Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been wrestling with the information you gave here. It's a little confusing. The move eastward couldn't have come after the Indo-Euro migration into Europe, because horseback riding was invented in Central Asia (by Indo-Euros, AFAIK), and they were mounted warriors when they entered Europe. Or are we talking about two different sorties into Europe? Do you mean when they mixed with SE European hunter gatherers? Not the full-fledged invasion of "Old Europe" that came later?
Also, the Corded Ware people were the Indo-Euros. Your post reads like you're saying Corded Ware pertained to the pre-Indo-Euro people of Europe. But everything I've read says it's a hallmark of that steppe Indo-Euro culture.
Maybe we should start a new thread. This is off-topic to Egypt.
You're right this is off topic, but very quickly.
1. Proto-Indo Europeans seem to have been the Yamnaya, not the Corded Ware. Corded Ware was a later culture that was formed when the Yamnaya moved out of the steppe and into Europe, and hybridized to a limited extent with both the older farming and hunter-gatherer populations. It's still a bit unclear what branch of Indo-European the Corded Ware represent - it could include some or all of Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, etc.
2. Populations on the steppe were highly mobile. It seems like a Corded Ware-based population from Europe migrated back into the steppe, and then leapfrogged over the existing populations into what is now Kazakhstan. To give an analogy here, the Buddhist Kalmyk Mongols migrated into southern Russia in relatively recent history (1607) but did not displace any of the Islamic Turks in the intervening area.
3. The earliest Indo-Europeans had horses and wagons, but may not have been full mounted warriors. Horses seem to have been initially used for food. They were better livestock than cattle or sheep in the steppe, because they could graze through the snow and didn't require stables to overwinter. Wheeled vehicles (wagons) came fairly soon afterward. But early domesticated horses were small and couldn't carry adults. Chariots only came later, in Central Asia, and seem to have been initially associated with Indo-Aryan groups. The advantage the Indo-Europeans may have had over old Europe could have been as much logistical as military. Because they initially farmed little, and relied only upon herding, they didn't need to defend territory like farmers, and could move rapidly through areas which had already been cleared for planting.
This one will cause a serious blow to the Afrocentrics and Panafricanists that make a big deal out of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egyptians. It turns out, if we are to believe the newest DNA study, that they are related more to the Middle East and Europe and not so much with black Africans.
A few excerpts from the article:
Ancient Egypt ends with the death of Cleopatra in the year 30 before Christ is born (30 years before Jesus). The following quote suggests that black African genes began to appear in Egypt at around the year 517 after Christ, a good 547 years after Ancient Egypt ended.
For comparison sake, currently it has been 524 years since Christopher Columbus discovered America. Food for thought.
Nothing new on Europeans trying to change true history to benefit their Anglo Saxon image. That's why they dumb historian try to make a distinction between Northern and Southern Africa to change history. Its only one Africa! Furthermore Columbus did not discover America, since people were already in America.
Nothing new on Europeans trying to change true history to benefit their Anglo Saxon image. That's why they dumb historian try to make a distinction between Northern and Southern Africa to change history. Its only one Africa! Furthermore Columbus did not discover America, since people were already in America.
You just stated Europeans = Anglo Saxon. You're poorly informed.
It would be nice if we could stick on topic rather than go off into unrelated tangents.
1. Proto-Indo Europeans seem to have been the Yamnaya, not the Corded Ware. Corded Ware was a later culture that was formed when the Yamnaya moved out of the steppe and into Europe, and hybridized to a limited extent with both the older farming and hunter-gatherer populations. It's still a bit unclear what branch of Indo-European the Corded Ware represent - it could include some or all of Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, etc.
2. Populations on the steppe were highly mobile. It seems like a Corded Ware-based population from Europe migrated back into the steppe, and then leapfrogged over the existing populations into what is now Kazakhstan. To give an analogy here, the Buddhist Kalmyk Mongols migrated into southern Russia in relatively recent history (1607) but did not displace any of the Islamic Turks in the intervening area.
3. The earliest Indo-Europeans had horses and wagons, but may not have been full mounted warriors. Horses seem to have been initially used for food. They were better livestock than cattle or sheep in the steppe, because they could graze through the snow and didn't require stables to overwinter. Wheeled vehicles (wagons) came fairly soon afterward. But early domesticated horses were small and couldn't carry adults. Chariots only came later, in Central Asia, and seem to have been initially associated with Indo-Aryan groups. The advantage the Indo-Europeans may have had over old Europe could have been as much logistical as military. Because they initially farmed little, and relied only upon herding, they didn't need to defend territory like farmers, and could move rapidly through areas which had already been cleared for planting.
This is interesting but should be in it's own thread and as you stated off topic, there have been countless discussions on the Yamnaya and very little on the Neolithic populations of Eurasia and North Africa which to be honest I find more interesting currently.
This is interesting but should be in it's own thread and as you stated off topic, there have been countless discussions on the Yamnaya and very little on the Neolithic populations of Eurasia and North Africa which to be honest I find more interesting currently.
I agree that the later is more interesting. We only started getting ME/NA DNA within the last few years, so it's a new frontier. Not to mention that we have only one SSA ancient genome still - the "Mota" sample from Ethiopia which shows what East Africans were like before West Eurasian admixture. There's just a ton we don't know yet, but given so much of Africa is not only hot, but so humid that bones degrade almost immediately, we may never have a full genetic record.
I've been hearing rumors that nuclear DNA from the Iberomarusian culture (which occupied the Maghreb before agriculture) is on its way soon. The mtDNA suggests that even at this early period North Africans were more similar to West Eurasians than Sub-Saharan Africans, suggesting that during one of the hyper-arid Saharan phases humans were wiped out in North Africa entirely, and then resettled from the Near East. Nuclear DNA will help confirm this hypothesis.
I agree that the later is more interesting. We only started getting ME/NA DNA within the last few years, so it's a new frontier. Not to mention that we have only one SSA ancient genome still - the "Mota" sample from Ethiopia which shows what East Africans were like before West Eurasian admixture. There's just a ton we don't know yet, but given so much of Africa is not only hot, but so humid that bones degrade almost immediately, we may never have a full genetic record.
I've been hearing rumors that nuclear DNA from the Iberomarusian culture (which occupied the Maghreb before agriculture) is on its way soon. The mtDNA suggests that even at this early period North Africans were more similar to West Eurasians than Sub-Saharan Africans, suggesting that during one of the hyper-arid Saharan phases humans were wiped out in North Africa entirely, and then resettled from the Near East. Nuclear DNA will help confirm this hypothesis.
1. I didn't know good to know.
2. There are some links as well to the Iberian Peninsula specifically mtDNA U5 and V which is also found in the Saami.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
The study simply indicates that 3 mummified remains are likely of Arab ancestry. You can not conclude that all elite or common Egyptians shared the same DNA. It wouldn't make sense that all of them were light skinned with blue eyes but living in a place that is very hot and very sunny.
The study simply indicates that 3 mummified remains are likely of Arab ancestry. You can not conclude that all elite or common Egyptians shared the same DNA. It wouldn't make sense that all of them were light skinned with blue eyes but living in a place that is very hot and very sunny.
No actually it doesn't I don't think you understand the study it covers much more than 3 mummified remains. Arab ancestry? The study draws no such conclusions.
No actually it doesn't I don't think you understand the study it covers much more than 3 mummified remains. Arab ancestry? The study draws no such conclusions.
Over 150 mummies were examined, but only:
Quote:
Three mummies had enough DNA preserved to allow the scientists to look at genes from throughout their genome. One of these had a gene “which contributes to lighter skin pigmentation and was shown to be at high frequency in Neolithic Anatolia,” or modern-day Turkey, the researchers wrote.
Still, I'm glad this study was done, but it hardly answers "who" the ancient Egyptians were, especially as its undisputed that "who" these people were (at least at the ruling class levels via conquest) changed over time. Cleopatra was not of the same race as Taharqa of the 25th Dynasty, for instance.
Still, I'm glad this study was done, but it hardly answers "who" the ancient Egyptians were, especially as its undisputed that "who" these people were (at least at the ruling class levels via conquest) changed over time. Cleopatra was not of the same race as Taharqa of the 25th Dynasty, for instance.
I agree there is so much that is still unknown but this study is solid a I really had intended on posting it myself but hadn't figured out yet how I wanted to frame the Op however I wouldn't have framed it into a white vs black debate. These are getting tiresome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
