Has anyone else noticed that this nomarch appears to be artistically depicted as an Asiatic, or someone of partial Asiatic descent? Feedback on this please, if possible:
quote:Asiatics were portrayed in two key ways: (1) as individuals from the Levant; and (2) as individuals of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic heritage. The thesis has argued that artists first attempted to distinguish the two groups at Beni Hassan. The depictions of individuals of mixed ancestry first occur in Amenemhat I’s tomb during Senwosret I’s reign, when the artist(s) were probably faced with the dilemma of distinguishing Asiatic warriors from Asiatics residing in the region. Neither of the two were correlated with ethnonyms such as aAm. Therefore, the apparent artistic solution was to portray Asiatics living in Egypt with Egyptian dress, hairstyles, and facial features, but a lighter, yellow, skin colour.
This artistic innovation of the ‘fair‐skinned men’ continued to be utilised in Senwosret II’s reign in Khnumhotep II’s tomb.124 The warriors were no longer portrayed but a procession of Asiatics referred to individuals from a foreign land both textually and artistically. The ‘fair‐skinned men’ were supplied with Egyptian names, titles, dress, hairstyles and facial features. A small red outline of a larger hooked nose on one of the men can be identified, indicating a possible artist’s error in utilising the features of the procession’s Asiatics with those living in Egypt. Perhaps, the inclusion of such features would have made the latter appear too foreign and so a more subtle but distinct lighter skin colour was favoured.
In older period times, Egyptian depictions of Egyptianized Asiatics was subtle, relying on usage of color to depict Egyptian men of partial or fully Asiatic ancestry (whose families migrated from the east). Djehutynakht DNA is believed to represent Egypt because of his status. However, the Hyksos was not a sudden invasion and northerners generally accepted their rule. Asiatic control of northern Egypt was a gradual process and throughout the Middle Kingdom, Asiatics and/or their partially Asiatic offspring rose to positions of power.
quote:From the mid‐Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasties, they held high ranks in the capital’s vizierate, treasury, military and temple precincts. One also became a nobleman in the Delta. Their growing number and power at first saw Egyptian artists experimenting with ways to portray them in artistic and textual sources. Then, between the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, the term aAm became favoured. The use of this term was not a derogative delineator but simply a marker of their ethnicity. During Dynasty 13, hybridised elements bearing Asiatic features were mostly associated with elite Asiatics or items displaying royal or religious significance. This ‘freedom to express’ Asiatic customs thus became more prominent, signifying the growing power and influences of the Asiatic elite and the Levantine community on the Egyptians. It also signifies that their ethnic identity had become more prominent, perhaps in response to shifting socio‐political situations.
Though a yellowish color was the most common color to depict Asiatics, peaches and pink like flesh tones were also used:
Then there's the fact that Djehutynakht's haplogroup suggests an Asiatic origin:
quote:Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise.
But it falls back on the Abusir study (from mummies that date much later):
quote:In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy.
posted
^^ From your own source Lioness: Sardinians are “outliers” in the European genetic landscape and, according to paleogenomic nuclear data, the closest to early European Neolithic farmers...
The Neolithic people who brought farming to Europe were Asiatic!
In other words, like the Abusir samples he too is subscribed an EEF ancestry. In fact I can't help but get the impression that this is the agenda of the Euronuts-- to attribute ancient Egyptians as Neolithic Europeans.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how the picture would change if we had Djehutynakht's Y-chromosomal haplogroup as well. For all anyone knows, he could be Y-DNA A, B, or E1b1a.
Honestly, he doesn't appear much lighter-skinned than the other Egyptian characters depicted on here. If he had any recent Asiatic ancestry, it doesn't seem to be reflected in this artwork.
posted
Upon comparable magnification to Djehutynakht in the above image, the pigments used for many of the servants were darker. Though traces of the darker pigments used remain, it's evident they have faded:
Though Djehutynakht's Y-DNA could be different, it woudn't change that he would still be of at least some Asiatic ancestry. An Egyptianized Asiatic or an Egyptian of mixed African and Asiatic ancestry that seems to have been very culturally Egyptian.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Ancient Egyptians shared genes with several European populations.
They were closely related to ancient populations in the Levant - now modern day Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon.
They were also genetically similar to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ From your own source Lioness: Sardinians are “outliers” in the European genetic landscape and, according to paleogenomic nuclear data, the closest to early European Neolithic farmers...
The Neolithic people who brought farming to Europe were Asiatic!
In other words, like the Abusir samples he too is subscribed an EEF ancestry. In fact I can't help but get the impression that this is the agenda of the Euronuts-- to attribute ancient Egyptians as Neolithic Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Upon comparable magnification to Djehutynakht in the above image, the pigments used for many of the servants were darker. Though traces of the darker pigments used remain, it's evident they have faded:
Though Djehutynakht's Y-DNA could be different, it woudn't change that he would still be of at least some Asiatic ancestry. An Egyptianized Asiatic or an Egyptian of mixed African and Asiatic ancestry that seems to have been very culturally Egyptian.
Some pigments darken with age others fade and get lighter. So if you see two different colors in an area that is supposed to be one tone you can't assume which color is more true to the original condition without chemical analysis of the pigments
You are doing much speculation on the painting and little on the DNA of the actual mummy,mtDNA haplogroup U5b2b5
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I hope it's OK to revisit the below, also, for what it's worth, compare the subject's facial features with the guy in front of him.
Once believed to have lived during the reign of pharaoh Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty, from the analysis of his furniture it has been deducted that he actually lived in an earlier period, although a degree of uncertainty still remains: it's very difficult to trace Djehutynakht's family and life events, and the only certain relationship it that with his wife, also named Djehutynakht. The name was very common in this period and six nomarchs bearing it are known, two of whom – the fourth and the fifth respectively – were married to a wife with the same name.
If this nomarch was the same of Djehutynakht IV, then he • lived at the very end of the 11th Dynasty and was • the son of the nomarch Ahanakht I, • successor of his brother Ahanakht II, and • predecessor of the nomarch Neheri I.
Otherwise, if he was the same of Djehutynakht V, then he • lived during the late reign of pharaoh Amenemhat I of the 12th Dynasty and • was Neheri I's son and successor by his wife Djehutyhotep, and • the uncle of his successor Neheri II.
In either cases, no children are known for Djehutynakht and his wife. See "Nomarchs of the Hare nome" for a complete genealogy.
Djehutynakht's tomb – designated 10A – was rediscovered in the Deir el-Bersha necropolis in Middle Egypt in 1915 by the American Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner who was the leader of the Harvard University – Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition. Almost nothing was left of the outer chapel but the burial chamber, although already raided of the jewelry, still contained several finely painted cedar wooden coffins belonged to Djehutynakht and his wife (above all his outer coffin, commonly called “Bersha coffin”, renowned as “the finest painted coffin Egypt produced and a masterpiece of panel painting”. Along with the coffins, in the tomb were found a head of a mummy (most likely[/url a male one thus [url=y]possibly belonging to the nomarch) as well as lady Djehutynakht's canopic chest and a great number of funerary furniture such as pottery, canopic jars, several model boats, many models of men and women in different daily life activities, and the famous group composed of a priest and many offering girls, known as “Bersha procession”. In its entirety, these objects forms the largest Middle Kingdom funerary assemblage ever found. The Egyptian government gave the whole content of Tomb 10A to the Museum of Fine Arts. During the naval trip to Boston in 1920, the collection was threatened by a fire on board, but fortunately the damage was very limited. For decades only the “Bersha coffin” and the “Bersha procession” were exhibited at the MFA; in 2009-10 the whole collection was shown in a dedicated exhibition.
Ancient Egyptians shared genes with several European populations.
They were closely related to ancient populations in the Levant - now modern day Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon.
They were also genetically similar to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe.
Yes, that is my point exactly! Ever since the study on the Abusir mummies first came out last year I can't help but get the impression that it is part of an agenda to white-wash the Egyptians via EEF ancestry. And yes, I cannot think it more than coincidence that these findings match what Hore/Hammer/Pat used to claim all the time! Then again since these studies were carried out by Planck Institute folk it's not that surprising.
I'm still waiting for the DNA results of the Ramessides and Tut. Funny how we never hear about their DNA but instead some unknown persons from the late period of Egyptian history when Lower Egypt was known to have a lot of foreigners.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Uh oh, don't say white wash. Moderatot tL declares that's bordelune racism, though this same mod sees nothing racialist in Doxies' intellectually useless diatribes.
Again, the Abusir mummy heads are the property of German museums. I don't know any whole genome extraction on mummies owned by Egypt. Please advise to the contrary.
The field says fuck the Armarna & Ramesside STR data, it's not good enough. Neither it nor any pre-Schuenemann AE mummy DNA analysis is valid.
Politics and racial sentiment is part and parcel to eugenics whoops I mean scientific population genetics as long as people raised in particular countries are the geneticists instead of space aliens who have no stake in the religious and engineering origins of Western Civilization aka white Europe & diaspora.
Ancient Egyptians shared genes with several European populations.
They were closely related to ancient populations in the Levant - now modern day Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon.
They were also genetically similar to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe.
Yes, that is my point exactly! Ever since the study on the Abusir mummies first came out last year I can't help but get the impression that it is part of an agenda to white-wash the Egyptians via EEF ancestry. And yes, I cannot think it more than coincidence that these findings match what Hore/Hammer/Pat used to claim all the time! Then again since these studies were carried out by Planck Institute folk it's not that surprising.
I'm still waiting for the DNA results of the Ramessides and Tut. Funny how we never hear about their DNA but instead some unknown persons from the late period of Egyptian history when Lower Egypt was known to have a lot of foreigners.
On the other hand, we also have two Middle Kingdom mummies who inherited mtdna M1a1, which the authors said confirmed their African ancestry.
I don't share this apparent belief that there's currently some kind of big malicious conspiracy (or "agenda") to whitewash the Egyptians with aDNA. There are legit concerns about sampling bias and how the data is interpreted, but where is the evidence of racist deliberation on these researchers' part? The Max Planck Institute could very well trace its roots to founders with white supremacist views (in a time when said views were academically mainstream), but considering how most Germans today don't even want to be conflated with Nazism, I think it's a stretch to assume that a Nazi-style white supremacist agenda is driving the current generation of researchers in their fold. At most, they're guilty of incompetent interpretations and maybe trolling old-school Afrocentrics.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nothing current aboutt it. Institutional racism is benign and without nastiness or ill intent.
The stakes are too high (the very origin of whites believing in reward or punishment after death by a resurrected God, who lived as a human being, based on morality and ethics. Then there's the straight out the stone age origin of engineering massive architecture and the sociology behind organizing the technicians and laborers for a decades long projects).
AE white/west eurasian interpretation has been de riguer since the Napoleonic expedition, even though Volney called it out at the time.
It'll never stop.
AE black/nile&periphery interpretation has been ongoing since ~600BCE.
Ain't no stopping it now.
People will believe what suits them. Facts supporting either interpretation be damned! Unless ...
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Upon comparable magnification to Djehutynakht in the above image, the pigments used for many of the servants were darker. Though traces of the darker pigments used remain, it's evident they have faded:
Though Djehutynakht's Y-DNA could be different, it woudn't change that he would still be of at least some Asiatic ancestry. An Egyptianized Asiatic or an Egyptian of mixed African and Asiatic ancestry that seems to have been very culturally Egyptian.
Some pigments darken with age others fade and get lighter. So if you see two different colors in an area that is supposed to be one tone you can't assume which color is more true to the original condition without chemical analysis of the pigments
You are doing much speculation on the painting and little on the DNA of the actual mummy,mtDNA haplogroup U5b2b5
You are assuming though that pigments for pinkish flesh tones of lighter hue involved the use of different pigments altogether instead of reduced coats of the same pigment. He still looks very peach close up, while his servants show small traces of darker pigments. Even in Djeutynakht's shadows of his portrait, you see a darker but still pinkish color. This interpretation that the art was conveying light skin (which was at times the only subtle way they reprsented Egyptianized Asiatics) also incorporates the existing DNA data we have of his haplogroup. His haplogroup was seen as so bizarre they questioned it's auhenticity. The main support they give are the Abusir mummies... a site that hardly had any people in it until the Late Period. At the very least, I think there's enough data available to be cautious in interpreting the DNA as representative without the availability of Old Kingdom or Late Predynastic DNA samples. Bear in mind, I believe there was an Asiatic component to northern Egyptian ancestry from the predynastic. So, it would't be out of line with what I believe if he was indigenous. However, I feel cautious in the readiness to interpret his DNA as representative of Egypt the more I research the time period he was from and the Hyksos influences within Egypt that were growing back then.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
10th - 12th dynasty history says the Herakleopolitans (link) claimed to have chased Asiatics out the delta and strengthened the border.
Asyut (link) was in or just across from the 15th nome. Approved by Herakleopolis, Asyut ravaged clear to Thebes.
The country was in turmoil and nomarchs outside the 5 southernmost Upper Egypt nomes were both powerful and treacherous.*
If my synopsis is factual I doubt the Theban 11th-12th dynasty had born or nationalized Aamw nomarchs. So out of the 3 proposed options a native one seems the shortest straightest one.
I assume, w/o researching it, offspring of nationalized foreigners were reckoned native by culture, language, and nomen. Need I add natives of Delta Lower Egypt were as much Egyptian as natives of Naqada-1st Cataract Upper Egypt were Egyptians. Both regardless of inevitable admixture with adjacent non-Egyptians in the family tree.
* couldn't find side by side imgs of the famous Mesheti bowmen and spearsmen
posted
Still researching this issue to have more details but it seems as though in years precedig their takeover of northern Egypt, the Hyksos had integrated into some of the highest levels of society--including that of Egyptian nobility:
quote:From the mid‐Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasties, they held high ranks in the capital’s vizierate, treasury, military and temple precincts. One also became a nobleman in the Delta. Their growing number and power at first saw Egyptian artists experimenting with ways to portray them in artistic and textual sources. Then, between the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, the term aAm became favoured. The use of this term was not a derogative delineator but simply a marker of their ethnicity. During Dynasty 13, hybridised elements bearing Asiatic features were mostly associated with elite Asiatics or items displaying royal or religious significance. This ‘freedom to express’ Asiatic customs thus became more prominent, signifying the growing power and influences of the Asiatic elite and the Levantine community on the Egyptians. It also signifies that their ethnic identity had become more prominent, perhaps in response to shifting socio‐political situations.
quote:The Asiatics in the Delta were foreigners, and regarded as inferior interlopers by many Egyptians, but as happens in communities, feelings of the Egyptian population were divided on this matter. Redford (1993:73) tells of an incident as far back as the rule of the last king of Dynasty Eleven, Mentuhotep III. Nehry, who described himself as 'a brave commoner', was nomarch of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt during a period of stasis in the kingdom. He himself and his two sons were challenged by the king for the rule of Hermopolis. One of the sons, Kay, claimed that with the help of the draftees in the city, he defeated the government soldiers of the king which included "the Medjay (scouts from Nubia), Wowat, southerners, Asiatics, the southland and the Delta". Already here the duality can be seen, and Redford finds it interesting that Kay included the Asiatics among his opponents, and by implication, they were allies of the king's house.
JOHANNA ALETTA BRÖNN: FOREIGN RULERS ON THE NILE – a reassessment of the cultural contribution of the Hyksos in Egypt
From what I've read also, Nehry was not related to Djehutynakht.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Obviously going by just one painting from a coffin doesn't mean much. The skin color could just be symbolic of him being dead or simply the result of the pigments used, the fact it is on wood and the age of the coffin. There are other relics from the tomb other than that coffin. As usual this is the same hypocritical contradictory logic that claims "light colors" in AE art are realistic but all the thousands and thousands of dark colors are "symbolic"......
Also, painted wooden coffins are a style that became popular during the middle kingdom. Therefore you should look at other Middle Kingdom tombs to compare and contrast to see if there is a common theme artistically.
Not saying anything specifically about DNA here that hasn't already been said, namely that hand picking a few mummies here and there to "represent" all of AE is bogus.
At this point any question of Asiatics in AE service as nobles and officials is largely speculative. And this is because many times if they did fully assimilate into AE culture, they adopted AE names, custom and dress and would be hard to identify from artwork alone. And there are recent papers on this topic that point this out.
The importance of this is that if Eurasian ancestry was as significant in the way people keep claiming in AE, then that would not be something you would have to speculate about. That fact would be obvious from all lines of evidence: art, culture, writing and so forth. But it isn't. Meanwhile, like I said in the other thread, the obvious and OVERT fact of multiple waves of Southern folk in AE culture and the deference and respect paid to Southern culture, people and traditions within AE is downplayed as insignificant and unimportant. And that is the ONLY way you can promote this Levantine/Eurasian flow into AE culture into AE as more significant than the indigenous Nile Valley populations which were almost always associated with populations to the South as the Nile itself flows from the South Geography, art, culture and everything else backs this up, but we have folks still sitting here pretending that this isn't important and that any old speculation about this or that person having Levantine ancestry somehow makes most or all of AE into Levantine transplants. And this is precisely what Egyptology has been for a very long time: endless speculating about imaginary Levantines under every rock and crevice in AE art and culture, completely ignoring anything else.
quote:Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise.
But it falls back on the Abusir study (from mummies that date much later):
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Death colored skin? They said that about Ahmose-Nefertari. If it's false for her it's false for DjehutyNakht. Else we're special pleading.
Nothing speculative about Khendjer's 13th dynasty documented rank. A lot of the newly Egyptian 'Asians' nationalized in Memphis and were given Ptah related names. This's besides bought and paid for slaves and concubines from the Levant. Domestic slaves were sometimes adopted. An Egyptians child on/by an 'alien' was Egyptian.
Let's face it. Egypt didn't have an inverted American racial discrimination. An Egyptian was an Egyptian regardless of antecedents. Talents and skills allowed anyone to advance. That includes resident aliens even who weren't Egyptian. By the New Kingdom there were towns named after their Asian homelands. Like 'Little Babylon' (portolans labeled Egypt Babylonia), distinct from all nativity.
The state was a NileValley African founded state. Every resident citizen of the state was not a NileValley African nor NileDelta African either for that matter.
I don't know where this all-African-no-Levantines ancient Egypt idea came from. It's not Africentric. Recent (mid-1970's) forerunners like Dr Ben or Chancellor Williams never posited such a thing.
quote:C Wms (1974), p39: The New Approach The first period would begin with "prehistory," primarily because Nowe, one of the oldest cities on earth, was begun by Blacks before recorded history. Another important reason is that the Canaanites and Asians had invaded the Nile Delta and establish a stronghold in Lower Egypt (then Northeastern Ethiopia or Chem) in prehistoric times. This early concentration of whites along the seacoasts of the Land of the Blacks is a circumstance of crucial importance in black history because it was exactly from this development that the achievements of the Blacks were overshadowed by later writers or blotted out entirely.
Not important whether or not it was an invasion or a stronghold. It's a known fact, even in the Pleistocene, Levant Sinai Delta Cyrenaica to and fro communication is reality. It didn't wait for Holocene times to start and certainly did not just begin in the 4th millennium BCE. But for sure, as soon as 'Asians' got flocks they were watering them Delta waters.
Whether or not he knew, we know many Canaanites were dark. There was no rigid 'real estate' colour bar on 'Asians'. We now also know simplistic upper and lower Egypts tell nothing of actual geographic control/influence by south or north originating dynasties. One pharaoh divided Egypt into four districts.
Anyway the point is investigating and honestly reporting the findings on 'Asian'-Egyptian heritage is true Africentric postgraduate research. And long overdue.
posted
There is a big difference between SPECULATING about Asiatic ancestry in individual AE personalities versus actual hard scholarship. Scholarship is scholarship and speculation is speculation.
There is also a difference between identifying individuals of Asiatic descent in AE at various times and claiming much of AE was an Asiatic import or of Asiatic extraction.
Just saying:
Quoting the OP:
quote: Has anyone else noticed that this nomarch appears to be artistically depicted as an Asiatic, or someone of partial Asiatic descent? Feedback on this please, if possible:
Asiatics were portrayed in two key ways: (1) as individuals from the Levant; and (2) as individuals of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic heritage. The thesis has argued that artists first attempted to distinguish the two groups at Beni Hassan. The depictions of individuals of mixed ancestry first occur in Amenemhat I’s tomb during Senwosret I’s reign, when the artist(s) were probably faced with the dilemma of distinguishing Asiatic warriors from Asiatics residing in the region. Neither of the two were correlated with ethnonyms such as aAm. Therefore, the apparent artistic solution was to portray Asiatics living in Egypt with Egyptian dress, hairstyles, and facial features, but a lighter, yellow, skin colour.
This artistic innovation of the ‘fair‐skinned men’ continued to be utilised in Senwosret II’s reign in Khnumhotep II’s tomb.124 The warriors were no longer portrayed but a procession of Asiatics referred to individuals from a foreign land both textually and artistically. The ‘fair‐skinned men’ were supplied with Egyptian names, titles, dress, hairstyles and facial features. A small red outline of a larger hooked nose on one of the men can be identified, indicating a possible artist’s error in utilising the features of the procession’s Asiatics with those living in Egypt. Perhaps, the inclusion of such features would have made the latter appear too foreign and so a more subtle but distinct lighter skin colour was favoured.
Yes, the colors used COULD be an indication of Asiatic descent but there is no guarantee of that. Most AE art was generalized. Painters worked like an assembly line. They weren't trying to reproduce the exact features and complexions of each and every individual buried in a tomb. Therefore they used a generalized color palette and motif and often generalized features for the faces. It would be better to look at other textual sources to find out about the ancestry of the person to see if there is any clear Asiatic ancestry there. Plenty of tombs have lighter and darker images for many reasons including fading, darkening along with stylistic conventions, symbolism etc.
