Neither the average Bantu nor the average Nilote is anything like the Tutsi or the Masai.
These two are among the highest Cushitic/Horner mixed outliers among their respective meta-populations.
Besides your point doesn't make much sense, since the DNAtribes analysis shows a link with South African Bantus (who are of Bantu origin with some Khoisan input).
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is Manu that the Bantu of present day Southern Africa migrated south wards and are in some cases sharing geography with Nilo Saharans and others, and at some thing like 1% for the Tutsi how can that count as the higest Cushtic/Horner mix
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: The point is Manu that the Bantu of present day Southern Africa migrated south wards and where are in cases shared geography with each other and at some thing like 1% for the Tutsi how can that count as the higest Cushtic/Horner mix
I have seen recent autosomal analyses on the Tutsi, which show one of the highest levels of Cushitic admixture among any Bantu speaking group. But this is off-topic anyway.
Regarding the South African Bantus, sorry but those guys have little to no relationship with Nilotic or Horner people at all. They are largely of Niger-Congo origin (West Africa) with minor Khoisan input (see Tishkoff et al.)
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Between 1000-1800 AD, East Africa experienced a wave of migrations from different parts of Africa. The Bantu from the Congo or the Niger Delta Basin were the first to arrive, followed by the Luo from Bahr el Ghazel in Southern Sudan and then the Ngoni from Southern Africa. http://www.elateafrica.org/elate/history/bantumigration/bantuintro.html
posted
Please look up the autosomal genetics of South African Bantus.
They are not closely related to Nilotic or Horner people at all. Again, they are primarily of tropical West African origin (Niger-Congo) with minor Khoisan ancestry.
How the hell are those people the closest to Ancient Egyptians? Even closer than Horner people?
This just tells me something is not right about these results.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Can you post the study that states that The Tutsi are heavily mixed with Cushitics?
All the studies I have seen have stated that the Tutsi are similar to the Hutu. So if you have proof this is not the case, then please share with the forum.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Can you post the study that states that The Tutsi are heavily mixed with Cushitics?
All the studies I have seen have stated that the Tutsi are similar to the Hutu. So if you have proof this is not the case, then please share with the forum.
Peace
Mainly through a genome blogger who recently independently tested a couple of Tutsi and compared them to the Luhya and found the Tutsi samples to have much higher Cushitic/Horner ancestry than other Bantus from the Great Lakes region.
Before I read these blogs, Were any of these results peer reviewed?
I mean all the main studies done on Tutsis found different results so I wonder since these articles found them to be different, why do you believe an independent blogger who was probably biased and was looking to seperate these African communities since the Tutsis have fine features.
Will read an little and see what it says.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna mummies and that their STRs were all present in the Lower Nile Valley at that time.
Also keep in mind the Southern Africa of the DNAtribes article extends from Angola & Namibia to South Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana, Zimbabwe, & Mozambique. We don't know the precision since they withold it.
That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.
Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to the south and east.
Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.
So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies could well have come from people migrating east from the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.
So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples from the southern third of the continent making moves northwards.
The below maps are all we have to go on for precision of the sampled populations of the given regions' STRs
Some measure of precision can be had by correlating the colored region map with the pinpoint map and DNAtribes African Populations DatabasePosts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Before I read these blogs, Were any of these results peer reviewed?
I mean all the main studies done on Tutsis found different results so I wonder since these articles found them to be different, why do you believe an independent blogger who was probably biased and was looking to seperate these African communities since the Tutsis have fine features.
Will read an little and see what it says.
Peace
It wasn't, but that particular genome blogger has a degree in biochemistry and knows what he is talking about. He is also of Bangladeshi origin, so he has no agenda in this at all.
Anyway, let's not go too much off-topic.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna mummies and that their STRs were all present in the Lower Nile Valley at that time.
Also keep in mind the south Africa of the DNAtribes article could be from Angola & Namibia to South Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana & Zimbabwe.
That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and San are not strictly autochthanous to their present lands.
Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to the south and east.
Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.
So the south African STRs of the Amarna mummies could well have come from people migrating east from the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa.
So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples from the southern third of the continent making moves northwards.
This is all possible, but the stark dissimilarity with the Horn of Africa but strong similarity with South Africa seems very weird / illogical.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Dinekes and Racial reality are also bloggers who blog about Africans and come through with biased results. I would not take this study on Tutsis but not Hutus as the be all end all.
Will not go off topic any further.
Let me just state that you can question this DNATribe study also but just like the Bangladeshi man, they have no reason to be biased about there study on the mummies.
You may not like the results, but until you point out WHERE they went wrong, it would be hard to cry foul on their report.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not questioning their results, I believe they are true. However, it goes completely against the craniometric and linguistic data on Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is all possible, but the stark dissimilarity with the Horn of Africa but strong similarity with South Africa seems very weird / illogical.
Why?
Because according to Tishkoff, the South African Bantu have practically no Nilotic or Horner ancestry.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that is circular reasoning. Your (yet to be proven) assumption is that Horners and Ancient Egyptians were identical. There is plenty of (ancient) Egyptian ancestry found only in small frequencies among the Horners in question.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
See my previous post. It doesn't matter that South African Bantu's don't have an awful lot of Horner or Nilotic ancestry. Are you saying you can prove whether or not the Egyptians had Bantu ancestry, by seeing whether Bantu's have Northeast African ancestry?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Native Sudanese people do not have any Bantu haplogroups nor are there any indications that their cultures are Bantu derived. They are just of Nilotic/Chadic/Arabic/Ethiopic origin.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, but there is where you go wrong. You make the unfounded assumption that Egyptians were carbon copies of present Sudanic/Horner populations.
This is simply not true (as I've tried to convey in my previous two posts).
Haplotype V (E-M2) was detected in considerable frequencies in modern Southern Egyptians, and even higher in the Northern Sudanese sample from that same Lucotte study. This marker, has low frequencies in Horn and Nilotic populations, and when encountered there, can usually be attributed to the Bantu migration(s).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Excluding the Hausa of course, who are recent (post-Islamic era) West African migrants to this region.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
I'm telling you three times in a row that Egyptians are not carbon copies of Sudanic/Horner people, and still it doesn't get through to you that talking about ''native Sudanese groups'' isn't going to present an obstacle to the finding of African STRs in Ancient Egyptian royalty.
Unless the Sudanese/Horners are Egyptian natives, which I hope you understand they aren't, their (current) ancestry has no bearing on the presented STR's and, what likely is the haplotypical manifestation of the ancestry those STR's represent, E-M2.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of you are being a bit dishonest here. These results make no freaking sense whatsoever. So instead of looking for Bantu origins of the Egyptians and Sudanese (which is nuts) you guys should just admit that they simply make no sense. And likely will be refuted sooner or later when more markers are tested.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one I have read about in this thread has gone beyond claiming/agreeing with the notion that the 8 STR's provided by Hawass from his 2010 study are of inner African Origin. Additional STR's may very well show higher frequencies in the Sudan/Horn. That, however, would have no bearing on the inner African origins of the STR profiles discussed here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one I have read about in this thread has gone beyond claiming/agreeing with the notion that the 8 STR's provided by Hawass from his 2010 study are of inner African Origin. Additional STR's may very well show higher frequencies in the Sudan/Horn. That, however, would have no bearing on the inner African origins of the STR profiles discussed here.
Expand on this inner African Origin theory.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want me to expand on the fact that the STR profiles had the highest frequencies in inner Africa?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is all possible, but the stark dissimilarity with the Horn of Africa but strong similarity with South Africa seems very weird / illogical.
Ancient Egyptian remains have tested positive for HbS, and so do the living counterparts, wherein the Benin haplotype has a noticeable presence. This trait is shared with western Africans, but virtually non-existent in core regions of the African Horn. I'd say that this is an example of "stark dissimilarity" between Egyptians and people of the African Horn.
As another example, take R-V88 chromosomes. There is a sharing of this marker between segments of Egypt's population and those from western-central Africa. Again, this marker is essentially non-existent in the African Horn.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I am not questioning their results, I believe they are true. However, it goes completely against the craniometric and linguistic data on Ancient Egyptians.
Cranio-metric analysis have shown affinities between ancient Egyptian samples and those from say, Gabon and Kenya.
That said, there have been recurring reports (mostly dendrograms) which have tacitly suggested that there is a visible component of the Nagadan series which closely clusters first with the Kerma series and then with certain populations from the African Horn [usually Somalis are picked for analysis], before they do with other "sub-Saharan" samples. However, in many of these cases, the "sub-Saharan" samples are not geographically comprehensive.
As far as linguistics go, there is a very visible consensus segment of 'western' academia which agrees on the placement of Egyptic in the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" family; however, others have contended this, and propose a different language phylogenetic setup.
Egyptic for its part, was very likely an intra-regional lingua franca, that would have been utilized to effect the unity of what would have been previously ethnically and/or socially discrete groups under a centralized polity.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Can you post the study that states that The Tutsi are heavily mixed with Cushitics?
All the studies I have seen have stated that the Tutsi are similar to the Hutu. So if you have proof this is not the case, then please share with the forum.
Peace [/qb]
Mainly through a genome blogger who recently independently tested a couple of Tutsi and compared them to the Luhya and found the Tutsi samples to have much higher Cushitic/Horner ancestry than other Bantus from the Great Lakes region.
This guy reportedly used only one Tutsi individual, and one (the same Tutsi individual) with a Hutu ancestry no less. LOL
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turning disscussion focus to DNAtribes analysis, this chart from Hawass2010 gives the 8 MiniFiler STR allele pairs for Amarna and other mummies.
DNAtribes entered these values into their MLI scorer to arrive at the conclusions below shown in DNAtribes defined regions.
The 8 STR haplotypes are more generally used in paternity, maternity, and sibling discrimination and they also yield valid geographic and ethnic informative results.
While I still search for an online frequency matcher suited to MiniFiler for ethnic hits, there are plenty databases anyone can use to manually verify any mummy's various ethnic affiliations by matching loci.
DNAtribes lists 12 matches of qualified likelihood. The first two are likelier by far. The next one is likely though less so yet of magnitude more inline with the first two rather than the others.
The next two are far less likely. The remaining seven fall into a class of very weak likelihood.
The thing to remember is they all have some percentage of the mummie's haplotypes per DNAtribes' database.
DNAtribes is not saying the Horn doesn't have the mummies' haplotypes. Just that other African regions -- except their Sahel and N.Africa -- do display either higher frequencies of the haplotypes or more of the haplotypes than found in their Horn.
STR haplotypes should not be confused with looks, language, or culture all of which should factor into a multi-disciplined approach, still each stands valid on its own.
One has to correlate DNAtribes' African pop Db by ethny w/country to DNAtribes region map to see exactly which ethnic groups could have had the hits in each given region of Table 1 or just to have an idea of say who for instance they label Horn of Africa peoples as we have seen in the past that DNAtribes label may not be what one assumes, i.e., their Levantine includes Egypt.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I think some of you are being a bit dishonest here. These results make no freaking sense whatsoever. So instead of looking for Bantu origins of the Egyptians and Sudanese (which is nuts) you guys should just admit that they simply make no sense. And likely will be refuted sooner or later when more markers are tested.
Do you like apples?
Why dont you stop being a retard and read the full study. Notice they they dont just match south African Bantu. Look at the numbers.....MOST of the mummies match "Great Lakes Region" First. Great lakes region are Nilo-Saharan folks:
From Dna Tribes analysis of Sahelians:
quote: The largest contributions were identified from the Tropical West African (56.5%) and Southern African (18.7%) regions, for a total of 75.2%. This might reflect contacts with westerly Mande and Fula-Wolof cultures as well as with southerly forest zone cultures such as Yoruba and Akan peoples. Similarly, genetic contributions from the African Great Lakes region (10.1%) might reflect contacts with Nilo- Saharan cultures such as the Songhai, Zaghawa, and Kanuri.
The great lakes region sample has one NiloSaharan Group call karamojong. The last genetic article on Sudan posted by that Lion whore says this :
quote: The patterns of population structure we found in northeast Africa, in particular the similarity of Nubian (a northern Sudanese group that speak Nilo-Saharan languages) and the Egyptian population. is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia, probably resulting in genetic flow between the two regions. However, the Nubian group and the Karamoja group from Uganda share a relatively large number of private alleles (Figure 4), potentially reflecting the shared ancestry of the Nubians with populations from southern Sudan and Uganda. Our results, in addition to mtDNA [7] and Y-chromosome [6,34,35] data, suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile between Egypt and Nubia.
The Hassan article that you even reference says THIS about Egyptians and Nilotics:
quote: 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, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.
These results make no sense to you because you know absolutely nothing about Sub Saharan DNA outside of "Horners" and you are trying to study one portion of the continent in a bubble. Why are you questioning the Results when the Results ARE THE RESULTS - You have to change your preconceived notions to fit these results. Still dont think it makes sense Look at DNA Tribes OTHER results from different African and see whats going on....Have you dont that? NOPE!
You know what makes sense? THIS MAKES SENSE:
How you like them apples ? Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let us also not forget the Sub-Saharan lineages Paabo et al found in some of the 12th dynasty royal remains.
When put together with the other evidence, it becomes evident that the STR profiles are just another addition to the already confirmed picture of inner African ancestry of the Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hahaaa!! Some people are just too hung up on lang families as if they're immutable for an individual like chromosomes are. I guess many of us on this board are indo-europeans since we speak english as our native tongue.
Aside from the "nubians", aren't the Teita (bantus) the next people found to have cranio-facial measurements strikingly similar to the pre-dynastic badarians? Don't some S.African groups practice the age-grade system which comes from Nilotes and males hold hands closely together while walking and conversing, a practice found among Nilotes and afro-asiatics? Hmmm... no, couldn't be cuz bantus are soooo diff from nilotes, afro-asiatics, horners and whoever else. Man, the bantus not only get crap from euro nuts but also from those who would be labelled "afro-centric" by the mainstream. What a world!
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ^ Was told long ago from people "in the know" that Tut was E1b1a.
What inside people are you referring to? Note that Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Smenkhare and all rulers in between them and Tutmose I (possibly going back even further than Tuthmose I if he is a son of Amenhotep I) would all be E1b1a as well, since Tut descends from them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You are retarded. The closest corresponding ancestry found in most of these Mummies (Great Lakes region) was the same ancestry that would be found in the Somali. Did you see the Somali sample results from DNATribes or does someone have to SPOON FEED that to you as well?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: You are retarded. The closest corresponding ancestry found in most of these Mummies (Great Lakes region) was the same ancestry that would be found in the Somali. Did you see the Somali sample results from DNATribes or does someone have to SPOON FEED that to you as well?
Hmm, what are you talking about. It clearly states the mummies were closest to Bantu South Africans.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, some ppl don't learn. Manu, you quote the same genome blogger dude again to support your argument??!! hahaaa!
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: You are retarded. The closest corresponding ancestry found in most of these Mummies (Great Lakes region) was the same ancestry that would be found in the Somali. Did you see the Somali sample results from DNATribes or does someone have to SPOON FEED that to you as well?
Hmm, what are you talking about. It clearly states the mummies were closest to Bantu South Africans.
Open your mouth and let me insert a spoon.
Great Lakes is higher in: -KV55 - 381 vs 174 -Amenhotep III - 222 vs 108 -KV35El - 20.87 vs 20.83 -Yuya - 35.53 vs 34.48
There are a total of 7 mummies, that makes Great Lakes region the majority. You are like a kid that only wants to "see the pictures" in a story book while not paying attention to any of the words.
Now go back and read exactly what everone has written in this thread and read ALL the sources in their entirety. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Now compare and contrast the two and what they represent.
After you do that GO back and read ALL sources listed in this thread....and read your Hassan et al Article.
Here is a question for you, do you know who were the LAST people to leave the Upper Nile valley? if they left lets say 3000 years ago and remained somewhat unchanged wouldnt they be pretty close to the ANCIENT people where they left from?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Now compare and contrast the two and what they represent.
Look at the list which was posted earlier. DNAtribes already uses samples from Somalia and Sudan to compare them to these Ancient Egyptian mummies.
However, these mummies were MUCH closer to South Africans than to the Horn of Africa. This is why I think these results make no sense, from what we already know about Ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: After you do that GO back and read ALL sources listed in this thread....and read your Hassan et al Article.
Already read it. Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
More markers? Their are not going to be any "More" markers tested because nobody has access to the Mummies. Do you understand HOW DNA tribes got access to this data and WHAT this data specifically is? "More Data" is just going to give is MORE of the same....this looks like the case because the majority of the markers tested are nearly AFRICAN EXCLUSIVE.
Look at that "Autosome STR Profile" and explain what this means.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Best to ignore Manu and his distractions as he has no valid criticisms as they stand. The above for instance is just an expression of wishful thinking and his constant claims that the results "make no sense" seem more like statements of denial. The results are the results. It would be very unusual to expect a different result after the results from each mummy individually verified the results of the others. Just use your brain.
For example. Looking at Akhenaton's (Tut's father) profile, his ancestry is predominantly skewed towards the Great Lakes. Looking at "The Younger Lady", her ancestry is heavily skewed towards the Southern African. The null hypothesis would be that the profile of their offspring, Tut, then should be one with ancestry roughly equal in proportion from the Great Lakes and Southern Africa. Guess what? hint: see Figure 8
Besides, DNAtribes themselves claim they only use "more markers" for higher resolution to better identify "ethnic" affiliation. There is no reason why these results aren't satisfactory as is applied to their flawed, but in this case practical concept of "world regions". Clearly these people were ancient Africans.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic