Ancient Egyptians - Cultural Origin, genetics, etc.

[Mindfire]

So, where were we before we got derailed?

(Also, I'll be surprised if "goldseeker" doesn't pop up again to incite more epic derailure.)

 

[Shockley]

I believe we were all making up and finding common ground.

 

[Steerpike]

Primary sources are great, but there isn't much you can do with them without looking at the entire study, looking at their methods, conclusions, etc., as well as having a fairly good idea of what else is out there in the primary literature that deals with the same subject matter.

That's why in a discussion like this it is much more interesting to get an exchange of ideas wherein people express their own viewpoints. To bolster that, if someone says a study by so-and-so showed X, and summarizes the findings, that's great. People can take that as supporting evidence and continue the discussion. Spamming cut-and-pastes or video lectures, where we're just getting other people's words and thought, is pointless. Anyone here can use Google. That's not an effective discussion.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Primary sources are great, but there isn't much you can do with them without looking at the entire study, looking at their methods, conclusions, etc., as well as having a fairly good idea of what else is out there in the primary literature that deals with the same subject matter.

That's why in a discussion like this it is much more interesting to get an exchange of ideas wherein people express their own viewpoints. To bolster that, if someone says a study by so-and-so showed X, and summarizes the findings, that's great. People can take that as supporting evidence and continue the discussion. Spamming cut-and-pastes or video lectures, where we're just getting other people's words and thought, is pointless. Anyone here can use Google. That's not an effective discussion.

Agreed

As an aside, my very best friend in the world is black, or to be more precise her father was Jamaican, and her mother was white Irish. I've always thought she looked just like Queen Nefertiti, its something about her long thin face and semi African features. So to me personally that is how I've always visualised the Egyptians

 

[Ravana]

Well I initially came into this debate posting an article by leading linguist Christopher Ehret

Well, "historian," actually. Not that I object to cross-disciplinary work (how could I? would be rather hypocritical of me… ), nor the possibility that non-specialists can have profound insights in fields outside their own disciplines (ditto). However, to put him forward as a "leading linguist" is, to state it mildly, a stretch. A judgment I do have the qualifications to make.

If there is anything at all of value to be found in SS's meandering (which may also be a stretch…), it's something he (and everyone else?) quite overlooked: the craniometric study he cites indicates that the original [sic] inhabitants of Egypt, Sudan and the Horn of Africa are all closely related—to each other.

To each other. Not to any other population identified.

They are, for example, only marginally more closely related to modern Sub-Saharan African populations than they are to Greek populations. Also, the table includes only a single sample of a Semitic population (Lachish)… and that sample is far more closely related to the ancient Egyptian populations than modern Sub-Saharan Africans are. I would think that anyone attempting to demonstrate a differentiation between the ancient Egyptian populations and Semitic ones would load his table with other examples. (Well, unless they proved inconvenient to his thesis. Ooh—was that petty of me to point out? So sorry.) If anything—IF anything, and I'm not saying it is—the craniometric study demonstrates that the Nubian populations weren't closely related to contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans, not that the Egyptians were.

That, of course, is just one study, and furthermore a study on just one feature that is itself of dubious value. ("Craniometrics"? Seriously? In Victorian times, the study of skull size and shape was used to drive racist and classist agendas—an association that became so loaded they had to change the name of the field.) But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the entire population of Northeastern Africa—not just Egypt's—represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups, than it does to a conclusion that they were "Africans" in the sense of being identical, or nearly identical, or even close kin, to modern Sub-Saharan populations. Which does not appear to be what the author had in mind, let alone what SS did in referring to it.

So maybe they were all "Ethiopians." But maybe the Ethiopians of the day differed significantly from the modern population. And why not? It's not as if human populations have remained static ever since the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty… certainly not globally. The "proof" offered here would support that conclusion at least as well as any other, if not better.

It's also a hell of a lot more flattering to the cultural uniqueness of that region than any attempt to say that these people were "really" someone else. As someone—can't remember who—pointed out earlier. That, however, is an emotional rather than a scientific appeal. Appealing though it is.

On the other hand, the data could also be rejected as a bunch of tripe. I endorse neither approach (though I do have a certain inclination toward one over the other… ). I merely point out the problem. It's a common one… and, sadly, one not limited to internet pundits.

Anyway… just thought I'd add my two-penny nails to that particular coffin. (Yes, I know: two-penny nails are useless in securing a coffin lid. Felt like mixing a metaphor here.) Back to the discussion.

