Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New Genetic analysis of Amarna Period Pharaohs
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: New Genetic analysis of Amarna Period Pharaohs Reply with quote

These are the results of a intra-population comparison from the same STR results made public after it's use by Zahi Hawass. Here's a link to the study:

Quote:
Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci. 4

Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).




Now the finding that they are closest to African populations from the Great lakes region of Africa is interesting, because this very region was also noted to be the Egyptian homeland in the Hunefer Papyrus ("Mountains of the Moon" and where the Nile river begins). This however could be a reflection of the heavy Nilotic ancestry of the ancient Egyptians (which is often underplayed), which is where the are said to have originated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this data very bizarre to be honest.

This is supposed to give likely ancestry of these individuals, but KV35EL - Tiye is of very different ancestry then her parents??? The index for Thuya show a link to South Africa, but this has hugely diminished by the time we look at her daughter?

And Tutankhamen is the son of KV55 and KV35YL but their MLI are pretty much unrelated? I see no correlation there at least. Actually Tut's MLI data would suggest to me he is unlikely to be related to the other 6 (very different ancestry), yet the other 6 are all direct ancestors of his and due to inbreeding actually include his parents and ALL his grandparents.

Maybe I'm missing something ....
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And statistically speaking with such a large spread in the data, the average are rather meaningless. The standard deviation is larger than the average for some of the data!

With an average of 326 and a standard deviation of 538 for the South African population for instance we can only argue that the MLI for the whole group is somewhere between 0 and 864 (actually -212 and 864, but I assume a negative MLI is completely meaningless)

So I would not bother computing any kind of average for this data set.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And note that I am NOT arguing that these people did not have African ancestry. I suspect they did.
I am just highly suspicious of the reliability of this data as presented here. I suspect that the analysis was done with way too little information? I think 8 alleles is just not enough to do more that raise suggestions and questions.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
And note that I am NOT arguing that these people did not have African ancestry. I suspect they did.
I am just highly suspicious of the reliability of this data as presented here. I suspect that the analysis was done with way too little information? I think 8 alleles is just not enough to do more that raise suggestions and questions.


I found it somewhat strange that there was a lower East African genetic tie with these individuals, but then again Nilotic ancestry was a MAJOR component for the early and ancient Egyptians (detailed by other genetic studies and tons of archaeological and linguistic evidence of migration from the ancient Sahara). Also how do you explain the consistent biological ties to the same regions for all 7 of the pharaohs that you claim are not related? It would seem rather strange for "unrelated" (in terms of ancestry) individuals to display almost identical relationships to the same regions, regardless of the limited data. Keep in mind that those same 8 alleles were all that were needed by Hawass and his team to conduct their study in 2010.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anything what is clear from this, is that these individuals were overwhelmingly of inner African ancestry. More work however needs to be done on this, I think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cormac mac airt
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry but the claim in the OP is a load of genetic bullscheise, for reasons that Anneke gave as well as others. The results of this "study" are all over the place, whereas related individuals should be showing up with much closer genetic results. The original claim was apparently taken from here:

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

This site is about as useless as asking Zecharia Sitchin for an accurate translation of Sumerian texts. Rolling Eyes

A more meaninful genetic study IMO would entail showing what Mitochondrial (mtDNA) or Y Chromosome DNA haplogroup/s are involved with these 7 individuals. But off the top of my head, to be relevant to Africa it would have to be mtDNA haplogroup L and immediate subgroups or Y Chromosome halogroups A1, A2, A3, BT or E.

As to "why" do the claimed results from the OP suggest a strong southern African relationship, why shouldn't they? After all, the DNA Tribes site makes up many other BS claims so why should they stop there.

The original claim from the OP is effectively a "wish sandwich" IMO. Smile

cormac
_________________
When it comes to the fringe, logic has left the system....AT WARP 10. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cormac mac airt
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).


This part, from the DNA Tribes site stands out as a no-brainer as to why the previous claim is BS. One DOESN'T base a claim from 3300 +/- BP on results that are relevant NOW. Rolling Eyes

cormac
_________________
When it comes to the fringe, logic has left the system....AT WARP 10. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Shawn wrote:
Also how do you explain the consistent biological ties to the same regions for all 7 of the pharaohs that you claim are not related? It would seem rather strange for "unrelated" (in terms of ancestry) individuals to display almost identical relationships to the same regions, regardless of the limited data.

A. I never claimed they were not related. I actually pointed out that the fact that they are related gives me cause to seriously doubt the validity of these values. The data sets make no sense whatsoever considering that these people are closely related. The MLI values should have been much more consistent.

B. There or no "identical relationships" to the regions. That's the whole problem here.
Southern Africa : MLI ranges from 21 to 1519
African Great Lakes: MLI ranges from 21 to 1328
Tropical West Africa: MLI ranges from 7 to 314
etc.
I'm not sure how that could strike anyone as "identical"?? These values are all over the place, and statistically we can draw absolutely no conclusions from these values.

Sir Shawn wrote:
Keep in mind that those same 8 alleles were all that were needed by Hawass and his team to conduct their study in 2010.

Yes, and I suspect that as few as 8 alleles is just not enough data to analyze this question. Hawass was not trying to do statistics, but was creating a Mendelian type table. Data that lends itself for one type of research does not necessarily lend itself to others. So the validity (or not) of one type of result has no bearing on the validity of other types of result.

Cormac wrote:
This part, from the DNA Tribes site stands out as a no-brainer as to why the previous claim is BS. One DOESN'T base a claim from 3300 +/- BP on results that are relevant NOW.


Yes that's the other big problem I have with the "results". Taking this type of argument to the extreme the article (pdf) you mentioned above would then show that Tut's mom had English, Spanish and Greek ancestors. That's on page 7 btw Laughing
And I guess Yuya's ancestors were Native American? (that's on page 5)
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cormac mac airt wrote:
This site is about as useless as asking Zecharia Sitchin for an accurate translation of Sumerian texts. Rolling Eyes


Q: What is the scientific basis for DNA Tribes method of analysis?

A: DNA Tribes® is a private firm specializing in genetic ancestry analysis, including both geographical analysis of world populations and the comparison of individuals to living populations and world regions. DNA Tribes’ proprietary analysis has been developed by Dr. Eduardas Valaitis, who received his Doctorate in Statistics from Yale University in 2005. Dr. Valaitis has been an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Valaitis’ background includes extensive work in multivariate analysis and classification, which involves identifying mathematical structure present within large and complex datasets. This expertise allows DNA Tribes to perform a uniquely detailed and comprehensive analysis of world populations to identify genetic structure on an objective mathematical basis. All data used in our analysis come from peer-reviewed scientific studies of world populations. Our unique U.S. Patent Pending method of analysis is available exclusively through DNA Tribes.

Quote:
But off the top of my head, to be relevant to Africa it would have to be mtDNA haplogroup L and immediate subgroups or Y Chromosome halogroups A1, A2, A3, BT or E.


You forgot about M1 (Mtdna). The markers that you have listed are all markers of the major population sources for ancient Egypt (especially M35). The Nilotic ancestry for whatever reason, while it was obviously a major ancestral component is too often ignored. The detection of their signature markers in modern day Egyptian populations signals this:

Quote:
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)


Quote:
As to "why" do the claimed results from the OP suggest a strong southern African relationship, why shouldn't they? After all, the DNA Tribes site makes up many other BS claims so why should they stop there.


Are you seriously doubting the origins of these people are from more southerly regions of Africa? Have you ever read the works of Christopher Ehret, SOY Keita, Ian Shaw, or even Mary Lefkowitz? This is established fact through biology and culture, not mere speculation.

Quote:
The original claim from the OP is effectively a "wish sandwich" IMO.


Aside from the Hunefer Papyrus which proclaimed that the ancient Egyptians came from the Great Lakes region (and this dnatribes results) there is strong noted archaeological evidence tying the Badarians to this region:

Quote:
On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990). -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


Other studies have found close biological affinities between the Badarians and the Teita of Southern Africa:

Quote:
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4)(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Yes, and I suspect that as few as 8 alleles is just not enough data to analyze this question. Hawass was not trying to do statistics, but was creating a Mendelian type table. Data that lends itself for one type of research does not necessarily lend itself to others. So the validity (or not) of one type of result has no bearing on the validity of other types of result.


For customer paid reports DNAtribes uses either 15, 21 or 27 STR autosomes to assign a haplotype which is then checked against so many individual populations in their database.

For the Amarna mummy article DNAtribes used a stripped down 8 loci haplotype which in this case we know includes D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA. We know the values of these polymorphic microsatellites and anybody can compare and match these to a pop db (eg., DNAtribes lets on that both D18S51=19 and D21S11=34 are African specific markers by frequency).



b Identified as Akhenaten

If I'm not mistaken these are maternal markers. DNAtribes did not use any paternal markers so their MLI (Match Likelihood Index) scores are
indicative only of the mummies female lineage.

I am confident of the basic validity of DNAtribes' findings on the maternal lineage of the Amarna mummies but I do note their Table 1 indices for
Yuya do not list the Americas populations circled on Yuya's regional analysis map Appendix Figure 3. Perhaps it is just a glitch.



I see no reason to distrust DNAtribes' science behind the region matching in their January 1, 2012 article.[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I currently hardly understand what is going on, can anyone explain to me shortly a nd clearly how it is possible to gain information about haplotypes from autosomal DNA and what is the MLI?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cormac mac airt
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
DNA Tribes’ proprietary analysis has been developed by Dr. Eduardas Valaitis, who received his Doctorate in Statistics from Yale University in 2005.


Which means that Dr. Valaitis is a Statistician and not a geneticist.

Quote:
You forgot about M1 (Mtdna).


Nope. See the following:

Quote:
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.


Source: Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1945034/

Quote:
The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.


B-M60 is a subgroup of BT, which is still not South African in origin.

Quote:
Are you seriously doubting the origins of these people are from more southerly regions of Africa?


What I’m doubting, based on actual information obtained from genetic studies, is that there is a specific South African origin for anything dealing with Ancient Egypt or more specifically the mummies in the OP. None of the haplogroups I mentioned earlier are South African in origin.

As to your last two quotes, neither “Neolithic Khartoum type” nor “tropical African” mean South African but Central African at best.

I have no doubt that there was an African genetic basis for ancestry of some of Ancient Egypt. Why I do doubt is your interpretation of the facts.

cormac
_________________
When it comes to the fringe, logic has left the system....AT WARP 10. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sir Shawn
Account Suspended


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cormac mac airt wrote:
Which means that Dr. Valaitis is a Statistician and not a geneticist.


Why are you trying so hard to discredit this finding, through the validity of this company? Anyway this is what his qualifications bring to the company that he started:

Quote:
"This expertise allows DNA Tribes to perform a uniquely detailed and comprehensive analysis of world populations to identify genetic structure on an objective mathematical basis. All data used in our analysis come from peer-reviewed scientific studies of world populations. Our unique U.S. Patent Pending method of analysis is available exclusively through DNA Tribes."



cormac mac airt wrote:
Nope. See the following:


An Asian origin is not ruled out none the less this is a haplogroup which is associated with East Africans populations, as this is where it is most prevalent:

Quote:
"The richest basal variation in the founder haplogroups , N and R is found among the southern stretch of Eurasia, particularly in the Indian subcontinent (Figure 1), suggesting a rapid colonization along the southern coast of Asia.. Western Eurasians, in contrast with Southern Asians, eastern Eurasians, and Australasians, have a high level of haplogroup diversity within the haplogroup N and R, but lack haplogroup M also entirely (Figure 1)... Although Haplogroup M differentiated
soon after the out of Africa exit and it is widely distributed in Asia (east Asia and India) and Oceania, there is an interesting exception for one of its more than 40 sub-clades: M1
.. Indeed this lineage is mainly limited to the African continent with peaks in the Horn of Africa."
--Paola Spinozzi, Alessandro Zironi . (2010). Origins as a Paradigm in the
Sciences and in the Humanities. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 48-50




The fact that there is no M1 in southern Asia and is only restricted to East African populations (and there more recent descendants) and L3 (the ancestor of M1) is also restricted to the African continent, suggest that M1 arose in Africa and was present in the population that initially migrated out of the continent and into south Asia:

Quote:
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.

Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.


In the study people of Gurna populations, the M1 lineage is attributed to an East African migration (hence East Africans characterize the haplogroup) which is said be the most ancestral of all other genetic components found in this modern day southern Egyptian populations:
Quote:

"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."
(Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)


Bottom line is this marker arose in East Africa and is a genetic marker associated with East African populations, not south Asian people.

cormac mac airt wrote:
B-M60 is a subgroup of BT, which is still not South African in origin.


It is NILOTIC! Those populations initially came from more southern regions of Africa (not the Sahara itself):




cormac mac airt wrote:
What I’m doubting, based on actual information obtained from genetic studies, is that there is a specific South African origin for anything dealing with Ancient Egypt or more specifically the mummies in the OP.


As has been shown there is archaeological and biological research has showed ties between southern African regions. What we can deduced from the findings of this study at the very least is that these pharoahs were overwhelmingly comprised of inner African specific markers.

Quote:
As to your last two quotes, neither “Neolithic Khartoum type” nor “tropical African” mean South African but Central African at best.


Do you even know what is referred to by "tropical Africa":



The ancient Egyptians (by way of limb proportions) were most certainly from "tropical Africa":

Quote:
"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.(Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.


The regions of central Africa (the Sahara) was (as noted by linguistic, archaeological, and biological evidence) inhabited mostly by Nilo Saharan populations. As the desertification occurred most of these populations pushed southwards into Central Africa, Westward and of course mainly into the Great Lakes region. That is why I suspect such high matches with that region. Now the region of southern Africa today is inhabited by people of Bantu and Khoisan descent, which is a toss of many speculations which I simply cannot explain.

cormac mac airt wrote:
I have no doubt that there was an African genetic basis for ancestry of some of Ancient Egypt. Why I do doubt is your interpretation of the facts.


First of all, I'm just trying to make the best of what these results have given us. I was able to find supporting evidence from other scientific disciplines linking ancient Egypt to the Great Lakes regions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm keeping a close eye on this discussion. I enjoy a lively and spirited discussion as much as the next fellow, but I'll remind the group to remain civil.

I am the first to admit much about the science of genetics is over my head. I am not well versed on the topic. I'm not familiar with the purpose and goals of DNA Tribes but spent awhile perusing the PDF cormac tracked down and posted, as well as the DNA Tribes website. I am not convinced of the scientific merit involved but I'm willing to allow this discussion to continue as is, for now.

Sir Shawn, I should ask frankly and simply: what is it exactly you're trying to present or argue with the information you've posted? While I confess to my limited understanding of genetics, it seems to me the chart in the opening post is all over the place and doesn't make much sense at all.

If you're arguing that some of the ancient Egyptian population may have possessed extremely ancient ancestry from southern Africa, that is altogether possible. I am, of course, talking on the order of many, many thousands of years before pharaonic Egypt even took form. Establishing very ancient migration patterns that led to the settling of other regions of Africa is a useful topic for discussion, but in this case the entire discussion would be better suited for the Pre-dynastic Egypt section of Egyptian Dreams. If any of the ruling class of the Amarna Period did have ancestors from tens of thousands of years earlier in southern Africa, this of course would have no bearing on their own time. This was a North African civilization with distinct and established traditions unique to themselves.

However, if you're trying to argue that Yuya, Tjuya, Amunhotep III, Tutankhamun, and the others in question came from southern Africa themselves, this of course would be wrong. There is no real evidence corroborating that. Amunhotep III and Tutankhamun were both of the Tuthmoside line of kings, and this entire line originated from southern Egypt. There has been debate over the origins of Yuya, to the extent that some argue he was originally from Canaan, but in my opinion there is no strong evidence to substantiate this. These are all Egyptian people--probably every last one of them was born and raised in pharaonic Egypt.

If the purpose of this discussion is to establish the race of ancient egypt, all must tread lightly. Afrocentric and eurocentric agendas are not welcomed at Egyptian Dreams because they have little if any probative or scientific value. If I determine in the end that this is in fact the purpose of this thread, I will more than likely close and lock it. There are certainly more useful and relevant things to discuss about ancient Egypt.

I will emphasize, based on my own research into this topic--and this is a topic in which cormac himself is also well versed--that the original inhabitants of the Nile Valley comprised mixed ethnicities. I see "Nilotic" being tossed around in numerous posts, but of course all this means is people or cultures existing along the Nile, so this pertains to North Africa. Upon desertification of this region people had no choice but to move south or, even more is the case, into the Nile Valley. Toby Wilkinson argues in Genesis of the Pharaohs that many of the original inhabitants whose material culture led into state formation, came from prehistoric peoples who had inhabited the regions to the east of the Nile. Of course many came from the south, in what is now the Sudan, and there is no question of the many similarities between Upper Egyptians and the A-Group culture by late-prehistoric times. In the north, it is clear that many inhabitants came from the west and from the northeast. It was a mix of people, plain and simple.

Carry on with the discussion, but again, please remain civil. I'll be checking in and perhaps posting more. Wink
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group