quote:

---

The genetic relatedness of individuals from archaeological sites has been utilized
to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains
assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38, 55-57). To the best of our
knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard,
only uni-parental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of
late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 B.C.), including that of Tutankhamen.
The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR
markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-
generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his
ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).

For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:

Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad,
R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al. (2020) Maternal and
paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M.,
Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.) Guardian of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of
Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).

---

I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://academic.oup.com/hmg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223/5924364

2020
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Yehia Z Gad,
Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat
____________________________

second article, more detail:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353306320_Maternal_and_paternal_lineages_in_King_Tutankhamun%27s_family


Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.
February 2020
In book: Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi HawassPublisher: Czech Institute of Egyptology
Project: Ancient Egyptian Genetics Project

Authors:

Yehia Z Gad, Somaia Ismail, Dina Fathalla, Rabab Khairat, Suzan Fares, Ahmed Zakaria Gad, Rama Saad, Amal Moustafa, Eslam ElShahat,
Naglaa H. Abu Mandil, Mohamed Fateen, Hisham Elleithy, Sally Wasef, Albert R Zink, Zahi Hawass, Carsten M Pusch



Amenhotep III R1b / H2

Akhenaten R1b / K
Tutankhamun R1b / K

Yuya G2 / K

Thuya K
Tiye K
KN35YL K


____________________________________________



 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Griffith is really keeping this under wraps.
Even the book with the research behind mtDNA K
is as yet unpublished.

Gad, Y.Z., …. Wasef, S. et al. 2020.
Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family
in
J. Kamrin, M. Bárta, S. Ikram, M. Lehner, M. Megahed (éd.),
Guardian of Ancient Egypt, Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass.


Djehuti where you at?
Time to reexamine ye old Levantine Queen Tiye sources.

Anyway, Tiye's mother Thuya, her autosome profile is
Sudani and Upper Egyptian so pour that on her Special K.
Tiye's parentage is non-royal something to remember when
guessing 18th Dynasty foreign origin that didn't start with
Thuya.


As for Levantine infusion into the dynasty consider this wiki info

Amenhotep III is known to have married several foreign women:

Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign.
Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign.
A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa.
A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).


One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence
then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III
whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.

That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is
inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch
Zinck retrieved.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I discussed this reality back in 2010 See:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006903;p=1

.
King Tut was African. In fact the Kushites took y-chromosome R1 to Eurasians.

.
Y-CHROMOSOME R1 WAS INTRODUCED TO EURASIA BY KUSHITES

Clyde Winters

ABSTRACT
The Kushites lived in Africa and Eurasia. Kushites originated in Africa. Researchers have observed that many of the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and early European farmers (EF) populations carried R1a and R1b clades, and cultivated millet, which was not cultivated in Central Asia and the Middle East until 1000s of years after it was cultivated at Nabta Playa in Africa, and in the Ukraine by CHG and EF populations . Interestingly, the CHG carried the R1b1, and R1b1a lineages. Some researchers claim that these clades are “distant relatives” of V88, and that V88 is the result of a back migration from Eurasia to Central Africa. The archaeological evidence, on the other hand, lacks any corroboration of a back migration from Eurasia. Instead, the archaeogenetic evidence indicates that Niger-Congo speaking
Africans from North Africa and the Saharo-Sahel, called Kushites in the historical literature early settled Crete, Iberia and Anatolia, and that these Africans introduced R1b, the Bell Beaker and the agro-pastoral
cultural traditions into Eurasia during the Neolithic.

See: https://www.academia.edu/36591534/Y_CHROMOSOME_R1_WAS_INTRODUCED_TO_EURASIA_BY_KUSHITES
.

The phylogenetic profile of R-M173 supports an ancient migration of Kushites from Africa to Eurasia as suggested by the Classical writers. This expansion of an African Kushite population probably took place over 5kya.


" We analyzed the craniometric , linguistic, archaeological and y-chromosome sequences of African and Eurasian populations from the literature relating to these diverse fields.

This literature provides us with a critical examination of the distribution of R1*-M173 . It presents a genetic pattern of this haplogroup from Africa to Eurasia, and the dispersal of a significant African male contribution to Eurasia.



The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al, 2002, 2010).The frequency of Y-chromosome R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5% (Coia et al,2005). The R*-M173 (haplotype 117) chromosome is found frequently in Africa, but rare to extremely low frequencies in Eurasia. The Eurasian R haplogroup is characterized by R1b3-M269. The M269 derived allele has a M207/M173 background.

In Figure 1 we provide the frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between 8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in Africa."

Coia et al (2005) provides substantial data that the presence of R1*-M173 did not follow the spread of mtDNA haplogroup U6, which is found in North Africa (Coia et al, 2005).This supports the view that its presence in Africa is not the result of a back migration.

See:

http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-294-299.pdf


http://olmec98.net/Fulani.pdf


.

The Ounanian culture was not isolated in Africa. It was spread into the Levant. As a result, we have in the
archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at
Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .


Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert.
Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of
Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.
The tangled Ounanian points are also found at Foum Arguin . These points were used from Oued Draa, in
southern Morocco, to the Banc d’Arguin and from the Atlantic shore to the lowlands of northwestern
Sahara in Mauritania . We now have DNA from Ounanian sites in Morocco.
All the burials in Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa site IAM1-IAM7 , are devoid of any artifacts, except for an
original funeral ritual, which consists of placing a millstone on the skull (5) . These burials were dated
from 4,850 to 5,250 BCE, they carried U6, M1, T2, X and K (Fregel et al, 2017). This suggests that
Africans were already carrying this mtDNA. The spread of the Ounanians to Harif in the Levant explains
the presence of these Kushite clades in the Levant and Anatolia.
The first Kushites came to the Levant with Narmer. Narmer was the first ruler to unify ancient Egypt. The
reason we know Narmer was a Kushite is the fact that the bulla called this part of the Negev ḫЗts.t
("Kush") or ḫ3s.tj ("Kushite"). and we find Narmer's name on jars and serekhs from excavations in
Israel and Palestine , for example Tel Erani, Arad, 'En Besor, Halif Terrace/Nahal Tillah and more, we
can assume that if he was recognized as ruler of the area he was also a Kushite (Levy et al,1997).
The Kushites were called ḫЗšt in Africa and the Levant. Kushites had early settled in the Levant since
Narmer times. The Kushites were called ḫЗšt , Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians (Winters,2012,2017).
The Egyptian Pharaoh Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu” . The name Hati,
correspond to the name Hatti for a Kushite tribe in Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to
themselves as Kashkas.
.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
There's a few things to note here:
-These results have really been sat on for over a decade??
-This would be the first official publication declaring Ramses and Pentaware as E-M2
-There seems to be low resolution as it relates to all HG assignments.
-K is indicative of a recent (historically speaking) levantine people in Egypt.

My question to the OP and others who don't foolishly assign every arbitrary HG as African, is?
[i]If we get Thuya's Autosomal profile and turns out to look very "SSA" lets say generously 80% putative African, what would that say about her recent ancestry? would you be compelled to push K1a's presence in Africa back? Would you and would you investigate her relationship with levantine and Sudanese people?

...I'll keep it generous, what if Thuya resembled the early pastoralists escavated at Prettejohn’s Gully from Pendergast 2019 Who I believe were the oldest sequenced carriers of K1 in Africa so far. And also who Wang 2020 has as 47% Leventine (chl) related, 43% mota related and 10% dinka related. Would you say the levant_chl source was an accurate proxy under this context? When would it had Arrived?

-Lastly, what if Thuya resembled the Abusir mummies Autosomally?
What would that say about her recent ancestry? would you be compelled to push K1a's presence in Africa back? Would you and would you investigate her relationship with levantine and Sudanese people? Would you say the levant_chl source was an accurate proxy under this context?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Whaddaya mean IF we get Thuya's autosomal profile?

Have I been talkin' to me arse these last 10 yrs?

No offense 42, I know you been hearin me.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin. Yet here we are reading papers where they go to great lengths to say African populations with some mixture are not black African. Its ridiculous. The presence of mixture isn't the issue, as opposed to the overall population affinity of said individuals or groups. This is where the Abusir paper is so problematic in trying to make sweeping statements with limited data. It is the same thing here, because you need way more data in order to make any overall conclusion about overall population affinity in ancient times.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
They have already concluded Africa is mixed Sardine or mixed Anatoli or mixed Irani whatever.

Anyway no Levantine population otherside of ancient Lebanon even liked ancient Egyptians.

They'd be angry modern people trying to turn them into Levantines.
Even Macedonian lineage Cleopatra is claimed to be Levatine now in
Israel for the sake of Gal Gadot's movie.

I'm rather disgusted at the biased approach of scientists to uphold
Euro propaganda on history, ethnicity, and their innate superiority
expressed in genomic research write-ups.

But why ES now wants AE to be Levantine is ... well ... I'm speechless.

Any way the wind blows the latest paper's interpretation I guess.
Never mind the raw data or the fact algorithms are biased the way
their human designers are biased. That includes the ADMIXTURE pgm
and all those other tools. But when something doesn't make sense
who checks for and updates a pgm ? Ah well, its mostly accurate
and where it isn't it's biased in favor of west Eurasia, i.e.,
Europe, then secondly for what used to be called southwest Asia.


But lemme calm myself down. Hope this Fuente Lost City and St Lucia
Forgotten Cask does the job. From the 4th grade to tomorrow it seems
"Egypt may look like it's in Africa but it's really Asia" if you don't
want your test question marked wrong.

=-=

Meanwhile someone needs to go over HVR1 sequences
for what K has in common with L", L3-M, L3-N, or U6,
since we saw how Kefi's aMazigh nationalist reading
looked right over possibilities that weren't fitting
North-Afrocentric propaganda. HVSII and RFLP can
overrule even a proper multi-polymorphism HVSI alone.

Ah, the blacks. At least we strive for objectivity
as we were taught in school that science should have.
Meanwhile the whole world uses science for politics and
sociology ala "Oops we never said our Abusir discussion
applies to all dynastic Egypt the whole length of the Nile.
It's not our fault media and the public took it that way.
We have a tiny one sentence disclaimer to that effect
right there in the article."

Not say Gad et al will try and turn a solo
HVSI polymorphism into a fully sequenced
haplogroup like Kefi did but best to be wary.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://images2.imgbox.com/d8/52/M7ZLPlhP_o.png

---

Just something to consider if you really want to investigate if this is R-V88 (goes for Askia, too, who says he suspects Tut has V88).

You have to look at the ISOGG tables and confirm that R1b1a2 was V88 at the time of this article. You can't assume that the writer did it's homework and got it right in the followup article.

https://isogg.org/tree/

Nomenclature changes, e.g. E-M2's position changed from E3a, to E1b1a to E1b1a1.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

Hundreds of Siwan people form a circle (zikr) of peace and forgiveness, marking the annual "Siyaha" Peace Festival of Siwa Oasis.
LINK




___________________________________________


In 2010 Cruciani reported 26.9% Siwans tested R-V88
Sudanese Copts who migrated out of Egypt in recent times also were reported in another article to carry 14% R1b which is probably R-V88 but tested before R-V88 was discovered

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
[QB] Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...

2020

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa
1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1
,




The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign.
Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign.
A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa.
A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).


One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence
then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III
whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.

That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is
inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch
Zinck retrieved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Hundreds of Siwan people form a circle (zikr) of peace and forgiveness, marking the annual "Siyaha" Peace Festival of Siwa Oasis.
LINK




___________________________________________


In 2010 Cruciani reported 26.9% Siwans tested R-V88
Sudanese Copts who migrated out of Egypt in recent times also were reported in another article to carry 14% R1b which is probably R-V88 but tested before R-V88 was discovered

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
[QB] Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...

2020

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa
1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1
,




The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).

---

I looked at the whole preprint as of yet as you say the particular clade of the R1b has not been stated yet, just that it was R1b

Does the media roll with articles before they are published? I hope not

If it turns out to R-V88 which is likely the current thinking is that it originates in Sardinia or the Levant because it was found in Neolithic samples from Sardinia as well as in 6,200 remains in Catalonia Spain and R1b is also the most common paternal haplogroup in Europe. However as we know this clade of it R-V88 can be found in Cameroon as high as 95% in some groups and is very rare in Europe with only very low percentages in Sardinia and also 1-4% in parts of the Levant

Eupedia:

According to Cruciani et al. (2010) R1b-V88 would have crossed the Sahara between 9,200 and 5,600 years ago, and is most probably associated with the diffusion of Chadic languages, a branch of the Afroasiatic languages. V88 would have migrated from Egypt to Sudan, then expanded along the Sahel until northern Cameroon and Nigeria. However, R1b-V88 is not only present among Chadic speakers, but also among Senegambian speakers (Fula-Hausa) and Semitic speakers (Berbers, Arabs).

R1b-V88 is found among the native populations of Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau. The wide distribution of V88 in all parts of Africa, its incidence among herding tribes, and the coalescence age of the haplogroup all support a Neolithic dispersal. In any case, a later migration out of Egypt would be improbable since it would have brought haplogroups that came to Egypt during the Bronze Age, such as J1, J2, R1a or R1b-L23.

The maternal lineages associated with the spread of R1b-V88 in Africa are mtDNA haplogroups J1b, U5 and V, and perhaps also U3 and some H subclades (=> see Retracing the mtDNA haplogroups of the original R1b people).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign.
Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign.
A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa.
A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).


One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence
then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III
whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.

That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is
inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch
Zinck retrieved.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I'm talkin bout commoner born Thuya and mtDNA K.
Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her
16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.

A III's "R1b" lineage goes back to before Dyn 18
unless his or some male ancestor's fathering was
by someone other than Senakhtenre Ahmose Dyn 17.
His consort list goes to show sex bias in post
MK Egy explains any non-continental mtDNA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign.
Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign.
A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa.
A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).


One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence
then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III
whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.

That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is
inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch
Zinck retrieved.

---

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[qb] Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a

---

If we are crediting the OP Tut is V88 and Ranses and Pentaware ARE E-M2.... Just as much as Thuyas line is K1.

But how do you view the "non African" looking portion of North East African ancestry given the fact that such a high profile mummy carries such a putative neolithic levantine Marker?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB
Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her
16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign.
Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign.
A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon.
A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa.
A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).


One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence
then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III
whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.

That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is
inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch
Zinck retrieved.

---

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://images2.imgbox.com/d8/52/M7ZLPlhP_o.png

---

Just something to consider if you really want to investigate if this is R-V88 (goes for Askia, too, who says he suspects Tut has V88).

You have to look at the ISOGG tables and confirm that R1b1a2 was V88 at the time of this article. You can't assume that the writer did it's homework and got it right in the followup article.

https://isogg.org/tree/

Nomenclature changes, e.g. E-M2's position changed from E3a, to E1b1a to E1b1a1.

---

https://www.igenea.us/en/tutankhamun


As we know this European DNA testing company leaked what they had seen on a computer screen in a documentary on DNA analysis of Tut (I think Hawass team) of which the results were never published (Why ??). iGENEA claimed the above alleles were on the screen which was filmed in distracting motion and at times blurry. At the bottom of this Tutankhamen page which is still on their website they are selling testing kits.


Anyway the media then picked up on this. I am wondering how Reuters said

"The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.

Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA."

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-tutankhamun-dna-idAFL3E7J135P20110801

___________________________

How is it Cruciani said in 2010 R1b1a2 was a V88 clade and Reuters said in 2011 that iGENEA said Tut was R1b1a2

but iGENEA said it was M269 on their website

something is rotten in Denmark

If R1b1a2 aka V88 is correct then Reuters had the right Haplogroup yet were using the iGENEA description of R-M269 which was that is was basic European rather than this unique sub clade which has such high frequencies in Cameroon and significant frequencies in berbers of the Siwa oasis , Egypt

Perhaps iGENEA had first interpreted R1b1a2, Reuters made an article and then iGENEA changed it later to M269
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I just don't see much support for Diffusionism/Transplants of non Egyptians sitting on the Throne of Kemet comfortably. Even the Hyksos and the Ta-Seti royals were subtle in their domination and did so through a gradual "Egyptianizing" process that took years. The Hyksos f-ked up by trying to monopolize power while the Ta-Seti royals were so subtle and good at it no one even knows they existed unless they look underneath the surface.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


and also the K
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Do you have the thread where you discuss this...sorry if its a burden then just ignore me.

---

quote:

---

@Elmestro Anyway I don't see how the 18th Dynasty is a Levanting Transplant if even Thuya has Sudani/Upper Egyptian alleles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her
16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.

---

---

Um I wrote that for you and the forum. 'Stro seems to side with
Schuenemann on the Hawass Putsch Zinck Thuya autosome data worth being ignored.
But that's not his position though. Stro sees mtDNA K somehow tied to 'Nubian'
autosomes.

I guess a good start there is examining K in Upper Egypt/Nubia/Sudan.
There's no reason the K didn't come from the Levant. The question is
when. Thuya's K ancestress could go back 3-4 generations in which case
her autosomes'd be lost while her mtDNA haplogroup will go on as long
as daughters come out mothers.

I trust it and until shown false by data
I also accept Thuya being K provided both
she and Tut carry the same K, tho precision
would demand each Tut maternal ancestress
get the test. I imagine Gad probably uses
the same method and tools Schuenemann did
on either the 2010 samplings or new ones
of his own.


I got no beef with Levantine-Egyptians.
Doc Ben, Chancellor Wms, all o dem
taught Semitic speakers trickled then
floodgated into Egypt forever altering
the population of the land and nation.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.


.
ISOGG



 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Sorry Thuya's Sudani Alleles..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

the 'this' you wanna link up to?

quote:

---

@Elmestro Anyway I don't see how the 18th Dynasty is a Levanting Transplant if even Thuya has Sudani/Upper Egyptian alleles. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her
16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.

---

---

Um I wrote that for you and the forum. 'Stro seems to side with
Schuenemann on the Hawass Putsch Zinck Thuya autosome data worth being ignored.
But that's not his position though. Stro sees mtDNA K somehow tied to 'Nubian'
autosomes.

I guess a good start there is examining K in Upper Egypt/Nubia/Sudan.
There's no reason the K didn't come from the Levant. The question is
when. Thuya's K ancestress could go back 3-4 generations in which case
her autosomes'd be lost while her mtDNA haplogroup will go on as long
as daughters come out mothers.

I trust it and until shown false by data
I also accept Thuya being K provided both
she and Tut carry the same K, tho precision
would demand each Tut maternal ancestress
get the test. I imagine Gad probably uses
the same method and tools Schuenemann did
on either the 2010 samplings or new ones
of his own.


I got no beef with Levantine-Egyptians.
Doc Ben, Chancellor Wms, all o dem
taught Semitic speakers trickled then
floodgated into Egypt forever altering
the population of the land and nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a

---

If we are crediting the OP Tut is V88 and Ranses and Pentaware ARE E-M2.... Just as much as Thuyas line is K1.

But how do you view the "non African" looking portion of North East African ancestry given the fact that such a high profile mummy carries such a putative neolithic levantine Marker?

@Tukuler, I'm referring to an SNP panel, and even if I were not, it still begs the question, with Thuya having a predominantly sudanese profile, what does that say about her maternal lineage & when did it enter the region? Does it call into question how historically Afican the Sudani profile is going back to the 17th dynasty? If not why and can you prove it with available data?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://images2.imgbox.com/43/a2/39Tomqoh_o.png

https://www.igenea.us/en/tutankhamun


As we know this European DNA testing company leaked what they had seen on a computer screen in a documentary on DNA analysis of Tut (I think Hawass team) of which the results were never published (Why ??). iGENEA claimed the above alleles were on the screen which was filmed in distracting motion and at times blurry. At the bottom of this Tutankhamen page which is still on their website they are selling testing kits.


Anyway the media then picked up on this. I am wondering how Reuters said

"The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.

Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA."

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-tutankhamun-dna-idAFL3E7J135P20110801

___________________________

How is it Cruciani said in 2010 R1b1a2 was a V88 clade and Reuters said in 2011 that iGENEA said Tut was R1b1a2

but iGENEA said it was M269 on their website

something is rotten in Denmark

If R1b1a2 aka V88 is correct then Reuters had the right Haplogroup yet were using the iGENEA description of R-M269 which was that is was basic European rather than this unique sub clade which has such high frequencies in Cameroon and significant frequencies in berbers of the Siwa oasis , Egypt

Perhaps iGENEA had first interpreted R1b1a2, Reuters made an article and then iGENEA changed it later to M269 [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you want to continue this you can figure out if the designation was correct in the first place. You can use Y-STR tools and see if the answer they give is consistent with V88 or M269. If it indeed turns out to be R1b1a2-V8, and if you want to continue, you can use D'Anastasio's supplemental tree and yfull, to see if R1b1a2-V8 has Egyptian members in modern Egypt, or if all the V88 in modern Egypt is non-V8. Needless to say, if modern Egyptians have V8, it becomes much more convincing that Tut also had it.

But this all makes or breaks with whether the party (iGENEA?) who first announced Tut's lineage as 'R1b1a2', was correct in naming it that. If that person was not correct, or used some dated nomenclature (maybe in 2005 R1b-M269 was called R1b1a2), it doesn't matter that ISOGG had R1b1a2 as V88 in 2010.

Simple investigations like this is how you can get way ahead of anyone talking in opinions and hypotheticals.

---

I entered the alleles listed by iGENEA into NevGen and got R1b, but nothing more specific than that (i.e. I could not tell whether it was V88, M269, or something else). But given that iGENEA got their data from what could have been stock footage on a Discovery documentary, these may not necessarily be the alleles Tut etc. actually had.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


full table:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2009231/tables/1

________________________

article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2009231
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

If you want to continue this you can figure out if the designation was correct in the first place. You can use Y-STR tools and see if the answer they give is consistent with V88 or M269. If it indeed turns out to be R1b1a2-V8, and if you want to continue, you can use D'Anastasio's supplemental tree and yfull, to see if R1b1a2-V8 has Egyptian members in modern Egypt, or if all the V88 in modern Egypt is non-V8. Needless to say, if modern Egyptians have V8, it becomes much more convincing that Tut also had it.

But this all makes or breaks with whether the party (iGENEA?) who first announced Tut's lineage as 'R1b1a2', was correct in naming it that. If that person was not correct, or used some dated nomenclature (maybe in 2005 R1b-M269 was called R1b1a2), it doesn't matter that ISOGG had R1b1a2 as V88 in 2010.

Simple investigations like this is how you can get way ahead of anyone talking in opinions and hypotheticals.

---

I entered the alleles listed by iGENEA into NevGen and got R1b, but nothing more specific than that (i.e. I could not tell whether it was V88, M269, or something else). But given that iGENEA got their data from what could have been stock footage on a Discovery documentary, these may not necessarily be the alleles Tut etc. actually had.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr-HR-ckKX8




watch the video, maybe there is better resolution at the Discovery channel
but I'm looking at all these alleles listed by iGENEA
and wondering even on better video you can actually see all those numbers
Either they could see them all on better video, or they made some up, or they had an inside connection to the data and only pretended they say t all on this video
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
As I said in the other thread and for years, many people have tried HARD to make the Siwans less Berber or descendants of SS-African Slaves but they can't, the Siwans history of Isolation and intermarriage and genetics does'nt allow for that.

The modern Siwans are a good example of what their ancestors probably looked like.

I also think its interesting in light of what Swenet said about Chadian language being instrumental to the development of A.Egyptian.

Even the R-1b=European article Lioness posted HAS to admit that V88 is found high as hell in Chad and the Siwans.

Its interesting to me personally because of the thesis ive been pursuing for years(Hopefully I can one day publish something) about the Ta-Seti Royalty in Kemet, but this is pointing to another "SS-African" penetration into the Royalty of Kemet but from Lybia or the North.

Very interesting to say the least.

---

Just a caveat in relation to that source.

Based on some evidence (e.g. Mboli's work), the Egyptian affinities with Hausa don't seem to extend to Coptic (or not as much). In Mboli's tree for instance, Coptic is with Somali (among other 'nearby' inner African languages), while Middle Egyptian is with Hausa (among other inner African languages, some of which extremely distant from Egypt). One interpretation of this is that Coptic does not have the Chadic influences detected by Lexa (or not as strongly).

Relevance? It could be that the Chadic-Egyptian merger comment ascribed to Lexa in that paper, was specific to the Egyptian dialect mainly used by Middle Kingdom scribes and officials, not to dialects used by later (or earlier) dynasty founders with no connection to the 11th dynasty.

Other than Central African migration to MK Egypt affecting Middle Egyptian, I don't know what Lexa's comments mean for the Egyptian language as a whole (which also includes Late Egyptian, Archaic Egyptian, Coptic, etc).
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



https://www.livescience.com/15388-discovery-channel-tutankhamen-dna.html

Livescience

King Tut Related to Half of European Men? Maybe Not
By Stephanie Pappas August 03, 2011

A personal genomics company in Switzerland says they've reconstructed a DNA profile of King Tutankhamen by watching the Discovery Channel, claiming the results suggest more than half of Western European men are related to the boy king. But researchers who worked to decode Tut's genome in the first place say the claim is "unscientific."

Swiss genomics company iGENEA has launched a Tutankhamen DNA project based on what they say are genetic markers that appeared on a computer screen during a Discovery Channel special on the famous pharaoh's genetic lineage.

"Maybe they didn't know what they showed, but we got 16 markers from the Y chromosome from these pharaohs," Roman Scholz, the managing director of iGENEA, told LiveScience.

If the claims were true, it would put King Tut in a genetic profile group shared by more than half of Western European men. That would make those men relatives — albeit distant ones — of the pharaoh.

But Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tubingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, said that iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." Pusch and his colleagues published part of their results, though not the Y-chromosome DNA, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2010. The Y chromosome is the sex chromosome found only in males, and looking at the genes in this chromosome would show Tut's male lineage.

Pusch's team used snippets of Y-chromosome DNA to link Tut to his closest relatives, identifying his mom and dad. But they didn't publish the full genetic data that would allow genomics companies like iGENEA to link modern people to the Tutankhamen lineage. According to Scholz, that crucial data is what appeared on the Discovery Channel.

"Dr. Albert Zink from the EURAC [European Academy of Bolzano, an independent research center] in Bolzano and co-author of the 2010 JAMA publication screened the footage and confirmed that the company acts very unscientific," Pusch wrote in an email to LiveScience. "The Swiss company did not try to get into contact with us prior to launching their new Internet page."

The alleged Discovery Channel markers put Tut in a genetic profile group, or haplogroup, that also includes more than half of the men in Western Europe. Scholz said the company is now searching for the closest living relatives of Tutankhamen, men who share all 16 genetic markers on the pharaoh's supposed Y chromosome. Exact matches get a refund for their $179 to $399 test and will also get free additional DNA analysis.

The haplogroup R1b1a2, which iGENEA claims includes King Tut, arose 9,500 years ago in the Black Sea region. How Tut's ancestors would have gotten from that region to Egypt is unknown, but Scholz said iGENEA hopes to learn more by collecting more close and exact matches from modern people of Western European descent.

"The better the match, the more recent the common ancestor," Scholz said.

But people hoping to prove that they've got an ancestor in common with the notoriously sickly boy king should take iGENEA's claims with a grain of salt, Pusch said: "It appears that they try to better sell their DNA testing kit by using the media attention connected to King Tut."
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lioness:
"The confusing identity of R1b1a2"

There is no such thing as an identity to R1b1a2. M269 and V88, and so on, are the identities. The R1b1a2 part is the position. It's code for where the mutation falls within R. That is why new mutations like E-V38 can demote E-M2 from E1b1a to E1b1a1. That extra 1 behind it signifies a specific position that helps haplogroup enthusiasts visualize or illustrate the position of E-M2 relative to other mutations.

"not resolved by year"

It is not the New Year's transition that changes the R1b tree. It's work on the R1b tree by geneticists (and hobbyists) that changes the Y-DNA tree. And yes, sometimes geneticists still use dated nomenclature like E3b (which is now E1b1b). That doesn't mean organizations like ISOGG weren't set up for people to keep track of the changes.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Lioness:
"The confusing identity of R1b1a2"

There is no such thing as an identity to R1b1a2. M269 and V88, and so on, are the identities. The R1b1a2 part is the position. It's code for where the mutation falls within R. That is why new mutations like E-V38 can demote E-M2 from E1b1a to E1b1a1. That extra 1 behind it signifies a specific position that helps haplogroup enthusiasts visualize or illustrate the position of E-M2 relative to other mutations.

"not resolved by year"

It is not the New Year's transition that changes the R1b tree. It's work on the R1b tree by geneticists (and hobbyists) that changes the Y-DNA tree. And yes, sometimes geneticists still use dated nomenclature like E3b (which is now E1b1b). That doesn't mean organizations like ISOGG weren't set up for people to keep track of the changes.

---

R1b1b

are clades descendant of P297 including M269
the most common paternal clade in Europe

___________________________

R1b1a

"a" at the end is V88, highest frequencies in Cameroon

M269 is not descendant of that branch
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Are you listening?

In the last decade V88 has been called everything from R1b* to R*, to R1b1* to R1b1c. In light of that, how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?

Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.

From R1b's wiki:

quote:

---

R1b1a1a2 (R-M269) was previously R1b1a2, From 2003 to 2005, what is now R1b1a2 was designated R1b3. From 2005 to 2008, it was R1b1c. From 2008 to 2011, it was R1b1b2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Are you listening?

In the last decade V88 has been called everything from R1b* to R*, to R1b1* to R1b1c. In light of that, how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?

Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.

From R1b's wiki:

quote:

---

R1b1a1a2 (R-M269) was previously R1b1a2, From 2003 to 2005, what is now R1b1a2 was designated R1b3. From 2005 to 2008, it was R1b1c. From 2008 to 2011, it was R1b1b2.

---

^Even these longhand designations may be dated now in 2020.

Anyway, the most important thing is you now know how to research Tut's haplogroup. That was why I commented.

---

do you see an problem with this that came out on 2011
and if so what problem?

do you see an problem with this being as is until now?

Setting aside the sketchy way they attained the information, assume the allele numbers that show here are correct, any problem with this?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
As far as the reuters/iGENEA difference, it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. The wiki quote says R1b1a2 was M269 in the mid-2000s and later became associated with V88.

So, it's only a matter of what convention was used, the older or newer. That's why you go to ISOGG tables and look up what the convention was, in the year of the iGENEA publication talking about R1b1a2. It turns out they were using the longhand where R1b1a2 stands for M269. It was dated then, but they still used it. It's not incorrect, but it does give us more work in figuring out what they were doing.

The problem comes from how iGENEA knows R1b returned by Y-STR calculator is necessarily M269. If the calculator said R1b, then you can't spin that into M269, unless they know more than they are letting on.
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I basically believe that even if no further data became available genetically we should be able to model ancient North African populations as a cline geographically and temporally between Africa and the Levant. Meaning there should be shared lineages between North Africa and the Levant and temporally the cline would skew more towards Africa as the source of said clinal relationships the further you go back and as you come forward in time the cline would skew to the Levant as the origin of more lineages but there still would be echoes of the previous lineages mixed in as well and some that may no longer be detectable. Disentangling what was where when is a good exercise in determining the accuracy and validity of genetic modelling based on extant populations, but beyond that this shouldn't be an either or scenario. North Africa and the Nile are historic corridors of migration between Africa and the Mediterranean and vice versa and most people aren't in disagreement with that for the most part. Historical baggage around the population origin of the ancient people of Kemet aside, this really shouldn't be as complex as some folks make it out to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.

---

I agree! With every genetic study the "black genetic blogsphere" (greatphrase) comes with these WILD baselss theories that essentially hinge on the racialiszation of haplogroups. It's utterly ridiculous.

Linguistics - Black African languages(Bantu mostly)

Anthropology - A wide range of Black African variability with some having overlapping features with non Africans whom descend from them (gee I wonder why genetics would not say the same thing).

Archaeology - Keita makes it clear that there is NO EVIDENCE of a dynastic race theory, and they were thus indigenous Africans

Genetics - The baby of the group that suffers horribly from coded racialized ideology. Nothing found yet has presented any sort of narrative based on any consistency in results.

Culture - We already know from other threads that the culture was closely related to Bantoid populations.



King Tut was found to be R1b V-88, and the highest concentration of this is found in Central West Africa;



Are there any racial implications of his maternal haplogroup K? Since some of you went right into this notion that these carriers and women of black African descent are mutual exclusive then please provide a phenotype of those people associated with the haplogroup (since that is what you all are low key trying to emphasize), since we can assume that these were not simply black African people living in the neighboring Levant). What I'm getting at is....genetics which has nothing to do with race being inserted into a conversation that has EVERYTHING to do with race is completely asinine.

If a white devaluer were to come and say see the ancient Egyptians were not black, BECAUSE they have this and that haplogroup who is so DUMB that they would allow them to slide with equating race with haplogroups? That's what you want us to fear right? Giving the Devaluers ammo to deny ancient Kemet's blackness?

Anyway what does this haplogroup's identification have to do with the other peer reviewed findings that they were most closely related to Super Saharan Africans?



Like what in the Hell are we arguing here?




In my opinion for what it's worth...there is a conspiracy to switch the goal post to genetics, because the white boys were getting their backs blown out in these debates by black scholars in the 1990's using all of the other forms of evidence. When people on this board completely disregard that white people are obsessed WITH LYING about this particular subject, and take everything that they put out at face value....you have to be complicit in the fukkery! The race of the Kemites is NOT up for debate, so this BIG BANAZA every time some BS is pushed out is an online minstrel show.
 

---

Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
 
Can we please get BACK on track and focus on addressing the DATA at hand or I'll start taking action. Jesus Christ can people please stay on topic?
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Thank you, Askia.
 

---

Posted by HeartofAfrica (Member # 23268) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


King Tut was found to be R1b V-88, and the highest concentration of this is found in Central West Africa;

---

The new article is in preprint stage , not published yet in a final version, they said R1b but have not yet indicated V88 (and I read the whole things to check)

______________________


Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

"It says The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b
that was passed from
the grandparent [Amenhotep III]
to the father [KV55, Akhenaten]
to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]...


The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K,
extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye]
to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55)."

_____________________________

That is three kings,

Amenhotep III

Akhenaten

Tutankhamen

It says R1b but has not yet specified the clade of R1b

Here we have Amenhotep III




and it seems probable that the clade V88 of R1b might be the clade since some of the the Siwa in Egypt carry that clade as well as haplogroup K found in the maternal line of these kings. Note that in Cameroon with some very high frequencies of R1b-V88 the maternal side is L not K as in some of the Siwas
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
This study here has a few hundred STR profiles from populations in the Lake Chad Basin. Many or which are V88 no doubt.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/9/2491/1008437

'Someone' could take a look at the supplemental.....run some of the V88 STR results through Whit Athey, Nevgen, or other predictors and see if it differentiates "V88" from a generic "R1b".

Again, someone can do it, but not me.
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.

---

Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.

Of course you are open to address the questions I asked in the thread earlier, if you think observation of relevant available genetic data not just in A.Egypt is "anxiety".

@Tukuler I find it weird that I have to expand on my points to facilitate responses to open ended questions. I don't think my point should even matter if you have an answer, especially if I'm wrong on the matter. Nonetheless I guess I should clarify, because I'm seeing things about one drop rules to people of the Levant forming Egypt, when none of that is even relevant nor my point.

Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.

Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.

It's just me making sense of what we have available genetically. This has nothing to do with me wanting anything. And at this point this has nothing to do with the culture or the people responsible for forming A.Egypt. I'm specifically theorizing about the Authenticity and role that ACTUAL near Eastern ancestry played in the region Starting with Thuya. It needs to be addressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.
[...]
Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.

Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.
[...]

---

It certainly is anxiety. The kind of anxiety induced from adopting the shabby approach of the largely White genetic blogosphere, who have declared traditional historical and archaeological data and scholarship as outdated.

What on earth is so remarkable about a royal from the 18th dynasty having a haplogroup that is not typically SSA? Do we not already know that this 18th dynasty mummy is like two generations removed from the Hyksos period?

Are you really arguing that some random K haplogroup from the Bronze Age is better explained by a mass Israeli migration in the neolithic period into the Nile Valley (for which there is not a scrap of evidence) than by the well-documented intermarriage of Asiatics into Egypt from since the end of the Middle Kingdom period to the end of the Second Intermediate period?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

Something interesting I have found>

https://isogg.org/wiki/Famous_DNA:Celebrities#The_Rothschilds

Chris Rock belongs to B2a1.
He is paternally descended from the Uldeme (Ouldeme) people of Cameroon.
Interestingly if you look at the above Cruciani only 5% of Ouldeme were not B2a1. The rest were R-V88

But wikipedia also reports


Haplogroup B2a1a1a1 (M109, M152, P32), previously B2a1a is the most commonly observed subclade of haplogroup B.


5% (1/21) to 31% (4/13) of Uldeme males from northern Cameroon,

Haplogroup B2a1a1a1 Y-DNA has been found in 12.5% (5/40) of Sudanese and 2% (2/92) of Egyptians.

In Eurasia, B2a1a1a1 (B-M109) has been found in 3% (3/117) of a sample of Iranians from southern Iran and 2% (2/88) of a sample from Pakistan and India.

(and other places in Africa see wiki hap B Ydna)
______________________________________

another article as they mention 31% B2a1 in Ouldeme but their sample size was significantly lower than the Cruciani

Another group, the Adamawa in Northern Cameroon also carries hap B at 12.5%

The interesting thing about this is again the Siwa who carry R-V88 at 26.9% also carry B2a1 at 28%

but you don't see the mtDNA K in Cameroon but you do in Siwa and with these 18th dynasty kings


 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 



[QUOTE] The frequency of R1 among AAs in North America is similar to the frequency of this Y-chromosome in Haiti and Jamaica. Simms(6) observed that R1 clades in the Caribbean can be divided into R+, R1b (M269 ,V88) and RM306 (R (xRla-M20 and R1a-M420). Haitians carry 14.6% M269, and the Jamaicans carry 13.2% of the same clade . In relation to R-V88 Haitians carry 4.9% of the clade and Jamaicans carry 3.8% R-V88.

The frequency of M269 and V88 in the Caribbean and North America, are strikingly similar to those found along the Guinea coast where many AA slaves originated (5, 7).This view is supported by the reality that AA slaves include Hausa, Fula, and other tribal backgrounds that carried R1. Whereas, in Western and Central Africa and beyond we find V88 as the predominant R clade, RM269 is also found in high frequencies (5,7-10).
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Kinda busy right now but no I don't and have no idea where you get me holding this readily provable false view?

quote:

---

'Stro said:
Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley

---

quote:

---

Swenet explained:
how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?

---

Why ppl are using decade old Cruciani when his latest
is D'Atanasio et al (2018) already introduced.

from http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=3#000110



Also for years trying to make beginners
understand the correct way to name a
MSY haplogroup is by mutation which
is permanent unlike that antiquated
alphanumeric chameleon merry-go-round.

=-=

and that's why I'd caution Beyoku & ES, as I did
years ago, against the Whit Athey indicator which
who knows if it's keeping up to date with the never
from year to year consistent alphanumeric system.
Is it updated? Can't tell because no release date
or version number.

STR prediction of haplogroup is only resorted to
for lack of the actual defining SNP mutations.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
There is a difference between genetic mixture and a genetic transplant. All populations have genetic mixture to some degree with other populations. That is normal. But a genetic transplant goes way beyond mixture and implies wholesale population replacement. They literally exist on two opposite ends of the spectrum. Again, many AAs have genetic mixture with non Africans going back hundreds of years. Nobody in their right minds would call them Eurasian transplants.

There should be some mixture in the Nile Valley in ancient times. That is not really a debate. The question is whether the mixture at any point in time represents ancient shared ancestry between the Nile and Levant, or specific episodes of migration/interaction from the Levant or wholesale population replacement. The first and second scenario is the most common scenario in Nile Valley history. The last scenario is the one that is being pushed by academia. That last scenario is not even science.

Just randomly inserting Levantine Weavers or Hyksos into the Nile Valley also does not imply population replacement either as opposed to some level of mixture. But again, it is the whole reverse one drop rule where just a few Hyksos or Levantine weavers is enough to signal population replacement/transplantation across the entire Nile Valley. That is the problem I see.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Lioness Why would any of those paternal haplogroups should be linked with K1a? M150 raw most likely precedes the other Haplogroups in the region, M109 was thought of as a bantu marker. The most relevant way to tie B2a1 and V88 demographic history is through the Central Sahara or sahel, where they both could have radiated from at the same time into Egypt and later into the GGP basin and south central Africa, during the aridification of the Sahara.

@Tukuler for clarity my assumption was that you believed A.Egyptians upto the predynastics weren't upwards 50% putative Levantine... (That estimate is assuming continuity in the region.) That's what I was referring to with "major Levantine ancestry", If you believe the opposite then I apologize for making the assumption you didn't. That statement wasn't to set you up to disagree with. I was just prefacing my observation with context. You, dispite being one of two other people with anything meaningful to say (outside of the V88 discussion) haven't said much that I actually disagree with yet.

Also D'Antanasio used targeted NGS, to capture SNPs of R-V88, E-M2, E-M78 and A-M13. We only have access to tuts STR's for comparative purposes. What I can say about V88 is that the individuals who share the most alleles with Tut will also sit at R1b in both calculators (no V88), where as V88 would be estimated at lower confidence than R1b with Nevgen for some other individuals. In all cases there isn't enough coverage.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Not prepared to hazard % guesstimates now.

On the QT, that Marsh Man Narmer's holding
his lifebreath resembles Asiatics more so
than any on that palette. One Asiatic
ethny's name is spelled with the marsh
glyph. Iconic evidence, debatable as is
everything. Still a part less significant
when subtracted from the greater than
its summed parts whole.

Anyway, the more fleshed out disagreement
the more sharpened critical mental blades.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists. Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.

Of course you are open to address the questions I asked in the thread earlier, if you think observation of relevant available genetic data not just in A.Egypt is "anxiety".

@Tukuler I find it weird that I have to expand on my points to facilitate responses to open ended questions. I don't think my point should even matter if you have an answer, especially if I'm wrong on the matter. Nonetheless I guess I should clarify, because I'm seeing things about one drop rules to people of the Levant forming Egypt, when none of that is even relevant nor my point.

Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.

Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.

It's just me making sense of what we have available genetically. This has nothing to do with me wanting anything. And at this point this has nothing to do with the culture or the people responsible for forming A.Egypt. I'm specifically theorizing about the Authenticity and role that ACTUAL near Eastern ancestry played in the region Starting with Thuya. It needs to be addressed. It certainly is anxiety. The kind of anxiety induced from adopting the shabby approach of the largely White genetic blogosphere, who have declared traditional historical and archaeological data and scholarship as outdated.

What on earth is so remarkable about a royal from the 18th dynasty having a haplogroup that is not typically SSA? Do we not already know that this 18th dynasty mummy is like two generations removed from the Hyksos period?

Are you really arguing that some random K haplogroup from the Bronze Age is better explained by a mass Israeli migration in the neolithic period into the Nile Valley (for which there is not a scrap of evidence) than by the well-documented intermarriage of Asiatics into Egypt from since the end of the Middle Kingdom period to the end of the Second Intermediate period?

---

quote:

---

Abstract

Genetic diversity across human populations has been shaped by demographic history, making it possible to infer past demographic events from extant genomes. However, demographic inference in the ancient past is difficult, particularly around the out-of-Africa event in the Late Middle Paleolithic, a period of profound importance to our species’ history. Here we present SMCSMC, a Bayesian method for inference of time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates under the coalescent-with-recombination model, to study ancient demographic events. We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages. This event accounts for previously unexplained genetic diversity in African populations, and supports the existence of novel population substructure in the Late Middle Paleolithic. Our results indicate that our species’ demographic history around the out-of-Africa event is more complex than previously appreciated.

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1.full.pdf

Keep in mind the only populations on the planet for the most part 40 thousand years ago were people of African descent in some shape or form..... but hey why spoil the milk with facts?
 

---

Posted by Rain King (Member # 23236) on :
 
So again...


This finds that their genetic affinity is almost entirely SSA, which is consistent with their entire family. Does the revelations of their haplogroups render this null and void?
 

---

Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
^^ Actually it kinda supports it.

If it is V88 and K1a they would have one interesting thing in common. They would both be branches that are more frequent in SSA yet less frequent in North Africa and Europe within haplogroups that are more frequent in North Africa and Europe than SSA.



This is a small sample size because I'm comparing 4% of of 50 Neolithic SSAs to thousands of people sampled in Caucus mts. But still 4% beats 2.2 and the 2.2 didn't have to compete with the family tree.
 

---

Posted by Rain King (Member # 23236) on :
 
The cranial evidence of Tut implies that he was not entirely "Bantoid" (i.e. "True Negroid in old terminology), but has a distinct indigenous black African component that has been mislabeled as Caucasoid (per the reconstruction of his skull by the Susan lady who was emailed by someone on this forum last decade). Nilotic Africans have been described by Europeans as having "Caucasoid" and even "old European" crania.


We've seen from some DNA analysis (Beyoku can attest from Forum Biodiversity years ago) that Nilotic Africans ALSO have a somewhat intermediate positioning between Africans and non Africans (not just Cushitic East Africans). Per DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.



Not to mention that Tut's family came from the South per their tropical/"Super Negroid" limb proportions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483801419

How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins? Do y'all really understand the established facts that would have to be thrown out, with the black genetic blogsphere's interpretation of "new genetic evidence"? Again only a dumb arse will actually use this information to imply that Tut and his family were anything, but of black African ancestry.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483801419

How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins?

---

you have a link to

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483801419

The Physical Proportions and Living Stature
of New Kingdom Pharaohs
G.Robins, C.C.D.Shute

1983

Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the
Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus,
have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th
dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature
that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively
short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like
those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics,

To conform with usual anthropometric practice and with the procedures
adopted by Trotter & Gleser (1958)


_________________________________

What they are using is a comparison of "whites" and "blacks" as per this well known 1952 and 1958 articles Trotter and Glesser

A re-evaluation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life
and of long bones after death.
M TROTTER, G C GLESER 1958
PMID: 13571400 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330160106


Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes†‡
Mildred Trotter Goldine C. Gleser
First published: December 1952

The military persorinel were drawn from American World
War I1 casualties in the Pacific zone. The remains were
brought by the American Graves Registration Service to
Hawaii for preparation for final burial at which time the long
bones were measured.

The Terry Skeletal Collection is composed of complete
skeletons of American White and Negro cadavers which had
been assigned to the medical school for scientific study. The
collection is well documented with respect to race, sex and age....
The subjects of the Terry Collection were all complete and of
the military personnel, 568 White males and 55 Negro males
were complete.

_______________________________________________


The yardstick they are using are limb ratios of of the remains white and black soldiers in World War II.
However this does not cover many other types.
Only a minority of them are Southern European.

So you cannot look at a collection like this (which has been used over and over again in various studies) and conclude that certain limb ratios are "evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins" although it's probably fair to conclude that the average white American is less similar in limb ratios to Thutmose III but the average black American does have similar limb ratios.

The largest ancestries of American whites are: German (17%), Irish (12%), English (9%), Italian (6%), French (4%), Polish (3%), Scottish (3%), Scotch-Irish (2%), Dutch (2%), Norwegian (2%) and Swedish (1%).

This means less than 6% of American whites are South European



Look at this area, in proximity or similar latitude to North Africa there's the

Levant

Iraq

Iran

Arabian peninsula

Southern Europe

Southern Turkey



I have never been able to find limb ratio data pertaining specifically to these areas and there probably is little or none.
These areas don't get mentioned in these limb ratio articles

and does limb ratio = race anyway?

There's is a new article coming out. It is talking about a few of the Amarna kings being R1b but they haven't specified yet which clade
and also haplogroup K
This is what we are delaing with in the topic. These haplogroups aren't "race" either. We can look at the complexity of these things and not even consider "race". Genetics is bringing an new paradigm. It could still be used in a bad way but it reveals things that don't fit into and older paradigm of looking at things in black and white
If you look at reality "black and white" is actually a spectrum that includes everything in between.
Look at a region like Arabia for instance "black or white" is too simplistic in may cases to try to fit man of it's people into
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Beyoku
Nevgen (web browser) attempts to assign some of them to V88 with lower confidence than general R1b. The desktop/batch version ofcourse, is inferior. Here's is all 154 unique STR calls per population for that study in the correct FTDNA order. Anyone can go to town and copy and paste these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.
[...]
Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.

Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.
[...]

---

It certainly is anxiety. The kind of anxiety induced from adopting the shabby approach of the largely White genetic blogosphere, who have declared traditional historical and archaeological data and scholarship as outdated.

What on earth is so remarkable about a royal from the 18th dynasty having a haplogroup that is not typically SSA? Do we not already know that this 18th dynasty mummy is like two generations removed from the Hyksos period?

Are you really arguing that some random K haplogroup from the Bronze Age is better explained by a mass Israeli migration in the neolithic period into the Nile Valley (for which there is not a scrap of evidence) than by the well-documented intermarriage of Asiatics into Egypt from since the end of the Middle Kingdom period to the end of the Second Intermediate period?

---

the issue is well stated... address it. Don't ask me irrelevant questions. I've not the patience.

---

quote:

---

.........

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin.

---

Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 
R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.

quote:

---

It wasn’t until 1972 that most or all of the photographs of the mummy, including its head, were published in a scholarly study by F. Filce Leek, part of the Griffith Institute’s Tutankhamun’s Tomb monograph series. That included the left profile above, where masking tape was applied to the negative before printing – again, to remove the paintbrush handle.

These different stagings of the head of Tutankhamun’s mummy matter, likewise the way the photographs did or didn’t circulate, or what adaptations were deemed necessary to make them presentable for publication. Clearly, that paintbrush handle was deemed inappropriate in some way in the 1960s – just as in the 1920s and 1930s, when Carter was still writing about the tomb, he must have deemed it inappropriate to show that second set of photographs at all.

And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones (to use the most common terms deployed in late 19th-/early 20th-century archaeology). ‘The face is refined and cultured’, so the Illustrated London News reported in its 3 July 1926 edition, almost certainly closely paraphrasing or directly quoting Carter. Placed underneath the cloth-wrapped left profile (the first photo I showed above), text and picture together made it clear enough to the paper’s middle-class readers that Tutankhamun was an ancient Egyptian of more Arab, Turkish, or even European appearance than sub-saharan African. The mummy’s sunken cheekbones seem high and sharp, and the crushed nose in profile looks high-bridged and narrow.

What really interests me here, though, is what we don’t see, because we still take such photographs, and drawings, and CT-scans, and 3D reconstructions, for granted: images like these have race science at their very heart, going right back to the 18th century.^^ So when I see a photograph like this – and there are thousands of them in the annals of archaeology – I don’t see Tutankhamun, and I certainly don’t see anything refined or cultured about mummified heads. I see the extent to which the doing of race had worked its way into pretty much every corner of archaeology, especially in the archaeology of colonized and contentious lands like Egypt. Why take these photographs? I assume that in 1925, it was inconceivable not to, just as it was inconceivable not to unwrap the mummy, not to take anatomical measurements, and not to detach the head from the body and pry it out of the mask.

---

quote:

---

The present author has been informed that the R1*-M173 chromosomes in Cameroon appear to be one-step neighbors to those found in the Nile Valley. Perhaps, learning about the distance between Cameroonian R1* lineages and those detected in Omani and Jordanian samples would prove instructive, but at the least, it appears that the Nile Valley corridor played a role in the demic diffusion of R1*-M173. From Flores et al., the present author gets the sense that it is certainly plausible that R1*-M173 bearers diffused from Africa into the Levant via the Nile Valley corridor, likely sometime in the Upper Paleolithic. From Flores et al. we have :

---

quote:

---

his plausibility [of said northeastern Africa-to-Levantine passage] is suggested by the support provided by the fact that these chromosomes appear relatively more common in Africa, particularly in Cameroon, and other genetic indicators as that provided by the authors above, exemplified by the distribution and frequency pattern of the African-specific G6PD-A allele on the X-chromosomes of Jordanian sampl es in association with that of the distribution and frequency pattern of R1*-M173.

---

quote:

---

As a matter of note, the A- variant has a much lower intra-allelic diversity than the A+ variant. In any case, each of these markers show clear post-OOA emigration connections between African groups and the Dead Sea community from which Flores et al.'s (2005) sample set came.

---

quote:

---

Hassan et al. 2008, Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history.

Remarks: The R1-M173 [~ 54%] chromosomes of the Sudanese communities of nomadic Fulani pastoralists, not inconsistent with that found in some west African Fulani [esp. in northern Cameroon], is one area of noteworthy, with regards to Hassan et al.2008. These R1 markers are highly likely those familiar undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes found in Cameroon, and yes, Egypt as well. Of course, as noted in the study, these Sudanese Fulani retain their Niger-congo sub-phylum language.

---

quote:

---

interestingly, upon revisiting Wood et al. (2005), it should be pointed out that paraphyletic clade of R*-M207 was detected amongst some "Afro-Asiatic" African groups, along with the paraphyletic clade R1*-M173 [it is worth noting that Wood et al. implicate the Egyptian sample here as something other than that of Semitic speakers (Arabic)], while some Niger-Congo groups — though in small frequencies [pooled] — tested positive for the paraphyletic R1b*, lacking the established downstream R1b markers. Henceforth, R*-M207, lacking downstream mutations have been identified in African groups via this study; and yes, the basic nodes of all presently known Hg R's downstream clades had been accounted for, which means that R*, as predicted above, is NOT relegated to the Indian sub-continent. All in all, this suggests that African Hg R pool is actually more diverse than many seem to think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin.

---

Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones

---

https://photographing-tutankhamun.com/blog/page/2/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin.

---

Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!

---

If you don't know why I used the term just ask. Otherwise stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones

---

https://photographing-tutankhamun.com/blog/page/2/

---

Yes they look like so many of the photos of Ethiopians and Somalis from periods of famine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Swenet explained:
how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?

---

Why ppl are using decade old Cruciani when his latest
is D'Atanasio et al (2018) already introduced.

from http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=3#000110
https://i.postimg.cc/XqsVCLhj/D-Atanasio-ST5-R-V88-redux.png
https://i.postimg.cc/6pjHTmhj/D-Atanasio-R-V88-E-X-P.png

Also for years trying to make beginners
understand the correct way to name a
MSY haplogroup is by mutation which
is permanent unlike that antiquated
alphanumeric chameleon merry-go-round.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin.

---

Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!

---

If you don't know why I used the term just ask. Otherwise stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones

---

https://photographing-tutankhamun.com/blog/page/2/

---

Yes they look like so many of the photos of Ethiopians and Somalis from periods of famine.

---

I know exactly what I'm talking about, the one-drop rule is a BS construct from the USA. The thing is, that Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with the USA, its history and culture. So you can't apply the USA one drop rule to determine the "blackness" or "whiteness" of ancient Egyptians.

Besides, many years ago I wrote on ES that Egyptians, especially the Copts are more or less the direct descendants of AE. Many here rejected my claim. However, it appears that my assumption is validated by the genetic study on Ancient Egyptians. Anyway, as I already said, we can only speculate about the ethnicity of King Tut and discuss probabilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
[QB] R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.

---

quote:

---

What they left out was that this clade was R1b1a2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
From R1b's wiki:

quote:

---

R1b1a1a2 (R-M269) was previously R1b1a2, From 2003 to 2005, what is now R1b1a2 was designated R1b3. From 2005 to 2008, it was R1b1c. From 2008 to 2011, it was R1b1b2.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
As far as the reuters/iGENEA difference, it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. The wiki quote says R1b1a2 was M269 in the mid-2000s and later became associated with V88.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

What they left out was that this clade was R1b1a2

---

They didn't leave anything out. R1b1a2 was R-M269 in the 2000s. It only became associated with V88 later, and is likely to change again to something else. So when iGENEA talks about R1b1a2 in 2010 and say it's R-M269, there is no trickery on their part for not identifying it as R-V88. Using nomenclature that is out of fashion is not trickery or a matter of correct/incorrect. It's just out of fashion.

Why is it so hard for you to understand?

---

2011

In August of 2011 iGENEA said Tut's DNA was M269 and citing R1b1a2

They still say today in 2020 >

"In the current project we search for the closest living relative of Tutankhamuns male lineage in Europe. To take part in the Tutankhamun DNA project order one of the following tests. If your profile matches Tutankhamuns in all 16 markers we refund your payment and you receive a further DNA test as an upgrade for free.


The haplogroup R-M269 arose about 9.500 years ago in the surrounding area of the Black Sea. "

https://www.igenea.us/en/tutankhamun
______________________________________________________________


yet....


2010

Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani

V88 defines a new monophyletic clade (R-V88 or R1b1a), which includes haplogroups

R-M18 (R1b1a1, formerly R1b1a),

R-V8 (R1b1a2),

R-V35 (R1b1a3, further subdivided by the V7 mutation to R1b1a3* and R1b1a3a), and R-V69 (R1b1a4) (Figure 1).
__________________________________________

2010


 

---

Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.

At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.

I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King:

DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.

---

quote:

---

DNAtribes was a private DNA testing company. Their matching system was their own not standardized testing methods in scientific journal articles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483801419

How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins?

---

quote:

---

The yardstick they are using are limb ratios of of the remains white and black soldiers in World War II.
However this does not cover many other types.
No Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European and only a minority of them are Southern European.

---

What is in the Hell is a "Levantine". You're trying to assign legitimacy of these labels on these people based on contemporary geographic assumptions! From what we KNOW from anthropological studies these people (non black people on this Earth) in these particular lands (the Levant/Middle East) that they have only been in for less than 5,000 years.



In layman's term the "Levant" was comprised of black people from Africa, with osteological affinities closely tied to "Niger-Congo speaking" populations (per Ricaut). Until around 2,000 BC, white people from God knows where came into area. When they moved into the area they mullatocized the population. We have NEVER been dealing with a pure element in the Levant for this be considered anything but a product of miscegenation today. If these misceginated people have clinal affinities towards one end of their ancestry then another then that needs to be discerned. Now if you want to put that into historical context then do, so (even though it's already been done).

quote:

---

So you cannot look at a collection like this (which has been used over and over again in various studies) and conclude that certain limb ratios are "evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins" although it's probably fair to conclude that the average white American is less similar in limb ratios to Thutmose III but the average black American does have similar limb ratios.

---

quote:

---

The largest ancestries of American whites are: German (17%), Irish (12%), English (9%), Italian (6%), French (4%), Polish (3%), Scottish (3%), Scotch-Irish (2%), Dutch (2%), Norwegian (2%) and Swedish (1%).

This means less than 6% of American whites are South European




I have never been able to find limb ratio data pertaining specifically to these areas and there probably is little or none.

---

quote:

---

and does limb ratio = race anyway?

---

quote:

---

These haplogroups aren't "race" either. We can look at the complexity of these things and not even consider "race". Genetics is bringing an new paradigm. It could still be used in a bad way but it reveals things that don't fit into and older paradigm of looking at things in black and white

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@lioness

Yes, that is what you have to do. Use ISOGG and work with convention in mind.

What that means, is that when you talk about R1b1a2 and relate it to V88, you have to avoid creating the impression that V88 has always been and will be linked to R1b1a2, and that iGENEA are pulling a fast one for not realizing this.

Don't get it mistaken. When wiki says V88 is R1b1a2, it's also just provisional. Do not think that because you benefit from a more updated R1b tree, that R-V88 = R1b1a2 is settled and that it's only iGENEA that is behind. This is also why I say it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. A lot is subject to change even today, and no one is going to go back to their old posts and update dated haplogroup nomenclature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

What is in the Hell is a "Levantine"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

You're talking as though you are not aware of the countless other limb proportion studies on the matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@lioness

Yes, that is what you have to do. Use ISOGG and work with convention in mind.

What that means, is that when you talk about R1b1a2 and relate it to V88, you have to avoid creating the impression that V88 has always been and will be linked to R1b1a2, and that iGENEA are pulling a fast one for not realizing this.

Don't get it mistaken. When wiki says V88 is R1b1a2, it's also just provisional. Do not think that because you benefit from a more updated R1b tree, that R-V88 = R1b1a2 is settled and that it's only iGENEA that is behind. This is also why I say it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. A lot is subject to change even today, and no one is going to go back to their old posts and update dated haplogroup nomenclature.

---

what do you think of in 2020 iGENEA saying Tutankhamun's DNA is M269?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

What is in the Hell is a "Levantine"

---

Cyprus
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
Syria

= the Levant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European

---

quote:

---

False<
Levantines are not primarily Western European

---

quote:

---

and one of their signature haplogroups is YDNA J
believed to have originated 42,900 years ago

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

You're talking as though you are not aware of the countless other limb proportion studies on the matter?

---

quote:

---

Stop trying to bluff me. Let us know when you find any data on limb proportions of any of the following

Levant

Iraq

Iran

Arabian peninsula

Southern Europe

Southern Turkey

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

What is in the Hell is a "Levantine"

---

Cyprus
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
Syria

= the Levant

---

I did not ask for a political map! I was referring to a genetic entity that is "Levantine". Why were "Levantines" nor contemporary North Africans for that matter not represented as having their own unique genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009? Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination, and nothing more. Why would we use misceginated people as a yard stick of biological affinity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European

---

quote:

---

False<
Levantines are not primarily Western European

---

You are quoting and refuting YOURSELF. Please pay attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

The ancient Kemites including King Tut's family overlapped with the Africans nor the "spicy whites" of the adjacent regions.

That being said....Again his family came from the Tropics, and thus could not have been the result of cold or intermediately plotted "Asiatic" concubines.

---

More racists talk of concubines, you must be an adherent of multi-regionalism




As per limb ratios in the new article the limb ratios of people in this map have not been compared in studies all that can be said is that limb ratios of of white Americans are not in their range however genetically they are R1b as re these kings

three kings,

Amenhotep III

Akhenaten

Tutankhamen

and

Thuya

KV35 Elder lady

Queen Tiye

KV35 Younger lady


he maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K,





Haplogroup K appears in Central Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, South Asia and West Asia and in populations with such an ancestry.

Haplogroup K is found in approximately 10% of native Europeans.[5][6]

Overall the mtDNA haplogroup K is found in about 6% of the population of Europe and the Near East, but it is more common in certain of these populations. Approximately 16% of the Druze of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, belong to haplogroup K.[7] It is also found among 8% of Palestinians.[8] Additionally, K reaches a level of 17% in Kurdistan.[9]

Approximately 32% of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are in haplogroup K. This high percentage points to a genetic bottleneck occurring some 100 generations ago.[7] Ashkenazi mtDNA K clusters into three subclades seldom found in non-Jews: K1a1b1a, K1a9, and K2a2a. Thus it is possible to detect three individual female ancestors, who were thought to be from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe.[10] A 2013 study however suggests these clades to instead originate from Western Europe.[11]

K appears to be highest in the Morbihan (17.5%) and Périgord-Limousin (15.3%) regions of France, and in Norway and Bulgaria (13.3%).[12] The level is 12.5% in Belgium, 11% in Georgia and 10% in Austria and Great Britain.[9]

Haplogroup K is also found among Gurage (10%),[8] Syrians (9.1%),[8] Afar (6.3%),[8] Zenata Berbers (4.11%),[13] Reguibate Sahrawi (3.70%),[13] Oromo (3.3%),[8] Iraqis (2.4%),[8] Saudis (0%-10.5%),[8] Yemenis (0%-9.8%),[8] and Algerians (0%-4.3%).[13]

Mtdna K was found in 0.9% of Beijing Han in a group of sampling.
 

---

Posted by Rain King (Member # 23236) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

What is in the Hell is a "Levantine"

---

Cyprus
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
Syria

= the Levant

---

I did not ask for a political map! I was referring to a genetic entity that is "Levantine". Why were "Levantines" nor contemporary North Africans for that matter not represented as having their own unique genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009? Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination, and nothing more. Why would we use misceginated people as a yard stick of biological affinity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European

---

quote:

---

False<
Levantines are not primarily Western European

---

You are quoting and refuting YOURSELF. Please pay attention.

---

No I'm quoting you who say Levantines are primarily Western European and pointing out that is wrong,
Levantines are not primarily Western European. The predominant clade in the Levant is haplogroup J and no geneticist says Levantines are primarily Western European. That haplogroup has been in that region at high diversity to over 40,000 yeas and is still carried by people there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination

---

quote:

---

Miscegenation is an obsolete racist term.
I we look at peoples who have lived near to the equator they are generally darker than people who have lived for long periods further from the equator.

---

Proximity to the equator is a theory of skin pigment gradient. The heavily pigmented Eskimos, and the black skinned Native Americans of the West Coast do not live in nor are they adapted to the "Tropics", but their skin is still black.

quote:

---

This means that while some people who are in between darkest and lightest brown are mixed others of the same color are not mixed, they are simply people who live in countries like countries north of Africa yet not that far North and again the places I am talking about is not only the Levant

---

quote:

---

India and some other places could be added. These are places not represented in limb ratios studies.

---

quote:

---

A lot of science articles use the same specimens over and over again

---

quote:

---

Some brown skinned people are mixed others are not unless you believe in multi-regionalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

The ancient Kemites including King Tut's family overlapped with the Africans nor the "spicy whites" of the adjacent regions.

That being said....Again his family came from the Tropics, and thus could not have been the result of cold or intermediately plotted "Asiatic" concubines.

---

quote:

---

More racists talk of concubines, you must be an adherent of multi-regionalism

---

quote:

---

As per limb ratios in the new article the limb ratios of people in this map have not been compared in studies

---

quote:

---

all that can be said is that limb ratios of of white Americans are not in their range however genetically they are R1b as re these kings

---

Why in the Hell are you going clear across the Mediterranean to Western Europeans for the relation of R1b, when we find that the HIGHEST FREQUENCY of R1b ON EARTH in currently in Sub Saharan West-Central Africa?



You know what's interesting about this finding.....Dr. Clyde Winters has often stated that R1b in the Native Americans (whom many were migrating Africans from Hapi Valley civilization) CAME FROM West African V88. That is interesting. Now this finding that King Tut is R1b (in all likelihood V88) becomes interesting as it pertains to the Americas, and here's why;

" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .



Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US). Perhaps the R1b (presumably V88) in Tut was one of the primary African lineages that left the Hapi Valley following pale Eurasian incursion of the 6th century BC.
 

---

Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
 
They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .



Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .



Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).

---

this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139

this isht

is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:



Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in
East Coast American Indians,
the Himalayas,
Northeast Europe and
scattered other populations,
including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139

this isht

is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

But it's NOT...see:

" “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt

Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.

Anyway yeah. That remnants in the "Native Americans" (which Foundational Black Americans are actually) is that shared V88 that also runs through our veins (including Tut). [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt[/i]

Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.

---

Again, poor research skills Gourdine and Keita list their references at the bottom of the page. DNA Consultants and DNA Tribes are not listed.
Their table is derived from the Hawass article and it says so right next to the table they made. DNA tribes and their articles no longer even exist while research articles in peer reviewed medical journals last forever if published. And DNA Consultants are a lot more lacking than DNA Tribes.
Academics like Gourdine and Keita will not reference or use private testing companies claims, companies who do not use standard testing methods and don't detail the methods they do use.
That is essential in scientifically credible research so that other researchers can replicate the method to verify if they get the same result


https://www.academia.edu/43955341/Ankh_n_28_29_JP_JL_Gourdine_SOY_Keita_A_Anselin_Ancient_Egyptian_genomes_pp



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...

quote:

---

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa
1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1
, Safaa G. El-Sayed4
, Marwa A. Abdelazeem5
, Samah M.
Mahdy6
, Hend Y. Othman1
, Dina W. Ibrahim1
, Rabab Khairat2,5, Somaia Ismail2,5


The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).

For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:

Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad,
R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al. (2020) Maternal and
paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M.,
Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.) Guardian of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of
Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).

---

I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt[/i]

Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.

---

Again, poor research skills Gourdine and Keita list their references at the bottom of the page. DNA Consultants and DNA Tribes are not listed.
Their table is derived from the Hawass article and it says so right next to the table they made. DNA tribes and their articles no longer even exist while research articles in peer reviewed medical journals last forever if published. And DNA Consultants are a lot more lacking than DNA Tribes.
Academics like Gourdine and Keita will not reference or use private testing companies claims, companies who do not use standard testing methods and don't detail the methods they do use.
That is essential in scientifically credible research so that other researchers can replicate the method to verify if they get the same result


https://www.academia.edu/43955341/Ankh_n_28_29_JP_JL_Gourdine_SOY_Keita_A_Anselin_Ancient_Egyptian_genomes_pp

---

Like I SAID I KNOW PERSONALLY WHAT KEITA BASED HIS APPROACH ON THIS STUDY ON. Why do you think they used the A SIMILAR TABLE FORMAT AND THE SAME SPECIMENS AS DNATRIBES. Keita even mentioned this in his interview Ausar Imhotep silly.



DNAtribes was GROUNDBREAKING, BECAUSE IT TOLD THE TRUTH. That's WHY the owner wound up DEAD shortly after he published those GROUNDBREAKING findings. He completely upset the Western conspiracy to hide to Bantu origin and connection of ancient Kemet.
 

---

Posted by Rain King (Member # 23236) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:



Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in
East Coast American Indians,
the Himalayas,
Northeast Europe and
scattered other populations,
including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139

this isht

is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:

But it's NOT...see:

" “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt

Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.

Anyway yeah. That remnants in the "Native Americans" (which Foundational Black Americans are actually) is that shared V88 that also runs through our veins (including Tut).

---

please stop wasting my time with terrible research skills. You have a quote about Ramesses III having the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a. That comes from a Zahi Hawass article published in a medical journal BMJ and employing a team of biologists and geneticist.

---

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with the bogus DNA Consultants page that says a BS "King Tut Gene">>

---

quote:

---

"Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews."

^^this has nothing to do with E1b1a or Tutankhamun

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in
East Coast American Indians,
the Himalayas,
Northeast Europe and
scattered other populations,
including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
It has to do with R1B V88(confidently so) that King Tut is found to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
and finds it's peak in "Sub Saharan West Central Africa" NOT Europe.
It's also found in "Native Americans"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
the Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants stemming from a migratory event following the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Like I SAID I KNOW PERSONALLY WHAT KEITA BASED HIS APPROACH ON THIS STUDY ON.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:
They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...

quote:

---

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1
, Safaa G. El-Sayed4, Marwa A. Abdelazeem5
, Samah M. Mahdy6, Hend Y. Othman1
, Dina W. Ibrahim1, Rabab Khairat2,5, Somaia Ismail2,5

The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent

[Amenhotep III]

to the father

[KV55, Akhenaten]

to the grandchild

[Tutankhamen].

The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother

[Thuya]

to the grandmother

[KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye]

to the yet historically-unidentified
mother
[KV35 Younger lady]



For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:
(2020) Maternal and
paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.

Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad,
R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al.

in King Tutankhamun’s family. Guardian of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of
Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).
In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M.,
Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.)

---

I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.

---

what we have here is an article based on another article called

(2020) Maternal and
paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.

the authors of this article are Egyptians from Egyptian institutions primary author Yehia Z. Gad.

_______________________________________

Gad was also an author of the well known 2012 article:

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/62081/94716_1.pdf;jsessionid=9FCC13588AD5294E229763F968FDCE8E?sequence=1

Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study
BMJ 2012;
Zahi Hawass, egyptologist1, Somaia Ismail, professor of molecular biology23, Ashraf Selim, professor of radiology4, Sahar N Saleem, professor of radiology4, Dina Fathalla, molecular biologist3, Sally Wasef, molecular biologist5, Ahmed Z Gad, molecular biologist3, Rama Saad, molecular biologist3, Suzan Fares, molecular biologist3, Hany Amer, assistant professor of pharmacology6, Paul Gostner, radiologist7,
Yehia Z Gad, professor of molecular genetics2, Carsten M Pusch, molecular biologist8, Albert R Zink, paleopathologist9

Design Anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study of the mummies of Ramesses III and unknown man E, found together and taken from the 20th dynasty of ancient Egypt (circa 1190-1070 BC).


Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both
mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup
predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a.





_______________________________________

Since Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun are listed in this 2012 table as 93.7& and 98.9% Sub Saharan does that mean that affiliator was saying R1b-V88 is SSA ?

Also look at KV35El
that is Elder Lady believed to be Queen Tiye
That says SSA 71.9% , Eurasian (EA) 21.8%

and how would that be deriving from a person of haplogroup K in the upcoming article in 2020?

Somebody please explain to me how this is going to work because all this is Hawass team research 2012 and 2020, Yehia Z Gad et al.
I don't see consistency between what they said in 2012 and this new R1b and K designation
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
First let's get this out the way ... PERMANENTLY.
Autosomal STRs can't tell MSY nor mtDNA haplogroups.
Only SNPs correctly assign haplogroup by mutational markers.
Y chromosomal STRs estimate haplogroups by inference of occurences.
Rarely do Y STR profiles point to only one clade or haplogroup in a clade.

Unlike Amarna autosomes, Ramses&Man DYS chromosomes can predict nrY haplogroups.


=-=


Why popAffiliator isn't so good for Amarnas
and what STaRs are so good for as in popSTR.


This is an illustrative redux of Gourdine Keita Gourdine Anselin (2017)'s Armarna table by parents and children.



Here popAffiliator yields three geographic bins which are
erringly labeled ethnic groups. On top of that there are
Eurasia and Asia categories. Eurasia by definition is the
continental landmass broken down into Europe and Asia.
Are the Arabian Peninsula and the Caucasus included in
Asia or Eurasia and why? Also where does Africa that's
not SSA go? Asia or Eurasia? Too many vagaries with pA 1.


Couple #1 Thuya and Yuya made KV35EL (the elder lady Tiye).

Both parents are listed at above 93% SSA.
But the child is just ~72% SSA.

The parents are < 7% EA.
Their child a whopping ~22% EA

Where parents are practically 0% A
what issues from them is at ~6% A

22% of Thuya & Yuya's SSA became
an added 16% EA and 6% A in Tiye

How can Queen Tiye be less SSA than her mom and dad?
How can her 'Eurasian' affiliation be 20X Thuya's and Yuya's?
How can she have Asian affiliation when her mom and dad don't?

The answers of course are she isn't and doesn't.
popAffiliator is a lazy man's way for amateurs.


popSTR lists frequencies by individual ethnic groups.
There are research articles, papers, and letters that
report forensic STR values for ethnicities in regions.
No easy way to check a profile's affiliations using
those sets of data. It's hard manual work to compare
and note a particular STR allele count and match it
up with [a] corresponding ethnic group[s]. Few STRs
are specific. Frequencies showing up in ethnic groups
of regions at higher rates helps determine a test
sample's affinities.


Noting ethnicity revealing STR frequencies --forensic
application-- is much deeper than simple three poorly
defined meta regions. STR freq tables for individual
ethnic groups can tell precise components, no vague
and precision useless broad continental affinities and
affiliations where Europe, Asia, and Africa combine to
some unstated extent while Africa is sundered with
~1/3rd of her peoples subsumed elsewhere than SSA.

Professionals should compile tables of their own
that pinpoint specific ethnicities where indicated
instead of basing Amarna/Ramses critique on a tool
even a child can use.

Using popSTR and other specific ethnic/location tables
I have shown the affinites of Amarnas/Ramses down to
their current ethnic frequencies. Why haven't the pros?
I'd be glad to present algorithms for coders whenever ready.
Also application integration of pgms, DBs, and user interfaces.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
In light of previous post

Amenhotep has the same percentages as Thuya & Yuya
yet AIII's offspring from Queen Tiye has ridiculous %s.

Their son, heretic pharaoh Akhenaton, is ~58% non-SSA

Astonishingly it just so happens this popAffiliator ~58%
non-African is credited as the Father of Monotheism.

Hmmm. Just saying.




 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Lookit Thuya and her dauughter Tiye's raw STRs and pA 1 probabilities.

Just one look dispells anything like a notion of some generationally passed down
"Thuya gene" STR profile. That's that ... non-science Madison Ave Madmen ad bait patter.


 

---

Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:
[qb] They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.

---

That is stretching based on limited facts. Lower Egypt was not always "Asiatic" oriented.

---

quote:

---

And the nation was split for many reasons, not simply because of Levantine migrations.

---

quote:

---

And again, the numerous restorations of the culture came from the South, aka the Deep South and along with that came waves of Southern migration.

---

quote:

---

The point is data point about Haplogroup K is intended to push a narrative that the Nile Valley was overrun by Levantine migrants even before the rise of the Nation state and hence not genetically African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:
[qb] They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.

---

That is stretching based on limited facts. Lower Egypt was not always "Asiatic" oriented.

---

quote:

---

And the nation was split for many reasons, not simply because of Levantine migrations.

---

Nobody said there was one reason for the split, but heavy Asiatic immigration was certainly one of them.

quote:

---

And again, the numerous restorations of the culture came from the South, aka the Deep South and along with that came waves of Southern migration.

---

Doesn't change a thing I said, but okay.

quote:

---

The point is data point about Haplogroup K is intended to push a narrative that the Nile Valley was overrun by Levantine migrants even before the rise of the Nation state and hence not genetically African.

---

Even so, if indigenous deep southerners were the dominant culture, whether or not the Nile Delta and northern Valley was overrun with Levantine peoples is largely irrelevant to discussing Egypt as being originally African or as Black (which is more or less an issue involving their physical appearance).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
the data is not available

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:


Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in
East Coast American Indians,
the Himalayas,
Northeast Europe and
scattered other populations,
including Jews.

https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/

Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
It has to do with R1B V88(confidently so) that King Tut is found to be.

---

Again more terrible research.

quote:

---

1) Your source DNA Consultantes who sell tetsing kits to see if your DNA matches Tutankhamun https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/
says nothing about R1b-V88

---

You keep trying to take away from the legitimacy of the of the findings by mentioning that it's a commercial company. Go sit down with that juvenile logical fallacy.

I've already relayed the context as to why I say that it's V88 (it's African..), rather than the European version. The African V88 is extremely understudied, and we know why. Dr. Winters throughout the years has juggled you all up and down on the furkery regarding R1b in Africa and the Americas.

quote:

---

2) therefore if you guess it's V88 then when they say:

"distribution in
⁍East Coast American Indians,
⁍the Himalayas,
⁍Northeast Europe and
scattered other populations including Jews."

then you would first have to see if this distribution fits R1b-V88

---

Again we know that it's understudied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
and finds it's peak in "Sub Saharan West Central Africa" NOT Europe.
It's also found in "Native Americans"

---

R1b-V88 peaks in Cameroon

Some Sardinians carry R1b-V88 but the most common paternal haplogroup in Europe is
R1b-M269

quote:

---

Native Americans do not carry R1b-V88

---

From what has been published, but a decade ago when R1b was found in Cameroon it shifted the Eurocentric hegemony of the haplogroup. That stems back to my original point in posting in this thread. Genetic research is NEW AND HIGHLY VARIABLE. The research is just beginning. You cannot make any solid conclusions based solely on it. None the less the data is the data


We have two independent genetic sources implying that a relationship exist between the Amarna pharaohs and so called "Native Americans". It's kind of heavy that an affinity in the same region as the Olmec civilization's center exist. Is this all an accident Lioness or is this worth investigating in your eyes?



Is this fake new Lioness, OR is there a Western conspiracy to hide this connection?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
the Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants

---

you made this up?

---

No I did not Lioness. There have been entire three plus page threads showcasing the black Native Americans on this forums. Why are you playing dumb?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain King:
Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants stemming from a migratory event following the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization.

---

what was the time period of the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization of which you make this fantastical claim that migrant Africans of this civilization went to the Americas? When was this?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information.

---

quote:

---

Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic.

---

Even if it was, the academics are focused on northern Egypt or involving time periods where northerners had time to mix with many southerners to put out data about Egypt's origins. It only becomes an issue when they perpetuate the LIE that the north was equally responsible to Nile Valley culture. So they'll say "Oh no Egypt had a cline of races or mixture" without making it clear that the dominant culture was produced towards the south. Yeah there were Levanites in northern Egypt well before the predynastic. But they were culturally distinct from the south and assimilated for a better life. They weren't responsible for the culture, "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians were. I'm tired of this attitude that we have to achieve a higher standard or "proof." Many of the strongest white nations in the world today began as colonies and have from the start had plenty of non whites. Sometimes these countries would even be overwhelmingly non-white. If people don't take seriously calling them Aboriginal, Native, mixed or non white nations due to differences in power, why the hell do I have to care whether or not there were loads of Levanites in the Delta or northern valley that assimilated to Southern culture? I'm not going to be forced to care about such nonsense as it's conceding to a ridiculous double standard.

quote:

---

So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information.

---

The Egyptians said that Egypt north of Cusae was Asiatic, they didn't even consider them the same Egypt. In the absence of the genetic data, it is not unreasonable for people to consider the words of the Egyptian people. And so far what genetic evidence we do have isn't refuting what Egyptian leadership have said about the issue of immigration.

quote:

---

Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

Even if it was, the academics are focused on northern Egypt or involving time periods where northerners had time to mix with many southerners to put out data about Egypt's origins. It only becomes an issue when they perpetuate the LIE that the north was equally responsible to Nile Valley culture. So they'll say "Oh no Egypt had a cline of races or mixture" without making it clear that the dominant culture was produced towards the south. Yeah there were Levanites in northern Egypt well before the predynastic. But they were culturally distinct from the south and assimilated for a better life. They weren't responsible for the culture, "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians were. I'm tired of this attitude that we have to achieve a higher standard or "proof." Many of the strongest white nations in the world today began as colonies and have from the start had plenty of non whites. Sometimes these countries would even be overwhelmingly non-white. If people don't take seriously calling them Aboriginal, Native, mixed or non white nations due to differences in power, why the hell do I have to care whether or not there were loads of Levanites in the Delta or northern valley that assimilated to Southern culture? I'm not going to be forced to care about such nonsense as it's conceding to a ridiculous double standard.

quote:

---

So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.

---

They've already confessed it was an African culture though and physically they were a Black people. In fact, their culture extended into Sudan which is called "Nubia" for the specific intent to obscure the common cultural continuity that was found within Sub Saharan Africa all the way into southern Egypt. They were a Black people practicing African culture regardless of what their DNA said. I don't care if these researchers try to argue they were closely related to martians or whatever else they'll pull out their ass. Ignoring Blacks OUTSIDE Africa, "African DNA" is so diverse that the distances exceed those between other races. There are Sub Saharan Africans that are closer genetically to non Africans than to other groups of Sub Saharan Africans. This idea that "African DNA" can subtly be discussed as this genetic racial phenomenon is nonsense. Lately the racialists are trying to associate races with specific continents, but the genetic distances between the people they've said are Blacks globally and in Africa just don't support this. Even strictly considering SSA: There is no VALUE in trying to discuss such a high level of human diversity in such monolithic ways without the motive of race. Why else would anyone be trying to cluster human DNA in a way that just so happens to be along a modern geopolitical construct? What are the odds it's coincidental it is still happening when the distances do NOT fit neatly with such ideas? If WE know race doesn't exist genetically, people need to stop giving legitimacy to racialist psuedoscience and reject their "genetic" discussions. SSA is not a proper genetic (racial) monolith, and there is no reason to compare SSA against non Africans unless race is the subject at play. And honestly phenotype informs who is what race, not genotype. What racialists are trying to do skew genetic data or pretend race operates in a certain way it doesn't for the purposes of making their opinions of phenotype seem valid genetically. I refuse to sweat such stupidity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


I remember years ago news that Tut had R1 based on a leaked photo of a control sample being run and now this.

This is not to discount the possibility but I can't help but get the feeling this is another attempt at white-washing. It's as if they are not satisfied with Egyptians being E-M215, they want them to share the same lineage as most white European men. [/QB]

---

there is a new plot twist to the story,
iGENEA was the company that had seen the control sample in the documentary 2011. At the time and still, they call it R-M269
However when I went to look at old news stories on it I discovered that Reuters had the early name for this clade R1b1a2 which sometimes was called 269 prior to 2010 but since is called R-V88 which is found in Cameroon and with the Siwa.
Reuters got the information from iGENEA but iGENEA was calling it R-M269 (probably to sell test kits to Europeans to make them feel linked to Tutankhamen)

https://www.igenea.us/en/tutankhamun

However R1b1a2 is not called R-M269 today it's called R-V88 and M269 is regard as a separate branch
V88 up to 95% in some groups in North Cameroon who look very similar to many other West Africans, despite E-M215 predicted for Rameses III, both African clades but not the same lineage. Also the mtDNA K, in this yet to be published article on Tut is also found in the Siwa nad Tut's female relatives
 

---

Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
*Lioness*


You are being disingenuous. Dna Tribes and Consultants are fine sources. Both are ancestry test from ancestry companies that used published ancient Egyptian STRs. Tribes had a large database and Consultants has a good understanding of Where those STRs are located.

*Rain* The people of the Levant are not Western European and you know who proved that? Your own source. DNA Tribes proved it. What they also demonstrated is that humans migrate in a way that would not create something like a modern miscegenation zone. The people of the Levant speak languages that cluster with African languages. This is true with Greenberg and Asar and Mboli. The same is true with Berbers.

Like I said before, who outside of Africa is more related to Africans than the people from the Levant? Once you grasp that you will understand that your cultural connections are just icing on the cake. Ancient Egyptians are Africans because there is nothing else for them to be. Some of Tribe's STRs were heavy in Bantu and near exclusive to San and Batwa which skewed the results to Central Southern and West Africa but that was only one of their results. They also have the Tribe's score in parentheses.

https://issuu.com/nyansapogyenyame/docs/dnatribes-rams-2013-02-01

Notice its as strong in the Levant and North Africa as it is in West Africa and Southern Africa. Its especially strong in the Horn. Tribe's MLI score tries to track origin so it favors exclusivity with San and Batwa. The Tribes score favors inclusiveness. It questions what group of people are the least divergent from Ramses III. Horners are especially diverse so it favors the Horn.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I find that R1b Tut update article misleading.

African R-V88 is older than Europe's. M18
dates to the fossil of the update. It's not
found in Africa per D'Atanasio, Trombetta,
and Cruciani (2018).

12.34k V7920 is the original V88 with two offspring.
* 8.67k V2197 (father of African V88 and ex-pat V35)
* 6.25k M18 (basal/outlier southern Europe variety)

8.67k R-V2197 in turn has two sons
* 7.85k year old V4963 is the elder African son
* 4.5k baby brother V35 is the other S Eur basal/outlier branch.

7.85k V4963, the great grand pappy of all remaining African V88
sub-HGs, repeats the 'one and younger Euro' downstream pattern
* 5.73 V1589
* 1.24 V4453 yet another European local V88
* 0.60 V5776 in northern Egyptians

Compare these dates with the article's timeframes
and a quite different tale emerges out of the beast.
Tying Africa's R-V88 to 'Asian' wandering cowhands
is futile. Some say such inferences are a form of
imaginary genomic colonization of African cultures.
A 21st century Hamitic Hypothesis/caucasian Africa
slice of continuous racism in geographic population
(what a dragged out way to say race) studies.


Market patter has changed continent men and pharaohs.
23&ME assures the western African Diaspora males
they share Ramses' nrY HG. Howzabout dat?

Egyptian V88 can itself be as old as 5,730 years.
That's post-neolithic bronze pre-dynastic Egypt.
V88 in live Egypt is no younger than 5,610 years.

With the caveat, age of a sample of a living person
is no proof that person's location has always had
men of that person's haplogroup since it coalesced.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
What I agree with or challenge from the UPDATE relevancies, fluff removed.



SPACE HOLDER
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 
I wonder how all this linguistically and archaeologically makes sense. Can someone make it make sense?

https://www.freethesaurus.com/Chadic+languages

quote:

---

"Nevertheless, Cruciani et al argue that the discovery of V88 now demonstrates a strong Y chromosomal link between Chadic speakers and speakers of other Afro-Asiatic languages to the north of the Sahara. Their key evidence for this is their new data for Siwa in Western Egypt, a Berber-speaking area having approximately 27% R-V88 (93 people tested).

These data are surprising and should be seen as one of the major discoveries of the article, and requiring an explanation such as the one given by the authors.

The article contains a striking contour map, which shows a coloured band of R-V88 passing from Siwa down to the Chadic speaking area, which would match Ehret's proposed migration route. However, analysis of the article shows that this coloured band simply joins two areas with high frequency, Siwa and the Chadic area. There are of course no data for populations along this band, which runs through the Sahara. One single population is therefore very important in their account. The potential importance of gaps in the data should be considered in several other directions also.

The study also contains no data for Sudan, which lies between the Chadic speakers in the west, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers in the horn of Africa and near the Red Sea. There are also no data for eastern Egypt. These areas are critical in determining whether Blench is likely to be correct, because they represent the path along which he believes pastoralism spread. Data for Sudan are limited but, as the authors note, the 2008 paper of Hassan et al does seem to indicate a potential presence of R-V88 there."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I find that R1b Tut update article misleading.

African R-V88 is older than Europe's. M18
dates to the fossil of the update. It's not
found in Africa per D'Atanasio, Trombetta,
and Cruciani (2018).

12.34k V7920 is the original V88 with two offspring.
* 8.67k V2197 (father of African V88 and ex-pat V35)
* 6.25k M18 (basal/outlier southern Europe variety)

8.67k R-V2197 in turn has two sons
* 7.85k year old V4963 is the elder African son
* 4.5k baby brother V35 is the other S Eur basal/outlier branch.

7.85k V4963, the great grand pappy of all remaining African V88
sub-HGs, repeats the 'one and younger Euro' downstream pattern
* 5.73 V1589
* 1.24 V4453 yet another European local V88
* 0.60 V5776 in northern Egyptians

Compare these dates with the article's timeframes
and a quite different tale emerges out of the beast.
Tying Africa's R-V88 to 'Asian' wandering cowhands
is futile. Some say such inferences are a form of
imaginary genomic colonization of African cultures.
A 21st century Hamitic Hypothesis/caucasian Africa
slice of continuous racism in geographic population
(what a dragged out way to say race) studies.


Market patter has changed continent men and pharaohs.
23&ME assures the western African Diaspora males
they share Ramses' nrY HG. Howzabout dat?

Egyptian V88 can itself be as old as 5,730 years.
That's post-neolithic bronze pre-dynastic Egypt.
V88 in live Egypt is no younger than 5,610 years.

With the caveat, age of a sample of a living person
is no proof that person's location has always had
men of that person's haplogroup since it coalesced.

---

quote:

---

The Villabruna cluster: From about 14,000 years ago, the gene pools of Europe and the Middle East draw closer together - perhaps reflecting an expansion of people from the south-east. This genetic cluster is named after a male hunter from Villabruna, Italy, who had dark skin and blue eyes.

---

quote:

---

Villabruna 1 is significant in terms of the history of population genetics: the remains were found to carry Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a-L754* (xL389,V88). This is the oldest documented example of haplogroup R1b in Western Europe."

R1b1a (R-L754)

R-L754 contains the vast majority of R1b. The only known example of R-L754*(xL389,V88) is also the earliest known individual to carry R1b: "Villabruna 1", who lived circa 14,000 years BP (north east Italy). Villabruna 1 belonged to the Epigravettian culture.

---

quote:

---

Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group.

---

quote:

---

R-V88 has been observed at high frequencies in the central Sahel (northern Cameroon, northern Nigeria, Chad and Niger) and it has also been reported at low frequencies in northwestern Africa [37]. Outside the African continent, two rare R-V88 sub-lineages (R-M18 and R-V35) have been observed in Near East and southern Europe (particularly in Sardinia) [30, 37,38,39]. Because of its ethno-geographic distribution in the central Sahel, R-V88 has been linked to the spread of the Chadic branch of the Afroasiatic linguistic family [37, 40].

---

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


DNA TRIBES 2012

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that
today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).



Conclusion
Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent
in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which
these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these
individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.
Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis
suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If
new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new
light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.


https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-34249773/documents/5bb6cabbc76d2UOLyBfp/Tut's%20DNA%20dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

________________________________________


2020

https://academic.oup.com/hmg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223/5924364

Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad,
Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat, Somaia Ismail
Human Molecular Genetics, ddaa223, https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223
Published: 15 October 2020

Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship


" The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b
that was passed from:

the grandparent
Amenhotep III

to the father KV55,
Akhenaten

to the grandchild
Tutankhamen

_________


The maternal lineage,

the mitochondrial haplogroup K

extended from the great-grandmother
Thuya to

the grandmother
KV35 Elder lady,
Queen Tiye

to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady]
to Tutankhamen "

_____________________________
.


.



The DNA Tribes did their analysis based on the the STRs Hawass published in 2010


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393?resultClick=1

February 17, 2010
Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
Zahi Hawass, PhD; Yehia Z. Gad, MD; Somaia Ismail, PhD

Sixteen Y-chromosomal short tandem repeats (DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458,
DYS19, DYS385, DYS393, DYS391,
DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y-GATA-H4,
DYS437, DYS438, DYS448) were amplified according to the manufacturer's protocol
using the AmpF\STR Yfiler PCR
amplification kit
(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California).
The Identifiler kit and the
AmpF\STR Minifiler kit (Applied Biosystems)
were used for amplification of 8 polymorphic microsatellites of
the nuclear genome (D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA).

______________________________
.

.
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Of these R1b1 samples, nine are defined by the V88 marker, which was recently discovered in Africa. As high microsatellite variance was found inside this haplogroup in Central-West Africa and a decrease in this variance was observed towards Northeast Africa, our findings do not support the previously hypothesised movement of Chadic-speaking people from the North across the Sahara as the explanation for these R1b1 lineages in Central-West Africa. The present findings are also compatible with an origin of the V88-derived allele in the Central-West Africa, and its presence in North Africa may be better explained as the result of a migration from the south during the mid-Holocene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:

Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...


Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship

Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa
1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1
, Safaa G. El-Sayed4
, Marwa A. Abdelazeem5
, Samah M.
Mahdy6
, Hend Y. Othman1
, Dina W. Ibrahim1
, Rabab Khairat2,5, Somaia Ismail2,5

quote:

---

The genetic relatedness of individuals from archaeological sites has been utilized
to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains
assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38, 55-57). To the best of our
knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard,
only uni-parental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of
late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 B.C.), including that of Tutankhamen.
The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR
markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-
generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his
ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage,
the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to
the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified
mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).

For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:

Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad,
R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al. (2020) Maternal and
paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M.,
Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.) Guardian of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of
Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).

---

I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.

---

The idea that the 18th dynasty is of Levantine extraction is rather contradictory to the historical and archaeological evidence that shows that the family originated in the 'Thebald' i.e. Upper Egypt.

A genealogical family tree of the 18th dynasty can be seen here. Of course there are some questions pertaining to the relations of some members but the main line of the Amarna family is more or less confirmed.

But another thing that points to their 'southern' (African) origins is their skeletal remains. Recall the Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies

Thutmose II (Amenhotep III's great, great grandfather)


Father: Thutmose I, Mother: Queen Mutnofret
Rounded glabella and forehead; high vault with sagittal plateau. Rounded occiput. Strongly proclined upper and lower incisors; receding, vertical chin; highly angular mandible. Vertical zygomatic arches and maxillary prognathism. Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.


Tjuya (Tiye's mother, and Tut's maternal grandmother

Mother of Queen Tiye
Rounded, prominent occipital bun; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead. Vertical zygomatic arches; proclined upper and lower incisors; strongly receding chin; steep mandible angle. Maxillary prognathism.


"The Elder Lady", First identified as Queen Tiye
The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.


The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).

In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding


So what I gather is that the study used STRs and didn't get the actual SNPs. But even IF the study is accurate about the haplogroups found, it could mean that these haplogroups could have very well been derived from the south if R-V88 had a long time residence in Africa. As for maternal lineage K, such is also found in Africa including the Horn region so who knows. The point is there is no evidence that the Amarna family or 18th dynasty is northern in origin let alone Levantine.
 

---

Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


If these same Amarna mummies
are haplogroup R1b
and mtDNA K
how come the DNA Tribes analysis seems to have no hint at this in their MLI scores?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


If these same Amarna mummies
are haplogroup R1b
and mtDNA K
how come the DNA Tribes analysis seems to have no hint at this in their MLI scores?

---

It does have a hint but even if it didn't it doesn't need to. K was found in Neolithic Kenyans and R1b is found in people who cluster heavier with Africans than the STR markers that the MLI scores are based on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:

K was found in Neolithic Kenyans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:

and R1b is found in people who cluster heavier with Africans

---

No, except for R-V88, R1b does not "cluster heavier" with Africans.
Also a high frequency of R-V88 does not necessarily mean origin.
 

---

Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 


Isn't that Kenya?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
I believe this is the full paper showing more of the actual DNA data:

https://www.docdroid.net/EC8uFeh/gad-et-al-hawass-fs-final-2020-pdf


Key points I like to keep in mind :

The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.

Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.

DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.

The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.

So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".


But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:

Amenhotep III:


Plus

Tiye:


Equals:

Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.

And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?

quote:

---

Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.

---

quote:

---

Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1,
H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I believe this is the full paper showing more of the actual DNA data:

https://www.docdroid.net/EC8uFeh/gad-et-al-hawass-fs-final-2020-pdf


Key points I like to keep in mind :

The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.

Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.

DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.

The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.

So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".


But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:

Amenhotep III:

Plus

Tiye:


Equals:

Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.

And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?

quote:

---

Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.

---

The paper does not discuss the fact that Tutankhamun was the result of incest between Akhenaton and his sister. This means there is no chance of Tut being the result of some chance encounter between a Eurasian concubine (Levantine Weaver) and the Pharaoh. Which means all of this is predicated on the presence of one DNA lineage on the Maternal side and nothing else.

Also there is another paper from Sudan showing the lineages of some "X-Group" Sudanese where H1 and H2 is present. Of course that means that these lineages could have been present in the Nile Valley from far earlier times.

quote:

---

Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1,
H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.02.021717v1.full.pdf

But that doesn't matter. As far as some people are concerned, just one Haplogroup is enough to simply ignore anything else to reinforce their own pre-existing assumptions. The way the people of the Nile depicted themselves isn't relevant because they didn't know DNA studies....

https://twitter.com/Moe_APHG/status/1415771401416495114

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGZIne_2tJU

---

quote:

---

MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy

---

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm


You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists :








https://www.academia.edu/45428522/FAPAB_KV_55_Akhenaton_media_release_March_8th_2021_
 

---

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
 
Is it at all possible that R1b is African or possibly Middle Eastern in origin? I used to visit a blog that was convinced it made its way into Europe via North Africa.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
To be honest all the information about African R1b to be found on the web can probably be located on this site. Use the search feature and enter V88. R1b has been covered extensively on ES.

To answer your question: yes it is possible.
But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.

---

Yea, I had the same assumption to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.

---

Yea, I had the same assumption to.

---

Elmaestro is saying that it's likely the African R-V88 marker.

---

Yeah African V88 is 90+% linked to Europe. Of the oldest V88 carriers, there are two of them that carry the a haplotype ancestral to the African variation. one of them is in Sardinia and the other in southern Iberia (modern day Spain.)

From a temporal view, there's little space for it to be of near east or middle eastern origin.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Dang. I missed out on that Spain data

Where's the latest published on V2197,

--EDIT
Nevermind I found the Posth on an ancient Serbian sample's
mutations' with V88 in lemon yellow, SF 9. There, V88 shows up
ancestral & derived alleles and V35 like V2197 is only ancestral.--

the African R1b-V88 Great grand daddy
who also fathered Sardinian/south Europe V35?

Not to take away from the fact V2197
is the elder son of ol' man R1b-V88 V7920
and thus big bruh to M18 the baby boy.

In turn, south European V35 is the younger brother
of African V4963 who is African V2197's firstborn.

Anyway only 'in-denial' mode takes custody of
African R1b-V2197 away from his European poppi
although the R1b-V88 family basically abandoned
or didn't prosper too well in Europe while very
much flourishing in Central-West Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
African V88 is 90+% linked to Europe.
Of the oldest V88 carriers,
there are two of them that carry the a haplotype ancestral to the African variation.
one of them is in Sardinia and the other in southern Iberia (modern day Spain.)

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 




(red text added, above) (lineage chart is not from DNA article)

tracing back the probable R1b bearing male ancestors of Tutankhamun from Amenhotep III (the earliest mummy tested thus far in the 18th dynasty) back to an unknown of the 17th dynasty. So one might assume if Amenhotep III was R1b then his ancestors were
It has been speculated that Thutmose's father was Amenhotep I. If that is the case the dead point with the question mark in the box would connect to the linage to the left of it on the chart and plug into the Amenhotep/Ahmose etc line


Amenhotep I

If this line does go back to Amenhotep I

following back

Amenhotep I (18th dyn)
Ahmose I (18th)
Seqenenre Tao (17th)
Senakhtenre Ahmose (17TH) (probable father of Tao)
Nubkheperre Intef (17th) (possible father of Senakhtenre Ahmose)
Sobekemsaf II (probably father)
Sobekemsaf I (probably father)

Not sure who Sobekemsaf's father was or if it's known. Possibly it was his predecessor Rahotep, the first or second king of the 17th dynasty
His full name was Sekhemra-wahkhau Rahotep,
not to be confused with prince Rahotep of the 4th (famous statue with wife)
As we can see going back there are further uncertainties aboout who's who
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Just putting this out here since nobody has said it.

The M2 vs V22 discrepancy exists in the other lineages of this publication regarding the other mummies. Publication says one thing. Different STR Predictors agree or Disagree with the published data and assigned the Haplotype to totally different DE+ or M89+ Haplogroups.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Haha!

The days I would check microsatellites
across haplogroups to see if haplotype
indicated only one or rather several
haplogroup possibilities are long
gone, but yes, that's what it takes,
whether assaying raw data independently
or vetting published interpretations.

Ditto @ http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010462;p=1#000027


STR prediction of haplogroup is only resorted to
for lack of the actual defining SNP mutations.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.

---

quote:

---

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic
languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of
Semitic in the Near East

Andrew Kitchen 1,*, Christopher Ehret 2, Shiferaw Assefa 2 and Connie J. Mulligan1

A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ~14 ky.

And then we have this genetic study on the Jordanian population near the Dead Sea where Sodom was located.

Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.
--Carlos Flores et al 2005

---

quote:

---

it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:


You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists :








https://www.academia.edu/45428522/FAPAB_KV_55_Akhenaton_media_release_March_8th_2021_ [/QB]

---

the skin tone is speculative
.



back of the 'Golden Throne', showing Tutankhamun's queen, Ankhesenamun, anointing him with fragrant oils.



Tutankhamun, Tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62). Egyptian Museum, Cairo.


Tomb of Tutankhamun, The Northern Wall


Statuette of Nefertiti and Akhenaten, c. 1345 BCE, Louvre



https://www.flickr.com/photos/maufry/643589990/

2005 reconstruction, French artist Elisabeth Daynès


The skin tone was not determined genetically.
So Elisabeth Daynès speculated he had the skin tone of an average Western European.
He looks a little darker on the Nat Geo cover due to moodier "mysterious" lighting

Just ignore all the artifacts for a hint of what his skin tone might have been. Just ignore the skin tone of the average Egyptian even
 

---

Posted by HotepBoy (Member # 23417) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:


You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists :





https://www.academia.edu/45428522/FAPAB_KV_55_Akhenaton_media_release_March_8th_2021_

---

the skin tone is speculative
.


2005 reconstruction, French artist Elisabeth Daynès


The skin tone was not determined genetically.
So Elisabeth Daynès speculated he had the skin tone of an average Western European.
He looks a little darker on the Nat Geo cover due to moodier "mysterious" lighting

Just ignore all the artifacts for a hint of what his skin tone might have been. Just ignore the skin tone of the average Egyptian even [/QB]

---

The skin tone match perfectly the reconstruction but even if you wanted them to be darker it won't change anything and you shouldn't base your opinion on artistic conventions. Also do not underestimate the power of tanning.

If these upper egyptians spent more time indoor they would have surely be lighter :


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.


,

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:
The skin tone match perfectly the reconstruction


.
[/QB]

---

don't be ridiculous this is not a match, stop playing yourself

-and no, those men dont have that light complexion under their clothes

even if they did a reconstruction should reflect the color of the skin the way it was where they lived, melanin is a natural color not some kind of skin paint
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I believe this is the full paper showing more of the actual DNA data:

https://www.docdroid.net/EC8uFeh/gad-et-al-hawass-fs-final-2020-pdf


Key points I like to keep in mind :

The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.

Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.

DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.

The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.

So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".


But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:

Amenhotep III:

Plus

Tiye:


Equals:

Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.

And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?

quote:

---

Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.

---

The paper does not discuss the fact that Tutankhamun was the result of incest between Akhenaton and his sister. This means there is no chance of Tut being the result of some chance encounter between a Eurasian concubine (Levantine Weaver) and the Pharaoh. Which means all of this is predicated on the presence of one DNA lineage on the Maternal side and nothing else.

Also there is another paper from Sudan showing the lineages of some "X-Group" Sudanese where H1 and H2 is present. Of course that means that these lineages could have been present in the Nile Valley from far earlier times.

quote:

---

Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1,
H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.02.021717v1.full.pdf

But that doesn't matter. As far as some people are concerned, just one Haplogroup is enough to simply ignore anything else to reinforce their own pre-existing assumptions. The way the people of the Nile depicted themselves isn't relevant because they didn't know DNA studies....

https://twitter.com/Moe_APHG/status/1415771401416495114

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGZIne_2tJU

---

You forget this :

quote:

---

MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy

---

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm


You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists :








https://www.academia.edu/45428522/FAPAB_KV_55_Akhenaton_media_release_March_8th_2021_

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:


https://www.academia.edu/45428522/FAPAB_KV_55_Akhenaton_media_release_March_8th_2021_

---

So we are going to change the subject to talk about memory loss? You must have forgotten that King Tuts Father was the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and his mother was the daughter of Amenhotep and Queen Tiye. Where does light skin even come into this family tree? His mother was not Nefertiti.

Why don't you explain that instead of worrying about my memory capacity?

---

And so ? Since when were amenhotep III or queen tiye dark skinned ? Because you saw a wooden statue of her and a 2d photoshopped paint of him ?

Queen tiye :




If the reconstructions of king tut and akhenaton look like what I posted it clearly means something about their parents.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:

Since when were amenhotep III or queen tiye dark skinned ? Because you saw a wooden statue of her and a 2d photoshopped paint of him ?

---

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010012168

Amenhotep III,

Fragment of Amenhotep III tomb (KV22) , South wall. Louvre museum

this is too easy

also note the features

Most if not all pharaohs in tomb art have a similar skin tone to this
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
^^ ah the shih ES must put up with for activity sigh
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Right, they're repeating the same talking points which have been debunked too many times before

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:

You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists:

---

The problem with reconstructions is that they are based mainly on bone structure. Soft tissue parts like the nose tip and lips are the result complete guessing much less skin color.

We have various portraits of Tut including his painted mannequin made during his life.



And the same is true with his father Akhenaten.

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:

What about haplogroup R-V88
and U5, do you consider those foreign?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?

---

So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?

---

I thought we made it clear to your dishonest self that it hasn't been verified that those Amarna royals carry R-V88 or U5 since it is only a guess based on STRs?! Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the hgs in Europe!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:

What about haplogroup R-V88
and U5, do you consider those foreign?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?

---

So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?

---

I thought we made it clear to your dishonest self that it hasn't been verified that those Amarna royals carry R-V88 or U5 since it is only a guess based on STRs?! Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the hgs in Europe!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotepBoy:

Since when were amenhotep III or queen tiye dark skinned ? Because you saw a wooden statue of her and a 2d photoshopped paint of him ?

---

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010012168

Amenhotep III,

Fragment of Amenhotep III tomb (KV22) , South wall. Louvre museum

this is too easy

also note the features

Most if not all pharaohs in tomb art have a similar skin tone to this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You still can't get past the point that it is a guess (and wishful thinking on your part) based on STRs. Until we have the full SNPs we can't be certain. Now how about you answer my question. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 in Europe as foreign??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ase:
[qb] They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.

---

That is stretching based on limited facts. Lower Egypt was not always "Asiatic" oriented.

---

quote:

---

And the nation was split for many reasons, not simply because of Levantine migrations.

---

Nobody said there was one reason for the split, but heavy Asiatic immigration was certainly one of them.

quote:

---

And again, the numerous restorations of the culture came from the South, aka the Deep South and along with that came waves of Southern migration.

---

Doesn't change a thing I said, but okay.

quote:

---

The point is data point about Haplogroup K is intended to push a narrative that the Nile Valley was overrun by Levantine migrants even before the rise of the Nation state and hence not genetically African.

---

Even so, if indigenous deep southerners were the dominant culture, whether or not the Nile Delta and northern Valley was overrun with Levantine peoples is largely irrelevant to discussing Egypt as being originally African or as Black (which is more or less an issue involving their physical appearance).

---

I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information. Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic. So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:

The only person in King Tut's family  Egyptologists consider as having a possible foreign origin, is Yuya. They pointed out, that  his features are not classically Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
When you go by this depiction (Amenhotep III) then of course Amenhotep III looks "black".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
To be honest all the information about African R1b to be found on the web can probably be located on this site. Use the search feature and enter V88. R1b has been covered extensively on ES.

To answer your question: yes it is possible.
But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.

---

code:

---

 https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Haplogroup_K2_%28Y-DNA%29.html
 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
When you go by this depiction (Amenhotep III) then of course Amenhotep III looks "black".

---

He does if those are accurate features.
That could work with R1b-V88 which is in Northern Cameroon also as well as with Siwa berbers in Egypt but the specific clade of R1b was not mentioned.
R1b-V88 is an African clade although it's parent is believed to be Eurasian

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
there is no African R-V88 older than 5300

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
there is no African R-V88 older than 5300

---

what ancient human remains are there in Africa bearing R1b-V88 ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
there is no African R-V88 older than 5300

---

what ancient human remains are there in Africa bearing R1b-V88 ?

---

I'm not aware of any ancient Africans with the hp R1b-V88. Anyway, I was referring to the hp and not to human remains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
there is no African R-V88 older than 5300

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:

The only person in King Tut's family  Egyptologists consider as having a possible foreign origin, is Yuya. They pointed out, that  his features are not classically Egyptian.

---

Yes, we are very much aware of that. However even if assuming that Yuya was the biological maternal grandfather of Tut, he still does not account for the conjectured Y-DNA which is inherited patrilineally from father to son or the mtDNA which is inherited matrilineally from mother to child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:

The only person in King Tut's family  Egyptologists consider as having a possible foreign origin, is Yuya. They pointed out, that  his features are not classically Egyptian.

---

Yes, we are very much aware of that. However even if assuming that Yuya was the biological maternal grandfather of Tut, he still does not account for the conjectured Y-DNA which is inherited patrilineally from father to son or the mtDNA which is inherited matrilineally from mother to child.

---

It seems that you've missed my point since I know how to read genetic studies, thus the difference between mtDNA and Y-DNA. My point was, that with this sparse info, we can't really tell whether the ancestry of King Tut was foreign or not. In fact, we have to take this predicted hp of King Tut, Yuya, etc. with caution since they didn't snip test the Y. We don't even know whether King Tut carried the hp R1b-V88 or a rather uncommon Yamanya R1b. Hence, I referred to the mummy of Yuya. Therefore, whatever possible foreign influence King Tut may have had, it was likely mediated by Yuya.

---

Tutankhamun gets his mtDNA K from the female Thuya

His YDNA leads back to Amenhotep III R1b

(however Amenhotep III's mtDNA is H2 )

Yuya the male, was YDNA G2 and did not pass that on to Tutankhamun
Thuya is the much greater influence, parents unknown because her DNA is what flowed into the
the Amarna maternal line, beginning with Thuya (Tjuya below)
.

.

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Recent DNA studies from Eritrea and Ethiopia shows similar lineages to those listed here. I would argue these lineages, such as K, U6, T and others have always been in North East Africa due to a common ancestor in Africa, however those lineages also spread to nearby populations outside Africa and hence became more dominant. The problem is all these models of human DNA imposes this idea that only certain lineages such as the L lineages are "African" in origin but others are not, even though all human DNA originates in Africa and many of these other non-L lineages have been in Africa for tens of thousands of years.

quote:

---

A total of 168 different mtDNA haplotypes were observed in 270 Ethiopians and Eritreans, and 72 haplotypes were recovered in 115 Yemeni samples. Approximately one-half of both Ethiopian and Yemeni mtDNA lineages belonged to clades specific to sub-Saharan Africa , whereas the other half was divided between derived subclades of haplogroups M and N that are, with the exception of M1 and U6 lineages, more common outside Africa. Consistent with the coexistence of sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mtDNA lineages among Ethiopian, Egyptian, and Yemeni populations, the MDS plot clustered them, together with Egyptians, in between the Near Eastern and the West African and southern African clusters. It is interesting that both Semitic- and Cushitic-speaking populations of Ethiopia were close to each other and did not reveal significant differences in FST distances between themselves . The differences between Ethiopian and Yemeni populations were significant except in the case of Gurages. The highest FST distances for the Yemeni population were observed with southern and southeastern Africans. Consistent with that, the admixture analysis showed the Yemeni population as a hybrid of predominantly Ethiopian and Near Eastern maternal gene pools, which provides no significant support for gene flow from Mozambique.

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182106/
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Moundang and Cameroon's Fulbe harbor up to ~7,850 year old R-V4963*.


CAMEROON
V4963* is from V2197 in turn from V88,V7920 in the 2nd generation.
~7,850 years old.

TYRRHENIAN ISLANDS
M18 is the brother of V2197 from V88,V7920 and is 1st generation.
Though M18 is 1st generation, it's younger than nephew V4963.
~6,250 years old.

NORTHERN 3RD OF AFRICA
V1589* is from V4963*.
5,730 years old.

SARDINIA
V35 is the younger brother of V4963.
~4,500 years old.

BULGARIA
V4453,V6860 is a son of V4963* and brother to V1589*.
1,240 years old, younger still.

___
 

---

Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
 
Although now found primarily in western, northern and north-eastern Africa, haplogroup U6 descends from the western Eurasian haplogroup U, and therefore represents a back migration to Africa. Hence, mtdna U6 was for a long time in Africa, but it was not always there.

quote:

---

---

U6, on the other hand, has a broad Mediterranean distribution, with its highest extant frequencies in North Africa, and some subclades present in sub-Saharan Africa. However, basal U6* has been retrieved from two samples dating to 35–33 ka from the Peştera Muierii cave in Romania77,78 (recently confirmed to belong to the same individual79 ; labelled here as PM1/Muierii2) and an additional Palaeolithic U6 lineage from the Caucasus (~27–24 ka) was recently described80, suggesting that U6 most likely originated in Eurasia, in common with other haplogroup U subclades, and was later involved in a pre-Holocene back-to-Africa migration, probably from Southwest Asia81–84 . This must have occurred before 14–15 ka (the age of the Iberomaurusian remains in Taforalt, Morocco, the earliest known U6 lineages in North Africa85 ). The expansion of the Iberomaurusian culture into Northwest Africa dates to, or precedes, the early Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (at least 25 ka)86 .....


U6a is the largest and most widespread of all U6 clades, and the only one estimated to predate the LGM (26.9 [21.4-32.4] ka). U6a seems likely to have been restricted to the Mediterranean basin before the LGM, where its oldest branches arose: U6a1 (21.7 [14.5-29.2] ka) and U6a7 (25.2 [19.4-31.2] ka) both harbour the bulk of Iberomaurusian and Early Neolithic (EN) Moroccan lineages85,87 . In contrast, sub-Saharan branches (either in west or east Africa) all date to the post-LGM. U6a3 (18.7 [14.3-23.3] ka) shows a dual distribution, with lineages spanning from the east (U6a3d: 7.3 [1.2-13.5] ka) to the west Mediterranean (U6a3a: 12.9 [6.7-19.4] ka), and sub-Saharan west African lineages with ages ranging from the Late Glacial and early postglacial to the Neolithic: U6a3f (15.4 [9.7-21.2] ka), U6a3+150 (9.8 [2.8-17.1] ka) and preU6a3c (5.0 [0.7-9.5] ka). U6a2a (12.3 [7.0-17.8] ka) and U6a2b (9.2 [1.9-16.9] ka) date to Late Glacial/postglacial Ethiopia. U6a8, harbouring North African and southern European sequences, also dates to post-LGM/Late Glacial period (14.9 [6.5-23.8] ka)


Supplementary info p. 12

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-021-95996-3/MediaObjects/41598_2021_95996_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
there is a nice U6 chart here:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013208

However not in the topic's 18th dynasty samples
those were H2 and K
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
U6 is African because it was apparently born in
Africa where it remained over its 35,000+ years
of further bifurcations, migrating from Maghreb
to what today is Egypt&Sudan's political map west
borders and back again after picking up E-M81/M78(?)
mates.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009911;p=5

and scroll down for




Indigenous African U6
is no different than all the
indigenous European E whatevers.

All are divorced from being
labeled by the continent of
upstream HG origin, lest vernacular
devolve to labeling all uniparentals
African since all ultimately are of
African engendering.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
The Egyptians I have in mind are from a specific time frame, dynastic and OK times. From what I have researched about them they appear to have a majority Western Eurasian ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mightywolf:
[QB] Although now found primarily in western, northern and north-eastern Africa, haplogroup U6 descends from the western Eurasian haplogroup U, and therefore represents a back migration to Africa. Hence, mtdna U6 was for a long time in Africa, but it was not always there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.

But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.

---

quote:

---

"Outside central Africa, haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:


Credit goes to Beyoku. But more importantly I hope I am not misinterpreting him. Then we have the fact that an ancient R1b-V88 has been reported in Africa via Wang et al. Sci. Adv. (2020).


Yall thoughts?

---

R1b-V88 was discovered in about 2010 and high frequencies have been known since then at highest frequencies in the Cameroon-Chad basin and also found in Siwa, Egypt, Iberia at low frequency and in 35Kya remains from Romania
but it is not mentioned in the article you mention

in the article you mention
They did record one individual R1b1 dated to around 1790 AD

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0183


Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa
KE WANG, 2020

Table 1

KIN004
Congo, Kindoki
230BP

R1b1 (R-P25_1,R-M415)

mtDNA L0a1b1a1
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Reconstruction of the Villabruna 1 skull from Italy, a western hunter gatherer who is also the oldest known remain up to this date to carry the R1B haplogroup in Europe, and in specific he carried R1b-V88 which is mostly dominant in Africa and not related to the Indo-Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:


Reconstruction of the Villabruna 1 skull from Italy, a western hunter gatherer who is also the oldest known remain up to this date to carry the R1B haplogroup in Europe, and in specific he carried R1b-V88 which is mostly dominant in Africa and not related to the Indo-Europeans.

---

what source do have saying Villabruna 1 carried R1b-V88 ?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Again, is there a definitive study showing Tut's SNPs to be R1b in his Y chromosome and K in his mitochondria?

I find that hard to believe considering his STRs along with that of his Amarna family members.

From the JAMA report:




As many have pointed out their STRs match those of Sub-Saharans not Eurasians so how does explain this discrepancy?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Again, is there a definitive study showing Tut's SNPs to be R1b in his Y chromosome and K in his mitochondria?

I find that hard to believe considering his STRs along with that of his Amarna family members.

From the JAMA report:



As many have pointed out their STRs match those of Sub-Saharans not Eurasians so how does explain this discrepancy?

---

what about page 1 of this thread
and URL Link in second post?
That is 2020 based on the 2010 Jama

_________________________

Also in more detail in this other article:
Also one exception to the R1b,
Yuya's G2


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353306320_Maternal_and_paternal_lineages_in_King_Tutankhamun%27s_family


Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.
February 2020
In book: Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi HawassPublisher: Czech Institute of Egyptology
Project: Ancient Egyptian Genetics Project

Authors:

Yehia Z Gad,[ Somaia Ismail, Dina Fathalla, Rabab Khairat, Suzan Fares, Ahmed Zakaria Gad, Rama Saad, Amal Moustafa, Eslam ElShahat,
Naglaa H. Abu Mandil, Mohamed Fateen, Hisham Elleithy, Sally Wasef, Albert R Zink, Zahi Hawass, Carsten M Pusch

quote:

---

The AmpFlSTR Y filer PCR amplification Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California) was used to analyze the Y-chromosome specific haplotype profles. The kit included sixteen human Y-chromosome DNA markers with sizes ranging between 99 bp and 324 bp, and a mean amplifcation size of 200 bp. All markers were tetranucleotide repetitive microsatellites with the exception of DYS392, DYS438 and DYS448, which displayed, respectively, trinucleotide, pentanucleotide and hexanucleotide repeat motifs. DNA templates were amplified according to the manufacturer’s protocol with some modications that involved decreasing the concentration of primers by 40% and increasing the AmpliTaq DNA polymerase concentration by 50%. Detection of the amplified PCR products was carried out using the ABI Genetic Analyzer 3130, Data collection Software v3.0 and GeneMapper ID v3.2 (Applied Biosystems).The majority rule was employed for STR allele designation, where a predominant peak was generated at least 10 times [i.e. each exceeding the threshold of 50 relative fluorescence units] per mummy, using various bone samples from different body areas and monitored for slippage (Hawass et al. 2010, 638–647). A final consensus profile of each investigated mummy was constructed using the reproducible data of the generated partial profiles (Cowen et al. 2011, 400–406)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

many have pointed out their STRs match those of Sub-Saharans

---

quote:

---

The 8 STR loci tested do not allow a fine level admixture analysis to identify percentages of ancestry from world regions or continents...

These preliminary results only suggest that based on the 8 STR markers tested for the Amarna mummies, one of these ancestral components might have been indigenous to Africa.

Lucas Martin,
DNA Tribes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



Amenhotep III R1b / H2

Akhenaten R1b / K
Tutankhamun R1b / K

Yuya G2 / K

Thuya K
Tiye K
KN35YL K

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353306320_Maternal_and_paternal_lineages_in_King_Tutankhamun's_family

Amenhotep III R1b / H2

Akhenaten R1b / K
Tutankhamun R1b / K

Yuya G2 / K

Thuya K
Tiye K
KN35YL K

---

Question,

What was the percentage? Were they 100% fully (no admixture) Hg K and R1b?


Did they sequence the whole genome of the autosomal? OR just these 8 STR's?

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Autosome

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/A-Brief-Guide-to-Genomics

---

A haplogroup analysis such as the above might have data as to the percentage of confidence that they are assigning a haplogroup but the outcome is one outcome.
So that when they say R1b there is nothing else, each male gets one Y haplogroup, no percentages of any other haplogroup involved
This is determined by Y-STRs or SNPs
(not plain STRs > Y-STRS)
Interestingly Yuya was predicted G2 although you cannot determine a king necessarily descending from him if you look at the tree chart for 18th dynasty



So you can see 16 Y-STRS . The STR "DYS" numbers:
the D stands for DNA , Y stands for Y chromosome and S is a unique segment.
.


.


.
_______________________________________________


Hawass 2010 JAMA article

^ This on the other hand is autosomal DNA, entirely different DNA
Most of our DNA is this not the sex chromosome
Those markers start with D but are not the DYS.
They are STRS but they are autosomal STRs ( a STRS).
These are the ones where results are talked about in percentages of regional ancestry
Often these results get further analyzed in the ADMIXTURE program and those results talked about and charted in articles

The Department of Justice and FBI used 13 Core Y-STR loci to do a forensic identification with confidence, UK was 17
and now the Dept of Justice is using 20
That chart is the Hawass data form 2010 JAMA
They only show 8 so it is lacking for accuracy on ancestry but enough for them to do an article about kinship and disease pathology

quote:

---

NIH

PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype

Because of their sensitivity and high level of discrimination, short tandem repeat (STR) maker systems are currently the method of choice in routine forensic casework and data banking, usually in multiplexes up to 15-17 loci. Constraints related to sample amount and quality, frequently encountered in forensic casework, will not allow to change this picture in the near future, notwithstanding the technological developments. In this study, we present a free online calculator named PopAffiliator ( http://cracs.fc.up.pt/popaffiliator ) for individual population affiliation in the three main population groups, Eurasian, East Asian and sub-Saharan African, based on genotype profiles for the common set of STRs used in forensics. This calculator performs affiliation based on a model constructed using machine learning techniques. The model was constructed using a data set of approximately fifteen thousand individuals collected for this work. The accuracy of individual population affiliation is approximately 86%, showing that the common set of STRs routinely used in forensics provide a considerable amount of information for population assignment, in addition to being excellent for individual identification.

---

This calculator is no longer around there are others


.



So in S.O.Y Keita 2020. He took the 2010 data and with a lacking only 8 autosomal STRS
ran it through the Popaffilator calculator
and got these results
So for instance at top of this post according to Yahia Gad's article Yuya's haplogroup was G2a
and his mtDNA was K
yet this Keita autosomal calculation based on 8 autosomal STRs says 93.7% SSA,
Sub-Saharan African.
This was similar to DNATribes chart which showed
predominant Sub-Saharan African ancestry but they didn't use percentages they crated it using their own "MLI" (Match Likelihood) methods


Yuya

quote:

---

NIH

PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype

Because of their sensitivity and high level of discrimination, short tandem repeat (STR) maker systems are currently the method of choice in routine forensic casework and data banking, usually in multiplexes up to 15-17 loci. Constraints related to sample amount and quality, frequently encountered in forensic casework, will not allow to change this picture in the near future, notwithstanding the technological developments. In this study, we present a free online calculator named PopAffiliator ( http://cracs.fc.up.pt/popaffiliator ) for individual population affiliation in the three main population groups, Eurasian, East Asian and sub-Saharan African, based on genotype profiles for the common set of STRs used in forensics. This calculator performs affiliation based on a model constructed using machine learning techniques. The model was constructed using a data set of approximately fifteen thousand individuals collected for this work. The accuracy of individual population affiliation is approximately 86%, showing that the common set of STRs routinely used in forensics provide a considerable amount of information for population assignment, in addition to being excellent for individual identification.

---

I'm not sure how this calculator was identifying
North African DNA
Their classifications were
Eurasian
East Asian and
sub-Saharan African
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Assuming that IF Tut had R1b, many Euronuts thinks he has "European" ancestry but then they don't know that R1b also exists among Sub-Saharans.



bottom picture

 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ From what I've seen those results are based on STRs. While they can give hints to what haplogroup the person had of course the only conclusive evidence is the SNPs (haplogroup) itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Assuming that IF Tut had R1b, many Euronuts thinks he has "European" ancestry but then they don't know that R1b also exists among Sub-Saharans.

---

quote:

---

King Tutankhamen, Egypt’s boy king, was killed by the inherited blood disorder sickle-cell disease – not malaria. So says a German team in what appears to be the best shot yet at solving the mystery of the pharaoh’s early demise. [..] But in a letter to JAMA this week, Christian Timmann and Christian Meyer of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg, Germany, suggest that Hawass’s observations can be explained much more elegantly by a diagnosis of sickle cell disease (SCD).

---

quote:

---

Due to its geographical location, Egypt could have over time created a melting pot of various gene
pools. The genetic variation outside Africa reflects only a subset of the African gene pool (Underhill
& Kivisild 2007, 539-564). Studies on today’s Egyptian population samples have resulted in haplogroups
that are predominantly European or west Eurasian (Stevanovitch et al 2003, 23–39; Saunier et al.
2009, e97–e103; Elmadawy et al. 2013, 338–341; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2013, e80293). It was also
reported that the modern Egyptian haplogroups in a study were more closely associated with non-
African populations than with the West Africans (Pagani et al. 2015, 986–991). This accords with
our findings that the same trend was indicated through the analysis of 18th Dynasty family members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
@Ish I just filled in my previous post

---

quote:

---

“African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).”
[…]
“Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined.”

---

quote:

---

“Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. *However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) & makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

---

quote:

---

haplogroups H1, H3 and V, West Eurasian lineages of Iberian origin that spread to Europe7, 10, 17, 26, 29, 36 and most probably North Africa30, 31 with the improvement of the climatic conditions after the retreat of the ice sheets 15 000–13 000 years ago. The interpolation maps of these lineages across North Africa and Europe (Supplementary Material SM5) clearly place the Tuareg population in the path of the southern African edge of post-Last Glacial Maximum expansions. The H1 haplogroup (Supplementary Material SM5A and SM5B, with and without the outlier Norway, respectively) is as frequent in our southern Tuareg groups as in Libya and the centre of the dispersion within the Iberian Peninsula. The H3 haplogroup is almost vestigial in Tuareg (Supplementary Material SM5C), having the highest observed frequencies outside of Iberia in Algeria and Tunisia.

The polymorphisms present in the 90 Tuareg individuals led to the identification of 53 different D-loop haplotypes (Table 1). As can be seen in the network based only on HVS-I diversity (Supplementary Material SM3), for which only 33 different haplotypes are observed, there are varying degrees of sharing of haplotypes among the analysed groups: only one belonging to haplogroup H was shared by all three groups; two haplotypes were shared by TGos–TGor and TGos–TTan; and three haplotypes were shared by TGor–TTan. Only 18 of the 33 haplotypes are unique, what is a rather low proportion when compared to most African samples.32 This is further corroborated by haplotype diversities in the three Tuareg samples, which are lower as compared with other populations – especially in the two groups of the Niger bend (0.861±0.027 in TGor; 0.910±0.037 in TGos; and 0.963±0.020 in TTan; see Supplementary Material SM4).

---

quote:

---

”Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

If we know ancient Egyptians were tropical adapted in body portions and limb ratio, like African populations from more southern regions. I guess we have to look at populations that match this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

If we know ancient Egyptians were tropical adapted in body portions and limb ratio, like African populations from more southern regions. I guess we have to look at populations that match this.

---

That is irrelevant to whether or not they have Eurasian admixture. There are Europeans who carry African lineages yet are very much 'white' in appearance with cold adapted limb ratios no different from other Europeans.

---

quote:

---

“There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.

In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas [...]

Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.

In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.

This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firewall:
The DNA They Don't Want You to See: The Untold Story of Egyptians' DNA

quote:

---

DNA, those three letters, have revolutionized Egyptology, providing precise answers to longstanding questions. But how reliable is this information? Are scientists presenting the whole truth, or is there more to the story? In this video, we uncover the hidden aspects of DNA research that have eluded public view.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFJNzrk5S3o
Mr. Imhotep

---

quote:

---

Population

Estimates of the size of the population range from 1–1.5 million in the 3rd millennium BC to possibly 2–3 million by the 1st millennium BC, before growing significantly towards the end of that millennium.


Archaeogenetics

According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis on recent genetic samples such as the Amarna royal mummies has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.
The genetic history of Ancient Egypt remains a developing field, and is relevant for the understanding of population demographic events connecting Africa and Eurasia. To date, the amount of genome-wide aDNA analyses on ancient specimens from Egypt and Sudan remain scarce, although studies on uniparental haplogroups in ancient individuals have been carried out several times, pointing broadly to affinities with other African and Eurasian groups.

The currently most advanced full genome analyses was made on three ancient specimens recovered from the Nile River Valley, Abusir el-Meleq, Egypt. Two of the individuals were dated to the Pre-Ptolemaic Period (New Kingdom to Late Period), and one individual to the Ptolemaic Period, spanning around 1300 years of Egyptian history. These results point to a genetic continuity of Ancient Egyptians with modern Egyptians. The results further point to a close genetic affinity between ancient Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, especially ancient groups from the Levant (Natufian culture).

Ancient Egyptians also displayed affinities to Nubians to the south of Egypt, in modern day Sudan. Archaeological and historical evidence support interactions between Egyptian and Nubian populations more than 5000 years ago, with socio-political dynamics between Egyptians and Nubians ranging from peaceful coexistence to variably successful attempts of conquest. A study on sixty-six ancient Nubian individuals revealed significant contact with ancient Egyptians, characterized by the presence of c. 57% Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine ancestry in these individuals. Such geneflow of Levantine-like ancestry corresponds with archaeological and botanic evidence, pointing to a Neolithic movement around 7,000 years ago.

Genetic data on other Northern African specimens, such as the c. 15,000 year old Iberomaurusian Taforalt man, but also specimens from the "last Green Sahara" and the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic, point to the widespread presence of an (Western) Eurasian ancestry component distributed throughout Northern Africa, the Sahara, and the Horn of Africa, having arrived via back migration(s) from the Middle East starting as early as c. 23,000 years ago.

Modern Egyptians, like modern Nubians, underwent subsequent admixture events, contributing both "Sub-Saharan" African-like and West Asian-like ancestries, since the Roman period, with significance on the African Slave Trade and the Spread of Islam.

Some scholars, such as Christopher Ehret, caution that a wider sampling area is needed and argue that the current data is inconclusive on the origin of ancient Egyptians. They also point out issues with the previously used methodology such as the sampling size, comparative approach and a "biased interpretation" of the genetic data. They argue in favor for a link between Ancient Egypt and the northern Horn of Africa. This latter view has been attributed to the corresponding archaeological, genetic, linguistic and biological anthropological sources of evidence which broadly indicate that the earliest Egyptians and Nubians were the descendants of populations in northeast Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firewall:

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Position of modern scholarship

William Stiebling and Susan Helft wrote in 2023 on the historical debate concerning the race and ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in light of recent evidence. They argued that the physical appearances would have varied along a continuum from the Delta to the Nille’s source regions in the south. The authors specified that “some ancient Egyptians looked more Middle Eastern and others looked more Sudanese or Ethiopians of today, and some may even have looked like other groups in Africa”. The authors reached the view that “Egypt was a unique civilization with genetic and cultural ties linking it to other African cultures to its south and west and to Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures to its north”.

Source wikipedia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firewall:
This was posted in another thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firewall:
The DNA They Don't Want You to See: The Untold Story of Egyptians' DNA

quote:

---

DNA, those three letters, have revolutionized Egyptology, providing precise answers to longstanding questions. But how reliable is this information? Are scientists presenting the whole truth, or is there more to the story? In this video, we uncover the hidden aspects of DNA research that have eluded public view.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFJNzrk5S3o
Mr. Imhotep

---

Topic: The forever debate about the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians

---

I have been to Egypt myself, and have seen the murals and statues. These usually are medium brown to dark brown complexioned, very similar to what you will find in most rural places in Egypt.

We have posted numerous images of these people already and compared them to these ancient murals.

One can only wonder why they havent started sampling with remains from the 1st Cataract? Because ancient Egypt developed from there…. and even further down south.

That will give us a better understanding of what happened.

One usually starts at the foundation, but here they apply a different methodology?

quote:

---

"Another genetic examination was done as a part of a multidisciplinary study on the mummies of Ramesses III and the Unknown Man E (20th dynasty, circa 1190–1070 bc). Ramesses III was subjected to an assassination attempt by members of his harem as part of a palace coup, historically known as the Harem conspiracy and recorded in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin. The Unknown Man E was suggested to be Pentaware, the son sharing in the coup. The study concluded, on the basis of radiographic evidence, that the pharaoh was murdered during the attempt."
[...]
"The genetic results confirmed that both mummies had the same Y-chromosome molecular signature, E1b1a haplotype and one set of identical autosomal alleles, suggesting a father–son relationship."

---

quote:

---

“Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.”

---

(Michal Kobusiewicz, Joel D. Irish et al., Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt, Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara (2009, 2018))


These people are telling us our eyes are deceiving us.











 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Unfortunately the (largely Western) media has done a great undertaking in portraying the Egyptians a certain way. It was only back in high school when I was introduced to the concept that ancient Egypt was African and not 'Near Eastern'. Although these concepts were introduced to me by an African American history teacher, I began doing research of my own ended up going down the rabbit hole-- Hamitic Caucasoid, Mediterranean 'Brown race' etc.

I've even met and spoke to actual Baladi Egyptians in college who informed me of the Afrangi occupation of their country from the Arabs, to Mamluks, Ottomans, etc. And of course Ausar, who despite being a fraud, confirmed everything my Egyptian associates said.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the DNA results of the Giza samples from the Pyramid era, that Hawass referred to.


 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Unfortunately the (largely Western) media has done a great undertaking in portraying the Egyptians a certain way. It was only back in high school when I was introduced to the concept that ancient Egypt was African and not 'Near Eastern'. Although these concepts were introduced to me by an African American history teacher, I began doing research of my own ended up going down the rabbit hole-- Hamitic Caucasoid, Mediterranean 'Brown race' etc.

I've even met and spoke to actual Baladi Egyptians in college who informed me of the Afrangi occupation of their country from the Arabs, to Mamluks, Ottomans, etc. And of course Ausar, who despite being a fraud, confirmed everything my Egyptian associates said.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the DNA results of the Giza samples from the Pyramid era, that Hawass referred to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Unfortunately the (largely Western) media has done a great undertaking in portraying the Egyptians a certain way. It was only back in high school when I was introduced to the concept that ancient Egypt was African and not 'Near Eastern'. Although these concepts were introduced to me by an African American history teacher, I began doing research of my own ended up going down the rabbit hole-- Hamitic Caucasoid, Mediterranean 'Brown race' etc.

I've even met and spoke to actual Baladi Egyptians in college who informed me of the Afrangi occupation of their country from the Arabs, to Mamluks, Ottomans, etc. And of course Ausar, who despite being a fraud, confirmed everything my Egyptian associates said.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the DNA results of the Giza samples from the Pyramid era, that Hawass referred to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Unfortunately the (largely Western) media has done a great undertaking in portraying the Egyptians a certain way.

---

A lot of people in West tend to have a stereotypical image of North Africans as well as Middle Easterners, assuming they all have what we consider a "tan-skinned" phenotype and that they always looked that way. It wouldn't be so bad if a lot of people didn't cling to that stereotypical image and either minimized the darker-skinned elements in those populations or wrote them off as all mixed with sub-Saharan slaves or migrants. i find it perpetually frustrating, and even more so when it's coming from people I thought weren't racist or reactionary.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
There is a Coptic community in Atlanta, and they often get mistaken for Puerto-Ricans, Cubans, or Dominicans i.e. Caribbean types of mixed African ancestry. They know the common factor with their looks is the 'African' many could pass as African Americans.

So this 'Arabesque' look that has been romanticized in the media is a joke.
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 
Continuing,

Sci Adv. 2020 Jun; 6(24): eaaz0183. Published online 2020 Jun 12. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz0183
PMCID: PMC7292641PMID: 32582847

Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04430-9


The supplement reveals some interesting information.

Figure S9. Distribution of mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups in the ancient African genetic clusters. We show (A) the distribution of Y haplogroups in each genetic cluster, (B) distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups in each genetic cluster. The haplogroup information of every genetic cluster is detailed in Table S10.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7292641/bin/aaz0183_Tables_S1_to_S10.xlsx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7292641/bin/aaz0183_SM.pdf


Code for bioinformatics tools and data workflows is provided at GitHub (https://github.com/DReichLab/ADNA-Tools and https://github.com/DReichLab/adna-workflow).
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Very interesting. Comes to show the diversity of Africans even "Sub-Saharans" in that one region of East Africa alone.





^ Note how close Mota is to the French who represents Eurasians.
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 
Supplementary Materials for Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure S9. Distribution of mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups in the ancient African genetic clusters. We show (A) the distribution of Y haplogroups in each genetic cluster, (B) distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups in each genetic cluster. The haplogroup information of every genetic cluster is detailed in Table S10.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The findings obviously contradict the initial Mota study claims of "massive Eurasian admixture" in the region.
 

---