quote:

---

Abstract: High throughput sequencing (HTS) has been used for a number of years in the field of paleogenomics to facilitate the recovery of small DNA fragments from ancient specimens. Recently, these techniques have also been applied in forensics, where they have been used for the recovery of mitochondrial DNA sequences from samples where traditional PCR-based assays fail because of the very short length of endogenous DNA molecules. Here, we describe the biological sexing of a ~4000-year-old Egyptian mummy using shotgun sequencing and two established methods of biological sex determination (RX and RY), by way of mitochondrial genome analysis as a means of sequence data authentication. This particular case of historical interest increases the potential utility of HTS techniques for forensic purposes by demonstrating that data from the more discriminatory nuclear genome can be recovered from the most damaged specimens, even in cases where mitochondrial DNA cannot be recovered with current PCR-based forensic technologies. Although additional work remains to be done before nuclear DNA recovered via these methods can be used routinely in operational casework for individual identification purposes, these results indicate substantial promise for the retrieval of probative individually identifying DNA data from the most limited and degraded forensic specimens.

---

 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 



MtHaplogroup is U5b2b5
Any thoughts?
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
I was able to find the full text of the paper. Excerpt below:

quote:

---

At the time DNA testing was performed on the tooth, and for reasons previously discussed,
very little had been published on DNA recovery from ancient Egyptian human remains. Only one
publication including HTS and quality control measures was available in early 2016, which described
the mtGenome sequencing of an Egyptian mummy from the Greco-Roman period. The individual
belonged to mtDNA haplogroup I2 [80]. Two other studies describing mtDNA recovery from ancient
African samples were also available at the time, but centered on skeletons from more southern regions
of the continent. One described the L0d2c1c lineage mtGenome of a 2330-year-old male skeleton from
South Africa [81], while the other described the recovery of a L3x2a mtGenome from the remains of
a 4500-year-old individual from Ethiopia [82].
Given limited available data and the fact that U5 is the dominant mitochondrial haplogroup
found among hunter-gatherers in Europe [83,84], the recovery of a haplogroup U5b2b5 sequence from
the mummy of Djehutynakht raises the question of data authenticity, despite the molecular metrics
suggesting otherwise. When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern
mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between
Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade
between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86].
In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from
more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and
immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for
cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to
the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and
perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht
comes from a Lebanese individual.
On top of this historical information offering an explanation for the observed mtDNA data
are now additional, recently published, mtGenomes from Africa, and Egypt in particular. MtDNA
haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to
haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of
the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes
now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage
(L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages
in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further
support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy.
In the present study, Near Eastern influence has been found in an individual of high social status who
lived in Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.

---

It's just one mummy, and I suppose Eurasian mtDNA trickling down to Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom isn't a complete shocker. I'm still holding out for the publication of Egyptian mummy mtDNA from a non-MN L lineage.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
BTW, the mummy head comes from the necropolis of Deir El-Bersha, which is in central Egypt. So you could say it's a Middle Egyptian site as well.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/front-side-panel-of-outer-coffin-of-djehutynakht-142815





Front side panel of outer coffin of Djehutynakht | Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Egyptian
Middle Kingdom, late Dyn. 11–early Dyn. 12
2010–1961 B.C.


Djehutynakht, tentatively identified with Djehutynakht IV or Djehutynakht V, was an ancient Egyptian "Overlord of the Hare nome" (the 15th nome of Upper Egypt) during the very end of the 11th Dynasty or the early 12th Dynasty (21st-20th century BCE). He is well known for his painted outer coffin (commonly called “Bersha coffin”) now exhibited in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston along with his other grave goods.

Once believed to have lived during the reign of pharaoh Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty, from the analysis of his furniture it has been deducted that he actually lived in an earlier period, although a degree of uncertainty still remains: it's very difficult to trace Djehutynakht's family and life events, and the only certain relationship it that with his wife, also named Djehutynakht. The name was very common in this period and six nomarchs bearing it are known, two of whom – the fourth and the fifth respectively – were married to a wife with the same name.
If this nomarch was the same of Djehutynakht IV, then he lived at the very end of the 11th Dynasty and was the son of the nomarch Ahanakht I, successor of his brother Ahanakht II, and predecessor of the nomarch Neheri I. Otherwise, if he was the same of Djehutynakht V, then he lived during the late reign of pharaoh Amenemhat I of the 12th Dynasty and was Neheri I's son and successor by his wife Djehutyhotep, and the uncle of his successor Neheri II. In either cases, no children are known for Djehutynakht and his wife. See "Nomarchs of the Hare nome" for a complete genealogy.

Djehutynakht's tomb – designated 10A – was rediscovered in the Deir el-Bersha necropolis in Middle Egypt in 1915 by the American Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner who was the leader of the Harvard University – Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition. Almost nothing was left of the outer chapel but the burial chamber, although already raided of the jewelry, still contained several finely painted cedar wooden coffins belonged to Djehutynakht and his wife (above all his outer coffin, commonly called “Bersha coffin”, renowned as “the finest painted coffin Egypt produced and a masterpiece of panel painting”. Along with the coffins, in the tomb were found a head of a mummy (most likely a male one thus possibly belonging to the nomarch) as well as lady Djehutynakht's canopic chest and a great number of funerary furniture such as pottery, canopic jars, several model boats, many models of men and women in different daily life activities, and the famous group composed of a priest and many offering girls, known as “Bersha procession”. In its entirety, these objects forms the largest Middle Kingdom funerary assemblage ever found.
The Egyptian government gave the whole content of Tomb 10A to the Museum of Fine Arts. During the naval trip to Boston in 1920, the collection was threatened by a fire on board, but fortunately the damage was very limited. For decades only the “Bersha coffin” and the “Bersha procession” were exhibited at the MFA; in 2009-10 the whole collection was shown in a dedicated exhibition.



 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt.
There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested.
One mummy here and there is asinine.

But here is the key point:

quote:

---

However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of
the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes
now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage
(L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt.
There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested.
One mummy here and there is asinine.

But here is the key point:

quote:

---

However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of
the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes
now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage
(L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).

---

I guess the AE weren't African then.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt.
There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested.
One mummy here and there is asinine.

But here is the key point:

quote:

---

However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of
the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes
now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage
(L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).

---

I guess the AE weren't African then.....

---

I'm just waiting for the leaked Y- and mtDNA beyoku shared years back to get published. But there is another thread for that.

---

quote:

---

The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages
in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy.
In the present study, Near Eastern influence has been found in an individual of high social status who lived in Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
they took revenge after cheddar man came out black

---

quote:

---

Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'

....

She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'

Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.

Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Just slightly off topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3608648/3-800-year-old-mummy-Lady-Sattjeni-discovered-Egypt.html

quote:

---

Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'

....

She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'

Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.

Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.

---

Why not test this one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Just slightly off topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3608648/3-800-year-old-mummy-Lady-Sattjeni-discovered-Egypt.html

quote:

---

Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'

....

She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'

Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.

Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.

---

Why not test this one?

---

Even if they did that, what would be the point? Doesn't really matter which one they test. What matters, is whether the U5 carrier is ethnically Egyptian. Based on Lioness's post he is, so this result counts just like any other Egyptian aDNA.

---

What would matter is defining terms. If "indigenous" Nile Valley Africans have U5 in ancient Egypt then either it came from somewhere else or it was already there all along. Likewise if they test more than a handful of mummies and test a good sample across all periods and it comes out to be present in a high percentage then the question becomes whether this truly represents "Eurasian" mixture. If that Lineage is even that common..... Again, according to their own summary they are claiming this proves North Africans don't carry African DNA.... Then of course the next thing would be ancient Upper Egyptian and Northern Sudanese so-called "Nubians".... Wonder if they would also carry such "Non African" DNA.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^You still believe analyzing aDNA that doesn't fully corroborate previous Ideas and Negro philosophies is useless?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

Siwa Oasis people DNA mtDNA YDNA
 

---

Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
Starting to believe Ancient Egypt was a big melting pot than we expected.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Just slightly off topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3608648/3-800-year-old-mummy-Lady-Sattjeni-discovered-Egypt.html

quote:

---

Dr Mahmoud Afify, head of the Ancient Egyptian Archaeology Sector at the Ministry of Antiquities, said: 'The discovery is of a historic importance because Sattjeni is one of the most important figures in the Middle Kingdom, being the mother of Heqaib III and Amaeny-Senb - two of the highest authorities of Elephantine under the reign of Amenemhat III, around 1800-1775 BC.'

....

She was the daughter of the nomarch Sarenput II and, after the death of all the male members of her family, she was the unique holder of the dynastic rights in the government of Elephantine.'

Archaeologists have been trying to piece together the genealogy of Elephantine rulers, and officials said that the discovery of Sattjeni's mummy would help.

Sattjeni's family ruled Elephantine sometime around 1800 BC, and ranked just below the family of the ruling pharaoh.

---

Why not test this one?

---

Even if they did that, what would be the point? Doesn't really matter which one they test. What matters, is whether the U5 carrier is ethnically Egyptian. Based on Lioness's post he is, so this result counts just like any other Egyptian aDNA.

---

What would matter is defining terms. If "indigenous" Nile Valley Africans have U5 in ancient Egypt then either it came from somewhere else or it was already there all along. Likewise if they test more than a handful of mummies and test a good sample across all periods and it comes out to be present in a high percentage then the question becomes whether this truly represents "Eurasian" mixture. If that Lineage is even that common..... Again, according to their own summary they are claiming this proves North Africans don't carry African DNA.... Then of course the next thing would be ancient Upper Egyptian and Northern Sudanese so-called "Nubians".... Wonder if they would also carry such "Non African" DNA.

---

quote:

---

Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens, 2018
David Reich 3,6 and Jodi A. Irwin 1

To better understand the mtDNA lineage of the mummy in the context of known Egyptian mtDNA diversity, the mummy haplogroup was compared to the mtDNA haplogroup distribution of 668 Egyptians from various modern populations [68,69,70,71,72,73]. The dominant haplogroups among this dataset were haplogroup T (11.98%) and L3 (11.23%; Table S3). Out of the 64 individuals who belonged to haplogroup U, seven belonged to haplogroup U5 (1.05%), and three (0.5%) belonged to one of the U5b subgroups (U5b1c; U5b1d1a; U5b2a5).
The Djehutynakht sequence was also compared to available ancient human DNA sequences (Table S4). Not surprisingly, no direct matches to the Djehutynakht sequence have been reported. However, related U5b2b sequences have been observed in ancient human remains from Europe, and a haplogroup U5b2c1 haplotype was recently discovered in 2000-year-old remains from Phoenicia [67]. When only the mtDNA sequences recovered from ancient Egyptian human remains are considered, the Djehutynakht sequence most closely resembles a U5a lineage from sample JK2903, a 2000-year-old skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
@Tyrannohotep

Good post. Instead of getting all hyped up, I forgot that U5 is most likely European in origin! How many Levantines at the time would even carry U5?

More importantly 4000 years ago is around 1900 BC(I think) wouldn't that be around the time the Phoenicians start expanding? Who knows?

---

4000ya = 1982 BC


https://www.ancient.eu/Phoenician_Colonization/

Phoenicia had always had strong trade links with Egypt and trading posts were probably established there as early as anywhere else. Further along the northern coast of Africa with its fertile soil and access to interior trade goods such as ivory, the ancient sources state that Utica was established in c. 1101 BCE by Sidon. Carthage, according to the same authors, was founded in 814 BCE by Tyre. Other colonies were Auza (mentioned in texts as founded by Tyre but of unknown location), Leptis Magna, Hippo, Hadrumetum, and Lixus.

_________________________


However:

Ancient mitogenomes of Phoenicians from Sardinia and Lebanon: A story of settlement, integration, and female mobility

E. Matisoo-Smith1*, A. L. Gosling1, D. Platt2, O. Kardailsky1, S. Prost3,4, S. Cameron- Christie1, C. J. Collins1, J. Boocock5, Y. Kurumilian6, M. Guirguis7, R. Pla Orqu ́ın7, W. Khalil8, H. Genz9, G. Abou Diwan8, J. Nassar8, P. Zalloua6*

Abstract
The Phoenicians emerged in the Northern Levant around 1800 BCE and by the 9th century BCE had spread their culture across the Mediterranean Basin, establishing trading posts, and settlements in various European Mediterranean and North African locations. Despite their widespread influence, what is known of the Phoenicians comes from what was written about them by the Greeks and Egyptians. In this study, we investigate the extent of Phoeni- cian integration with the Sardinian communities they settled. We present 14 new ancient mitogenome sequences from pre-Phoenician (~1800 BCE) and Phoenician (~700–400 BCE) samples from Lebanon (n = 4) and Sardinia (n = 10) and compare these with 87 new complete mitogenomes from modern Lebanese and 21 recently published pre-Phoenician ancient mitogenomes from Sardinia to investigate the population dynamics of the Phoeni- cian (Punic) site of Monte Sirai, in southern Sardinia. Our results indicate evidence of conti- nuity of some lineages from pre-Phoenician populations suggesting integration of indigenous Sardinians in the Monte Sirai Phoenician community. We also find evidence of the arrival of new, unique mitochondrial lineages, indicating the movement of women from sites in the Near East or North Africa to Sardinia, but also possibly from non-Mediterranean populations and the likely movement of women from Europe to Phoenician sites in Lebanon. Combined, this evidence suggests female mobility and genetic diversity in Phoenician com- munities, reflecting the inclusive and multicultural nature of Phoenician society.





^^ Note, third from bottom U5b2b5 from Sardinia, one of xyyman's favorite islands
4090-3890 BP

__________________

^continued:

Conclusions
Our analyses of ancient pre-Phoenician and Phoenician mitogenomes from Lebanon and Sar- dinia provide important clues on cultural expansion, assimilation and population mobility in the Mediterranean between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. First, we see a certain degree of con- tinuity of population ancestry between Phoenician and pre-Phoenician populations in Sardinia, which is consistent with archaeological evidence of integration between the cultures [64, 65]. However, our data from Monte Sirai, combined with our previously published result identifying a European mitochondrial haplogroup, U5b2c1, in a young man buried in a Phoenician crypt in Carthage, North Africa [17], provide evidence of several instances of unexpected,
non-indigenous mitochondrial haplotypes in Phoenician burials both in and outside the homeland of Lebanon. These include the T2b3 haplotype in the BEY 197 site, Beirut, Lebanon, and the Near Eastern N1b1a5 and a northern European W5 found in Monte Sirai, Sardinia. Sardinia has been the subject of numerous genetic studies due to its important geographic iso- lation. The Sardinian population is often described as the best representation of early farmer ancestry [40, 41], and indeed, we do see the likely early farmer mtDNA lineages combined with those of the Southwestern/Central Mediterranean Mesolithic (particularly haplogroups H and possibly H1, H3 and H5), in the Phoenician samples at Monte Sirai.

____________________

Saami and Berbers—An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link
Alessandro Achilli,1 Chiara Rengo,1 Vincenza Battaglia,1 Maria Pala,1 Anna Olivieri,1 Simona Fornarino,1 Chiara Magri,1 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Nora Babudri,3 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,4 Ornella Semino,1 and Antonio Torroni1
2004

Abstract
The sequencing of entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroup U reveals that this clade arose shortly after the “out of Africa” exit and rapidly radiated into numerous regionally distinct subclades. Intriguingly, the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely ∼9,000 years. This unexpected finding not only confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum but also reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers.

subhaplogroup U5 provided a rather intriguing result. A Yakut from northeastern Siberia (27 in fig. 1) and a Fulbe from Senegal (29 in fig. 1) harbored mtDNAs that differed at only two coding-region nucleotide positions.


Seven of the new sequences (one Berber from Algeria, two Italian, one Spanish, and three Saami) clustered into U5b1b, the subclade encompassing the Yakut and Fulbe mtDNAs. The Saami and the Yakut mtDNAs formed a minor branch distinguished only by the transition at nt 16144, the Berber and the Fulbe mtDNAs clustered in a second minor branch also characterized only by control-region mutations, and the Italian and Spanish mtDNAs formed other minor branches.

An age of ∼60 ky indicates that haplogroup U arose very soon after the “out of Africa” exit. As for U5, its sequence divergence was 8.1 ± 1.8 substitutions, corresponding to 41.4 ± 9.2 ky, a time estimate in full agreement with its proposed proto-European origin (Richards et al. 2000). It is striking that the sequence divergence of U5b1b, the subclade encompassing mtDNAs from the Saami, Yakut, Berbers, and Fulbe, was 1.7 ± 0.5 substitutions, thus corresponding to only 8.6 ± 2.4 ky.

Such a recent common ancestry of maternal lineages found in populations living as far as 9,000 miles apart and whose anthropological affinities are not at all obvious is, to say the least, unexpected. Can we provide a reasonable explanation? The recent molecular dissection of other mtDNA haplogroups reveals some clues. H1 and H3, two frequent subhaplogroups of H, display frequency peaks centered in Iberia and surrounding populations, including the Berbers of Morocco, and coalescence ages of ∼11 ky (Achilli et al. 2004). Furthermore, their frequency patterns and ages resemble those reported for haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 2001a)—which, similar to U5b1b, is extremely common only in the Saami (together, U5b1b and V encompass almost 90% of the Saami mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1996; Tambets et al. 2004). Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ∼15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans.

________________________

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00493.x/full

The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations
Authors
C. Coudray 2008

Eurasian U macrohaplogroup is subdivided into U1 to U9 (with the exception of U6 restricted to North Africa) and K lineages. U has an extremely broad geographical distribution and accounts for about 20% of European mtDNA sequences (Herrnstadt et al. 2002). In this study, it is represented by four haplogroups: U2, U3, U4 and U5. U2 can be found at low frequencies in populations of western Asia and the Caucasus. Here, it was observed only in the Berbers from Bouhria, by two subclades, U2b (1 sequence) and U2e (2 sequences). U3 is observed at 1.1% (U3a) and 1.3% (U3) in samples from Figuig and Siwa, respectively. This haplogroup has a frequency peak in the Near East (Achilli et al. 2007). U4 haplogroup is spread at moderate frequencies all over Europe, western Siberia, and southwestern Asia (Richards et al. 2000). Only one sequence from Bouhria belongs to U4. U5, one of the most ancient subhaplogroup of U, occurs in most cases as occasional haplotypes that are derived from European lineages (Achilli et al. 2005; Richards et al. 2000). In 16.7% of Siwi samples, it appears as U5b, a lineage suggesting back-migration of people from Europe to the South (Torroni et al. 2006). One Berber from Asni also bears this sequence. K lineages are observed at 3.8%, 5.7% and 11.5% in samples from Asni, Bouhria and Siwa, respectively.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
SIWA mtDNA

U5 18% (Coudray 2008)
(Also M1 and L3, others see above Siwa DNA graphic)

Look at the Siwa graphic previously posted, note all the possibilities for the Y side, including Haplogroup B2a1a1a1, R1b (V88 according to another article) as well as various E lineage including M81

.
____________________

A comment on a Trip Advisor blog:

One of the two oldest oracles in the world (the other is in Dodona, Greece), it is famous for informing Alexander the Great that he was the Son of Amun. The temple is not as exotic as other major monuments in Egypt, but may be more important than most. The ancient people of Siwa were called Ammonians. They are discussed in Herodotus. Other references to Siwa can be found in Virgil's Anead and biographies of Alexander and the poetry of Pioneer. Siwa is in many ways more Phoenician and Greek than Egyptian. Let you mind take you to the past as you wonder around the ruins.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g303857-d600426-r313749606-Temple_of_the_Oracle_of_Amun_Aghurmi-Siwa_Matrouh_Governorate.html#

__________________________

AN ACCOUNT OF EGYPT

(Ammon excerpts)

By Herodotus

Translated By G. C. Macaulay

In this we have a portion of the water of the river which is not the smallest nor the least famous, and it is called the Sebennytic mouth. There are also two other mouths which part off from the Sebennytic and go to the sea, and these are called, one the Saitic, the other the Mendesian mouth. The Bolbitinitic, and Bucolic mouths, on the other hand, are not natural but made by digging. Moreover also the answer given by the Oracle of Ammon bears witness in support of my opinion that Egypt is of the extent which I declare it to be in my account; and of this answer I heard after I had formed my own opinion about Egypt. For those of the city of Marea and of Apis, dwelling in the parts of Egypt which border on Libya, being of opinion themselves that they were Libyans and not Egyptians, and also being burdened by the rules of religious service, because they desired not to be debarred from the use of cows' flesh, sent to Ammon saying that they had nought in common with the Egyptians, for they dwelt outside the Delta and agreed with them in nothing; and they said they desired that it might be lawful for them to eat everything without distinction. The god however did not permit them to do so, but said that that land was Egypt where the Nile came over and watered, and that those were Egyptians who dwelling below the city of Elephantine drank of that river. Thus was it answered to them by the Oracle about this: and the Nile, when it is in flood, goes over not only the Delta but also of the land which is called Libyan and of that which is called Arabian sometimes as much as two days' journey on each side, and at times even more than this or at times less.

The Nile then, besides the part of its course which is in Egypt, is known as far as a four months' journey by river and land: for that is the number of months which are found by reckoning to be spent in going from Elephantine to these "Deserters": and the river runs from the West and the setting of the sun. But what comes after that point no one can clearly say; for this land is desert by reason of the burning heat. This much however I heard from men of Kyrene, who told me that they had been to the Oracle of Ammon, and had come to speech with Etearchos king of the Ammonians: and it happened that after speaking of other matters they fell to discourse about the Nile and how no one knew the sources of it; and Etearchos said that once there came to him men of the Nasamonians (this is a Libyan race which dwells in the Syrtis, and also in the land to the East of the Syrtis reaching to no great distance), and when the Nasamonians came and were asked by him whether they were able to tell him anything more than he knew about the desert parts of Libya, they said that there had been among them certain sons of chief men, who were of unruly disposition; and these when they grew up to be men had devised various other extravagant things and also they had told off by lot five of themselves to go to see the desert parts of Libya and to try whether they could discover more than those who had previously explored furthest: for in those parts of Libya which are by the Northern Sea, beginning from Egypt and going as far as the headland of Soloeis, which is the extreme point of Libya, Libyans (and of them many races) extend along the whole coast, except so much as the Hellenes and Phenicians hold; but in the upper parts, which lie above the sea-coast and above those people whose land comes down to the sea, Libya is full of wild beasts; and in the parts above the land of wild beasts it is full of sand, terribly waterless and utterly desert. These young men then (said they), being sent out by their companions well furnished with supplies of water and provisions, went first through the inhabited country, and after they had passed through this they came to the country of wild beasts, and after this they passed through the desert, making their journey towards the West Wind; and having passed through a great tract of sand in many days, they saw at last trees growing in a level place; and having come up to them, they were beginning to pluck the fruit which was upon the trees: but as they began to pluck it, there came upon them small men, of less stature than men of the common size, and these seized them and carried them away; and neither could the Nasamonians understand anything of their speech nor could those who were carrying them off understand anything of the speech of the Nasamonians; and they led them (so it was said) through very great swamps, and after passing through these they came to a city in which all the men were in size like those who carried them off and in colour of skin black; and by the city ran a great river, which ran from the West towards the sunrising, and in it were seen crocodiles. Of the account given by Etearchos the Ammonian let so much suffice as is here said, except that, as the men of Kyrene told me, he alleged that the Nasamonians returned safe home, and that the people to whom they had come were all wizards. Now this river which ran by the city, Etearchos conjectured to be the Nile, and moreover reason compels us to think so; for the Nile flows from Libya and cuts Libya through in the midst, and as I conjecture, judging of what is not known by that which is evident to the view, it starts at a distance from its mouth equal to that of the Ister: for the river Ister begins from the Keltoi and the city of Pyrene and so runs that it divides Europe in the midst (now the Keltoi are outside the Pillars of Heracles and border upon the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset of all those who have their dwelling in Europe): and the Ister ends, having its course through the whole of Europe, by flowing into the Euxine Sea at the place where the Milesians have their settlement of Istria. Now the Ister, since it flows through land which is inhabited, is known by the reports of many; but of the sources of the Nile no one can give an account, for the part of Libya through which it flows is uninhabited and desert. About its course however so much as it was possible to learn by the most diligent inquiry has been told; and it runs out into Egypt. Now Egypt lies nearly opposite to the mountain districts of Kilikia; and from thence to Sinope, which lies upon the Euxine Sea, is a journey in the same straight line of five days for a man without encumbrance; and Sinope lies opposite to the place where the Ister runs out into the sea: thus I think that the Nile passes through the whole of Libya and is of equal measure with the Ister.

