posted
Abstract: Dental non-metric traits have become widely used to estimate biological affinities, particularly by utilizing the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System (ASUDAS). Here, we offer information from the Middle Bronze Age site of Avaris, located near modern Tell el-Dab’a in the Egyptian Nile Delta, that was ruled by the Hyksos kings during the Second Intermediate Period (circa 1640–1530 BCE). Dental non-metric traits were recorded from a sample of individuals (n=90) and analyzed using mean measure of divergence (MMD). Both intra- and inter-site analyses were conducted. e former compared the ancestry between locals and non-locals, defined isotopically by a recent study. e latter compared Avaris to other Egyptian sites to gauge its population distinctiveness. Results indicated that individuals defined as locals and non-locals were not ancestrally different from one another. ere was, however, a significant difference (p<0.01) between the pooled locals and non-locals of Avaris and other Egyptian sites, regardless of spatial and/or temporal proximity. e results are in line with the archaeological evidence, suggesting Avaris was an important hub in the Middle Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean trade network, welcoming people from beyond its borders.
interesting that the paper indicates these migrations already occured before the Hyksos era and overall these people were still not really similar to their egyptian samples
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
interesting that the paper indicates these migrations already occured before the Hyksos era and overall these people were still not really similar to their egyptian samples
Yeah it largely corresponds to the archaeological evidence, the Hyksos were in essence the last stage of an "Asiatic" migration into Egypt that had probably started either at the tail end of the Old Kingdom or the first intermediate period, with most of it being predominately located in the North Eastern Delta.
The earliest "Asiatic"/NW Semitic pharaoh we know of is Khendjer, a 13th Dynasty king who ruled during the 18th century BCE (at least a hundred years before the 2nd Intermediate Period), in turn the 14th Dynasty had many pharaohs who bore early NW Semitic names. There is also a text (Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446) dated between the late 19th and the first half of the 18th centuries BCE which lists some 95 slaves on the verso, at least 45 of whom had typically NW Semitic names with very close parallels in Ugaritic, Old Byblian and Classical Hebrew. All of this indicates that the "Asiatics" already were well-established demographically by the Middle Kingdom, and were found in all layers of Egyptian society (from the lowest slave to the pharaoh). What this means IMO is that the earliest phase of "Asiatic" settlement probably dates back to the end of the Old Kingdom (possibly predating the 1st Intermediate Period to some extent)
What I also find interesting is that the later Egyptian samples, both New Kingdom and Late dynastic period, do not cluster with the Hyksos ones and instead fall within the typical Egyptian variation.
posted
I will have to read the paper before I can fully comment on its findings but I can drop add a few cents to others comments.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: interesting that the paper indicates these migrations already occured before the Hyksos era and overall these people were still not really similar to their egyptian samples
This goes against your narrative that Egyptians and Levantine folks are closely related. As the 2005 Ulliger et al. study also using dental nonmetrics states: The proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg etal., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht (Egypt)...
More to the point, this is something that has been indicated in the Egyptian records. For example, 'Ipuwer's Admonitions' (c.1991–1803 BCE) no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty, where he describes “the tribes of the desert have become Egyptians everywhere” while “those who were Egyptians [have become] foreigners and are thrust aside”. Also Josephus's quote of Manetho who cites a "Timaios" (Dedumose II? approx. between 1588 and 1582 BC) as the king during whose reign, "an army of Asiatic foreigners subdued the country without a fight". Such was also reflected in the archaeology for years now was discussed in past threads in this forum:
quote:Originally posted by nee4speed111: Yeah it largely corresponds to the archaeological evidence, the Hyksos were in essence the last stage of an "Asiatic" migration into Egypt that had probably started either at the tail end of the Old Kingdom or the first intermediate period, with most of it being predominately located in the North Eastern Delta.
Yes, as I cited above this was a theory that has been discussed in this forum for years now-- that the Hyksos were not a people that just invaded Egypt and took over the Delta in a short period of time but were immigrants who established themselves in the area well before the political take over.
quote:The earliest "Asiatic"/NW Semitic pharaoh we know of is Khendjer, a 13th Dynasty king who ruled during the 18th century BCE (at least a hundred years before the 2nd Intermediate Period), in turn the 14th Dynasty had many pharaohs who bore early NW Semitic names. There is also a text (Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446) dated between the late 19th and the first half of the 18th centuries BCE which lists some 95 slaves on the verso, at least 45 of whom had typically NW Semitic names with very close parallels in Ugaritic, Old Byblian and Classical Hebrew. All of this indicates that the "Asiatics" already were well-established demographically by the Middle Kingdom, and were found in all layers of Egyptian society (from the lowest slave to the pharaoh). What this means IMO is that the earliest phase of "Asiatic" settlement probably dates back to the end of the Old Kingdom (possibly predating the 1st Intermediate Period to some extent)
Our old moderator Ausar even held the theory that the Aamu (Asiatics) were migrant laborers the Egyptians hired for menial jobs similar to Mexicans and other Latin Americans here in the U.S. who come from south our border. Ipuwer's description seems to fit immigrants who assimilated ("became Egyptians") but then gained power displacing the political primacy of the indigenous peoples. He even goes as far a describing them as servants who got "uppity" and no longer heed their former bosses.
quote:What I also find interesting is that the later Egyptian samples, both New Kingdom and Late dynastic period, do not cluster with the Hyksos ones and instead fall within the typical Egyptian variation.
Yes, this supports Irish's 2006 study: Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were "largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations," and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This goes against your narrative that Egyptians and Levantine folks are closely related. As the 2005 Ulliger et al. study also using dental nonmetrics states:
It does not. What I implied is that they shared a lot of ancestry in common and plot near each other genetically that doesn't mean they are the same people or have to be exactly similar in every of their traits. The closest people to ancient and modern egyptians are levantines and arabs this is factual.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Incorrect. Both Ulliger and Irish concur that the closest people to ancient Egyptians are modern Egyptians and other North Africans including Nubians. This is based on the North African Dental Complex.
As far as actual genetics, the shared ancestry is due to gene flow from Africa into the Levant and Mediterranean basin.
^ Of course this pertains to ancient Levantines specifically Epipaleolithic to Chalcolithic, NOT modern ones who are more Eurasian as well as more Sub-Saharan. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation,” the scientists concluded that the homogeneous community found in the cave could source ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic, and ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic.". The scholars noted that the Zagros genetic material held "Certain characteristics, such as genetic mutations contributing to blue eye color, were not seen in the DNA test results of earlier Levantine human remains...The blue-eyed, fair-skinned community didn't continue, but at least now researchers have an idea why. "These findings suggest that the rise and fall of the Chalcolithic culture are probably due to demographic changes in the region".
The dominant Y-DNA haplogroup among the people buried in the cave was T, which later would in much be replaced by Y-DNA haplogroup J during the Bronze age, at least in Israel.
quote:According to the MMD analysis, Avaris was significantly different from every other group, whether Upper (Abydos, Qurna, Thebes) or Lower Egyptian. There were signif- icant differences between certain Egyptian samples as well, but overall, they clustered together
.....
quote:Together with the isotope results, this gives strong indica- tion that the people settling in Avaris were not ancestrally close to Egyptian popula- tions.
.....
quote:When considering all the information together—the 12th Dynasty onset of the non-Egyptian archaeological evidence, the high percentage of first-generation movers of the pre-Hyksos era, and the biological closeness of the locals and non-locals but distinct difference to other Egyptian sites—it appears that migration to Avaris began early in its formation. aTere is ample of evidence for the presence of Near Eastern people in Egypt from the 12th Dynasty onwards (Luft 1993; Schneider 2003), assim- ilating to varying degrees into the Egyptian culture.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we discussed this here for years. I think the real question is though when did this migration truly begin..
The paper makes the case that it at least increased during the 12th Dynasty(and slowed down ironically when the Hysksos took over Lower Egypt)
It must have been happening before the 12th Dynasty though..
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by nee4speed111: Yeah it largely corresponds to the archaeological evidence, the Hyksos were in essence the last stage of an "Asiatic" migration into Egypt that had probably started either at the tail end of the Old Kingdom or the first intermediate period, with most of it being predominately located in the North Eastern Delta.
Yes, as I cited above this was a theory that has been discussed in this forum for years now-- that the Hyksos were not a people that just invaded Egypt and took over the Delta in a short period of time but were immigrants who established themselves in the area well before the political take over.
quote:The earliest "Asiatic"/NW Semitic pharaoh we know of is Khendjer, a 13th Dynasty king who ruled during the 18th century BCE (at least a hundred years before the 2nd Intermediate Period), in turn the 14th Dynasty had many pharaohs who bore early NW Semitic names. There is also a text (Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446) dated between the late 19th and the first half of the 18th centuries BCE which lists some 95 slaves on the verso, at least 45 of whom had typically NW Semitic names with very close parallels in Ugaritic, Old Byblian and Classical Hebrew. All of this indicates that the "Asiatics" already were well-established demographically by the Middle Kingdom, and were found in all layers of Egyptian society (from the lowest slave to the pharaoh). What this means IMO is that the earliest phase of "Asiatic" settlement probably dates back to the end of the Old Kingdom (possibly predating the 1st Intermediate Period to some extent)
Our old moderator Ausar even held the theory that the Aamu (Asiatics) were migrant laborers the Egyptians hired for menial jobs similar to Mexicans and other Latin Americans here in the U.S. who come from south our border. Ipuwer's description seems to fit immigrants who assimilated ("became Egyptians") but then gained power displacing the political primacy of the indigenous peoples. He even goes as far a describing them as servants who got "uppity" and no longer heed their former bosses.
quote:What I also find interesting is that the later Egyptian samples, both New Kingdom and Late dynastic period, do not cluster with the Hyksos ones and instead fall within the typical Egyptian variation.
Yes, this supports Irish's 2006 study: Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity amongthese samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within andbetween Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to thesesame five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were "largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations," and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes, we discussed this here for years. I think the real question is though when did this migration truly begin..
The paper makes the case that it at least increased during the 12th Dynasty(and slowed down ironically when the Hysksos took over Lower Egypt)
It must have been happening before the 12th Dynasty though..
Yes as discussed here. Already there was an Aamu (Asiatic) community established in Middle Egypt as seen in the Beni Hassan tomb.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
quote:
Heqa.khast Ab-sha and party bringing eye makeup for trade in Egypt. The chief/sheikh name is usually rendered Abisha. I wonder if that's really his name. Is the scribe being funny and calling this leader "Marsh Daddy"?
And this was already during the 12th dynasty.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic