...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Are you hopeful about AE?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sundiata: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] It is true that the E1b1b haplotype began in E. Africa, although there is debate about this point.[/QUOTE]Not at all. Stop looking to obsfucate what is universally accepted and evident. [QUOTE]Nevertheless, if this is your argument, then you should be aware of the following facts: 1) The E1b1b haplotype constitutes only 38% or 39% of the Egyptian genetic profile, while it constitutes about 85% of the Somalian genetic profile. In fact, Egyptians and Somalis don't share much else of their genetic profile[/QUOTE]Actually, as reported, the majority of major Haplotypes in Egypt are African derived, be it E3B or other lineages. The fact that Egypt has seen a regression in frequency due to recent and extensive contacts with foreigners, is a given., [QUOTE]because the Egyptian genetic profile has been far more diverse from Paleolithic times.[/QUOTE]False. There's been no extraction of ancient Egyptian DNA from paleolithic times. In fact, DNA won't last that long and degrades. One of the few assessments of ancient remains from Egypt ONLY confirmed the presence of "sub-Saharan" lineages. Quote: "[i]There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, [b]including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa[/b] (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, [b]but may be African in origin[/b]. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples."[/i] - S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27 [QUOTE]Also, E1b1b constitutes 28% of the average Moroccan genotype and 16% of an average Tunsian's genotype. Furthermore, E1b1b constitutes 29% of an average Macedonian's genotype, 24% of the Greek genotype, and 22% of Romania's genotype. So, based upon your simplistic logic; Romanians, Macedonians, and Greeks are "Cushites" as well. What kind of logic is this? Because you are confusing genetic heritage with "ethnicity" and "race" and "civilizational type", your argument makes no sense.[/QUOTE]Hahaha.. What kind of silly argument is this? Firstly, E3B is not "cushitic", it is East African. Cushitic is a language category, akin to ancient Egyptian. As far as Romans and Greeks possessing African lineages only informs me that Africans were an influential element in those societies. As far as Egypt, it tells me that Egyptians retained their indigenous markers, as Egypt is in East Africa, near where those said lineages emerged. The fact that other people in Africa have it isn't a surprise either. My logic doesn't depend on the presence of e3B in Egypt, but the presence of VARIOUS African lineages. In fact, [URL=http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf]this study[/URL] suggests that Greeks possess such African ancestry due to early contacts with ancient Egyptians (Africans). [QUOTE]2) The "Egyptian genotype", varies significantly from Southern Egypt, which is more African, to Northern Egypt, which is more "Mediterranean", and always has been.[/QUOTE]Always has been? Please, there was never a genetic dichotomy in Egypt until invaders penetrated the North. Stop making baseless claims that you're unable to support and learn to read: On pre-dynastic Northern Egyptians: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54 "[i]Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be [b]significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time[/b]. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. [b]The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"[/b][/i] ^^In other words, ancient Northern Egyptians were not related to Eurasians and in fact, according to limb-ratio/limb-length proportions, they can effectively be grouped with other Africans. [QUOTE]J-haplotype, which originated in West Asia. The Egyptian genotype is composed of 32% or 33% of the J-haplotype, which is thought to have begun somewhere in West Asia (the Middle East) between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. This haplotype, which is not of African origin is found in Amharic Ethiopians, but exists only in trace amounts in Somalians. This haplotype entered Egypt from Palestine, Syria and Iraq, and is evidence of migrations from the West Asia to North Africa for over 25,000 years.[/QUOTE]No, it is evidence of migration into North Africa some 1300 years ago, with the onset of the Arab invasion. 25,000 years ago, most of the world would still be phenotypically African with J only recently emerging. Why you associate foreign DNA in Egypt with some imaginary migration thousands of years ago, when we have records of J carriers entering the country in large numbers as recent as 700 A.D., is beyond me. Even the Hyksos invasion may have contributed, but no such event occurred 25,000 years ago. That's already been disproven. Population continuity or population change : Formation of the ancient egyptian state [QUOTE]The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations [b]in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state[/b]. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. [b]The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process.[/b] Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied.[/QUOTE]- ZAKRZEWSKI Sonia R. (2007) AND: Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari [QUOTE]Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) [b]The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans[/b] while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. [b]It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans.[/b] There was more of cultural transfer.[/QUOTE]- Keita, S.O.Y., (2005) [QUOTE]Besides Egyptians, this haplotype is prevalent in Palestinians (34%), Syrians (30%), and Iraqis 25%) as well as Lebanese (25%). And in fact, this haplotype constitutes a significant part of the genotype of people in the Caucasus mountains, and about 39% of the Greek genotype, and again it is found in Somalia in tiny amounts, if at all.[/QUOTE]I don't care who else has it. The point is when did they get it and where it originated. And? The Barry Kemp statement I quoted above has already ensured us that the earliest Northern Egyptians weren't even related to middle easterners. Therefore, the sharing of such haplotypes is indicative of recent admixture. These lineages obviously weren't present to that degree in pre-dynastic/early dynastic times, before the long occupation of Egypt by foreigners. [QUOTE]R-haplotype, which originated in Northwest Asia. The average Egyptian genotype contains 9% of the R-haplotype, which originated over 30,000 years ago, and is not found in significant amounts anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, although trace amounts have been found in Chadic speakers, believe it or not. Haplotype R is the most common and widespread haplotype in Western Europe and is also prevalent in Northern India and everything in between, and certainly did not emerge in Africa. G-haplotype, which originated in Asia. The average Egyptian genotype is constituted of 9% of haplotype G, which is found among Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, and Southern Europeans, and is not found anywhere else in North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa. T-haplotype, which also originated in Asia, but spread to Southern Europe, Egypt, North Africa, and significant amounts even exist in Ethiopia and Somalia, but this is not an African haplotype, and in part explains why some Ethiopians and Somalis share a little genetic heritage with West Asians and Southern Europeans. Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian genotype is distinct from the Somalian genotype, and even if we could speak of a "Cushitic" genotype, which makes no sense in reality, Egyptians and Somalians have always been distinct, which is why Egyptians have always called themselves "Egyptians," whether they spoke Ancient Egyptian or Arabic, and have never called themselves "Cushites".[/QUOTE]Wow.. What is your point man, you are getting ridiculous. Given the wide-spread distribution of all of these lineages and their origin, surely you CAN't argue that all of these haplotypes are indigenous to one place, especially Egypt. Modern Egyptians have incorporated just about every ethnic group from Jews, Arabs, Turks, Greeks and Romans since the fall of ancient Egypt. This isn't surprising though why you rely on modern DNA as being a replica of ancient DNA, is beyond me. My argument is for ancient, not Modern Egypt. And it's really not an argument. [QUOTE][b]The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt.[/b] "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them). [/QUOTE]- The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians, S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27 Your obsession with Somalis is confusing. ancient Egyptians were not only related to Somalis, but to Sudanese and other northeast Africans as well. Maybe Modern Egyptians are a bit more diverse than ancient Egyptians which goes without saying, but the link has already been confirmed. As a matter of fact, according to Brace's 2006 twig, ancient Egyptians cluster more closely alongside Somalis and Sudanese (both ancient and Modern), than they do with Modern Egyptians (who were in the sample)! Ain't that a b.itch!? Modern Sudanese are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than Modern Egyptians are. :) Quote:"[i]The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, [b]there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans.[/i][/b]" C. Loring Brace, National Academy of Sciences (2006) In other words, there was a cline all the way from Central Africa, to Egypt that gets broken afterwards and Modern Egyptians weren't a part of the cluster (remote or primary). The graph shows them (Modern Egyptians) being most similar to Modern Moroccans, while Northern Europeans were absolutely distinct from everyone, hence, "the separate identity of Northern Europeans". Sudanese and Somali were once again, in the primary cluster with [b]ancient[/b] Egyptians. [QUOTE]Finally, as you travel to Northern Egypt, the people contain a lot more of the J, R, and G haplogroup, and as you travel South, towards Upper Egypt, the E-haplogroup becomes more prominent.[/QUOTE]That's because Southern Egypt was harder to penetrate by foreign invaders. Btw, ancient Egypt was unified from the south, in case you didn't know. [QUOTE]The genetic diversity of Egypt derives mostly from Paleolithic and Mesolithic times[/QUOTE]Stop making stuff up.. [QUOTE] which was exactly the point of the article that I posted, and only a little of this variation has been added since the foundation of Pharaonic civilization.[/QUOTE]I've already provided studies to the contrary, so your backwards argument means nothing. The earliest Egyptians had African biological affinities and little relation to non-Africans, and only later did such diversity take place. What you posted outlined the presence of a haplotype that has a frequency in the single digits (rare) and from a study that emphasized south-north movement of gene flow. You cherry pick irrelevancies. [QUOTE]You are so fixated on finding a genetic basis for your "Cushitic" fantasies[/QUOTE]You are frustratingly ignorant. Cushitic is a language group, not a genetic label.. [QUOTE], that you missed the point of the article; even the E-haplotype, which likely began in East Africa, traveled outside of East Africa, where its carriers mixed with other non-African people, and those people came back to North Africa, and this migration between Egypt and Eurasia in particular, and between Eurasia and E. Africa, to a much smaller extent, occurred repeatedly, even before the beginning of Egyptian civilization.[/QUOTE]Where'd you read this fairy tale? When people have to make up long exaggerated events, that means they lost a long time ago. The earliest Egyptians showed no signs of genetic admixture as I've already demonstrated above via citation. What ever is the condition of modern Egypt, happened at a later date. [QUOTE]Hence, neither the Ancient Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians are "Cushitic" and Northern Egyptians have never shared the majority of their genetic heritage with Somalians.[/QUOTE]Cushitic is a language category. Somalis are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than Modern Egyptians are. The research has already been done that shows this and I posted some of it above. Choose to remain ignorant, it isn't my problem. [QUOTE]I know you want to associate yourself and your race with Ancient Egypt any way that you can, despite logic and the empirical evidence, but I suggest that you be proud of your own culture and that you shed whatever weird inferiority complex that motivates you to seek your identity elsewhere. [/QUOTE]Ironically coming from a White Nord who seeks to associate himself with some supreme "Caucasoid race" that stretches 3 continents and attributes every pocket of civilization from Africa to India to this imaginary people. This is obviously due to the fact that Northern Europe was among the last to evolve civilization, so robbing, stealing, and lying plays as a balancing effect to the psyche. I don't believe in race, but I do believe in truth and this truth is that Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. :) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3