Hence the Egyptians make the image of Zeus with the face of a ram; and the Ammonians do so also after their example, being settlers both from the Egyptians and from the Ethiopians, and using a language which is a medley of both tongues: and in my opinion it is from this god that the Egyptians call Zeus Amun. The Thebans then do not sacrifice rams but hold them sacred for this reason; on one day however in the year, on the feast of Zeus, they cut up in the same manner and flay one single ram and cover with its skin the image of Zeus, and then they bring up to it another image of Heracles. This done, all who are in the temple beat themselves in lamentation for the ram, and then they bury it in a sacred tomb.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^You still believe analyzing aDNA that doesn't fully corroborate previous Ideas and Negro philosophies is useless?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Again, Queen Nodjmet an obviously black late period mummy is an example of the long tradition of Southern queens determining legitimacy in AE.

---

Nodjmet was an ancient Egyptian noble lady of the late 20th-early 21st dynasties of Egypt, mainly known for being the wife of High Priest of Amun at Thebes, Herihor. Herihor claimed “kingship” – although only inside the borders of the Temple of Amun at Karnak – Nodjmet effectively became his “queen”: her name was inscribed inside a cartouche and later she bore titles such as Lady of the Two Lands and King's Mother.

Nodjmet was one of the first mummies discovered at the Deir el-Bahari cache (TT320) in the 19th century. The body is that of an old woman. She had been embalmed with a new mummification technique which involved the use of fake eyes and the packing of the limbs. The fake eyes were constructed out of black and white stones, in order to give the mummy a more life-like appearance. Her limbs and face were also coloured to show appearance of liveliness. Although Nodjmet was an old woman, a wig and false eyebrows (made out of human hair) were placed to achieve a look of youthfulness.












Egyptian army officer and High Priest of Amun at Thebes Herihor and wife Nodjmet adoring the god Osiris in the afterlife. From the Book of the Dead papyrus of Nodjmet, c. 1050 BC.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.

Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.

And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.

Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.

And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


[QUOTE]
MtHaplogroup is U5b2b5
Any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern
mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between
Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade
between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86].
In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from
more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and
immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for
cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to
the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and
perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht
comes from a Lebanese individual.

---

They are telling you to your face there was evidence of immigration from Palestine in the Old Kingdom and Predynastic. They found Near Eastern styled dwellings like I said. Who imports a house? THEN imagine 1,000 years of this going down. State formation began roughly 1,000 years before this mummy lived or died. For any of you holding out for a genetically uniform "African" set of haplogroups, especially in northern Egypt (which yes includes parts of Upper Egypt as far as I'm concerned) you will likely be disappointed. There's too much archaeology in the north that showed influence from the Near East. Think of all the data the Abusir researchers fell back on when they talked about how it fit with the archeological record. They know they're going to find this. And this is probably why researchers like Keita didn't touch ideas of the north and south being uniform with a ten foot pole despite many Afrocentrics screaming that it was coonery.

I don't think anyone just stumbled on this data. Before they tested the DNA they reviewed the morphology of the mummies to see where they'd likely relate to. They found a cline that was north to south and also found that over time the northern type features became more dominant. So what does that mean? The longer you extend from state formation and the further north you go the more likely you'll find this genetic type.

2000 B.C is 1,000 years past the initial formation of the state. Northern Egyptians had more than enough time to navigate south and intermarry with southerners. Many "Upper Egyptians" were unrelated tribes, etc that were then converted to "Naqada culture" before the end of the predynastic by violence or assimilation. They didn't bring the culture to the region though. Afrocentrics ought o Stop thinking of predynastic Egyptians as people who were a singular cultural monolith. In fact stop thinking of the Egyptians that way too. It'd be better to look at the Egyptians as a diverse group of people whose local history will often anchor them to their predynastic ancestors. Culturally lower Egyptian enclaves such as Abusir existed in Upper Egypt so it will be up to you guys when this data comes out, to have a better idea of the local history than these researchers put out. The Abusir paper was a lot better about putting the data into a more general historical context for the country, but was poor in offering the local history that would've made the results seem a bit less left field. I expect most other papers will not even give you as much as the Abusir researchers did.


Finally, Levanite immigration into Egypt was starting by 2,000 B.C and into the second millennium which the researchers on the Abusir data point out. Take for instance the Oryx nome right above the nome we're talking about.



Egyptian art of the nomarch receiving foreigners. When waves of Near Easterners were undoubtedly in fear of their lives because of climate change anyone can probably imagine that they probably came in fair numbers. So please understand what you're dealing with: 1,000 years of mixing with Levanite influenced (if not transplanted) northern Egyptians and immigrants from the Near East. Review the record that shows this type becomes more dominant after the creation of the state.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.

Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.

And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


[QUOTE]
MtHaplogroup is U5b2b5
Any thoughts?

---

A couple:

First, what makes someone genetically "African?" I've read research that's now saying L3 was the result of a back migration. Okay well if the L3 Africans aren't Near Eastern transplants and get to be "real Africans" and not "non African transplants," how come anybody outside of Haplogroup L, whether they've been in Africa for tens of thousands of years and morphologically no different from other Africans is not? No one cares about Haplogroup R in Cameroon. Even if the subclade was born in Africa, the general attitude was that haplogroup R wasn't. But no one complains about their "Africanity." Anyways, always be very careful of how much context you have.

quote:

---

When the mummy’s mtDNA sequence is viewed in the context of modern
mtDNA diversity, however, the observed U5 lineage could potentially reflect interactions between
Egypt and the Near East that date as far back as the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [85]. Trade
between Egypt and the Near East is evidenced by, among other things, ceramic imports to Egypt [86].
In addition, dwellings similar to those found in Palestine suggest some immigration to Egypt from
more arid Near Eastern areas from the late Predynastic to the Old Kingdom [85,87]. Both trade and
immigration between Egypt and the Near East continued to increase over time. Demand in Egypt for
cedar of Lebanon wood (a wood available and harvested in Lebanon and Syria during the MK) led to
the further establishment of trade routes between Egypt and the Levant [85,86]. It is interesting, and
perhaps not coincidental, that the individual with the mtDNA sequence most similar to Djehutynakht
comes from a Lebanese individual.

---

They are telling you to your face there was evidence of immigration from Palestine in the Old Kingdom and Predynastic. They found Near Eastern styled dwellings like I said. Who imports a house? THEN imagine 1,000 years of this going down. State formation began roughly 1,000 years before this mummy lived or died. For any of you holding out for a genetically uniform "African" set of haplogroups, especially in northern Egypt (which yes includes parts of Upper Egypt as far as I'm concerned) you will likely be disappointed. There's too much archaeology in the north that showed influence from the Near East. Think of all the data the Abusir researchers fell back on when they talked about how it fit with the archeological record. They know they're going to find this. And this is probably why researchers like Keita didn't touch ideas of the north and south being uniform with a ten foot pole despite many Afrocentrics screaming that it was coonery.

I don't think anyone just stumbled on this data. Before they tested the DNA they reviewed the morphology of the mummies to see where they'd likely relate to. They found a cline that was north to south and also found that over time the northern type features became more dominant. So what does that mean? The longer you extend from state formation and the further north you go the more likely you'll find this genetic type.

2000 B.C is 1,000 years past the initial formation of the state. Northern Egyptians had more than enough time to navigate south and intermarry with southerners. Many "Upper Egyptians" were unrelated tribes, etc that were then converted to "Naqada culture" before the end of the predynastic by violence or assimilation. They didn't bring the culture to the region though. Afrocentrics ought o Stop thinking of predynastic Egyptians as people who were a singular cultural monolith. In fact stop thinking of the Egyptians that way too. It'd be better to look at the Egyptians as a diverse group of people whose local history will often anchor them to their predynastic ancestors. Culturally lower Egyptian enclaves such as Abusir existed in Upper Egypt so it will be up to you guys when this data comes out, to have a better idea of the local history than these researchers put out. The Abusir paper was a lot better about putting the data into a more general historical context for the country, but was poor in offering the local history that would've made the results seem a bit less left field. I expect most other papers will not even give you as much as the Abusir researchers did.


Finally, Levanite immigration into Egypt was starting by 2,000 B.C and into the second millennium which the researchers on the Abusir data point out. Take for instance the Oryx nome right above the nome we're talking about.



Egyptian art of the nomarch receiving foreigners. When waves of Near Easterners were undoubtedly in fear of their lives because of climate change anyone can probably imagine that they probably came in fair numbers. So please understand what you're dealing with: 1,000 years of mixing with Levanite influenced (if not transplanted) northern Egyptians and immigrants from the Near East. Review the record that shows this type becomes more dominant after the creation of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]I personally do not agree with this generic flow of history as being primarily a "Northern" flow of immigrants into Egypt and therefore "ovurrunning" or changing the local population into Non Africans by the later dynastic. Again, for such a thing to be true ALL the facts need to line up and they dont.

First the First Intermediate period was a period of instability in all of Egypt but especially in the North. The north was fractured into multiple competing Dynasties. What restored the unity of the country? Southerners. The Middle Kingdom openly stated in multiple instances that Southern Queens were the legitimacy and stability for the throne. The Prophecy of Neferti is but one example. Then you have the famous lady from Elephantine I posted earlier. Another example of royalty and legitimacy of the throne coming from the South. And in full context elaphantine was in the first nome of Egypt which was Ta Seti, which was like Plymouth rock in America. You don't see legitimacy to the throne or stability in the country EVER flowing from Northern provinces. All during the dynastic era, Northern provinces were the source of INSTABILITY in the country. So claiming that Levantines flowing into Egypt was the basis of Egyptian culture and stability is false. They might have been there but claiming that Egypt revolved around assimilation of these people is NONSENSE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE] Egypt depended more on assimilation of more southern people than Northern ones. So why on earth would Levantines dominate in AE during this time more than Southerners? Look at the tombs of Beni Hasan, they don't show any Levantines there outside of the FOREIGNERS you showed in the picture. If Levantines were truly as dominant in Egypt as you say they would have depicted themselves as such and elevated Levantine ancestry and culture to dominance and they did not because the Southerners kicked out such invaders.

---

quote:

---

You cant just make up facts at will to try and change the flow of AE history. None of the facts I mentioned are new facts. They have always been there. People pretending this handful of DNA changes something is the problem. Not to mention if you find mummies that re unquestionably black and African with U5 then what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]I personally do not agree with this generic flow of history as being primarily a "Northern" flow of immigrants into Egypt and therefore "ovurrunning" or changing the local population into Non Africans by the later dynastic. Again, for such a thing to be true ALL the facts need to line up and they dont.

First the First Intermediate period was a period of instability in all of Egypt but especially in the North. The north was fractured into multiple competing Dynasties. What restored the unity of the country? Southerners. The Middle Kingdom openly stated in multiple instances that Southern Queens were the legitimacy and stability for the throne. The Prophecy of Neferti is but one example. Then you have the famous lady from Elephantine I posted earlier. Another example of royalty and legitimacy of the throne coming from the South. And in full context elaphantine was in the first nome of Egypt which was Ta Seti, which was like Plymouth rock in America. You don't see legitimacy to the throne or stability in the country EVER flowing from Northern provinces. All during the dynastic era, Northern provinces were the source of INSTABILITY in the country. So claiming that Levantines flowing into Egypt was the basis of Egyptian culture and stability is false. They might have been there but claiming that Egypt revolved around assimilation of these people is NONSENSE.

---

Who controlled Egypt is rather irrelevant. Leadership extending into the south doesn't prevent northerners from migrating out of the delta and northern portions of the Valley if they want. It wouldn't prevent climate change and the immigration of Near Easterners who populated the Delta to survive. I'm talking about why Egypt's people genetically were a certain way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE] Egypt depended more on assimilation of more southern people than Northern ones. So why on earth would Levantines dominate in AE during this time more than Southerners? Look at the tombs of Beni Hasan, they don't show any Levantines there outside of the FOREIGNERS you showed in the picture. If Levantines were truly as dominant in Egypt as you say they would have depicted themselves as such and elevated Levantine ancestry and culture to dominance and they did not because the Southerners kicked out such invaders.

---

We really don't know how great Levanite mixture was in the most densely populated areas of southern Egypt. However looking at cranial analysis, Levanite affinity was gradual and happened over time. And because a people were assimilated into a southern culture during the process of becoming part of the state, the state remained part of the identity of the people even as demographics changed. Changes in the south didn't have to happen simply by foreign invasion, but Lower Egyptians also migrating throughout THEIR country. They were Egyptian nationals after the state was formed, why couldn't they over the span of 1,000 years move further south?

quote:

---

You cant just make up facts at will to try and change the flow of AE history. None of the facts I mentioned are new facts. They have always been there. People pretending this handful of DNA changes something is the problem. Not to mention if you find mummies that re unquestionably black and African with U5 then what?

---

Then that means "blacks" weren't really bound to Africa and weren't always related to modern Sub Saharans.

---

quote:

---

There is no need to pretend that the North was the only place where immigrants came from. And a jet black mummy in Egypt is not something I would label as "Eurasian" matter how much theoretical immigration you claim happened in AE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
You're trying to imply blacks are only black if their ancestors never left Africa when you know that many ancient humans leaving and migrating back to Africa would've been morphologically "black" and assortment of other colors as time went on. So leave the "black" part out. And those two brothers from Cairo looked like modern Near Easterners and northern Egyptians living in Cairo today. That phenotype was OLD to Egypt.


Even if the north wasn't the only place immigrants came from we have an idea that the north and Near East were influencing parts of the valley from the available genetic evidence. Available genetic evidence corroborates the cranial record that says the valley started to look more like northern Egypt over time. It may never have looked exactly the same, but the northern type became more dominant. I haven't a clue why you are saying the evidence should match when the genetic data and cranial data are both saying the same thing. Nothing you've said would've prohibited northerners from migrating into the Valley. Even if the southern Egyptians didn't allow foreigners into their lands they'd deny Levanite influenced/transplanted northern nationals the ability to move freely through the country and marry whom they pleased further south? Why do you believe that?

---

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.

---

But you just answered this supposition. If ancient humans were morphologically black whether they were African or Eurasian, and the southern phenotype was "black" then what does that mean regardless of what DNA you find? If we found out AE were found to be morphologically and genetically Adamanese tomorrow, but not genetically related to modern SSA, what race would that be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]
I am not implying anything. The FACT is that blacks in Africa are not the result of migrating Eurasians. That is silly talk.

---

quote:

---

You are trying to make this "theoretical" conjecture into hard facts. What I am saying is you are making generalizations. I never said that there were NO Levantines in dynastic Egypt. What I am saying is that the traditions and culture of AE was not Levantine or Eurasian and the people who created it did not uphold and identify with Eurasia as the basis of or origin of their culture, identity or legitimacy for ruling the country.

---

quote:

---

You can make up any nice sounding hypothetical argument you want. That is not how life works. People are ruthless when it comes to maintaining power and no culture or civiization on earth has willigly gave up power to outsiders not connected to the culture, especially when it comes to HEREDITARY rule which is directly tied to blood and kinship. It hasn't happened anywhere on eart h and it didn't happen in AE either. That does not mean there were no Levantine migrants. It just means you cant make generalizations about Levantine immigration as if AE was some democracy or melting pot that openly accepted anybody and everybody into the country and especially into power. They did not.

---

quote:

---

And again, the overarching theme these people are pushing is that the AE were never Africans to begin with, so whatever theories you are proposing have nothing to do with what these people are ultimately saying to begin with.

To them the AE culture and identity was ALWAYS Eurasian oriented and based and Africans never had anything to do with it.

---

I'm sorry but huh? I thought you were talking about their race. Now you're talking about them being African. What does all that have to do with them being black if you're saying an ancient human with U5 as their haplogroup can be black?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Tyrannohotep

It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.



We've also had this conversation more recently.

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000096

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000101

If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians.

---

Doug...how in the hell would they, indigenous Africans be able to mix with Eurasians if there was no back migration of people with Eurasian descent? The U5 implies a back migration, it doesn't however tell you how the back migrants looked. The darker skin could also be from the back migrants because ancient Near Easterners and Europeans HAD DARK SKIN. Look at the Soqotri or Cheddar man. Yes they could've inherited dark skin from back migrants.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]
I am not implying anything. The FACT is that blacks in Africa are not the result of migrating Eurasians. That is silly talk.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun:
[qb]

---

That...is so ridiculous. Even today many blacks living in East Africa have Eurasian haplogroups. We know they mixed. We know it's possible. We know many modern blacks are the result of migrating Eurasians and review of V88 we know at SOME point there was a back migration to get there unless haplogroup R itself came from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

You are trying to make this "theoretical" conjecture into hard facts. What I am saying is you are making generalizations. I never said that there were NO Levantines in dynastic Egypt. What I am saying is that the traditions and culture of AE was not Levantine or Eurasian and the people who created it did not uphold and identify with Eurasia as the basis of or origin of their culture, identity or legitimacy for ruling the country.

---

And I...don't care? That wasn't what was being argued. It has nothing to do with the point.

quote:

---

You can make up any nice sounding hypothetical argument you want. That is not how life works. People are ruthless when it comes to maintaining power and no culture or civiization on earth has willigly gave up power to outsiders not connected to the culture, especially when it comes to HEREDITARY rule which is directly tied to blood and kinship. It hasn't happened anywhere on eart h and it didn't happen in AE either. That does not mean there were no Levantine migrants. It just means you cant make generalizations about Levantine immigration as if AE was some democracy or melting pot that openly accepted anybody and everybody into the country and especially into power. They did not.

---

And eventually the Egyptians DID retaliate. It didn't stop Levanite settlement and what I assume also mixed families. it's not that important that I do so as I am mostly talking about immigration in combination with northern. Egyptian national. immigration. Northern Egyptians had been citizens of the same country as the Valley dwellers for 1,000 years. Why couldn't they move south? Why couldn't they find spouses in the Valley. I'm waiting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

And again, the overarching theme these people are pushing is that the AE were never Africans to begin with, so whatever theories you are proposing have nothing to do with what these people are ultimately saying to begin with.

To them the AE culture and identity was ALWAYS Eurasian oriented and based and Africans never had anything to do with it.

---

I'm sorry but huh? I thought you were talking about their race. Now you're talking about them being African. What does all that have to do with them being black if you're saying an ancient human with U5 as their haplogroup can be black?

---

quote:

---

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
let's keep some things in perspective, Doug. Of course more southern and older Egyptian mummies will have more African DNA. But that is irrelevant right now, because that speaks for itself. Why stress that and shift the conversation away from the here and now? Are you panicking? If you're unshaken and confident in your own beliefs in face of this and Abusir aDNA, you should be able to take both aDNA papers as they come.

Just acknowledge Eurasian mtDNAs were in Egypt, too. From the beginning (i.e. mid-holocene resettlement of the Middle Nile), as R-V88 suggests. Don't know why that is so difficult for some people. Unless you need dynastic Egypt to be free of non-African admixture for ideological reasons.

And you are on record rejecting the EEF element in early Egypt, so don't even try to deny this is why you respond this way. And yes, this mtDNA is an EEF signature (although this particular mtDNA molecule may have arrived in Egypt relatively late). Any response to that? Or is the Hamitic heresy in me saying that, too much?

---

Swenet the overall gist of the post is that the AE were primarily (From this DNA) non African transplants. Do you agree with that?

My point is that obviously this is false.

Egyptian culture originated in the South. So we need DNA from those southern folks to "confirm" indeed that North African DNA is "Non African" is my point. The underlying agenda behind this DNA and most of the other DNA is to show that when you think of AE you should think of Eurasian looking people and this goes for all "North Africa". That is the point. Obviously that is false as well.

And Southern Egypt and Upper Sudan along with the Sahara are all part of North Africa. So are we going to say that Sub Saharan DNA starts at Aswan now and that this was a boundary between Africans and Eurasians based on DNA? Doesn't that sound stupid?

U5 DNA does not equal "non black skin" in most AE populations prior to or during the dynastic. U5 DNA does not PROVE skin color.

I know for a fact there were plenty of BLACK AE at all levels through all periods in dynastic Egyptian history. The fact that some folks would sit here and pretend that this is NOT the case is the problem.

So what kind of DNA did those black folks have is the question? The fact these folks were African was never in question. I don't know how you see a handful of DNA studies and automatically jump to that conclusion. Do L lineages in Ancient Greece make them Blacks and Non Europeans? Do E lineages in Europe make them non Europeans? Come on now with retarded nonsense. We all know that is not how this works. But that would be the only way to say that the AE as "North Africans" were not African and therefore Eurasians is the point. If someone is going to say that then they should prove it with more than one or two pieces of DNA and all the facts should line up and they don't. Still.

And the bigger issue is folks that believe Europeans who desire to see the AE as "white Eurasian" transplants are doing so based on some "objective science". Don't talk that retarded nonsense to me. They have been picking out whatever data they can claim to support this since they went to Egypt whether it be pottery or cherry picked art, or cherry picked mummies or absolutely nothing at all. And I don't look at how they handle the DNA as being any different. The joke is still on them to explain how so many blacks got into AE prior to the increase of "sub saharans" after the Roman era. The game is over. These clowns just don't want to admit it.

---

Of course their comments on AE genetics are false and/or ignorant of continued Eurasian input over time to the point where they might be passing off immigrant DNA as 'Egyptian'. But I don't expect the average geneticist to know that. How could they, given the selective aDNA reports that have come out? The Egyptian government releases DNA/gives access to samples for its own reasons and based on its own considerations (including nationalist ones). I wouldn't pay much attention to what opinionated geneticists low in the chain of command have to say about Egyptian population affinity. They're just sequencing DNA that has been pre-selected for them, if not pre-screened.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



^^ Arabian J lineage not found in 4,500 yo Mota Man from Ethiopia who was E and L

However as I have shown Egyptian Siwa berbers are not for carrying U5 (and other Y DNA) unlike other Hap U ancestries North Africa in many regions being U6

The Siwa may be the modern day connection of modern Egyptian region people to this new analysis of the mummy bearing U5
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


The Siwa Oasis however is not near here, it's in the Western desert



 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.



We've also had this conversation more recently.

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000096

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000101

If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over.

---

quote:

---

Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.

---

quote:

---

I didnt say anything about race.

---

Sure you haven't :

quote:

---

Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies.
Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.

---

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.

---

A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains From Palestine Excavated at Tell Duweir (Lachish) by the Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition

D. L. Risdon
Biometrika
Vol. 31, No. 1/2 (Jul., 1939), pp. 99-166

. Comparisons by rmfficients of rac.ial likeness. Tlie method of Karl Pearson’s coefficient
of racial likeness has been applied extensively to series of ancient Egyptian crania. Risdon
(1039) has given comparisons made in that way for twenty-two male series, including three
from sites outside Egypt, and the treatment below is almost re.stricted to comparisons
between these and the two new .series described in the present paper. The procedure fol-
lowed in applying the method described in several pajjers in Biomctrika was adopted without
modification.*

In deriving a classification of a number of cranial, or living, aeries from the coefficients
of racial likeness found between them, it has been ahown repeatedly that the most sug-
gestive arrangement is obtained if the clo.sest resemblances of the series, indicated by
coefficients below a certain value, are alone taken into account. Risdon has given a diagram
(1939, Eig. 3) showing all the reduced coefficients less than .'5-0 between the twenty-two
sei'ies with which he dealt. There are fifty -three of this lowest order among the 231
( = 22 X 21/2) comparisons. The addition of the two new aeries to the classification referred
to only requires a knowledge of the reduced coefficients less than 5-() between them and
tlie twenty-two series.






 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

It's not just a "few mtDNAs". Please reread what I said about predynastic and dynastic Egypt in the "when to use 'black' thread". Specifically, my comments in regards to EEF ancestry and change from the 1st dynasty onwards.



We've also had this conversation more recently.

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000096

Topic: Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009796;p=2#000101

If you don't want to accept this kind of evidence showing change, that's one thing. But we've discussed this many, many times. There should be no reason for anyone to surprised, at this point.

---

Apologies for sounding defensive, but if this line was addressed towards me, I don't think I ever denied at least some degree of change over the course of dynastic history as a result of increased Eurasian admixture. Who knows, maybe we'll find out I was wrong about Eurasian mtDNA haps in pre-New Kingdom Egypt amounting to "a few". When I wrote my previous post, my expectations were based on beyoku's leaked Old to Middle Kingdom data. That list had "a few" unambiguously Eurasian uniparentals speckled among the African ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Black Africans in East Africa did not originate in Eurasia. So called Eurasian genes in East Africa does not mean that Black East Africans originated in Eurasia. One piece of DNA doesn't mean a population originated somewhere else.

---

You said they're "not the result of" Eurasia which is not the same thing as saying they did not get all their ancestry from a place.Okay so let's hypothetically assume the genetic data for southern Egypt matches the north, then what? What are you going to do with that morphological data that says they're black? Throw it out because it wasn't "African black?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

You keep ignoring facts. If the Southerners were fighting the Northerners that means a flow of Southern forces and people into he north to take over.

---

Didn't I tell you that the northerners were mingling with southerners BEFORE the mass migration of foreigners? Did you not just read them say that northerners had Levanite settlements indicative of that affinity which date into the predynastic? You aren't listening. I specifically said that morphological changes were starting in the OLD KINGDOM with parts of Upper Egypt. So even if there were Upper Egyptian forces coming to take back the north the "army" would've included admixed Upper Egyptians who were admixed because the NORTH had plenty of people who had distant ties to the Levant and was mingling with UPPER EGYPT. THEN you're just assuming that every foreigner who'd immigrated to Egypt AND their assimilated offspring just packed up and left. I mean hey, it's not like climate change wasn't going to kill them. The data doesn't support the absence of Levant. It's not just them doctoring DNA. They put Levanite settlements, pottery and CRANIA there too? When does all that start sounding like deNile to you? Why are the Abusir mummies genetically the way they are if it was "African" in all of Upper Egypt? I don't care about who was openly a Levanite. Their DNA says what it says. So why does their DNA say what it does? Why were there Levanite settlements in the predynastic with Levanite material culture and crania that had affinity to the Levant. Answer all of that. Answer why Upper Egypt gradually started taking on a more northern look. Go ahead. Complaining about the power of the south doesn't answer anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Show me how Ahmose Nefertari symbolizes some kind of KINSHIP and BLOOD influence of Eurasian women into the 18th dynasty. Stop making up facts.

---

Ugh the fcking butthurt. Stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

I didnt say anything about race.

---

Sure you haven't :

quote:

---

Come on with the circular arguments. IF U5 is found in black people in North Africa there are only two options: 1) there was some mixture with Levantines or 2) That DNA is indigenous. Neither 1 or 2 imply that black skin in North Africa is the result of back migrating Eurasians. That it totally absurd and nobody is even claiming this in any of these studies.
Again, the people writing these papers are not talking about black Eurasians in North Africa. When they say North Africans have always had Eurasian DNA they mean white Eurasians. That has always been the point. You trying to spin this into some nonsense about "black Eurasians" and so forth is silly.

---

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with. So really your theory may sound nice and "objective" but that is not really what these people are ultimately saying.

---

If you know what they are morphologially, it doesn't matter what they're "ultimately saying" on race. This is what Diop was trying to get people like you to understand because he knew it'd get you sidetracked. He believed they were black Africans but already acknowledged that his point did not rest on whether or not there was a technical back migration. There is already so much data that says the south was morphologically "black" and there's so much data that shows an African cultural affinity. So someone who looks morphologically (black) African and culturally African with Eurasian DNA is perhaps the most you'll be getting from these results, even if they are the same in the early south.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
So, you think that a representative sample of AE throughout the dynasties will have an uniparental profile that is more African, or at least significantly more African than non-Omotic/non-Nilo-Saharan Ethiopians? We are clearly talking about different things when we are talking about change. Based on your Tut reconstruction, it is no wonder that you're surprised by this U5 carrier. Sometimes it looks like you get it but other times you say something in regards to dynastic Egypt and you completely lose me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Seriously? East Africans are "hypothetically" black? Thats the best laugh I have had in a long time.... That's good comedy. When you can show me the evidence the black skin in East Africa came from Eurasia then fine. Otherwise I can't take you seriously on this point.

---

quote:

---

What you said and what has been proven is two different things. I understand perfectly well what you are saying but none of it has been proven is the point. You keep arguing a hypothetical with no proof.

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the people making these papers ARE NOT SAYING THAT. What they are saying is that the AE were always EURASIAN to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Your theoretical postulations are nice sounding like I said. But the fact is Southerners have been immigrating into AE since before AE. So you can't just pretend only one group of immigrants had an impact on AE and like I said, the facts on record about interactions between North and South consistently show Southern resurgence in power and PEOPLE over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Again, while theoretical arguments sound nice, you have to prove that say Amenshotep III and Tiye for example were not truly indigenous card carrying African Egyptians versus continuously making hypothetical statements.

---

quote:

---

Like I said there is no line of evidence for Levantine blood through Levantine queens being the basis of royal legitimacy. But there is evidence and lots of it for Southern Queens and southern blood being the basis of royal legitimacy. Those are facts not hypotheticals.

---

quote:

---

What your butt hurts because you can't deny that fact?

---

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with.

---

But...! I thought you weren't talking about blacks anyway! More irrelevant talking points

quote:

---

What do you mean if? These mummies are available. They have been studied. Why do you keep saying if and but as if there haven't been plenty of mummies already identified as being "southern" or even "nubian" in affinity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I can't say anything about ancestry proportions of any specific sample. We would need some predynastic aDNA to make ancestry estimates for specific Egyptian samples. And samples from the Horn aren't necessarily good proxies, though they are the best we have without the right Nubian aDNA. But I think it's safe to say that once you start factoring in dynastic Lower Egypt, and Upper Egypt becoming more like Lower Egypt, the weight of affinity of such a combined heterogeneous dynastic sample would be somewhere in between modern Egypt and the Horn, not in between the Horn and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I can't say anything about ancestry proportions of any specific sample. We would need some predynastic aDNA to make ancestry estimates for specific Egyptian samples. And samples from the Horn aren't necessarily good proxies, though they are the best we have without the right Nubian aDNA. But I think it's safe to say that once you start factoring in dynastic Lower Egypt, and Upper Egypt becoming more like Lower Egypt, the weight of affinity of such a combined heterogeneous dynastic sample would be somewhere in between modern Egypt and the Horn, [qb] not in between the Horn and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

Yeah, we're definitely talking past each other here. When I speak of African ancestry, I'm including what is called "Basal Eurasian". I didn't mean to imply that I believed ancient Egyptians would be all appear genetically intermediate between Horners (who themselves have SSA ancestry as you know) and SSA. If I had to reconstruct AE ancestry myself, I would describe it as fundamentally "Basal Eurasian" with some additional Eurasian and SSA admixture. In terms of mtDNA haplogroups, that would probably lead to mostly L3 (and maybe M1 if that is indeed a "stay at home" African lineage), with a minority of assorted SSA L lineages as well as bona fide Eurasian ones.

Did I say something recently that made you think I believed AE would have more SSA ancestry than modern Horners?

---

• Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

• SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My bad. I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My bad. I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

---

I think a triangle would illustrate it best since these populations have three types of ancestry (Eurasian, sub-Saharan, and North African).


This is how I would imagine the affinities to plot out (assuming we disregard the unpublished profile). Of course, the point representing dynastic Egyptians would be a pooled sample in this hypothetical scenario. I expect the dynastic Upper Egyptian type to lie closer to the Saharan/predynastic point of the triangle, whereas something like the Abusir-el-Meleq results would lie closer to the modern Egyptian/Eurasian point.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Elmaestro

Let me rephrase those gradations. I tried to use 'modern NE Africa' as shorthand for non-Omotic, non-Chadic and non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic speakers plus others with similar genetics (e.g. Nubian speakers), but it creates new problems and ambiguities of its own. Corrected version (see the bolded parts):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic speakers in this gradation:

• Palaeolithic Afroasiatic - Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic speakers - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic in this gradation:

• SSA - Cushitic/Ethio-Semitic - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My bad. I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

---

I think a triangle would illustrate it best since these populations have three types of ancestry (Eurasian, sub-Saharan, and North African).


This is how I would imagine the affinities to plot out (assuming we disregard the unpublished profile). Of course, the point representing dynastic Egyptians would be a pooled sample in this hypothetical scenario. I expect the dynastic Upper Egyptian type to lie closer to the Saharan/predynastic point of the triangle, whereas something like the Abusir-el-Meleq results would lie closer to the modern Egyptian/Eurasian point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations

Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012595

---

They seem to model northern Sudanese as Nilote+European. The problem with that is northern Sudanese have ancestry that didn't come from Nilotes and that didn't come from Europe. E-M78 is an example.



So there is another component in their so-called European ancestry that has not been investigated yet, and that is wrongly attributed to Europeans.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They seem to model northern Sudanese as Nilote+European. The problem with that is northern Sudanese have ancestry that didn't come from Nilotes and that didn't come from Europe. E-M78 is an example.



So there is another component in their so-called European ancestry that has not been investigated yet, and that is wrongly attributed to Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They seem to model northern Sudanese as Nilote+European.

---

quote:

---

Abstract

We investigate the population history of northeast Africa by genotyping ~3.9 million SNPs in 221 individuals from 18 populations sampled in Sudan and South Sudan and combine this data with published genome-wide data from surrounding areas. We find a strong genetic divide between the populations from the northeastern parts of the region (Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja) and populations towards the west and south (Nilotes, Darfur and Kordofan populations).

---

quote:

---

Abstract (con't)

......Genetic evidence points to an early admixture event in the Nubians, concurrent with historical contact between North Sudanese and Arab groups. We estimate the admixture in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups

---

quote:

---

No, E-M78, Nilote or not, is a component in their African ancestry

---

quote:

---

they don't mention E-M78 and the chart you have there should have a source cited.

---

quote:

---

(A) Map shows the distribution of the Nilotic component in Northeast African populations (at K = 7). (B) Estimated non-African (using a European group) admixture using f4-ratios (see Methods).

---

quote:

---

please get it together

---

I know you have your Google tab open in your browser, right now. Try to do more effort to conceal you get all your information from Google in your next reply.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations

Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012595

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
this is the reason

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

there is a brand new article that does discuss that

and it says:

" In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups "

^^ so this is wrong, they do have significant admixture form Eurasians ???

northeastern parts of the region = "Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja"

---

North Sudanese populations non-African Ancestry is more nuanced than credited for in holfelder. We talk about this a lot. Quit playing, which lioness employee is on duty.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ Swenet

The scenario you describe does not sound unreasonable to m with regards to how these populations would plot on a graph with centroids.

BTW, I remember Keita describing the "coastal North African pattern" shared between dynastic northerners and pre-Islamic Maghrebis to be distinctly heterogeneous, with some individuals appearing more African (i.e. closer to predynastic southerners and Nubians), others more Eurasian, and still others to be morphologically intermediate. Is this heterogeneity within samples an observation that other literature has replicated?

The reason I ask is that I want to know what these dynastic Lower and Upper Egyptian patterns would have looked like on the ground. You've mentioned in the past that AE skin color would have overlapped more or less completely with that of modern African-Americans, which implies to me a broad range between ebony and honey-brown (presumably the mahogany color you see on tomb paintings is meant to represent a statistical average). If the Lower Egyptian pattern was as heterogeneous as Keita implies, would that mean a mixture of darker and lighter shades, as opposed to a bias towards darker shades for the Upper Egyptian pattern? Of course, the exact degree of depigmentation in the EEF-like populations that contributed most of the Eurasian admixture in AEs might also affect how light or dark they would come out.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It's old school crania racial science from the 30s
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Seriously? East Africans are "hypothetically" black? Thats the best laugh I have had in a long time.... That's good comedy. When you can show me the evidence the black skin in East Africa came from Eurasia then fine. Otherwise I can't take you seriously on this point.

---

Where did I...where did I say anything about East Africans being hypothetically black? East Africans having non African genes means they're not black? So an Adamanese isn't black because their haplogroup is not L? Modern East Africans are not black because their ancestry resulted from migration? Ancient humans just became white as soon as they left Africa? You make no sense.

quote:

---

What you said and what has been proven is two different things. I understand perfectly well what you are saying but none of it has been proven is the point. You keep arguing a hypothetical with no proof.

---

Oh wtf stop. Researchers like Zakrzewski was telling people for a long time that the "negroid" traits of Upper Egypt were gradually lost through time.

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the people making these papers ARE NOT SAYING THAT. What they are saying is that the AE were always EURASIAN to begin with.

---

The researchers admit that Negroid traits were in older samples. They're saying that affinity was largely lost over time. Whether they're saying they were African "negriods" or Eurasian "negroids" they were saying that morphologically these people would've been sent to the back of the bus if they lived in the U.S.

quote:

---

Your theoretical postulations are nice sounding like I said. But the fact is Southerners have been immigrating into AE since before AE. So you can't just pretend only one group of immigrants had an impact on AE and like I said, the facts on record about interactions between North and South consistently show Southern resurgence in power and PEOPLE over and over again.

---

Sorry but again the research leans more to the negroid traits being lost over time. The southern "look" becomes diluted over time. This is what the morphological record says. A resurgence in power is not the same as a resurgence in phenotype.

quote:

---

Again, while theoretical arguments sound nice, you have to prove that say Amenshotep III and Tiye for example were not truly indigenous card carrying African Egyptians versus continuously making hypothetical statements.

---

Why do I have to "prove" anything? You're not realizing that the point being made was that in either scenario they spin, the creators of Egypt are black yet? How sad.

quote:

---

Like I said there is no line of evidence for Levantine blood through Levantine queens being the basis of royal legitimacy. But there is evidence and lots of it for Southern Queens and southern blood being the basis of royal legitimacy. Those are facts not hypotheticals.

---

The southerners didn't see northerners as "Levanites" they saw people whose ANCESTORS were Levanites, but had probably been in the Nile Valley for a long time in their own right. YOU see them as Levanites by their DNA, that's not what the Egyptians saw. They were integrated as full Egyptian nationals. They had the ability to move throughout the country as Egyptian nationals. Why would Upper Egyptians discriminate against someone who was Lower Egyptian because thousands of years before the country was formed their ancestors DNA came from the Levant? That's YOUR hangup, it wasn't theirs.

quote:

---

What your butt hurts because you can't deny that fact?

---

Your "facts" are irrelevant to the conversation. You're dragging up irrelevant talking points so that you don't have to deal with what this is telling you.

quote:

---

And again, the underlying point of these studies is to reinforce the notion that there were NEVER any blacks in AE to begin with.

---

But...! I thought you weren't talking about blacks anyway! More irrelevant talking points

quote:

---

What do you mean if? These mummies are available. They have been studied. Why do you keep saying if and but as if there haven't been plenty of mummies already identified as being "southern" or even "nubian" in affinity?

---

More ridiculous strawmen. I already said that there's SO much data that says they look black. SO much data says they were culturally closer to African. It doesn't matter what their DNA says. I said "if you understand" then it should not matter what the DNA says EITHER way. If AE were majority U5 this doesn't mean they're not Black. If AE were majority L2 it doesn't mean they're not Black. This was what Diop was trying to explain. The phenotype comes first when determining RACE, not a person's DNA. But of course you will be first in line to be bamboozled which is what they're hoping for so that you and anyone else like you will finally shut up about Black Egypt.

---

Oshun, again, when I speak I am speaking about the fact that mainstream Egyptology as quoted by Hawass, has always been openly and publicly promoting that the AE were white from day one. What you are saying is nice and dandy but that is not what Egyptology is about. They are about promoting a vison of ancient Egypt as being white Eurasians period. You seem to think that this is seriously about science or facts. Which means I am not addressing this to you or anyone else personally but making a general statement to the overall underlying methodology and mentalities behind such studies with statements like "North Africans were Eurasians". That statement does not mean "AE started out as Negroid". That is absolutely not what this paper is trying to support and what the general flow of most of these papers is trying to support. They want ALL of North Africa to have been settled by white Eurasians at an ancient time prior to the foundation of AE so that by the time AE starts they can claim they were already "indigenous whites". This is all based on mislabelling and misidentifying certain DNA lineages. This is also about setting up an apartheid zone in North Africa from ancient times to the current day. That you would sit here and try and validate this line of reasoning with some theoretical arguments about migrants from the Levant is ridiculous. I am not saying there wasn't Levantines in AE. What I am saying is that these papers aren't really trying to tell that kind of a story.

One piece of DNA does not make a population white. No single piece of evidence aside from the actual skin color of the person does that. But this isnt about facts. They just want something to use as an excuse for continuing the same paradigm they have been pushing since they found Egypt. Previously they used pottery as the "smoking gun". Now they are trying to do the same with DNA and it doesn't work like that. This is why they need to stop playing and sample all the dam DNA.

Like I said and you keep ignoring the most obvious evidence of blacks in AE come from the late period If what you are saying was true, then those mummies would be white. But they are not. Facts trump theory. And those mummies affirm what I am saying about continuous Southern migrations throughout the Dynastic eras.

But separate from that at the same time, Levantine migration does not discount and erase Southern migrations either or even Western migrations. Population dynamics is not based on one vector it is based on multiple. All lines of evidence have to be looked at not just one.

Like I said before, I have no doubt there was mixed populations in Egypt. In fact Egypt is mixed today but most Egyptians are NOT White Eurasians even NOW. And there are plenty of indigenous dark skinned Egyptians TODAY that match the ancient art almost perfectly. The point being that excuses and arguments for claimning that the AE were white Eurasians is just a stalling tactic based on mainstream Egyptology trying to drag out the inevitable as long as possible before admitting the obvious.

Now look at this from National Geographic:

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/04/22/uncovering-the-origins-of-ancient-egypt/

This is how they see ancient Egypt as "generic Eurasians" smiting Africans to create a white Eurasian culture in Africa. Make no mistake about it. From their way of describing Egypt to their way of painting Egyptians everything they do is to STRIP OUT the facts of where Egypt is and to put it into some "generic Eurasia" place but not Africa. That is been there agenda all along. And these kind of DNA studies are designed to reinforce that model. Facts conctradicting this are all around but that doesn't stop them from doing this. There are hardly any Egyptians in Upper Egypt that look like that Narmer image but they will still post that nonsense anyway. Again this is not about facts or science. Renee Friedman has been diggin in Upper Egypt for many years, yet this is what they come up with from Nat Geo? I am sure if you ask her personally about it she will say "sure the people of Nekhen weren't much different from those from Aswan and Sudan" but that wont make it to the public. When they go in public they will ALWAYS portray the AE as some generic Eurasian type from the "Middle East". Even though Nekhen and Nubt are deep in Upper Egypt with roots from Farther South and the Sahara. There were no "generic Eurasian" people coming out of Sudan and the Sahara at the time of Narmer. But that is what these folks have been pushing since they "discovered" Egypt and science nor facts have anything to do with how they represent them. From the way they describe Egypt and the predynastic there is NOTHING connecting it to Africa or the Nile Valley except in the most generic sense. Otherwise it could have equally been a river in Iraq. Then they tell you that you are a crank for saying wait a dam minute that River is in Africa and those people were black Africans. But to these clowns African warriors with African traditiona weapons becomes "generic Eurasians" when they paint them.

Here is a comparison of the Narmer image with some Samburu warriors from Kenya:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127846723@N07/15840089316/sizes/l/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/3764322251/in/album-72157621689621690/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/boaz/37375873614/sizes/l/
(Not saying the AE were Kenyan just pointing out the costume and weapons are no different than most traditional African customs including the bow and arrow). In other words tall lanky African warrior does not equal ancient white Eurasian.

This is nothing more than the Dynastic race rehashed and reformed using new terminologies like "North African" DNA which to them really means "Eurasian DNA" which really means "Non African" whites (but to these people EVERYTHING in Egypt means Eurasian whites even ancient black mummies). This is why I take a hard line stance. People really think this is about objective science when it is not. There are no "new facts" contradicting the facts we already have. That is why I don't buy into the hype.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited
Forensic Specimens - Odile Loreille 1 , David Reich


250km South of Cairo


Mitochondrial Haplotype
The mtGenome profile independently obtained from the tooth by the FBI and HMS laboratories
were identical and can be found in Table S2. The haplotype (deposited in GenBank under accession
number MG736653) belongs to mitochondrial DNA lineage U5b2b5, but the specific sequence has
not been previously reported in the ***35,942 mtGenomes**** stored in the NCBI GenBank database (as of
October 2017). The sequence closest to the mummy’s belongs to a contemporary individual from
Lebanon (KT779192 [67]); however, the two haplotypes still differ at five positions, three of them in the
control region (CR). A comparison between the mummy CR and the 26,127 CR sequences from the
EMPOP database produced no match.


To better understand the mtDNA lineage of the mummy in the context of known Egyptian
mtDNA diversity, the mummy haplogroup was compared to the mtDNA haplogroup distribution
of 668 Egyptians from various modern populations [68–73]. The dominant haplogroups among this
dataset were haplogroup T (11.98%) and L3 (11.23%; Table S3). Out of the 64 individuals who belonged
to haplogroup U, seven belonged to *****haplogroup U5 (1.05%)******, and three (0.5%) belonged to one of the
U5b subgroups (U5b1c; U5b1d1a; U5b2a5).
The Djehutynakht sequence was also compared to available ancient human DNA sequences
(Table S4). Not surprisingly, no direct matches to the Djehutynakht sequence have been reported.
However, related U5b2b sequences have been observed in ancient human remains from Europe, and
a haplogroup U5b2c1 haplotype was recently discovered in 2000-year-old remains from Phoenicia [67].
When only the mtDNA sequences recovered from ancient Egyptian human remains are considered,
the Djehutynakht sequence most closely resembles a U5a lineage from sample JK2903, a 2000-year-old
skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq
---------------------


Xyyman comment
Very Interesting paper. Since Reich steered this study we will expect a lot of “Eurasian” this and “Eurasian” that . But we know what is called Eurasian autosomal DNA originated Africa and has confirmed to be in DEEEEEP Sub-Saharan Africa (Malawi) about 8000 years ago with Hora individuals and other ancient sub-saharan African !!!!! Even Mota. Eurasian DNA is found through-out sub-saharan Africa because it is NOT of Eurasian/or European origin.

Looking at this mummy I am not sure if he is anything but a modern horner thick lips and all. I am sure the Forensic artistic impression will have him look like….(xxxxx)insert a googled picture of your choosing. Lol! But I am not into picture spamming.




But nevertheless I assume the results is authentic because it was performed by two independent labs. What is fascinating this lineage is indeed found in the “Western” Europe hunter gatherers. But it also found in North Africa and the Sahel amongst African Fulanis and in Guinea Bissau(sourced). What is even more interesting is that I did not know the Egyptians carry such a high frequency if the “underived” version of mtDNA U5*, 1.05%. This is not found in Europe as far as I know. The underived. Now correct me U5 can split into U5a and U5b. Again this is clear evidence of the bifurcation taking place in Africa near or in the Sahara.

What is also interesting is this specific sub-group is NOT found amongst Europeans 26,127 + 35,942 = 62069 Europeans and the “Lebanese” sample is off by 5 mutations. Of course African DNA was not included and why should it be? After all Eurasian AIM was NOT found in DEEEEEP sub-saharan Africa 8000years ago.(Insert sarcasm).

When his STR profile comes out I would surprise if he is NOT sub-saharan African ……………….just like the Amarnas.

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/17317/edit
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Berbers mtDNA _ N East to N West Africa







https://s13.postimg.org/s7z9dparb/Berber_mt_DNA_List_-_C.jpg

EDIT: Large image converted to link



[ 08. March 2018, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^ you didn't notice the Siwa U5 percentage on the above? 16.7%
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Around 20,000 years before present (YBP) to 10,000 YBP,
Western North Africa has been occupied by Iberomaurusian
populations (Mechtoid), in reference to late Palaeolithic tool
industry (Later Stone Age also called Epipalaeolithic) who
replaced the Aterian aborigines, in reference to middle
Palaeolithic industry (Middle Stone Age). The most important
Iberomaurusian sites are Columnata and Afalou (AFA) in
Algeria and Taforalt (TAF) in Morocco

The Iberomaurusian occupation of the cave was dated
between 23,000 YBP and 10,800 YBP (
Recently, a high precision radiocarbon chronology made on
bones and charcoals showed that the Iberomaurusian industry
appeared in TAF at least 22,093–21,420 Cal BP (calibrated
YBP) (Barton et al.


Hora_Malawi-8100BP carried 10-20% “Eurasian” DNA.


According to our results, the presence of Eurasian haplogroups
(JT, J, T, H, R0a1, U) in AFA and in TAF individuals
suggests that these lineages were present in North
Africa at least 21,000 YBP confirming the estimated coalescence
time for these haplogroups (Brandst€atter et al. 2008;
Ennafaa et al 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010; Pala et al. 2012;
Zheng et al. 2012).


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ you didn't notice the Siwa U5 percentage on the above? 16.7%

---

Again. For the record. A clear geographic pattern. 20,000years ago mtDNA U was in Africa. It is not Eurasian. See the STR profile!!! Berbers are Africans. AIm (Eurasian) was in Malawi 8100BP Long befor ethe creation of ancient Egypt. Siwa Berbers carry U5* Underived. You undersatnd the significance?


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Swenet

The scenario you describe does not sound unreasonable to m with regards to how these populations would plot on a graph with centroids.

BTW, I remember Keita describing the "coastal North African pattern" shared between dynastic northerners and pre-Islamic Maghrebis to be distinctly heterogeneous, with some individuals appearing more African (i.e. closer to predynastic southerners and Nubians), others more Eurasian, and still others to be morphologically intermediate. Is this heterogeneity within samples an observation that other literature has replicated?

---

quote:

---

In order to maximize the number of crania from Écija included in the analysis, a
minimum number of variables were selected that provide a basic description of the
cranium and that have a relatively large sample size. These variables describe the
length of the vault (glabello - occipital length, GOL), the breadth of the vault (biaste-
rionic breadth, ASB), craniofacial breadth (bifrontal breadth, XFB), midfacial prog-
nathism (nasal subtense, NAS), upper facial height (nasal height, NLH and malar
height, WMH), and browridge morphology (supraorbital projection, SOS).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
The reason I ask is that I want to know what these dynastic Lower and Upper Egyptian patterns would have looked like on the ground. You've mentioned in the past that AE skin color would have overlapped more or less completely with that of modern African-Americans, which implies to me a broad range between ebony and honey-brown (presumably the mahogany color you see on tomb paintings is meant to represent a statistical average). If the Lower Egyptian pattern was as heterogeneous as Keita implies, would that mean a mixture of darker and lighter shades, as opposed to a bias towards darker shades for the Upper Egyptian pattern? Of course, the exact degree of depigmentation in the EEF-like populations that contributed most of the Eurasian admixture in AEs might also affect how light or dark they would come out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If (rock) art is anything to go by, there is a gradual lightening of the pigment used to paint skin in North African art. Skin pigmentation in pre-Neolithic times was darker, while Neolithic and predynastic skin pigmentation was lighter on average (e.g. an extreme example of lighter pigmentation used during the Neolithic and an example from the predynastic). In dynastic times it was more variable, including all of the above pigmentaton levels and even lighter forms of reddish not seen in earlier periods. So, we have a range of brown in the early Holocene, and progressively more reddish shades in mid-Holocene times, until we get to the distinctly ochre red pigments used in some later dynastic art.

Some Afroasiatic speakers still place themselves and their neighbours on a black-red spectrum, so it's tempting to see the gradual use of more reddish pigments as really reflecting an awareness of skin pigmentation in different time periods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ you didn't notice the Siwa U5 percentage on the above? 16.7%

---

Again. For the record. A clear geographic pattern. 20,000years ago mtDNA U was in Africa. It is not Eurasian. See the STR profile!!! Berbers are Africans. AIm (Eurasian) was in Malawi 8100BP Long befor ethe creation of ancient Egypt. Siwa Berbers carry U5* Underived. You undersatnd the significance?

---

So you're going to conveniently ignore the fact that U5 based on African distribution is just about the Maternal counterpart of V88?

...oh and don't mind Villabruna being U5b2b neither
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Siwa Berbers carry U5* Underived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:



According to our results, the presence of Eurasian haplogroups
(JT, J, T, H, R0a1, U) in AFA and in TAF individuals
suggests that these lineages were present in North
Africa at least 21,000 YBP confirming the estimated coalescence
time for these haplogroups (Brandst€atter et al. 2008;
Ennafaa et al 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010; Pala et al. 2012;
Zheng et al. 2012).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ you didn't notice the Siwa U5 percentage on the above? 16.7%

---

Again. For the record. A clear geographic pattern. 20,000years ago mtDNA U was in Africa. It is not Eurasian. See the STR profile!!! Berbers are Africans. AIm (Eurasian) was in Malawi 8100BP Long befor ethe creation of ancient Egypt. Siwa Berbers carry U5* Underived. You undersatnd the significance?

---

So you're going to conveniently ignore the fact that U5 based on African distribution is just about the Maternal counterpart of V88?

...oh and don't mind Villabruna being U5b2b neither

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

How old was Villabruna?
Where was he located?
What is his Y-Haplogroup?
Is Villabruna a Berber?
How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..?

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
There is no such thing as “European” haplogroups or DNA….except for some minor sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-clades. @K2 Europeans are primarily Africans than non-Africans. mtDNA R0a is of African origin. Pre-cursor to mtDNA U. Sources cited. All evidence and facts point to the Sahara being a genetic pool. Key source being the Nile /Great Lakes with Bifurcation around that point. See my Berber haplo-tree above and other threads.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.


Example of a journal article chart and then below it a doctored version by xyyman where he applies his race concepts


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

How old was Villabruna?
Where was he located?
What is his Y-Haplogroup?
Is Villabruna a Berber?
How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

How old was Villabruna?
Where was he located?
What is his Y-Haplogroup?
Is Villabruna a Berber?
How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..?

---

xyyman loves saying that modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. Then when any old European remains are mentioned he always says without exception they were black He likes playing around like that

Also when he has no source he writes "sources cited" and is said to wink when he does this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

How old was Villabruna?
Where was he located?
What is his Y-Haplogroup?
Is Villabruna a Berber?
How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..? [/qb]

---

xyyman loves saying that modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. Then when any old European remains are mentioned he always says without exception they were black He likes playing around like that

Also when he has no source he writes "sources cited" and is said to wink when he does this

---

Lol.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Lioness are you in an academic? You are really anal with it comes to "mock-ups". Any fool can see I am making notes on the charts. Bacause I source the charts so any fool can look it up.

AND!! I am not applying race concepts. There is no such thing as race. I used "Negro" to make a point.

---

but you didn't source the chart, stop fronting

and you added race, stop fronting pt 2

original>


 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Oshun, again, when I speak I am speaking about the fact that mainstream Egyptology as quoted by Hawass, has always been openly and publicly promoting that the AE were white from day one.

---

quote:

---

Like I said and you keep ignoring the most obvious evidence of blacks in AE come from the late period If what you are saying was true, then those mummies would be white. But they are not. Facts trump theory. And those mummies affirm what I am saying about continuous Southern migrations throughout the Dynastic eras.

---

quote:

---

But separate from that at the same time, Levantine migration does not discount and erase Southern migrations either or even Western migrations. Population dynamics is not based on one vector it is based on multiple. All lines of evidence have to be looked at not just one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Oshun, again, when I speak I am speaking about the fact that mainstream Egyptology as quoted by Hawass, has always been openly and publicly promoting that the AE were white from day one.

---

And maybe, in the north, many if not most would've passed for white or "Arab" today. It doesn't really matter what they want to say. What matters is what they can prove. Very early on researchers saw that there were two morphologies in ancient Egypt and have repeatedly reported what they called a cline. To explain this, they did not DENY the morphology of the initial southern "negroid influenced" phenotype. Instead they created "dynastic race" and placed the north as the creators of dynastic culture and all these "blacks" they were finding in a position of cultural inferiority. It was only AFTER too much evidence was coming back from the field, that this theory was abandoned and Egyptology disclosed the role of the south. Even if academically, researchers know that racially the initial founders of Egypt were black by focusing on northern samples and time periods where Upper Egypt would have more northern influence, you can create a picture the public wants (minus the Afrocentrics that aren't really offering too much in tourist dollars anyway). The public believes in a monolith of Egypt, with no complexity in local or regional population history. This is what the Afrocentric community gets calling Keita and anyone else that saw it coming "coons" and "academic sellouts."

quote:

---

Like I said and you keep ignoring the most obvious evidence of blacks in AE come from the late period If what you are saying was true, then those mummies would be white. But they are not. Facts trump theory. And those mummies affirm what I am saying about continuous Southern migrations throughout the Dynastic eras.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. They're saying blacks came early IN THE SOUTH but much of the south lost the "negroid features" it once had. And if you go to Egypt, this is true. A lot of Upper Egypt today doesn't look "negroid" even if it does start looking that way the closer you get to Sudan.

quote:

---

But separate from that at the same time, Levantine migration does not discount and erase Southern migrations either or even Western migrations. Population dynamics is not based on one vector it is based on multiple. All lines of evidence have to be looked at not just one.

---

I'm looking at what the record says. The record says that the "negroid" features in were changing or disappearing in parts of Upper Egypt in the Old Kingdom times. It doesn't matter ultimately where this was coming from. Be it Libyans, northern Egyptians, what have you. That we know a change happened is the most important part. Saying "it's not right" doesn't change what is.

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
badda bing badda bang…yeah! Yeah!.

by ElMaestro
V88, U5 and H1(to some degree) represents early Contact with southern European groups. DNA was swapped Migrations and influences went both ways as seen with L2/L3 and A-m13 (and maybe even E-M2). We have evidence of that. Folks have been speaking of such things on here since I was in Middle school and you can't recall archeological/anthropological discussions to corroborate such things now that DNA is in the picture?

….------------

Bullshit ! It is a continuum….why?


Excerpt


There is an evident frequency peak in the Central Sahara associated with the Libyan Tuareg, who show the highest frequency value (61%) among all the populations considered in the analysis. Since the high frequency of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg is most likely the result of random genetic drift and founder events, we also investigated the H1 distribution removing the Libyan Tuareg sample and thus leaving only previously reported data (Figure 3). As expected, frequency peaks in the European continent were observed in the Iberian Peninsula, whereas in Northern Africa the rather high frequency values in Morocco and Tunisia became apparent. More southward, among the Tuareg from the Sahel region [37], a frequency peak is also observed. To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2. The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward. Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse than the Libyan Tuareg, with haplotype diversities of 0.577, 0.633 and 0.595, respectively. Similarly, the values of nucleotide diversity and average number of nucleotide differences observed in Morocco (0.309 and 1.056), Tunisia (0.316 and 1.081) and among the Tuareg from Sahel (0.234 and 0.800) are all much higher than those of the Libyan Tuareg (0.098 and 0.335).

Indeed, Moroccans and TUNISIANS, the populations geographically closest to Europe, harbor the highest diversity values for all considered indices. Thus, the coastal areas of northwestern Africa, after the arrival of the Iberian founder H1 mtDNAs, probably acted as centers for the subsequent diffusion of H1 in the internal regions of North Africa.

NOOOO!!! – conversely !!! Thus, the coastal areas of Europe, after the arrival of the Tunisian founder H1 mtDNAs, probably acted as centers for the subsequent diffusion of H1 in the internal regions of Europe


Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1374/mtdna-african-probably#ixzz59BVsZ9Q8




Using mitochondrial DNA to test the hypothesis of a European post-glacial human recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.

García O, Fregel R, Larruga JM, Álvarez V, Yurrebaso I, Cabrera VM, González AM.


Source

Basque Country Forensic Genetics Laboratory, Erandio, Bizkaia, Spain.


Abstract

It has been proposed that the distribution patterns and coalescence ages found in Europeans for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups V, H1 and H3 are the result of a post-glacial expansion from a Franco-Cantabrian refuge that recolonized central and northern areas. In contrast, in this refined mtDNA study of the Cantabrian Cornice that contributes 413 partial and 9 complete new mtDNA sequences, including a large Basque sample and a sample of Asturians, NO!!! experimental evidence was found to support the human refuge-expansion theory. In fact, all measures of gene diversity point to the Cantabrian Cornice in general and the Basques in particular, as less polymorphic for V, H1 and H3 than other southern regions in Iberia or in Central Europe. Genetic distances show the Cantabrian Cornice is a very heterogeneous region with significant local differences. The analysis of several minor subhaplogroups, based on complete sequences, also suggests different focal expansions over a local and peninsular range that did not affect continental Europe. Furthermore, all detected clinal trends show stronger longitudinal than latitudinal profiles. In Northern Iberia, it seems that the highest diversity values for some haplogroups with Mesolithic coalescence ages are centred on the Mediterranean side, including Catalonia and South-eastern France.

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1374/mtdna-african-probably#ixzz59BWjNxkZ


@xyyman
You kept a diggin n diggin ... and badro, you got it! Fresh hot HV!!
TALE OF THE FREQUENCIES

HV expansion starts in Burkina Faso(20%)
and spreads north to Niger(12%) for Libyan(9.7%)
arrival where it will fan west and east .

West to Tunisia(75%) and Morocco(73%) onto France(69%).

Well?

http://i49.tinypic.com/258qtj4.jpg
Large Irrelevant picture of this insufferable post converted to link format

[ 08. March 2018, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
smh... ^Shit man, Y'know what... Go ahead, good luck... Just try to stay remotely on topic in this thread. Fuck it.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
The Secrets of Tomb 10A
Egypt 2000 BC

October 18, 2009 – June 27, 2010

http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/secrets-tomb-10a


Statuette of Governor Djehutynakht

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/statuette-of-governor-djehutynakht-143282

quote:

---

Head of the mummy of Djehutynakht

Egyptian
Middle Kingdom, late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty
2010–1961 B.C.


The mummified head of Djehutynakht is all that remained after the body was destroyed by tomb robbers. The head displays a number of interesting features. The linen wrappings are molded in the shape of the face, with the eyebrows rendered in black paint on the fabric. The mummy’s hair, dark brown and wavy, is well preserved and visible through the worn wrapping


Provenance

From Deir el-Bersha, tomb 10, shaft A (tomb of Djehutynakht). May 1915: excavated by the Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; assigned to the MFA in the division of finds by the government of Egypt. (Accession Date: March 1, 1921)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
smh... ^Shit man, Y'know what... Go ahead, good luck... Just try to stay remotely on topic in this thread. Fuck it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So do more DNA on mummies in Egypt.
There are plenty of mummies that can be DNA tested.
One mummy here and there is asinine.

But here is the key point:

quote:

---

However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of
the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes
now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage
(L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]).

---

I guess the AE weren't African then.....

---

I'm just waiting for the leaked Y- and mtDNA beyoku shared years back to get published. But there is another thread for that.

---

The point of this thread is that the DNA was U5 and that it could not have been indigenous to Africa(according to what you posted). And if that is true and no DNA from North Africa, including this, is from Africa then what other conclusion would you come to?

The point being sample some of the obviously black mummies and see if they carry these "non African" lineages....... Then what?

But nah.... the AE were a Eurasian transplant:

quote:

---

The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages
in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy.
In the present study, Near Eastern influence has been found in an individual of high social status who lived in Upper Egypt during the Middle Kingdom.

---

---

quote:

---

Introduction

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
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
I think this paper needs to be restudied. Perhaps we have missed or skipped a few things.

I recall SOY Keita saying: "it not true, it's just not true". Referring to the Saami didn't enter North Africa.

quote:

---

However, subhaplogroup U5 provided a rather intriguing result. A Yakut from northeastern Siberia (27 in fig. 1) and a Fulbe from Senegal (29 in fig. 1) harbored mtDNAs that differed at only two coding-region nucleotide positions.

[…]

An age of ∼60 ky indicates that haplogroup U arose very soon after the “out of Africa” exit. As for U5, its sequence divergence was 8.1 ± 1.8 substitutions, corresponding to 41.4 ± 9.2 ky, a time estimate in full agreement with its proposed proto-European origin (Richards et al. 2000). It is striking that the sequence divergence of U5b1b, the subclade encompassing mtDNAs from the Saami, Yakut, Berbers, and Fulbe, was 1.7 ± 0.5 substitutions, thus corresponding to only 8.6 ± 2.4 ky.

[…]

Furthermore, their frequency patterns and ages resemble those reported for haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 2001a)—which, similar to U5b1b, is extremely common only in the Saami (together, U5b1b and V encompass almost 90% of the Saami mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1996; Tambets et al. 2004).

[…]


Thus, although these previous studies have highlighted the role of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area as a major source of the hunter-gatherer populations that gradually repopulated much of central and northern Europe when climatic conditions began to improve ∼15 ky ago, the identification of U5b1b now unequivocally links the maternal gene pool of the ancestral Berbers to the same refuge area and indicates that European hunter-gatherers also moved toward the south and, by crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, contributed their U5b1b, H1, H3, and V mtDNAs to modern North Africans.

---

quote:

---

The Dayr al-Barsha Project (2002-present) is an international and interdisciplinary research endeavor directed by the Egyptology department at Leuven University, Belgium. The site of Dayr al-Barsha in Middle Egypt, from which the project derives its name, is in fact only one of several archaeological sites in the region that are under study by the project. […]

---

quote:

---

Although the study of stone quarries is gaining increasing importance in Egyptian archaeology, quarry logistics, particularly as concerns transport facilities, has hitherto hardly been investigated. In the case of the quarry roads in the greater Dayr al-Barsha region (Middle Egypt), distinguishing between roads related to quarry exploitation from those resulting from other periods of use (in this case mainly related to funerary cult and Late Antique-Early Islamic Period monastic communities) poses another methodological problem. In this paper the use of very high spatial resolution satellite (VHSRS) technology is combined with archaeological methods to investigate the interplay between limestone quarries and roads in the study region. Remote sensing affords significant advantages over traditional survey techniques by visualizing the spatial context, whereas the spectral information content of the imagery adds information on road characteristics.

Results indicate that spectral content is of less importance for road detection in desert-like conditions than the spatial resolution of the imagery. Filtering techniques have an additional value, but in general enhancement techniques such as histogram equalization are most important for mapping road networks in the greater Dayr al-Barsha region. Based on spectral and morphological characteristics, six road types could be identified, a seventh being located using traditional techniques. Ground verification in conjunction with archaeological evidence clarified the spatial context and functions of the routes in the pharaonic and later periods, serving cemetery, quarry and settlement logistics.

Apart from one Middle Kingdom processional road, most roads have their origin in New Kingdom quarry activities. The road pattern we discovered provides important indications on how the stone transport was organized in a practical way. Many quarries in Dayr Abu Hinnis were not connected to harbours along the Nile, but to a long desert road that facilitated talatat transport to an area in northern Amarna. When the abandoned quarry complexes were turned into settlements in the Late Antique-Early Islamic Period, the resident communities selected parts of the existing road system for inter-site transport and transport from and to the Nile Valley. New paths were only rarely developed.

---

—Véronique De Laet, Gertrud van Loon, Athena Van der Perre, Iris Deliever, Harco Willems, 'Integrated remote sensing investigations of ancient quarries and road systems in the Greater Dayr al-Barsh
a Region, Middle Egypt: a study of logistics', Journal of Archaeological Science 55 (2015), 286-300.

http://www.dayralbarsha.com/node/249
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 



https://mellowtigger.dreamwidth.org/79971.html?thread=266339

According to this blog, that is U5b2. Remember how Ramses iii was related to Bell Beakers at the STR yet still of a greater African mold? Saharan haplogroups that crossed the Mediterranean with less competition.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Taking your marbles...and heading home?


------
http://i49.tinypic.com/258qtj4.jpg
Large Irrelevant picture of this insufferable post converted to link format

[ 08. March 2018, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]

-------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My bad. I think it would be closer to your position to say that such a pooled dynastic Egyptian sample would be left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• Ancient Afroasiatic - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

Although that unpublished haplogroup profile you're banking on would be consistent with a position left of NE Africa in this gradation:

• SSA - modern NE Africa - modern Egyptians - Eurasians

---

I think a triangle would illustrate it best since these populations have three types of ancestry (Eurasian, sub-Saharan, and North African).


This is how I would imagine the affinities to plot out (assuming we disregard the unpublished profile). Of course, the point representing dynastic Egyptians would be a pooled sample in this hypothetical scenario. I expect the dynastic Upper Egyptian type to lie closer to the Saharan/predynastic point of the triangle, whereas something like the Abusir-el-Meleq results would lie closer to the modern Egyptian/Eurasian point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, is how do you reconcile predynastic Egyptians being more African in your triangle than Ethiopian, despite their similar positions in metric analyses? Or did you place the predynastic sample more or less based on intuition?

---

It probably was intuition (and probably a personal bias towards predynastics being predominantly Saharan in ancestry) more than anything else. But now that you mention it, I wonder whether modern Horners' additional SSA ancestry might pull them further away from Eurasians in those analyses. Figure 4.18 in Haddow's thesis on dental morphology has an example of this, where the Ethiopian sample pulls a bit towards SSA.

On the other hand, when looking up graphs on this topic, I did come across one which shows Tigreans as positioned slightly closer to Sedment and the "E" series than Nubians and predynastic Egyptians appear.



This graph from Irish's Jebel Moya study also shows Tigreans as leaning a bit more towards "E" and Sedment than do the predynastic/Nubian series.



So I guess there are a couple of exceptions out there to the trend you mentioned.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, is how do you reconcile predynastic Egyptians being more African in your triangle than Ethiopian, despite their similar positions in metric analyses? Or did you place the predynastic sample more or less based on intuition?

---

It probably was intuition (and probably a personal bias towards predynastics being predominantly Saharan in ancestry) more than anything else. But now that you mention it, I wonder whether modern Horners' additional SSA ancestry might pull them further away from Eurasians in those analyses. Figure 4.18 in Haddow's thesis on dental morphology has an example of this, where the Ethiopian sample pulls a bit towards SSA.

On the other hand, when looking up graphs on this topic, I did come across one which shows Tigreans as positioned slightly closer to Sedment and the "E" series than Nubians and predynastic Egyptians appear.

http://i65.tinypic.com/14b5849.jpg

This graph from Irish's Jebel Moya study also shows Tigreans as leaning a bit more towards "E" and Sedment than do the predynastic/Nubian series.

http://s10.postimg.org/a8n94too9/20_8_2014_19_09_05.png [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Oshun, again, when I speak I am speaking about the fact that mainstream Egyptology as quoted by Hawass, has always been openly and publicly promoting that the AE were white from day one.

---

And maybe, in the north, many if not most would've passed for white or "Arab" today. It doesn't really matter what they want to say. What matters is what they can prove. Very early on researchers saw that there were two morphologies in ancient Egypt and have repeatedly reported what they called a cline. To explain this, they did not DENY the morphology of the initial southern "negroid influenced" phenotype. Instead they created "dynastic race" and placed the north as the creators of dynastic culture and all these "blacks" they were finding in a position of cultural inferiority. It was only AFTER too much evidence was coming back from the field, that this theory was abandoned and Egyptology disclosed the role of the south. Even if academically, researchers know that racially the initial founders of Egypt were black by focusing on northern samples and time periods where Upper Egypt would have more northern influence, you can create a picture the public wants (minus the Afrocentrics that aren't really offering too much in tourist dollars anyway). The public believes in a monolith of Egypt, with no complexity in local or regional population history. This is what the Afrocentric community gets calling Keita and anyone else that saw it coming "coons" and "academic sellouts."

quote:

---

Like I said and you keep ignoring the most obvious evidence of blacks in AE come from the late period If what you are saying was true, then those mummies would be white. But they are not. Facts trump theory. And those mummies affirm what I am saying about continuous Southern migrations throughout the Dynastic eras.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. They're saying blacks came early IN THE SOUTH but much of the south lost the "negroid features" it once had. And if you go to Egypt, this is true. A lot of Upper Egypt today doesn't look "negroid" even if it does start looking that way the closer you get to Sudan.

quote:

---

But separate from that at the same time, Levantine migration does not discount and erase Southern migrations either or even Western migrations. Population dynamics is not based on one vector it is based on multiple. All lines of evidence have to be looked at not just one.

---

I'm looking at what the record says. The record says that the "negroid" features in were changing or disappearing in parts of Upper Egypt in the Old Kingdom times. It doesn't matter ultimately where this was coming from. Be it Libyans, northern Egyptians, what have you. That we know a change happened is the most important part. Saying "it's not right" doesn't change what is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
You can prove flows from the south but geography is not phenotype. It is not a proposal that the "negroid" features were lost in Upper Egypt over time. These were observations made on the crania. Portions of Upper Egypt was changing in the Old Kingdom and any pulse of Upper Egyptians coming to take back the north would've been northern mixed Egyptians. Northern Egyptian inflow to major areas like Abydos as early as the first dynasty was not a "proposal" but observations. As one united country people can MOVE within their country and the Lower Egyptian types started to become more dominant over time. There were plenty of blacks throughout the dynastic era, yes. Can you even argue they were it's originators? Yes. But plentiful doesn't mean the dominant population, especially as time went on during the Egyptian period. For a lot of Upper Egypt those features were lost over time.

---

I am talking about facts you keep hypothesizing about something I never said didn't happen. And the part you are missing is that Southerners from OUTSIDE Egypt came into the North as allies to help push back the invaders. This is the part you are missing. And those black elements stayed dominant well into the late period of AE. You can keep making up all kinds of hypotheticals you want. The facts haven't changed. Where did all these obviously black mummies the most black mummies of any period come from in the 21st and 22nd dynasties if these folks were so mixed? You want some examples? Like I said the facts are already there. This isn't even a debate.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Your right it's not. Because observations researchers have made on race go in one ear and out the other. it's not a hypothesis that the south lost it's "negroid" features over time but an observation of available data. Even if outsiders from the south came into the north as allies, this doesn't mean they stayed to affect the phenotype in any significant magnitude. And if they were settling, they weren't settling uniformly within Upper Egypt. When we consider that the deep south had the strongest cultural ties to Sudan since predynastic times, any Sudanese mercenaries that could choose to settle in Egypt after the war would probably have felt most at home much farther south than the hare nome, in the deep south where population density in Upper Egypt was unsurprisingly highest. The record, like I said before, does not show what you're talking about. The one hypothesizing against the available data is YOU. You're talk of black mummies in the 21st and 22nd dynasty (where you don't say), has nothing to do with the fact that Upper Egypt wasn't monolithically "black" until Greeco Roman times.

And as for this guy, they kind of knew what they were going to get with him. Phenotypically he doesn't have the "look" we would attribute to Egyptian guys farther south like Tut.





 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
How old was Villabruna? ~14000yo
Where was he located? ~ Italy
What is his Y-Haplogroup? ~ R-V88
Is Villabruna a Berber? – yes, sources cited.
Pigmentaion – probably black
Eyes – blue
Like Cheddar man - yes

Does it make sense? These are the FACTS. YOU explain it.

These European racist researchers like Reich can play the mind and labelling game with you but I am unto their tricks. The STR profile is clear. Berbers are Africans. “Eurasian” DNA is NOT of European or Asia origin. I told you people the bigger problem Skoglund 2017 created was not Tanzanian_3100BP but Malawi-Hora-8100BP. Notice the Siwa Berbers carry underived U5*. L1b is found in Britain Royalty going back 3500BC. The woman had a reshaoed head. The Neolithic of Iberia were Tropical peoples. Ask Sergi and Coon etc. I am not the anthropologist here. SMH!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
uuhhh! You know Villabruna was probably black in pigmentation and carried tropical body proportion. FYI...

---

How old was Villabruna?
Where was he located?
What is his Y-Haplogroup?
Is Villabruna a Berber?
How does your story make sense? Which set of Africans carried light skin to Europe, why did they skip Villabruna? Is U5 great lakes too..?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Your right it's not. Because observations researchers have made on race go in one ear and out the other. it's not a hypothesis that the south lost it's "negroid" features over time but an observation of available data. Even if outsiders from the south came into the north as allies, this doesn't mean they stayed to affect the phenotype in any significant magnitude. And if they were settling, they weren't settling uniformly within Upper Egypt. When we consider that the deep south had the strongest cultural ties to Sudan since predynastic times, any Sudanese mercenaries that could choose to settle in Egypt after the war would probably have felt most at home much farther south than the hare nome, in the deep south where population density in Upper Egypt was unsurprisingly highest. The record, like I said before, does not show what you're talking about. The one hypothesizing against the available data is YOU. You're talk of black mummies in the 21st and 22nd dynasty (where you don't say), has nothing to do with the fact that Upper Egypt wasn't monolithically "black" until Greeco Roman times.

And as for this guy, they kind of knew what they were going to get with him. Phenotypically he doesn't have the "look" we would attribute to Egyptian guys farther south like Tut.

---

quote:

---

We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt. The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.

---

quote:

---

SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.

The New Kingdom royal mummies suggest that the Pharaohs were continuing to intermix, both with people from the north and the south.

The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).

In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.

The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep making up theoretical arguments. Nobody has done any cranial studies on this mummy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
One image from the casket does not prove what the person looked like.

---

Course when the images show wooly haired dark skinned Egyptians you are either not saying a word when posters claim they're black, or are on the bandwagon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

What you are doing is trying to postulate and theorize about how much mixture happened with the Levant during the course of the dynastic era based on one piece of DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The 18th Dynasties Southern Border ended just past Kerma. That means that populations between Aswan and the 4th cataract were PART of Egypt. This is where more Southerners were brought into the Kingdom. So-called "Nubians" or local rulers and their children were educated and trained in the Egyptian royal court to become Egyptians. There are pictures of whole groups of Southerners as members of the Egyptian army.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
You cannot show me how this was happening with vassals or subjects from the Levant to the same scale or level of cultural and social integration within Egypt. And again these are hard facts not subject to change based on speculation.

---

quote:

---

Likewise here is the extract of Keitas cranial analysis. It does not say that Northern Egyptians were "Levantine" or Levantine like.

[QUOTE]
We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt.

---

quote:

---

The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And speaking of craniometry the X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies also makes that case that many of the Ramessid era mummies showed strong similarities to "Nubian"(Southern) skulls. These are not new facts. These are old facts. I am not talking about one mummy and speculating.

---

quote:

---

SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

And I am totally not saying there was no mixture with Levantines in parts of the North. I am just saying there is no absolute evidence on the extent and scope of this mixture that we can point to right now to tell us how any particular group of AE would have looked at any particular time in the North.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Both crania were closer to each other than to any other population at the start. Over time it changed but how much and where or when is still an open question. But yes this mixture did happen and I am not denying it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But again, what you are saying is not really what these papers and what main stream Egyptology is saying. Mainstream Egyptology is not saying that Southern Egypt was originally black or Negroid or even African. They are not saying this. They will never say this. So your point about mixture over time is not really what they are pushing. I have said this before and you also keep ignoring it.....

---

Mainstream Egyptology have numerous perspectives. It's surprisingly easy to find research that says southerners were "negroid" or black in their appearances. Because they're unlikely to debunk that, the only thing they can really do is complain about how these "blacks" aren't "African blacks" because they're not genetically related to most modern African blacks. The hope is, that people like you will be so caught up in talking about blackness in terms of Afrocentrism like you normally do, that you'll lose sight of the morphological affinity of the original samples. White Egypt will be propped on a pedestal, but now with "white Negroids" a most assuredly stupid idea.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 



 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
In what Dynasty did the Northern phenotype dominate?
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
In what Dynasty did the Northern phenotype dominate?

---

quote:

---

In a previous study of non-metrical variation it was found that the Egyptians (i.e. series of Egyptian crania from different excavations now on British collections) changed very little through Pre-dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom times. Only in the New Kingdom (when there was considerable immigration into the Nile Valley) was the earlier stability upset.

---

We also have this graph from Zakrewski 2007, which shows relatively subtle change from the early predynastic to Middle Kingdom, followed by accelerated change between the Middle Kingdom and Late Period:


Batrawi 1946 (quoted here) says this:

quote:

---

Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:


Batrawi 1946 (quoted here) says this:

quote:

---

Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
In what Dynasty did the Northern phenotype dominate?

---

Probably none. Genetically it could be post 17th.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
“Eurasians” were in deeeeeeep sub-saharan Africa Loooong before the creation of the AE civilization.
South Africans 1200BP carried 20% European ancestry.




Quote: “We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna
Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-
year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early
farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery
Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_
3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier**** in**** Africa or the Near East. We fit the
remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as **most closely related** to the Ethiopia_4500BP
(p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related
ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/2543/reconstructing-prehistoric-african-population-structure#ixzz59HVg1pdP
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is white European woman with mtDNA L2a carrying close to 60% EUROPEAN ancestry. You can’t get more African than L2a…right? Lol! SMH


 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Tanzania_Luxmanda is New Kingdom, South_Africa_1200BP is freaking *Abbasid*, and we've seen your K=3 idiocy a hundred times. go away.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
In what Dynasty did the Northern phenotype dominate?

---

Probably none. Genetically it could be post 17th.

---

There was no northern state (Lower Egypt)
before the Lower Nile Valley was subdued
by nation builders from the southern region.

The Narmer Palette political document
shows southern phenotypes in Narmer,
Tjet, and the serpopard handlers.
Captured or dead northerners have
different features.








These northerners lived everywhere
above 29° N ever since Last Humid
Maximum Gafsians took to the region.

Another phenotype is also on the
Palette. And of course it varies
from the others. A mid-point in
a south to north African cline.




The forgers of Dynastic Egypt
incorporated everybody into
the state as equals. The 2nd
Dynasty was northern, from
Tanis.

Other northern origin dynasties
• 9-10th Heracleopolis
________ established northern kingdom frontier deep into Upper Egypt's 18th nome
• 21st Tanis
• 22nd Bubastis
• 23-24th Tanis
• 26th Sais

'Asians'? The famous painting in
Khnum Hotep II's tomb shows them
intercepted by customs and security.
These Aamu of Shu were checked in
in the Eastern Desert anywhere as
far south as Wadi Hammamat. Khnum
administered the 11-12th Dynasty
Eastern Desert,keeping desert
Chaos at bay for Balance.


Northern Upper Egypt (Middle Egypt)
was midranged phenotypes from the
beginning. The northern dynasties
surely facilitated northern interests
throughout the length of the kingdom.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Map for above post to show extent of Khnum's
Eastern Desert 'reception' authority from
Wadi Hammamat to today's Hurghada.



 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
this is the reason

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Ethiopians at least have had their non-SSA components studied at a granular level, while northern Sudanese have not. This makes it more difficult to say how African they are.

---

there is a brand new article that does discuss that

and it says:

" In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups "

^^ so this is wrong, they do have significant admixture form Eurasians ???

northeastern parts of the region = "Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
there is a brand new article that does discuss that

---

No. The paper doesn't even come close to doing any type of granular analysis. And what you're doing right now is typical of the hubris you tend to display whenever you think European bioanthropologists have your back on an anti-African position. You will double down no matter what and pretend you weren't debunked 50.000 times before on the same topic. Look at your legendary post count.


Posts: 32884

A lot of that astronomical number is simply you coming back repeatedly trying defend some anti-African position because it was written by European bioanthropologists who you believe by default.

No, there isn't a brand new article analyzing northern Sudanese genomes at a granular level. But there is a brand new article that shows the premise of your "new article" is bogus. Let me break it down for you in baby steps, so you'll have no excuse or credibility when you try to feign ignorance later (although you will no doubt try to do so anyway, because you're just like many other people on ES in this regard).

• A-M13 is classic Nilote Y chromosome

• A-M13 carriers (ancestors of modern day Nilotes) migrated to, and spread out in North Africa, starting 15-10ky ago

• Ancestors of Afroasiatic speakers had already settled parts of North Africa 15-10ky ago

• Recent study hones in on the internal structure of A-M13, the classic Nilote marker (see above)

• Recent study confirms old suspicions A-M13 migrated to North Africa within the last 15-10ky, from some place in Sub-Saharan Africa

• Recent study adds to the existing literature by introducing new resolution (clarity) to the A-M13 found in Afroasiatic speakers

• Recent study results reflect that the pastoralist ancestors of Ethiopians couldn't have had most of the A-M13 their descendants carry today.

• Most of the A-M13 they carry today, was inherited in (or en-route to) the Horn

• This eliminates Nilote ancestry from typifying core North African ancestry; it simply arrived too late

• Let's now look at the premise of your "new paper"

• It says that northern Sudanese are European + Nilote

• As I have just indicated, Nilotes are relatively late arrivals

• Your "new" paper therefore implies that Afroasiatic speakers were European transplants before 15-10ky ago, and that new Nilote arrivals turned them in what they are today

• This is completely at odds with the uniparental profiles of these populations, which show evidence of a third population (not to mention, others).

• Therefore, the premise of your new paper is not only bogus, but it also makes no sense to mention that type of paper as an example of granular analysis.

• It's the exact opposite of granular analysis, because they reduce multiple admixture events to just the most easily detectable ones.

• Even worse, in typical Euro tradition of studying African diversity, they don't even acknowledge that they make an assumption of backmigration and that other interpretations, or combinations, are possible. This forces people on the ground to clean up after them, and do their job for them when people spread their misinformation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
They seem to model northern Sudanese as Nilote+European.

Eurocentrically

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness, :

Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations

Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012595
Abstract (con't)

......Genetic evidence points to an early admixture event in the Nubians, concurrent with historical contact between North Sudanese and Arab groups. We estimate the admixture in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tryin to stir this up again ??? That was done with like 20 posts ago

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet you're still not getting it , read

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness, :

Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations

Nina Hollfelder, Carina M. Schlebusch, Torsten Günther, Hiba Babiker, Hisham Y. Hassan, Mattias Jakobsson

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012595
Abstract (con't)

......Genetic evidence points to an early admixture event in the Nubians, concurrent with historical contact between North Sudanese and Arab groups. We estimate the admixture in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups

---

please get it together

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
you just did a big bulleted attack on me

---

Poor you. I thought real Lionesses could take it

Jokes aside, I did that bulleted post because somewhere I'm still trying to figure out if you genuinely don't have the information or if you're being picky about what you choose to believe. At least now that I've made it simple, you can't blame it on the jargon or style of explanation. There comes a point where not being seasoned is no longer an excuse. Basics are basics and should be easy to grasp for anyone. East Africans are not African versions of African Americans: they are not two-way mixtures as all these papers are implying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Here's the relevant part: about North and South

a)
We find a strong genetic divide between the populations from the northeastern parts of the region (Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja)

b)
and populations towards the west and south (Nilotes, Darfur and Kordofan populations).

In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
You keep making up theoretical arguments. Nobody has done any cranial studies on this mummy.

---

Oh for goodness sake, I'm using my eyes, Doug. You can too y'know. This man used real life colors to depict himself with peach colored skin and hair that's practically straight. Not not the dark brownish reds that Tut and other southerners would come to use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
One image from the casket does not prove what the person looked like.

---

Course when the images show wooly haired dark skinned Egyptians you are either not saying a word when posters claim they're black, or are on the bandwagon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

What you are doing is trying to postulate and theorize about how much mixture happened with the Levant during the course of the dynastic era based on one piece of DNA.

---

And the negroid affinity in crania leaving much of Upper Egypt throughout the dynastic period. You'll of course continue to omit that from discourse in hopes to dislodge the source of your butthurt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The 18th Dynasties Southern Border ended just past Kerma. That means that populations between Aswan and the 4th cataract were PART of Egypt. This is where more Southerners were brought into the Kingdom. So-called "Nubians" or local rulers and their children were educated and trained in the Egyptian royal court to become Egyptians. There are pictures of whole groups of Southerners as members of the Egyptian army.

---

What was that Doug? Selectively saying BUH DA ART SAIZ and then when someone shows you art of a PEACH skinned, loose haired nomarch you say it doesn't matter because of "the crania?" What a joke. No you wanna stick to "the crania" then stick to it. The record says much of (not all, but a lot of) Upper Egypt lost it's "negroid affinity" in the dynastic era. That was the crania research and now you're trying to use double standards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
You cannot show me how this was happening with vassals or subjects from the Levant to the same scale or level of cultural and social integration within Egypt. And again these are hard facts not subject to change based on speculation.

---

Reports say the crania becomes more northern like over time in much of Upper Egypt. This MAN shows Northern Egyptian and Levanite features though he is living in Upper Egypt. We already know that there was a huge migration from the Levant into Egypt that triggered war. We know many of these migrants were already coming to do work in nearby nomes like the Oryx nome. We already know prior to them, Lower Egypians were influencing the phenotype of portions of Upper Egypt by dynasty one. History is not without many different potential explanations. Whichever explains it, the point is that the record shows the negroid affinity leaving parts of Upper Egypt. That is documented.

quote:

---

Likewise here is the extract of Keitas cranial analysis. It does not say that Northern Egyptians were "Levantine" or Levantine like.

[QUOTE]
We carried out an exploratory historical biology study using temporally distinguished groups of predynastic-Early Dynastic male crania from the region of Upper Egypt.

---

This says "Upper Egyptians" were the ones sampled, not Lower Egyptians. So from the first sentence, you're already off to a bad start.

quote:

---

The objectives were, first, to determine the overall pattern of phenetic affinity between temporally sequential series and in relation to the earliest series and, second, to explore the possible meanings of the pattern of relationship to sociohistorical change. The cranial series were designated early predynastic, late predynastic, terminal predynastic, and Dynasty I. Craniometric phenetic affinity was ascertained using Mahalanobis distances; a 5% level of probability was chosen for significance. The distance matrix values were ordered into hierarchies of dissimilarity from each series (distance hierarchies) and tabulated for time-successive groups, including the temporally earliest series (i.e., serialized by time). The principal observations were as follows. The overall pattern was not one in which the values between all series were statistically insignificant; nor was it one of consistent sequential increase of biological distance from the earliest series. There was a notable and statistically significant distance between the early and late predynastic groups, with the late and terminal predynastic groups mutually having the lowest and statistically insignificant distances with each other. The value between the terminal predynastic and Dynasty I series was generally larger than the values between other groups and was statistically significant. The overall pattern is possibly consistent with archeological interpretations that postulate increasing intraregional interactions during the late and terminal predynastic periods and the rise of an Egyptian state that eventually included northern Egypt.

---

This doesn't contradict anything I said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And speaking of craniometry the X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies also makes that case that many of the Ramessid era mummies showed strong similarities to "Nubian"(Southern) skulls. These are not new facts. These are old facts. I am not talking about one mummy and speculating.

---

Oh but you are, Doug. You are speculating that nobles that often ruled as far south as Thebes were representative of every nome of Upper Egypt. "Old facts" are talking about the crania becoming more northern like over time. Otherwise this is a very irrelevant thing to post.

quote:

---

SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.

---

Contradicting nothing I said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

And I am totally not saying there was no mixture with Levantines in parts of the North. I am just saying there is no absolute evidence on the extent and scope of this mixture that we can point to right now to tell us how any particular group of AE would have looked at any particular time in the North.

---

What research we have suggests the north was much more homogenous across the dynastic period. Upper Egypt on the other hand experienced much more phenotypic variety throughout time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Both crania were closer to each other than to any other population at the start. Over time it changed but how much and where or when is still an open question. But yes this mixture did happen and I am not denying it.

---

Then. Why. Do. You. Keep. Responding? The whole point made was that portions of upper Egypt began mixing with northerners and began to morphologically change. The whole point is, knowing that NORTHERNERS were mixing with Upper Egypt, we can explain this man's appearance as being northern influenced. Why do you fight it, when it does nothing to benefit your point in doing so? Practically every study they've released thus far involve Lower Egyptians living in Upper Egypt, two mummies in Cairo, isolated Oasis dwellers that had contact with Libyans and Bedouin and now this. What is the theme? Samples that have northern influences are being rapidly released. As has been already told to you, they've been sitting on unpublished genetic data for a long time. You think they really needed that Abusir study to show them it was possible to do it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But again, what you are saying is not really what these papers and what main stream Egyptology is saying. Mainstream Egyptology is not saying that Southern Egypt was originally black or Negroid or even African. They are not saying this. They will never say this. So your point about mixture over time is not really what they are pushing. I have said this before and you also keep ignoring it.....

---

Mainstream Egyptology have numerous perspectives. It's surprisingly easy to find research that says southerners were "negroid" or black in their appearances. Because they're unlikely to debunk that, the only thing they can really do is complain about how these "blacks" aren't "African blacks" because they're not genetically related to most modern African blacks. The hope is, that people like you will be so caught up in talking about blackness in terms of Afrocentrism like you normally do, that you'll lose sight of the morphological affinity of the original samples. White Egypt will be propped on a pedestal, but now with "white Negroids" a most assuredly stupid idea.

---

quote:

---

Several of these sentences indicate that the Egy'ptians are not merely fighting against
foreigners, but against their own countrj'men too. Mention is twice made of the "enemies of the
land": The fire has mounted up ofi high, its burning goeth. forth against the enemies of the land
{7, i); No craftsmen work, the enemies of the land have spoiltQ) its craftsQ) (9,6). By this
expression rebels are perhaps meant; so too we read; Men have ventured to rebel against the

Uraetis, the of Re, which pacifies the two lands (7, 3 — 4). Something of this kind must also

be intended by the mysterious allusion in A few lawless m.en have ventured to despoil the land of
the kingship (7,2 — 3). With traitors within, Egypt has also to face the aggression of foreign
invaders from the North: The Desert is throughout the Land. The nomes are laid waste.
A foreign tribe from abroad has come to Egypt (3,1). The Delta is overrun by Asiatics: The
Marshland iii its entirety is not hidden. The North land can boast of trodden ways. What shall

one do} Behold it is in the hands of{}) those who knew it not like those who knew it. The

Asiatics are skilled in the arts of the Marshlands (4, 5 — 8). So deep a root have these barba-
rians taken in the land, that they are no longer distinguishable from true Egyptians': The tribes
of the desert{}) have become Egyptians{)) everywhere (1,9). There arc no Egyptians anywhere
(3, 2). Tents{}) are what they {the Egyptians) have made like the desert tribes {\o, i — 2). It is
tempting to conclude from one injured passage (3,10 — 11) that the Egyptian kingdom recog-
nized by the writer was at this time restricted to the country between Elephantine and Thinis:
Elephantine and ThinisQ) [are the dominion of] Upper Egypt, {yet) without paying taxes owing
to civil strife. Nor is this limited area immune from the disasters that liave befallen Lower
Egypt: The ship of the [Southerners] lias gone odriftQ) The towns are destroyed. Upper Egypt
has become dry [wastesT] (2, 11).

---

quote:

---

The Egyptian period under examination is the Twelfth to early Fifteenth Dynasties. This
thesis adheres to Shaw’s sequence of pharaohs for Dynasty 12,11 and Ryholt’s
reconstruction of the sequence of Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate Period
kings (Table 1).12 While the Middle Kingdom includes Dynasty 12, the Thirteenth Dynasty
has been proposed to belong fully or partially to the Second Intermediate Period, the
beginning of which remains conjectural. The thesis follows its division by Ryholt into two
stages: (1) a weakened Egyptian state and its disintegration into two main kingdoms, the
Fourteenth Dynasty in the north and the Sixteenth Dynasty in the south; and (2) the rise of
the Fifteenth Dynasty in the north, with its capital at Avaris, and the Seventeenth Dynasty
in the south, with its capital at Thebes. Overlap between Dynasties 13‐17 is not unfeasible.
Correlating with the Egyptian period is the Levantine MBA, for which a number of
terminologies exist. This study employs the traditional tripartite division, namely MBIIA‐C.13 It is recognised that this terminology is not commonly applied by researchers studying the
Northern Levant, who typically divide the MBA into MBI (~MBIIA) and MBII (~MBIIB‐C).
However, for continuity’s sake, the tripartite division is utilised in discussion to finds from the north. Table 2 provides the various terminologies used in describing Levantine chronology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
[QB]Tanzania_Luxmanda is New Kingdom, South_Africa_1200BP is freaking *Abbasid*, and we've seen your K=3 idiocy a hundred times. I can't stand you. Although I agree here is an African carrying L2a and had 60% "European" ancestry.
Not to mention Malawi_Hora_8100BP who carried 15% European ancestry with mtDNA L0*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Oshun you just claimed that this mummy represents an orange haired person in Egypt. Are you serious? Do you really think you have proven that this person was a orange haired Eurasian? How many times have folks claimed Egyptian mummies have had blonde hair and been totally wrong?

---

Doug wtf are you talking about? I never said the mummy has orange hair. I said he had peach skin and straight (black) hair. A sharp contrast to the dark brownish red complexions of the Egyptians further south in lands like Thebes. You hypocritically demand proof the mummy had very light skin, but have no problems using artistic evidence to show black African Egyptians. As I said, this nomarch used very lifelike colors to represent himself. He used a peach skin most modern whites and arabs use to represent themselves and had straight black hair. And, if you haven't been listening to other posters the northern type of crania which is much more heavily influenced by the Levant, was apparently well represented in Middle Egypt, where this man lived.

quote:

---

But how does that one mummy contradict what I said? How does that contradict how the Middle Kingdom arose from the South? How does it contradict all the FACTS of all the black mummies and black people flowing into Egypt from the South?

---

quote:

---

Again, to PROVE that you need more than one or two mummies with POSSIBLE Eurasian features and MAYBE some DNA from Eurasia. Again, none of which has "HARD PROOF" at this point. Most studies of Egyptian crania comparing the North and South say these differences are indigenous to the Nile Valley and over time became differentiated by flow of Eurasians into the Nile Valley by the Persian and Greek Eras.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Oshun you just claimed that this mummy represents an orange haired person in Egypt. Are you serious? Do you really think you have proven that this person was a orange haired Eurasian? How many times have folks claimed Egyptian mummies have had blonde hair and been totally wrong?

---

Doug wtf are you talking about? I never said the mummy has orange hair. I said he had peach skin and straight (black) hair. A sharp contrast to the dark brownish red complexions of the Egyptians further south in lands like Thebes. You hypocritically demand proof the mummy had very light skin, but have no problems using artistic evidence to show black African Egyptians. As I said, this nomarch used very lifelike colors to represent himself. He used a peach skin most modern whites and arabs use to represent themselves and had straight black hair. And, if you haven't been listening to other posters the northern type of crania which is much more heavily influenced by the Levant, was apparently well represented in Middle Egypt, where this man lived.

quote:

---

But how does that one mummy contradict what I said? How does that contradict how the Middle Kingdom arose from the South? How does it contradict all the FACTS of all the black mummies and black people flowing into Egypt from the South?

---

How were all those questions relevant to a thing I was saying is a better question. What I was saying before you decided to respond to me had nothing to do with where the kingdoms of Egypt came from. It simply offers some historical context for what we're seeing. Your the one hung up on "racial ownership" of Egyptian civilization right now, not me. I'm reviewing the historical context for what we're seeing and apparently, older researchers were saying Middle Egypt had plenty of people like this.

quote:

---

Again, to PROVE that you need more than one or two mummies with POSSIBLE Eurasian features and MAYBE some DNA from Eurasia. Again, none of which has "HARD PROOF" at this point. Most studies of Egyptian crania comparing the North and South say these differences are indigenous to the Nile Valley and over time became differentiated by flow of Eurasians into the Nile Valley by the Persian and Greek Eras.

---

No, it's not "possible DNA." They found it. It's Eurasian. So lets review:

-Researchers reviewing crania say Middle Egypt was filled with the northern type Egyptians

-Abusir data from Middle Egypt comes back filled with Eurasian haplogrous I imagine most egyptologist expected to be in the north as well...and released data near Cairo with some similar data.

-Another genetic survey of Middle Egypt (this nomarch) has the same results.

-Artistic depictions of the guy show him to have the northern type phenotype (peach colored skin and straight hair).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
So peach skin and long straight hair isn't viable evidence, but artistic evidence counts when you and other posters are proving how black Egypt was with pictures of wooly/curly haired, dark skinned people. It's only "faulty evidence" when someone does the same thing but presents a different view for certain parts of Egypt. You are complaining about each bit of data that supports this, but do not accept that it is the combination of data that gives us a clear picture

-Near Eastern settlements, so they just imported Near Eastern houses?

-Near Eastern DNA

-Crania similar to the Near East in Middle/Lower Egypt

-THEN the artistic evidence.


ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago.

---

quote:

---

America as a "melting pot" has not changed the fact the fact that their core history, culture, identity and power is tied to Europe. No matter if Africans, Native Americans and Asians or mixtures there of exist in large numbers in the country. The founding fathers and the primary culture in the country is still tied to the European roots of the people that created it. Same thing with Rome. No matter how many non Europeans or Non ROmans became citizens, Rome was still primarily culturally, biologically and socially tied to he roots of Roman power in Rome itself. Same in AE culture. Same in Chinese culture. Same in Indian culture. Same in MesoAmerican culture. All cultures have core identity and history no matter how many "others" enter the culture it does not change how they identify themselves and the roots and origins of said culture. Only in AE are folks trying to pretend that these things don't matter and everybody and anybody could be elevated in the culture contradicting everything we know about not only AE but every other culture on the dam planet. All cultures protect their own roots and core history and identity. That is what makes a culture last and stay intact. Immigration and others from elsewhere does not change that, except when those "others" are invaders and take over. Then the culture and identity gets changed. This is a fact of history and applies as much to Ancient Egypt as any other culture on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence from the start. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago. Your pictures of Mentuhotep are indeed darker, weren't those Middle Kingdom rulers from Thebes? Thebes is not Middle Egypt. We're not talking about all of Upper Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Where did anyone say that as the country became more Levanite the general population lacked a cultural interest in preserving the southern character of the country. They identified with the culture just as the southerners did. That's how it was from the start, even as northerners were Levanite influenced from the start. They'd been assimilating to the south's culture long before the dynastic era and didn't have issues like RACE to keep them from identifying with it. It's not that they didn't care about cultural units. They did fight and run off Levanites that wouldn't assimilate. But it wasn't RACIAL. They didn't care about preserving phenotypes. No one's saying that the "black phenotype" was completely erased, but it lost it's dominance in many parts of Egypt as time went on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
So Capra are you disagreeing with Skoglund that Luxmanda did not carry 38% "Eurasian" ancestry? And that She carried African L2a?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
so Doug's argument is literally that ancient Egyptians had to be predominantly black because they would have ethnically cleansed anyone who didn't look Upper Egyptian?

---

quote:

---

The Papyrus Harris is essentially a summary of the important events of Ramesses III's reign, prepared by Ramesses IV, but written from the point of view of Ramesses III. Breasted (1906: 92) divides the Papyrus up into seven basic sections. The first is an introduction stating the ending date of Ramesses III's reign, along with his name and titles, and the purpose and dedication of the document (Breasted 1906: 110-111). The next three sections detail the contributions made by the king to the townships of Thebes, Heliopolis and Memphis, respectively, along with dedicatory prayers to the gods of these towns and lists of donations made by the king to the local temples (Breasted 1906: 111-177). Following is a general section detailing the king's contributions to smaller temples (Breasted 1906: 177-191), and a summary of the total contributions made by Ramesses III (192-198).
Section VII is the historical section, recounting the accession of the king, his organizational policies, his military campaigns, and his death (Breasted 1906: 198-206).
The Sea Peoples are mentioned in the historical section in the context of the northern wars of year 8 (Breasted 1906: 201). Ramesses describes the northerners as invaders of Egypt's borders, and describes their place of origin as "islands." The specific peoples mentioned in the text are Danuna, Tjekker, Peleset, Shardana and Weshesh. The Shardana and Weshesh are singled out as being "of the sea," which is consistent with their depiction in other sources of the time as oceanic nomads and pirates (Redford 1992: 244).
The most interesting aspect of this brief passage on the year 8 battles is the description of the fate of the Sea Peoples. Ramesses tells us that, having brought the imprisoned Sea Peoples to Egypt, he "settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year" (Breasted 1906: 201). It is likely that these "strongholds" were actually fortified towns in Canaan -- that is, the towns that would eventually become the Philistine Pentapolis (Redford 1992: 289).
The Papyrus Harris passage concerning the Sea Peoples, while largely overlapping with the information provided in the Medinet Habu inscriptions, also provides some important details lacking in the Medinet Habu texts. Both sources taken together provide the most complete historical picture of the Sea Peoples at the end of the 13th century BCE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Just as we know the core identity of Han China would have been light skinned Chinese. No culture on earth changes their core identity and culture, which by definition ties with phenotype, because of immigration.

---

So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north AND Middle Egypt. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes like these phenotypes were foreign to Uppper Egypt. They'd always had been in the northern part of Upper Egypt. Immigration increased how MUCH the northern type look appeared in Egypt, but it was always part of the country. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Your point is still false no matter how you keep trying to restate it. Every time the AE restored the country they restored the core culture and identity from the South not just culturally but biologically and socially by integrating southerners into the royal lines and population at large. You keep ignoring this and denying this as if the facts have changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

That core identity and culture did not change and because of where AE is that would mean a black phenotype would have been a core part of that identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.

---

You keep saying "stop bringing up race" when you did, and continue to. just don't read. You really don't. How many times has your analogy to Rome been debunked. STOP comparing a country nestled deep in Western Europe to a country that is sandwiched between Sudan and the Near East. It's NOT the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Just as we know the core identity of Han China would have been light skinned Chinese. No culture on earth changes their core identity and culture, which by definition ties with phenotype, because of immigration.

---

So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north. It STARTED as part of the state from the start. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes that were part of the nation, because they'd always had been. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Your point is still false no matter how you keep trying to restate it. Every time the AE restored the country they restored the core culture and identity from the South not just culturally but biologically and socially by integrating southerners into the royal lines and population at large. You keep ignoring this and denying this as if the facts have changed.

---

No one's denying anything. I'm simply not responding to it because MY POINT has nothing TO DO WITH THAT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

That core identity and culture did not change and because of where AE is that would mean a black phenotype would have been a core part of that identity.

---

...Didn't you just say you weren't talking about race? The EGYPTIANS didn't perceive of RACE the way you do. They did not TIE "black" features to their sense of identity. Over thousands of years of seeing themselves as the same NATION and CULTURE as the northerners, they saw the northern phenotype as being Egyptian too! "Levanite" describes where the most common aspects of a phenotype or genotype are. "Levanite" wasn't a culture or "core identity" for Egyptians. There was no "pan arab" identity politics back then. They were concerned with culture and nationality. This is SO stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

ALL of these things TOGETHER point that there was Levanite influence from the start. We're not obsessing over "one mummy." We had nearly 100 mummies from Abusir in Middle Egypt, then THIS guy, then decades of cranial research telling us that Middle Egypt was teaming with northerners since the Neolithic and you're sitting here carrying on about more evidence? Just accept it. Lower and Middle Egypt probably were very heavily mixed with Levanites. Yes. Levanites. The DNA is matching the modern Near East and the archeological record showed that these people's material culture was influenced by the Levant. Their cranial record was already showing them to be distinct from the deep south a long time ago. Your pictures of Mentuhotep are indeed darker, weren't those Middle Kingdom rulers from Thebes? Thebes is not Middle Egypt. We're not talking about all of Upper Egypt.

---

As far as I remember, though Lower Egyptians shared greater affinities with Mediterranean and Levantine populations, they still were mostly related to Upper Egyptians. And despite the morphological differences, neither Upper or Lower Egyptians were so distinct as to be non-indigenous. Are you saying thats not the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
phenotype as tied to identity and cultural origins is about as good a definition of race as i've ever heard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.

---

You keep saying "stop bringing up race" when you did, and continue to. just don't read. You really don't. How many times has your analogy to Rome been debunked. STOP comparing a country nestled deep in Western Europe to a country that is sandwiched between Sudan and the Near East. It's NOT the same.

---

AE was not in the "Near East". Stop making up stuff. ALL of AE was and still is in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north. It STARTED as part of the state from the start. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes that were part of the nation, because they'd always had been. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.

---

And now we get to the point. This is why you have been fixating on this the whole thread and finally the truth comes out. Took long enough. Look I don't agree with you on that, but you need to stop playing passive aggressive and just state that this is what you are arguing up front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


You just contradicted yourself. You just said Levantines were a big part of AE from the start. Which is not the same as the Levantines migrated into AE over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Black skin was a consequence of where they were and where the culture originated. What I am saying that like any other group, ethnic identity goes with phenotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I feel very sorry for any black Egypt theorists. Doug's is essentially the epitome of a highly vocal minority that is tiring to have any conversation with on new data if it doesn't suit his pre planned agenda.

@Capra You're welcome no prob! Much thanks to people who pulled up the Batrwari quote too. I STILL can't find the full version. It's a must have for anyone interested in this type of subject!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
[Q]

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[qb] So Capra are you disagreeing with Skoglund that Luxmanda did not carry 38% "Eurasian" ancestry? And that She carried African L2a?[/q]

---

Luxmanda is 60-65% African, she has a very common African mt haplogroup, even you cannot be dumb enough to think this has special significance. there are literally millions of modern Horners with the same combination.

point is these remains are not that old - when Luxmanda was living in Tanzania the New Kingdom was near its end in Egypt. so it does not constrain timing much. and that is the only tenuous thread connecting this discussion to the topic, so we are done with it now. [/Q]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] @XYYman
This is a fucking mess... How do you believe you can tackle Reich or any other classical organization with somewhat of a history of white supremacy and bias ......
..! If Europeans were 5000 year old Africans it wouldn't mean shit...And won't change our cultural differences.

It's easier to squeeze SSA signatures out of Sardinians and Villabruna than it is to force Berber signals. ...

We Don't have STR reads for the list of specimen you berate us about... ....

V88, U5 and H1(to some degree) represents early Contact with southern European groups. DNA was swapped Migrations and influences went both ways as seen with L2/L3 and A-m13 (and maybe even E-M2). We have evidence of that. [/]

---

quote:

---

•the culture didn't start in the North,

• the presence of Levantines was there in the North since the Predynastic

• after unification the country as a whole became more blended with Levantines in the general population

• to the point that AE identity no longer had any strong ties to the Southern roots of the culture in general and as part of the identity of the people in the country.

• the AE stopped identifying themselves by those roots

• did not care about any specific cultural unit or ethnic population as the core of the culture and roots of AE identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
in Addition modern Europeans do NOT carry mtDNA U5* underived.

---

nobody does (though it was found in Gravettians of Ice Age Europe). the Siwa Berber haplotypes you cirlced on that chart are not U5*, they are U5b-16192C!. could be U5b1d1a, which is found among Berbers (don't know if Siwi), or some kind of U5b2b (but not U5b2b5 as that has 16296T).

would it kill you to actually check before leaping to conclusions?
 

---

Posted by ELIMU (Member # 21677) on :
 
That's why I don't like Egypt search anymore. it is filled with amateur black population geneticists who rely 100% on data collected by white geneticists. They don't question the accuracy of these data at all. they may be forged. I bet none of you has ever set foot in Africa. s.m.h
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
So back on the boo hoo Keita's coonin train ELIMU? The crania, housing, material culture, of the north is ALL forged?
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ELIMU:
That's why I don't like Egypt search anymore. it is filled with amateur black population geneticists who rely 100% on data collected by white geneticists. They don't question the accuracy of these data at all. they may be forged. I bet none of you has ever set foot in Africa. s.m.h

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
liar! can someone double check this lie?
My interpretation this is U5/U5b NOT a sub-sub-group of U5b,

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
in Addition modern Europeans do NOT carry mtDNA U5* underived.

---

nobody does (though it was found in Gravettians of Ice Age Europe). the Siwa Berber haplotypes you cirlced on that chart are not U5*, they are U5b-16192C!. could be U5b1d1a, which is found among Berbers (don't know if Siwi), or some kind of U5b2b (but not U5b2b5 as that has 16296T).

would it kill you to actually check before leaping to conclusions?

---

quote:

---

Since Saharo-Sudanese and Gafsians
met along the Nile there was flow.
Eventually through time and history
their intermixed ofspring became
the majority. They claim neither
Nehesu nor Tjehenu-Aamu sole
ancestry. They had become
the Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

Is this seriously the new theory? That ancient Egypt was essentially a biracial State from its inception?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
liar! can someone double check this lie?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ELIMU:
That's why I don't like Egypt search anymore. it is filled with amateur black population geneticists who rely 100% on data collected by white geneticists. They don't question the accuracy of these data at all. they may be forged. I bet none of you has ever set foot in Africa. s.m.h

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
liar! can someone double check this lie?

---

lmao
if i told people about this they'd think i was making it up

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Since Saharo-Sudanese and Gafsians
met along the Nile there was flow.
Eventually through time and history
their intermixed offspring became
the majority. They claim neither
Nehesu nor Tjehenu-Aamu sole
ancestry. They had become
the Egyptians.

---

Is this seriously the new theory? That ancient Egypt was essentially a biracial State from its inception?

---

My statement that ain't no new news at all. It's from

Chancellor Williams
Destruction of Black Civilization:
great issues of a race from 4500 BC to 2000 AD
Chicago: Third World Press (1974)

After >40 years of study I can't argue against

The Egyptian State (Ta Shemaw) was created in the south
[Tasa Badari Naqada] by southerners descended from
Nile Valley Sudanis and 'Saharo-Sudanese'.


Their imperialist objective was to conquer the
Valley to the Sea. They forced the people living
north of 28° [Faiyoum Merimda Ma'adi] to become
members of a state that never existed before.
There was no northern state.

That newly formed northern state, Lower Egypt (Ta
Mehh), was invented by the southerners. The peoples
already living there were of Gafsian (Capsian) descent.

Also some other northern African peoples and some
few so-called 'Asiatics' were living there before
the southerners (the only political Egypt at that
time) came to conquer. None of the northerners
face skin and body morphed southern phenotypes.


The creation of the political entity faux United
Egypt (Ta Wy) post dates the creation of Ta Shemau.
In a non-charged meaning of race (stock) the Delta
was never black (the creators of what we know as
Ancient Egyptian culture and civilization).


But enough of my opinion. What's your synopsis
of pre, proto, and archaic ethnic groups and
their relationships along the Lower Nile Valley.

Your opinion is as good as mine.
I'm just another point of view.


ps forgot.
check primary document narmer palette
major phenotypes and where they lived
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Capra! Capra! Capra!

I am lazy like that but you are making me work, Siiigh!






http://phylotree.org/mtDNA_seqs.htm
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
good job, you found the Siwa Berbers. see how they are all listed as U5b? that should be a clue. now go to PhyloTree under U5b and find what has the same set of control region mutations (they are in blue text) as those Siwa Berbers do. notice that U5b normally has T at the unstable position 16192 so you need to find a subclade with the mutation 16192C.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I will look into it but irregardless, my point still stands, Underived U5 exist in Africa. And U5a and U5b exist even in sub-saharan Africa.


 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

Is this seriously the new theory? That ancient Egypt was essentially a biracial State from its inception?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man stop bringing up race. The issue here is we know a lot about how Rome managed their borders and immigration and the process by which Non Romans could gain citizenship. Same thing with Greece. These cultures did not change their core identity because of immigration. And because Rome is in Europe OBVIOUSLY that identity would be white by common sense and logic.

---

You keep saying "stop bringing up race" when you did, and continue to. just don't read. You really don't. How many times has your analogy to Rome been debunked. STOP comparing a country nestled deep in Western Europe to a country that is sandwiched between Sudan and the Near East. It's NOT the same.

---

AE was not in the "Near East". Stop making up stuff. ALL of AE was and still is in Africa.

---

I didn't say Egypt was in the Near East. I said it was sandwiched BETWEEN the Near East and Sudan. Geographically it is/was not analogous to Rome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

So by "identity" you're saying race, but then when confronted you tell people to stop talking about race. The country STARTED with Levanite types in the north. It STARTED as part of the state from the start. There wasn't a "change" in phenotypes that were part of the nation, because they'd always had been. Stop trying to compare Egypt to Han Chinese when it was never that homogenous in phenotype from the start.

---

And now we get to the point. This is why you have been fixating on this the whole thread and finally the truth comes out. Took long enough. Look I don't agree with you on that, but you need to stop playing passive aggressive and just state that this is what you are arguing up front.

---

I did say it from the start! WTF did you think I was talking about northern Crania and Levanite influenced material culture for? You lacking the ability to understand that's what I was saying, doesn't mean that I wasn't saying what I was was saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


You just contradicted yourself. You just said Levantines were a big part of AE from the start. Which is not the same as the Levantines migrated into AE over time.

---

Incorrect, I'm saying BOTH happened. To repeat: "Immigration increased how MUCH the northern type look appeared in Egypt, but it was always part of the country."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Black skin was a consequence of where they were and where the culture originated. What I am saying that like any other group, ethnic identity goes with phenotype.

---

Lol you're seriously trying to force the Egyptians into racial politics where it didn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care, the record seems to support this too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

I don't need your whining about how you think the world should work. It didn't work the way you wanted. So sad, too bad. And even in the race conscious U.S African Americans can have blacks that are nowhere near black skinned and consider them the same ethnicity. Imagine then, how a group of people concerned more about religion and cultural custom, identified it's people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care about the "black phenotype" they saw themselves as shades of brown from deep brown to olive. You say your concerns are not racial, pure bollocks. You cry whenever you're given evidence that the non "black" phenotype was part of the country from the start, which supports them not caring about the "northern" look because it was plentiful in Upper and Lower Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

The record doesn't show they cared much about "preserving the characteristic phenotype." It shows that southerners at some point, if not always viewed the northern "look" to be just as valid an Egyptian look.

---

I said they wanted to preserve their culture and heritage and culture and heritage is tied to phenotype and ancestry because humans biologically have phenotype. And if the AE didn't care about phenotype and didn't see differences between populations based on culture and phenotype, then why did they spend so much time detailing the differences in phenotype, dress and culture between themselves and all the other populations they ran across. Somehow I think you are just really really not thinking this through.

What is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Gates

How does that show the AE "didnt care" about their phenotype?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


Is this seriously the new theory? That ancient Egypt was essentially a biracial State from its inception?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I feel very sorry for any black Egypt theorists. Doug's is essentially the epitome of a highly vocal minority that is tiring to have any conversation with on new data if it doesn't suit his pre planned agenda.

@Capra You're welcome no prob! Much thanks to people who pulled up the Batrwari quote too. I STILL can't find the full version. It's a must have for anyone interested in this type of subject!

---

Pretty much, it's almost impossible to have a creative and well informed discussion in public.

I mean cool, we can all believe Aegypt was fundamentally a "black" civilization, but Djehutynakht is U5b, what does that mean to us? What story does the genomes we have access to tell?

Get this political shit out of here.

---

quote:

---

When complete, the papyrus to which this fragment belonged measured almost seven feet long. The texts are written in a cursive form of hieroglyphs called hieratic. Differences in handwriting and in the historical events described demonstrate that different scribes added new inscriptions over several generations.

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 sudaniya:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

OK. So for sake of argument then lest say AE was still in Africa. So how is that not like Rome being sandwiched between Europe and the Mediterranean? If being near the Mediterranean did not affect Rome being European then how did AE being near the Mediterranean make AE less African? I mean there is no Near East geographically. There is a Mediterreanean and both AE and Rome are on the Mediterranean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

As there is no continent called "Near East", the AE couldn't be sandwiched between it. Egypt sits IN Africa and borders the Mediterranean just like Rome sits IN EUROPE and borders the Meditterranean as well. You just keep making these absurd statements that make absolutely no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So let me state it again. The AE culture and roots was based in the South. It did not start in the North and when the country unified it was based on Southern rule. Any populations in the country basically came under Southern rulership.

I don't understand why you keep spinning out of control pretending that this changes anything.

It does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Name some of the Egyptians of Levantine descent who were rulers or officials during the Middle Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

The forgers of Dynastic Egypt
incorporated everybody into
the state as equals. The 2nd
Dynasty was northern, from
Tanis.

Other northern origin dynasties
• 9-10th Heracleopolis
________ established northern kingdom frontier deep into Upper Egypt's 18th nome
• 21st Tanis
• 22nd Bubastis
• 23-24th Tanis
• 26th Sais

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:I am tired of playing this game of you bluffing.

If you really know that the facts are there to support what you are saying just name those AE officials and governors or high priests that were of Levantine descent in AE during the Middle Kingdom. Give me some tombs, some family trees and so forth.

I am saying you cant. You are making theoretical arguments because you cant do what I am asking. And if you can then fine that is all well and good. But right now you really don't have much more than one mummy and DNA that "might" be of Levantine origin but that isn't much plus a couple strong "maybes" from Abusir.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

You are now basically claiming that Northerners got their looks from Levantines before Levantines even got there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



No dude. You are making absolutely no sense. There is no cranial data anywhere that shows a close relationship between Northern AE crania in the predynastic or early dynastic and Levantine crania.

---

quote:

---

"As to their racial affinity, they were considered to belong to the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian group of mankind (Sergi, 1901 and E. Smith 1923) though Guiffrida Ruggeri (1922) stated that while the ancient Lower Egyptians were Mediterraneans, the Upper Egyptians were Ethiopians."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care, the record seems to support this too.

---

They did care. There were multiple wars between Northerners and Southerners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Again more whining and complaining from you because you can't address facts. This is not about "American blacks" because black Americans weren't around then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Again just whining and moaning because AE was in Africa and the populations there just happened to be black. Basically trying to pretend that because they were black and because they reflected their identity and phenotype in their art and culture and elevated to divinity is "racist" to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:




You haven't disproved that the AE culture had its core in the South. You haven't disproved the numerous obviously black mummies in the Late Period. You havent proved or shown a whole bunch of Levantine looking mummies from ANY period of DYNASTIC Egypt. You haven't shown any tombs full of Levantines in AE culture or art from any period. YOU haven't produced any papyrus or documentation upholding and identifying with Levantine populations in any respect. Yet when I show you the same thing for Southerners who happen to be black then you claim this is "racist" or doesn't exist.

---

And no one was arguing all that to begin with. I didn't attempt to disprove any of that because I wasn't arguing against it, nor do any of my points cease to be simply because I didn't. Your asking for dynastic representations of mixture, when native Egyptian citizens that were northern lost any sense of non Egyptian identity they had during the predynastic. Why the hell would papyrus likely tell us when they came from the Levant, when their back migrant ancestors came before the southerners that brought writing to Egypt met them, or had even developed a writing system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

And if the AE didn't care about phenotype and didn't see differences between populations based on culture and phenotype, then why did they spend so much time detailing the differences in phenotype, dress and culture between themselves and all the other populations they ran across. Somehow I think you are just really really not thinking this through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is only political when you make statements without facts to back it up. All you are doing is saying anybody who doesnt' agree that U5 proves that Lower Egypt was "mostly mixed" is somehow political. I mean seriously?

Like I said, test some of the obviously black dam mummies and stop eating regurgitated garbage and then we can talk about the actual population structure of AE. Right now this is just a lot of postulating and speculating with far less of the available DNA that should be available based on existing mummies.

And here is what I mean by facts and evidence. I mean you guys can do better than sitting here talking that tired social justice nonsense:

quote:

---

When complete, the papyrus to which this fragment belonged measured almost seven feet long. The texts are written in a cursive form of hieroglyphs called hieratic. Differences in handwriting and in the historical events described demonstrate that different scribes added new inscriptions over several generations.

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.

---

https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3369

OK? These are not new facts contrary to what you are claiming and it does not change the flow of AE history and culture which WE ALREADY KNOW.

A recent book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-08vDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=asiatic+servant+papyrus+egypt&source=bl&ots=-CEtARbIDB&sig=ep49m4wtYuGyqXvzsZHzfyuW_yI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxd qltOPZAhXGxVkKHSwyBe4Q6AEIXTAJ#v=onepage&q=asiatic%20servant%20papyrus%20egypt&f=false [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

OK. So for sake of argument then lest say AE was still in Africa. So how is that not like Rome being sandwiched between Europe and the Mediterranean? If being near the Mediterranean did not affect Rome being European then how did AE being near the Mediterranean make AE less African? I mean there is no Near East geographically. There is a Mediterreanean and both AE and Rome are on the Mediterranean.

---

Being Mediterranean doesn't mean people cannot be white. In fact, calling remains "Mediterranean" was how some early anthropologists were attempting to subtly say in scientific terms that the Egyptians were "white." Egypt was not analogous to Rome. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

As there is no continent called "Near East", the AE couldn't be sandwiched between it. Egypt sits IN Africa and borders the Mediterranean just like Rome sits IN EUROPE and borders the Meditterranean as well. You just keep making these absurd statements that make absolutely no sense.

---

The term today is "Eurasian" since Asia is not a continent isolated from Europe. So since you want to be ever so technical Egypt was sandwiched between Sudan and "Eurasia." Northern Egyptians shared a lot of their genetics with ancient and modern "Eurasians" that were relatively nearby. We often call them Near Easterners or West Asians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So let me state it again. The AE culture and roots was based in the South. It did not start in the North and when the country unified it was based on Southern rule. Any populations in the country basically came under Southern rulership.

I don't understand why you keep spinning out of control pretending that this changes anything.

It does not.

---

No one was arguing that what we're talking about changes that, fool. We're not even talking about southern Egypt but northern/middle Egypt. You're trying to force everyone on your tangent and refuse anyone the right to talk about anything else. Make a new thread on Black Egypt or something. Please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Name some of the Egyptians of Levantine descent who were rulers or officials during the Middle Kingdom.

---

Doug. Stop it already. People of Levanite ancestry began CULTURAL assimilation BEFORE the dynastic period. Northern, assimilated peoples saw themselves as Egyptians and made no great ethnic distinctions. We can trace their origins to back migrations through DNA, predynastic material culture and a review of the crania. However during the dynastic period they didn't have a "Levanite" identity but an Egyptian one. At most they may have potentially had some lingering tribal identities, but that wouldn't have likely made them associate with the Levant which they probably left to occupy Egypt thousands of years prior to the predynastic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

The forgers of Dynastic Egypt
incorporated everybody into
the state as equals. The 2nd
Dynasty was northern, from
Tanis.

Other northern origin dynasties
• 9-10th Heracleopolis
________ established northern kingdom frontier deep into Upper Egypt's 18th nome
• 21st Tanis
• 22nd Bubastis
• 23-24th Tanis
• 26th Sais

---

Then there's the times leading up to the second intermediate period, where we know from the growing hostilities from Thebes that NEW incoming peoples of more recent/direct Levanite descent were steadily acquiring power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:I am tired of playing this game of you bluffing.

If you really know that the facts are there to support what you are saying just name those AE officials and governors or high priests that were of Levantine descent in AE during the Middle Kingdom. Give me some tombs, some family trees and so forth.

I am saying you cant. You are making theoretical arguments because you cant do what I am asking. And if you can then fine that is all well and good. But right now you really don't have much more than one mummy and DNA that "might" be of Levantine origin but that isn't much plus a couple strong "maybes" from Abusir.

---

Why are you trying to make a false dichotomy? 90 haplogroups that show evidence of Eurasian back migration is not "maybe" Doug. Cherry picking the data again. It's not just the DNA. They had Eurasian housing settlements in the predynastic, Levanite material culture, Crania that resembled "Eurasians" and now the DNA. You keep trying to discredit the DNA as though it's release was just an isolated bit of data. It wasn't. It's information that comes decades after research that tried to tell you there was distant Levanite influence. The Levanite influence from Egyptian citizens predates the dynastic period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

You are now basically claiming that Northerners got their looks from Levantines before Levantines even got there.

---

No I'm saying that back migrants were there from predynastic times and had been mostly living in the northern parts. THEN a separate wave of new Levanites came and settled into Egypt. Heavy immigration of Levanite looking people added to an already north that's ancestors back migrated from there increased the frequency of the "Mediterranean" or "Levanite" Look in Egypt as a whole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



No dude. You are making absolutely no sense. There is no cranial data anywhere that shows a close relationship between Northern AE crania in the predynastic or early dynastic and Levantine crania.

---

So Egyptian crania hasn't ever readily been described as "Mediterranean" which yes, is an anthropological way for saying white:

quote:

---

"As to their racial affinity, they were considered to belong to the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian group of mankind (Sergi, 1901 and E. Smith 1923) though Guiffrida Ruggeri (1922) stated that while the ancient Lower Egyptians were Mediterraneans, the Upper Egyptians were Ethiopians."

---

http://www.jstor.org/stable/26293654?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care, the record seems to support this too.

---

They did care. There were multiple wars between Northerners and Southerners.

---

They had wars between the north and south but those weren't racial. Those weren't wars over preserving phenotypes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Again more whining and complaining from you because you can't address facts. This is not about "American blacks" because black Americans weren't around then.

---

The whole reason I'm mentioning black Americans is you're trying to make Egyptian analogous to modern racial politics when even today, in the most extremely race conscious parts of the world, phenotypes close to the northern types accepted as "Egyptian" during the dynastic period get a pass. Meghan Markle, Prince and Mariah Carey are accepted in black communities despite looking very different from your stereotypical Sub Saharan African. If race conscious communities today can see these types as being "same enough" to allow them in, WHY do you somehow think a group of people who had NO race consciousness were obligated to be much more rigid in how they saw people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Again just whining and moaning because AE was in Africa and the populations there just happened to be black. Basically trying to pretend that because they were black and because they reflected their identity and phenotype in their art and culture and elevated to divinity is "racist" to you.

---

I wasn't arguing all that was "racist." I wasn't even arguing they were a race conscious people. I don't think they had an idea that there was one way to look Egyptian, even if the makers of Egyptian culture just so happened to have originally been phenotypically black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:

[qb]


You haven't disproved that the AE culture had its core in the South. You haven't disproved the numerous obviously black mummies in the Late Period. You havent proved or shown a whole bunch of Levantine looking mummies from ANY period of DYNASTIC Egypt. You haven't shown any tombs full of Levantines in AE culture or art from any period. YOU haven't produced any papyrus or documentation upholding and identifying with Levantine populations in any respect. Yet when I show you the same thing for Southerners who happen to be black then you claim this is "racist" or doesn't exist.

---

And no one was arguing all that to begin with. I didn't attempt to disprove any of that because I wasn't arguing against it, nor do any of my points cease to be simply because I didn't. Your asking for dynastic representations of mixture, when native Egyptian citizens that were northern lost any sense of non Egyptian identity they had during the predynastic. Why the hell would papyrus likely tell us when they came from the Levant, when their back migrant ancestors came before the southerners that brought writing to Egypt met them, or had even developed a writing system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

And if the AE didn't care about phenotype and didn't see differences between populations based on culture and phenotype, then why did they spend so much time detailing the differences in phenotype, dress and culture between themselves and all the other populations they ran across. Somehow I think you are just really really not thinking this through.

---

The Egyptians didn't see themselves through a lens of contemporary races. The fact that southern Egyptians visualized Nubians differently from themselves when today they would both be considered different shades of black shows how LITTLE they understood race in modern terms. Yes many in the south noticed phenotypic differences. But they did not go to WAR to protect those.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
It is only political when you make statements without facts to back it up. All you are doing is saying anybody who doesnt' agree that U5 proves that Lower Egypt was "mostly mixed" is somehow political. I mean seriously?

Like I said, test some of the obviously black dam mummies and stop eating regurgitated garbage and then we can talk about the actual population structure of AE. Right now this is just a lot of postulating and speculating with far less of the available DNA that should be available based on existing mummies.

And here is what I mean by facts and evidence. I mean you guys can do better than sitting here talking that tired social justice nonsense:

quote:

---

When complete, the papyrus to which this fragment belonged measured almost seven feet long. The texts are written in a cursive form of hieroglyphs called hieratic. Differences in handwriting and in the historical events described demonstrate that different scribes added new inscriptions over several generations.

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.

---

https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3369

OK? These are not new facts contrary to what you are claiming and it does not change the flow of AE history and culture which WE ALREADY KNOW.

A recent book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-08vDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=asiatic+servant+papyrus+egypt&source=bl&ots=-CEtARbIDB&sig=ep49m4wtYuGyqXvzsZHzfyuW_yI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxd qltOPZAhXGxVkKHSwyBe4Q6AEIXTAJ#v=onepage&q=asiatic%20servant%20papyrus%20egypt&f=false

---

What... the fuck ...are you talking about.
I never stated anything about anyone being mixed... That's issues you have to deal with. You have a cemetery with a >1500 year record of about 100 individuals who probably lived and died in Kmt... And now you have a man whom belongs to U5b. You can chose to ignore what we have already if you want...

Do as you please.

But your comments are useless to me... you offer no new insight in light of any new data... fucking NONE. What we have here is 3+ pages of bitching and alternative facts. It's like the fucking sky is falling to some of you guys because of the fact that you're so out of the loop that you can't look at a haplogroup like U5b and say ... "Oh that makes sense for 2000bc because of western/(now)Berber or even (guess what) NOMADIC Black (SS_)African contact with Egypt after transcontinental interactions much earlier."

But you couldn't possibly understand my position though right? being that you read these papers with you eyes closed.

....fucking joke.


And now Xyyman is telling me that a "14kyo Berber" in Europe is supposed to have SSA signatures (over North African) because Europeans are 25% African... Holy fuck what do I even say ...The whole premise is self cannibalizing.

How do some of you guys expect to survive in a ring against "Eurocentrists" or even novice researchers with above level interest in anthro and population genetics... How? We would get slaughtered ...this is Unbelievable. lmaoo

---

quote:

---

I mean cool, we can all believe Aegypt was fundamentally a "black" civilization, but Djehutynakht is U5b, what does that mean to us? What story does the genomes we have access to tell?

---

quote:

---

As previously commented, scholars such as Hayes,[14] have blamed raiding and force in the Hyksos’ ‘takeover.’ This is not a theory which generally holds ground in present publications. Booth disagrees with Hayes’ initial statements, commenting that there is very little archaeological evidence to suggest a violent takeover and variations between pottery of the 14th and 15th dynasties at Tell el-Dab’a are subtle and actually suggest a peaceful change-over in political leadership.[15] The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a provides more evidence for a political changeover between the Egyptians and the Hyksos.

The termination of the Hyksos rule is a point in the historical record which remains to be substantially explored. The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a does though assist in determining when and how this came about. Stratum D/2 which presents highly egyptianised archaeological material and architecture represents the last occupation of the site by Asiatic influence.[16] The analysis of this stratum, in comparison to previous underlying strata, assists in correcting when in the historical record the Hyksos rule ended. Unfortunately D/2’s archaeological evidence for the development which led to the termination of the stratum is largely destroyed by Ramesside foundations and sebbakh digging.[17] Excavations in Area A/II and Area A/V contemporary with Stratum D/2 have not produced obvious evidence of a violent termination popular in earlier explanations of the Hyksos’ disappearance from Egypt’s historical record.[18]

---

quote:

---

What is ‘The Hyksos Enigma’ Research Programme about?

The Hyksos (Greek rendering of the Egyptian title ‘rulers of the foreign countries’) were a dynasty of foreign rulers being in power in Egypt between c.1640 and 1530 BC. Some modern researchers, following the ancient historian Flavius Josephus (1st cent. AD), thought them to be ancestors of the early Israelites. Others suggested that their appearance has to be tied to the expansion of the Hurrian people into the Levant, starting at the end of the 18th cent. BC. Nowadays those opinions are largely rejected. Most scholars dealing with the subject today believe, according to the existing onomastic data, that they were western Semites. Their exact geographical origin in the Levant, the process of their seizure of power in Egypt and their specific role in history remains, however, an enigma, as the period is poorly represented in texts. Nevertheless the Hyksos phenomenon has therefore mainly been studied by text-based Egyptology, ignoring other possible sources, like archaeological remains, burial customs, settlement patterns, not to mention biological data.

In the last decades though, excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris, the ancient capital of the Hyksos kings), Tell el-Retaba (Rotaba), Tell el-Maskhuta and other places in Egypt‘s eastern Delta have produced an enormous wealth of new information due to the discovery of urban settlements, palaces, tombs, temples or offering deposits. Besides this, one can now resort to enormous quantities of objects reflecting the material culture as well as physical remains, which can be attributed to the carriers of the Hyksos rule and their predecessors. These materials now available and left so far largely aside in the scientific discussion can be utilised as first class historical sources.

---

quote:

---

The material on the Hyksos, both documentary and archaeological, though documented by recent excavations in Palestine and Syria, is still scanty; and the "Hyksos problem" remains one of the chief stumbling blocks with which the historian of the second millennium B.C. has to cope. Mr. Engberg does not pretend to know all the answers, nor has he any startling or revolutionary theories to present. From a cool and eminently sane appraisal of the existing material, plus some bits of newly adduced evidence, he concludes: (1) that the Hyksos were "a cultural force" in the Nile Valley, Syria, and Palestine as early as the middle of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty (1900 B.C.); (2) that they entered Egypt "in small and ethnically disparate groups, increasing in number until finally they gained such influence through infiltration, as apparently the Kassites did in Babylonia, that the various elements became a political factor"; (3) that "Hyksos ideas continued to color the life of Egypt well into the Eighteenth Dynasty" and that in Asia "Hyksos blood, modes, and practices entered into the composition of the Canaanites as we see them at the coming of the Hebrews." [From a review by William C. Hayes in the Classical Weekly (February 4, 1940) 159]

---

quote:

---

During the 2nd Intermediate Period, about 3600 years ago, between the Middle and New Kingdoms, when Egypt was ruled by various dynasties in different parts of the Empire. One of these, the so-called Hyksos (Greek rendering for ‘Rulers of foreign lands’) established their rule in the eastern part of the Nile Delta from c. 1640 to 1530 BC. Little is known about this people from contemporary texts, so that important questions, e.g. about their provenance, their rise, influence, and eventual demise, so far could not be answered in any great detail. This may very well change, since excavations in the eastern delta, especially at Tell el-Dab’a/Avaris, the ancient capital of the Hyksos empire, have discovered urban settlements, palaces, tombs, temples, as well as enormous quantities of material culture and skeletal remains that can be attributed to the carriers of the Hyksos rule and their predecessors.

The European Research Council has now awarded an advanced grant worth more than €2.4 M, jointly hosted by the Austrian Academy of Sciences and Bournemouth University, which aims to find conclusive explanations for the origin, impact and legacy of this largely enigmatic phenomenon of Egyptian history, based on the wealth of new evidence discovered over the last decades.

A combination of archaeological, historical, theoretical and analytical sciences will provide a novel and holistic approach to understanding the role of the Hyksos and how they shaped the history of the 2nd millennium BC in the Near East. For Bournemouth it will be a great privilege to work with Prof Manfred Bietak from the Academy in Vienna, project lead and eminent scholar of Egyptology, and the foremost expert on the Hyksos. Bournemouth’s contributions to the project will encompass all bioarchaeological research, in particular anthropological investigations, stable isotope and aDNA analyses, led by Holger Schutkowski from the Department of Archaeology, Anthropology and Forensic Science in the Faculty of Science and Technology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The paper itself says North African DNA is "Eurasian" which means the AE were never African to begin with.

---

quote:

---

The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy.

--Nuclear aDNA Recovery; Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Actually that is fine but we all know that Ethiopians, horners and other Africans first crossed the red sea coast into Arabia.

And we know that most Ethiopians and Horners are not in the least bit white. Some are lighter skinned and those folks are obviously of more recent mixture with outsiders. But overall from Southern Egypt to Kenya most Red Sea and other African populatons maintain a black phenotype. So whatever "Eurasian" mixture occurred it is purely semantic in the sense of labeling DNA strains. It isn't like East Africans or Horners really and truly are Eurasian in any sense of the term, neither are Sudanese or Nubians who have been in Africa for many many thousands of years since before there was a human in Eurasia.

---

If there was recent mixture with outsiders then how is that semantic ?

How would one be able to tell ? This is how >




you can see the Hap J right here that is considered Levant/Arabian peninsula____________________^^
You won't see significant frequencies of that in Central Africa countries. That is Red Sea trade.
Mota man of 4,500 ya, Ethiopia was Hap E

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But overall from Southern Egypt to Kenya most Red Sea and other African populatons maintain a black phenotype. So whatever "Eurasian" mixture occurred it is purely semantic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

AE was on the Nile. The Nile had everything to do with the development of Egypt just like the Mediterranean had everything to do with Romes development. The Mediterranean was not the source of AE culture was my point. It was not the source of where AE identity came from. So AE being near the Mediterranean did not factor into where the core identity and culture of the AE came from. The core identity and culture of AE came from the South.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point was that neither the "Near East" which is a geopolitical term or Mediterranean which is a geographical term were relevant to the development of the core of AE culture which arose on the Nile in the South of the country. So being on the Mediterranean was irrelavant to the core identity and FLOW of history and culture of the AE civilization.

What you are saying is that the Mediterranean, Levant and other places OUTSIDE Egypt and NOT on the Nile were as important as the Nile and Upper Egypt on the development of the core identity and culture of AE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug

OK. Name some names of some Middle Kingdom AE officials, royals, priests and other individuals and their tombs, their titles, their names and the DNA and other evidence outside this one mummy and those from Abusir that PROVES what you are saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

You tried to say that AE art showed these people as different from Southerners. OK. Show me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Why are you trying to make a false dichotomy? 90 haplogroups that show evidence of Eurasian back migration is not "maybe" Doug. Cherry picking the data again. It's not just the DNA. They had Eurasian housing settlements in the predynastic, Levanite material culture, Crania that resembled "Eurasians" and now the DNA. You keep trying to discredit the DNA as though it's release was just an isolated bit of data. It wasn't. It's information that comes decades after research that tried to tell you there was distant Levanite influence. The Levanite influence from Egyptian citizens predates the dynastic period.

---

What you are saying is the only facts you have is some NEW DNA and that this DNA proves that Northern Egypt was mostly Levantine mixed from the predynastic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



Whatever dude. Saying that there was Levantine influence over time in AE is different from saying the Northern AE were ALWAYS more Levantine than African.

I don't agree with that and there is no such thing as a "Mediterranean race".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care, the record seems to support this too.

---

They did care. There were multiple wars between Northerners and Southerners.

---

They had wars between the north and south but those weren't racial. Those weren't wars over preserving phenotypes.

---

I didn't say they were racial. READ what I said. The fact the Southerners were mostly black in complexion is not "racial" it is biology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


You are the one using Egypt as part of some social justice campaign based on race where you are trying to say that they had to be all inclusive of all skin colors and all ethnicities UNLIKE ANY OTHER CULTURE ON EARTH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Get the hell out of here with our social justice nonsense. Nobody said anything about African Americans but you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

OK. But I just proved that the AE paid close attention to detail on how people looked and dressed as part of culture and identity.

You said they didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
No fool

quote by ElMaestro:
"
And now Xyyman is telling me that a "14kyo Berber" in Europe is supposed to have SSA signatures (over North African) because Europeans are 25% African... Holy fuck what do I even say ...The whole premise is self cannibalizing. "


Liar. I never said he was sub-saharan. I said he was and is tropical adapted which is a FACT.
I said there is no race it is continuum originating from Africa. Villabruna carried R-V88, tropical adapted, carried light eyes and was probably black skin. He was autosomally more Asian than modern European. What does that tell you? Cheddar Man? The image of Europe 5000bc was NOT like today in Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
No fool

quote by ElMaestro:
"
And now Xyyman is telling me that a "14kyo Berber" in Europe is supposed to have SSA signatures (over North African) because Europeans are 25% African... Holy fuck what do I even say ...The whole premise is self cannibalizing. "


Liar. I never said he was sub-saharan. I said he was and is tropical adapted which is a FACT.
I said there is no race it is continuum originating from Africa. Villabruna carried R-V88, tropical adapted, carried light eyes and was probably black skin. He was autosomally more Asian than modern European. What does that tell you? Cheddar Man? The image of Europe 5000bc was NOT like today in Europe.

---

So where does the "dipigmented African" Europeans you are always talking about come in ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Where does the depigmented African come in? You are not following. SMH. Khoi_San carry Native American ancestry. Do you think Native American "back-migrated" to South Africa? No! Obviously There are and was sub-structure in Africa pre-OOA. Villabruna is a pigmented pigmented pre-Neolithic African. (new)Neolithics are that. A more RECENT OOA. All OOA are Africans. Modern Europeans are depigmented Neolithic Africans(Lazaridis et al), Cheddar Man and Villabruna are pigmented ancient Africans. Bantus are part of the pigmented Neolithics.

---

quote:

---

Still no way to get to the point of what distinguishes "indigenous" DNA in AE from "Eurasian" DNA until more mummies are sampled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Where does the depigmented African come in? You are not following. SMH. Khoi_San carry Native American ancestry. Do you think Native American "back-migrated" to South Africa? No! Obviously There are and was sub-structure in Africa pre-OOA. Villabruna is a pigmented pigmented pre-Neolithic African. (new)Neolithics are that. A more RECENT OOA. All OOA are Africans. Modern Europeans are depigmented Neolithic Africans(Lazaridis et al), Cheddar Man and Villabruna are pigmented ancient Africans. Bantus are part of the pigmented Neolithics.

---

sounds a little nutty to me, like some tangled wires that would take on hour to undo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] I did not write this. Honest.

I have been saying all along that
1. There is no race.
2. Europeans are a subset of Africans being depigmented Africans
3. There were essentially two wave OOA.
4. The migration route to Europe was NOT via the Levant but North Africa to southern Europe
5. My interpretation is ALWAYS correct
6. Modern West Africans are young and new to West Africa. They are from East Africa(part of the Neolithic package)
7. modern West Africans carry admixture from an older African population that may be part of WHG of Europe
8. Simultaneous reduction of Luhya and MKK with an increase of West Africans. That is why YRI are 3rd closest to AEians.
9. All European lineage is African
10. Africans took their dogs to Scandinavia
11 I wasted my years educating some of you fools when this paper has been out since 2011. (Sic)


I love being right. Lol! Let them keep looking in the Steppes Reich, you "lying European". . But these researchers know that I am right. That is why they play these games of differential sampling. Excluding Certain African populations when it makes the best sense to INCLUDE these said populations. It is a game and they know the truth. Don't believe me? Rosenberg knew it since 2002. Here McEvoy adds fuel to flame and proves xyyman right....once again

-----
Human population dispersal ‘‘Out of Africa’’ estimated from linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies of SNPs -
Brian P. McEvoy,


We use the empirically observed genetic correlation structure (or linkage disequilibrium) between 242,000 genome-wide single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs) in 17 global populations to reconstruct two key parameters of human evolution: effective population
size (Ne) and population divergence times (T).

Estimates of divergence times between European–African and
East Asian–African populations are inconsistent with its simplest manifestation: a single dispersal from the continent followed
by a split into Western and Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial
ancient gene flow to the proto-European population AFTER its divergence with proto-East Asians, suggesting distinct, early
dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa. We use simulated genetic polymorphism data to demonstrate the validity of our
conclusionsAGAINST alternative population demographic scenarios.

We explored human LD patterns using approximately 242,000 SNPs across the genome in 17 population samples from across the
globe. We used these to reconstruct two key parameters of human evolution: effective population size (Ne) and population divergence
times (T), and through these track the emergence and dispersal of our species ‘‘Out of Africa’’ and beyond. In addition, we used simulated
genetic data to evaluate the performance of parameter estimators across a range of population demographic models.

However, there is evidence for a small increase in the West African Yorubans (YRI) ;8 KYA, coinciding with declines in the East African
Maasai (MKK) and Lubya (LKK) populations at the same time (Figs. 2, 3B). From ;25 KYA, all non-African populations start to expand,
and distinct growth trajectories become apparent moving toward the present, reflecting the emergence of each population as a separate
entity (Fig. 2).


This provides a clear picture of the historical relationship between populations with three broad groupings apparent: Africans,
East Asians, and Europeans. Early human dispersal patterns can be inferred through estimates of T between these three main groups.
The average TF estimate between these African and European populations is ;36 KYA, ;44 KYA for Africans and East Asians, and ;20
KYA between East Asians and Europeans

Under this scenario, the divergence times of these two groups relative to Africa would be expected to be similar.
Both TF and TLD, two T estimators calculated by different means from the same data, ***consistently*** demonstrate a significantly more
recent relationship between Europe and Africa than between East Asia and Africa. Using simulated populations, we show that under
the single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model,

While the exact bias is difficult to estimate (Sved et al. 2008), it appears that post-divergence migration rates from Africa
to Europe would need to be approximately CONSTANT because we observe consistent ratios of TF and TLD at different genetic distances.
Thus, the observations are suggestive that GREATER MIGRATION TO EUROPE FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PHENOMENON.
Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages are generally highly differentiated between continents, making them powerful genetic
markers of intercontinental migration. Most of the lineages that are characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa are absent in Europe (and vice
versa) (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003; Underhill and Kivisild 2007). However, the coalescent time and geographic distribution
of the Y-chromosome E3b (E-M215) haplogroup points to a late Pleistocene migration from Eastern Africa to Western Eurasia via the Nile Valley and Sinai Peninsula ;20–25 KYA (Cruciani et al. 2004, 2007; Luis et al. 2004).


However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated
in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative
to East Asia and Africa are still readily apparent across each individual northern European sample population (Supplemental Table
2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an even earlier and more pervasive origin, being established prior to the
appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups.!!!!!!!!!!!!1

which look at divergence times in West and East Eurasian populations simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for East Eurasia. Secondly, they support further early gene flow to the
remaining proto-West Eurasian population from Africa after Eurasian divergence, perhaps as a second smaller dispersal (Mellars 2006a).
------ [/Q]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Hyksos also made it clear they were Kushites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

AE was on the Nile. The Nile had everything to do with the development of Egypt just like the Mediterranean had everything to do with Romes development. The Mediterranean was not the source of AE culture was my point. It was not the source of where AE identity came from. So AE being near the Mediterranean did not factor into where the core identity and culture of the AE came from. The core identity and culture of AE came from the South.

---

No one was arguing that Doug.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point was that neither the "Near East" which is a geopolitical term or Mediterranean which is a geographical term were relevant to the development of the core of AE culture which arose on the Nile in the South of the country. So being on the Mediterranean was irrelavant to the core identity and FLOW of history and culture of the AE civilization.

What you are saying is that the Mediterranean, Levant and other places OUTSIDE Egypt and NOT on the Nile were as important as the Nile and Upper Egypt on the development of the core identity and culture of AE

---

No I'm not, Doug. No one was arguing that Doug.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug

OK. Name some names of some Middle Kingdom AE officials, royals, priests and other individuals and their tombs, their titles, their names and the DNA and other evidence outside this one mummy and those from Abusir that PROVES what you are saying.

---

I already said: "People of Levanite ancestry began CULTURAL assimilation BEFORE the dynastic period. Northern, assimilated peoples saw themselves as Egyptians and made no great ethnic distinctions. " Much of the cultural characteristics like names and language that may have tied these people (culturally) to Levant in earlier times were lost during the predynastic. What part of they were fully assimilated into Egyptian culture don't you understand? You're arguing the culture of Egypt came from the south, but still don't understand that the assimilated northerners adopted the southern culture and that the southerners had since seen them as part of the same ethnicity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

You tried to say that AE art showed these people as different from Southerners. OK. Show me.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

I said:" We can trace their origins to back migrations through DNA, predynastic material culture and a review of the crania."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Why are you trying to make a false dichotomy? 90 haplogroups that show evidence of Eurasian back migration is not "maybe" Doug. Cherry picking the data again. It's not just the DNA. They had Eurasian housing settlements in the predynastic, Levanite material culture, Crania that resembled "Eurasians" and now the DNA. You keep trying to discredit the DNA as though it's release was just an isolated bit of data. It wasn't. It's information that comes decades after research that tried to tell you there was distant Levanite influence. The Levanite influence from Egyptian citizens predates the dynastic period.

---

What you are saying is the only facts you have is some NEW DNA and that this DNA proves that Northern Egypt was mostly Levantine mixed from the predynastic.

---

No I'm not, Doug.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



Whatever dude. Saying that there was Levantine influence over time in AE is different from saying the Northern AE were ALWAYS more Levantine than African.

I don't agree with that and there is no such thing as a "Mediterranean race".

---

You didn't read properly. It said:

"As to their racial affinity, they were considered to belong to the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian group of mankind (Sergi, 1901 and E. Smith 1923) though Guiffrida Ruggeri (1922) stated that while the ancient Lower Egyptians were Mediterraneans, the Upper Egyptians were Ethiopians."

Mediterranean whites is not an "outdated" racial concept. Southern Europeans are white but are frequently referred to as Mediterranean. What suggests that the predynastic northerers were likely predominantly of back migrant ancestry is not strictly the DNA we're finding but the predynastic material culture resembling the Levant and the Mediterranean (white) Crania. Were some of those back migrants "black looking?" Possibly, but I wouldn't feel especially confident saying that many of the northerners would pass for black today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

They didn't care, the record seems to support this too.

---

They did care. There were multiple wars between Northerners and Southerners.

---

They had wars between the north and south but those weren't racial. Those weren't wars over preserving phenotypes.

---

I didn't say they were racial. READ what I said. The fact the Southerners were mostly black in complexion is not "racial" it is biology.

---

No one was denying that. We weren't disputing the south's phenotype. We're talking about how "race conscious" you're arguing Egypt to have been. You said they cared about phenotype and said there were multiple wars between northerners and southerners. I said the northern/southern disputes weren't racial and now you're off talking about how black in complexion they were, which doesn't support that the wars between the north and south were racial in nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


You are the one using Egypt as part of some social justice campaign based on race where you are trying to say that they had to be all inclusive of all skin colors and all ethnicities UNLIKE ANY OTHER CULTURE ON EARTH.

---

Except African Americans whose skin tones range from dark brown to Mariah Carey light. Except the Igbo whose skin tones can also range that light. Except the San whose skin tones can also can be very dark to very light. Egyptian people assimilated to one culture in the predynastic. They saw themselves by the dynastic era as ethnically the same as those that assimilated. They didn't see themselves as Egyptian vs. non Egyptian. Please offer proof that southerners didn't see northern Egyptians as Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Get the hell out of here with our social justice nonsense. Nobody said anything about African Americans but you.

---

You are arguing that the Egyptians HAD to see those with the northern look as a separate people because of phenotypic difference. That it's just "natural" of them to do so and that they couldn't possibly as people think of the northerners any other way. I am showing examples of black people in history who have behaved SIMILARLY to the Egyptians to debunk the idea that it is outside the realm of human nature to see these northern types and assume they could NOT see them as part of the same ethnicity. Just like African Americans can see Mariah Carey and Meghan Markle types as "black phenotypes" that were essentially part of the same ethnicity despite great differences to the deep dark brown blacks, the Egyptians who were nowhere near as race conscious could see the assimilated people brought into the fold and think of their look as one of numerous ways to look Egyptian. It is NOT outside of human nature to do what they did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

OK. But I just proved that the AE paid close attention to detail on how people looked and dressed as part of culture and identity.

You said they didn't.

---

I didn't say they didn't pay attention to how people looked and dressed as part of culture and identity. I said that the northern Levanite looking phenotype was accepted as Egyptian enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

An African American can accept how the majority of people around him look, artistically portray what he thinks to be average and also accept that people much lighter and much more mixed are part of the same ethnicity. They may not match the average, but if that person says they're African American or black they're not going to get into a fight on the street over it.A northerner may not have been the typical look for a southerner, but a southerner would've still seen this look as part of the natural diversity of his ethnicity. The crania suggests the northern type expanded as time went on during the dynastic. So kick and scream all you want about artwork, it doesn't change how they intermarried with their fellow countrymen. You're trying to wish away crania changes by talking about artwork. The crania doesn't support that they saw northerners as non Egyptian throughout the span of the dynastic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
I did not write this. Honest.

I have been saying all along that
1. There is no race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@DougM
Points taken about the Hyksos. Infact.. I've been trying to find an Autosomal model of what the hyksos would look like. But that's neither here nor there....

-...why?

Cuz we still have about 100 mt DNA lineages from Km't. And you obviously don't believe they are hyksos. U5b popped up in Mid/Upper Egypt, I still don't know what your point in regarding How that lineage got there.

If you're saying lets not speak on anything, until we get predynastic DNA or more Upper Egyptian aDNA... Then don't speak. Complaining and pointing out what we already know here on ES is regarding to sampling biases actually doesn't help.

Oshun's Theories or points are in reconciliation with the data provided. I haven't gotten a chance to disagree cuz he/she's been chasing you around.. But Oshuns initial premise wasn't political. In fact what you two are primarily arguing about could have as little to nothing to do with U5b being in upper Egypt 2000bc.

Look at your statement here:

quote:

---

Still no way to get to the point of what distinguishes "indigenous" DNA in AE from "Eurasian" DNA until more mummies are sampled.

---

With the assunmption that you actually know what Arbitrary uniparental Haplogroups entail, this whole premise comes across as disingenuous. You don't think we can look at the diverse Abusir profile in conjunction with the relatively low frequency of L and M1 and make an educated postulation about the sampled group?

If we were to assume any of the two hypotheticals (indigenous vs. Eurasian), we would need corresponding evidence to support which ever theory we'd roll with. Are you saying that we simply lack the supporting evidence to make a hypothesis as to which Haplogroups are native and Foreign?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The AE did not see them selves as Levantine. They did not depict themselves as close to Levantines in any way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:






Head of a Syrian
KhM 3896a
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

1186–1155 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4906




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896b
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN


1186–1155 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4907




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896c
TILE; NEW KINGDOM


c. 1550 BC – c. 1077 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4908




Above ancient Syrian

A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/oct/27/old-ale-beer-history

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Hyksos also made it clear they were Kushites.

---

why is it you are the only one on the planet earth who believes that?

Maybe they believe that on Planet Mus but not on earth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Djehutynakht is U5b, what does that mean to us? .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Djehutynakht is U5b, what does that mean to us? .

---

Senegalese Hal Pulaaren are 7% U5b.
I echo the same question wondering
if LGM mingling is part of the answer.
Siwa I mean?

---

LGM and post-LGM bidirectional Transcontinetal interaction between Saharans and NonAfricans ... I don't know, it feels obvious to me .

Or are you questioning intercontinental interactions between AEgyptians and other Africans, who en route brought various eccentric Haplogroups to the Nile during the holocene..
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IDK that might be a possibility as well... particularly looking at the Siwa Berber/West central African Uniparental overlap.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Djehutynakht is U5b, what does that mean to us? .

---

Senegalese Hal Pulaaren are 7% U5b.
I echo the same question wondering
if LGM mingling is part of the answer.
Siwa I mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Hyksos also made it clear they were Kushites.

---

why is it you are the only one on the planet earth who believes that?

Maybe they believe that on Planet Mus but not on earth

---

Because everybody else has not done the linguistic and archaeological research, so they follow the status quo.Moreover, most Afros only believe something if Europeans co-sign.

---

quote:

---

Despite festering internal problems, ceramics from Lower Egypt were continually imported and utilized by Classic Kerma culture (See Bourriau 2000: 172, 190; Ben-Tor 2007: 54). Concurrently, a certain amount of social integration between Kerma and the Nile Delta polities is visible in the material culture. For example, abundant ‘Xios dynastic’ mud-seals found at Kerma strongly suggest certain alliances were forged through connubial contracts (See Ryholt and Jacobsen 1997: 113-115; Morkot 2000: 65). Regardless, as during the Middle Kingdom Nubian gold was of principle importance to Egyptian kings thereby necessitating good relations with the now powerful state of Kerma (Bourriau 2000: 201; Mojsov 2005: 55). Separately, Kerma heka sought normalized economic transactions with the Hyksos (See also Bourriau 2000: 186-87, 208; Silverman and Brovarski 1997: 296; Mojsov 2005: 55). Thus, a substantive trade link between Kerma and Lower Egypt developed.

For example, various Semitic bronze items and clay seals bearing the names of Hyksos kings have been found in Classic Kerma strata (Morkot 2000: 65; Kuhrt 1995: 180). Additionally, Tell el-Yahudiya ware (literally “mound of the Jews”) was prolifically used in Nubian tombs, such as those found at Buhen (Henry 2003: 37; Biers and Terry 2004: 93; Smith and Simpson 1998: 117, 120; O’Connor 1993: 138). While in Lower Egypt, elephant ivory became a coveted import from Lower Nubia (Krzyszkowska and Morkot 2000: 324). On the other hand, some have pointed to the disproportionately low number of Kerma ceramics in Lower Egypt as suggesting that trade between the two polities was administratively unregulated (Ryholt and Jacobsen 1997: 140-41). However, this is weak speculation at best.

---