Post by zarahan on Mar 16, 2013 3:53:24 GMT -5
REcap:
Many of today’s Egyptians are not necessarily representative of Ancients due to outside migration and admixture from European/Arab sources, particularly in Lower Egypt. Some Coptic claims to be pharanoic descendants not supported by DNA studies or cultural history showing heavy Arabization since 900 AD
Modern Copt genetic profile shows substantial Middle Eastern and European elements: [quote:]
"Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group.. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former...
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries..“
---Hassan et al. 2008. Y-chromosome variation.." Am J. Phy An. v137,3. 316-323
Sub-Saharan DNA B-M60 in Sudan may indicate a link with ancient Egypt:
[quote:] "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation,..
--Hassan 2008
Modern Egyptian population not necessarily representative of the ancients
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have
a population representative of the core indigenous
population of the most ancient times“
– Keita 2005. History in Africa, 2005, 32(1).221-246
"Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during
the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006).”
-Irish 2009. Dental_affinities_of_the_C-group_inhabitants.. Ec Hi Rev
Nubians more related to ancient Egyptians-
"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."
-Starling & Stock 2007. Dental indicators of health.. AJPA 134: 520-28-
Modern Egyptians a mixed population with European and Arab strands-not identical to ancients:
“Classical genetic studies show a high degree of genetic heterogeneity in the modern Egyptian population, suggesting that this population is descended from a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian stock (Mahmoud et al. 1987; Hafez et al. 1986). Genetic heterogeneity within the Egyptian gene pool is also supported by more recent studies using autosomal STR markers (Klintschar et al. 1998; 2001)."
---Manni et al 2002. Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt, Hum Bio, 74:5, 645-658
Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in
PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology
is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other
time periods. These results therefore do not support the
Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry,
1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian
state was not the product of mass movement of populations
into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was
the result of primarily indigenous development combined
with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from
trade, military, or other contacts.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2007)
"It is often assumed that Egyptian writing was invented under a stimulus of the
Mesopotamian writing system, developed in the late fourth millennium BC, that might
have come at the time of the short-lived Uruk Culture expansion into Syria. A variety of
artistic and architectural evidence for contact between Mesopotamia and late Predynastic
Egypt has been found, but none of it can be dated precisely in relation to Tomb U-j.
Moreover, **the Egyptian writing system is different from the Mesopotamian and must
have been developed independently.** The possibility of “stimulus diffusion” from
Mesopotamia remains, but the influence **cannot have gone beyond the transmission of an
idea.**
A second point *of contrast with Mesopotamia* is in uses of writing. The earliest
Egyptian writing consists of inscribed tags, ink notations on pottery, again principally
from the royal cemetery at Abydos, and hieroglyphs incorporated into artistic
compositions, of which the chief clear examples are such pieces as the *Narmer Palette,*
which is probably more than a century later than Tomb U-j. Thus, while administrative
uses of writing appear to have come at the beginning—examples from the Abydos tombs
include such notations as “produce of Lower Egypt”—the system was integrated fully
into pictorial representation. An intermediate, emblematic mode of representation in
which symbols, including hieroglyphs, were shown in action also evolved before the 1st
Dynasty. These three modes together formed a powerful artistic complex that endured as
long as Egyptian civilization."
--Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and
New York: Routledge, 1999)
Many of today’s Egyptians are not necessarily representative of Ancients due to outside migration and admixture from European/Arab sources, particularly in Lower Egypt. Some Coptic claims to be pharanoic descendants not supported by DNA studies or cultural history showing heavy Arabization since 900 AD
Modern Copt genetic profile shows substantial Middle Eastern and European elements: [quote:]
"Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group.. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former...
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries..“
---Hassan et al. 2008. Y-chromosome variation.." Am J. Phy An. v137,3. 316-323
Sub-Saharan DNA B-M60 in Sudan may indicate a link with ancient Egypt:
[quote:] "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation,..
--Hassan 2008
Modern Egyptian population not necessarily representative of the ancients
:
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have
a population representative of the core indigenous
population of the most ancient times“
– Keita 2005. History in Africa, 2005, 32(1).221-246
"Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during
the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006).”
-Irish 2009. Dental_affinities_of_the_C-group_inhabitants.. Ec Hi Rev
Nubians more related to ancient Egyptians-
:
"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."
-Starling & Stock 2007. Dental indicators of health.. AJPA 134: 520-28-
Modern Egyptians a mixed population with European and Arab strands-not identical to ancients:
“Classical genetic studies show a high degree of genetic heterogeneity in the modern Egyptian population, suggesting that this population is descended from a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian stock (Mahmoud et al. 1987; Hafez et al. 1986). Genetic heterogeneity within the Egyptian gene pool is also supported by more recent studies using autosomal STR markers (Klintschar et al. 1998; 2001)."
---Manni et al 2002. Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt, Hum Bio, 74:5, 645-658
Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in
PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology
is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other
time periods. These results therefore do not support the
Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry,
1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian
state was not the product of mass movement of populations
into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was
the result of primarily indigenous development combined
with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from
trade, military, or other contacts.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2007)
"It is often assumed that Egyptian writing was invented under a stimulus of the
Mesopotamian writing system, developed in the late fourth millennium BC, that might
have come at the time of the short-lived Uruk Culture expansion into Syria. A variety of
artistic and architectural evidence for contact between Mesopotamia and late Predynastic
Egypt has been found, but none of it can be dated precisely in relation to Tomb U-j.
Moreover, **the Egyptian writing system is different from the Mesopotamian and must
have been developed independently.** The possibility of “stimulus diffusion” from
Mesopotamia remains, but the influence **cannot have gone beyond the transmission of an
idea.**
A second point *of contrast with Mesopotamia* is in uses of writing. The earliest
Egyptian writing consists of inscribed tags, ink notations on pottery, again principally
from the royal cemetery at Abydos, and hieroglyphs incorporated into artistic
compositions, of which the chief clear examples are such pieces as the *Narmer Palette,*
which is probably more than a century later than Tomb U-j. Thus, while administrative
uses of writing appear to have come at the beginning—examples from the Abydos tombs
include such notations as “produce of Lower Egypt”—the system was integrated fully
into pictorial representation. An intermediate, emblematic mode of representation in
which symbols, including hieroglyphs, were shown in action also evolved before the 1st
Dynasty. These three modes together formed a powerful artistic complex that endured as
long as Egyptian civilization."
--Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and
New York: Routledge, 1999)