Yes. Simple minded rather than the religious zealots of the Eurocentric and Afrocentric ilk.
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut.
Actually, this comment is suggestive of the religious zealotry that you are scorning, because it is not grounded on any fact, other than your faith-based instinct.
quote: Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race.
There is no finding to be astonished about, since said finding is not grounded on officially released/published report. The only thing astonishing here is your astonishment.
quote: But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage.
Your speculation does not even have historical merit to it, let alone expecting a genetic one. What link does archaeological evidence produce between the 18th Dynasty and "European Sea People"?
quote: I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
Saying that something is simply "possible" in absence of evidence doesn't make it "true". Anything can be possible, if the mind can perceive it. That doesn't mean 'that anything' is just as practical in the real world.
quote: With that said, some of the forensic reconstructions of male Pharoahs do not appear African whereas most of the Women do.
This has no basis to it.
quote: Though I know that many Africans look like Ramses II, the fact remains I doubt he was a black African and would not be surprised if he was a European Sea Person who became a general and usurped the throne.
Is there a scientific basis to your doubt and "expectation", or is it just another faith-based instinct?
Throwing faith-based argument back at me?
That's not going to work. I already said I am astonished by the talk of a R1b Tut. If that is true then it doesn't really change my position: Egypt was what I call a politically Black society.
As for Ramses II, the guys profile simply looks like a Celtic person but definitely not Nordic. That's all there is to it really. Red hair and that Celtic looking profile makes me doubt he was a Black African. Perhaps mixed but not like most Egyptians.
Just doesn't look anything like this:
Notwithstanding your amateur eyeballing, actual cranial analysis of these mummies, including that of Ramses does not produce a "Celtic profile". It actually more closely resembles that of "Nubians", ie. Sudanese and Upper Egyptians.
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
posted
Cass, A case of cognitive dissonance--bearing in mind the above posts by others than yourself. Plus the fact that Tut's representations by Egyptians themselves is strictly African in phenotype. Stereotypically European classification would be "thick, everted lips", "non-European messorhine nasal structure", "weak chin" and "prognathism".
But even if true, nothing to crow about--as would be the claim that 30% of modern Greeks are Africans, based on their E1b1b hg profile.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
One of the goals of scientific research is to evaluate the "robustness" of scientific evidence". In this regard, evidence that is more robust than others is the most acceptable, scientifically speaking.
The evidence of what Ramses and Ty looked like is most robustly evidenced by how they were portrayed by the AE artists themselves with their names clearly marking the sculptures themselves.
With the mummies, the evidence is less robust given that we really don't know who the Western mummy researchers really found and labeled. I say this fully aware of European chicanery and ideological corruption in the past and the actual AE case of that--in European eyes--famous Berlin bust of Nefertiti.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual.
You call "semantics", your "assumption" that the unproven "this" is "actually factual"?
You think that the difference between FACT and FICTION is "semantics"?
quote: I was actually trying not to sound bias and skeptical.
How does one "sound bias" by questioning something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Is it not reasonable to be "skeptical" about something that is not proven?
quote: Of course I am to some degree but lets say King Tut was R1b, what would that mean? Nothing. So why debate the issue? That was my point.
You are essentially now admitting to the bogus premise of your treatment of the idea that King Tut is "partly European" on the account that he carries "hg R1b" as unsupported!
Folks already know that hg R1b lineage in not necessarily synonymous with European ancestry. So, that's a non-starter, and besides the point.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Lol @ Osirion, one of the only ones here who would say that his own use of a "Celtic looking profile" to describe Ramesses was an argument of semantics. The kid is nuts like I said before numerous times.
No, that is my opinion on Ramses and I am sticking to that. The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual. I was actually trying not to sound bias and skeptical. Of course I am to some degree but lets say King Tut was R1b, what would that mean? Nothing. So why debate the issue? That was my point.
Can you explain why not more than " half of European men" suffer from sickle cell. Just like Tuts family did, the Khamuns?
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria Just like his ancestors! Thanks in advance, for you time and effort.
King Tutankhamun died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria, say experts. A team from Hamburg's Bernhard Noct Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) claim the disease is a far likelier cause of death than the combination of bone disorders and malaria put forward by Egyptian experts earlier this year.
The BNI team argues that theories offered by Egyptian experts, led by antiquities tsar Zahi Hawass, are based on data that can be interpreted otherwise. They say further analysis of the data will confirm or deny their work. Hawass' claim, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this February, and followed by a swarm of accompanying television shows, claimed King Tut suffered from Kohler's disease, a bone disorder prohibiting blood flow, before succumbing to malaria.
Multiple bone disorders, including one in Tutankhamun's left foot, led to the Kohler's diagnosis, while segments of a malarial parasite were found via DNA testing. Yet the BNI team claims the latter results are incorrect. “Malaria in combination with Köhler's disease causing Tutankhamun's early death seems unlikely to us,” say Prof Christian Meyer and Dr Christian Timmann.
Instead the BNI team feels sickle-cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder, is a more likely reason for the Pharaoh's death aged just 19. The disease occurs in 9 to 22 per cent of people living in the Egyptian oases, and gives a better chance of surviving malaria; the infestation halted by sickled cells.
They say the disease occurs frequently in malarial regions like the River Nile, and that it would account for the bone defects found on his body.
“The genetic predisposition for (SCD) can be found in regions where malaria frequently occurs, including ancient and modern Egypt.” says Meyer. “The disease can only manifest itself when a sickle cell trait is inherited from both parents: it is a so-called 'recessive inheritance'.” A family tree for the Pharaoh suggested by Hawass himself appears to back the BNI team's case.
The relatively old age of Tutankhamun's parents and relatives – up to 50 years – means they could very well have carried sickle-cell traits, and could therefore have been highly resistant to malaria. The high likelihood that King Tut's parents were siblings means he could have inherited the sickle cell trait from both and suffered from SCD.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
King Tut's young demise has long been a source of speculation. As well as malaria, recent decades have seen scholars argue that he was murdered, and that he died from infection caused by a broken leg.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Folks already know that hg R1b lineage in not necessarily synonymous with European ancestry. So, that's a non-starter, and besides the point.
Everyone does not know that R1b is not synonymous with European ancestry.
If this was well known they would never have published an article claiming King Tut was caucasian based on the possibility he carried R1b.
Yes. Simple minded rather than the religious zealots of the Eurocentric and Afrocentric ilk.
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut.
Actually, this comment is suggestive of the religious zealotry that you are scorning, because it is not grounded on any fact, other than your faith-based instinct.
quote: Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race.
There is no finding to be astonished about, since said finding is not grounded on officially released/published report. The only thing astonishing here is your astonishment.
quote: But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage.
Your speculation does not even have historical merit to it, let alone expecting a genetic one. What link does archaeological evidence produce between the 18th Dynasty and "European Sea People"?
quote: I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
Saying that something is simply "possible" in absence of evidence doesn't make it "true". Anything can be possible, if the mind can perceive it. That doesn't mean 'that anything' is just as practical in the real world.
quote: With that said, some of the forensic reconstructions of male Pharoahs do not appear African whereas most of the Women do.
This has no basis to it.
quote: Though I know that many Africans look like Ramses II, the fact remains I doubt he was a black African and would not be surprised if he was a European Sea Person who became a general and usurped the throne.
Is there a scientific basis to your doubt and "expectation", or is it just another faith-based instinct?
Throwing faith-based argument back at me?
That's not going to work. I already said I am astonished by the talk of a R1b Tut. If that is true then it doesn't really change my position: Egypt was what I call a politically Black society.
As for Ramses II, the guys profile simply looks like a Celtic person but definitely not Nordic. That's all there is to it really. Red hair and that Celtic looking profile makes me doubt he was a Black African. Perhaps mixed but not like most Egyptians.
Just doesn't look anything like this:
Notwithstanding your amateur eyeballing, actual cranial analysis of these mummies, including that of Ramses does not produce a "Celtic profile". It actually more closely resembles that of "Nubians", ie. Sudanese and Upper Egyptians.
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
So the actual metric data points don't match your eyeball analysis of a shriveled up mummy.
True, but you are not taking into account the Red Hair or how much different Ramses II looks from Ramses I. Also the fact that Egyptian royals adopted children as well.
But specifically, we don't have a metric evaluation specific to Ramses II. I also don't give much weight to these analysis because I don't think it represents the true diversity of Egypt properly.
From the reconstructions I have seen of Ramses II, few Africans look like him but quite a few NW Europeans do.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual.
You call "semantics", your "assumption" that the unproven "this" is "actually factual"?
You think that the difference between FACT and FICTION is "semantics"?
quote: I was actually trying not to sound bias and skeptical.
How does one "sound bias" by questioning something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Is it not reasonable to be "skeptical" about something that is not proven?
quote: Of course I am to some degree but lets say King Tut was R1b, what would that mean? Nothing. So why debate the issue? That was my point.
You are essentially now admitting to the bogus premise of your treatment of the idea that King Tut is "partly European" on the account that he carries "hg R1b" as unsupported!
Folks already know that hg R1b lineage in not necessarily synonymous with European ancestry. So, that's a non-starter, and besides the point.
Let me end this debate. I never said anything about R1b King Tut being factual. I said King Tut was likely part White. Note the words - likely.
The rest has been an interesting strawman debate but you should learn that not all conversations should be a debate. Thanks for the entertainment.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Lol @ Osirion, one of the only ones here who would say that his own use of a "Celtic looking profile" to describe Ramesses was an argument of semantics. The kid is nuts like I said before numerous times.
No, that is my opinion on Ramses and I am sticking to that. The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual. I was actually trying not to sound bias and skeptical. Of course I am to some degree but lets say King Tut was R1b, what would that mean? Nothing. So why debate the issue? That was my point.
Can you explain why not more than " half of European men" suffer from sickle cell. Just like Tuts family did, the Khamuns?
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria Just like his ancestors! Thanks in advance, for you time and effort.
King Tutankhamun died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria, say experts. A team from Hamburg's Bernhard Noct Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) claim the disease is a far likelier cause of death than the combination of bone disorders and malaria put forward by Egyptian experts earlier this year.
The BNI team argues that theories offered by Egyptian experts, led by antiquities tsar Zahi Hawass, are based on data that can be interpreted otherwise. They say further analysis of the data will confirm or deny their work. Hawass' claim, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this February, and followed by a swarm of accompanying television shows, claimed King Tut suffered from Kohler's disease, a bone disorder prohibiting blood flow, before succumbing to malaria.
Multiple bone disorders, including one in Tutankhamun's left foot, led to the Kohler's diagnosis, while segments of a malarial parasite were found via DNA testing. Yet the BNI team claims the latter results are incorrect. “Malaria in combination with Köhler's disease causing Tutankhamun's early death seems unlikely to us,” say Prof Christian Meyer and Dr Christian Timmann.
Instead the BNI team feels sickle-cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder, is a more likely reason for the Pharaoh's death aged just 19. The disease occurs in 9 to 22 per cent of people living in the Egyptian oases, and gives a better chance of surviving malaria; the infestation halted by sickled cells.
They say the disease occurs frequently in malarial regions like the River Nile, and that it would account for the bone defects found on his body.
“The genetic predisposition for (SCD) can be found in regions where malaria frequently occurs, including ancient and modern Egypt.” says Meyer. “The disease can only manifest itself when a sickle cell trait is inherited from both parents: it is a so-called 'recessive inheritance'.” A family tree for the Pharaoh suggested by Hawass himself appears to back the BNI team's case.
The relatively old age of Tutankhamun's parents and relatives – up to 50 years – means they could very well have carried sickle-cell traits, and could therefore have been highly resistant to malaria. The high likelihood that King Tut's parents were siblings means he could have inherited the sickle cell trait from both and suffered from SCD.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
King Tut's young demise has long been a source of speculation. As well as malaria, recent decades have seen scholars argue that he was murdered, and that he died from infection caused by a broken leg.
I think its plain obvious that King Tut was a Black individual by the definition we use for the social construct.
He also lived in an area that was connected to Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa which would have been a magnet for Black Africans to migrate to.
If he did turn out to be R1b, it wouldn't make him any more White than I am since I am also R1b.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Everyone does not know that R1b is not synonymous with European ancestry.
If this was well known they would never have published an article claiming King Tut was caucasian based on the possibility he carried R1b.
Let me clarify myself. By "folks", I was referring to ES regulars, and not just any ES regular either; just those who recall ES discussions on hg R1b, are quick learners and are good at retaining information for long period.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
Let me end this debate. I never said anything about R1b King Tut being factual. I said King Tut was likely part White. Note the words - likely.
The rest has been an interesting strawman debate but you should learn that not all conversations should be a debate. Thanks for the entertainment.
A good thing about record, is that you can always go back and retrieve it when the situation necessitates it:
Our friend osirion, who is tickled silly or entertained by the prospect of retreading confidence in his fairly dubious comments, told readers that:
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut. Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race. But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage. I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
And then to Simple Girl, you say:
I think even you are surprised by a R1b Tut, right?
Never heard you preach Aryan invasion theories.
And if that doesn't seal the deal, consider this response to Mind718:
The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: iGENEA is not a science research lab. iGENEA is a for profit corporation. iGENEA is hustling DNA analysis sales.
iGENEA's alleles for TUT are exactly the same ones worked out by RealDealT lacking only the "data" for DYS635. See here.
Running this haplotype against YHRD's extensive database yielded no matches. Reducing the haplotype to 13 STRs gave 3 matches, one Afro-Caribbean and one mestizo (both of whom hail from Isla de San Andrés, Colombia), and one citizen from the USA of European extraction. See here.
But a credentialed geneticist, Thomas Krahn, challenges the amateur analysis of RealDealT which iGENEA uses without crediting him at all nor heeding the caveat of the professional. See here and here.
Also, STR haplotype is not a haplogroup. While haplotype is a fairly indicative of haplogroup, only a test of UEPs can accurately determine haplogroup as any legitimate DNA testing company will tell its customers but iGENEA fails to do so. See here and here.
iGENEA is suckering people into buying a Match King Tut's DNA kit with refund for any European matches. See here.
iGENEA knows there will be no such matches or, at very best, only a pitiful handfull.
iGENEA stands to make a windfall profit off of suckers due to King Tut enthusiasm and hype thanks to Reuter's shoddy (in this case) sensationalist journalism.
Ouch! I knew all that hype about Tut having European ancestry was wrong all along. The powerful continue to try to whitewash African history.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Everyone does not know that R1b is not synonymous with European ancestry.
If this was well known they would never have published an article claiming King Tut was caucasian based on the possibility he carried R1b.
Let me clarify myself. By "folks", I was referring to ES regulars, and not just any ES regular either; just those who recall ES discussions on hg R1b, are quick learners and are good at retaining information for long period.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
Let me end this debate. I never said anything about R1b King Tut being factual. I said King Tut was likely part White. Note the words - likely.
The rest has been an interesting strawman debate but you should learn that not all conversations should be a debate. Thanks for the entertainment.
A good thing about record, is that you can always go back and retrieve it when the situation necessitates it:
Our friend osirion, who is tickled silly or entertained by the prospect of retreading confidence in his fairly dubious comments, told readers that:
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut. Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race. But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage. I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
And then to Simple Girl, you say:
I think even you are surprised by a R1b Tut, right?
Never heard you preach Aryan invasion theories.
And if that doesn't seal the deal, consider this response to Mind718:
The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual.
Do you really not get that I am making a hypothesis. Assume R1b is true then what does that mean. That is how I am approaching this which you seem confused by. Wake up.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Do you really not get that I am making a hypothesis. Assume R1b is true then what does that mean. That is how I am approaching this which you seem confused by. Wake up.
But the issue is that the rumors about Tut's R1b are not true. They're entirely baseless. Were you paying attention to the first page of this thread?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Do you really not get that I am making a hypothesis. Assume R1b is true then what does that mean. That is how I am approaching this which you seem confused by. Wake up.
I am more awake than you are, which is why your attempt at trickery to implement damage control is a waste of your time. There is no harder evidence than direct quotations of you. Just fess up that you accepted the matter as a fact and it backfired. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the motive, after you revealed that you carried hg R1b yourself. All this smokescreen posturing is as effective as trying wrestle yourself out of quick sand; that more you do it, the more you sink.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tut was NOT R1b, and if he was I KNOW that they would of posted all the studies and what would of happened is that it would of opened the door to the "White" Egypt crowd.
The main reason why they have not published the data is because Tut is more African then they thought and this would open the door to Africans embracing the Heritage and many people in Europe and US who go to Egypt to dream about being Egyptian, will stop giving money towards travel in Egypt. It's all a Money ploy and the Truth has taken an backseat. All we need is an Person who conducted the study, to be an Truthseeker who is not afraid of the consequences of leaking the truth.
Sadly like Truth said, this was found to be wrong on the 1st page and alTakruri said what the company has to gain from pimping this lie.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eurocentric radicals could also make the reverse argument, that it wasn't published to prevent stirring up the 'Black Egypt' crowd sensibilities.
But yeah, I think capitalist motives are the overriding factors in not disclosing the information, but also that it is more about keeping the flame or supposed interest in Egyptology going, by keeping AE a controversial matter.
These controversies can serve as publicity conduits for AE, and hence, also work as a somewhat cost-free promotion mechanism for Egypt's tourism industry.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Do you really not get that I am making a hypothesis. Assume R1b is true then what does that mean. That is how I am approaching this which you seem confused by. Wake up.
But the issue is that the rumors about Tut's R1b are not true. They're entirely baseless. Were you paying attention to the first page of this thread?
Thomas Krahn: and other rootsweb.ancestry.com commenting on [DNA] King Tut on Discovery channel
The more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces > are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces > from the mummies. > Due to a bug in the Genemapper software the bins are not displayed > correctly. Note that some of the peaks are far off from the bins. So the > only way to investigate this is to use the actual fragment sizes on the > bp scale. We have measured and calculated the peak positions with a > ruler on the monitor screen and then assigned the alleles based on > experimental data from runs on our own instruments. Of course the > instrument results vary and there is again no warranty that my guesswork > is correct. My call of the NED labeled markers may be something like: > DYS393 9 > DYS439 11 > DYS391 12 > DYS635 23 > DYS392 13 or 14 [resolution not good enough for a trinucleotide repeat] > > In an earlier scene at 1:12 in the blue trace we can definitely read > allele 16 for the marker DYS458 and as discussed in the article itself > we know about Y-GATA-H4 being 11 in NIST nomenclature. > Yet another scene at 1:30 shows DYS389I in the blue trace which is most > likely allele 13 > I'll leave it to the experts to predict a haplogroup for this profile. > Without the rare DYS393 allele 9 it matches multiple haplogroups. With > the DYS393 = 9 allele I have no matches in the FTDNA database. > > Again this could still be a wrong sample and I could still have made > errors with my analysis. In any case I hope this helps.
________________________________ Lawrence Mayka:
By itself, DYS393 = 9 in an R-M269 is not unknown. The R1b-U152 has kit > #E8003 with DYS393 = 9 and U152+.
_______________________________
David K. Faux:
That would be wild, the Pharoahs of Egypt were possibly R-U152!
The only person known to me with DYS393=9 is from Reunion Island and apparently Versailles France in the 1600s. He is R-U152*. The plot thickens.
___________________________________
Alister John Marsh:
Just wondering, would a TMRCA calculation between near R1b1b2s to King Tut be of any interest?
King Tut I believe was born about 3,356 years ago. If his tested grandfather had similar Y-DNA, his grandfather would have been born about 3,400 years ago.
If someone suggested one of his nearer matches was U152, I note that back in 2 July 2009, predictions of U152 age "in Continental Europe" was estimated around 3200 [based on 37 markers less multi copy markers]- 3800 [based on 67 markers less multi copy markers] +/- a margin of error. What is the latest age estimate for U152?
It would be interesting if FTDNA compared Tut to his nearest living match in their database using FTDNA TiP, if the programme can handle this selection of markers to compare, and be stretched to the long time spans.
John.
_________________________________________________
Tim Janzen:
Dear John, I think Anatole's estimate for R-U152 is pretty close to the true TMRCA. I just did an intraclade TMRCA estimate using 87 67-marker R-U152 haplotypes and got 3650 using 50 markers and John Chandler's mutation rates and 3552 using 10 YHRD markers and using YHRD mutation rates. As I have mentioned previously intraclade TMRCA estimates tend to underestimate the true TMRCA by some percentage. Sincerely, Tim Janzen
You said >>>>>>> Wasn't that whole "King Tut might have been U152" thing based on the mistaken idea that he had 393=9? Since it turns out Tut actually has 393=13,
U152 doesn't seem any more likely than any other variety of R1b1b2. <<<<<<<
MY MISTAKE: Yes! I started this thread hastily before leaving for a few days away, and I was in error about a few things.
I think the U152 comment was made in reference to another Egyptian who had the rare DYS393=9 who wasn't king Tut. It would never the less be interesting to know more about his haplotype, and know more about his modern day matches.
IF TUT IS R1B1B2, WHICH SUBCLADE?: As Anatole noted, most of the main R1b subclades U106, P312, U152, are old enough for Tut to have been part of them, but realistically, we can't know from haplotype which if any he belonged to.
CLOSEST MODERN MATCHES TO TUT: I was interested in the closest modern matches to Tut, Y-Search ER7RQ. The nearest match Weaver QG7FB is 16/17 match. I note however that the rare dual peak markers DYS19=8/14, DYS437=9/14 are not included in the Y-Search ID ER7RQ. How do you deal with rare dual peaks when estimating TMRCA?
If you ignore the dual peaks, I would "guess" that a 16/17 match would normally be estimated [50% probability] to be a match between individuals separated by about 30 to 40 birth events. [I have not done this calculation, just roughly extrapolated from other similar cases.] Given that Tut lived about 120 generations ago, they are clearly not that closely related. Realistically, we can't learn much from the TMRCA calculations, other than to say that generally a 16/17 match "could" be separated by 120 or more generations, as proved by the evidence of this case. I suppose that is confirmation of something, as unhelpful as it seems.
It is interesting that Tut's closer range of matches are generally from the British Isles neighbourhood, but that could be simply that the area has been most highly DNA tested.
If a line from Tut's grandfather with 17 markers tested had about one mutation in say 30 to 40 generations, one would typically expect I would guess about 3 or 4 mutations down to the present.
ARE THE DUAL PEAKS REPORTED LIKELY TO BE REAL? : I wondered what the significance of these dual peaks might be. Dual peaks at DYS19 are very rare, and at DYS437 seem non existent in living people as far as I can tell. Could it be that coincidently these second peaks of very rare values could be interference from some sections of autosomal DNA? Or is contamination most likely?
DUAL PEAKS AS DYS19= 8/14: On Y-Search, As far as I can see DYS19= 8 is rare or non existent in R1b. The range on the R1b project is 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, with 14 being very dominant. Based on this, it would seem a value of 8 would signal a "very" rare event. If it was common in antiquity, a value of 8 does not look to have survived in numbers, even in Pharaohs who occasionally had multiple wives.
I wondered how dual peaks might occur. I supposed that if a person had dual peaks a section of the Y-DNA may have been duplicated, meaning the peaks should be repeats of the same value initially. I looked to see how common peaks of considerably different values might have occurred. In the R1b project, I can only see one result with dual peaks, a Parker with 14/15. A score of 14/15 looked plausible to me. If a dual peak of 14/14 had initially occurred, it is plausible that within the time span of having a few hundred descendants, one peak might have mutated, giving 14/15.
But if Tut's ancestor had a duplication of a section of his DNA, perhaps to 14/14, it would seem that in normal circumstances, assuming 1 step mutations are much more common, it would take a tree with probably many thousands of descendants to reach 8/14 in a descendant. If a tree had so many descendants, it is curious that so few with multiple values made it to the present day, let alone with anything like 8/14. If Tut were to be U106, P312, or U152, his birth would only be a few hundred years from current predictions of the founding of those clades. That would be say 30 generations from the founding of the clades. Even if it was 100 generations [3,000 years], it seems a short time to mutate to a dual peak of 14/14, then mutate 6 steps on one peak to 8/14. When you look at how stable R1b seems to be at around DYS19=14 [+/- 1 or 2 on rare occasions.] it makes a mutation to 8, or 8/14 look incredibly rare.
Nothing is impossible [almost], but would Ockham's razor suggest that if Tut was DYS19=8/14, it likely took hundreds of generations [Thousands of years] to mutate from probably R1b modal of 14 to 14/14, then mutate on to 8/14?
DUAL PEAKS AT DYS437= 9/14: On Y-Search, the range of marker scores does not permit an entry of DYS437=9. There are no dual peaks in the R1b project. I was unable to find any results with dual peaks at this marker on Y-Search. But in searching the R1b project, I was unable to find any R1bs with anything less than 14 at this marker. That really surprised me. If R1b was sufficiently stable at values above DYS437= 14, it makes a peak of 9 look exceedingly rare.
Does anyone know if DYS19 and DYS437 are nearby each other on the DNA? If Tut's ancestor had a section of DNA duplicated, could the stretch have been long enough to have covered both of these STRs? Are there any other of the 17 STRs tested which are between DYS19 and DYS437? If there were, perhaps they should have dual peaks also?
So what are the odds, a dual peak at DYS437 is an incredibly rare event not yet seen in living R1bs, or perhaps interference from a similar section of autosomal DNA, or contamination, or as a result of decay of the DNA?
If Tut really did have both of these very rare double peaks, of very rare values, does Ockham's razor suggest that Tut's branching off lines to living R1bs was possibly many thousands of years before Tut lived?
What we have is a number of populations each one having a particular [largely] irreversible mutation in their Y chromosome. Each one of those populations has a certain pattern of other [slow reversible] mutations in their Y chromosomal loci. Based on certain regularities which have a rather solid scientific ground we can determine when the most recent common ancestor of each one of those populations lived.
It turned out that a large population of people inhabiting Europe can be subdivided into a number of subpopulation, which were migrating to Europe around 4200-3700 years before present [and after it], apparently moving from different directions into different regions of Europe, and each of those groups of people had its own "mutation history". Indeed, many of their "founding fathers" lived within those 500 years or so. Whether it reflects a genetic drift [it certainly does], or because it was just a simple choice of those particular irreversible mutations for classification [it certainly was], or both plus some other factors, we can discuss, of course. But it would not change that the "founding fathers" of those populations indeed lived in times close to each other. Here are some figures for R1b1b2: -- M269 - no less than 6,000 ybp -- L23 - 5475+/-680 -- L51 - 5850+/-860 -- U106 - 4175+/-430 -- U106 [null-mutation in DYS425] - 3325+/-450 -- P312 - 3950+/-400 -- U152 - 4125+/-450 -- L2 - 4225+/-450 -- L20 - 4300+/-610 -- L21 - 3600+/-370 -- L21 [null mutation in DYS425] - 2600+/-420 -- M222 - 1450+/-150
Now, these data are as good as the haplotype datasets are. Of course these figures are not carved in stone, and subject to change when more extended haplotype datasets are available, and/or when the datasets are sorted out taking into account their downstream subclades.
The first three subclades [M269, L23 and L51] has certainly appeared outside of Europe. For instance, L23* is numerous in the Caucasus, their carriers have a characteristic DYS39=12.
If by "you know who" you mean me [DKF] then there is a deficit in following the stream of a post. Someone else found that the closest match was a U-152, and I merely commented - in jest because it is folly to predict most R1b1b2 haplogroups from a haplotype - some exceptions. I freely admit that it would be helpful to my research to know that U152 has been observed in northeastern Africa at the time of the Pharoahs - this would be a potentially very important finding that could change the current views on the origin and migration of this and other related haplogroups. In terms of "wishful thinking" I only wish for the truth to surface quickly. Period.
"Using the latest DNA analysis methods, the team confirms that a anonymous female mummy in tomb KV35 is Tut's mother" The CODIS markers that I could see or infer on the trailer video are as follows:
posted
As usual, impeccable work by the Saga. One of the few on the site that gets it. Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! by many of the others.
QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: 2nd that. Get your head together Clyde.
King Tut could never, never, ever, be European!!!!. Only the illiterate will even suggest something as illogical and nonsensical as that. Not even the Eurocentric Egyptologist will suggest something like that. What they would do is word play. Ie Caucasoid, Meditnid (?). they know Egypt is home grown so what they will do is try to carve Egypt(and the rest of the indig populations of North Africa) out of Africa by using loose terms as dark Caucasoids under that umbrella.
Egypt is African and Black African at that with origins is the Sudan and the Sahara.. Here is what some of the experts say. Does matter what BS, fake genetic study they fudge Tut and the AEians could not possible be of European lineage.
“Looney Tunes”!!!
. . . NOW GET TO READING!!!!!!!
S.Abbas and Mohammed-Ali, The Neolithic Period in the Sudan: c.6000-2500 B.C., Cambridge: BAR International Seies 139. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 6. W.Y.Adams 1987, 'Three Prespectives of the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian, and the Prehistorian', Nubian Culture. Past and Present, Stockholm: 285-291. Adamson, A. D. 1982, 'The Integrated Nile'. In: A Land between Two Niles. (ed.) Williams, M. A and Adamson, D. A., Balkema/ Rotterdam. 221-234. D.Adamson, J.D.Clark and M.A.Williams 1974, 'Barbed bone points from central Sudan and the age of the "Early Khartoum" tradition'. Nature 249 (5453). M.Arioti 1994, 'Ethnological Contribution to the Study of Prehistoic Pastoralism in the Khartoum Province: Report on Field-Work (1987-1990)'. in: Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès International d’Ėtudes Nubiennes 3-8 septembre 1990. vol.II, Ch.Bonnet (ed.), Genève. A.J.Arkell 1949, Early Khartoum. Oxford. .Caneva 1986(a), 'Recent fieldworks in the northern Khartoum province'. Nyame Akuma 27: 42-3. I.Caneva 1987, 'Recent research in central Sudan'. Nyame Akuma 29: 52-5. I.Caneva 1987(a), 'Pottery Decoration in Prehistoric Sahara and Upper Nile: a new perspective'. in: Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara,B.E.Barich (ed.) Oxford. [Full Text] I.Caneva 1987(b), 'Textiles from southern Nubia'. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter J.D.Clark 1980, 'Human Populations and Cultural Adaptation in the Sahara and the Nile During Prehistoric Times'. In: The Sahara and the Nile, Williams and Faure (eds.), Rotterdam. J.D.Clark 1984, 'Prehistoric Cultural Continuity and Economic Change in the Central Sudan in the Early Holocene'. In: From Hunters to Farmers. Berkeley, J.D.Clark and S.A.Brandt (eds.), Los Angeles,London Davis, Whitney 1984, The Earliest art in the Nile Valley. In: Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. (eds): Lech Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz, M. Poznan Museum. 82-94. W.V.Davies (ed) 1991, Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London. P.De Paepe 1986, 'Ceramics mineralogique et chimique de la céramique Néolithique d'el Kadada et ses implications archéologiques', Archéologie du Nil Moyen 1. P.De Paepe 1991, 'Ceramics from Shaqadud studied by physical methods'. in: The Late Prehistory of the Eastern Sahel. The Mesolithic and Neolithic of Shaqadud, Sudan, A.E.Marks and M.A.Abbas (eds.): Dallas
Etc etc etc etc
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [ And Clyde only helps in propagating the myth, by accepting it and trying to build explanations around it.
So goes the saying: If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the "truth".
[/QUOTE]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all probability Tut has greatest chance of being E1b1b1, E1b1b, E1b1a in that order. Why? Do the research!!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic