QuoteReplyTopic: Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity) Posted: 03-May-2015 at 03:14
Being African doesn't equal being negroid or so called "black". North Africa was and is always predominantly Caucasian. The Caucasian Berber especially the Kabyle people from the algerian Mountains are the native inhabitants of North Africa. They are even more pale than Arabs and some have also blue eyes and even sandy brown hair. The today Northern Ethiopians, Eritreans themselves are mixed race (between East African Nilotics and Arabs DNA Test proved it). Furthermore the Nothern Ethiopians/Eritreans are genetically more close to Caucasians than to the Negroid Bantus or to the Afro-Americans. The direct descendants of ancient Egyptians are the christian Copts who used to speak a language close to ancient egptian language and their features, look are very ancient egyptian like. Besides the amount of melanin or the skin colour alone doesn't determine the race. The term black itself is very unscientific. Egypt had conquered Nubia and and many Nubians warriors were working for the egyptian army and also lived in Egypt.
There were even 3 Nubian Kings ruling over Egpty but just because the Nubians were black doesn't mean they can be claimed by all people with black skin and that doesn't mean that Afro-Americans can claim "we build the Pyramids" and that ancient Egypt was entirely "black".
People forget that Egypt is a hot place, a desert and if your live and work outside you will be brown no matter what your real skin colour is like and what race you are. Many Northern Europeans that got to Egypt get brown too that doesn't make them black, therefore you see many egyptian paintigs with brown skinned people. Since many years Afro-Americans are busy to steal all kind of great history, identity and achievements. According to Afro-Americans and Afrocentricism the real ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Israelites, Hebrews, Phonecians, Mesopotamians even the Vikings and native Americans (Aztecs) were black.
Now Afro-Americans claim that Jesus, Mozart and Bethooven were black. It's beyond crazy and has nothing to do with serious scientific researches but only with a desperate try to escape your real identity. Afrocentricism is a hoax at every level and the result of a bruised pysche and self loathing. The today Egyptians are more or less the descendants of the ancient Egptians. The invaders are often small in Numbers compared to the native that they couldn't change the ethnicity of the entire native inhabitants. I can distinguish a Yemini Arab, Saudi from an Egptian and DNA test showed that Egptians are quite different from Arabs. The today Egyptian are just arabised Berber.
When I saw black Seth, I have remembered this image: white Seth
Maybe term of mixed nation is wrong. I have read that the country should become minumum 35% different nations, then it can be mosaic/mixed population, so I think ancient egyptian were not mixed. they had black and white populations but I don't think they were more than %35
According to today's egyptian genetic profile they are still not mixed (just today, lower egypt can provide this rule). They are still africans and their african roots should have been more powerful in the past.
But also I don't think that being African does not mean being black.
You will be banned cause of double identity and offensive language here!Cause of beautiful pictures will not erase your post!MKG and Tyche are same I.P.source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!
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
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
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.
^ 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.
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.
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
^ 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.
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.
^ 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
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.
Manni, Franz. and Leonardi, Pascal. and Barakat, Abdelhamid.
et. al. "Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional
Continuity in Northeastern Africa." Human Biology 74.5 (2002): 645-658. Project MUSE. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Always review your references for accuracy and make any
necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal
names,
capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more
information on citing sources.
Manni, Franz. et. al. (2002). Y-chromosome analysis in egypt
suggests a genetic regional continuity in northeastern africa. Human Biology 74(5), 645-658. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from Project MUSE database.
Always review your references for accuracy and make any
necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal
names,
capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more
information on citing sources.
Manni, Franz. et. al. "Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa." Human Biology 74, no. 5 (2002): 645-658. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed November 23, 2011).
Always review your references for accuracy and make any
necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal
names,
capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more
information on citing sources.
TY - JOUR T1 - Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa A1 - Manni, Franz. A1 - Leonardi, Pascal. A1 - Barakat, Abdelhamid. A1 - Rouba, Hassan. A1 - Heyer, Evelyne. A1 - Klintschar, Michael. A1 - McElreavey, Ken, 1963- A1 - Quintana-Murci, Lluis. JF - Human Biology VL - 74 IS - 5 SP - 645 EP - 658 Y1 - 2002 PB - Wayne State University Press SN - 1534-6617 UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5manni.html N1 - Volume 74, Number 5, October 2002 ER -
Always review your references for accuracy and make any
necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal
names,
capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more
information on citing sources.
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.
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
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum