyptians were so distinct as to be non-indigenous. Are you saying thats not the case?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Where did anyone say that as the country became more Levanite the general population lacked a cultural interest in preserving the southern character of the country. They identified with the culture just as the southerners did. That's how it was from the start, even as northerners were Levanite influenced from the start. They'd been assimilating to the south's culture long before the dynastic era and didn't have issues like RACE to keep them from identifying with it. It's not that they didn't care about cultural units. They did fight and run off Levanites that wouldn't assimilate. But it wasn't RACIAL. They didn't care about preserving phenotypes. No one's saying that the "black phenotype" was completely erased, but it lost it's dominance in many parts of Egypt as time went on.
Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic. Just as we know the core identity of Han China would have been light skinned Chinese. No culture on earth changes their core identity and culture, which by definition ties with phenotype, because of immigration.
Your point is still false no matter how you keep trying to restate it. Every time the AE restored the country they restored the core culture and identity from the South not just culturally but biologically and socially by integrating southerners into the royal lines and population at large. You keep ignoring this and denying this as if the facts have changed. That core identity and culture did not change and because of where AE is that would mean a black phenotype would have been a core part of that identity. What you are trying to say is that this makes the AE racist, but do you say that about Rome? Do you say that about China? Do you say that about Assyria or Babylon? All cultures do this and have done this. Ethnic identity goes with cultural origins and roots. There is no separating them.... You just want to pretend that AE is different from any other culture on earth in this respect and this wasn't the case is my point.
Again, if what you are saying is true then the 18th dynasty would have started in the North with Northern kings of Levantine ancestry and it dindn't. And throughout the dynasty Northern kings, officials and priests would have been a dominant part of the culture, but they weren't. These facts have not changed ONE BIT. In AE cosmology the Nile is associated with the female birth canal and the female deities are associated with the Nile through child birth. This is why many temples to these feminine deities were found in Aswan and why many prominent families were there. These are also tied to royalty in maternal pattern of royal inheritance and legitimacy. If what you are saying is true then you would have had many queens with obvious levantine history on the throne and creating new lines of kings. But they weren't. These facts have not changed. You just don't like the facts. This is the significance of these obviously black FEMALE mummies from the later periods. This isn't just a coincidence.
Levantine ancestry was never the core of identity and culture no matter how much Levantine influence there was or how many Levantines settled in the North. Like I said, the flow of AE history and culture has not changed and is not going to change because it is in the past. We already know the facts. Noting new is going to come and change those facts. Any people of Levantine origin had no choice to accept the cultural domination of the country from the South. And those that went against it were dealt with as part of the history that is already known and documented. So what you are saying still is not making sense no matter how you say it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So Capra are you disagreeing with Skoglund that Luxmanda did not carry 38% "Eurasian" ancestry? And that She carried African L2a?
Luxmanda is 60-65% African, she has a very common African mt haplogroup, even you cannot be dumb enough to think this has special significance. there are literally millions of modern Horners with the same combination.
point is these remains are not that old - when Luxmanda was living in Tanzania the New Kingdom was near its end in Egypt. so it does not constrain timing much. and that is the only tenuous thread connecting this discussion to the topic, so we are done with it now.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
so Doug's argument is literally that ancient Egyptians had to be predominantly black because they would have ethnically cleansed anyone who didn't look Upper Egyptian?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: so Doug's argument is literally that ancient Egyptians had to be predominantly black because they would have ethnically cleansed anyone who didn't look Upper Egyptian?
No. That is not what I said. What I said was that the location and origin of any culture ties to their ethnic identity and ALL groups protect their identity. There is nothing wrong with black Africans in Africa protecting their identity and culture no more than white Asians in North Asia, white Europeans in Europe or anywhere else. It is not ethnic cleansing to prevent your population and culture from being overrun by foreigners. Part of the development of the concept of civilizations and nation states is the concept of a national identity and borders. And this means both the protection of identity and borders via the means of an organized nation state. This is true as part of the development of civilization and true as part of any culture on earth.
It is amazing the lengths go through to make the AE unlike any other group of people on earth. Nobody asks why Chinese only marry Chinese and uphold Chinese culture and identity in China. Nobody asks why Greeks only marry Greeks and uphold Greek identity. Oh but when Africans do it, suddenly they are different and "racist".
Racism and ethnic cleansing mean going SOMEWHERE ELSE and imposing your identity and culture on other people not sharing the same identity as your own. Ethnic cleansing also implies erasing other ethnic groups from areas by forced migration and death. There is no evidence that the AE did any such thing in AE. What they did do is uphold the integrity of the AE culture and state which means if you didn't like it, you could hit the bricks and if you wanted to go against it, you got dealt with, just like any other culture, nation state and society on earth. And since that culture originated in Upper Egypt and had the strongest roots and ties there, this means it was Upper Egyptians who dominated the core of the culture throughout Dynastic history even with the integration of the North and the arrival of immigrants.
quote: The Papyrus Harris is essentially a summary of the important events of Ramesses III's reign, prepared by Ramesses IV, but written from the point of view of Ramesses III. Breasted (1906: 92) divides the Papyrus up into seven basic sections. The first is an introduction stating the ending date of Ramesses III's reign, along with his name and titles, and the purpose and dedication of the document (Breasted 1906: 110-111). The next three sections detail the contributions made by the king to the townships of Thebes, Heliopolis and Memphis, respectively, along with dedicatory prayers to the gods of these towns and lists of donations made by the king to the local temples (Breasted 1906: 111-177). Following is a general section detailing the king's contributions to smaller temples (Breasted 1906: 177-191), and a summary of the total contributions made by Ramesses III (192-198). Section VII is the historical section, recounting the accession of the king, his organizational policies, his military campaigns, and his death (Breasted 1906: 198-206). The Sea Peoples are mentioned in the historical section in the context of the northern wars of year 8 (Breasted 1906: 201). Ramesses describes the northerners as invaders of Egypt's borders, and describes their place of origin as "islands." The specific peoples mentioned in the text are Danuna, Tjekker, Peleset, Shardana and Weshesh. The Shardana and Weshesh are singled out as being "of the sea," which is consistent with their depiction in other sources of the time as oceanic nomads and pirates (Redford 1992: 244). The most interesting aspect of this brief passage on the year 8 battles is the description of the fate of the Sea Peoples. Ramesses tells us that, having brought the imprisoned Sea Peoples to Egypt, he "settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year" (Breasted 1906: 201). It is likely that these "strongholds" were actually fortified towns in Canaan -- that is, the towns that would eventually become the Philistine Pentapolis (Redford 1992: 289). The Papyrus Harris passage concerning the Sea Peoples, while largely overlapping with the information provided in the Medinet Habu inscriptions, also provides some important details lacking in the Medinet Habu texts. Both sources taken together provide the most complete historical picture of the Sea Peoples at the end of the 13th century BCE.
posted
so if people of Levantine descent assimilated to Ancient Egyptian culture then they could stick around as ethnic Egyptians?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.
You keep saying "stop bringing up race" when you did, and continue to. just don't read. You really don't. How many times has your analogy to Rome been debunked. STOP comparing a country nestled deep in Western Europe to a country that is sandwiched between Sudan and the Near East. It's NOT the same.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just as we know the core identity of Han China would have been light skinned Chinese. No culture on earth changes their core identity and culture, which by definition ties with phenotype, because of immigration.
So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north AND Middle Egypt. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes like these phenotypes were foreign to Uppper Egypt. They'd always had been in the northern part of Upper Egypt. Immigration increased how MUCH the northern type look appeared in Egypt, but it was always part of the country. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your point is still false no matter how you keep trying to restate it. Every time the AE restored the country they restored the core culture and identity from the South not just culturally but biologically and socially by integrating southerners into the royal lines and population at large. You keep ignoring this and denying this as if the facts have changed.
No one's denying anything. I'm simply not responding to it because MY POINT has nothing TO DO WITH THAT.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That core identity and culture did not change and because of where AE is that would mean a black phenotype would have been a core part of that identity.
...Didn't you just say you weren't talking about race? The EGYPTIANS didn't perceive of RACE the way you do. They did not TIE "black" features to their sense of identity. Over thousands of years of seeing themselves as the same NATION and CULTURE as the northerners, they saw the northern phenotype as being Egyptian too! Yes they had regional awareness (Lower vs. Upper Egypt) but the northern types populated Middle Egypt, which back then was considered UPPER EGYPT. Even among a larger "Upper Egyptian" identity, the northern appearance was still considered part of the variability in dynastic times. "Levanite" describes where the most common aspects of a phenotype or genotype are. "Levanite" wasn't a culture or "core identity" for Egyptians. There was no "pan arab" identity politics back then. They were concerned with culture and nationality. This is SO stupid.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.
You keep saying "stop bringing up race" when you did, and continue to. just don't read. You really don't. How many times has your analogy to Rome been debunked. STOP comparing a country nestled deep in Western Europe to a country that is sandwiched between Sudan and the Near East. It's NOT the same.
AE was not in the "Near East". Stop making up stuff. ALL of AE was and still is in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just as we know the core identity of Han China would have been light skinned Chinese. No culture on earth changes their core identity and culture, which by definition ties with phenotype, because of immigration.
So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north. It STARTED as part of the state from the start. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes that were part of the nation, because they'd always had been. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.
And now we get to the point. This is why you have been fixating on this the whole thread and finally the truth comes out. Took long enough. Look I don't agree with you on that, but you need to stop playing passive aggressive and just state that this is what you are arguing up front.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your point is still false no matter how you keep trying to restate it. Every time the AE restored the country they restored the core culture and identity from the South not just culturally but biologically and socially by integrating southerners into the royal lines and population at large. You keep ignoring this and denying this as if the facts have changed.
No one's denying anything. I'm simply not responding to it because MY POINT has nothing TO DO WITH THAT.
You just contradicted yourself. You just said Levantines were a big part of AE from the start. Which is not the same as the Levantines migrated into AE over time. So now you are just frustrated because you can't hide behind your migration over time theory because in reality you don't believe that. You believe they were always Levantine from the start. And seriously the facts don't support that either, not the way you are trying to claim it does.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That core identity and culture did not change and because of where AE is that would mean a black phenotype would have been a core part of that identity.
...Didn't you just say you weren't talking about race? The EGYPTIANS didn't perceive of RACE the way you do. They did not TIE "black" features to their sense of identity. Over thousands of years of seeing themselves as the same NATION and CULTURE as the northerners, they saw the northern phenotype as being Egyptian too! "Levanite" describes where the most common aspects of a phenotype or genotype are. "Levanite" wasn't a culture or "core identity" for Egyptians. There was no "pan arab" identity politics back then. They were concerned with culture and nationality. This is SO stupid.
Black skin was a consequence of where they were and where the culture originated. What I am saying that like any other group, ethnic identity goes with phenotype. Why do you think the AE murals so accurately depict the different phenotypes of all the different ethnic groups they encountered? Black skin is a fact of being in Africa and black skin was a part of the ethnic roots of the culture. And like any other people ON EARTH they upheld and respected their identity and cultural origins, which also ties to phenotype. Race has nothing to do with it. This isn't about race. Phenotype including skin color is a part of human biology. Phenotype is not race. You keep trying to promote nonsense about human nature when the facts contradict everything you are saying. Why did the Greeks make statues with white marble and paint them light pink and white? Did that mean they were racist or did that mean they acknowledged the FACT of their ethnic identity and phenotype. It doesn't matter WHERE the culture is. People have a concept of identity and that is ALWAYS tied to ethnicity and phenotype. AE is not unique in this regard. You know this which is why you are pleading and moaning about Levantines being part of that identity because you KNOW that is how human nature works. If their presence was as big as you say and as big a part of the culture as you say then the flow of evidence and culture should reflect that and it doesn't.
Just like Indian versions of Buddha looked Indian while Chinese versions of Buddha looked Chinese or Greek gods looked Greek or Roman Gods looked Roman. This is a reflection of the deity being an archetype or reflection of the basis of the identity and roots of the people that created the culture. The fact is that man makes god in his own image. This is again a reflection of human nature and has nothing to do with race. Why on earth would AE people not depict their gods as looking like themselves? And if the roots of this culture was Levantine and so strongly affected by Levantines then the not only the deities should have looked Levantine but the general art and depiction of the people themselves. But they don't. This isn't RACE this is just a fact you don't want to accept because it contradicts what you are saying. And just like immigrants to China have to respect Chinese traditions and culture so did immigrants to AE and the people of the North have to respect the traditions of the South as part of unification. Just like Greece had to adopt the culture and tradition of the Hellenes and the Romans had to adopt the culture and traditions of the children of the she-wolf.
So stop replying to me. This is just wasting space. I made my point. You just are going in circles saying the same thing different ways trying to pretend it changes something.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence from the start. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago. Your pictures of Mentuhotep are indeed darker, weren't those Middle Kingdom rulers from Thebes? Thebes is not Middle Egypt. We're not talking about all of Upper Egypt.
As far as I remember, though Lower Egyptians shared greater affinities with Mediterranean and Levantine populations, they still were mostly related to Upper Egyptians. And despite the morphological differences, neither Upper or Lower Egyptians were so distinct as to be non-indigenous. Are you saying thats not the case?
Morphological review of the predynastics reflects differentiation between the north and south and the record does show increases of tropical elements in the remains, even as the country was becoming more arid. So there was a likely Sudanese component, which the material culture does suggest existed to some degree overall. Do I think "Egypt" was a Sudanese transplant? I believe local predynastic cultures were transplants--most particularly Ta Seti. Many predynastic tribes may have been mixed with Sudanese, but not a direct transplant. There was possibly some Near Eastern genetics that all groups carried, north and south. However I think if Ta Seti is of any indication, these nomes may have had their own origin stories that varied in how much mixture they had from other places. Gatto tells us that Sudanese Nubians had more influence that extended into the Theban area. So Sudanese affinities are something I expect south of Thebes. South of places like Thebes, If Levanite ancestry is there, I imagine Levanite ancestry to be older and less continuous in it's contact dating to times that extend into proto Afro Asiatic times. This would explain their later incorporating more farming skills, which they probably would've had if they were more directly related. The north would reflect more continuous contact and would probably be the source of trading goods and ideas from the Near East. The people would've ranged in features from Sudanese to Soqotri, which is probably why so many people compare the southern Egyptians to Somali.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
phenotype as tied to identity and cultural origins is about as good a definition of race as i've ever heard.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: phenotype as tied to identity and cultural origins is about as good a definition of race as i've ever heard.
Said who? I didn't say that.
So everybody is racist for upholding and respecting their identity and cultural roots then.
Yeah right.
Why don't you ask nature why different humans in different areas have different phenotypes? Because that is how absurd your point is. As if everybody and every phenotype needs to be everywhere and present in every population for history to be "fair" and "objective". Stop that nonsense. Why isn't anybody making that argument anywhere other than AE?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Course when the images show wooly haired dark skinned Egyptians you are either not saying a word when posters claim they're black, or are on the bandwagon.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic