...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
1- Basic database of Nile Valley studies
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ase: [QB] ^^^^ please delete spam/trolling. The irony is that I was going to post more on Abusir el Meleq. The tombs there were reported to have Hebrew names. But to expand on Zarahan's original post: [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [b]2017 study finds sub-Saharan influence around Roman period. Ancient samples drawn from later period of Dynastic Egypt -taken from the farther north- downplaying the south, and excluding nearby Nubia & Sudan [/b] [IMG]https://lornaofarabia.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/egypt-region-map-cities-2.gif[/IMG] Ancient samples from Abusir, near Faiyum in the north [b]Samples from Late period-of Egypt- which have more foreign influence quote: [/b] “According to the radiocarbon dates .. the samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic (New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period), Ptolemaic and Roman Period." [b]Sampling from the far north- quote: [/b] Written sources indicate that by the third century BCE Abusir el-Meleq was at the centre of a wider region that comprised the northern part of the Herakleopolites province, and had close ties with the Fayum.. We aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community .. since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period..” [b]Limitations of study candidly admitted by authors - Quote: [/b] “However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa 51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made." --Schuenemann 2016 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. NatComm, 8:15694 [/QUOTE]-To offer a bit more context, the authors of Schuenemann 2016 admit to large scale migration [b]before any of their mummies existed[/b]: [QUOTE]Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant[/QUOTE]-[b]Most of the foreign inflow and Second Intermediate period conquest of Egypt took place in the [b]north[/b]. The Egyptians themselves admit to large scale migration and rule of northern Egypt by foreigners centuries before the first mummies of Abusir el Meleq[/b]: Egyptian Propaganda from the Prophecy of Neferti describes Asiatic immigration. [QUOTE] "All good things have passed away, the land being cast away through trouble by means of that food of the Asiatics who pervade the land. Enemies have come into being in the east; Asiatics have come down into Egypt, for a fortress lacks another beside it, and no guard will hear." [/QUOTE][b]Some who are more unfamiliar with Asiatic rule of Egypt believe it only extended to the Delta. Kamose's inscription describes Asiatic control having extended much further south of Abusir el-Meleq and into Cusae. Specifically the Egyptian nobility say:[/b] [QUOTE]"Behold, it is Asiatic water as far as Cusae...we are a ease in our (part of) Egypt. Elephantine is strong, and the middle (of the land) is with us as far as Cusae...He holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt. Should someone come and act against us, then we shall act against him." (CT-5-7)[/QUOTE]Tl;dr: Southern Egyptians saw the north of Cusae as "land of the Asiatics" centuries before the first of these mummies to enter Abusir el Meleq. This site does not provide data during such a critical period of Egyptian history to understand the degree to which demographic change took place due to these migration patterns. [b]-Another problem: the authors admit upon peer review that they have no comparable data from the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom and that the site was not really populated until the Late period:[/b] [QUOTE] Q5. Lines 75-77. “In particular, the site holds much promise for studying changes in its population structure from the late Dynastic Period to the present day.” Why is this the case? Is it due to the better DNA preservation in the later mummies?? Please explain! Answer:Unfortunately, [b]mummies from the Old till early New Kingdom[/b] are not present at the site or and not included in our data set, which focusses on the three consecutive periods. [b]The site is mainly occupied during the Late Period till Roman times [/b]according to written sources, and thus would allow the study of an extended temporal transect. We furthermore find in more than 50% of all remains authentic ancient DNA preserved, suggesting this to be an ideal site for further studies.[/QUOTE] http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170530/ncomms15694/extref/ncomms15694-s7.pdf The authors concede there's no way of knowing where these mummies came from or how much mixing had happened during the intermediate periods if they descended in part from natives. They don't have data from the site that precedes documented evidence of Asiatic migration into northern Egypt. And even if they did have it, they concede the site was before the Late Period wasn't very populated, leaving it questionable if the site would've [b]ever[/b] (even in Old Kingdom times) been a worthy location to search for a representational model of Egyptian diversity. The authors also describe foreign names being in the site they selected: [QUOTE]Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. [b]Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices.[/b] The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek. [/QUOTE] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694 Egyptologist SOY Keita in his response to the research study (more highlights from his rebuttal later) notes that in spite of what data is available or absent for comparison (some of which noted above), the research team make great assumptions to arrive to their conclusions: [QUOTE]The socio-cultural dynamics are not fully considered: the information on the origin and social status is [b]incomplete, or unknowable in fact.[/b] The mummies are clearly [b]assumed[/b] to be representative of the local population based on an incomplete archaeological report, in spite of the historical information provided about northern Egypt’s interaction with the Near East since the Predynastic, and the known settlements of Greeks, and others, in northern Egypt in later periods. [/QUOTE][URL=https://osf.io/ecwf3/]Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion[/URL] [b]In peer review, the authors downplay existing data from southern sites that show southern African ancestry:[/b] [QUOTE]Q13. Conclusions. I agree that in other sites, especially in the south of Egypt, there could be a much higher influence of Sub-Saharan populations. It is well known that there were close trading connections to Nubia and other Sub-Saharan areas during the Middle and New Kingdom. What does this mean for the interpretation of your findings? Answer: We have addressed this point in our revised discussion (see lines 395-405). As an alternative explanation this would only mean that modern-day Egyptians might resemble more closely ancient Egyptians from the south. However, [b]in the absence of data from southern sites, this also remains speculative.[/b][/QUOTE] http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170530/ncomms15694/extref/ncomms15694-s7.pdf Egyptologist SOY Keita review of Schuenemann et al. has so many points to cover that I highly suggest it is read. I'll cover some highlights: [b]Egyptologist SOY Keita responds to sample size and contributors to the field like Schuenemann et al. whose focus on using northern samples and publicly overstating their representation of a "true Egyptian," ignores a reality of the north being assimilated and integrated to Egyptian culture by the south during the predynastic:[/b] [QUOTE]All of the samples are from the northern half of Egypt, from one nome which is 2.4% (1/42) of AE nomes. Ancient Egyptian culture originated southern Upper Egypt.[/QUOTE][URL=https://osf.io/ecwf3/]Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion[/URL] [b]Egyptologist SOY Keita responds to Schuenemann et al.'s dismissal of data suggesting southern African (or Sub Saharan Afrian) genetic connections to southern Egypt.[/b] [QUOTE]Schuenemann et al. seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, [b]that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion.”[/b] In spite of the implied generalization about ‘origins’ the authors do offer the caveat that [b]their findings may have been different if samples had been used from southern Egypt, and this is a significant admission.[/b] Their conclusions deserve further discussion from multiple perspectives which cannot be fully developed due to space limitations. [/QUOTE][URL=https://osf.io/ecwf3/]Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion[/URL] Keita continues... [QUOTE] The authors completely dismiss the results of PCR methods used on AE remains. As a Habicht et al. 4 states, PCR based methods were used successfully on mummified Egyptian cats and crocodiles without creating extensive debate..." [IMG]https://s8.postimg.cc/qsyxoygdh/Gourdine_T1.png[/IMG] "... Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator⁸ based on the same published data 5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); [b]most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA"[/b] which is not the only way to be "African" a point worth repeating." [/QUOTE][URL=https://osf.io/ecwf3/]Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion[/URL] Keita criticizes Schuenemann et al.'s implication of "SSA" ancestry in modern Egyptians as the result of the slave trade: [QUOTE] Furthermore, [b]SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes[/b] that have been well documented as SSA groups from the [b]great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt.[/b][/QUOTE][URL=https://osf.io/ecwf3/]Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion[/URL] -Adding to Keita's points, evidence of the site's associations to the north include data that suggests Abusir el-Meleq during this Late Period of the samples was referred to by the Egyptians as a northern or Lower Egyptian site. It was frequently compared to Abydos due to the site's Osiris worship. Abydos was considered a southern epicenter of Osiris worship, while Abusir el Meleq was considered a site of worship associated with the north or Lower Egypt. Specifically, the research finds that it was translated and described as "Ꜣbḏw mḥt/mht(y)t" or "Northern Abydos/Abydos of the Lower Egypt, while Ꜣbḏw was the Abydos of Upper Egypt (s wr Ꜣbḏw sm) was the Osiris worship center of the south. You can read more about it here: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=3110498561 [/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