So because much of that textual evidence isn't available in all cases many times some folks who are trying to do such identification use cues like colors in tombs that isn't reliable. Not to mention folks have been speculating about Asiatics in AE since forever including the "Asiatic" origins for Ramses and Seti to the blonde haired Hetep Heres and so forth.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This procession is led by a priest, followed by a scribe holding his writing board and palette under his arm. The remainder of the figures bear food offerings, including loaves of bread stacked on one man's arms.
Wooden models from the tomb of Djehutynakht,
Wooden models from the tomb of Djehutynakht,
Fragment of painted stone relief from a tomb wall; scene of ploughing and sowing; Hieroglyphic text above. Culture/period 12th Dynasty Date 1850BC (circa) Findspot Excavated/Findspot: Tomb of Djehutynakht
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Djehutynakht lived during the late reign of pharaoh Amenemhat I of the 12th Dynasty
Some of these royals had Asiatic wives, plus some of the priests may have been Asiatic or in part
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hard scholarship" is ironically a term open to interpretation, that leaves you (Doug) open to dragging your complaining pages long while of course presenting nothing discussion worthy for all the finger wagging that can be expected from your posts. Even Lioness has contributed more data to this discussion than you. Once again, you keep taking data and judging it without other portions of data presented. It's not just making a inference based on art. This man's ancestry being of partial (bare minimum) ancestry from Asia is already backed by DNA evidence. The question is not *if* he had some Asiatic or "Eurasian" ancestry, but what information do we have on him to establish the context for where the DNA came from.
A. Asiatics who Egyptianized and mingled with the locals.
B. Egyptians who always had Asiatic ancestry since the predynastic (uh oooh!).
Either scenario would fit with what I believed was going on in Egypt, since I've concluded with information available so far northern Egypt especially was riddled with Asiatic ancestry in the predynastic (partial or full). So if he wasn't mixed, this actually adds more data to that position. Anyway, Egyptianized Asiatics and Asiatics of partial Egyptian descent were sometimes only subtly portrayed differently from other Egyptians. Their being Asiatic didn't matter as much to northern Egyptians. There were no race wars to bar their full integration into Egyptian society (especially not in the north). Referring to them in written form was done eventually, but in some cases it really just came down to artistic convention. It's probably why we saw by the New Kingdom, realistic flesh tones for natives (such as women) who were originally given yellow hues. In any event, many Asiatics weren't ashamed of their Asiatic ancestors, but didn't feel the need to greatly emphasize their ancestors came from a different culture when they no longer identified with it.
His being mixed is likely enough at least, to find it too hasty for many Egyptologists to presume he was fully Egyptian (which would of course would mean his ancestry stems from predynastic Asiatic ancestry). They also have no Old Kingdom or southern data to compare but seem eager to write him off as a native. It doesn't really matter to my view what winds up being true. You on the other hand may find his being of native origin quite the shot the foot. Keep caping though, I guess.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
11th Dyn queen Khemset seems to prefer 'Asian' slaves. Saw this in St Claire Drake decades ago. Depiction of black skinned royal female in art well before the New Kingdom. Colour accuracy pending Navile's repro artist.
The DjehutyNakht we're discussing lived at the cusp of 11th & 12th dynasties, right? An excellent short sweet roundup of 1st Intermediate thru early Middle Kingdom is @ http://egyptian719.rssing.com/chan-53920755/all_p2.html
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: 11th Dyn queen Khemset seems to prefer 'Asian' slaves. Saw this in St Claire Drake decades ago. Depiction of black skinned royal female in art well before the New Kingdom. Colour accuracy pending Navile's repro artist.
The DjehutyNakht we're discussing lived at the cusp of 11th & 12th dynasties, right? An excellent short sweet roundup of 1st Intermediate thru early Middle Kingdom is @ http://egyptian719.rssing.com/chan-53920755/all_p2.html
Left, woman presenting oil vessel Right,Queen Kemsit reliefs from the Shrine of Queen Kemsit Shrine
Above, pictures of Kemsit, an ancient Egyptian queen consort to Mentuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty.
Not sure if Asiatics are verified here
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Kawit (prev poster's top img) was another but can't find her in color. In Aldred (1956) pl. 8 Kawit and hairdresser do share very similar facial features. No different from prev poster.
There's also an Ashayet by the same AE artists who chiseled Kawit. Her fan bearer has soft southern Egyptian features.
In contrast to the BM colour description of Kemsit compare this oldNaville facs from the NYPL
Despite euphemisms never applied when it comes to Nubians and Kushim
quote: The most important text recounts the efforts of a Thirteenth Dynasty Theban noblewoman named Senebtisi to establish legal ownership of ninety-five household servants, whose names indicate that forty-five were of Asiatic origin. The presence of so many foreigners in a single household suggests that the Asiatic population was increasing rapidly in Thirteenth Dynasty Egypt.
As was customary, some of these foreigners no doubt married Egyptians, adopted Egyptian beliefs and cultural traditions, and were absorbed into the cultural mainstream. Others, especially prisoners of war or descendants of military captives, remained loyal to their Asian heritage. Some of these foreigners facilitated the collapse of the Middle Kingdom and the later conquest of Egypt by the Asiatic Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The DjehutyNakht we're discussing lived at the cusp of 11th & 12th dynasties, right? An excellent short sweet roundup of 1st Intermediate thru early Middle Kingdom is @ http://egyptian719.rssing.com/chan-53920755/all_p2.html
Yes I believe that was precisely the time period. The flow of Asiatic women that were Egyptianizing was probably the reason why we start seeing these changes in skin tone for fully Egyptian women.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: "Hard scholarship" is ironically a term open to interpretation, that leaves you (Doug) open to dragging your complaining pages long while of course presenting nothing discussion worthy for all the finger wagging that can be expected from your posts. Even Lioness has contributed more data to this discussion than you. Once again, you keep taking data and judging it without other portions of data presented. It's not just making a inference based on art. This man's ancestry being of partial (bare minimum) ancestry from Asia is already backed by DNA evidence. The question is not *if* he had some Asiatic or "Eurasian" ancestry, but what information do we have on him to establish the context for where the DNA came from.
A. Asiatics who Egyptianized and mingled with the locals.
B. Egyptians who always had Asiatic ancestry since the predynastic (uh oooh!).
Either scenario would fit with what I believed was going on in Egypt, since I've concluded with information available so far northern Egypt especially was riddled with Asiatic ancestry in the predynastic (partial or full). So if he wasn't mixed, this actually adds more data to that position. Anyway, Egyptianized Asiatics and Asiatics of partial Egyptian descent were sometimes only subtly portrayed differently from other Egyptians. Their being Asiatic didn't matter as much to northern Egyptians. There were no race wars to bar their full integration into Egyptian society (especially not in the north). Referring to them in written form was done eventually, but in some cases it really just came down to artistic convention. It's probably why we saw by the New Kingdom, realistic flesh tones for natives (such as women) who were originally given yellow hues. In any event, many Asiatics weren't ashamed of their Asiatic ancestors, but didn't feel the need to greatly emphasize their ancestors came from a different culture when they no longer identified with it.
His being mixed is likely enough at least, to find it too hasty for many Egyptologists to presume he was fully Egyptian (which would of course would mean his ancestry stems from predynastic Asiatic ancestry). They also have no Old Kingdom or southern data to compare but seem eager to write him off as a native. It doesn't really matter to my view what winds up being true. You on the other hand may find his being of native origin quite the shot the foot. Keep caping though, I guess.
Ase, the point was that saying that something is a possibility based on nothing more than a few light colors on a casket is not "hard scholarship". That isn't finger waving that is just common sense.
If that is ALL you have to go by you are not really engaging in "hard scholarship".
Come on man. We don't have to speculate about Asiatics being in AE. I never said they weren't there. I said we shouldn't SPECULATE about this that and other individual in AE as being Asiatic with nothing more than innuendo and no "HARD FACTS". If there are Roman Era temples with Roman Emporers painted with brown colors, how do you know that "Asiatics" who assimilated into AE were not buried with the same styles of art as any other tomb? See the point?
And I already posted an article with "hard scholarship" about Asiatics in Abydos if you were really reading what I wrote. They weren't simply relying on colors in art to make their assessments of potential Asiatic ancestry.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there are Roman Era temples with Roman Emporers painted with brown colors, how do you know that "Asiatics" who assimilated into AE were not buried with the same styles of art as any other tomb? See the point?
No. Skin colors, size and other and stylistic conventions were highly symbolic in Egypt. Conventions changed with immigration to symbolically represent Egyptianized people from Asia. Artists may not have always artistically communicated it, but sometimes they would subtly give it a nod. Also, to quote myself:
quote: It's not just making a inference based on art. This man's ancestry being of partial (bare minimum) ancestry from Asia is already backed by DNA evidence. The question is not *if* he had some Asiatic or "Eurasian" ancestry, but what information do we have on him to establish the context for where the DNA came from.
Sometimes artistic conventions are the only hints available to establish context for the DNA evidence of people with Asian ancestry who Egyptianized and integrated. Anyways don't tell me what to do. If you don't like my threads you can go as I am not pressed to have you here. Everybody else has been presenting resources and information to expand the discussion while you complain. You've made your point, so please leave.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there are Roman Era temples with Roman Emporers painted with brown colors, how do you know that "Asiatics" who assimilated into AE were not buried with the same styles of art as any other tomb? See the point?
No. Skin colors, size and other and stylistic conventions were highly symbolic in Egypt. Conventions changed with immigration to symbolically represent Egyptianized people from Asia. Artists may not have always artistically communicated it, but sometimes they would subtly give it a nod. Also, to quote myself:
quote: It's not just making a inference based on art. This man's ancestry being of partial (bare minimum) ancestry from Asia is already backed by DNA evidence. The question is not *if* he had some Asiatic or "Eurasian" ancestry, but what information do we have on him to establish the context for where the DNA came from.
Sometimes artistic conventions are the only hints available to establish context for the DNA evidence of people with Asian ancestry who Egyptianized and integrated. Anyways don't tell me what to do. If you don't like my threads you can go as I am not pressed to have you here. Everybody else has been presenting resources and information to expand the discussion while you complain. You've made your point, so please leave.
You yourself just said that artistic conventions could be symbolic. And there are thousands and thousands of image from Egyptian art showing men and women including light skin men and women. Some are symbolic and some are not. Therefore, what specific evidence do you have that says asiatics who assimilated into AE culture were "subtly" represented differently in AE art? The problem with this statement is it is vague and ambiguous and can mean anything to anybody. It is not based on a survey of the many different tombs and many different styles of AE art it is mostly conjecture. As i said before, you need more than that to establish verified Asiatic ancestry and assimilation for any specific individual. And I am not saying there were no Asiatics assimilated into AE culture. I am saying this idea that "subtle artistic hints" were left in AE art actually provides evidence of such. To me that is purely speculative.
I know that there were people in AE with a range of skin colors throughout the dynastic era. However, the art in AE tombs was not necessarily designed to produce an exact photographic survey of the individual shades of complexion throughout AE society. Even the very detailed depictions of foreigners were based on an artistic canon but even there they followed generalized guidelines. As for the AE themselves, their art was not designed to be an accurate depiction of each and every individual in the general AE population. Even in the tombs of the ancient Kings often times the features of the king were also used in the features of the deities. So we should be careful jumping to conclusions based purely on art. There was a story about the mummies of the two brothers where one coffin had a light complexion and the other had a dark complexion. And guess what? Those coffins were not accurate reflections of the individuals inside. That said, there are tombs where the individuals in the tomb are depicted with light complexions. So what does that mean?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You yourself just said that artistic conventions could be symbolic. And there are thousands and thousands of image from Egyptian art showing men and women including light skin men and women. Some are symbolic and some are not. Therefore, what specific evidence do you have that says asiatics who assimilated into AE culture were "subtly" represented differently in AE art?
Conventions of the time period:
quote:Asiatics were portrayed in two key ways: (1) as individuals from the Levant; and (2) as individuals of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic heritage. The thesis has argued that artists first attempted to distinguish the two groups at Beni Hassan. The depictions of individuals of mixed ancestry first occur in Amenemhat I’s tomb during Senwosret I’s reign, when the artist(s) were probably faced with the dilemma of distinguishing Asiatic warriors from Asiatics residing in the region.123 Neither of the two were correlated with ethnonyms such as aAm. Therefore, the apparent artistic solution was to portray Asiatics living in Egypt with Egyptian dress, hairstyles, and facial features, but a lighter, yellow, skin colour.
This artistic innovation of the ‘fair‐skinned men’ continued to be utilised in Senwosret II’s reign in Khnumhotep II’s tomb.124 The warriors were no longer portrayed but a procession of Asiatics referred to individuals from a foreign land both textually and artistically. The ‘fair‐skinned men’ were supplied with Egyptian names, titles, dress, hairstyles and facial features. A small red outline of a larger hooked nose on one of the men can be identified, indicating a possible artist’s error in utilising the features of the procession’s Asiatics with those living in Egypt. Perhaps, the inclusion of such features would have made the latter appear too foreign and so a more subtle but distinct lighter skin colour was favoured.
Another artistic dilemma was possibly met by the artists of Wekhhotep’s tomb (C1) during Senwosret III’s reign.125 Women of likely mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic ancestry were to be depicted as offering bearers. As women in Egyptian art typically have a light yellow skin colour, the favoured solution of the Beni Hassan artists would not have sufficed. As such, other features, namely the women’s hairstyles and goods, were amended to express the mixed identity.
Evidence dating from Amenemhat III to the Thirteenth Dynasty indicates that a more standardised method of depicting foreigners arose. Individuals from the Levant were still shown with foreign features but those of mixed ancestry were mostly textually identified with the term aAm, particularly in funerary stelae. A few cases still employed hybridised Egyptian‐Asiatic elements, but all date to Dynasty 13. They include graffiti possibly drawn by Asiatics themselves and representations associated with the elite. As argued in Chapter 4.7, the evident use of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic features in art may correspond to a growing Asiatic community’s influences on the elite as well as a certain ‘freedom of expressing’ the Asiatic ethnicity.
Genetic Evidence:
quote:Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise.
Oi.
quote: So we should be careful jumping to conclusions based purely on art.
I already explained artistic convention wasn't the sole basis of my judgement. My judgement for now that there's a fair likelihood this guy was mixed background was based on:
A. AE Artistic convention.
B. Specifically,The time period that this man lived within. This convention wasn't for example much of a thing until many immigrants came into the country. So it wouldn't apply to older art).
C. Genetic evidence showing he is of at least partial Asiatic origin.
D. Asiatics were rising to positions of power during this time period. His being a nomarch wouldn't remove the feasibility of his having foreign ancestry during this era. Asiatic increase in social rank over the course of hundreds of years is ultimately what helped them to claim the north without much resistance from northerners when they finally made an official claim.
You already know that I make amendable judgements based on available data. We have different ways of approaching data that is not going to agree. Okay. That point has made several times already. Alrighty. Get out my thread if all you're going to do is complain about it again. You disagree or whatever, fine. You've expressed your opinion so leave.
quote:You yourself just said that artistic conventions could be symbolic. And there are thousands and thousands of image from Egyptian art showing men and women including light skin men and women. Some are symbolic and some are not. Therefore, what specific evidence do you have that says asiatics who assimilated into AE culture were "subtly" represented differently in AE art?
Conventions of the time period:
quote:Asiatics were portrayed in two key ways: (1) as individuals from the Levant; and (2) as individuals of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic heritage. The thesis has argued that artists first attempted to distinguish the two groups at Beni Hassan. The depictions of individuals of mixed ancestry first occur in Amenemhat I’s tomb during Senwosret I’s reign, when the artist(s) were probably faced with the dilemma of distinguishing Asiatic warriors from Asiatics residing in the region.123 Neither of the two were correlated with ethnonyms such as aAm. Therefore, the apparent artistic solution was to portray Asiatics living in Egypt with Egyptian dress, hairstyles, and facial features, but a lighter, yellow, skin colour.
This artistic innovation of the ‘fair‐skinned men’ continued to be utilised in Senwosret II’s reign in Khnumhotep II’s tomb.124 The warriors were no longer portrayed but a procession of Asiatics referred to individuals from a foreign land both textually and artistically. The ‘fair‐skinned men’ were supplied with Egyptian names, titles, dress, hairstyles and facial features. A small red outline of a larger hooked nose on one of the men can be identified, indicating a possible artist’s error in utilising the features of the procession’s Asiatics with those living in Egypt. Perhaps, the inclusion of such features would have made the latter appear too foreign and so a more subtle but distinct lighter skin colour was favoured.
Another artistic dilemma was possibly met by the artists of Wekhhotep’s tomb (C1) during Senwosret III’s reign.125 Women of likely mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic ancestry were to be depicted as offering bearers. As women in Egyptian art typically have a light yellow skin colour, the favoured solution of the Beni Hassan artists would not have sufficed. As such, other features, namely the women’s hairstyles and goods, were amended to express the mixed identity.
Evidence dating from Amenemhat III to the Thirteenth Dynasty indicates that a more standardised method of depicting foreigners arose. Individuals from the Levant were still shown with foreign features but those of mixed ancestry were mostly textually identified with the term aAm, particularly in funerary stelae. A few cases still employed hybridised Egyptian‐Asiatic elements, but all date to Dynasty 13. They include graffiti possibly drawn by Asiatics themselves and representations associated with the elite. As argued in Chapter 4.7, the evident use of mixed Egyptian‐Asiatic features in art may correspond to a growing Asiatic community’s influences on the elite as well as a certain ‘freedom of expressing’ the Asiatic ethnicity.
Genetic Evidence:
quote:Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics suggesting otherwise.
Oi.
quote: So we should be careful jumping to conclusions based purely on art.
I already explained artistic convention wasn't the sole basis of my judgement. My judgement for now that there's a fair likelihood this guy was mixed background was based on:
A. AE Artistic convention.
B. Specifically,The time period that this man lived within. This convention wasn't for example much of a thing until many immigrants came into the country. So it wouldn't apply to older art).
C. Genetic evidence showing he is of at least partial Asiatic origin.
D. Asiatics were rising to positions of power during this time period. His being a nomarch wouldn't remove the feasibility of his having foreign ancestry during this era. Asiatic increase in social rank over the course of hundreds of years is ultimately what helped them to claim the north without much resistance from northerners when they finally made an official claim.
You already know that I make amendable judgements based on available data. We have different ways of approaching data that is not going to agree. Okay. That point has made several times already. Alrighty. Get out my thread if all you're going to do is complain about it again. You disagree or whatever, fine. You've expressed your opinion so leave.
Complaining about what? This is the second thread where you are posting the same thing that has been discussed already. If nothing has changed why keep bringing up the same point?
Addressing your points specifically:
A. Artistic convention.
What artistic convention. The AE have always used different colors in tomb art for various reasons. How is this tomb any different. Please explain. Unlike the tombs of Beni Hassan where Asiatics were depicted as SEPARATE from the AE themselves, how do you know that this specific tomb is attempting to portray someone of Asiatic heritage. There is no other iconographic or textual evidence to associate this person to Asiatic ancestry is my point. He COULD have been of Asiatic ancestry, but there is no definitive proof of it. And light colored paint on a coffin by itself is not 'proof' of Asiatic ancestry.
B. Time Period. This is a time period where Asiatics were seen as a threat to AE culture and the AE state. How does that support your point? Sure there probably were some that assimilated in this time period but given the overall DOCUMENTED state of affairs and attitude why would this period be any different than any other period. That doesn't make sense. I know your citation says this and other scholars say this but most Asiatics at this time are shown as captives of war or emissaries bearing tribute not as "elites" in AE culture.
C. Genetic evidence. That may be true but more DNA is needed before confirming this. Other AE may also have carried similar DNA profiles and given the lack of substantial DNA from AE it is an open question what it means. At a minimum you would need the DNA profile of an average "indigenous" Egyptian to compare against and that does not exist.
D. How were Asiatics rising to power when the Asiatics were expelled. That contradicts the facts. What sources are you using for this statement? The AE were expelling the Asiatics and writing all kinds of nasty things about Asiatics in most records from the time period yet you are claiming Asiatics were rising to power....
Don't sit here and pretend you can not be challenged when posting half facts as truth.
And of course the same people sitting here defending and promoting these 'Asiatics' in AE have a hard time finding the Africans in AE via DNA art, culture or anything else. Yeah that is really African centered scholarship.
The point being all these cherry picked pieces of "evidence" are being used to build a narrative that somehow Africans weren't the primary population in AE and that most of the people in AE were of at best mixed Asiatic ancestry or at worst full Asiatic ancestry...... Of course no DNA profile of what was "indigenous" in AE but just hand picked DNA from one or two mummies while plenty of other mummies are un tested or tested and unpublished.....
This was already understood when this paper first came out.
There is no equivalent of the prophecy of Neferti for Asiatics in AE specifically calling out Asiatic ancestry as a prerequisite for rulership but according to these folks the Asiatics were assimilating in large numbers and taking over in these early periods. No tombs with models of Asiatic soldiers who were key allies in restoring he AE culture and state. NO record anywhere of Asiatics being the key to stability and prosperity in the kingdom (in fact the documents state the opposite). NO record anywhere in AE of Asiatic ancestry as a key to rulership similar to the documented records of Southern Ancestry as a key to rule but Asiatics ancestry was a big part of this time period..... Only by ignoring facts can people make such claims. And this isn't about just one or two or a few Asiatics assimilating into AE culture at different times. We all know better than that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Complaining about what? This is the second thread where you are posting the same thing that has been discussed already. If nothing has changed why keep bringing up the same point?
That's not what I was saying. I didn't say I talked about this nomarch in detail like this twice. I didn't say we discussed all this data twice. What I said that the nature of having an amendable position in the face of new data is something I believe to be a valid way of mantaining a scientific position. You have voiced disagreement, but I'm not changing my stance and would like you to leave because I don't want to waste pages arguing about it.
quote:Addressing your points specifically:
A. Artistic convention.
What artistic convention. The AE have always used different colors in tomb art for various reasons. How is this tomb any different. Please explain. Unlike the tombs of Beni Hassan where Asiatics were depicted as SEPARATE from the AE themselves, how do you know that this specific tomb is attempting to portray someone of Asiatic heritage.
And this is why you just need to go. I already explained that colors meant different things depending on historical context such as the time period. In this time period, Asiatics that Egyptianized were portrayed artistically with Egyptian hairstyles, clothing and features but were colored differently as a subtle nod to their ancestors. There's also genetic evidence that suggests he's of partial Asiatic ancestry. The hilarious thing about you, is that you deny any signifficant Asiatic ancestry in Lower Egypt from the predynastic, but when you see Asiatic ancestry from this era you're to argue when people discuss Asiatic ancestry found in the remains as foreign. You're really just here to argue.
quote:B. Time Period. This is a time period where Asiatics were seen as a threat to AE culture and the AE state. How does that support your point?
No. No they weren't. For one thing, hatred Asiatics was not a universal problem among the Egyptians. Asiatic threat to the AE state was a growing sentiment once they took control of the north and expanded their rule from the Delta to Cusae. Centuries before this, the Asiatics gradually gained powerful positions and were well respected, especially in the north. This is why Asiatic rule in the north didn't create much problem with the northerners, while the southern rulers like Kamose were infuriated:
From Rise of the Hyksos:
quote:Within Egypt, Asiatics intermingled with the local population, adopting Egyptian names, titles, dress and religious customs. They were treated as effective and significant members of the Egyptian community and were employed in a range of state, palatial, religious, and local government positions. From the mid‐Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasties, they held high ranks in the capital’s vizierate, treasury, military and temple precincts. One also became a nobleman in the Delta. Their growing number and power at first saw Egyptian artists experimenting with ways to portray them in artistic and textual sources. Then, between the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, the term aAm became favoured. The use of this term was not a derogative delineator but simply a marker of their ethnicity. During Dynasty 13, hybridised elements bearing Asiatic features were mostly associated with elite Asiatics or items displaying royal or religious significance. This ‘freedom to express’ Asiatic customs thus became more prominent, signifying the growing power and influences of the Asiatic elite and the Levantine community on the Egyptians. It also signifies that their ethnic identity had become more prominent, perhaps in response to shifting socio‐political situations.
They had even penetrated the Egyptian nobility and this is probably not counting wives of the kings.
From Bronn 2006:
quote:The Asiatics in the Delta were foreigners, and regarded as inferior interlopers by many Egyptians, but as happens in communities, feelings of the Egyptian population were divided on this matter. Redford (1993:73) tells of an incident as far back as the rule of the last king of Dynasty Eleven, Mentuhotep III. Nehry, who described himself as 'a brave commoner', was nomarch of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt during a period of stasis in the kingdom. He himself and his two sons were challenged by the king for the rule of Hermopolis. One of the sons, Kay, claimed that with the help of the draftees in the city, he defeated the government soldiers of the king which included "the Medjay (scouts from Nubia), Wowat, southerners, Asiatics, the southland and the Delta". Already here the duality can be seen, and Redford finds it interesting that Kay included the Asiatics among his opponents, and by implication, they were allies of the king's house.
Two Egyptian families have very different takes on Asiatics. The king in this case is allied with the Asiatics. And of course, his opponent is not fighting the Asiatics because he probably has something against their ancestry particularly. There are other groups mentioned and the central conflict is that they supported the king.
quote:C. Genetic evidence. That may be true but more DNA is needed before confirming this. Other AE may also have carried similar DNA profiles and given the lack of substantial DNA from AE it is an open question what it means. At a minimum you would need the DNA profile of an average "indigenous" Egyptian to compare against and that does not exist.
LOL What? I'm sorry wait what? You are the one who complained that Romans wouldn't be expected to be anything but European. You are the one who challenged people to presume an African default and to place the burden of proof of Asian affinity on researchers. You are the one who argued against Asiatic ancestry being of any significance in the predynastic to establish either an Asiatic mixed or transplanted Asiatic northern dynastic Egypt. But now when people are saying this Asiatic ancestry from the nomarch was probably the result of foreigners mixing and Egyptianizing, you now are implying that there's enough evidence that Asiatic ancestry was always native, and so significant measure, that rather than presume the natives were African until they prove otherwise, now we need to wait to see how the "average" remains look before having any amendable conclusions? It appears as though even if one were to entertain your views, you'd still come BACK to argue with yourself to if only to finger wag and release hot air from where the sun don't shine.
I believe there was an Asiatic presence since the predynastic in northern Egypt. However even if the Delta was for example, a complete transplant of Asiatics, researchers would still require other disciplines to determine the context of who in Egypt were those people's descendants and who in Egypt were Asiatics that were Egyptianizing. Egyptianized Asiatics adopted Egyptian names (one of the reasons you can't take Egyptian names in the Abusir sample to mean they weren't mixed), wore Egyptian clothes and adopted the culture. Archeological remains of foreigners who Egyptianized in general can prove at times tedious and in the case of Asiatics, sometimes it really came down to a few artistic nods and gestures here and there. What is readily available to review about this nomarch suggests there was a fair likelihood he was mixed.
quote: D. How were Asiatics rising to power when the Asiatics were expelled.
...What? At the time period of this nomarch they was no push to expel Asiatics in large numbers. As the source I quoted made mention, Asiatics were gaining positions of prestige and power. Some allied with the king's house. Their reputation went to the garbage among the southern rulers when they started demanding the throne of Egypt.
quote: There is no equivalent of the prophecy of Neferti for Asiatics in AE specifically calling out Asiatic ancestry as a prerequisite for rulership but according to these folks the Asiatics were assimilating in large numbers and taking over in these early periods.
Not that anyone's was arguing that Asiatics and/OR their mixed offspring required a perquisite to be Asiatic.
And now here's where the fun starts:
-If you're going to whine when people suggest the Asiatic ancestry in this man was from Asiatics coming into the country, mixing with locals and gaining positions of power.
-If you're going to complain when people position that Asiatic ancestry was in the predynastic and thus indigenous to Egypt from the start.
What ARE you arguing is the likeliest scenario for where this ancestry came from? You never have a position of your own. It just happens to offend YOU that people talk about this stuff, so you attempt to throw a monkey wrench whenever it starts. If you don't have at least some position of your own by next post GET OUT of my thread.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Complaining about what? This is the second thread where you are posting the same thing that has been discussed already. If nothing has changed why keep bringing up the same point?
That's not what I was saying. I didn't say I talked about this nomarch in detail like this twice. I didn't say we discussed all this data twice. What I said that the nature of having an amendable position in the face of new data is something I believe to be a valid way of mantaining a scientific position. You have voiced disagreement, but I'm not changing my stance and would like you to leave because I don't want to waste pages arguing about it.
quote:Addressing your points specifically:
A. Artistic convention.
What artistic convention. The AE have always used different colors in tomb art for various reasons. How is this tomb any different. Please explain. Unlike the tombs of Beni Hassan where Asiatics were depicted as SEPARATE from the AE themselves, how do you know that this specific tomb is attempting to portray someone of Asiatic heritage.
And this is why you just need to go. I already explained that colors meant different things depending on historical context such as the time period. In this time period, Asiatics that Egyptianized were portrayed artistically with Egyptian hairstyles, clothing and features but were colored differently as a subtle nod to their ancestors. There's also genetic evidence that suggests he's of partial Asiatic ancestry. The hilarious thing about you, is that you deny any signifficant Asiatic ancestry in Lower Egypt from the predynastic, but when you see Asiatic ancestry from this era you're to argue when people discuss Asiatic ancestry found in the remains as foreign. You're really just here to argue.
quote:B. Time Period. This is a time period where Asiatics were seen as a threat to AE culture and the AE state. How does that support your point?
No. No they weren't. For one thing, hatred Asiatics was not a universal problem among the Egyptians. Asiatic threat to the AE state was a growing sentiment once they took control of the north and expanded their rule from the Delta to Cusae. Centuries before this, the Asiatics gradually gained powerful positions and were well respected, especially in the north. This is why Asiatic rule in the north didn't create much problem with the northerners, while the southern rulers like Kamose were infuriated:
From Rise of the Hyksos:
quote:Within Egypt, Asiatics intermingled with the local population, adopting Egyptian names, titles, dress and religious customs. They were treated as effective and significant members of the Egyptian community and were employed in a range of state, palatial, religious, and local government positions. From the mid‐Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasties, they held high ranks in the capital’s vizierate, treasury, military and temple precincts. One also became a nobleman in the Delta. Their growing number and power at first saw Egyptian artists experimenting with ways to portray them in artistic and textual sources. Then, between the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, the term aAm became favoured. The use of this term was not a derogative delineator but simply a marker of their ethnicity. During Dynasty 13, hybridised elements bearing Asiatic features were mostly associated with elite Asiatics or items displaying royal or religious significance. This ‘freedom to express’ Asiatic customs thus became more prominent, signifying the growing power and influences of the Asiatic elite and the Levantine community on the Egyptians. It also signifies that their ethnic identity had become more prominent, perhaps in response to shifting socio‐political situations.
They had even penetrated the Egyptian nobility and this is probably not counting wives of the kings.
From Bronn 2006:
quote:The Asiatics in the Delta were foreigners, and regarded as inferior interlopers by many Egyptians, but as happens in communities, feelings of the Egyptian population were divided on this matter. Redford (1993:73) tells of an incident as far back as the rule of the last king of Dynasty Eleven, Mentuhotep III. Nehry, who described himself as 'a brave commoner', was nomarch of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt during a period of stasis in the kingdom. He himself and his two sons were challenged by the king for the rule of Hermopolis. One of the sons, Kay, claimed that with the help of the draftees in the city, he defeated the government soldiers of the king which included "the Medjay (scouts from Nubia), Wowat, southerners, Asiatics, the southland and the Delta". Already here the duality can be seen, and Redford finds it interesting that Kay included the Asiatics among his opponents, and by implication, they were allies of the king's house.
Two Egyptian families have very different takes on Asiatics. The king in this case is allied with the Asiatics. And of course, his opponent is not fighting the Asiatics because he probably has something against their ancestry particularly. There are other groups mentioned and the central conflict is that they supported the king.
quote:C. Genetic evidence. That may be true but more DNA is needed before confirming this. Other AE may also have carried similar DNA profiles and given the lack of substantial DNA from AE it is an open question what it means. At a minimum you would need the DNA profile of an average "indigenous" Egyptian to compare against and that does not exist.
LOL What? I'm sorry wait what? You are the one who complained that Romans wouldn't be expected to be anything but European. You are the one who challenged people to presume an African default and to place the burden of proof of Asian affinity on researchers. You are the one who argued against Asiatic ancestry being of any significance in the predynastic to establish either an Asiatic mixed or transplanted Asiatic northern dynastic Egypt. But now when people are saying this Asiatic ancestry from the nomarch was probably the result of foreigners mixing and Egyptianizing, you now are implying that there's enough evidence that Asiatic ancestry was always native, and so significant measure, that rather than presume the natives were African until they prove otherwise, now we need to wait to see how the "average" remains look before having any amendable conclusions? It appears as though even if one were to entertain your views, you'd still come BACK to argue with yourself to if only to finger wag and release hot air from where the sun don't shine.
I believe there was an Asiatic presence since the predynastic in northern Egypt. However even if the Delta was for example, a complete transplant of Asiatics, researchers would still require other disciplines to determine the context of who in Egypt were those people's descendants and who in Egypt were Asiatics that were Egyptianizing. Egyptianized Asiatics adopted Egyptian names (one of the reasons you can't take Egyptian names in the Abusir sample to mean they weren't mixed), wore Egyptian clothes and adopted the culture. Archeological remains of foreigners who Egyptianized in general can prove at times tedious and in the case of Asiatics, sometimes it really came down to a few artistic nods and gestures here and there. What is readily available to review about this nomarch suggests there was a fair likelihood he was mixed.
quote: D. How were Asiatics rising to power when the Asiatics were expelled.
...What? At the time period of this nomarch they was no push to expel Asiatics in large numbers. As the source I quoted made mention, Asiatics were gaining positions of prestige and power. Some allied with the king's house. Their reputation went to the garbage among the southern rulers when they started demanding the throne of Egypt.
quote: There is no equivalent of the prophecy of Neferti for Asiatics in AE specifically calling out Asiatic ancestry as a prerequisite for rulership but according to these folks the Asiatics were assimilating in large numbers and taking over in these early periods.
Not that anyone's was arguing that Asiatics and/OR their mixed offspring required a perquisite to be Asiatic.
And now here's where the fun starts:
-If you're going to whine when people suggest the Asiatic ancestry in this man was from Asiatics coming into the country, mixing with locals and gaining positions of power.
-If you're going to complain when people position that Asiatic ancestry was in the predynastic and thus indigenous to Egypt from the start.
What ARE you arguing is the likeliest scenario for where this ancestry came from? You never have a position of your own. It just happens to offend YOU that people talk about this stuff, so you attempt to throw a monkey wrench whenever it starts. If you don't have at least some position of your own by next post GET OUT of my thread.
Come on man you are spreading half truths and outright falsehoods. It doesn't matter whether hatred of Asiatics was 'universal'. The point was the AE state openly documented that they were a threat and were at war with them flooding into the country.
I know you want to present this as some sort of 'objective' view of AE history but we all know this is nothing more than the same warmed over nonsense trying to pass itself of as "independent research" when in reality is part of the same agenda around AE that has always been in place.
The point being trying to say that the AE were thoroughly mixed with Asiatics, at least in the North from continuous waves of migrations and that these migrants were openly assimilated into AE culture and society to the point that the North of the Country would have been mostly of Asiatic ancestry by at least the Middle Kingdom. This is the agenda I see at work here.
The problem is it contradicts ALL the facts on the ground is based on speculation using cherry picked facts to promote a narrative. Doesn't matter that the ACTUAL FACTS show the opposite flow of people and culture from the South to reinforce and reestablish the stablity of the kingdom in these periods of strife yet folks still persist in promoting this nonsense of all these Asiatics assimlating into the country but ignore all the documented evidence of Southerners continually assimilating and strengthening the culture.....
There is a larger agenda at work in scholarship to revise how the Asiatics are viewed in AE by largely trying to discredit and contradict the written testimony and other facts from the AE themselves. As if to say the Asiatics weren't really HATED ENEMIES but actual peaceful migrants that provided many beneficial attributes to AE culture.... That is my point. And a lot of this ties on to the work being done by Bietak and others in the Delta around the so called "Hyksos".
quote: The ancient Egyptians had very definite views about their neighbours, some positive, some negative. As one would expect, Egyptian perceptions of 'the other' were subject to change over time, especially in response to changing political, social and economic conditions. Thus, as Asiatics became a more familiar part of everyday life in Egypt, and their skills and goods became increasingly important, depictions of them took on more favourable aspects. The investigation by necessity involves a multi-disciplined approach which seeks to combine and synthesize data from a wider variety of sources than drawn upon in earlier studies. By the same token, the book addresses the interests of, and has appeal to, a broad spectrum of scholars and general readers.
Note, that in all of this "revision" of the AE views towards Asiatics, they still ignore the influence and traditions of Southerners in AE as if to say they don't count. So we see the agenda at work here.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll let people decide to the extent they'll listen to your grumblings. You basically don't have any explanations for how all this Asiatic ancestry got into Egypt. We're back to conspiracy theories and "agendas" again.
I'm trying to be polite here. Please leave.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'll let people decide to the extent they'll listen to your grumblings. You basically don't have any explanations for how all this Asiatic ancestry got into Egypt. We're back to conspiracy theories and "agendas" again.
I'm trying to be polite here. Please leave.
Again, you aren't saying anything but speculating and like some other folks you get upset when somebody calls out the flaws in your speculation.
Again, IF this DNA represents Eurasian "Asiatic" ancestry then fine. But that STILL does not mean that the coffin was painted that way because of that ancestry. There are other tombs in other eras with various ranges of colors for males as well does that mean the same thing? Maybe maybe not. The only hard facts you have are the DNA being possibly of Eurasian origin.
And lets put this in full context. What was the DNA profile of a "typical" Egyptian at this time? How does this DNA compare to the rest of the population.
Oh. That's right. We don't have that yet so we are still speculating on how this compares to the rest of the AE population.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Complaining about what? This is the second thread where you are posting the same thing that has been discussed already. If nothing has changed why keep bringing up the same point?
That's not what I was saying. I didn't say I talked about this nomarch in detail like this twice. I didn't say we discussed all this data twice. What I said that the nature of having an amendable position in the face of new data is something I believe to be a valid way of mantaining a scientific position. You have voiced disagreement, but I'm not changing my stance and would like you to leave because I don't want to waste pages arguing about it.
quote:Addressing your points specifically:
A. Artistic convention.
What artistic convention. The AE have always used different colors in tomb art for various reasons. How is this tomb any different. Please explain. Unlike the tombs of Beni Hassan where Asiatics were depicted as SEPARATE from the AE themselves, how do you know that this specific tomb is attempting to portray someone of Asiatic heritage.
And this is why you just need to go. I already explained that colors meant different things depending on historical context such as the time period. In this time period, Asiatics that Egyptianized were portrayed artistically with Egyptian hairstyles, clothing and features but were colored differently as a subtle nod to their ancestors. There's also genetic evidence that suggests he's of partial Asiatic ancestry. The hilarious thing about you, is that you deny any signifficant Asiatic ancestry in Lower Egypt from the predynastic, but when you see Asiatic ancestry from this era you're to argue when people discuss Asiatic ancestry found in the remains as foreign. You're really just here to argue.
quote:B. Time Period. This is a time period where Asiatics were seen as a threat to AE culture and the AE state. How does that support your point?
No. No they weren't. For one thing, hatred Asiatics was not a universal problem among the Egyptians. Asiatic threat to the AE state was a growing sentiment once they took control of the north and expanded their rule from the Delta to Cusae. Centuries before this, the Asiatics gradually gained powerful positions and were well respected, especially in the north. This is why Asiatic rule in the north didn't create much problem with the northerners, while the southern rulers like Kamose were infuriated:
From Rise of the Hyksos:
quote:Within Egypt, Asiatics intermingled with the local population, adopting Egyptian names, titles, dress and religious customs. They were treated as effective and significant members of the Egyptian community and were employed in a range of state, palatial, religious, and local government positions. From the mid‐Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasties, they held high ranks in the capital’s vizierate, treasury, military and temple precincts. One also became a nobleman in the Delta. Their growing number and power at first saw Egyptian artists experimenting with ways to portray them in artistic and textual sources. Then, between the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, the term aAm became favoured. The use of this term was not a derogative delineator but simply a marker of their ethnicity. During Dynasty 13, hybridised elements bearing Asiatic features were mostly associated with elite Asiatics or items displaying royal or religious significance. This ‘freedom to express’ Asiatic customs thus became more prominent, signifying the growing power and influences of the Asiatic elite and the Levantine community on the Egyptians. It also signifies that their ethnic identity had become more prominent, perhaps in response to shifting socio‐political situations.
They had even penetrated the Egyptian nobility and this is probably not counting wives of the kings.
From Bronn 2006:
quote:The Asiatics in the Delta were foreigners, and regarded as inferior interlopers by many Egyptians, but as happens in communities, feelings of the Egyptian population were divided on this matter. Redford (1993:73) tells of an incident as far back as the rule of the last king of Dynasty Eleven, Mentuhotep III. Nehry, who described himself as 'a brave commoner', was nomarch of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt during a period of stasis in the kingdom. He himself and his two sons were challenged by the king for the rule of Hermopolis. One of the sons, Kay, claimed that with the help of the draftees in the city, he defeated the government soldiers of the king which included "the Medjay (scouts from Nubia), Wowat, southerners, Asiatics, the southland and the Delta". Already here the duality can be seen, and Redford finds it interesting that Kay included the Asiatics among his opponents, and by implication, they were allies of the king's house.
Two Egyptian families have very different takes on Asiatics. The king in this case is allied with the Asiatics. And of course, his opponent is not fighting the Asiatics because he probably has something against their ancestry particularly. There are other groups mentioned and the central conflict is that they supported the king.
quote:C. Genetic evidence. That may be true but more DNA is needed before confirming this. Other AE may also have carried similar DNA profiles and given the lack of substantial DNA from AE it is an open question what it means. At a minimum you would need the DNA profile of an average "indigenous" Egyptian to compare against and that does not exist.
LOL What? I'm sorry wait what? You are the one who complained that Romans wouldn't be expected to be anything but European. You are the one who challenged people to presume an African default and to place the burden of proof of Asian affinity on researchers. You are the one who argued against Asiatic ancestry being of any significance in the predynastic to establish either an Asiatic mixed or transplanted Asiatic northern dynastic Egypt. But now when people are saying this Asiatic ancestry from the nomarch was probably the result of foreigners mixing and Egyptianizing, you now are implying that there's enough evidence that Asiatic ancestry was always native, and so significant measure, that rather than presume the natives were African until they prove otherwise, now we need to wait to see how the "average" remains look before having any amendable conclusions? It appears as though even if one were to entertain your views, you'd still come BACK to argue with yourself to if only to finger wag and release hot air from where the sun don't shine.
I believe there was an Asiatic presence since the predynastic in northern Egypt. However even if the Delta was for example, a complete transplant of Asiatics, researchers would still require other disciplines to determine the context of who in Egypt were those people's descendants and who in Egypt were Asiatics that were Egyptianizing. Egyptianized Asiatics adopted Egyptian names (one of the reasons you can't take Egyptian names in the Abusir sample to mean they weren't mixed), wore Egyptian clothes and adopted the culture. Archeological remains of foreigners who Egyptianized in general can prove at times tedious and in the case of Asiatics, sometimes it really came down to a few artistic nods and gestures here and there. What is readily available to review about this nomarch suggests there was a fair likelihood he was mixed.
quote: D. How were Asiatics rising to power when the Asiatics were expelled.
...What? At the time period of this nomarch they was no push to expel Asiatics in large numbers. As the source I quoted made mention, Asiatics were gaining positions of prestige and power. Some allied with the king's house. Their reputation went to the garbage among the southern rulers when they started demanding the throne of Egypt.
quote: There is no equivalent of the prophecy of Neferti for Asiatics in AE specifically calling out Asiatic ancestry as a prerequisite for rulership but according to these folks the Asiatics were assimilating in large numbers and taking over in these early periods.
Not that anyone's was arguing that Asiatics and/OR their mixed offspring required a perquisite to be Asiatic.
And now here's where the fun starts:
-If you're going to whine when people suggest the Asiatic ancestry in this man was from Asiatics coming into the country, mixing with locals and gaining positions of power.
-If you're going to complain when people position that Asiatic ancestry was in the predynastic and thus indigenous to Egypt from the start.
What ARE you arguing is the likeliest scenario for where this ancestry came from? You never have a position of your own. It just happens to offend YOU that people talk about this stuff, so you attempt to throw a monkey wrench whenever it starts. If you don't have at least some position of your own by next post GET OUT of my thread.
Come on man you are spreading half truths and outright falsehoods. It doesn't matter whether hatred of Asiatics was 'universal'. The point was the AE state openly documented that they were a threat and were at war with them flooding into the country.
I know you want to present this as some sort of 'objective' view of AE history but we all know this is nothing more than the same warmed over nonsense trying to pass itself of as "independent research" when in reality is part of the same agenda around AE that has always been in place.
The point being trying to say that the AE were thoroughly mixed with Asiatics, at least in the North from continuous waves of migrations and that these migrants were openly assimilated into AE culture and society to the point that the North of the Country would have been mostly of Asiatic ancestry by at least the Middle Kingdom. This is the agenda I see at work here.
The problem is it contradicts ALL the facts on the ground is based on speculation using cherry picked facts to promote a narrative. Doesn't matter that the ACTUAL FACTS show the opposite flow of people and culture from the South to reinforce and reestablish the stablity of the kingdom in these periods of strife yet folks still persist in promoting this nonsense of all these Asiatics assimlating into the country but ignore all the documented evidence of Southerners continually assimilating and strengthening the culture.....
There is a larger agenda at work in scholarship to revise how the Asiatics are viewed in AE by largely trying to discredit and contradict the written testimony and other facts from the AE themselves. As if to say the Asiatics weren't really HATED ENEMIES but actual peaceful migrants that provided many beneficial attributes to AE culture.... That is my point. And a lot of this ties on to the work being done by Bietak and others in the Delta around the so called "Hyksos".
quote: The ancient Egyptians had very definite views about their neighbours, some positive, some negative. As one would expect, Egyptian perceptions of 'the other' were subject to change over time, especially in response to changing political, social and economic conditions. Thus, as Asiatics became a more familiar part of everyday life in Egypt, and their skills and goods became increasingly important, depictions of them took on more favourable aspects. The investigation by necessity involves a multi-disciplined approach which seeks to combine and synthesize data from a wider variety of sources than drawn upon in earlier studies. By the same token, the book addresses the interests of, and has appeal to, a broad spectrum of scholars and general readers.
Note, that in all of this "revision" of the AE views towards Asiatics, they still ignore the influence and traditions of Southerners in AE as if to say they don't count. So we see the agenda at work here.
This isn't about individual Asiatics at various times who may have assimilated into AE culture, this is about trying to portray AE culture and people at some point in an early era as being primarily of Asiatic ancestry. This is why out of all the mummies that could have been sampled we get these handful of mummies and this obsession with "Asiatic" ancestry.
So if I went to ROme and hand picked some remains and only found Asiatic ancestry in Rome but no European DNA nobody would be calling that "objective".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, IF this DNA represents Eurasian "Asiatic" ancestry then fine. But that STILL does not mean that the coffin was painted that way because of that ancestry. There are other tombs in other eras with various ranges of colors for males as well does that mean the same thing?
I'm not talking about other eras, but the conventions of a specific ti--- you know what? No. I'm not going to go over this for another two paragraphs again. It'd probably be more productive of me to watch paint dry. So nevermind. Just leave.
quote:And lets put this in full context. What was the DNA profile of a "typical" Egyptian at this time? How does this DNA compare to the rest of the population.
The average wouldn't explain how this got there. How did people with these profiles get here? How did the country have someone who was powerful enough to be a nomarch, and they had Asiatic ancestry like this? How did nearly 100 mummies and remains from the desert show Asiatic ancestry? You're also assuming that it's likely genetics will get a sample size like that anytime soon if ever. You go ahead and wait if you want, I'll be making judgements I can alter with new data like most people. Like you in fact. I also can't help but recall how you didn't wait for "average" profiles of ALL of Egypt when you relied on far fewer Amarna mummies to make conclusions about Egypt. Ah, yes. Did the Amarna samples include northern Egyptian data? No. It was data from one site from one family. Them and Ramses is cool, but not over 100 mummies across 3 sites in northern Egypt. Cause it sure was fun for you when the Amarnas and Ramses "proved" to those Eurocentrics there wasn't any Asiatics in Egypt didn't they?
Oh and before you start: no I don't care if they're different because they're from the south. I don't care if you find them to be the true Egyptians right now. I don't even care right now if they formed the civilization. At some point we have the right to discuss HOW Asiatic DNA is being found there. It's so obnoxious how you keep complaining each time it pops up because you have your conspiracy issues that prevent you from explaining the data. These Asiatics were still part of Egypt and are still part of it's history, like it or not. So please get out my thread. Stop moaning and complaining about speculation while derailing this into conspiracy theory. We have a right to assume there are other valid explanations for this DNA. You don't have an explanation for how genetic evidence that shows how of Asiatic ancestry from Dakhleh, Abusir el Meleq and Hermopolis all got there. I've asked you several times for your position and all you can come up with is a conspiracy. You have NOTHING so don't talk to me.
I've already acknowledged we have different approaches to how we work with data. I believe it's valid to create conclusions on available evidence that can be changed later as new information surfaces. Hell paid Egyptologists (and other scientists) do the same thing. You did it too with the Amarna mummies and are now complaining about conspiracy theories with new data being presented rather than amend based on available data. You have a problem with picking and choosing when to apply scientific principles and are storming into threads derailing them to soothe your butthurt that the method of judging based on available evidence is no longer fun now that there's more data than Ramses and the Amarnas. You can't wag around the Amarnas and Ramses and demand Eurocentrics still bow to scientific principles held by many researchers, and submit to your idea of an Egypt that was SSA or-- AHEM I'm sorry, "African" with almost no Asiatic ancestry. You don't agree with what I'm doing? fine. But it's not going to change so please don't derail my threads. Please exit.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, IF this DNA represents Eurasian "Asiatic" ancestry then fine. But that STILL does not mean that the coffin was painted that way because of that ancestry. There are other tombs in other eras with various ranges of colors for males as well does that mean the same thing?
I'm not talking about other eras, but the conventions of a specific ti--- you know what? No. I'm not going to go over this for another two paragraphs again. It'd probably be more productive of me to watch paint dry. So nevermind. Just leave.
quote:And lets put this in full context. What was the DNA profile of a "typical" Egyptian at this time? How does this DNA compare to the rest of the population.
The average wouldn't explain how this got there. How did people with these profiles get here? How did the country have someone who was powerful enough to be a nomarch, and they had Asiatic ancestry like this? How did nearly 100 mummies and remains from the desert show Asiatic ancestry? You're also assuming that it's likely genetics will get a sample size like that anytime soon if ever. You go ahead and wait if you want, I'll be making judgements I can alter with new data like most people. Like you in fact. I also can't help but recall how you didn't wait for "average" profiles of ALL of Egypt when you relied on far fewer Amarna mummies to make conclusions about Egypt. Ah, yes. Did the Amarna samples include northern Egyptian data? No. It was data from one site from one family. Them and Ramses is cool, but not over 100 mummies across 3 sites in northern Egypt. Cause it sure was fun for you when the Amarnas and Ramses "proved" to those Eurocentrics there wasn't any Asiatics in Egypt didn't they?
Oh and before you start: no I don't care if they're different because they're from the south. I don't care if you find them to be the true Egyptians right now. I don't even care right now if they formed the civilization. At some point we have the right to discuss HOW Asiatic DNA is being found there. It's so obnoxious how you keep complaining each time it pops up because you have your conspiracy issues that prevent you from explaining the data. These Asiatics were still part of Egypt and are still part of it's history, like it or not. So please get out my thread. Stop moaning and complaining about speculation while derailing this into conspiracy theory. We have a right to assume there are other valid explanations for this DNA. You don't have an explanation for how genetic evidence that shows how of Asiatic ancestry from Dakhleh, Abusir el Meleq and Hermopolis all got there. I've asked you several times for your position and all you can come up with is a conspiracy. You have NOTHING so don't talk to me.
I've already acknowledged we have different approaches to how we work with data. I believe it's valid to create conclusions on available evidence that can be changed later as new information surfaces. Hell paid Egyptologists (and other scientists) do the same thing. You did it too with the Amarna mummies and are now complaining about conspiracy theories with new data being presented rather than amend based on available data. You have a problem with picking and choosing when to apply scientific principles and are storming into threads derailing them to soothe your butthurt that the method of judging based on available evidence is no longer fun now that there's more data than Ramses and the Amarnas. You can't wag around the Amarnas and Ramses and demand Eurocentrics still bow to scientific principles held by many researchers, and submit to your idea of an Egypt that was SSA or-- AHEM I'm sorry, "African" with almost no Asiatic ancestry. You don't agree with what I'm doing? fine. But it's not going to change so please don't derail my threads. Please exit.
The point you are missing is if this DNA was common in the ancient Nile Valley then it isn't a sign of recent "Asiatic" migration or ancestry. At this point it is still nothing but speculation. It is ASSUMED that this DNA is different than the majority population of indigenous Nile Valley folks. Yet we don't have the DNA of the majority population in ancient times. So we really don't know for sure how this DNA profile matches with or compares to the rest of the Nile Valley. There is no way to spin or speculate your way through this. They need to sample other mummies.
The actual question at hand is what were the ancient haplogroups found in the Nile Valley populations in ancient times and where did they originate. One mummy or a few mummies is not going to tell you that. And partly at stake is the designation of certain haplogroups as being "African" or "Eurasian". Case in point the whole fiasco of L3 being of "Eurasian" origin. But this is about understanding ALL the DNA in the ancient populations and how it relates to other groups in the region and farther way. It is not JUST about "Asiatics".
But to this specific case, if the haplogroup mentioned in this study is found at some percentage across other populations in the ancient Nile Valley, then the presence of it is *not significant* in identifying recent Eurasian "Asiatic" ancestry. Nor does it imply that any specific individual looked much different than the average population. For example Haplogroup E1b1b exists in many populations of Europe. Those people do not look any different than most other Europeans even though they carry this gene. Similarly we don't know how widespread U5b was in the Nile Valley in ancient times. Some amount of this gene could always have been in the Nile Valley region as "indigenous".
People should be careful to avoid hype when pushed in common media.
The actual issue is that compared to Europe there is a lack of ancient DNA from all of Africa, including North Africa. So a lot of the DNA found in Africa is often labeled as "Eurasian" because most extant examples of a particular DNA profile are found in Europe. That doesn't mean these profiles weren't in Africa in ancient times or "indigenous" to Africa, it just means we don't have the ancient DNA data to show that it was there. Haplogroups within the U5/U6 family fall squarely into this category. But even with that, many scholars have pointed out that U5/U6 were shared across North Africa and Europe in ancient times, but the problem is they propose a "Near Eastern" or Asian origin for said haplogroups. Again, because of the lack of African DNA in the same time ranges the decks are stacked towards the Eurasian side......
quote: The genetic proximity observed between the Berbers and southern Europeans reveals that these groups shared a common ancestor. Two hypotheses are discussed: one would date these common origins in the Upper Paleolithic with the expansion of anatomically modern humans, from the Near East to both shores of the Mediterranean Sea; the other supports the Near Eastern origin, but would rather date it from the Neolithic, around 10,000 years ago (Ammerman & Cavalli‐Sforza 1973; Barbujani et al. 1994; Myles et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). Common polymorphisms (i.e. those defining H and V lineages) between Berbers and south Europeans also could have been introduced or supported by genetic flows through the Straits of Gibraltar. For example, genetic exchanges could have taken place during prehistory, while European populations retreated from ice sheets and expanded from refuge, around 15,000 years ago (as evidenced by the H and U5b mitochondrial lineages). Alternatively, these exchanges could have occurred during history, with the invasion and the occupation during nearly seven centuries (from the 8th to the 15th century) of the Iberian Peninsula by Almoravide then Almohade Muslim Berber troops.
The differentiation observed between North Africans and sub‐Saharan populations shows, first, that settlement of these areas was achieved by different migration waves and, then, that a genetic diversity was already observable in Africa since very old times. However, the Berber genetic heritage consists of a relatively high frequency of L lineages from various parts of Africa (i.e. L0a, L3i, L4, and L5 clades are from East Africa, L1b, L2b, and L3b are from West Africa, and L3e originated in the Sudan). It poses a question about the Sahara desert role in population movements and exchanges. It should be specified that the Sahara was not always a desert, because it also underwent enormous variation between wet and dry, offering green spaces favorable for human occupation and animal domestication (Aumassip et al. 1994; Said & Faure 1990). Thus, this is plausible that exchanges between African prehistoric populations took place; exchanges during which markers typical of sub‐Saharan groups would have been introduced into the Berber gene pool. Contacts between North Africa and great sub‐Saharan empires (such as those of Ghana, of Mali, or the Songhai Empire) are also reported by history during trans‐Saharan trade of gold, salt and slaves.
The second analysis we conducted aimed to measure the relationship between the Berber communities on their whole geographical habitat. Although the Berber populations have the same overall mitochondrial genetic composition, the distribution of some markers is not the same along the Berber‐speaker habitats. Our results highlighted a clear genetic differentiation between Berbers from the Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers. The first seems to be more related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. Probably, such a maternal diversity between North African Berbers would have been the result of a conjunction of several geographical, prehistoric, and historic factors which guided contacts (and thus exchanges) between local populations and migrating groups. First, in addition to the geographical distance, which certainly increases the genetic distance, the geographical location of Berber populations is very peculiar: the Berbers from the Maghreb are at the end of a long migration route, whereas Berbers from Siwa are rather in a crossroads between the Middle East, East Africa, sub‐Saharan areas and the North African corridor. Therefore, meetings and exchanges between local and migrating populations were not identical in North West and North East Africa. In addition, prehistory and history of the populations from Maghreb are different from those of the Egyptian group. For the Siwa oasis, there is very little information on which exact prehistoric period was the starting point of Berber culture. However we know that throughout history, the oasis was crossed by successive human groups, like pilgrims traveling to Mecca, Mediterranean tradesmen, or Sahelian slave merchants. Siwa was also repopulated by Libyan Berber‐speakers driven from their land by Arab conquerors. Lastly, it experienced a period of decline and has faced, between the ninth and twelfth centuries, a drastic demographic reduction of its population (Fakhry 1973). The current gene pool of the Siwa people would therefore be the result of these various genetic exchanges which occurred in the past.
posted
If I remember this correctly La Brana was of the same Hg U5.
The marker is also found in the Fulanis, and ancient Phoenicia.
quote:
Abstract
While Phoenician culture and trade networks had a significant impact on Western civilizations, we know little about the Phoenicians themselves. In 1994, a Punic burial crypt was discovered on Byrsa Hill, near the entry to the National Museum of Carthage in Tunisia. Inside this crypt were the remains of a young man along with a range of burial goods, all dating to the late 6th century BCE. Here we describe the complete mitochondrial genome recovered from the Young Man of Byrsa and identify that he carried a rare European haplogroup, likely linking his maternal ancestry to Phoenician influenced locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, the islands of the Mediterranean or the Iberian Peninsula. This result not only provides the first direct ancient DNA evidence of a Phoenician individual but the earliest evidence of a European mitochondrial haplogroup, U5b2c1, in North Africa.
Introduction
The Phoenicians are recognized as one of the great early civilizations of the Mediterranean. First recorded as the descendants of the Canaanites, they inhabited the shores of the eastern Mediterranean and dominated the maritime trade routes of both the eastern and, later, the western Mediterranean during the second and first millennium BCE. The creators of the first alphabet, the Phoenicians documented their own records on papyrus and parchment which, unfortunately, disintegrate over time leaving behind limited historical information. The main Phoenician coastal cities, Tyre, Sidon, Byblos and Arwad, located in what is now Lebanon and southern Syria, have been continuously occupied, so rarely subjected to major archaeological excavations. As a result, we actually know little about the Phoenicians other than what was written about them by the Greeks and Egyptians [1].
[...]
Discussion and Conclusion
Haplogroup U5 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is believed to have arisen there [43]. The coalescence time estimate for U5 is 29.6 kya (22.7–37.2 kya) [25] and 20–24 kya for U5b [44]. It is not uncommon in Mesolithic European populations, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe [45]. Haplogroup U5b2c1 has been identified in both La Braña 1 and 2, the 7000 year-old remains recovered from the La Braña-Arintero site in León in Northwestern Spain [42]. Our Phoenician differed from the La Braña 1 complete mitochondrial genome at eight sites (positions 3882, 5351, 5773, 6023, 9869, 16069, 16126, and 16192). The mutations at sites 16069 and 16126 appear to be private mutations for La Braña.
[...]
The unidentified “European” sequence (EF758625) which was deleted from the analysis due to missing data, also carries the three mutations which define the branch on which we find the Phoenician and the Portuguese sample. A separate branch within U5b2c1 contains five samples, from England and Germany or otherwise unidentified as to location of origin, with the La Braña Mesolithic sample (JX186998) on its own branch.
~Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith ,Anna L. Gosling, James Boocock, Olga Kardailsky,
A European Mitochondrial Haplotype Identified in Ancient Phoenician Remains from Carthage, North Africa
quote:The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U.
[…]
In contrast, subhaplogroups L3c and L3d have somewhat younger divergence times—28,300–37,300 YBP and 17,600–23,200 YBP, respectively (table 4)—suggesting that they emerged after the evolution of L3a and L3b.
[…]
This analysis confirmed the distinctive nature of haplogroups L1–L3, which we previously had described (Chen et al. 1995), and also revealed that haplogroup L3 has three distinct sublineages: L3a, L3b, and L3c (Watson et al. 1997).
[…]
Since two of the L3d haplotypes (i.e., AF01 and AF02) identified in our study possess the HinfI np-12308 site-gain marker for haplogroup U (Torroni et al. 1996), haplotype U could have arisen in Africa and migrated into Europe. Consistent with this hypothesis, the third haplotype in this subhaplogroup (i.e., AF03) lacks this haplogroup U marker but clusters with the haplogroup U mtDNAs. Hence, AF03 could be an African precursor to haplogroup U; alternatively, the haplogroup U mtDNAs in our sample may have been introduced into Africa by a back-migration/flow of European mtDNAs. Additional L3d mtDNAs, from other African populations, will need to be analyzed to further clarify the relationship of African haplogroup L3 and L3d mtDNAs to European mtDNA haplogroups.
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: U5b2 is a West Sahelian specific lineage:
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:131–155 (2005)
"The strong West African composition of the sub-Saharan African fraction of Puerto Rico becomes evident by the relatively high frequency of a U5b HVR-I sequence type previously found hitherto only in West Africa, and defined here as clade U5b2....... Haplogroup U subdivisions
Among all haplogroups found here, U is the only one that was reported in significant numbers in more than one continental region (Torroni et al., 1996). It was thus necessary to study such mtDNAs in more detail to identify their biological origin. The HVR-I sequence of the 27 samples belonging to haplogroup U segregates them into 10 types (Table 4). Although haplogroup U ismostly regarded as a West Eurasian haplogroup, it is apparent that nine of these samples originate from sub-Saharan Africa. All share the same sequence type, which has not been found in Europe or the Near East despite the thousands of samples from these areas for which HVR-I was sequenced (Alves-Silva et al., 2000; Richards et al., 2000; Finnila¨ et al., 2001; Malyarchuk et al., 2002). However, it was found in one out of 60 Fulbe sequences (Watson et al., 1997), and in one of 38 and 23 Wolof and Serer sequences, respectively (Rando et al., 1998). We classify it as a member of clade U5b* because of its 16189, 16192, and 16270 motif (Richards et al., 2000). Its distinction is the addition of a transition at position 16320. We designate it as clade U5b2 to represent a sub-Saharan African clade with a transition at 16320 as its signature."
Thus Fulani U5 lineages shouldn't be counted as "West Eurasian", since most likely they're U5b2.
quote:Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T)."
~Carles Lalueza-Fox et al
Current Biology, 28 June 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.005
quote:After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
~Hervella et al. 2016
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic