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 Previous  1, 2
 
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: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
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.


It's all good.

kmt_sesh wrote:
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?


This study in a nutshell is using the STR samples of the mummies in questions and comparing their relationship to all populations around the world. What the results of this study prove above all is that the individuals being sampled are overwhelmingly comprised of African specific markers. The regions in question represent modern day inhabitants not the ancient inhabitants, and as we should already know many events (migrations) have taken place those thousands of years.

Quote:
If you're arguing that some of the ancient Egyptian population may have possessed extremely ancient ancestry from southern Africa, that is altogether possible.


This is what was noted in Pinhasi et al (2000):



The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:



The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.

kmt_sesh wrote:
This was a North African civilization with distinct and established traditions unique to themselves.


Saying that it was "North African" does not change the affinities of this civilization. All evidence from biological to cultural indicates that their primary affinities were Africans further to the south.

kmt_sesh wrote:
However, if you're trying to argue that Yuya, Tjuya, Amunhotep III, Tutankhamun, and the others in question came from southern Africa themselves,


No, that's in no way what I or this study are concluding. These findings are a testament to which African populations their ancestry stems from.

kmt_sesh wrote:
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.


I agree with you for the most part about their origins. The only dispute is that you referring to early Lower Egyptians as "mixed" is somewhat ambiguous in my opinion. Biological and cultural evidence generally ties these early inhabitants more to the peoples of the south than the East. Trade and cultural exchange most certainly took place between the Lower Nile and the Levant, but no too much can be inferred about the people themselves based on that fact alone.
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 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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:


And East African populations ARE NOT South African in origin, either. Not that it matters in any case as there are no mtDNA or Y Chromosome DNA results that would substantiate a South African origin for the 7 mummies involved. If you know otherwise then I challenge you to provide same. The ball’s in your court.

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


You can repeat the term “Nilotic” all you want, but sub-Saharan and South African are not one and the same, which is what I’ve said several times now.

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


While technically correct, your tropical African interpretation runs contrary to a sub-Saharan origin as much of the Sahara is technically “tropical African”. The only other meaningful interpretation IMO would be from central Sudan to the southern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Which still doesn’t make it South African.

Am awaiting with much anticipation your mtDNA and Y Chromosome DNA evidence that can unequivocally show that the mummies in question are specifically of sub-Saharan and more importantly South African ancestry. Should prove quite illuminating.

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: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What the results of this study prove above all is that the individuals being sampled are overwhelmingly comprised of African specific markers.


I trust that you have a citation showing that these specific markers namely D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO and FGA are African specific, meaning they originated in Africa. I'd be interested in reading such.

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 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cormac mac airt wrote:
And East African populations ARE NOT South African in origin, either.


The East African genetic component (while being a major population source) was the sole source for the Nile Valley. The ever migrating Nilo Saharan people were the other key player in their origination:

Quote:
"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afroasiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). Thus the earliest domestic cattle may have come to Egypt from these southern neighbors, circa 6000 B.C., and not from the Middle East. Pottery, another significant advance in material cultural may also have followed this pattern, initiatied "as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East."(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)


The Nilotic ancestry, is the clear link between these mummies and the regions listed.

cormac mac airt wrote:
Not that it matters in any case as there are no mtDNA or Y Chromosome DNA results that would substantiate a South African origin for the 7 mummies involved.


No one is saying that those individuals directly came from Southern Africa. What is evident by this finding is that the ancestral population for these ancient Egyptians has a basis with populations from those general regions. This in all reality is likely the result of their Nilo Saharan ancestry (as noted in the study presented earlier):



As you can clearly see a major line of Nilotic ancestry shoots all the way down into southern Africa and of course also has a peak around the Great Lakes regions. Then again you have to take this with a grain of salt as genetic evidence is just one piece (albeit a big one) to the entire puzzle. You must ask yourself are their other lines of evidence which point to a relationship with this specific region or any of the others listed in the comparison.

cormac mac airt wrote:
You can repeat the term “Nilotic” all you want, but sub-Saharan and South African are not one and the same, which is what I’ve said several times now.


I'm not understanding what you are trying to imply with this statement. Also please understand that the "Sahara" has not always been a desert. There was a continuation of peopling across the region. During those times the southern and central Sahara was inhabited by Nilo Saharan speakers.

cormac mac airt wrote:
The only other meaningful interpretation IMO would be from central Sudan to the southern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Which still doesn’t make it South African.


People in as far north as southern Egypt and Libya are still for the most part "tropically adapted" Africans, so I see no need to push the reference further south.

cormac mac airt wrote:
Am awaiting with much anticipation your mtDNA and Y Chromosome DNA evidence that can unequivocally show that the mummies in question are specifically of sub-Saharan and more importantly South African ancestry.


Well you and I both know that this analysis is one of the only the studies which was able to analyze Egyptian mummies in such ways. I'm simply not understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this. The number of STR markers ( 8 ) was enough to which broad regions these individuals have the most affinity towards. As noted in the study more markers would only break those broad affinities down into specific ethnic groups. The study also does mention the fact that there was indeed some detection of non African ancestry, but that it was obviously neglectable compared to the African specific components.
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 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cormac mac airt wrote:
Quote:
What the results of this study prove above all is that the individuals being sampled are overwhelmingly comprised of African specific markers.


I trust that you have a citation showing that these specific markers namely D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO and FGA are African specific, meaning they originated in Africa. I'd be interested in reading such.

cormac


DNAtribes makes this clear in their analysis, by the frequencies of these markers in specific African populations. There conclusion also states this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobManske
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 350

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's take this more slowly,

What you didn't bother to tell the people a few posts ago, Mr. Shawn, is that your "evidence", such as it is, from Nazlet Khater, refers to one individual, and one individual only, dating to 33,000 years ago. You seem to be attempting to pass this off as though it has some relevance to populations in Egypt in the region of the Old Kingdom or later, people who lived some 26,000 years after that Nazlet Khater date and that lone Nazlet Khater individual.

This date of 33,000 years before present is clearly stated in the very first sentence of the abstract of the article by Pinhasi and Semal (by the way: not "et al" as you stated, instead, there was only one other author) which you quoted above. Why did you not share this information openly? You must have read it.

That one individual and one individual only does not a population make is also something you seem to have tried to divert attention from.

Indeed, the article you quoted at such length proves absolutely nothing about the racial makeup of ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom or later periods.

This was the first of your supposed supporting evidence that I looked at and did research on. I can only wonder if the rest of what you are calling "evidence" is similarly tainted, perhaps likewise heavily edited by you, perhaps deliberately skewed to present a deliberately false picture.

Even the most rabid racists of the modern age, the Nazis, demanded proof of pure Aryan ancestry only back to 1800, less than 150 years prior to the founding of the Third Reich, but you seem to be claiming that this one individual - who clearly does not a population make - is somehow an ancestor of a King of Egypt, more than 31,000 years later. This is a pedigree that would have astounded even the most fervent National Socialist.

Other respected people who have contributed to this thread have called into question other so-called "evidence" of yours without your successfully refuting them. They have been more than open and honest with you, you do not seem to have responded in kind.

We have heard from you before, Mr. Shawn, ad nauseam about this very same subject, which appears to have a racist overtone. You've been warned about it. The people on Egyptian Dreams deserve better than your kind of "proofs". Indeed, people everywhere do.

You have been asked several times to state the purpose of your posts. You have dodged each question. Although some of your purpose seems to have been somewhat identified, nevertheless, there is considerable doubt as to your intentions.

So, right now, make this clear. State it in plain English. Are you stating that the population of Egypt in old Kingdom times and later was overwhelmingly or completely Black, Negroid, sub-Saharan, central AFrican, (whatever euphemistic jargon you choose to use)? Yes or No?

Are you stating that a population such as this might have moved through Egypt at some time, any time? If so, state when. Yes or No? And there is a follow-up question depending on how you answer this.

Are you stating that the culture of Old Kingdom and later periods of Egyptian history was predominantly of the same origin as this? Yes or No?

Are you stating that there might have been some admixture of populations and or culture resulting in a population of mixed origin? Yes or No?

If it's a mixed origin do you have any idea of the approximate makeup at any time and at any point in Egypt? Yes or No? If yes, then there is a follow-up question.

Until we know what your intentions are, Mr. Shawn, we cannot properly evaluate your "evidence". Once you make that clear and unambiguous, we can then begin to respond to your "evidence". I would love to be able to remove the quotation marks around the word "evidence" in reference to items you have brought forth. Once you are clear as to what your object is and have presented complete disclosure we could then proceed in open and honest discussion but so far can I find no valid reason but to question much, if not all of the "evidence" you have presented.

If you won't answer these question yes or no then clearly you have no honorable intention in mind and you should be banned from this forum. Without such clear and unambiguous objectives in view no further discussion with you is warranted.

I hope I'm completely wrong about you, but from what I've read in this and other threads I cannot but seriously doubt your motives and your biases.

Here are my intentions, Mr. Shawn, clearly stated:
1) to remove all ambiguity from your desired objective in making these posts.
2) to be able to much more accurately evaluate you as a respondent. Obviously this has been a hostile post. I am hoping you can remove my suspicions, and I must say, it appears, suspicions that are shared by others.
3) To arrive at an honest, unbiased, evaluation of the evidence. I don't have a preference as to what the answer should be. All I want is clear, honest, evaluation. No hidden agendas, no distortions, no biases except those in favor of honesty and complete disclosure.

Yes or No, Mr. Shawn. Yes or No.
_________________
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
- Douglas Adams

Good bye, Doug, thanks a lot, and you're welcome for all the fish. Stop by our way again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob's post was on the harsh side but he mentioned past activities of Sir Shawn, which I was not aware of. I've only very recently returned to Egyptian Dreams and am still playing catch-up. Therefore, I looked into it and discovered three different threads locked by our Admin because of the overt issue of race.

Any and all posters who happen by this post, please take note that Egyptian Dreams is not a forum for arguments about the race of pharaonic Egypt. That can be discussed elsewhere, but not here.

To that end I am locking this discussion. I shall bring it to the attention of our Admin, Kevin, to see if he feels differently, but at this moment I feel it is best to put an end to this one.
_________________


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 Previous  1, 2
Page 2 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