posted
That is why he and DJ always remains suspiciou characters. Stop spinning.
1. Credential is NOT the issue. Anyone can do what DNATribes did. DNATribes was just the first to demonstrate HOW to do the determination. ANYONE can do it without DNAtribes assistance. If DNATribes is discredited now, that would not change the issue. There is no turning back the clock.
2. The final word has long been out on the identity of AEians. Europeans has no cultural, anthropological, historical, archeological and linguistic connection to AE.
Quote: ^ Really, the only valid counterargument against this research other than DNATribes's credentials.
This digest is not the final word on the issue
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Really, the only valid counterargument against this research other than DNATribes's credentials is the small number of mummies tested.
But that's not a counterargument against DNA tribes. To my knowledge, they've never intended to make some sort of statement about what this implied about the Ancient Egyptians as a whole, or what it means, and hence, there is not necessarily a need for the samples to be representative. They just plugged the data available to them, and published it, all the while making sure they only discussed their results in the restricted context of the subjects of their article; the Amarna family.
At the risk of having to revise my viewpoints later on, I'm feel confident in saying I'm content with the data as it is. Genetic testing has shown more than 4 times in a row--that is, via representatives of more than 4 different families--that the Ancient Egyptians carried Sub Saharan lineages.
Yuya, Tjuya, Amenhotep III and several remains from the 12th dynasty, while at the same time, modern Egyptians as a whole (ie, not select locations such as the Gurna village), tend to group with Eurasians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by al~Takruri: The Amarna article is the only instance where DNAtribes points to allele values and profiles that can be independently verified. They merely referenced Hawass (2010). Pusch is the geneticist team leader of the study. Hawass just slapped his name onto the report.
Now maybe somebody should have checked the Amarna mummy profiles across nuclear DNA STR databases but that innovation came out of DNAtribes. This is their one accomplishment and it does paint an inner African ancient Egypt conflicting with their "Levantine" modern Egypt.
Anybody can take the Pusch raw data and input it into a profile finder. Anybody can verify the accuracy of DNAtribes proprietary MLI list assignments to DNAtribes' own privately defined African regions. How? By means of open access genetics/ forensics tools and a map of Africa and with some knowledge of where ethnies live.
All of that is beside the point of DNAtribes as itself a reliable issuer of science reports vs a company writing articles for its customers. Moral of the story: DNAtribes' articles are not in the same room with the standard peer reviewed published studies and reports shared by population genetics community. Their articles are not cited in any scientific literature. Why?
Other than the Amarna Pharaohs article DNAtribes has never revealed the allele values and loci profiles associated with either its privately defined geographies or the populations therein. And we only know about Amarna because of Pusch. DNAtribes did not reprint Pusch's mummy profiles. .
DNAtribes offers no Materials & Methods section in their articles because they do no assays. They only run a statistician's algorithm against entries in their database and figures taken from other existing databanks or from the standard peer reviewed literature. .
DNAtribes privately defined geographies at times veer from standard geography. Prime examples are - Egypt as the Levant - Ionian as Aegean - Mediterranean as exclusively Iberia, Alps, and Apenninies .
DNAtribes phylogeny of North Africa and the Horn as Near Eastern branches of Caucasian (West Eurasian) hierarchical world region clustering -- their words not mine.
There are many other anomalies others may list, i.e., DNAtribes' Portuguese, Italian, and Greek [all the above underscores are links to go read] articles among other Africana related articles, if this thread takes off. The thing is DNAtribes is as good as any proprietary genetic identity enquiry for the general public company.
They should not be confused for and just are not in the ranks of professional not-for-profit population geneticists who tabulate and share sample numbers, ethnicity, language group, geography, STR alleles and profiles, SNP haplogroups, and other essential raw data with the public.
None of that has anything to do with plugging Pusch's mummy data into a profile finder and attaining geographic and/or ethnic matches to compile a list of most likely candidates.
Despite all their other failings I am glad DNAtribes thought of doing that and writing an article about it and Amarna in general.
Thanks to DNAtribes' innovation we will all now start designing our own STR allele/profile queries investigating any number of population subsets of our Africana and other interests.
posted
Quote: modern Egyptians as a whole (. . . tend to group with Eurasians. ===== We have to tread carefully here. Many here used to argue that modern Egyptians are mainly African. While the Euro-centrics used to argue the opposite ie modern Egyptians are Eurasians.
What is important is that most modern Egyptians carry African lineage eg PN2. And to a lesser extent HG-J. Some even carry HG-A. The jury is not back in on HG-J but the others are clearly African lineage.
Although autosomally many align with Eurasia but combined with African lineage makes them Africans. In other words there was virtually no European introgression into Egypt in pre-history.
Yeah DNATribes may group them into Euroasia but they are Africans. Their ancient forefather migrated to the Levant. Therefore it makes geographical sense that they share genes with people from the Levant who are also genetically connected to Africa.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Really, the only valid counterargument against this research other than DNATribes's credentials is the small number of mummies tested.
But that's not a counterargument against DNA tribes. To my knowledge, they've never intended to make some sort of statement about what this implied about the Ancient Egyptians as a whole, or what it means, and hence, there is not necessarily a need for the samples to be representative. They just plugged the data available to them, and published it, all the while making sure they only discussed their results in the restricted context of the subjects of their article; the Amarna family.
At the risk of having to revise my viewpoints later on, I'm feel confident in saying I'm content with the data as it is. Genetic testing has shown more than 4 times in a row--that is, via representatives of more than 4 different families--that the Ancient Egyptians carried Sub Saharan lineages.
Yuya, Tjuya, Amenhotep III and several remains from the 12th dynasty, while at the same time, modern Egyptians as a whole (ie, not select locations such as the Gurna village), tend to group with Eurasians.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is important is that most modern Egyptians carry African lineage eg PN2. And to a lesser extent HG-J. Some even carry HG-A. The jury is not back in on HG-J but the others are clearly African lineage.
Although autosomally many align with Eurasia but combined with African lineage makes them Africans. In other words there was virtually no European introgression into Egypt in pre-history.
How do you see the various clustering tables below and do what data do you have on PN2 in Egypt, besides the below?
that
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: modern Egyptians as a whole (. . . tend to group with Eurasians. ===== We have to tread carefully here. Many here used to argue that modern Egyptians are mainly African. While the Euro-centrics used to argue the opposite ie modern Egyptians are Eurasians.
What is important is that most modern Egyptians carry African lineage eg PN2. And to a lesser extent HG-J. Some even carry HG-A. The jury is not back in on HG-J but the others are clearly African lineage.
Although autosomally many align with Eurasia but combined with African lineage makes them Africans. In other words there was virtually no European introgression into Egypt in pre-history.
Yeah DNATribes may group them into Euroasia but they are Africans. Their ancient forefather migrated to the Levant. Therefore it makes geographical sense that they share genes with people from the Levant who are also genetically connected to Africa.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Really, the only valid counterargument against this research other than DNATribes's credentials is the small number of mummies tested.
But that's not a counterargument against DNA tribes. To my knowledge, they've never intended to make some sort of statement about what this implied about the Ancient Egyptians as a whole, or what it means, and hence, there is not necessarily a need for the samples to be representative. They just plugged the data available to them, and published it, all the while making sure they only discussed their results in the restricted context of the subjects of their article; the Amarna family.
At the risk of having to revise my viewpoints later on, I'm feel confident in saying I'm content with the data as it is. Genetic testing has shown more than 4 times in a row--that is, via representatives of more than 4 different families--that the Ancient Egyptians carried Sub Saharan lineages.
Yuya, Tjuya, Amenhotep III and several remains from the 12th dynasty, while at the same time, modern Egyptians as a whole (ie, not select locations such as the Gurna village), tend to group with Eurasians.
I don't recall many here arguing that modern Egyptians in general are mainly African. Hybrids maybe, but not mainly African. Y chromosome wise, certain studies show relatively high frequencies of E-M2, B-M60 and other lineages, but those lineages are not reproduced with consistency. Many samples don't show those lineages in appreciable numbers, and some don't show them at all. Hence, the distinction I made between between certain locations where people have preserved some of their ancient heritage, vs Modern Egypt as a whole.
Note that a moderate frequency of those lineages you mentioned does not automatically bar Modern Egyptians (as a whole) from tending to cluster with Eurasians, as Eurasians carry African lineages as well (A study reported that southern Arabs have African lineages at 35%, maternally). Arabs also have B-M60, E-V38 and other African lineages found in modern Egypt (though not in high frequencies).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Me Their ancient forefather migrated to the Levant. Therefore it makes geographical sense that they share genes with people from the Levant(and Saudi Arabia) who are also genetically connected to Africa.
youEurasians carry African lineages as well (A st. . .udy reported that southern Arabs have African lineages at 35%, maternally). Arabs also have B-M60, E-V38 and other African lineages found in modern Egypt (though not in high frequencies).
----- Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I probably have close to 500 genetic papers on peoples all over the globe. If my memory serves me right. One that comes to mind is the one showing the migration of people s from lower to upper Egypt and vice versa. Essentially there was no barrier between upper and lower Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What is important is that most modern Egyptians carry African lineage eg PN2. And to a lesser extent HG-J. Some even carry HG-A. The jury is not back in on HG-J but the others are clearly African lineage.
Although autosomally many align with Eurasia but combined with African lineage makes them Africans. In other words there was virtually no European introgression into Egypt in pre-history.
How do you see the various clustering tables below and do what data do you have on PN2 in Egypt, besides the below?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Making sure we are on the same page. . .
Me Their ancient forefather migrated to the Levant. Therefore it makes geographical sense that they share genes with people from the Levant(and Saudi Arabia) who are also genetically connected to Africa.
youEurasians carry African lineages as well (A st. . .udy reported that southern Arabs have African lineages at 35%, maternally). Arabs also have B-M60, E-V38 and other African lineages found in modern Egypt (though not in high frequencies).
----- Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!
^Yes, we're on the same page, but I would go one step further and say that many modern Egyptians are way past hybrids when it comes to Eurasian geneflow. This is also the case with some coastal North Africans (some that are literally ''coastal'', geographically speaking). Some modern Egyptians are flat out Greek looking (I know, I know, I'm eyeballing).
Cranially speaking though, some modern Egyptian samples move away from hybrid Northern Africans, and cluster with Eurasians. The Cairo sample included in Kemps dendograms are an example of said Egyptians.
posted
xxyman which regions in Africa (including Egypt) have people that with ancestry closest to the ancient Egyptians?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Many people were looking forward to hearing Jo Marchant speak about the DNA tests undertaken by Drs Zink, Pusch et al, and she didn’t disappoint. She was an outstanding speaker. She opened her talk by describing DNA itself, a topic which need not be repeated in this review, but which was useful for those in the audience who do not have a scientific background.
Marchant noted that the first study of ancient mummy DNA was conducted by Svante Pääbo in the 1980s whilst he was studying for his PhD at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, but is now himself sceptical of his results. The study of ancient DNA remains a subject of academic debate, with some experts believing that it is not possible to reliably sequence ancient DNA. Marchant was at pains to highlight that there are two camps, with a stark division between those who work on ancient DNA, especially human DNA, and those who believe it is not technically possible to produce valid results, with some labs refusing to take commissions. Throughout her lecture, Marchant presented the viewpoint from both sides of the debate, but her own position seemed to be that of a sceptic. The lecture needs to be considered in that context: an ancient DNA adherent might well have been more positive about some of the findings.
DNA from Egyptian Mummies
Contamination is a problem with studying DNA, which is why labs are such sterile environments and why controls should be run to eliminate the technicians’ DNA. Marchant described an early attempt to analyse the DNA of a woolly mammoth. It was later discovered that the published sequence was the project leader’s own DNA. Marchant explained how a process called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)works by amplifying a small amount of DNA typically extracted from ancient, degraded samples in order to improve the size of the sample available for testing, and suggested (without discussing the evidence) that PCR is particularly susceptible to contamination from ancient DNA.
She explained why DNA from Egyptian mummies is particularly controversial. Mummies have been subjected to quite violent chemical processes during mummification, which are not entirely understood. (This was covered more extensively by Stephen Buckley in an earlier lecture.) They are then stored in fiercely hot, sometimes also rather damp, tombs and may have been disturbed and handled both in antiquity and by modern archaeologists. All of these conditions are bad for the preservation of DNA and Marchant said that computer studies have shown that DNA in Egyptian mummies can be preserved for no more than 500 years. “Preserved” in this case means that DNA strands are still long enough for analysis by the PCR method – over time the long strands of DNA break down into shorter and shorter pieces, eventually becoming too small for the minimum length for PCR analysis. (See conclusions at the end of the article for my views on this.) Scientists like Albert Zink and Helen Donoghue disagree and are still publishing papers . Marchant says that those scientists believe, instead, that mummification acts to preserve DNA.
Analysing the DNA of 18th Dynasty Royal Mummies
As most readers will know, the DNA of Tutankhamun and that of a dozen or so contemporary royal mummies was analysed and the results published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) during 2010. The project was funded by the Discovery Channel for a series of TV documentaries and Marchant observed that some commentators are concerned that commercial considerations may have increased the pressure on the team to report newsworthy findings. The analysis was undertaken in Egypt by Egyptians, with Albert Zink and Carsten Pusch acting as consultants. The approach adopted was DNA fingerprinting – known as micro-satellite analysis / short tandem repeats (STR). For instance one of the loci examined is termed locus D13S317. A locus is the location in a DNA sequence of a specific gene. The same sequence of DNA can repeat at this location a variable number of times, from 7 repeats in some people up to 16 repeats for some others. DNA, and therefore the number of repeats, is inherited which is why it can be used to assess parentage given analysis of a sufficient number of loci. The team published the “most likely” family tree based on their reported findings and this is consistent with previous blood type analysis.
The study was criticised by a number of experts, and a subsequent JAMA edition carried a number of highly critical letters from other geneticists. Marchant listed the following key criticisms:
* It is hard to avoid contamination when taking samples from the long bones of a mummy * The study didn’t check the DNA of those involved in the sampling and analysis, so it is possible that their DNA could be eliminated * Nuclear DNA was tested but most teams working on ancient DNA believe that mitochondrial DNA is more reliable * DNA finger printing is rarely used for ancient DNA studies * PCR can create “stutter bands” (errors) through mis-amplification of DNA
Marchant reports that Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged “most likely” based on “majority rule”.
On the positive side, the team didn’t find a Y-chromosome for any of the female mummies [author’s note: assuming that KV55 is male of course, and not all researchers yet are convinced of this]. This is encouraging as many of the team members were male so the results have not been contaminated by their Y-chromosome results. Marchant also reported that the team were expecting to publish mitochondrial DNA results during 2011 and that Zink believes the royal mummies are a special case, with DNA preserved by the exceptional standard of mummification the elite enjoyed.
Interestingly, Zink told Marchant that he does not believe that KV35YL can be Nefertiti but he is starting to suspect that KV21B could be – although he reports needing more results before this could be published.
Next Generation DNA Tests
The next generation of DNA tests have the potential to be successful with strands as short as 30 base pairs (c.f. 100 with PCR) so Marchant hopes that these tests might in time be used.
CT Scans and Tutankhamun’s Bones
Marchant concluded her talk by looking at Tutankhamun’s bones. His bones are broken in many places so it is hard to distinguish between pre-mortem breaks, damage during mummification and subsequent breaks. His sternum is missing and several ribs are broken.
Conclusion and Author’s Remarks
This is a subject of deep interest to me, so I wish to follow the review above with a personal assessment. There is no doubt that Marchant was one of the most skilled presenters and her ability to make technical matters accessible to a lay audience was very much appreciated by many. Her talk was widely applauded by attendees in conversations over coffee afterwards, and deservedly so because it was very, very good.
Reviewer’s Commentary
At the same time, I was rather disappointed for some of the same reasons for which I am unhappy with the original JAMA paper. While Marchant explained DNA and DNA testing with consummate skill, she made no attempt to explain the maths, or the various mathematical models she relied upon. For instance, she cited a computer study that showed that ancient DNA isn’t preserved beyond 100 years but didn’t state the source, the assumptions or even the results other than the headline. Similarly, while I agree with her dislike of Zink’s use of “majority rules” to present uncertain PCR results, I disagree with her conclusion that this is a major issue. Techniques like Bayesian inference can wrest results from uncertain data. What is clear, and Marchant herself made the point, is that it is important that Zink and colleagues publish the raw data so that independent analysis of the results can be undertaken.
For those reasons, I think Marchant leans overly to a sceptical position. There is indeed a great deal to criticise in the methodology and publication of the DNA study, and I have been quite vocal in my own criticisms on my News from the Valley of the Kings blog, including DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably not Akhenaten (News from the Valley of the Kings, Phizackerley, 2010). My personal view is that the team did successfully sequence DNA from Tutankhamun and the other royal mummies but that the level of confidence in the results was badly reported: some of the results may not be as certain as the paper indicates and any partial results omitted from the paper might still be valuable if published and submitted to more detailed mathematical assessment.
In short, Marchant’s excellent talk was presented from the standpoint of a geneticist but overlooked that mathematics is an equally important discipline in interpreting ancient DNA results. It would be wrong to be overly critical of Marchant on this point. Within the context of a lecture to an enthusiast rather than academic audience, there was little scope to cover the mathematics in detail but I would have preferred that she had at least identified the areas in which the mathematics in the published paper could have been more thorough.
posted
Manu is now trying to dis-credit the JAMA report. After almost , what?, 2 years. LOL!!! When the BS story was floating around about Tut being R1b, not a word from him. These guys are easy, like $10 whore.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Lioness my dear. . .I am light years ahead of you. Tsk! tsk! A good defense attorney will ask you to rephrase or define “closest”. But I will ignore that for now and edificate(ebonics) you There several ways to attribute “closest” 1. Genetically (autosomal and lineage) 2. Anthropologically 3. Linguistically 4. Etc Z-Enrique has a nice collage. So I won’t repeat it. But – apart from Z-Enrique’s collage.
As I said before – the ONLY test known of the AEians is in the JAMA report. And the report has concluded so far that South Africans and Great Lakes African (modern) matches closet genetically the ancient ones.
No picture spam needed LOL!!!! Unlike so many people. I really on data not pictures. Post a picture Africans and I have no clue of what I am looking at. I have never travelled the length and breadth of the continent. BUT!!! Reading some older history books on what European travelers saw when exploring Africa, ~1600’s, I remember some lines which state that some South Africans they encountered may be mistaken for Mediterranean people. So . . .go figure.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
I have yet to see/hear about dna contamination that structures itself like a family tree, yet this is what the troll Manu would have us believe. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You can tell I am smug with my blackness. . .right. And a Bantu diasporan on top of that. He! He! He!
You do notice I don’t post pictures of Africans. Why? I am not that simple. I let the data make my point.
But I know what you are getting at. From what is shown on “TV”. The ancient ones look more like Somali and Ethiopians. Now we know there is very little connection. Genes(especially lineage) don’t lie
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Lioness my dear. . .I am light years ahead of you. Tsk! tsk! A good defense attorney will ask you to rephrase or define “closest”. But I will ignore that for now and edificate(ebonics) you There several ways to attribute “closest” 1. Genetically (autosomal and lineage) 2. Anthropologically 3. Linguistically 4. Etc Z-Enrique has a nice collage. So I won’t repeat it. But – apart from Z-Enrique’s collage.
As I said before – the ONLY test known of the AEians is in the JAMA report. And the report has concluded so far that South Africans and Great Lakes African (modern) matches closet genetically the ancient ones.
wrong, the zarahan spams had reflected the below.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The ancient ones look more like Somali and Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Now we know that is very little connection.
if this is the case zaro will need to make quite a few changes to his old spams
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This is not for Manu, who is obviously biased and oblivious like a head buried in sand butt assed exposed ostrich, but for those sucked in by Phizackerley's honey drippings.
Those in the know recognize that Pusch used controls to eliminate contaminants from both the Y-STR and n-STR results. Besides, noting the ethnicities of Pusch and lab members, contamination would render modern Egyptian/European haplotypes and profiles. As far as known, the lab teams had no SSA members.
From the e-supplement to Hawass(2010)
eAppendix. Details of Methods, Results, and Comment METHODS Molecular Genetics: Good Working Practice, Data Authentication. A dedicated ancient DNA laboratory was established in the basement of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. A second laboratory also exclusively dedicated to work with ancient DNA was established at the Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University. A subset of the data generated in the Egyptian Museum laboratory 1 was independently replicated in laboratory 2 by another research team (these data sets are indicated in the manuscript). DNA typing of all lab team members was performed (Y.Z.G., S.I., R.K., D.F., N.H., A.A., S.W., M.F.), and records were used for comparison with the data generated in our ancient DNA studies. Identical “modern-ancient” data sets were considered as nonauthentic and were omitted from our study. No contemporary unknown DNA sample was allowed in the laboratories. For each mummy, PCR experiments were repeated up to 30 times using various bone samples from different body areas (online interactive feature). Microsatellites were monitored for slippage, and genotypes were determined by majority rule.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Agreed. They did not read the whole study. His(Manu) trickery is targeted at the ignorant.
Cannot get more robust than that. With all the checks and balances in place.
Infact many of the other research papers I have seen don't come close to being as thorough.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cranially speaking though, some modern Egyptian samples move away from hybrid Northern Africans, and cluster with Eurasians. The Cairo sample included in Kemps dendograms are an example of said Egyptians.
YEs, there is a difference with modern era Egyptians, not surprising given outside invasions or movements. Zakrewski notes that some late period samples cannot be considered typically Egyptian.
Here's Kemp reloaded...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny is that Manu now resorts to the DEBUNKED claim that Tut carried R1b which is based on nothing more than a screenshot of a computer showing the NRY samples of the mummies being tested alongside a MODERN DAY CONTROL (R1B). As Xyman pointed out, the guy and his ilk obviously haven't read the JAMA report on Tut.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said before – the ONLY test known of the AEians is in the JAMA report. And the report has concluded so far that South Africans and Great Lakes African (modern) matches closet genetically the ancient ones.
I should add West Afrian Bantus are 3rd in line. ALL are SSA.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Lioness my dear. . .I am light years ahead of you. Tsk! tsk! A good defense attorney will ask you to rephrase or define “closest”. But I will ignore that for now and edificate(ebonics) you There several ways to attribute “closest” 1. Genetically (autosomal and lineage) 2. Anthropologically 3. Linguistically 4. Etc Z-Enrique has a nice collage. So I won’t repeat it. But – apart from Z-Enrique’s collage.
As I said before – the ONLY test known of the AEians is in the JAMA report. And the report has concluded so far that South Africans and Great Lakes African (modern) matches closet genetically the ancient ones.
No picture spam needed LOL!!!! Unlike so many people. I really on data not pictures. Post a picture Africans and I have no clue of what I am looking at. I have never travelled the length and breadth of the continent. BUT!!! Reading some older history books on what European travelers saw when exploring Africa, ~1600’s, I remember some lines which state that some South Africans they encountered may be mistaken for Mediterranean people. So . . .go figure.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Translation(strategy) – let’s discredit the JAMA study.
See below: from the Phizackerley Report 1. Throughout her lecture, Marchant presented the viewpoint from both sides of the debate, but her own position seemed to be that of a sceptic. The lecture needs to be considered in that context: an ancient DNA adherent might well have been more positive about some of the findings 2. and suggested (without discussing the evidence) 3. Marchant said that computer studies have shown that DNA in Egyptian mummies can be preserved for no more than 500 years 4. Donoghue disagree and are still publishing papers . Marchant says that those scientists believe, instead, that mummification acts to preserve DNA 5. Marchant observed that some commentators are concerned that commercial considerations may have increased the pressure on the team to report newsworthy findings 6. therefore the number of repeats, is inherited which is why it can be used to assess parentage given analysis of a sufficient number of loci 7. Marchant also reported that the team were expecting to publish mitochondrial DNA results during 2011 8. she cited a computer study that showed that ancient DNA isn’t preserved beyond 100 years but didn’t state the source, the assumptions or even the results other than the headline. 9. partial results omitted from the paper might still be valuable
BTW- I wonder why they did not publish the Mt-DNA in 2011? Could it be. . . . they were hoping to show. . . Eurasian female lineage. . .and it back-fired? You know. . . jungle fever thing(black men and white women) and therefore claim some ownership to AE. LOL!
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Speaking of which. I remember Manu claiming that Nilotes as far south as Kenya and Tanzania have 'Cushitic' admixture. The question is what is the basis of such a claim? I mean according to linguistics the south Cushitic a.k.a. Rift languages and even some eastern Cushitic languages have rather outlier positions in the Cushitic group. I remember reading from several books that the proto-Omo-Tana which includes proto-Somali originated in the south perhaps in northern Kenya. The Rift languages are even more remote. Ironically these languages have a Nilotic substratum. We know that Afrasian as a whole originated farther to the north in the eastern Sahara while cattle rearing Nilotic culture is endemic to the southern areas of eastern Africa. This begs the question. Is it not the other way around-- Cushitic speakers having Nilotic ancestry??
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of which. I remember Manu claiming that Nilotes as far south as Kenya and Tanzania have 'Cushitic' admixture. The question is what is the basis of such a claim? I mean according to linguistics the south Cushitic a.k.a. Rift languages and even some eastern Cushitic languages have rather outlier positions in the Cushitic group. I remember reading from several books that the proto-Omo-Tana which includes proto-Somali originated in the south perhaps in northern Kenya. The Rift languages are even more remote. Ironically these languages have a Nilotic substratum. We know that Afrasian as a whole originated farther to the north in the eastern Sahara while cattle rearing Nilotic culture is endemic to the southern areas of eastern Africa. This begs the question. Is it not the other way around-- Cushitic speakers having Nilotic ancestry??
Yes, it is but really it depends on the language they speak and where the population had their ethno-genesis. The expansion of Southern Cushitic speakers is quite old....But there were separate expansions. The most obvious evidence is the presense of E-M78 in these areas as well as the existence, and probably older presence of a Sub Saharan exclusive m35 subclade: E-M293 - (From memory) which is found in high frequencies without E-M78 in southern Cushitic speakers, Click speakers AND Nilo-Saharan speakers mainly in the rift valley but South Africa as well. Maternal evidence of M1 and N1 could have alternative explanations - That they actually have an origin this far south.
The autosomal profile of 18th Dynasty can easily be solved with this hypothesis:
The further you go back in time the closer Egyptians, Afriasians, Nilo-Saharans, and Niger Kordofanian people are connected. "Negro Egyptians" as Obenga put the language family. Niger Kordofanian exists in Central Sudan and MAY be a sub group of Nilo-Saharan, Nilo Saharans have an origin in Central Sudan.......Afrasians have been in Sudan for god knows how long. This area is connected with the peopling of African.... particularly those pushed south after the dessication of the Sahara:
on a funnier note: Even the word for "FACE" in Egypt looks like a San Bushman
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree that Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, and Afrasian peoples probably all share common ancestry in East Africa and would not be surprised if their respective language phyla were shown to be related too. In fact, the only problem I have with Obenga is his decision to exclude Berber and Semitic from Afrasian; what was up with that?
posted
^ unfortunately I dont speak french. Maybe someone else can chime in on that.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL "Eurasian Adam" in the middle of Africa before Eurasia was even populated. Now I see why these clowns keep coming here with their nonsense. They believe the first humans in Africa were "Eurasians" and for sure "caucasoid"....
quote: Eurasian Adam (also known as Australian/Eurasian Adam or Out of Africa Adam) is a name given to the man who was the common male-line (patrilinial) ancestor of all men with the single nucleotide polymorphism mutation on the Y chromosome known as "M168". In other words he is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all men in Haplogroup CT, the haplogroup which is defined by having a common ancestor who had M168.
How about African Adam? But I know for some folks this just too much to take.... but it is far simpler and accurate than this obvious Eurocentric gibberish.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ I agree that Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, and Afrasian peoples probably all share common ancestry in East Africa and would not be surprised if their respective language phyla were shown to be related too. In fact, the only problem I have with Obenga is his decision to exclude Berber and Semitic from Afrasian; what was up with that?
Obenga suffered from a case of using racial thinking to sort out languages. Languages should be analyzed strictly based on linguistics, not on biology, archaeology or anything else. Obenga followed Diop in much of his thinking therefore they see "berbers" and "semites" as separate people from africans, and this leads them to argue quite weakly that these languages are unrelated to other african languages. If we are to remain objective we must admit this shortcoming on their part.
I've seen a video with Obenga saying how there were no similarities between semetic languages and AE. Frankly, that is ridiculous. The similarities are extensive (including both vocab and grammar) as pointed out by many linguists. Also, Obenga doesn't believe in the afrasian phylum--he supports the curiously termed negro-egyptian phylum.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric.
Afrocentric linguists do not accept the Berber, Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic hypothesis. These linguist believe that Egyptian is a Black African language.
These linguist recognize that the Egyptians ruled Palestine for thousands of years. As a result, that claim that many Egyptin loan words in Hebrew and Arabic, may be the result of Egyptian loan words borrowed by the Cananites, Hebrews and etc. during this period of Egyptian colonialism.
In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric. This feature of the Afro-Asiatic languages have encouraged people to assume that the alleged Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Arabia. This view is false, only 20 out of the 230 known semitic languages are spoken outside of East and North Africa.
A comparison of Egyptian, Afro-Asiatic and Black African terms clearly demonstrate that Egyptian is closer to BA languages, than Berber or Semitic.
SUN Hebrew shemesh Arabic shams Sidamo arrisoo Berber tfokt Hausa rana Songhay ra Vai ra Numu re Ligbi re
Name Hebrew sheem Egyptian rn, lan Berber ism Shilluk rin Pormi rin Fanti dzin Ashante din
to TAKE Arabic h.udz Ethiopian yaaaz Berber amez Egyptian mi Yoruba mu Banda mi Mbochi ma
to LOVE,LOVE, AFFECTION Hebrew aahab Arabic hubb Berber erhi Egyptian mr Acoli maaro Luo mer Nuer maar Wolof maar Nubian ma CHILD Egyptian d3 Vai dom Wolof da Hausa da Yoruba 'o-do
In addition to cognate nouns we also find cognate verbs. To Be Egyptian ka Hausa ka Fang ke Mbochi ka Bambara ka To Be Egyptian wnn Wolof ne Swahili ni To GIVE Egyptian di Wolof dioh Bambara di
This comparison of Semitic, Egyptian, Berber and Black African languages clearly show that Egyptian is more closely related to BA languages, than to Semitic or Berber. It is the reality of this regular correspondence between BA and Egyptian terms which has led linguist like Obenga, Anselin and others to recognize Egyptian as Black African, rather than Afrasian language.
The Egyptians and other Black African people formerly lived in the Sahara. In the Sahara these people practiced a agro- pastoral economy in which they raised cattle and cultivated crops with a hoe.
Because of the common origin of the Egyptians and Black Africans we have been able to reconstruct many of the Paleo- African terms for this group. The demonstration of Paleo-African terms was done to place before the readers of this ng one of the two major hypothesis in comparative historical linguistics i.e., regularity hypothesis. The regularity hypothesis assumes that we can reconstruct a language because of the regularity of sound changes in related languages.
The linguistic evidence in my post established the sound correspondence between Egyptian and Black African languages. It showed that due to similarity in both the form and meaning of Egyptian and Black African languages we can reconstruct the ancestral language spoken by all this group which we call Paleo-African.
Comparative and historical linguistics are empirical sciences based on the comparer's experience. This means that eventhough you may want to deny the cognition between black African and Egyptian languages based on mysticism, or your own personal insights that have no external validation, you must present evidence to disconfirm any proposed linguistic relationship. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Egyptian was a multi-lingual civilization. As a result they needed a lingua franca to provide a common means of communication for the Egyptian people. This lingua franca was Egyptian. Because it is a lingua franca it includes common vocabulary items from many Black African languages. As a result of the Pan-African character of ancient Egypt, when the civilization declined the Africans that founded Egypt retained these shared lexical items after they settled West Africa. ]
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.
Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:
quote: Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)-- as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation. Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation. Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ... explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because, quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a way of generating random noise.
Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary.
Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages.
This feature of the Afro-Asiatic languages have encouraged people to assume that the alleged Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Arabia. This view is false, only 20 out of the 230 known semitic languages are spoken outside of East and North Africa.
Reference:
Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic.
Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of which. I remember Manu claiming that Nilotes as far south as Kenya and Tanzania have 'Cushitic' admixture. The question is what is the basis of such a claim? I mean according to linguistics the south Cushitic a.k.a. Rift languages and even some eastern Cushitic languages have rather outlier positions in the Cushitic group. I remember reading from several books that the proto-Omo-Tana which includes proto-Somali originated in the south perhaps in northern Kenya. The Rift languages are even more remote. Ironically these languages have a Nilotic substratum. We know that Afrasian as a whole originated farther to the north in the eastern Sahara while cattle rearing Nilotic culture is endemic to the southern areas of eastern Africa. This begs the question. Is it not the other way around-- Cushitic speakers having Nilotic ancestry??
I simply stated facts, Cushitic ancestry in Rift Valley Nilotes is a fact. See Tishkoff's African DNA study.
This is in agreement with the fact that many anthropologists have classified people like the Maasai as Nilo-Hamitic rather than just simply Nilotic (like the South Sudanese).
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Afrasian languages do not exist.
Egyptian was a multi-lingual civilization. As a result they needed a lingua franca to provide a common means of communication for the Egyptian people. This lingua franca was Egyptian. Because it is a lingua franca it includes common vocabulary items from many Black African languages. As a result of the Pan-African character of ancient Egypt, when the civilization declined the Africans that founded Egypt retained these shared lexical items after they settled West Africa. ]
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.
Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:
quote: Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)-- as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation. Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation. Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ... explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because, quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a way of generating random noise.
Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary.
Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages.
This feature of the Afro-Asiatic languages have encouraged people to assume that the alleged Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Arabia. This view is false, only 20 out of the 230 known semitic languages are spoken outside of East and North Africa.
Reference:
Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic.
Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden.
.
So would you agree with the conclusion that modern Egyptians do not match the genetic profile of the Amarna AE as closely as West Africans? West Africans are also descendants of AE?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric.
Here's a question: If proto-terms of "Proto-Afrisan" were primarily "Semitocentric", then how come it is said that the "Afro-Asiatic" family comprises of two underlying basic bifurcation branches or nodes, in the form of a non-tonal northern branch and a tonal more southerly oriented branch?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I simply stated facts, Cushitic ancestry in Rift Valley Nilotes is a fact. See Tishkoff's African DNA study.
Precisely, what do you consider "Cushitic ancestry" in "Rift Valley Nilotes", and does that include the Sudanese Nilotes?
quote: This is in agreement with the fact that many anthropologists have classified people like the Maasai as Nilo-Hamitic rather than just simply Nilotic (like the South Sudanese).
Why?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric.
Here's a question: If proto-terms of "Proto-Afrisan" were primarily "Semitocentric", then how come it is said that the "Afro-Asiatic" family comprises of two underlying basic bifurcation branches or nodes, in the form of a non-tonal northern branch and a tonal more southerly oriented branch?
This is used to explain the differences some linguist have observed between these languages. There are many homophones in Egyptian. This suggest to me that Egytian was probably a tonal language.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There are many homophones in Egyptian. [/QB]
yes but the fact that there were also many heterophones demonstrates the diversity of Egyptian sexuality.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is used to explain the differences some linguist have observed between these languages. There are many homophones in Egyptian. This suggest to me that Egytian was probably a tonal language.
.
But if your charge about the proto-terms of "Proto-Afro-Asiatic" being primarily "Semitocentric" is anything to go by, then the differences you speak of above, should not be obvious. Semitic, like Egyptic [which you say is tonal], is considered an offshoot of the non-tonal branch. Semitic is considered a fairly young offshoot of the "Afro-Asiatic" family, and so, the hypothetical ancestral "proto-Afro-Asiatic" language cannot be primarily "Semitocentric"...if you get my drift.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of you guys are treated Manu unfairly, as far as I can tell he's been largely truthful throughout the majority of this thread.
This genetic analysis by DNAtribes has simply confirmed that the Ancient Egyptians, in reference to the Armana samples, possess an overwhelming African affinity in contrast to other continental affiliations, whether be it Western Eurasian or anything else for that matter; on the other hand this type of analysis shouldn't be used to further specify that affinity on a regional African basis.
Manu is also correct to assume that the Ancient Egyptians would've been primarily similar to their counterparts in their immediate south, specifically indigenous Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan speakers in the region; take the Kanembou and the Beja as proxies. Modern Egyptians, in reference to their African ancestry, primarily possess a component prominent within the confines of the African Horn and it's periphery, in addition to a second minor component likely in relation to both Nilotic and Niger-Kordofanian-like geneflow.
According to Tishoff et al. 2009, the Beja are primarily "Cushitic", seen as followed.
Cushitic: 66.45% Saharan/Dogon: 19.9% other African: 13.65%
The Ancient Egyptians were likely primarily Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan/Chadic Saharan/Central Sudanic, with minor Niger-Kordofaniana and Levantine admixture.
Manu is also correct in stating that groups like the Maasai, and other Nilo-Saharans in SE Africa, and the Hima-Tutsi are largely biologically Cushitic in comparison to either Nilo-Saharan or Niger-Kordofanian.
According to Tishkoff et al. 2009 the 4 Maasai groups from Kenya and Tanzania were collectively 45.9-50.5% Cushitic in comparison to 21.9%-35.4% Nilo-Saharan and 13.8-24.9% Niger-Kordofanian.
Other SE African Nilo-Saharan speaking populations in reference to Cushitic ancestry:
The Turkana, Pokot, and Kalenjin were the only SE African Nilo-Saharan speakers that had more Nilo-Saharan ancestry than Cushitic, given that they're closer to S. Sudan. They all also possessed significant Niger-Kordofanian ancestry.
The Hima-Tutsi are also relatively distinct from their Bantu speaking counterparts; while most Bantu speaking SE Africans possess significant Cushitic ancestry, the Hima-Tutsi, Mbugu, and a select other few seem to be predominantly Cushitic with significant Bantu ancestry. Cushitic ancestry is rather low among Bantu speakers in the Great Lakes region (the Luhya are collectively only 4.8% Cushitic, while the Sukuma are 11.1% Cushitic) but increases further east as seen below.
According to two Tutsi samples via 23andme, the Tutsi are likely around 60% Cushitic, 30% Bantu or Niger-Kordofanian, and 10% Sandawe/Nilo-Saharan, similar to the Tanzanian Mbugu who were 60.5% Cushitic, 29.9% Niger-Kordofanian, and 10% other African. The Hutu are likely around the vicinity of 5-15% Cushitic on average given the fact that the Tutsi with a Hutu grandparent seems to be about a 3/4 mix of the full Tutsi and the Bantu-Kenya core, who were on average 10% Cushitic.
Tishkoff et al. 2009 sampled a random group of Rwandans and found them to be collectively 18.6% Cushitic, while most of the Rwandans possessed only minor Cushitic ancestry... two (likely Tutsi) out of the eight where around ~60% Cushitic.
Also according to According to Wood et al. 2005 the Hima are about ~30% E1b1b-M35. It's obvious that genetic drift and other factors led to the significant decrease of NE African affiliation y-dna lineages among the Hima-Tutsi.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: Some of you guys are treated Manu unfairly, as far as I can tell he's been largely truthful throughout the majority of this thread.
I hope that I'm not being implicated in some of these guys, who have supposedly "treated" Manu unfairly. It is not my fault when he cannot follow up on demands to validate his positions, now is it.
quote:This genetic analysis by DNAtribes has simply confirmed that the Ancient Egyptians, in reference to the Armana samples, possess an overwhelming African affinity in contrast to other continental affiliations, whether be it Western Eurasian or anything else for that matter; on the other hand this type of analysis shouldn't be used to further specify that affinity on a regional African basis.
Why not? The DNAtribes analysis has shown that it is possible, and so have others, including the one you are about to cite below, as I'll revisit shortly.
quote:Manu is also correct to assume that the Ancient Egyptians would've been primarily similar to their counterparts in their immediate south, specifically indigenous Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan speakers in the region; take the Kanembou and the Beja as proxies.
Were any of these groups implicated in the DNAtribes database? If so, how come they did not contribute to presenting the pattern you would prefer to see, as described above?
How can you assume that the Ancient Egyptians necessarily have to be any closer to "living" groups now in the region than groups now more distantly located?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic