quote:Based on some pca plots which I've seen (but can't publish), I can say that Old Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_Neolithic samples and Mid Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_BA samples. New Kingdom samples seem to be closer to Old Kingdom samples. I don't have any idea about when related paper(s) will be published.
My initial response was to dismiss this as mere hearsay until the paper has been published. But to hear the people on Anthrogenica tell it, the poster who shared this "leak" has a reliable track record.
You guys think this could be another northern Egyptian sample? How do you expect ancient Upper Egyptian and Nubian samples to plot on a PCA like this?
posted
Based on some pca plots which I've seen (but can't publish), I can say that Old Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_Neolithic samples and Mid Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_BA samples. New Kingdom samples seem to be closer to Old Kingdom samples. I don't have any idea about when related paper(s) will be published.
The only interesting thing to see here is bolded above. It's the only thing with any context.
Dude, you just posted this thread. Even if OK samples laid right on top of Levant neolithic samples I wouldn't jump to such conclusions.
Can I ask you a few questions?
What do you think indigenous North Africans looked like autosomally?
What do you think of "Basal Eurasian"?
How on earth do you find this proximity to ancient Near easterners so significant without much context to the metrics? Especially after posting this.Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, maybe I panicked too much. Sorry if I alarmed anyone.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What do you think indigenous North Africans looked like autosomally?
What do you think of "Basal Eurasian"?
How on earth do you find this proximity to ancient Near easterners so significant without much context to the metrics? Especially after posting this.
I would expect native North Africans (aka "Basal Eurasians"), without any significant back-to-Africa ancestry, to plot where Taforalt is on this PCA chart below.
posted
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Maybe Elmaestro could do it if he has time.
He's already done it with the Abu Sir samples.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @MansaMusa I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the North Africans shifting more towards the roman-Egyptian cluster for two reasons.
one: is that both components among north Africans somewhat peak in the same population or person. for example the sahawari, then the Morrocan Ifrane Berbers score the most IAM and Roman-Egyptian among North Africans... that is not the Negative correlation I'd expect if IAM ancestry is being wiped out by the newer invading components.
two: The Roman Egyptian can be modeled just fine as IAM + EEF...
So it is likely to me that IAM like ancestry in North Africans are being absorbed by that Roman Egyptian component because of the post-Gasfian EEF ancestry from southern Europe 3-5Kya.
I do find it interesting that Taforalt and IAM form their own cluster entirely though. Those Fst distances were really no joke.
I can't remember where I posted the Abusir results but I can just replicate them. I can post something raw quick and dirty using the Abusir samples, if you guys want... Don't really have the time to neaten things up.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anti-African crowd would have a field day by twisting this like they did the Abusir mummy one. However, this could easily be due to shared Basel Eurasian ancestry.
I agree with the rest this shouldn't be surprising especially after that back-migration study you posted Truthcentric.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
.
Mythical how so? If BE didn't exist than what explains the decrease in neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East and whats do we call all of the ancestry thats attributed to BE?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by One Third African: Today I saw this post on Anthrogenica.
quote:Based on some pca plots which I've seen (but can't publish), I can say that Old Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_Neolithic samples and Mid Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_BA samples. New Kingdom samples seem to be closer to Old Kingdom samples. I don't have any idea about when related paper(s) will be published.
My initial response was to dismiss this as mere hearsay until the paper has been published. But to hear the people on Anthrogenica tell it, the poster who shared this "leak" has a reliable track record.
You guys think this could be another northern Egyptian sample? How do you expect ancient Upper Egyptian and Nubian samples to plot on a PCA like this?
EDIT: Cut out a lot of insecure ranting towards the end of my OP. It made me look like an anxious fool.
Egyptians of any time period should plot "close" to the Levant because Egypt is next to the Levant. It does not imply anything about skin color, features, cultural traits, direction of migration at any given time or anything else. Those other things are relevant in individual samples depending on the specifics of the DNA and timeframe of course, but doesn't change the overall cline or gradient one would expect from Africa to the Levant.
I suspect, as usual, there are no samples from any populations anywhere else in the Nile Valley, such as ancient Sudan or Upper Egypt. Which will produce a nonsensical statistical model where most of the relevant data is missing. Plotting close to the Levant only has meaning if those samples DO NOT plot close to Upper Egypt and Sudan, which they should. And between the two, the AE samples should be closer to the latter but not former. Either way, saying those samples plot closer to the Levant only is relevant to how they plot to surrounding ancient populations, and certainly Central Africa doesn't count as a surrounding population.
And leaving Basal Eurasian out of the picture, if you actually had ADNA from Africa at various time depths over the last 10,000 years you would see African DNA flow into the Levant as a continual process. But don't expect that anytime soon.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on the location of the site and understanding sites selected within a proper understanding of their local history. First dynasty Abydos is in southern Egypt and had a heavy inflow of northerners. So what do you think would happen if an article claimed to sample first dynasty abydos? They'd probably say there was a substantial near eastern component among indigenous southern Egyptians. Depending on the graves they chose, you could even get an entirely NE sample. A lack of (or misrepresented) local history is pretty common with every AE genetic study I've read so far. To allow viewers a proper understanding of what they were reading would've made for fewer headlines...I doubt they'd let me down now.
Getting a decent understanding of what an indigenous southern Egyptian would've originally been like genetically cannot occur by simply examining random sites, not even in southern Egypt. History of the sampling site needs to be disclosed as well. That's how we got the whole problem with Dakleh and Abusir: Two sites that technically can be considered "Upper Egyptian" but had evidence of contact with Near Easterners, Libyans and Lower Egyptians. This is in my mind how you can get the genetic data Keita was posting, while this the stuff being talked about here is also true. If I'm honest I imagine that indigenous southerners had Near Eastern ancestry by the end of the predynastic due to their contacts with the north, and that many northerners had much more NE ancestry, if they weren't completely NE. But culturally, the development of Egyptian civilization and presence of local Egyptian kings predate the political unification of Northern Egypt by many hundreds of years. Ultimately, I don't think SSA components in the south are all that deniable. We'll see how it goes though.
Why are you nervous if I may ask? Culturally southerners were an African people, racially these people were (originally) phenotypically black. Unless you're one of those people who thinks cultural prowess or racial identity is embedded in some kind of a "genetic identity" I don't see why what their genetics say matters.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
Mythical how so? If BE didn't exist than what explains the decrease in neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East and whats do we call all of the ancestry thats attributed to BE?
Neanderthals were in the middle east but were not breeding with humans until in later other locations
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
posted
LOL. This is a silly discussion. Of course the Levant and Egyptian DNA correlates. This is due to the expansion of people from the Nile Valley first with the Bell Becker Culture down to Narmer who made it clear he was a Kushite. When will you understand that Eurasian DNA is African DNA.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like they even deleted the arse whooping that I handed to them for 5 pages lololol. They are so pathetic.
Posts: 10 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Dog this ain't bout to be a refugium degenerate posting.
I second this.
Ok....so it's clear that many of the people here on Egyptsearch are also happy members of Anthrogenica, forum biodiversity aka lil Stormfront for whatever reason.It's just like the "Doja cat" situation with a lot y'all and these white supremacist on those Nazi boards.
You have Africans and so called "black people" cheering on a racist anti black redneck from the swamps of Florida who is trying to write black people out of history with his racialization of genetics. For y'all to go out of your way (thanking every single reply to my post) support that nonsense against me (a brother arguing the truth) is some agent crap plain and simple. I'm glad that many people have noted that there is an attempt to push only genetic research on this board and in this discussion on the illusion of a more sophisticated form of information. In reality it's nothing than geeky forum blog babble and codified nonsensible acronyms. That's something that I cannot see myself getting down with.
I again challenge ANYBODY to prove me wrong on my main arguments. If y'all ain't willing to do that then when it comes to me duck your head down and in the words of CdaGod "Shut the F up forever".
I know that y'all know me, and I'm a hit list from a couple of white supremacist lap dogs for actively promoting facts that are deemed as Afrocentrism. Please understand that the feeling is mutual. I think that most of what y'all argue in regards to genetics is sciolist gibberish. If a conversation runs parallel in both forums then why not relay the information. Is the OP not literally bringing over RUMORS of a study from another board? So you have to miss with me with any of that. I will take ANY OF YOU out in a debate on my stance, and y'all know that by now. You don't like me stay out of way, and I will do the same with you. Dr. Clyde, XYman and a few others have the correct mindset in view of these discussions.
Maybe you should dial it back so you don't get your post erased on Anthrogenica. Were all of your post erased?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are you nervous if I may ask? Culturally southerners were an African people, racially these people were (originally) phenotypically black. Unless you're one of those people who thinks cultural prowess or racial identity is embedded in some kind of a "genetic identity" I don't see why what their genetics say matters.
You're right, I shouldn't get upset over this sort of stuff. We'll have to wait and see what the paper says, if it gets published anytime soon. Would be nice if they had phenotypic data to share too.
posted
We already have plenty of phenotypic data, though. Kinda why so many people now want to talk about genetics.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
Im not 100% sure but i would probably say North East Africa so, B
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: It depends on the location of the site and understanding sites selected within a proper understanding of their local history. First dynasty Abydos is in southern Egypt and had a heavy inflow of northerners. So what do you think would happen if an article claimed to sample first dynasty abydos? They'd probably say there was a substantial near eastern component among indigenous southern Egyptians. Depending on the graves they chose, you could even get an entirely NE sample. A lack of (or misrepresented) local history is pretty common with every AE genetic study I've read so far. To allow viewers a proper understanding of what they were reading would've made for fewer headlines...I doubt they'd let me down now.
Getting a decent understanding of what an indigenous southern Egyptian would've originally been like genetically cannot occur by simply examining random sites, not even in southern Egypt. History of the sampling site needs to be disclosed as well. That's how we got the whole problem with Dakleh and Abusir: Two sites that technically can be considered "Upper Egyptian" but had evidence of contact with Near Easterners, Libyans and Lower Egyptians. This is in my mind how you can get the genetic data Keita was posting, while this the stuff being talked about here is also true. If I'm honest I imagine that indigenous southerners had Near Eastern ancestry by the end of the predynastic due to their contacts with the north, and that many northerners had much more NE ancestry, if they weren't completely NE. But culturally, the development of Egyptian civilization and presence of local Egyptian kings predate the political unification of Northern Egypt by many hundreds of years. Ultimately, I don't think SSA components in the south are all that deniable. We'll see how it goes though.
Why are you nervous if I may ask? Culturally southerners were an African people, racially these people were (originally) phenotypically black. Unless you're one of those people who thinks cultural prowess or racial identity is embedded in some kind of a "genetic identity" I don't see why what their genetics say matters.
Southern Egypt was heavily impacted by flow from the South from the beginning and all throughout dynastic history. There are multiple lines of evidence for this. A cline between Egypt and the Levant has existed since prehistory because humans have been traveling from Africa into the Levant since forever. The likelihood is that there has always been some level of shared ancestry between the two groups. Therefore finding "Levantine" lineages in ancient populations along the Nile does not imply migrations of Levantines. But that would require honest research not promoting agendas.
And of course there have been migrations the other way as well. So by doing a proper survey of ancient DNA the Nile Valley it gives you the proper reference point to base any other observations on.
At this point the DNA studies that have been published have all been pushing the idea that the ancient people have the Nile Valley have no "indigenous" DNA and all their DNA comes from the Levant. We know that this is purely impossible and simply a result of their hand picked samples and limited data sets.
A red flag should go off when you see all these DNA studies but none of them can identify what the "indigenous" DNA lineage was of ancient Egyptians. That is ultimately saying there was no "indigenous" Nile Valley DNA which makes absolutely no sense and is impossible. These people don't want to find the "indigenous" DNA, because they want to promote the idea that the AE were migrants from the Levant.
The ridiculous part about this is that they are going out of their way to pretend "African" DNA is something that should not be found in ancient Africans. That just shows the insanity of all of this. Not to mention the idea that ancient Levantines represent some clones of Europeans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Dog this ain't bout to be a refugium degenerate posting.
I second this.
Ok....so it's clear that many of the people here on Egyptsearch are also happy members of Anthrogenica, forum biodiversity aka lil Stormfront for whatever reason.It's just like the "Doja cat" situation with a lot y'all and these white supremacist on those Nazi boards.
You have Africans and so called "black people" cheering on a racist anti black redneck from the swamps of Florida who is trying to write black people out of history with his racialization of genetics. For y'all to go out of your way (thanking every single reply to my post) support that nonsense against me (a brother arguing the truth) is some agent crap plain and simple. I'm glad that many people have noted that there is an attempt to push only genetic research on this board and in this discussion on the illusion of a more sophisticated form of information. In reality it's nothing than geeky forum blog babble and codified nonsensible acronyms. That's something that I cannot see myself getting down with.
I again challenge ANYBODY to prove me wrong on my main arguments. If y'all ain't willing to do that then when it comes to me duck your head down and in the words of CdaGod "Shut the F up forever".
I know that y'all know me, and I'm a hit list from a couple of white supremacist lap dogs for actively promoting facts that are deemed as Afrocentrism. Please understand that the feeling is mutual. I think that most of what y'all argue in regards to genetics is sciolist gibberish. If a conversation runs parallel in both forums then why not relay the information. Is the OP not literally bringing over RUMORS of a study from another board? So you have to miss with me with any of that. I will take ANY OF YOU out in a debate on my stance, and y'all know that by now. You don't like me stay out of way, and I will do the same with you. Dr. Clyde, XYman and a few others have the correct mindset in view of these discussions.
Maybe you should dial it back so you don't get your post erased on Anthrogenica. Were all of your post erased?
Of course they deleted everything lol. I bodied them one by one on their own turf. lol look at the message that the admin wrote to save face. The COli is the new place for true Afrocentrics though. A lot of old Egyptsearch folks on there fyi.
Posts: 10 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you don't like it here so much. The doors wide open. Spread your garbage somewhere else.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
l) all of the above except k
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
l) all of the above except k
Wait, but how could it have simultaneously originated in India, Anatolia, Spain, the Horn of Africa and all those other places?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
l) all of the above except k
I like this answer.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco b) Egypt/Sudan c) India d) Libya e) Spain f) Anatolia g) Central Asia h) Gobero i) the Arabian peninsula j) The Horn of Africa k) none of the above
l) all of the above except k
I like this answer.
Do you mind explaining how that makes sense?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Do you mind explaining how that makes sense?
Let me first say that after reading the Wiki entry twice I still don’t completely understand why Basal Eurasian exist as a concept. Supposedly this is the explanation as to why Neanderthal ancestry peaks in less diverse populations instead of areas where Neanderthals lived and it also explains where all this Eurasian ancestry posted and diversified before breading with Neanderthals.
Lets say you explain Neanderthal with shared ancestry instead of admixture so you don’t need to push OoA migrations back to the time of Neanderthals then you don’t need back migration to explain the abundance of 'Eurasian' lineages in Africa. Most to all of these Eurasian haplogroups that have early branch diversity in Africa so it makes sense for them to have diversified in Africa then you don’t need some extra diverse Eurasian or MENA group that is ancestral to most of North Africa. In this model BE is just the OoA tribes in the queue. In this model all of Africa is BE. Jack up the resolution and you start to see OoA groups in the heat map.
The big mistake is this notion that people left Africa in small lines instead of like one extended amoebaish human family.
This map needs BE to splain itself.
Needs no explanation
One thing I don't get is why Bedouins, Sahrawi, Mozabites and Sahelians isn't a good enough answer for BE populations. They have low Neanderthal and are relatively diverse. I think Elmaestro is right about IAM being the type of undetectable BE population.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have we not been through this ad nauseum? Natufian-like or Levant-like ancestry in Africa or AE is probably the result of shared ancestry between the ancestors of Natufians and the ancestors of Ancient Egyptians. Why on earth is direct migration of Natufians or Middle Easterners into the Nile Valley a reasonable or even sane alternative explanation?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
I suspect this is going to be another northern Egyptian sample, since kolgeh mentioned a shift towards Bronze Age Levantines in affinity during the Middle Kingdom (which would be consistent with migration events we know led to the Hyksos takeover). Though, of course, we don't even know how reliable a source he is.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
Taforalt, Morocco
Four U6 individuals here
.
Recall this PC chart showing the Taforalt position between modern Afar and Yemenis before North Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn. The data is cold if you on the wrong side of the truth.
Reminds me of Mboli et al who mainly use Middle Egyptian in their analyses, under the assumption they were working with the 'original' Egyptian language. Only to find out the time period in question had a short-lived (but widespread ) spike of Central African influences across the board in Egyptian society.
Man, that's cold. If that's your life work.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome back Swenet and yea I think I remember posting that the Egyptian language had Chadic influence.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Damn. The data is cold if you on the wrong side of the truth.
Reminds me of Mboli et al who mainly use Middle Egyptian in their analyses, under the assumption they were working with the 'original' Egyptian language. Only to find out the time period in question had a short-lived (but widespread ) spike of Central African influences across the board in Egyptian society.
Man, that's cold. If that's your life work.
I still don't understand how its that different from
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
A case of knowing enough to think I was right but not enough to know that I was wrong.
Forty2Tribes please accept 1 - my apologies for the 2018 redux errors 2 - this corrected 2020 redux heeding critique especially from 'Stro. Only terminal nodes had samples so fewer region, country, and people markups.
UPdated this one too but saw no need to post 'til now.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Welcome back Swenet and yea I think I remember posting that the Egyptian language had Chadic influence.
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch. The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt. We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what you mean, but you cannot tell haplogroup arrival times from haplogroup split times or node TMRCAs. You cannot tell from the dates listed in your chart, when different haplogroups arrived where they are found today. I tried to explain in the other thread. You have to use the other chart that shows the tree structure and breakdown (the funnels or triangles, their height, their resolution, and so on).
No 11.6ky old Egyptian E-M2 was found by that paper. The chart is not correct.
BTW, look at the second column of your chart. What does it say? It says 'nodes'. One cannot carry a node. A node is a node, not a haplogroup. So all the populations listed to the right (e.g. NE Africa) have no direct relationship to your dates. A person cannot carry a node.
This is what the paper says:
quote:In this context, although the large majority of the geo- graphically restricted lineages come from sub-Saharan regions, we also found two northern African-specific clades, namely E-V5001 and E-V4990. E-V5001 has only been found in Egypt, is one of the sister clades within the E-M4727 multifurcation and coalesced at 3.88 kya.
It says that only one Egypt-specific lineage was found and dated so far. So how can you have a chart showing two dated Egyptian-specific E-M2? You have 72 and 73, which are associated with one haplogroup, and you have 71. The authors say in that quote, that they only acknowledge the variation associated with 72 and 73 as a dated Egypt-specific haplogroup. They do not accept 71 as an Egypt-specific haplogroup.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swent You should come back to the FB group because we been discussing the Ancient Egyptian language "Bantu" and Afro-Asiatic loan words. Very interesting discussions. Anyways....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch.
Whoa....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt.
There are some people who believe E-M2 is not only North African but the people who carry it come from that region. But man..... I have a feeling that E-M2 is going to surprise a lot of people in the future.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
Wait... Are you saying that this may in fact have some truth to it? I keep hearing that part of the Bantu migration theory needs to be revised. To clarify are you saying that "Bantus" could've migrated from an area southwest of Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
I think I heard before that people from the Middle Kingdom had more "southern influence." I bet that racist article wrote them off as just invading Nubians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
What "adjustments" do you mean? You seemed to have been rather confident in your past views.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by One Third African: Bumping this...
I suspect this is going to be another northern Egyptian sample, since kolgeh mentioned a shift towards Bronze Age Levantines in affinity during the Middle Kingdom (which would be consistent with migration events we know led to the Hyksos takeover). Though, of course, we don't even know how reliable a source he is.
Is there a possible link?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure why anybody would be shocked to see African gene flow into or out of the Nile Valley in ancient times. Its common sense really. Especially when you consider the alternative model proposed by Euro idiots who claim that ancient North Africa was some kind of genetic and cultural apartheid zone separate from the rest of Africa. This especially ties into the concept of Bantus in that it uses Bantus as the origin of all African history, culture and technology South of the Sahara. As if to say Sub Saharan African history only started a few thousand years ago. All of which is complete and utter nonsense. So sure, while some are happy to see the links between the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa, it should be noted that African history, culture, technology and evolution did not start with Bantus. Africans have been traveling across Africa since 200,000 years ago and all human technology, culture and history starts in Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@ Swenet
I hope you saw the corrections replacing my earlier errors.
Nodes rep for cumbersome haplogroup marker designations. In other words they are haplogroups. Redux F2 shows major node marker names added in red, node 71 is M4727 eg. The node numbers are to correlate material when cross referencing the various figures and tables as seen when Supplemental Table 3 is posted alonside Figure 2b.
BTW I left out young <400 yr old Maghreb samples and markers out of the phylo redux.
The best place to see markers, unsampled nodes, dates and carrier regions is Supplemental Figure S4:E-M2 but the specific ethnies sampled in a region are not there and region can mislead as to origin, language, etc.
All E-M2 in this research is from E-M4727 unless it's basal or outlier V4257 (node 70). E-M4727* as detected in the samples is undated. E-M4727 'itself' gets a ~11k date, BEAST vs Rho differs but not by much.
Here's the Egyptian markers and others who carry it.
posted
If there is evidence for a Central African migration reaching as far north as Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, I wonder if it's going to pop up in this "leaked" upcoming study? I don't expect it to be a big component, mind you (especially if the PCA shows the MK sample to be closer to Bronze Age Levantines), but it might appear as a distinct little blip in the ADMIXTURE charts.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not sure why anybody would be shocked to see African gene flow into or out of the Nile Valley in ancient times. Its common sense really. Especially when you consider the alternative model proposed by Euro idiots who claim that ancient North Africa was some kind of genetic and cultural apartheid zone separate from the rest of Africa. This especially ties into the concept of Bantus in that it uses Bantus as the origin of all African history, culture and technology South of the Sahara. As if to say Sub Saharan African history only started a few thousand years ago. All of which is complete and utter nonsense. So sure, while some are happy to see the links between the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa, it should be noted that African history, culture, technology and evolution did not start with Bantus. Africans have been traveling across Africa since 200,000 years ago and all human technology, culture and history starts in Africa.
lol I don't think anyone here thinks or believes that.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I keep hearing that part of the Bantu migration theory needs to be revised. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic