This is because you are not good at expressing the boundaries of your opinions.
My opinion on the subject is not complex in any way shape or form. It is one that is supported by a plethora of 'clear' irrefutable evidence, and it also just so happens to be something that many of you apparently have a hard time accepting, which is why you all chose to obfuscate it.
Which mainly boils down to you ascerting for a fact something which is still in debate/discussion in the scientific community.
OOA is still up for debate, none the less you can count on fingers how many scholars actually oppose it. Likewise the criteria which answers this question may very well have a few stragglers who cling to minority ideas (i.e "non African" origins of Afro-Asiatic: origins of haplogroup E), but the overwhelming majority of the criteria used as primary support for one position or another are all pointing in a parallel direction to ancient Egypt's origins coming from more southerly Northeast African populations.
Big Triece wrote wrote:
It would be silly of anyone to deny that non Africans began to integrate into Egypt throughout its history, and even small scale migration prior to the New Kingdom.
Big Triece wrote wrote:
The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.
To someone not used to your ramblings it looks like you are calling yourself silly.
How in the Hell is that calling myself "silly"? Where in the Hell is the contradiction? Are you calling me "silly" because I'm not bending position to accommodate your unsupported opinion? Are you also calling Keita silly, because I base my opinion on his research and conclusions (as well as the works of other scholars, who in turn heavily rely on his research to base their conclusions).
But I think that the missing context is your basic assumption that we are all a bunch of white, colonialist racist assholes.
No, I think that you all are bunch of folk who are for whatever reason (which most certainly could be racism) are performing mental gymnastics to avoid conceding to the fact that the original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of indigenous, tropically adapted Northeast Africans (black) and that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that they had origins from anywhere else.
This makes you essentially assume that we think that modern northern africans are "white" or deratives thereof and that we therefore have an emotional investment in seeing those "whites" being part of the formation of proto-egypt.
Well at first Broomstick was arguing for a Middle Eastern genetic input in Pre-Dynastic Egypt (that didn't go her way), so now the external (non African) genetic influence of some Northern African populations are new plea for creme in that coffee. Yep that's about it!
1) Northeast Africa is not especially precise and since you use it a lot while mixing your sources it simply comes out wrong. For instance that beloved source of yours Wikipedia doesn't even list it as an african region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Africa
So, since I've exposed the blatantly bullshit assertion that that Middle Easterners are viewed as "white" in Western society through the "white people" Wikipedia article you have now labeled it as my "beloved source"? More silly shit!
And also Wikipedia does have a Northeast African articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Africa
If you would talk about northeast Africa in the geographical sense that includes lower/northern egypt and usually Libya.
Yes you are right it does include all of Egypt, but I have rarely (to never) seen Libya included in that definition, so if you would please source your assertions that it is "usually" included in the definition then it would greatly help your argument.
Do a google image search and you'll find lots of different examples. This ambivalence is probably intentional on Keita's part to add another level of caveat. But when you repeat it with your own interpretation it just fails.
The general definition of Northeast Africa is Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt. Some definitions include parts of Kenya and Chad. In Keita's case it's likely that his definition (aside from those core areas) includes parts Chad (and probably southern Libya), as many archaeological and linguistic ties from that area are linked to Egypt's origins (the Saharan origins).
So to someone who does not share your specific definition of "northeast Africa" would say that you contradict yourself.
You are seriously looking for ANYTHING
to avoid conceding to the obviously, is it really that serious?
2) Indigenous, what does it mean for you?
Indigenous means that a population originated within a particular geographical confine, which is in this case is Africa.
For instance, do you consider Berbers to be indigenous africans?
Berber is a language and cultural way of life which originated in Africa. The population base of the original Berber population is Haplogroup E which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. The Berber population has biological origin in the continent, which has been influenced by many many preceding migrations and events from all directions. Therefore yes they are indigenous to Africa.
Would you consider any of Haplogroup R, Haplogroup HV, Haplogroup H or Haplogroup H1 as indigenous African?
Work still needs to be done on the origins of Haplogroup R as more and more questions are arising as more and more inner African populations are being found with very high frequencies the marker. Haplogroup H on the other hand is European and origins and it's presence in (primarily in Northwest Africans) is a result of the numerous migratory event from the adjacent Europe.
Would you consider any of mtDNA U, mtDNA U6, mtDNA U6a, or U6a1 as indigenous African?
U6 is also a toss up. Keita himself often criticizes that many geneticist labels it as a Eurasian marker, when it is said to have arose during a time before humans are known to have migrated outside of the continent. He actually has a video on Youtube in which he discusses this. None the less U6 is absent in Egyptian Berber populations:
"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214
3)Original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc. This is not that clear either. Which time scales are we talking about? Which geographical areas do we cover? Etc.
Egyptians of the Pre-Dynastic period directly linked to the development of Dynastic culture, those being the Badarians. The Egyptians of Northern Egypt during this time are also taken into consideration in this analysis and also share the same tropical African biological and Nilotic cultural affinities.
So are those Saharans part of those original ancient Egyptians, early ancient Egyptians etc?
I have maintained throughout this entire debate that the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara combined with the existing population on the Nile from Sub Saharan East Africa are what all available evidence points to as the creators of both ancient Egypt and Nubia.
That's an 'ouch' if you missed that. Now do you agree with their analysis of Fordisc 2.0 or not? If you don't, then could you please explain why.
Here are the criticism of Fordisc by a team of investigators:
"If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine... In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series...” (Williams et al, 2005, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania).. The results of the analyses suggest that Fordisc's utility in research and medico-legal contexts is limited. Fordisc will only return a correct ancestry attribution when an unidentified specimen is more or less complete, and belongs to one of the populations represented in the program's reference samples. Even then Fordisc can be expected to classify no more than 1 per cent of specimens with confidence."
-- Frank L'Engle, Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J. Armelagos. Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions About Human Variation. Current Anthropology, Volume 46, Number 2, April 2005
Though Keita seemingly supports the findings of the computer program because of the cranial variability of certain Northeast African populations which is representation of OOA:
"What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values."-- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History."Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007 Please just give it up
! You are searching through every crack and corner for some disputing information, but you are consistently coming up short. The original ancient Egyptians were the product of "black black black" "pure Africans" (as sarcastically put by some members) as all available mainstream evidence points to. If however for (whatever reason) you'd rather claw your eyes out than refer these ancient tropically adapted Africans as "black" then just refer to them as indigenous Northeast Africans as Keita does. Just accept it!
I just asked you for consistency since you persisted in using the eqaully stupid 'black' category, as defined from a US perspective.
If you wanna believe that bullshit that you're saying then go right ahead.