 

[Devor]

But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the entire population of Northeastern Africa—not just Egypt's—represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups, than it does to a conclusion that they were "Africans" in the sense of being identical, or nearly identical, or even close kin, to modern Sub-Saharan populations.

If true, that would be kind of cool in its own right.

 

[Sir Shawn]

I've always thought she looked just like Queen Nefertiti, its something about her long thin face and semi African features.

Somali super model Iman shares the same facial structure as the famous Berlin Bust of Nefertiti"

 

[Sir Shawn]

However, to put him forward as a "leading linguist" is, to state it mildly, a stretch. A judgment I do have the qualifications to make.

I would consider Christopher Ehret a leading linguist as far as Africa is concerned, considering the fact that he spoke on behalf of the linguistic segment at the African Genetic international Conference last month. This was a conference in which the World's leading researchers of multidisciplinary sciences of Africa gave presentations on mainstream research.

They are, for example, only marginally more closely related to modern Sub-Saharan African populations than they are to Greek populations. Also, the table includes only a single sample of a Semitic population (Lachish)… and that sample is far more closely related to the ancient Egyptian populations than modern Sub-Saharan Africans are

There's a problem with that statement. The restrictive term "Sub Saharan African" is quite meaningless in this respect, because the continuum of biological affinities from the Lower Nile continues smoothly into the Horn of Africa which "is" Sub Saharan Africa:



The term Sub Saharan African is misleading when it is used as some sort of arbitrary racial boundary line. The majority of people in the middle and lower Saharan are tropically adapted black Africans (i.e Chad, Sudan, Niger, Mali, Sudan, and the southern regions of Egypt and Libya). A term popularized by several biologist which is essentially describing black Africans in a more realistic way is "Saharo-tropical African". This region of Earth (even when further restricted to "Sub Saharan Africa") has the most indigenous phenotypic and genetic diversity on Earth. Horn Africans/Northeast/Sub Saharan East Africans represent a segment of this diversity just as much as Gold Coast, Central or Khoisan Africans do. Northeast Africans are also the population in which the rest of world descended from during OOA, which is why their phenotype while unique in it's own way overlaps largely with the range seen across the World.

That being said, the primary affinity of the early ancient Egyptians lie with the range of populations seen in Northeast Africans. After a thousand years of small scale migration of Semitic populations from the Middle East into Egypt, the population began to gravitate from that which grouped with Northeast Africans (i.e Nubians, Somalis, Nilotic peoples) towards that which began to become more intermediate between both by the New Kingdom. With continued migration and invasions by the time of the Late Dynastic period the population of Egypt while maintaining degrees of continuity was generally distinct from that of earlier periods (who grouped with Africans) in term of phenotype (mostly in the north). After the fall of Dynastic Egypt more populations began to migrate and settle in the Nile with the already mixed population, adding even more to the biological distinction from the early ancient Egyptians.

I would think that anyone attempting to demonstrate a differentiation between the ancient Egyptian populations and Semitic ones would load his table with other examples. (Well, unless they proved inconvenient to his thesis. Ooh—was that petty of me to point out? So sorry.)

Since you're asking for more evidence I surely provide with another study showing a series of tropical Africans (including West Africans) having a closer centroid value to the ancient Egyptians closer than that of the Semitic series :

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

link to study.

If anything—IF anything, and I'm not saying it is—the craniometric study demonstrates that the Nubian populations weren't closely related to contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans, not that the Egyptians were.

If anything, and I'm not sating it is true- I'd say that your interpretation of this data shows that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to indigenous African diversity. Indigenous tropical African populations have been shown consistently to be as genetically and physically distinct from one another than a Western European population is from a Cambodian village (just an example). Certain Horn African populations, Sudanese and ancient Egyptians formed a continuum of biological and cultural affinities that was representative of their own (but not necessary exclusionary of other African populations). Horn Africans and people of the Sudanese are black Africans, so why would the ancient Egyptians who also fit perfectly into this bio-cultural continuum defy this, by somehow be something other than black African?

That, of course, is just one study, and furthermore a study on just one feature that is itself of dubious value.

Cranio-metric while not the best at determining population relationships, do give incite into a populations phenotype. For example indigenous African populations and certain Southeast Asians/aboriginal Australians are genetically as distinct from one another as populations can get, but craniometrically they are very similar and thus have been noted to have very similar phenotypes. As with many African populations those distant populations tend to have broader facial features and tropically adapted limb ratios. This is why early anthropologist considered aboriginal Australians to be recent tropical African migrants, before they were given their own "racial grouping".

Super tropical limb proportions were also a general affinity of the ancient Egyptians, which was in the same manor as tropical African populations further south and those dark skinned tropically adapted southeast Asian and Australians. Ecological principal has stated that dark skin accompanies tropical adaptation. That being said with a cranio-metric pattern within the range of various northeast African populations and limb proportion ratios the same as the world's darkest populations, what would that logically suggest about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians? I'd say that they were black Africans.

But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the entire population of Northeastern Africa—not just Egypt's—represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups,

Indigenous African diversity as explained above and gone into great detail in the University of Manchester and Cambridge lectures by one of the leading biologist of Africans S.O.Y. Keita on the previous page.

Which does not appear to be what the author had in mind, let alone what SS did in referring to it.

As stated above, I couldn't imagine why an indigenous tropically adapted Northeast African population would somehow defy ecological principal by not having dark skin. Keep in mind however that tropical Africa has the most indigenous skin color diversity of any region on Earth. While all generally considered "black" in the social sense there are tropical Africans so black that they have a purple tint (the Dinka of Sudan), there are reddish brown colored people throughout the region, and there are non mixed Africans with high yellow skin color (Igbo people of southern Nigeria). Therefore while having dark skin is a fact, the exact skin tone as stated by several anthropologist would be almost impossible to determine.

So maybe they were all "Ethiopians." But maybe the Ethiopians of the day differed significantly from the modern population. And why not?

Which Ethiopians, as there are many ethnic groups (which is why their is so much political strike). Some anthropologist (in the Cambridge lecture on the previous page) have described the typical Egyptian phenotype as being "Somali like". Others have described them as Oromo or Tigrean. Then again Nilotic has been used to described these ancient peoples. Many early anthropologist considered all of these populations (and thus the Egyptians) to be "Caucasoid" because they did not conform to the dubious "true Negroid" myth. This suggest that there was a diversity of tropical African populations in early ancient Egypt.

Also what evidence do you have to suggest that there was change in the Ethiopian populations? I've never seen any? I conversely have presented much evidence that there has been significant change in the Nile Valley (particularly Lower Egypt) which even includes parts of northern Sudan.

 

[Sir Shawn]

It's also a hell of a lot more flattering to the cultural uniqueness of that region than any attempt to say that these people were "really" someone else.

Is modern America a good representation of the America from 600+ years ago? If not then what has happened? Did the original inhabitants migrate somewhere else? Were they largely assimilated in the American population of today? Were they wiped and killed? Could any of these explanations have been the case in ancient Egypt? If so then which one has the most support?

 

[Mindfire]

Somali super model Iman shares the same facial structure as the famous Berlin Bust of Nefertiti"

Um... so? People say I look like both Barack Obama and P. Diddy. (FYI I resemble neither.) That doesn't prove much. Plus, she's a model. She's supposed to resemble Nefertiti in that picture. That's what the makeup and costume are for. This is the most egregious example of cherry picking I have ever seen in my life!

 

[Mindfire]

WALL O' TEXT!

TL;DR

 

[Sir Shawn]

Um... so? People say I look like both Barack Obama and P. Diddy. (FYI I resemble neither.) That doesn't prove much. Plus, she's a model. She's supposed to resemble Nefertiti in that picture. That's what the makeup and costume are for. This is the most egregious example of cherry picking I have ever seen in my life!

How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race. By your logical I should accuse that user of cherry picking for using the depiction of Nefertiti with the most facial distinctions from others. For example almost every other depiction of Nefertiti show her with dark brown skin and full lips:

 

[Mindfire]

How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race. By your logical I should accuse that user of cherry picking for using the depiction of Nefertiti with the most facial distinctions from others. For example almost every other depiction of Nefertiti show her with dark brown skin and full lips:

I agree that these depictions of Nefertiti indicate features similar to those of modern Africans. But while that does support your position, it's not conclusive proof, so stop treating it like it is. If you weren't so self-important and showed some restraint instead of acting on your impulse to flood the thread with MOAR PICTURES and MOAR TEXT, then maybe you could contribute to this discussion in a friendly, informative way that would promote dialogue and not result in you getting banned. Didn't you learn anything from getting banned the first time? Keep it up and I'll report you to the mods again.

 

[Sir Shawn]

. for every expert video you post supporting your argument I could post one saying the opposite. Its called cherry picking, and personally I refuse to play that game.

I guarantee that you will never find any expert opinion being invited to speak at prestigious universities or being the considered an another authority by the National Geographic on the subject, disputing Keita's stance on the Bio-Cultural origins of ancient Egypt, because their is no real evidence to suggest anything else. In fact this stance has lately become so prominent that within the last three years institutes like the Fitzwilliam's museum have devoted entire exhibits to showing the intra African origins of ancient Egypt.

The notion that ancient Egypt was anything, but black African (which includes the notion that they were always mixed race) as stated by the Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt is rooted in colonial racism. This I believe was stated by a user on the first page. Some people unknowingly (and in some cases knowingly) feel that they are obligated to defending an obsolete paradigm based on pseudo scientific ideas of a racial hierarchy.

 

[Sir Shawn]

I agree that these depictions of Nefertiti indicate features similar to those of modern Africans. But while that does support your position, it's not conclusive proof, so stop treating it like it is.

Quote me where I've stated or even insinuated that picture comparisons are conclusive proof. One person made an assertion and I made a comparison suggesting otherwise. I don't know why you're getting so worked up over my presence in this thread, but it's very juvenile and completely unnecessary. If you agree with me then say that you agree with me. If you don't agree with my stance then state what is illegitimate about the support for my stance, rather than attacking me or how I'm providing my evidence.

 

[Mindfire]

Quote me where I've stated or even insinuated that picture comparisons are conclusive proof. One person made an assertion and I made a comparison suggesting otherwise. I don't know why you're getting so worked up over my presence in this thread, but it's very juvenile and completely unnecessary. If you agree with me then say that you agree with me. If you don't agree with my stance then state what is illegitimate about the support for my stance, rather than attacking me or how I'm providing my evidence.

It's your style that I take issue with more than your substance. You come across as unnecessarily aggressive bordering on hostile. And you seem to love WOT posts.

 

[Sir Shawn]

It's your style that I take issue with more than your substance.

You have put entirely too much energy into criticizing my "style" then you have been trying to absorb the information from the legitimate mainstream sources that I've provided.

You come across as unnecessarily aggressive bordering on hostile. And you seem to love WOT posts.

Why would me disproving an outright fallacy (i.e the Semitic argument) equate as "aggressive"?

According to one poster I came out appearing as though "I have all the answers" then according to another providing support for my argument is somehow "plagiarism" meaning that I don't really have my own argument. When in reality every source that I have provided has been put into CONTEXT by me and has relevance to point being made. After reading the dialogue of this thread, the only issue that many people have with my "style" of debating (the use of real sources) is that it leaves little to no room for unsubstantiated nonsense. It's as though some are offended that modern scholars now acknowledge that the supposite "mystery cloud" over this subject has disappeared, and are simply unhappy with what has been revealed as the truth.

 

[Mindfire]

You have put entirely too much energy into criticizing my "style" then you have been trying to absorb the information from the legitimate mainstream sources that I've provided.



Why would me disproving an outright fallacy (i.e the Semitic argument) equate as "aggressive"? According to one poster I came out appearing as though "I have all the answers" then according to another providing support for my argument is somehow "plagiarism" meaning that I don't really have my own argument. When in reality every source that I have provided has been put into CONTEXT by me and has relevance to point being made. After reading the dialogue of this thread, the only issue that many people have with my "style" of debating (the use of real sources) is that it leaves little to no room for unsubstantiated nonsense. It's as though some are offended that modern scholars now acknowledge that the supposite "mystery cloud" over this subject has disappeared, and are simply unhappy with what has been revealed as the truth.

Well, see that's where you've got it wrong, mate. This isn't a debate. It's a discussion. A debate is confrontational, with explicit sides and opponents. A discussion is just a chat, really. Treat this more like a friendly conversation and less like a verbal battle.

 

[Sir Shawn]

Well, see that's where you've got it wrong, mate. This isn't a debate. It's a discussion.

That's fine!

 

[grahamguitarman]

How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race.

Actually, no I didn't state that the Berlin bust suggested anything at all, in fact I didn't even mention the Berlin bust! If anything my friend resembles some of those pictures above more than the Berlin bust.

I was merely making a personal and conversational observation that my friend looked like Nefertiti, and that that is how I personally 'visualise' Egyptians. As an artist posting on a site dedicated to writing stories, this is a perfectly valid thing to do.

You seem to be so intent on forcing your point of view on everyone, that you are turning simple conversational comments into scientific arguments. Then have the gall to accuse us of being juvenile when we object to your tactics!

You have completely missed the fact that this is a friendly discussion not a combative debate. And more to the point, this is a site dedicated to story writing, not a scientific or historical site. We have do have geneticists, anthropologists and historians here, most of whom are probably more qualified to discuss this subject than yourself, but they are still here primarily as aspiring writers.