Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)
    Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:36
This topic shows us that we are living inside Babel Tower but can not admit this also!We deny each other
existence.LOL
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:38
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by red clay

Your not doing so hot yourself bub. It's refrained, not reframed and take should be plural.  And you should take your own advice about hurling insults.
In your opinion, red clay, do you believe it is better grammar to say, "I generally don't insult a person's grammar, but your post take the cake!", instead of, "I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!"?Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.
 
 
Proper structure is "Post takes the cake"  I also found the same error in the line above, he used post instead of Posts.
 
There are snobbie pretentious forums where improper grammar is a suspendable offense, This is for sure not one of them. Big smile  And that's a good thing, I'd be busy as hell suspending folks.


Personally I don't hold with this grammar snobbishness either. However when there are those who act in this snobbish manner towards people in an insulting way I believe these people are momently fair game. 


Edited by TheAlaniDragonRising - 21-Nov-2011 at 18:42
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 22:49
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

If doesn't matter  for the needs of this thread that Afro-Asiatic may have originated or not in East Africa, the thread is not about where it originated from,


The origins of the language spoken by the ancient Egyptians is an integral aspect of this debate, and has been explained in detail by Christopher Ehret (linguistic authority) in the article posted in the OP. I suspect that you reason you wish to discard this aspect is because it's painfully obvious that Afro-Asiatic originated in modern day Ethiopia and not the Middle East as you have postulated (ounsourced might I add).


I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that. I know very well what Ehret had to say about it, but here in this context this is a moot point - no where Afro-Asiatic originated, but to which language Ancient Egyptian was close is what can prove with which population the Ancient Egyptians were in constant contact and probably mixed.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&KW=&PID=658342#658342
What I said you may consider silly if you want; but anyway it proves that the Egyptians and the Nubians spoke different languages that were not related by language group, so therefore they weren't one and the same culture to start with. Afro-Asiatic is not related to Nilotic, and the Nubians spoke a Nilotic language, not an Afro-Asiatic.

As about Frigi, and if I remember right here http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=%22Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations%22he explains the mtDNA of the Berbers with mass weddings of Sub-Saharan males to European women, which is not a logical scenario / like all of the sudden all males lost their appetite for their own women and probably sold them and got themselves only European women. But he also says that:

"...However, from our results, the North African populations
appear more related to European than to sub-Saharan populations. The “Eurasian” component
seems to have come in over a longer period of time (Keita, 2010). A small amount of gene
flow per generation into a population/geographical region can drastically change its original
gene frequencies in only a few thousand years as noted by Cavalli Sforza (1991). This genetic
flow from Europe seems have happened since Neolithic period. Despite the fact that Neolithic
expansion had the same effect in Northern Africa as in Europe, the Straits of Gibraltar acted
as a barrier between the two continents, limiting gene flow between North-western Africa and
Western Europe through the Iberian Peninsula (Comas et al. 2000;Garcia-Obregon et al.
2006; Varela et al. 2008; Frigi et al. 2010). This justifies the fact that the majority of North
African populations appear in the MDS analysis as a separate group from European
populations...."http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=%22Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations%22

"...Taken together, results on Y chromosome, mtDNA and Alu Insertions in North Africa
allow to propose a scenario for this region. The ancient sub-Saharan settlement would have
been followed by admixture with Iberian populations. But, as the North African Y
chromosome remained dominant in the region, we could argue that this admixture have been
realized in one direction: North African men and Eurasian women, explaining the gene flow
from Europe and high frequency of European types of mtDNA in North Africa as compared
with Y chromosome. This situation would not be the result of drift toward Eurasian mtDNA.
Our results on Alu insertions interestingly confirm that this gene flow happened several times
probably always on the same direction. These matrimonial exchanges between North Africa
and Europe should be considered in a context of patriarchal societies with men attached to
territory and women from different regions including Europe. Hence, genetic diversity on one
hand and relationship with Europe should have been due to women...." Ibid.

This supposition in the last quote is what I find illogical - because for all ethnnicities from Neolithic times to systematically take only European women and ditch their own, for several thousand years in a row, from the Neolithic froward. The fact is that up to 90% of the Berber mtDNA /depending on the area/ is Eurasian, as well as like 80% of the Berber Y-DNA is West-African Sub-Saharan, if I remember well. I don't see though any East-African DNA to fit your map that the Berbers came from  East Africa so their language is closer to Egyptian because of that, as you claimed.

"...The Berbers are the indigenous population of north-west Africa. Although their Y-DNA is almost perfectly homogenous, belonging to haplogroup E-M81, Berber maternal lineages show a much greater diversity, as well as regional disparity. At least half (and up to 90% in some regions) of the Berbers belong to some Eurasian lineages, such as H, HV, R0, J, T, U, K, N1, N2, and X2, mostly of Middle or Near Eastern origin. 5 to 45% of the Berbers will have sub-Saharan mtDNA (L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5). There are only three native North African lineages, U6, X1 and M1, representing 0 to 35% of the people depending on the region...."http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#Berber

My entire theory is only a speculation? I posted nothing but studies that can be followed, so I fail to see how it's based on nothing. Now if you don't like the studies I posted this is not my problem. I'm posting my info, and I don't have the slightest desire to argue with you in the way you are making your arguments. I see that you are going on personal attacks instead on a respectful discussion and I have no desire to participate in such.

Of course there will be affinities between Egyptians and Nubians, they lived next to each other, this is to be expected, I never said they didn't share affinities - I said that they are not the same ethnicity per se, and quoted studies for that. Now, to cite normal genetic and cultural interactions and mutual migrations that happen in any neighbouring ethnicities, as a proof that they are the same ethnicity is to push it and I don't buy that.

As for me citing Racial Reality - I did that only because you insulted me saying that I was dishonest while using the studies he linked without referring his name - so, this is what you wanted, no? But now you are using that to say that I cite people with agendas? What are you actually aiming for?
There is no racial agenda in the studies I cited as studies, so please stop insinuating about such things. What personal opinions of unqualified individual I presented? All I did was to link the blog on which Racial Reality posted the studies I wanted referenced  and this after you told me that I was supposed to cite the person I got the studies from. I posted live studies, you posted quotes that I cannot follow online.




Edited by Don Quixote - 22-Nov-2011 at 01:05
Back to Top
MKGlouisville View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl

Troll

Joined: 22-Nov-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30
  Quote MKGlouisville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2011 at 15:51
Originally posted by Don Quixote

I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that.


I am attacking your assertion that the origins of Afro-Asiatic is controversial. I have proved to you that linguist and scholars amongst unanimously agree that the origins of this language phylum was in Eastern Africa. In doing so I am proving that the language AND people directly ancestral to ancient Egypt came from Sub Saharan East Africa. This is confirmed in both of Christopher Ehret's studies which have been presented in this thread. 

no where Afro-Asiatic originated, but to which language Ancient Egyptian was close is what can prove with which population the Ancient Egyptians were in constant contact and probably mixed.


No it does not! Case and point Chadic and Berber languages are closer to each other than they both are to ancient Egyptian. Chadian speakers are in central Africans and Berbers are north Africans, are you insinuating that those two Afro-Asiatic populations are biologically uniform with one another?

What I said you may consider silly if you want; but anyway it proves that the Egyptians and the Nubians spoke different languages that were not related by language group


You on the other hand have also been provided with a recent study which confirms that despite both populations belonging to different language families, they have been biologically the same since pre-dynastic times. Do you not understand that this consistently biological findings completely refutes what you are asserting regarding the ancient Egyptians being biologically close to Berbers? You have also been presented with recent genetic analysis which confirms that the Berber speakers across Northern Africa are not biologically uniform in the their affinities, and being so Egyptian Berbers show genetic overlapping with Sub Saharan East African populations like Ethiopians and Northwest Berbers tend to closer with either West Africans or Europeans.

so therefore they weren't one and the same culture to start with.


Wrong again. You are confirming just how little you actually know about ancient Egyptians culture and it's people:

"According to common knowledge, it has generally been held that there was a geographical, cultural and political boundary between Egypt and Nubia in the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period, and it was located between Gebel es Silsila and Aswan . Any Egyptian evidence in Nubia was seen as an import or cultural influence, while any Nubian evidence in Upper Egypt was viewed as the sporadic presence of foreign people within Egyptian territory. As a consequence, the cemeteries located from Kubbaniya southwards were assigned to the A-Group culture.

In recent years, new research on the subject shows that the interaction between the two cultures was much more complex than previously thought, affecting the time, space and nature of the interaction. As a result, the Aswan area probably never was a real borderline. The two regions, and so their cultural entities, are not antithetical to one another, but in prehistoric times are still the expression of the same cultural tradition, with strong regional variations, particularly in the last part of the 4th millennium BC.

Unique cultural features, unknown elsewhere, have been recorded in the area surrounding the First Cataract, and from there northward up to Hierakonpolis and probably even Armant, and southward down to Dehmit. The data recorded in this area always shows a preponderance of Naqadian elements, while the Nubian component, although consistent, is definitely in the minority, disproving an A-Group affiliation. These features may indicate the presence of a regional variant of the Naqada culture combining, particularly during the first half of the fourth millennium BC, both Egyptian and Nubian traditions." 

In the Predynastic period, the Egyptian and Nubian identities still shared many common traits derived from a common ancestry. The Naqada culture developed from the Badarian culture which, as the Tasian, was related to the Nubian Neolithic tradition (Gatto 2002; 2006c). Thus, the definition of what was Egyptian or Nubian at that time in the First Cataract region (and the southern part of Upper Egypt) is not so obvious: are the local cooking pots (shale-tempered ware), for example, Egyptian or Nubian?"

--GATTO M.C.(2009). Field season in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region of Egypt." Aswan-Kom Ombo. Archaeological Project. Report to: The Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt.


So according to Egyptian antiquities council and just about every other Egyptologist and African historian, Nubians and ancient Egyptians have been biologically AND culturally the same since Pre-Dynastic times.

Afro-Asiatic is not related to Nilotic, and the Nubians spoke a Nilotic language, not an Afro-Asiatic.


Yet you completely ignore the fact that the ancient Egyptian language infused integral Nilotic customs and words into their own language (despite both belonging to different language families):

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)


Are you going to ignore this also?

he explains the mtDNA of the Berbers with mass weddings of Sub-Saharan males to European women, which is not a logical scenario / like all of the sudden all males lost their appetite for their own women and probably sold them and got themselves only European women. But he also says that:


No one disputes the fact that some modern Berber populations have closer biological affinities towards non African populations, which is all that your quote spam is stating.  What has been proven by Frigi and postulated by many other scholars however, is that the population foundation of all Northern Africans came from Sub Saharan East Africa. Therefore your point is moot and also has nothing to do with the origins of ancient Egypt.

This supposition in the last quote is what I find illogical


Genetics don't lie. The mtdna is primarily Eurasian while the majority of the North African Y Chromosome is of East African origins.

I don't see though any East-African DNA to fit your map that the Berbers came from  East Africa so their language is closer to Egyptian because of that, as you claimed.


Every last one of your post throughout this thread, seems to be express complete ignorance of the evidence which has been laid out directly for you. Once again you can that Egyptian Berbers still retain their genetic affinity towards Sub Saharan East African populations:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214


My entire theory is only a speculation? I posted nothing but studies that can be followed


NO, you spammed the biased and misleading conclusions of selective studies from an qualified individual which have been refuted by my later replies. To which you never replied to, because you yourself do not understand what does studies mean and was dependent on another individuals faulty and dishonest argument.

Now if you don't like the studies I posted this is not my problem.


No I refuted the copy and pasted misinterpretations of the studies that you presented, and posted numerous studies of my own spanning every scientific discipline from anthropology, genetics, linguistics to archaeology. All of which conclude that the original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Nilotic Saharans and Sub Saharan East African populations.

There is no racial agenda in the studies I cited as studies, so please stop insinuating about such things.


First all the guys name is "RACIAL REALITY". He is a "Caucasoid-centrist" and is a stark promotor of the biological concept of race, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects such a notion. This is reason why the name of the thread from which you hi-jacked your argument is called the "CAUCASOID affinities of the ancient Egyptians and Nubians". Notice that he is also claiming that the ancient Nubians were "Caucasoid" as well. Do you know why he does this? HE KNOWS THAT THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE THAT THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS AND NUBIANS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME POPULATION SINCE PRE-DYNASTIC TIMES. Therefore he knows that logically he cannot promote one population as "Caucasoid" and the other populations as "Negroid" as you are attempting to do.
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2011 at 19:39
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that.


I am attacking your assertion that the origins of Afro-Asiatic is controversial. I have proved to you that linguist and scholars amongst unanimously agree that the origins of this language phylum was in Eastern Africa. In doing so I am proving that the language AND people directly ancestral to ancient Egypt came from Sub Saharan East Africa. This is confirmed in both of Christopher Ehret's studies which have been presented in this thread. 

There is no unanimous agreement that Afro-Asiatic originated in Ethiopia, there is till the Middle-Eastern  theory about it's origin; so with other theories in existence, it's Uhermait is controversial.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&PID=658394#658394
No, I'm not saying anything like that, stop misrepresenting me. I don't know the case of Chadic, but it's a Nilo-Saharn language and I doubt that its' closer to Berber that is Afro-Asiatic - it's like to say that Russian is closer to German that to Serbian, In any case I expect you to cite a linguist on that, like I did , I'm not going to take your personal opinion.

I never said the Egyptians were close to the Berbers, this is some contraption of yours. I said that their languages are closer that Egyptian and Nubian. Now, I cites studies that show that Egypt has more diversified population that Nubia, as well as Lower Egypt that Upper one - this is not being biologically the same. Besides, I never claimed that there weren't Nubians in Egypt - I talk about mixed population, which includes similarity and connection to Nubians, But the Egyptians weren't Nubians, and had more diversified genetic flow.

How much I know and I don't know about what is not yours to decide. I never refuted the cultural connections between the both peoples; but this is not a common ancestry - if they had such their languages would be from one and the same group, not from different ones.

Yes, Egyptian infused words from Nilotic languages, like Russia did from English - this doesn't make Russians with a common ancestry with the Brits.
The Magreb Berbers don't have East African Y-DNA, but West-African one. The Northern Africans are quite a bit intermixed with Euro-Asians, so they are mixed people, "not all coming from East Africa"; the Berbers in particular.
Now, stop claiming that I'm ignorant, again I don't need your evaluation - I know that the Egyptian Berbers are different from the Morrocan ones and closer to East-Africans - so what? This doesn't mean that the Magreb Berbers came form East Africa. besides, language-wise, there is no Egyptian-Berber language and Margebi-Berber, it's one language, AFAIK.

 I posted studies, live ones, not copy-paste, and everyone can follow them - what is copy-pasted in that? And you wanted me to cite Racial Reality, if you so remember; if you so want to call him something, go tell it to him, not to me. The studies that he posted and I followed are not racial, no matter what you call them. If you don't like my posts, don't respond to them - I don't have to waste my time to fight with your insinuations. I cannot make a normal conversation when I'm misrepresented and dragged toward positions that I don't support - this is not a discussion, but a character assassinaton.





Edited by Don Quixote - 22-Nov-2011 at 20:06
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 12:34
from all the research i have done on ancient Egyptians (old kingdom) and the period before that, i can mostly certainly say they were of african origin, Egyptians themselves claimed that they came from Land of Punt which is located in east Africa today confirmed by recent findings

Also the Cushtic languages of east africa are the closes group to ancient egyptians, if you study the old kingdom in details you will defiantly find what i am saying to be true

Also even today the Upper Egyptians are african, just go search (Beja people) they are the closes people to ancient egyptians
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 17:41
Originally posted by balochii

from all the research i have done on ancient Egyptians (old kingdom) and the period before that, i can mostly certainly say they were of african origin, Egyptians themselves claimed that they came from Land of Punt which is located in east Africa today confirmed by recent findings

Also the Cushtic languages of east africa are the closes group to ancient egyptians, if you study the old kingdom in details you will defiantly find what i am saying to be true

Also even today the Upper Egyptians are african, just go search (Beja people) they are the closes people to ancient egyptians

The Egyptians were indigenous Africans, there is no doubt about this, and I never claimed otherwise; all I'm saying is that they were not homogenous population, and were mixed from several ethnicities, which is logical considering that they were living in the oldest and most used migration corridors. There was more than one stream in this mixture - one of those streams was for sure what the Egyptians called "the Land of Punt" /south of them/ - but this is not the whole story. There was significant Middle-eastern stream that brougth the agricultural revolution in Africa during the Neolithic, and there is enough genetic proof about that.
About the Cushitic languages being the  closest to Ancient Egyptian I don't know; can you post a linguistic study or two that talk about that? Thanks in advance.

The modern Egyptians AFAIK are even more mixed than the ancient ones, and clusetr mostly with South-Western Asians, less with Western Asians, and even less with North Africans - I suppose this would go for all Egyptians, but the source I got this from didn't specify between Upper and Lower Egypt. I read on several places that The Beja were closest to the Ancient Egyptians, but I wasn't able to find a study that says that, only what people claim on variety of forums and sites - so if you have such study I'd appreciate if you share it here.

Anyway it would make sense that the Beja /being the remnant of the Ancient Kushites/Nubians/are the closest to the Ancient Egyptians, since they live next to each other, interbred, etc; what I'm saying is that the Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians weren't identical, not that they weren't related. The phenotype of the said two ethnicities is too different /judging from the Egyptian art, than presents Nubians and Egyptians with a very different phenotypes/ to suppose that they are identical; after all human phenotype is genetically based. On the other hand the modern Egyptians have the same phenotype as the ancient ones from the same art; and they are closest to South-West Asians and North Africans, AFAIK - so far no one had explained to me how come they looked so different from what they are closest with and so close to what they are not supposed to be close with?

I'm going to accompany my thoughts with the abstract of a genetic study:
"...We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/?tool=pmcentrez

So, North Africa and Egypt had been with mixed population since the Neolithic, after the demic dispersion of Afro-Asiatic speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. on this background I believe it's illogical to say that there was no mixing of the populations, ethnicities, etc in Egypt during the Pre-Dynastic period - the population was already mixed by this time.

I generally cannot understand why every time I suggest mixed population in Egypt my opinion is considered a result of ignorance or of  racism, or whatever; when I support myself with studies that talk about migrations and ethnic mixing; I didn't imagine that, I read it and I can quote quite a few studies about that. Is that a politically incorrect view or something?Confused Just like your opinion mine is a result of research - and in fact it doesn't contradict yours, it includes yours, since I always stated that Egyptian civilization is indigenous African one; but I cannot accept the "pure ethnicity" theory - not in the oldest melting pot in the the human history, when there is plenty of studies that show ethnic mixing.





Edited by Don Quixote - 23-Nov-2011 at 17:51
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:17
When it comes to genetic research many people would think that having 2 different results from 2 different studies would refute one or the other - I don't think so. Different people are tested, with different lineages, and that they live in one country doesn't mean much, especially when the population of the last is not homogenous. I'm going to post 2 abstracts to illustrate my point:

"...Abstract
The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region...."http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5manni.html


"...Summary

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.

This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population...."http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract


So, the first study claims that the European and Middle-Eastern characteristics lead, and the second that the Ethiopian one leads; does that mean than one refutes the other? No, it doesn't - it only show that some individuals had more of e Eurasian genetic make-up, and other more West-African one; so they complete each other to give us a better picture of what the reality is. The same with the Ancient Egyptians - there is enough data to support both connection with Nubia and connection with the Middle East, since the Neolithic. This makes much more sense to me that claiming that only one side is possible.


That's why I will not refute any genetic study I come upon - genetics don't lie. Egyptians were close to Nubians - there is enough ti prove that; and there was Middle-eastern admixture since the Neolithics - there is enough research that proves that; both don't refute each other. I would like this most unpleasant /to say the least/ polarity that go for some kind of pure ethnicity from any direction, to stop in favor of a more balanced and realistic view that takes in consideration all available research, not only this that supports one side; life is far more complex and picturesque that any abstract extreme that exists mostly in the realm of human mind.





Edited by Don Quixote - 23-Nov-2011 at 18:19
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:41
^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6086
  Quote TheAlaniDragonRising Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:45
Originally posted by balochii

^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed
I would agree with you, balochii, ancient Egyptians were probably not of one single race, but that of a number in such a significant mixing pot.Smile
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:05
This thread is going nowhere. While it's highly likely the original Egyptians were black, it's impossible to prove, especially with nationalists like Zahi Hawass trying to give ancient Egypt Semitic origins
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:18
Originally posted by balochii

^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed

You mean original ones like pre-Dynastic ones? I don't know, I haven't seen enough art from this period.
Since I think they were mixed population I think they looked mixed, from all varieties of Lower and Upper Egypt.
Click image for larger version        Name: Secrets of Ancient Egypt Paintings.jpg    Views: 24    Size: 62.5 KB    ID: 81469
http://i46.tinypic.com/nmjccw.jpg


There are at least 4 different phenotypes here - and obviously the Egyptians saw them as significantly different ones since they portrayed them as different ones.


Edited by Don Quixote - 23-Nov-2011 at 19:38
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:23
Originally posted by Nick1986

This thread is going nowhere. While it's highly likely the original Egyptians were black, it's impossible to prove, especially with nationalists like Zahi Hawass trying to give ancient Egypt Semitic origins

Well, politics ruins every real scholarship....most lamentably. I wouldn't go with a Semitic origin - this hypothesis is pretty much disproved. Semitic admixture at some point - probably, Ramses the Great was supposed to be with Levantine roots - but not Semitic origin.
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 21:52
Let's think from another perspectiveBig smile

Did egyptian have a theory of human origin like greeks?
(according to greek myths, the first humans are phrygians)

Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2011 at 04:20
Sources about Creation in Ancient Egypt:(Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!WinkLanguage evolves every second!In front of arguments against mine,could be posted only word's fragments and grammar rules till the moment,DNA analysis become sufficient to proves it!
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/religion/deitiescreation.html
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2011 at 09:02
Originally posted by medenaywe

Sources about Creation in Ancient Egypt

Thanks for source

Originally posted by medenaywe

Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!Wink

Yes you can use it like this and also instead of OK ("tamam" comes from arabic)

Originally posted by medenaywe

Language evolves every second!In front of arguments against mine,could be posted only word's fragments and grammar rules till the moment


Yes, I agree you. however legend can help to find scientific evidences and to develop theories. For example,  German Heinrich Schliemann just used Iliad to find Troy. Only Iliad, it doesn't matter, but when you find an archeologic city, according to similar enviroment with Iliad. It means something. 

Originally posted by medenaywe


DNA analysis become sufficient to proves it!


I believe too. DNA analysis are obligation to find the truth





Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2011 at 16:56
I researched around but wasn't able to find references about who the Egyptians thought were the first people, and the creation myths I found are general, not geographically oriented. Basil Davidson in his "The lost Cities of Africa" if I remember right mentions that the Egyptians considered that they came from south-west. AFAIK, they considered punt to be their old motherland; Punt is thought to be Ethiopia, but there is an opinion that it was Saudi Arabia; also that it may have been on the both sides on the Red Sea - this is what i consider to be most plausible since it covers all the clues we have as to it's location. I wrote on this on this thread


Edited by Don Quixote - 26-Nov-2011 at 17:00
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2011 at 17:43
I came upon this study that suggests a migration route from the Levant into Egypt during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic.
"...Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly,
as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia. We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in
bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as
10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males
from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these
demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene
flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa
appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented
by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream
mutations) and M173. (3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and
M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor
and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup
composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency
distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population,
suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component. Finally, the overall phylogeographic profile reveals
several clinal patterns and genetic partitions that may indicate source, direction, and relative timing of different
waves of dispersals and expansions involving these nine populations...." http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf

So, according to it there was influx in East Africa from the Middle East during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, even before the Neolithic demic expansion.


Edited by Don Quixote - 26-Nov-2011 at 18:21
Back to Top
MKGlouisville View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl

Troll

Joined: 22-Nov-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30
  Quote MKGlouisville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2011 at 14:26
Originally posted by Don Quixote

No, I'm not saying anything like that, stop misrepresenting me. I don't know the case of Chadic, but it's a Nilo-Saharn language


You have just confirmed that you have no idea, what you are talking about! Chadic is an Afro-Asiatic language, which is most closely related to the Berber language.

and I doubt that its' closer to Berber that is Afro-Asiatic - it's like to say that Russian is closer to German that to Serbian, In any case I expect you to cite a linguist on that, like I did , I'm not going to take your personal opinion.


You don't want my opinion that's fine. Here is a 2009 linguistic study showing the Chadic affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolic meaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.

"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language.crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the

The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

--Dr. Alain Anselin (University of Antilles-Guyane) Some notes about an early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egyptian civilization.
In: Egypt in its African Context. 2009. Proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ENgland. Karen Exell (ed). BAR International Series 2204 2011
Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports


This further confirms the statements by the Egyptian antiquities that Nubians and ancient Egyptians were of common origin, despite linguistic difference. It's clear that both civilizations were a combination of both Nilo Saharan and Afro- Asiatic speakers.

I said that their languages are closer that Egyptian and Nubian.


True, but none the less what does this say about the ancient Egyptians phenotype? I have presented to you a recent 2009 study which confirms that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians have been biologically the same population since pre-dynastic times. This disproves your assertion that linguistic ties are what determine this affinity.

Now, I cites studies that show that Egypt has more diversified population that Nubia, as well as Lower Egypt that Upper one - this is not being biologically the same.


No you have not. All you have done is misinterpret studies from Racial Realities blog and I've disproven them.

How much I know and I don't know about what is not yours to decide. I never refuted the cultural connections between the both peoples; but this is not a common ancestry


Once again:



Do you have any answer to the findings of this study, or are you going to continue to make baseless assertions that contradict it?

The Magreb Berbers don't have East African Y-DNA, but West-African one.


Once again your opinion is contradicting peer reviewed genetic evidence. The entire basis of North Africa's indigenous population is Sub Saharan East African genetics:

"Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."

-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)


Stop trying to stand baseless claims up against peer reviewed evidence.

I posted studies, live ones, not copy-paste, and everyone can follow them - what is copy-pasted in that?


Along with those studies you posted the misinterpretations of Racial Realty, which are also seen on his blog. None the less I am about to go through all of these studies that you've spammed during my suspension and show you just how misinterpreted they are on YOUR part. 
Back to Top
Tyche View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Troll

Joined: 30-Nov-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote Tyche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2011 at 15:25
Originally posted by Don Quixote

The Egyptians were indigenous Africans, there is no doubt about this, and I never claimed otherwise; all I'm saying is that they were not homogenous population, and were mixed from several ethnicities,


No one disputes this fact! Those ethnicities according to mainstream peer reviewed evidence were entirely of Northeast African origins. You most also remember that when we are talking about African people from biological standpoint we cannot simply lump them into one category, due to the fact that tropical Africa has the most indigenous genetic and phenotypic diversity on Earth. The ancient Egyptians according to mainstream scholarship came from the regions of Africa further south:

"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)


Notice how this is consistent with all other research that I have presented. The original ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans from areas further south. Where is the Middle Easterner input?

There was significant Middle-eastern stream that brougth the agricultural revolution in Africa during the Neolithic, and there is enough genetic proof about that.


You are apparently entrenched in Racial Realities faulty arguments. The agriculture seen in Africa during the Neolithic was an indigenous system that came out of the ancient Sahara:

"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."

Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680


Also I'd like to see what genetic evidence you have to suggest refute this consensus amongst most scholars.

The modern Egyptians AFAIK are even more mixed than the ancient ones, and clusetr mostly with South-Western Asians, less with Western Asians, and even less with North Africans


Actually the it has been consistently proven that Late Dynastic Egyptians were already biologically distinguished from the early ancient Egyptians:

Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528


Now tell me, if the ancient Egyptians were already "mixed" as you assert then why would additional gene flow from the Mediterranean during later periods make those Late Period Egyptians biologically distinct from their earliest Egyptian ancestors? If the ancient Egyptians have always been mixed, then why does this peer reviewed study state that the ancient Egyptians group with more southerly African populations (like the Nubians) than Middle Eastern/Mediterranean populations? Why would that overlapping biological affinity occur with just one group representing the mixture than the other? Also note that the peer reviewed study states that the ancient Egyptians were of "continuous local origins" well into early Dynastic times. That means that they were entirely of local indigenous Northeast African origin during this period.

what I'm saying is that the Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians weren't identical, not that they weren't related.


Once again your statements are baseless and contradict consistent peer reviewed studies:

"However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene Sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclical climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects. The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (see above and discussion; Keita 1990).-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.


Link to study

The phenotype of the said two ethnicities is too different /judging from the Egyptian art




Hmmm from my own subjective view point, I see the Nubians represented in two distinct skin tones. One skin tone being pitch black and the other being reddish brown. I also see Ramses represented in this same reddish brown skin tone as half of the Nubians are depicted as having. Do you not think that it's possible that the variation of skin tones displayed by the Nubians could actually represent how modern populations in Northeast Africa generally look today? Some Horn Africans and Sudanese are reddish brown and some are pitch black, but this indigenous skin tone variation has never been a distinguishing social factor within those populations.

On the other hand the modern Egyptians have the same phenotype as the ancient ones from the same art; and they are closest to South-West Asians and North Africans, AFAIK


Show me exactly which modern Egyptians you are referring to who look like this:











Notice that my pictures aren't isolated individuals, but large murals depicting typical Egyptians during typical Egyptian things. Why is daily Egyptian life represented by Egyptians whom all appear to be black in phenotype?

I'm going to accompany my thoughts with the abstract of a genetic study


What does this study on the modern genetic affinities of Northern Egyptians who have been proven to not be a good representative of the ancient Egyptians:

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 


and

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".
- Keita (2005), pp. 564


have to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians? Please stop spamming dated and debunked studies from Racial Realty's blog, which you clearly do not know what they imply.

I generally cannot understand why every time I suggest mixed population in Egypt my opinion is considered a result of ignorance or of  racism, or whatever;


If you are familiar with this subject then you would know about the infamous UNESCO conference of 1974. At this conference Senegalese scholars Cheikh Anta Diop and his assistant Obenga, literally wiped the floor with the leading Egyptologist of the time who initially entered the conference to agree upon a non African origin for ancient Egypt. After Diop proved through every piece of criteria (most of which went uncontested by the others) that the ancient Egyptians were originally black Africans, the only thing that the opposing Egyptologist could do was RETREAT from their non African origin theory and baselessly back into a mixed origins theory. That theory came from nothing more than anti-racism, no matter how you look at it.

when I support myself with studies that talk about migrations and ethnic mixing;


No once again you spam the selected studies from Racial Realities blog and his interpretations of those studies, while simultaneously ignoring the peer reviewed evidence which directly REFUTE those misinterpretations of Racial Reality and yourself.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.201 seconds.