Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 160

Thread: 2018 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes - Heavily Critique

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    2018 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes - Heavily Critique

    FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt


    Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trades:

    QUOTES: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion..” There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.”Tiny sample sizes: “The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.”

    Other DNA data show substantial African affinity: “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

    Arbitrary definition of some DNA haplogroups as ‘Asian’ problematic: “Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” .. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa.”

    So called “sub-Saharan” patterns in place from the beginning in Egypt and are not merely the product of the ‘slave trade.’ “Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.”

    Definition of ‘African’ stereotypical, even as strangely, authors exclude many actual African samples near Egypt from the data
    Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.”

    This critique is in line with the vast majority of evidence that has been produced on the "issue" concerning ancient Egypt's origins. Aside from genetic evidence the other lines that nudge more towards this critique are anthropological, linguistic, cultural and archaeological.
    Last edited by Asante; 02-05-2019 at 01:33 AM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asante For This Useful Post:

     BlessedbyHorus (02-06-2019),  Shamayim (02-05-2019)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    138

    With time, more aDNA samples from Egypt and ancient North Africa will be analyzed, and the picture of the population history of Egypt will become much clearer.

    There is plenty of room for debate about the relative contributions of different populations to the AEs, but I don't think Scheunemann et. al were completely out of line in discussing overall Egyptian population history. In regards to sample size issues, they also analyzed 90 mtDNA samples spanning from pre-ptolemaic to Roman periods and the great majority were of Eurasian origin.

    Still, this was just one site. We definitely need more samples to come to firm conclusions, but I don't find anything in the paper to be scientifically objectionable.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Psynome For This Useful Post:

     Power77 (02-06-2019)

  5. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Psynome View Post
    With time, more aDNA samples from Egypt and ancient North Africa will be analyzed, and the picture of the population history of Egypt will become much clearer.
    I definitely hope so!

    There is plenty of room for debate about the relative contributions of different populations to the AEs, but I don't think Scheunemann et. al were completely out of line in discussing overall Egyptian population history.
    I'm not sure about that. There is so much pivotal information that he did not take into consideration before making such bold conclusions.

    In regards to sample size issues, they also analyzed 90 mtDNA samples spanning from pre-ptolemaic to Roman periods and the great majority were of Eurasian origin.
    The issue that I have with the sampling is the almost complete ignorance used when determining the population to make a representation for the entire span of the civilization. The first issue being that they did not sample 90 mummies, but really on three. All three of which were from the late period, and from one single northern Egyptian grave site... It's been common knowledge for centuries now that southern Egypt (which is Nubia) was the origins of the dynastic culture that would later characterize the populations north of the first cataract. Despite that knowledge Schuenemann's study implies that northern Egypt was as significant as the southern regions where the vast majority of the ancient populations resided.

    "It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was almost underpopulated in Old Kingdom times. In effect, a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era. K. Butzer

    and

    "Evidence in Lower Egypt consists mainly of settlements with very simple burials, in contrast to Upper Egypt, where cemeteries with elaborate burials are found. The rich grave goods in several major cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent the acquired wealth of higher social strata, and these cemeteries were probably associated with centers of craft production. Trade and exchange of finished goods and luxury materials from the Eastern and Western Deserts and Nubia would have taken place in such centers. In Lower Egypt however, while excavated settlements permit a broader reconstruction of the prehistoric economy, there is little evidence for any great socioeconomic complexity... Archaeological evidence points to the origins of the state which emerged by the 1st Dynasty in Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of from from the Predynastic to the 1st Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that originating in Upper Egypt."
    --K. Bard (2005). Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. 28

    It has also been known for centuries that northern Egypt was where the Asiatic-European foreigners/invading populations would set up shop beginning after the Hyksos were ousted. The settlements of lower Egypt became more numerous towards the end of the civilization, and countless anthropological studies have shown clear morphological distinctions between those late dynastic Eurasian foreigners, and the Pre - Dynastic Egyptian (African) populace mostly residing in the southern (upper) region of the country.

    Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

    Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

    The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

    The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.

    All three of the of the remains tested in Schuenemann's study were "late dynastic Northern Egyptians", and for reasons already established those samples;

    "cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series"....

    It's kind of weird how all of this background information (which is a flicker of the relevant information that's out there) on the topic at hand was ignored. Then for this study to actually get air time on CNN, and for it to be implied on CNN to be the "end all" study on this "debate" of the ancestral origins of the civilization. That's a game! It's an insult to those who are the true inheritors of the founding "African" civilization. It all seems like this decade's social-political hit piece on "Afrocentrism" that yet again wasn't based on anything truthful, but only false implications based on poor/skewed sampling.

    Then something else that's "interesting" about Scheunemann et. al's findings is that he concludes that the ancient Egyptians were genetically most similar to "Neolithic Levantines". Now if anyone has been paying attention to the other disciplines regarding the origins of the Neolithic starting with the Natufians, what we know is that the Natufians/Neolithic Levantines were found to be "African" in morphology (Angel 1972; Keita 92; Brace 2006; Ricaut 2008). Archaeology further backs a Sudanese/Nubian origin of the Natufians, and DNAtribes (for what its worth) has also concluded that this is the case. Ultimately what's being said is that those Neolithic Levantine populations, came directly from Africa into Eurasia ushering in the Neolithic. It also seems to be indicated that it was the coming of the "Sea Peoples" which brought about the collapse of the Bronze age civilizations, and essentially "diluted" the African ancestry that was already in place to create the very mixed or "Semitic" populations that are in place in the region today. The entire narrative of what's being said is corroborated by the study below.

    F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564


    Basically if we're talking about "Neolithic Levantine" populations then essentially we're still talking about a population that has recently (13,000 BC) came out of Africa, and into Eurasia. These populations were described as "Niger-Congo" in morphological association by Brace 2006.









    The Egyptian DNA case : truth and lies
    On May 31st 2017, all the media of the Western world announced that the DNA of 90 Egyptian mummies has just been finally deciphered. They all seem to be of Middle Eastern and European origin. The information goes around the world, delights the supporters of a white Egypt and shakes the Africans and the African diaspora, who had already taken ownership of this civilization. We have got into possession this study and we will demonstrate here that it is dishonest from the beginning to the end, and that the Egyptian civilization belongs – if proof still needed – strictly to the Black African world.


    Queen Ndjemt, daughter of Pharaoh Ramesu Kha-m-Waset (Ramesses XI) and wife of pharaoh-priest Heri Horo. Her father was one of the last pharaohs of the great indigenous Egyptian dynasties, around 1070 BC. As you can see, she was undoubtedly African. Most likely her hair had been involuntarily straightened during the mummification process, as we have shown here.

    How to determine which people are at the origin of a civilization?
    The choice of sites

    Imagine today that the French civilization has disappeared and that in 2000 years we try to determine which people were at its origin. The first thing we should do is to consult the documents of the time period to find out what were the important places of this ancient territory. Then we would realize that the greatest people of France were buried in royal tombs in the Parisian Region and also at the Panthéon in Paris. After excavating the remains it would be easy to determine that the French civilization was the work of the white people.

    If, on the other hand, one were to go to Marseilles in the south, so many Berbers and Arabs would be found in the cemeteries, and one would falsely conclude that France was the work of the Berbers and the Arabs. It is the same with the American civilization today. You would have to go to the Arlington Cemetery in Virginia and not to any cemetery in Miami filled with Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans etc…

    The choice of the Time Period

    In the same way, the historical documents would show that there was an influx of Arabs and Berbers in the city of Marseilles during the middle of the 20th century. If we insist on knowing who were the founders of the city, the older remains, those of the lower antiquity in particular, would be indicative.

    Therefore, in order to determine the people at the origin of a civilization, everything we should begin with the historical documentation, in order to know which sites to search and what time period to take into account.

    What do the Egyptian historical documents say?

    They say this :

    4000 BC: birth, between Sudan and southern Egypt, of the very first dynasty; which will eventually conquer the whole north around 3300 BC.

    • From 3300 BC to 1730 BC ruled only these dynasties originating from southern Egypt and Sudan.
    • Between 1730 BC and 1540 BC, a dynasty of invaders, called Hyksos, probably white, conquered the north of Egypt. The indigenous kings withdrew to their original bastion, the south.
    • Between 1540 BC and 1070 BC, the indigenous dynasties conquered the north and ruled over the whole kingdom again.
    • Between 1070 BC and 663 BC, black Libyans associated with Whites ruled over the north, the indigenous authority retreating, once again, to the south. Then the Sudanese came and ruled over the whole territory.
    • Between 663 BC and 332 BC, a chaotic succession of white Persian invaders and Egyptians ruled the country.
    • From 332 BC to 641 AD, the Greeks and the Romans, who entered by the north, dominated.
    • And from 641 AD to the present day we have an Arab domination, with Turkish and British intervals.


    What does that mean? It means that if we want to accurately genetically determine who the ancient Egyptians were, we should take the remains of the Kings from the south, at the Valley of the Kings, in Luxor. And top priority should be given to the remains that dated between 4000 BC and 1730 BC and those dated between 1540 BC and 1070 BC. This has already been done.

    What do the previous genetic researches say about the ancient Egyptians?

    The main study dates from 2012 and was conducted by the US laboratory DNA Tribes. It dealt with three of the most famous Pharaohs: Amenhotep III, Tutankhamen and another Pharaoh, whose identity is uncertain. It should be Smenkaré or Akhenaten. Moreover the maternal grandparents of Akhenaton, the influential priests Yuya and Tuya have been included in the study. These kings ruled around 1400 BC, so in the reliable period. The result is unquestionable: they come from Africa, south of Sahara.



    DNA Tribes Results : Index of genetic compatibility of 326 with Southern Africa, 323 with Great Lakes and 83 with Central Africa and West Africa. This study is the absolute reference in genetics to ancient Egyptians. For comparison, the Semitic whites, European or Berbers are between 3 and 7 of compatibility.

    In addition to that, in 2012 a study conducted by Zahi Hawass and al. published in the BMJ showed that the pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) – who ruled around 1200 BC, carries the E1b1a gene, which is an African gene. This gene is quasi-specific to populations of Africa south of Sahara and to Africans in the Americas. It is maximal among Angolans for example. The Westerners have remained silent on these two studies, which contrasts with today’s media hustle and bustle. They pretend that the present study is the first.

    In 2013, DNA Tribes went further with the DNA of Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramses III) and his son Pentawret. The results are similar : they are related to the peoples of the Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Central Africa/West Africa, and the horn of Africa.




    On the left Tutankhamen and his wife Queen Ankh-Sen-Imana, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti ; On the right the great pharaoh Imanahotep Hekawaset (Amenhotep III), father of Akhenaten.


    Pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) at the left
    Pharaoh Akhenaten with his African features at the right

    What has actually done the study that makes so much noise today?

    The study by Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute in Germany pre-selected 91 mummies found in one (1) cemetery in northern Egypt. It is a single site. Was Professor Johannes Krause afraid to fetch the Egyptians in the South, where they are crowded?


    Here is, in north of Egypt, the place where the mummies of Johannes Krause come from. This image comes from his own paper. Look far at the bottom right, it is Luxor, where the Pharaohs are buried. Even when the pharaoh died to the north, his body was taken to the south, just as today, people still prefer to be buried in their villages. The Egyptians knew perfectly well that they came from the south.

    But that’s not all. Of these 91 mummies, how many are dated in the time periods we are interested in (4000-1730, 1540-1070)? Well! simple answer: 4. 4 mummies out of the 91 selected date from the great periods of ruling by native Egyptians. Only 4 mummies date from the time period before 1070 BC. All the others are recent. And how many of these 91 date from the domination of the Greek and Roman whites? 48! i.e most of them. This sample is then invalid and cannot determine the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Should we continue our critic of this study? We can stop here. But let’s be kind and continue.

    Of the 91 mummies how many were actually genetically analyzed to determine who the ancient Egyptians were? Get this : 3. Johannes Krause begins by saying: “Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies”. The study that makes so much noise all over the world today and which is supposed to have determined who the Egyptians were is based on only 3 mummies. 3 !!!!!!

    Of these 3 mummies, how many date from the great ruling by the native Egyptians? Simple answer: 0. The mummy JK2134 dates from between 776 BC and 669 BC, the mummy JK2911 dates from 769-560 BC. The mummy JK2888 dates from 97-2 BC. All these mummies date from the time when Egypt in the north was dominated by white foreigners or had a large white immigrant population. These mummies cannot, in any way, be representative of the people or the kings of ancient Egypt.


    This is a summary image of the study in question. 3 mummies!

    In short the mummies supposed to say that the Egyptians were white:

    • Come from a single and irrelevant site.
    • Were taken in the north of Egypt which was repeatedly under the rule of white foreigners and partly populated by white immigrants.
    • Are only 3, which is ridiculously small.
    • Do not date, for any of them, from the ruling of the great indigenous Egyptians.
    • All of them date from the late period, that is a period of decline and occupation, where the whites had infiltrated from the north.


    This sample has therefore zero value. And there’s no point in continuing to discuss it. So do the Westerners want to pride themselves on the fact that they found 3 whites out of 10 million ancient Egyptians? They can have those them. We are not stingy. According to their heretical logic, in 2000 years Jamaicans will be found in the British tombs and it will then be concluded that Queen Elizabeth II and the English were black. In 2000 years, Indian people will be found in the Tanzanian tombs. It will also be concluded that Julius Nyerere and the Tanzanians were Indian.

    Moreover, the University of Tübingen, in Germany, to which is attached Mr Krause, has been talked about recently. They pretended that a European monkey with premolars tied is the first hominid in the world, meaning that humanity was not born in Africa. We are therefore dealing here with racist ideologists.

    The West really thought we were going to stop at the sensational title of this study and not go deep into it. This is terrible misjudgment of the new African generation Cheikh Anta Diop has created. We want to say that nothing and no one will ever put us back in the mental condition of eternal slave again. With science, we will have no concession and no pity, with those who dare to put themselves through our indestructible bond with our glorious ancestors. Our determination is total.

    Black Africans are the civilizers of humanity and they will never come down from this historic pedestal anymore. They invented civilization, in Africa, and introduced it to Asia, America and Europe. Everyone will learn to get back to his place in history. It is with this new pride, this infinite confidence in our capacities, that we will rebuild Africa.

    That being said, considering the shock wave this study has created in the black communities, we believe that the maximum number of Africans must acquire solid scientific knowledge in order to be able to decipher the lies contained in the scientific literature. But above all it is also urgent that we control our media space in order to make our voice heard; it is the voice of truth.[/CENTER]
    Last edited by Asante; 02-06-2019 at 02:30 AM.

  6. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,224
    Sex
    Omitted

    No doubt further sampling of Egypt in different parts and times will be different than the ones we currently have. You seem kind of fixated on 'SSA' though. I think in the mesolithic we'll be finding an authochronus pre-OOA-bottleneck North African branch that kind of bridges the things between Taforalt and the deeper lineages in Levant_N/Natufians (though maybe admixed with Levant_N/Natufians already). How much of that would be diluted during the Neolithic and later movements into Egypt is a matter of speculation at this point.
    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.

  7. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     beyoku (02-12-2019),  drobbah (02-05-2019),  Jenny (02-06-2019),  K33 (02-11-2019),  Nebuchadnezzar II (02-06-2019),  NiloSaharan (02-12-2019),  Power77 (02-06-2019),  Psynome (02-05-2019)

  8. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    290
    Y-DNA
    I-Y16419
    mtDNA
    T2e1

    A blasphemous theory on the origin of Egyptian civilization .. and the appearance of the Iranian Neolithic ancestry in Ancient Egyptians:

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post465931

    you should never believe this ...

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to IronHorse For This Useful Post:

     Power77 (02-06-2019)

  10. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    138

    From the handful of ancient Egyptians that have been analyzed, we know only this: The analyzed samples share much of their ancestry with Levantines and other West Asians, just as modern Egyptians do.

    What hasn't been definitively shown is the cause of this shared ancestry. The basic options are some combination of NE Africa>Levant, Levant>NE Africa, Third population>Levant and NE Africa. No study yet has put together a solid account of the origin of this shared ancestry and when it was formed, mostly because only a small amount of samples from a limited set of places and times have been analyzed so far. Some studies favor one explanation over another, but it's not settled.

    If we wait before jumping to conclusions, the scenario will probably become much more clear in the near future and then a scientific consensus can develop.

  11. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Psynome For This Useful Post:

     hartaisarlag (02-05-2019),  jonahst (02-05-2019),  Mandoos (02-06-2019),  pmokeefe (02-06-2019),  Power77 (02-06-2019),  Saetro (02-06-2019)

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    130
    Sex
    Location
    סוף מערב
    Ethnicity
    Western Jewish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    E-Y6938

    Quote Originally Posted by Psynome View Post
    From the handful of ancient Egyptians that have been analyzed, we know only this: The analyzed samples share much of their ancestry with Levantines and other West Asians, just as modern Egyptians do.

    What hasn't been definitively shown is the cause of this shared ancestry. The basic options are some combination of NE Africa>Levant, Levant>NE Africa, Third population>Levant and NE Africa. No study yet has put together a solid account of the origin of this shared ancestry and when it was formed, mostly because only a small amount of samples from a limited set of places and times have been analyzed so far. Some studies favor one explanation over another, but it's not settled.

    If we wait before jumping to conclusions, the scenario will probably become much more clear in the near future and then a scientific consensus can develop.
    This. The nature of North/Northeast African <-> Levantine ties, genetic and linguistic, remains one of the most important ‘big population history’ enigmas, despite a reasonable amount of data. Unlike in the case of I-E origins, the evidence doesn’t all seem to point in the same direction (probably a matter of time depth).

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to hartaisarlag For This Useful Post:

     beyoku (02-12-2019),  blackflash16 (02-05-2019),  jonahst (02-05-2019),  Megalophias (02-05-2019),  Power77 (02-06-2019)

  14. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    124
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    E-M183

    Egypt was never a part of North Africa or a "Greater Caucasoid Horizon" unlike some people would like to believe. During the Paleolithic Period it belonged to the Nubian Complex[1] and was settled by Proto-Nilotes[2] while Northern Africa belonged to the Aterian Complex and was settled by Proto-Berbers. During the Mesolithic Period and the Neolithic Period, it belonged to Halfan and Qadan cultures whose bearers were closesly to Modern Sub-Saharan Africans[3]. Likewise, Predynastic Egyptians (Badarians) were described as a mixed Negroid-Europoid population[4,5].

    Biblical writters systematically linked Kushites and Egyptians, but never linked Levantines and Egyptians[5]. Last but not least, Greco-Roman authors considered that the Colchians were of Egyptian stock due to their black-skin and woolly-hair[6].


    [1]
    Africa Paleolithic Cultures.png

    [2]
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton: a Late Paleolithic burial from southern Egypt
    If we had Upper Paleolithic to early Mesolithic samples from Egypt, Libya and the northern Sahara, we would probably find a smooth transition from the Ishango- Lothagam-Elmenteita proto-Nilotics to the Mechta-Afalou proto-Moors and proto-Berbers.
    [3]
    Quote Originally Posted by The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end?
    There are more definitive answers regarding the question of homogeneity between Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and Nubians. Extreme divergence between the two suggests they are not closely related. Whereas Afalou and, particularly, Taforalt dentitions are characterized by dental morphological reduction, the Nubians exhibit a mass-additive dental pattern, like that in sub-Saharan peoples. The latter possess a suite of 11 mass-additive traits that I termed the Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex (Irish, 1997, 1998a). These findings bolster previous dental (Irish & Turner, 1990, 1992; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a,b,c, 1999), cranial (Franciscus,1995, personal communication, 1996; Groves & Thorne, 1999), and postcranial (Holliday, 1995) results.
    [4]
    Quote Originally Posted by Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt
    Of the total of 117 skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type. Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. The majority of 94 skulls showed mixed Europoid-Negroid features in different combinations and with different shares of both major race components. In one third of them the Europoid, in the other third the Negroid, features were dominant. The last third showed both components, either well-balanced or with characters of the neutral range, common to both racial groups. We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side. In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved, thanks to good conditions in the desert sand. In the first series, according to the description of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 1 cases.
    [5]
    Quote Originally Posted by The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations
    Variability was also found to be significant among and between the Egyptian crania, with Predynastic specimens (Badari, Naqada) displaying close affinities with Nubian specimens while northern Egyptians (Sedment and E-Series)displayed close affinities with both Maghrebian samples and with the European sample (Egyptian ‘‘E’’). Keita’s results show the heterogeneity within and between mid-Holocene and protohistoric North African populations and the affinities among some of the prehistoric Nile Valley populations.
    [6]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bible
    -Cush and Egypt were her boundless strength; Put and Libyans were among her allies.

