Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 160

Thread: 2018 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes - Heavily Critique

  1. #111
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,221
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Asante View Post
    That's already proven (see my post above). The point of this thread was to show that the bunk study from 2017 (that the West got all giddy over) was just that....bunk.
    You are (between tangents) arguing for a largely African origin both genetically and culturally for early Egyptians.
    The best way you can advance this argument is to just stop posting, you're giving it's proponents a bad name.
    Please go back to the Egyptwhateverforum you came here from.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  2. #112
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,372
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Anglo
    Nationality
    Canadian

    Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are Negroid... Natufians are Negroid... Negroid sure doesn't narrow things down much does it.

    At this point we'll have DNA from King Scorpion before Asante figures that presenting evidence works different from preaching on a street corner.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Megalophias For This Useful Post:

     K33 (02-12-2019)

  4. #113
    Registered Users
    Posts
    619
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    Q-Y2750
    mtDNA
    H47

    United States of America Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by Asante View Post
    Or...perhaps it is simply another indigenous black African ancestral marker to which the overwhelming majority of the human genome already belongs to.

    In other words the only thing that you can argue at this point is that the ancient Egyptians looked black (conclusively proven);
    but were "genetically" related to people who are not considered black;
    By the way do you know that the Muslims (whom many like to attribute the ancient civilization) actually peeled the limestone off of the great pyramid (which was reported be seen shining as far as Palestine) to make their Mosque when they invaded Egypt with their 4,000 man army in the 7th century AD? They desecrate the graves of the land that they invaded, because it's vital to the economy. But most importantly they know that they are not digging up and exploiting their ancestors.
    First, it has not been "conclusively proven" that ancient Egyptians "looked black."

    1) "Looking black" is wildly subjective and projecting modern standards onto ancient perspectives is lazy and reckless.
    2) We have realistic sculptures that ancient Egyptians made of themselves dating back to the Old Kingdom and their features look very much like modern Egyptians and Levantine peoples.
    3) Even if ancient Egyptians did "look black," that would mean nothing about who their genetic descendants are.

    People's appearances change over centuries or millennia due to environment, diet, and random mutations. The fact that "white" skin is a relatively recent trait only reinforces this. The dark skinned Europeans (whether or not they resembled "tropical Africans") were more closely and directly related to light skinned modern Europeans than they were to any contemporaneous or modern SSA population.

    Second, countless peoples from around the world have destroyed or desecrated ancient monuments made by their ancestors when their religion changed, especially with the introduction of monotheism. And even if the people who directly defaced the pyramids were 4,000 Arabian invaders, that says nothing about the millions of indigenous Egyptians (most of whom remained Christian for hundreds of years after the Islamic conquests), who were the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians and the ancestors of modern Egyptians.
    Last edited by jonahst; 02-11-2019 at 06:51 AM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to jonahst For This Useful Post:

     Jatt1 (02-11-2019)

  6. #114
    Registered Users
    Posts
    298
    Sex

    Egypt
    Quote Originally Posted by Asante View Post
    Or...perhaps it is simply another indigenous black African ancestral marker to which the overwhelming majority of the human genome already belongs to. .
    No, this is a nonsensical statement, beyond not knowing what a "indigenous black African ancestral marker" is, the genetic connection between populations in the Maghreb and the levant seems to be both very ancient, and predominates in both North Africa & the Middle East as apposed to the majority of "black Africa".


    This is an amusing image, but most of its claims are nonsense, beyond the fact that we do have Egyptian genomes predating both the Arab & Greek conquests of Egypt, if Copts became heavily Arabized in 900AD, then they would have ceased to exist as a separate people, simply because any intermarriage with a muslim arab would result in muslim children. i.e all modern day Copts are the product of exclusively Coptic relationships going back to the Arab invasion at the very least, or they wouldn't be Copts.

    By the way do you know that the Muslims (whom many like to attribute the ancient civilization) actually peeled the limestone off of the great pyramid (which was reported be seen shining as far as Palestine) to make their Mosque when they invaded Egypt with their 4,000 man army in the 7th century AD? They desecrate the graves of the land that they invaded, because it's vital to the economy. But most importantly they know that they are not digging up and exploiting their ancestors.
    That's fascinating, but it has 0 relevance to the topic at hand, but if it makes you feel a little better, I'm neither muslim nor arab.
    Last edited by nee4speed111; 02-11-2019 at 05:43 AM.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nee4speed111 For This Useful Post:

     jonahst (02-11-2019),  Power77 (02-12-2019),  Targum (02-11-2019)

  8. #115
    Registered Users
    Posts
    63
    Sex
    Location
    Amerika ist wunderbar
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Nationality
    White American
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1

    Germany Japan Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Asante View Post
    The conclusions from that unpublished thesis paper of a mass migration into early or pre dynastic Egypt has no solid ground to stand on;

    [CENTER]"There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times. Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less native are not supported by archaeology... In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"
    Except we know the Eurasian phylogeny in North Africa goes back to the epipaleolithic.. Taforalt which is 55% Eurasian is dated to the epipaleolithic

    NO one said this migration has to go to 4,000 BC or the early dynastic period. So that's just an irrelevant straw man.



    Hmmm, well actual published peer reviewed studies that have already been presented say otherwise.
    Uhh no, they don't. Try to using logic some time. Let's look at the data








    Nubians and Ethiopians have been practicing agriculture as long as The Egyptians have..yet they don't cluster with Ancient Egyptians. So blaming the Egyptian Bi-Iliac breath norms being different than those populations assuming they were climatically adapted the same makes no sense..as this would effect Nubians and Ethiopians too. So obviously the difference between Nubians and Ethiopians compared to Lower Egyptians bi-iliac breadth has nothing to do with agriculture and has everything to do with climatic adaptation. Which is why Lower Ancient Egyptians cluster with Indo-Mediterranean populations.

    All your quote said is that Bi-Iliac breadth changes with agriculture. But it doesnt explain the different between Egyptians and other Black African agricultural populations and why they cluster with Middle Eastern Populations. So yeah your logic sucks.

    Upper Egyptians BTW are in between Lower Egyptians and Nubians.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 02-11-2019 at 06:30 AM.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

     Nebuchadnezzar II (02-11-2019),  Power77 (02-12-2019)

  10. #116
    Registered Users
    Posts
    63
    Sex
    Location
    Amerika ist wunderbar
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Nationality
    White American
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1

    Germany Japan Italy
    re you go again with these far-fetched conclusions based on a broken aDNA record. The Ice Age Caucasus aDNA samples from 26,000 BC have no useful historical context due to the fact that we have no aDNA samples of similar age from the Middle East, North Africa, or SSA to compare them with. Just assuming that it was the literal source of ancestry for later populations in the Middle East or North Africa is exactly the type of premature historical analyses that made people like you shocked or surprised to discover that Natufians had North African ancestry.
    I didnt say it's presence in North Africa/Taforalt literally came from the Caucasus. It literally is a true phylogeny of West Eurasians though and isn't related to Sub-Saharan Africans at all. This is a phylogeny that Europeans, West Asians, and North Africans descend from and Sub-Saharans don't. And it was present in Ice Age West Eurasian Foragers.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

     Nebuchadnezzar II (02-11-2019),  Power77 (02-12-2019)

  12. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by jonahst View Post
    First, it has not been "conclusively proven" that ancient Egyptians "looked black."

    1) "Looking black" is wildly subjective and projecting modern standards onto ancient perspectives is lazy.
    It's really not that hard. These people exhibited external anatomical features within the range of indigenous Saharo-tropical African populations.


    2) We have realistic sculptures that ancient Egyptians made of themselves dating back to the Old Kingdom and their features look very much like modern Egyptians and Levantine peoples.
    Well that's subjective;





    Notice how both the Kemetic pharaoh and Dahomey king are depicted as giant rulers, and have one hand sticking out while being served by smaller humans. More proof of this diffusion of people and culture from the Hapi Valley into interior regions of Africa is shown in the appearance of the ancient Kemetic spiritual system being shown in these other African cultures. The Osirian crock and flail were sported by the kings of inner Africa. Notice that the Dahomey king holds the traditional Osirion Crock while the ancient Kemetic figure holds the Flail. It's also note worthy...that the color scheme of the Dahomey (Nigeria) are not depicting "black skinned" people despite us knowing that these people were/are still melaninated "black" Africans. It's also worth noting how these little Damomey citizens are shaped almost identically (eyes and noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves.



    3) Even if ancient Egyptians did "look black," that would mean nothing about who their genetic descendants are.
    "The Akhenaten Gene. Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Kemet to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye.... But it is mostly absent in Asia and the Americas, except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry. About 1 in 6 Africans or African Americans has it."

    and

    The King Tut Gene. Tutankhamun is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya....Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other alleles it has a widespread, albeit sparse distribution outside Africa. Still, Africans (and African-influenced populations) are ten times more likely to have it than non-Africans.

    People's appearances change over centuries or millennia due to environment, diet, and random mutations.
    It takes over 15,000 years for a population to adapt to a new environment;

    "Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992).

    This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term." -- Holliday T. (1997). Body proportionsin Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-44

    The reason for the change in ancient Northeast Africa is clearly due to the numerous Eurasian invasions into the African civilization. The Persian invasion that sacked Thebes in the south, was what forced the real Egyptians (the black ones) further south to the cradle of civilization in northern Sudan (Napata and later Meroe), which was the Nubian stronghold that held through the Assyrians (didn't try it), Persians (defeated them), Greeks (Alexander turned back), Romans (defeated them, and the proof is the fact that Nubia never paid tribute to Rome despite the knowledge of it's abundance of the World's most prizes commodities). The face of the region changed as most of the black Africans (except the Cushitic speakers and some Nilotes) who once dominated the river valley migrated into interior regions of Africa.

    The fact that "white" skin is a relatively recent trait only reinforces this.
    Most of the dating for the "pale" skin mutation is around 6,000 years ago.

    The dark skinned Europeans (whether they actually resembled "tropical Africans") were more closely and directly related to light skinned modern Europeans than they were to any contemporaneous or modern SSA population.
    Yes the Indo-Europeans (or "modern" Europeans) who essentially overran the original Africoid inhabitants of the continent (starting around 1,400-1,200 BC) and overtime absorbed that genetic material from those aboriginals. With them absorbing that genetic material they would definitely be closer to the aboriginal Africoid inhabitants than those who were indirectly related to them (the Africans whom they broke away from). It's not a mystery..

    Second, countless peoples from around the world have destroyed or desecrated ancient monuments made by their ancestors when their religion changed, especially with the introduction of monotheism.
    Not the same people! The bulk of the original Egyptians left 1,000 years prior to the Arab invasion.

    And even if the people who directly defaced the pyramids were 4,000 Arabian invaders
    That was the invading force...the Arabs obviously began to settle in the nation once it was successfully colonized. They started the city of Cairo (has no ancient legacy) in the area that they landed.

    , that says nothing about the millions of indigenous Egyptians (most of whom remained Christian for hundreds of years after the Islamic conquests), who were the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians and the ancestors of modern Egyptians.
    Here is a "real" Egyptian who is likely descended from the Cushitic branch of black Africans who were there since ancient times.


  13. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by nee4speed111 View Post
    No, this is a nonsensical statement, beyond not knowing what a "indigenous black African ancestral marker" is, the genetic connection between populations in the Maghreb and the levant seems to be both very ancient, and predominates in both North Africa & the Middle East as apposed to the majority of "black Africa".


    This is an amusing image, but most of its claims are nonsense,
    Be specific.

    beyond the fact that we do have Egyptian genomes predating both the Arab & Greek conquests of Egypt
    They group with black Africans;



    if Copts became heavily Arabized in 900AD
    The first issue with letting Coptic Christians attempt to represent core indigenous ancient Egyptians is that the Coptic identity does not predate the 6th century BC. Nothing was in place to hold a Coptic identity until the first century BC. Here's why that simply doesn't work;

    "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). 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 134:520528

    That's fascinating, but it has 0 relevance to the topic at hand, but if it makes you feel a little better, I'm neither muslim nor arab.
    That fact wasn't a shot at anyone or towards Islam, but it was to induce common sense logic when people wish to insist that the Arabs of the region today are the face of the original Dynastic "Kemetic" civilization.

  14. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Except we know the Eurasian phylogeny in North Africa goes back to the epipaleolithic.. Taforalt which is 55% Eurasian is dated to the epipaleolithic
    Those were black people... At the end of the day this is what you have to get over;


    At the end of the day, pale non black people are only around 6,000 years old, and only comes from one particular population. That's why all of this ancient "Eurasian" back flow into Africa crap is smoke in mirrors. These were all ancient black people transmigrating across an undefined globe until relatively recently.

    NO one said this migration has to go to 4,000 BC or the early dynastic period. So that's just an irrelevant straw man.
    It's all irrelevant dude give it up! The ancient Egyptians were black African people.

    Uhh no, they don't. Try to using logic some time. Let's look at the data
    That desperate Eurocentric unpublished junk science. No reason to discuss something that the author was to ashamed to publish...

    Here's an actual published peer reviewed study focused on relevant criteria;

    "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the "super-Negroid" body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.

  15. #120
    Registered Users
    Posts
    619
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    Q-Y2750
    mtDNA
    H47

    United States of America Israel
    Most of what you just wrote is either not true or extremely distorted. I'm not going to respond to everything because it would be a waste of time, but I will address a few points.

    1) Not sure what that first map is meant to prove, but seeing as Egypt is grouped with the rest of the Mediterranean and separate from SSA, I don't think it supports your arguments. Doesn't help that Arabia is included despite the fact that Arabians are overwhelmingly West Eurasian.

    2) Not entirely sure what you think you're proving with the artistic "parallels," but they don't support your arguments. Cherry picking a handful of pieces that vaguely resemble each other without any reference to time frame or context is irrelevant. Ancient Egyptian art much more closely resembles the art of contemporaneous Mesopotamia and the Eastern Mediterranean than it does the undated Dahomey art or other West/Central African art for that matter.

    Again, we have many, many realistic depictions that ancient Egyptians made of themselves dating back almost 5,000 years. And what's funny is that almost all of the "African" looking examples you've posted are from as much as 1,000 years later.

    https://www.mfa.org/collections/anci...r/egyptian-art
    https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/oking/hd_oking.htm
    https://www.superstock.com/stock-pho...ages/4435-3664
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seated_Scribe
    https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhib...t_egyptian_art
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaper
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portra...ife_statue.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portra...8-gradient.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankhhaf_(sculpture)
    https://www.mfa.org/collections/obje...on-head-402795

    3) Both the specific "genes" you mention are only found on the website of the company DNA Consultants. Just from looking at their "Jewish Fingerprint" sample, which is riddled with inaccurate numbers and blatant lies, it's easy to tell this company is selling nonsense.

    4) Nothing you wrote about European population history is even remotely accurate.

    5) Almost nothing you've written about the supposed depopulation and repopulation of Egypt has any basis.

    If we model modern Egyptians against ancient samples, their BA Southwest Asian ancestry isn't associated with Arabia (Levant BA South), it's associated with the actual Levant (Levant BA North). This is in contrast to Ethiopians, whose SW Asian ancestry seems to be largely Arabian.

    9wFwqk0.png

    So for your theory to hold any weight, massive Egypt, with its continuous historical population of millions, would've had to have been largely repopulated by Levantine peoples, whose population was a fraction of the former. Alternatively, Egypt was continuously occupied by the same people, who may have gradually changed genetically over time, like every other population on Earth, but whose ancestors were already genetically similar and closely-related to neighboring Levantine populations. This is of course supported by the ancient genetic samples we have, which demonstrate a close genetic affinity to ancient Levantine populations.

  16. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to jonahst For This Useful Post:

     Arch Hades (02-11-2019),  epoch (02-11-2019),  Erikl86 (02-11-2019),  Nebuchadnezzar II (02-11-2019),  nee4speed111 (02-11-2019),  NetNomad (02-11-2019),  Power77 (02-12-2019),  Pribislav (02-11-2019),  Radboud (02-11-2019),  traject (02-11-2019)

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 123
    Last Post: 01-24-2019, 09:15 PM
  2. Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes
    By rozenfeld in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 12-14-2018, 07:37 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2017, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2017, 09:41 PM
  5. mtDNA I2 from an Egyptian mummy
    By Jean M in forum I
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-27-2017, 01:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •