Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)

This topic shows us that we are living inside Babel Tower but can not admit this also!We deny each other
existence.

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

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

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? 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

^ 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

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

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.

Sources about Creation in Ancient Egypt:(Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!Language 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

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

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.