Sub Saharan origins for pharaohs (new DNA studies)

[Asante90]

Don't know why my recent attempt at this thread was erased from existence but....

^Amarna period pharaohs

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

link

Three months ago another study was conducted on Ramses III and his son concluding that they were E1b1a carriers:

We amplified 16 Y chromosomal, short tandem repeats (AmpF\STR Yfiler PCR amplification kit; Applied Biosystems).........Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓ using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a

link

This is the current distribution of that particular haplogroup.

The Dnatribes analysis of the results from the above study:

These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa.... A previous issue of DNA Tribes Digest identified African related ancestry for King Tut and other royal mummies from the Amarna Period. In this issue, results indicate that the later pharaoh Ramesses III also inherited alleles that are most frequent in present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This provides additional, independent evidence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (possibly among several ancestral components) for pharaonic families of ancient Egypt.....In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years (see Figure 1)

link

These recent genetic studies all indicate that the ancient Egyptians have a closer genetic relationship to modern populations across Sub Saharan Africa and particularly the Nilotic populations of the Great Lakes region of Africa. The strong cultural connection between the ancient Egyptians and the modern peoples of the Upper Nile/Great Lakes region has been noted by scholars for over a century now:


Link to video.

Link to video.

Link to video.

Anthropological studies have consistently shown that the ancient Egyptians (THE GENERAL POPULATION) were originally black Africans and overtime gained biological affinities towards Middle Eastern and southern European populations:

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).

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- 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.

or

The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

Which is of course correlated with the latest archaeological conclusions regarding ancient Egypt's origins:

Conclusion
To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.

link

So then why does the popular media still like to depict these ancient Africans as:

Does the Western world have an emotional attachment to the lie the ancient Egypt was not black? Why all of the ignorance?

Have absolutely no clue what happened to my previous thread so....

 

[Lord Baal]

It was erased because people don't join message boards to post threads on a topic such as this. If you're not a double log-in for one of our annoying Afro-centrist posters, then you are at least coming from another board with the deliberate intent of re-starting the troll-threads of yore on this very same topic. We don't want that sort of crap here. Please go elsewhere to peddle this bullcrap; we aren't interested.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's clear enough to me that the Egyptian Pharaohs were Irish. Just like the Great Kings of Persia, the Emperors of China, the Incas of Tawantinsuyu and the Gods of Olympus. It's just, I mean, obvious, innit.

 

[Asante90]

It was erased because people don't join message boards to post threads on a topic such as this. If you're not a double log-in for one of our annoying Afro-centrist posters, then you are at least coming from another board with the deliberate intent of re-starting the troll-threads of yore on this very same topic. We don't want that sort of crap here. Please go elsewhere to peddle this bullcrap; we aren't interested.

Ok, I have no clue what kind of experience you have had with this subject, but obviously you were traumatized by it. Your hostility is completely uncalled for. I come in piece with the intent to pass on information that at least one poster in my recent, short lived attempt at this thread found "fascinating". Is this not a forum that discusses historical civilizations? If you are not interested in this thread then why not just I don't know...just skip the thread? Please don't derail or troll my thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

We mostly discuss the American Civil War, Irish history, World War 1, the War Between the States, World War 2, the War of Northern Aggression, Classical history, the War of Southern Treason, and the Slavers' Rebellion.

 

[dutchfire]

Ok, I have no clue what kind of experience you have had with this subject, but obviously you were traumatized by it. Your hostility is completely uncalled for. I come in piece with the intent to pass on information that at least one poster in my recent, short lived attempt at this thread found "fascinating". Is this not a forum that discusses historical civilizations? If you are not interested in this thread then why not just I don't know...just skip the thread? Please don't derail or troll my thread.

We mostly discuss the American Civil War, Irish history, World War 1, the War Between the States, World War 2, the War of Northern Aggression, Classical history, the War of Southern Treason, and the Slavers' Rebellion.

Also, Poland.

 

[Traitorfish]

We don't discuss Poland. We rant about Poland, we argue about Poland, we shout about Poland and we moan about Poland. But discuss? No, I've yet to see anything like that.

 

[NovaKart]

I don't know or care if the Ancient Egyptians were black so I'm not arguing with your data but I'll just respond to the part about representations of Egyptians in modern media.

First of all, you can't expect film/TV producers to have the same interest as you do in this subject. You also have to realize that, even if you read a lot of convincing data on the race of the ancient Egyptians, someone else could probably contradict that just as convincingly, like with most subjects. The ordinary person is outside of this argument.

I think most people who put together a film/TV show about the ancient Egyptians are probably aware that there is a controversy, and they just decide to put together neutral depictions of vaguely Middle Eastern looking people and it doesn't look that different from a lot of the artwork. I have seen/heard about some movies where they showed them as Black.

 

[Traitorfish]

Seems like it'd be a better investment of energy to demand that popular history give greater exposure to those civilisations which were indubitably sub-Saharan, of which there are plenty, rather than demanding that they switch out one debatable representation of Egypt for another. Aside from anything else, it seems to confirm the traditional "wisdom" that Egypt is the only culture worth taking note of to come out of Africa, which is really the more fundamental problem.

 

[NovaKart]

I agree. I do think with the Ancient Egyptians we just have such a large amount of knowledge compared to the others. It's hard to get people to take interest in civilizations most people haven't heard of and I think the archaeological record is not as vast. I was reading about Aksum and it mentioned that a huge amount of the place hasn't been excavated. If some of these civilizations were promoted more in the popular consciousness then that would be worthwhile. In Egypt, most people find it hard to understand why Americans make this such an issue.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Seems like it'd be a better investment of energy to demand that popular history give greater exposure to those civilisations which were indubitably sub-Saharan, of which there are plenty, rather than demanding that they switch out one debatable representation of Egypt for another. Aside from anything else, it seems to confirm the traditional "wisdom" that Egypt is the only culture worth taking note of to come out of Africa, which is really the more fundamental problem.

That and it still engages in racial categorization of History as a meaningful endeavor.
As I pointed out in the last thread, people agree that Egyptians weren't black, therefor, the weren't black. The same reason Jews, Italians, South Slavs, Turks, Albanians and Irish were not white (depending on when you're looking back from). If you believe race is a biological reality then the conversation is a non-starter, and if you don't believe race is a biological reality, then there's no amount of evidence that you can actually muster to make the case, because racial categories have no attachment to physical reality.

 

[Masada]

Turks are considered white nowadays? Jeez, the bar is being set lower and lower nowadays.

 

[TheLastOne36]

We don't discuss Poland. We rant about Poland, we argue about Poland, we shout about Poland and we moan about Poland. But discuss? No, I've yet to see anything like that.

Turks are considered white nowadays? Jeez, the bar is being set lower and lower nowadays.

Well, Turkey given their history of Devshirme and whatnot, has a large white legacy.



Anyway, the reason why the media casts egyptian roles as white(-ish) people is quite simple. You need to hire the good actors for the role and the good actors are more often than not, have the appropriate accents for the role they are playing.

For example, the series Spartacus features a completely Australian cast, the series A Game of Thrones features a completely British cast.

Should Americans be angry that they are not represented in these shows? There are plenty of great American actors out there, but they have an American accent which would be deemed to modern for shows from an ancient or medieval timeframe.

I really don't think that the media has any agenda when it comes to casting non-african characters for Egyptian roles.


Buy why is Egypt so special? You know there were several rich and very elaborate and developed African civilizations out there? Ethiopia and various West African ones for example.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Turks are considered white nowadays? Jeez, the bar is being set lower and lower nowadays.

Well, Greeks are, and they're basically the same thing.

 

[Silurian]

I thought Egypt was founded by pre Inca traders

 

[Traitorfish]

Anyway, the reason why the media casts egyptian roles as white(-ish) people is quite simple. You need to hire the good actors for the role and the good actors are more often than not, have the appropriate accents for the role they are playing.

What's an "appropriate accent" for an ancient Egyptian, exactly?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, given stage conventions for Athenians and Spartans...French? Italian maybe?

Italian probably.

 

[TheLastOne36]

What's an "appropriate accent" for an ancient Egyptian, exactly?

Whatever sounds good and appropriate.

I don't think the Romans spoke with an Australian accent either.

 

[Plotinus]

For example, the series Spartacus features a completely Australian cast, the series A Game of Thrones features a completely British cast.

There are non-British actors in A Game of Thrones - Tyrion Lannister is American, and Jaime Lannister is Danish.

Anyway.

Moderator Action: Thread re-opened on appeal. I invite everyone planning to post here to look at the previous threads on this subject, and see what happened there. If it happens here I'll close this thread permanently. That means no insults, no accusations of racism, no snarky comments about other people, and only calm appeals to evidence and reason if at all possible.

 

[Asante90]

You also have to realize that, even if you read a lot of convincing data on the race of the ancient Egyptians, someone else could probably contradict that just as convincingly, like with most subjects.

To an extent I agree with this statement. This debate is clearly one which is highly debated and I've came across a couple of blogs and entire websites dedicated to presenting evidence for the other side of the argument. Their overall arguments however will NEVER be validated by any contemporary Egyptologist or historian who wishes to keep maintain their creditability. The studies that they present tend to be dated and rely on highly questionable (by other scholars) methodology, which is primarily in population sampling and rigid categorizations. Their argument's have a completely lack of archaeological and linguistic support, which are crucial in answering these types of question.

I think most people who put together a film/TV show about the ancient Egyptians are probably aware that there is a controversy

I'm a bit "iffy" on this one.

and they just decide to put together neutral depictions of vaguely Middle Eastern looking people and it doesn't look that different from a lot of the artwork.

These folks look like black Africans to me:

Contrary to my use of that collage above and in my opening post I don't really like to rely on artwork as an indication of biological affinities, especially when Egyptian artwork was highly stylized and dependent on stereotyped thinking of human variation (particularly black Africans).