quote:Originally posted by Doug M: "Melting pot" societies did not exist in the ancient world like they do today. Partly and primarily because ancient societies weren't as mobile today and second because most ancient cultures weren't built on explicit models of colonization.
Ancient Bablyon, Greece, Rome and Egypt were primarily indigenous cultures who did have some level of mixture due to immigration and conquest. Rome conquered parts of the Levant and North Africa so of course Romes population was not all "Roman". Same with Greece. Ancient Egypt also had conquered territories in the Levant and therefore some populations of Levantine origin were present as well throughout the dynastic period. But in all of these cultures the primary ethnic component at the core of the culture was primarily indigenous and homogenous. Rome proper was the core of the Roman state just as Athens was the core of ancient Greece and Upper Egypt (Luxor/Thebes) was the core of ancient Egyptian culture.
Define "melting pot." Culturally, there was assimilation and mixture. Many parts of Lower Egypt varied in the affinity to Levanite traditions during the predynastic, and some of these predynastic communities kept things like their religious traditions even as they entered the dynastic period. Greece and Rome are not analogous. They are not sandwiched between Europe and Asia, they are surrounded by other European countries. Egypt was and remains to be a country at the border between Africa and the Middle East. This created a spectrum of Eurasian and African mixture from the start of the dynastic period. It's not likely you'll find that level of homogeneity across Egypt that may have been in Greece or Rome. The type of heterogeneity being found in Egypt doesn't have the be the result of a rapid mobility to have taken place either. It was something that developed over thousands of years.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read some posts from both Swenet and Beyoku (in Forumbiodiversity) and you guys are encouraging people to read up on OOA material in order to avoid being hoodwinked. Beyoku also mentioned that there were Natufian-type people in Sudan and Dinka-type (Nilotic) people in Egypt at certain points -- which is something I did not know.
Swenet also mentioned (in Forumbiodiversity) that he thinks Mtdna M1 gradually decreased during the Dynastic period. This must also be true for Y-DNA Em-78. Haplo J must have had a gradual increase in the Dynastic period.
It would be great if tests were carried out to determine when Y-DNA J became so pronounced in Egypt. It's been pointed out that if the Y-DNA profiles of the Abusir mummies was as equally Eurasian as the mtdna, then people could conclude that the Abusir mummies were foreign derived migrants.
It seems nore than likely that the Abusir mummies were Egyptians, but there had been a gradual change in Egypt that explains their genetic profile.
Authorities in modern Egypt have samples of Old Kingdom ancient Egyptians in their keep and should have no problem releasing the data if the Old Kingdom Egyptians are just as Eurasian (maternally) as the Abusir mummies.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, speculating about ancient DNA in North Africa based on modern DNA is always ripe for error.
Until they get some ancient DNA from Upper Egypt going back to the predynastic and Early dynastic, you will never have anything more than the same old arguments rehashed and repackaged based on speculative models.
Northern Sudan is not "sub saharan". And we know there have always been black Africans in Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt. And no evidence in any serious cranial studies has found such a thing as "Eurasian" dynastic race in any part of predynastic to early dynastic KMT.
Earlier this year we had papers published showing that ancient DNA from North Africa was not "European" and also showed a link between ancient West Africa and the Sahara into the Levant (Natufians). The Sahara has always been a corridor for migrations from inner Africa to the outside world. This nonsense of Africans being stuck in "sub saharan" zones is stupid.
And as for EEF, Africans never left the Nile Valley to begin with since ancient times. This absurd notion that the indigenous groups of Africans in and along the Nile Valley were replaced at some point by non African migrants is silly talk. The evidence points to any migrations into the Nile in that time period coming from the South and West as a result of the drying Sahara. There are multiple lines of evidence for this. Yet folks sit here and pretend otherwise..... The African component of EEF is a result of the waves of Africans migrating out of Africa during the drying Sahara prior to the forming of dynastic KMT. That is the basis of the relationship, not some back migration from the Levant. The same population that is hinted at from the Sahara and North Africa from earlier this year that was ancestral to the Natufians. EEF however is primarily modeled as a Eurasian DNA package which explicitly leaves out the African component. Hence, using it to model ancient population structure is outright nonsense.
Bottom line, get more ancient DNA from Africa.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I have read some posts from both Swenet and Beyoku (in Forumbiodiversity) and you guys are encouraging people to read up on OOA material in order to avoid being hoodwinked. Beyoku also mentioned that there were Natufian-type people in Sudan and Dinka-type (Nilotic) people in Egypt at certain points -- which is something I did not know.
Swenet also mentioned (in Forumbiodiversity) that he thinks Mtdna M1 gradually decreased during the Dynastic period. This must also be true for Y-DNA Em-78. Haplo J must have had a gradual increase in the Dynastic period.
It would be great if tests were carried out to determine when Y-DNA J became so pronounced in Egypt. It's been pointed out that if the Y-DNA profiles of the Abusir mummies was as equally Eurasian as the mtdna, then people could conclude that the Abusir mummies were foreign derived migrants.
It seems nore than likely that the Abusir mummies were Egyptians, but there had been a gradual change in Egypt that explains their genetic profile.
Authorities in modern Egypt have samples of Old Kingdom ancient Egyptians in their keep and should have no problem releasing the data if the Old Kingdom Egyptians are just as Eurasian (maternally) as the Abusir mummies.
If they are holding on to Old Kingdom results then it has to be more than the Abu Sir haplogroups. You can have those haplogroups and still have predominant African ancestry #Taforalt.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
It would be great if tests were carried out to determine when Y-DNA J became so pronounced in Egypt. It's been pointed out that if the Y-DNA profiles of the Abusir mummies was as equally Eurasian as the mtdna, then people could conclude that the Abusir mummies were foreign derived migrants.
It seems nore than likely that the Abusir mummies were Egyptians, but there had been a gradual change in Egypt that explains their genetic profile.
In the case of Abusir el-Meleq, I highly doubt it. Ideas like Upper and Lower Egypt gave a general idea to where these general differences in the regions could be found but probably shouldn't be regarded as such in absolute terms. Abusir was in Upper Egypt but was referred to as Lower Egyptian.
While immigration spread relatively greater levels of mixing deeper into Upper Egypt notice how some cranial research has noted the phenotype of the Lower Egyptians (who show more ties to the Levant) appeared unchanged throughout the dynastic age. Meanwhile the southerners underwent changes. This is more than likely because many of the northerers were already from the Near East or heavily mixed. The same way Egyptologists had to accept influences from "Nubia" didn't end at Egypt's southern borders in Aswan, Near East mixture and migration didn't stop at the northern border. Do not be fooled by Abusir's placement in Upper Egypt. The people of Abusir were from the start Lower Egyptians despite where they lived. The sample these authors selected was simply magnificent if I do say so myself. No matter what era would've been selected it would likely show the kind of continuity they were looking to represent for all of Egypt. It's important to accept the possibility that the further north you go, yes certain aspects of mainstream rhetoric can be applied.
quote:Six pear-shaped stone maceheads were recorded, one with a bull’s head in relief. Other small finds include various articles of jewelry: bracelets or armbands of shell, ivory, leather and horn, and many beads of stone, copper, shell and faïence. A few small carved animal figurines (dogs, lions and a hippopotamus) were also excavated. An ivory cylinder seal carved with three rows of animals (dogs, a crocodile, antelopes, jackals, a scorpion, snake and vultures) was found in Grave 1035. Of local manufacture, this cylinder seal is a type of artifact that originated in Mesopotamia, as did its orientalizing motifs.
When we consider the northern location of the Abusir el-Meleq cemetery not only are the occurrences of the cylinder seal and the several vessels of Palestinian influence significant, but also two types of skeletons have been distinguished in the anthropological study. An “Upper Egyptian” type occurs, but there is also a more robust “Lower Egyptian” type, which may represent the descendants of the Predynastic Ma’adi culture of Lower Egypt. In the fourth millennium BC, Abusir el-Meleq must have played some role in the colonization of Lower Egypt by peoples of the Upper Egyptian Nagada culture, which resulted in the subsequent disappearance of the Lower Egyptian Ma’adi culture. The site may have been an outlying post regulating the routes of communication to trade colonies in the Delta, such as Buto and Minshat Abu Omar.
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
I'm not sure if robust means larger in number or if they're discussing the phenotype. However it'd probably be a fair estimation to consider that the descendants of Abusir-el-Meleq were heavily mixed with Lower Egypt. The fact it's called Lower Egyptian would suggest that however the mixing originally went, the Lower Egyptians either always were or soon became the majority. But apparently, Their ancestors were phenotypically and culturally distinct from the Naqada culture in it's affiliation with the Middle East and quite possibly, Mesopotamia.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I have read some posts from both Swenet and Beyoku (in Forumbiodiversity) and you guys are encouraging people to read up on OOA material in order to avoid being hoodwinked. Beyoku also mentioned that there were Natufian-type people in Sudan and Dinka-type (Nilotic) people in Egypt at certain points -- which is something I did not know.
Swenet also mentioned (in Forumbiodiversity) that he thinks Mtdna M1 gradually decreased during the Dynastic period. This must also be true for Y-DNA Em-78. Haplo J must have had a gradual increase in the Dynastic period.
It would be great if tests were carried out to determine when Y-DNA J became so pronounced in Egypt. It's been pointed out that if the Y-DNA profiles of the Abusir mummies was as equally Eurasian as the mtdna, then people could conclude that the Abusir mummies were foreign derived migrants.
It seems nore than likely that the Abusir mummies were Egyptians, but there had been a gradual change in Egypt that explains their genetic profile.
Authorities in modern Egypt have samples of Old Kingdom ancient Egyptians in their keep and should have no problem releasing the data if the Old Kingdom Egyptians are just as Eurasian (maternally) as the Abusir mummies.
The bolded is a good point. The Egyptian authorities are hiding something.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Like Supporting evidence given. Disagree with 'orientalizing motif', though. The animals are African animals.
I thought robust means beefy here, vs slender. I see your point. That type also out numbering the other.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: the Abusir mummies were foreign derived migrants
In the case of Abusir el-Meleq, I highly doubt it. Ideas like Upper and Lower Egypt gave a general idea to where these general differences in the regions could be found but probably shouldn't be regarded as such in absolute terms. Abusir was in Upper Egypt but was referred to as Lower Egyptian.
While immigration spread relatively greater levels of mixing deeper into Upper Egypt notice how some cranial research has noted the phenotype of the Lower Egyptians (who show more ties to the Levant) appeared unchanged throughout the dynastic age. Meanwhile the southerners underwent changes. This is more than likely because many of the northerers were already from the Near East or heavily mixed. The same way Egyptologists had to accept influences from "Nubia" didn't end at Egypt's southern borders in Aswan, Near East mixture and migration didn't stop at the northern border. Do not be fooled by Abusir's placement in Upper Egypt. The people of Abusir were from the start Lower Egyptians despite where they lived. The sample these authors selected was simply magnificent if I do say so myself. No matter what era would've been selected it would likely show the kind of continuity they were looking to represent for all of Egypt. It's important to accept the possibility that the further north you go, yes certain aspects of mainstream rhetoric can be applied.
quote:Six pear-shaped stone maceheads were recorded, one with a bull’s head in relief. Other small finds include various articles of jewelry: bracelets or armbands of shell, ivory, leather and horn, and many beads of stone, copper, shell and faïence. A few small carved animal figurines (dogs, lions and a hippopotamus) were also excavated. An ivory cylinder seal carved with three rows of animals (dogs, a crocodile, antelopes, jackals, a scorpion, snake and vultures) was found in Grave 1035. Of local manufacture, this cylinder seal is a type of artifact that originated in Mesopotamia, as did its orientalizing motifs.
The Afrocentrics have no leg to stand on if their argument is that the ancient Egyptians were genetically close to Bantus.
Agree, but AE's aren't genetically close to populations from Horn Africa either.
Indeed, AEs aren't that close to Horn Africans but they're still much closer to them than they are to West Africans. However, the Eurocentrics are interpreting this to mean Horn Africans are more 'Eurasian' even though experts like Tishkoff have made it clear that his positioning is because Eurasian derive from East/Northeast Africans.
Also, there are large sections of genetic data missing from populations of the Central Sahara especially from ancient sources, thus giving a skewed picture of 'African' let alone 'Sub-Saharan'. I have feeling that once this data is retrieved along with the alleged source of 'Basal Eurasian' the Euronuts won't have a leg to stand on either with their revived Eurafrican race theory that they base on these genetic findings.
Yes well unfortunately we have a little problem of some African nationalists from Horn nations like Eritrea and Somalia popping every now and then to assert claims on Egypt. Of course this is not as bad as those in the HBD forums where you have everyone from Palestinians to Germans doing the same thing.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is exactly what I meant when I said I have no problems with genuine questions. Somehow there seems to be a misconception where some think I have a problem with genuine questions, even though I've always made myself available for questions. It's the transparently disingenuous games above (Tyrannohotep) that I have a problem with. I've asked for clarification several times over the years re: evidence for his "Upper Nubian" origin of pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday. Evidence is never forthcoming. But it's always Tyrannohotep who bring it up again months or years later, trying to "secure" an origin as far south as possible.
I advise genuinely interested people to read the Irish abstract and the Donatella Usai materials about the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday closely. The population in question is simply found at that site during a short wet spell and then disappears from that site until related "Lower Nubian" and "Kushite" populations show up in mid-Holocene and Bronze Age times. None of the other Sudanese sites with Mesolithic remains (including the al Khiday site itself) have anything linked to the pre-Mesolithic people. So, no, there is no evidence that the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday people were "Upper Nubian". There is only evidence of pre-Mesolithic people entering the al Khiday site from outside, and then disappearing again, taking their burial and other customs with them. Meaning, the succeeding people were unlike the pre-Mesolithic people. The succeeding Mesolithic people even destroyed their graves, trying to make fire pits. How is use of a site for a short time consistent with an origin of these people at that site?
We find the customs of these pre-Mesolithic people in coastal North Africa (including the Maghreb) and among the Natufians before the pre-Mesolithic al Khiday people. Tyrannohotep knows this very well. We have talked about this. Yet he keeps trying to play geological games, knowing full well Mesolithic Sudan was dominated by people ancestral to modern Nilotes.
Anyway, I've said what I have to say in regards how I see the origin of these populations. I'm not interested in convincing people. I post the evidence and it's up to people to decide for themselves. So go ahead. Put your own extra sauce on what I said and make it seem like I'm distorting the origin of the al-Khiday population, when it's really you who is distorting things. You've been trying to peddle this for years. So go ahead. Tell these people how it's really Upper Nubia and Lake Turkana. The more south, the better, right? Who cares what the evidence says.
And the dental data from Irish supports this.
I am curious though as to what al-Khiday's postion in the MMD would be though I seriously doubt it would be SSA.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic