OK, that's fair enough. Indeed, my position is that a heterogenous population could plausibly be expected to have individuals who could reasonably be called "black", as well as "white" and "mixed" though of course, the Egyptians themselves didn't think in those terms. To them the culture was what defined them. Therefore, it would be wholly inappropriate to call the overall population "black", just as it would be inappropriate to call it "white", regardless of whether you can find pictures of dark skinned (or light skinned) Ancient Egyptians. (Although this is subject to an important caveat: "blackness" in this context does NOT necessarily mean Blackness of the sort Big Triece has been pushing with his picture spam earlier in the thread, merely dark-skinned people.)matter wrote:I have made these points clear at various times previouly but let me again:
I belief that some Modern Egyptians,esp very many of them in Upper Egypt, are 'Black' while very many others, esp in the Nile Delta(where the majority are today unlike in the ancient times when the main population centres were in Upper Egypt and head of the northern Nile) are certainly not 'Black' by ANY criteria whatsoever(like I said it is only a person whose eyes plays tricks with him that will consider someone like Dr Zahid 'Black'). Many others are certainly 'mixed'.
But, moving on...
Well, in that case, we disagree on the interpretation of these (except for Zarkweski's papers, which I have not seen, and can't comment on). In fact, earlier in the thread I cited some of these papers myself to support my position! Moreover, I also refer to the study by Irish (2005) I posted earlier to Big Triece, which demonstrated that the modern population of Egypt is fundamentally the same as the ancient population. He countered by saying that it only referred to "continuity", but it clearly stated that the Ancient and Modern populations were essentially the same. As for the Delta region, that may well have changed more than the rest of Egypt, but overall, the diversity in Egypt remains as it always has been, regardless of numerous invasions. Here's the relevant excerpt:matter wrote:I have also stated throughout that Modern Egyptians were descendants of the ancients(in fact the only descendants we know at present) and so there was 'continuity' but most of them have been mixed with other groups that have entered Egypt through out its long history- that was why all the physical evidences presented earlier(Keita 1990,1993; Zarkweski 2002,2004,2007; Starling and Stock 2007; Godde 2009; Nancy Lovell 1999; Kemp 2005, even Brace 2006- only the criticized and flawed Brace 1993 said otherwise I think) said that there was significant change in the biology of Late Period Egyptians in the DElta, with at least two of them(Zarkweski 2004 and Kemp 2005) directly saying they do not represent the typical Anvcient Egyptians Series . This was most felt from the Late Period onwards when marked migrations started in Egypt, esp on those Egyptians in the Delta today.
I read this as saying that the Egyptians, despite numerous invasions, maintained their ethnic character throughout the Dynastic period even through the Roman period. The invasions you refer to would not have "whitened" the Egyptians to the point where they would become something other than their ancestors were.Irish wrote:Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question.
Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances
between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and
between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.
Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?
Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, fivecusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify
this possibility. Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table 4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997). Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock, 2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.
CONCLUSIONS
The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehensive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions. Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples
appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this
homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of:
1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada,
3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods.
Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples.
Incidentally, here's a YouTube video of an interview with a scholar who maintains that the diversity of modern Egypt existed also among the Ancient Egyptians:
Didn't think it would be him, did you? (the relevant portion begins at 0:55)
His main point has always been that the culture of Ancient Egypt was an indigenous African development, and I have no problems at all with this. Meanwhile, he rejects both Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist views, and asserts the heterogenity of North Africa (i.e. the Maghreb region) AND of Ancient Egypt.
I may have subconsciously blotted that post out because the formatting makes my eyes bleed. Also, It seemed that it was pretty much the same stuff Big Triece had covered earlier. If not, my bad. Please try to format your posts more.matter wrote:See this this post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=675#p3659895
But Zentei am sure you have seen it but you ran away then and you are now requiring me to go back. So plz this time respond properly to the post.
In any case: the first several quote boxes there refer to the numerous invasions Egypt has suffered throughout the centuries, in particular following the Macedonian and Roman conquests - I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that it fundamentally altered the Egyptian ethnic character to the extent that they would have been considered "black" before, and "not black" afterwards, as opposed to having been heterogenous both before and after. Moreover, you're not taking into consideration that there were movements of population from the south too - for example via the Arab slave trade, as well as the Nubian conquest that created the 25th Dynasty. Not all population movements favored the "white" population, after all. Egypt has always been at ethnic crossroads, and would have been influenced by all its neighbors. Moreover, the population movements you refer to could just as well have taken place during AND before the Dynastic periods, albeit not quite so dramatic most of the time (other than the demic diffusion events of 10 KYA and 40 KYA, assuming we accept these as legitimate possibilities).
However, I reject the idea that the Delta was somehow unimportant to the Ancient Dynastic period. Egypt was always the Two Lands, upper and lower, and the Delta was the bulk of the Lower Kingdom, consisting of 20 Nomes, in contrast with Upper Egypt which consisted of 22 Nomes (if memory serves). Since the size of Upper Egypt is vastly greater than that of Lower Egypt, one can only infer that the only reason Lower Egypt would have that many Nomes is if it has a respectable population even during the Dynastic period.
If you would:matter wrote:Yes, I certainly see Modern Egyptians as Africans, actualy COMPLETELY, just as I seen other Africans including 'white' South Africans. They live in Africa and are even 'partially' descended form indigenous tropically Africans.
But like 'white' South Africans while fully Africans came relatively recently from European, the ancestors of some Modern Egyptains esp in the Delta, were a very large groups of intermediate/cold adapted nonAfricans that migrated to Egypt esp during the last 3000 yrs.
- Include the period prior to the foundation of Egypt, including in particular during (i) the neolithic spread 10000 years ago, and (ii) 40000 years ago, such that the diversity you speak of existed during the formative years of the dynastic period, and...
- Acknowledge that Egypt remains overall the same as it was during the early Dynastic times
The implications would, of course, be that the Ancients were no less African merely for resembling their modern descendants. Which should come as no surprise. I make this comment because I get the impression that many people arguing for a Black Egypt somehow find the idea of a heterogenous Ancient Egypt somehow inherently diminishes the African accomplishment, which I think we can agree is nonsense, regardless of what motivations certain 19th century theories might have had in proposing such a thing. Moreover, that the idea of diversity during the very early periods of Ancient Egypt are not negated merely by association.
I am very reluctant to post excerpts from a study which I received under member-only rules, I hope you understand that. Regardless, I'll look into posting some parts of it. Overall, it mostly presents the demic diffusion model into Africa as a potential model, less definitively than the diffusion into Europe, but nonetheless the evidence is there.matter wrote:And on Demic Diffusion,again PLEASE(am actually pleading now) can you post excepts from the study that have that ABSTRACT which DEMONSTRATED Demic Diffusion? Also, please respond to relevant part of this thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=725#p3673111 which also contains all our exchanges on the topic.
Meanwhile, I referred to other studies I posted meaning the ones in this post: linka. Those are NOT member-only, so you should be able to pursue them freely.
However, in reference to the cultural impact demic diffusion would have had on Egypt, while it is true that Egyptian culture is an indigenous African accomplishment, and demic diffusions usually leave distinct traces in the culture of the population, I understand that these population movements in 10 KYA would have covered Lower Egypt more strongly than Upper Egypt, and that despite movement of populations, these newcomers can be assimilated into existing culture of the Nile Valley, particularly with the formation of the united kingdom of the two lands. Meanwhile, the 40 KYA migration would NOT in any way, shape or form need to be explained away vis-a-vis the indigenous origin of Egyptian culture, quite simply it's so long ago that it's not relevant. If people can't become African after thirty thousand years... but of course, you acknowledged that immigrants can be considered "African" (as per your comments on pale skinned modern Egyptians and white South Africans). Thus the 40 KYA demic diffusion is a non-issue culturally. The ONLY thing it does is contribute to the diversity that Egypt always possessed.
See the two studies I included in the post I linked to above.matter wrote:You should esp respond to some the exchanges you didnt properly respond to esp this: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=650#p3654005
Thank you very much Zentei in anticipation that you will finally do this.