    -With twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt,

    -Then the LORD said, “Just as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot for three years, as a sign and omen against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old alike, naked and barefoot, with bared buttocks—to Egypt’s shame.

    -Those who made Cush their hope and Egypt their boast will be dismayed and ashamed. And on that day the dwellers of this coastland will say, ‘See what has happened to our source of hope, those to whom we fled for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?’”
    [7]
    Quote Originally Posted by Herodotus
    For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision.
    Last edited by Shamayim; 02-05-2019 at 09:38 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Shamayim For This Useful Post:

     Asante (02-06-2019)

  16. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    620
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    Q-Y2750
    mtDNA
    H47

    United States of America Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamayim View Post
    Egypt was never a part of North Africa or a "Greater Caucasoid Horizon" unlike some people would like to believe. During the Paleolithic Period it belonged to the Nubian Complex[1] and was settled by Proto-Nilotes[2] while Northern Africa belonged to the Aterian Complex and was settled by Proto-Berbers. During the Mesolithic Period and the Neolithic Period, it belonged to Halfan and Qadan cultures whose bearers were closesly to Modern Sub-Saharan Africans[3]. Likewise, Predynastic Egyptians (Badarians) were described as a mixed Negroid-Europoid population[4,5].

    Biblical writters systematically linked Kushites and Egyptians, but never linked Levantines and Egyptians[5]. Last but not least, Greco-Roman authors considered that the Colchians were of Egyptian stock due to their black-skin and woolly-hair[6].
    The Bible clearly states that Egypt (Mizraim) was the brother of Canaan (the Levant). Egypt is also the father of the Ludim (often considered to be the Libyans), the Casluhim (ancestor of Philistines), and the Caphtorim (associated with either North Africa or Greece). In other words, the Bible clearly associates the origins of Egypt with other Eastern Mediterranean populations, whether West Asian, North African, or Southeast European.

    Also, I think it's a big mistake to try to project modern conceptions of "race" or even appearance onto [translations of] ancient descriptions of peoples. They're all relative to the describer. "Black" generally just means darker. "Woolly hair" can just mean curly. There are medieval European descriptions of Ashkenazi Jews as being "black." I very much doubt these descriptions had black Africans in mind...

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jonahst For This Useful Post:

     Power77 (02-06-2019),  Tz85 (02-06-2019)

  18. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    124
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    E-M183

    Quote Originally Posted by jonahst View Post
    The Bible clearly states that Egypt (Mizraim) was the brother of Canaan (the Levant). Egypt is also the father of the Ludim (often considered to be the Libyans), the Casluhim (ancestor of Philistines), and the Caphtorim (associated with either North Africa or Greece). In other words, the Bible clearly associates the origins of Egypt with other Eastern Mediterranean populations, whether West Asian, North African, or Southeast European.
    First, I must say that I do not consider the Bible as a reliable source but, most Canaanites were regarded as African/Hamitic invaders who encroached upon the territory of Semites[1]. It fits quite well with the Y-DNA (60% E) and the auDNA (10-20% African) of the Natufians. Furthermore, they showed minor negroid affinities[2].

    Also, I think it's a big mistake to try to project modern conceptions of "race" or even appearance onto [translations of] ancient descriptions of peoples. They're all relative to the describer. "Black" generally just means darker. "Woolly hair" can just mean curly. There are medieval European descriptions of Ashkenazi Jews as being "black." I very much doubt these descriptions had black Africans in mind...
    Greco-Romans weren't color blind, they were infact extremely racist. They described Egyptians exactly like they described their Ethiopian neighbours[3]. Are you implying that Ethiopians weren't "black" too?

    [1]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew
    While the Levant (the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean, including the Land of Israel and Mesopotamia) actually fell to Shem, Ham's descendants decided to annex it. Thus began a struggle between the two families.
    [2]
    Quote Originally Posted by The Races of Europe
    The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscularity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediterraneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
    [3]
    Quote Originally Posted by Diodorus Siculus
    But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in p105 the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia,12 and still others residing in the interior of Libya. 2 The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair.

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... 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
  •