“the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78“(Sanchez 2005)
quote:~Juan J Sanchez et al.
“the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78“(Sanchez 2005)
quote:
Originally posted by aisha1985:
Hello all,
I am a mixed woman from vienna/austria.
My father is egyptian and my mother austrian.
Recently i did a DNA test and it says i am 13% maasai (which is the highest amount of all ethnicities showed up in the test).
I do also have somali dna.
Though my father´s skin is very dark because my grandfather was from sudan. Grandmother is egyptian/saudi arabian.
Some people here don´t think that we a real egyptians, as the skin tone of my familiy members is dark brown. One friend said that my father looks like a Zulu (???).
I did a lot of research, but i am still not really sure how to explain people were i come from. And that Nubians are egyptians too.
Here is the link to my DNA test results:
https://www.myheritage.com/dna/ethnicity/594989631
Were the maasai enyhow related to old egypt?
As the history of maasai coming from south of sudan, makes sense for me.
I would appreciate your inputs.
Best,
Aisha
quote:Hg E-M78 is ancent to Northeast Africa. Going back thousands of years. There was no "major slave trade" to Egypt from supposed sub-Sahara. Aisha her genetic traits are from very old remnants.
Originally posted by viceroy:
Aisha,
Some Egyptian have Sub-Saharan ancestry, but that does mean they're any less Egyptian than others.
The Slave Trade and other movements of people has altered the Ancient and Modern Eguyptian genetics, but at the end of the day, if you family speaks Egyptian Arabic or Nubian, you're part of Egypt and deserve to be called an Egyptian.
Just like in America today, many whites claim to be the real Americans, but that's not actually true, and Native Americans have a few words to say about the issue.
quote:~Hisham Y. Hassan et al.
“E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.”
quote:~Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009
Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. 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). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
quote:~Gatto M. 2009.
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.
quote:~Gregorio Dal Sassoa et al.
“Pottery from Al Khiday (Khartoum, Sudan), where a number of sites with well-preserved stratified archaeological sequences have been excavated and radiometrically dated to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (7000–4000 calibrated BC), was archaeometrically analysed with the main aim of quantifying the textural parameters of the inclusions in the ceramic pastes. A set of 360 samples was studied, and quantitative and qualitative information was obtained regarding paste production recipes and the raw materials used over time.
Three main petrographic groups were identified, according to contents in alkali-feldspar and quartz, and the grain-size of quartz inclusions. Further sub-groups were defined and described in terms of grain-size distribution and abundance of the various types of inclusions. Digital image analysis on both scanning electron back-scattered images and elemental maps enabled validation of petrographic groups by quantitative description of the type, abundance and shape of inclusions, and the inclusion-to-matrix ratio. Correlations among the paste production recipes and decorative motifs revealed changes in production technology over time.”
quote:~K Godde July 2018
The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time.
This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
quote:~Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny & Tomasz Goslar & Joel D. Irish & Jacek Kabaciński
The area around Gebel Ramlah was settled since the beginning of the Early Neolithic, and the density of settlement reached its maximum during the El Jerar phase (climatic optimum of the Holocene). Traces from the Middle, Late, and Final Neolithic are less intensive and random. In fact, for the Final Neolithic, we have more information on mortuary behavior than for the settlement pattern and subsistence. Between 4500 and 4300 BC, south-western fringes of the Gebel Ramlah lake served as an extended burial ground for different populations. Different ancestry and relationships of these populations can be followed on the basis of archaeological and, partially, bioarchaeological arguments. Some groups (using cemeteries E-01-2, E-03-1, E-03-2, and E-09-4) show some affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans, readable in the pottery assemblage and other grave goods, as well as some morphological features (Irish 2010; Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 2010; Czekaj-Zastawny and Kabaciński 2015). These people were certainly mobile, perhaps spending only a few months per year at Gebel Ramlah. The E-09-02 cemeteries for neonates and adults belonged to another, more sedentary group with limited mobility; however, we cannot trace their origins based on the available record. An almost complete lack of grave goods does not allow comparative analyses. On the other hand, peculiar characters of the skeletal remains at these cemeteries—numerous neonatal/perinatal individuals and poorly preserved subadults/adults—do not allow reliable studies based on craniometric or dental data. But, qualitatively, there are no obvious differences among all populations from Gebel Ramlah at the beginning of the Final Neolithic. Thus, the two groups, culturally different, were likely not much different biologically, possibly deriving from the same region of Africa.
[…]
Ethnographic data offer support by showing how radically different children are treated in various African societies (Gottlieb 2004a, b; Pawlik 2004; Kabaciński et al. 2018).
quote:Where is the evidence that they were "being sold as slaves", Fakeroy? lol
Originally posted by viceroy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#/media/File:Slave_Market,_Mono_version.jpg
Slave market, with Nubian slaves waiting to be sold
quote:http://www.museibologna.it/archeologicoen/percorsi/66287/id/75337/oggetto/75338/
Relief from the tomb of Horemheb with Nubian prisoners
Additional information
The only Bolognese relief carved in recess depicts a group of Nubians prisoners, recognizable by the physical features of negroid type, the frizzy hair and loop earrings. These sit on the ground in an act of submission, guarded by three armed Egyptian soldiers with sticks, while a scribe, who holds in his hands the palette for color tablets and stylus, takes the minutes of what is happening and choose between the two servants prisoners for Tutankhamun's court, as he says in the inscription in hieroglyphics surrounding the scene.
Inventory number: KS 1869 = 1887 Rilievo from the tomb of Horemheb with Nubian prisoners
The relief, together with other four in the Museum, comes from the Memphite tomb of General Horemheb, who ended his amazing becoming last pharaoh military and political career of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Before being elected ruler of Egypt, and to choose which burial place the Valley of the Kings, Horemheb had built two graves: one at Amarna, at the time of the so-called heretic Pharaoh Akhenaten, and a second at Saqqara during the reign of Tutankhamen, they come from these and many other parietal fragments now exhibited in various European and American museums.
Provenance: Egypt: Saqqara. Palagi collection (Nizzoli)
Dating: New Kingdom: Eighteenth Dynasty, reign of Tutankhamun (1332 - 1323 BC)
Material: limestone with traces of color
Size: 62.5 x 85 cm
quote:~K Godde
"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix.”
quote:~K Godde
The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
quote:I agree, you are deleted.
Originally posted by viceroy:
delete!
quote:It's a suck puppet by the alphabet boyz trying to lure people with covert acts. Because in their mind, people here don't have the legal-rights to study history. That is seen as "dangerous". lol
Originally posted by Ase:
These bots are everywhere now...