posted
No one wants to talk about the significant admixture in Greeks. Whites not separated between East and West Europeans, or between those people with more or less relation to Neanderthals. It's only with black people when people pull this stuff out their ass.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ The Funny part is that the glorification of the Greeks is a recent phenomena. Rome was always the foundation of Western Civilization. Western Europeans for the longest time considered Greeks to be non whites. It was not until the Neoclassical movement that Greece became the popular among Western Europeans. began to claim Greece was its foundation. The writings of folks like Johann Winklemann who insisted Europe would not be Great until they imitated the Greeks. The was because they discovered Herculanum and Pompeii which revealed that Rome was nothing but a plagerized Greece.
However Greece was Eastern in its Oreintation. Having more in common with Asia Minor and the Eastern Med. than with Western Europe. The Byzantine Empire is never given its full respect because it was an Eastern based Empire in its oreintation.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, a good book is the Oxford History of Ancient Greece. It talks alot about how Much of Western Civilization was based on Ancient Rome not Greece until the neoclassic "Greek Revival" movement. For example in the West we have "Capitals" not a "Polis". The Intellegentcia used to study Latin and Go to Rome rather than Learn Greek and go to Athens. Alot of books now all are up on Greece being the Foundation of the West but this was not always the case.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Western Europeans for the longest time considered Greeks to be non whites.
Woa Srs? Anything I can read up on about that
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ LMAO, Bitch you don't even know what a cheerleader is. Last I checked Im the one who brought the full Tishkoff study to your stupid ass after you cut up the full map, Im not cheerleading Im right in your damn face, Ignorant bitch.
Must be Humilating knowing the very same study you use to claim the Beja as getting their looks from Eurasians and Arabs has the Dogon with the highest Eurasian clusters.
Dumb stupid bird brained bitch. LMFAO another theory of your explodes in your face...LOL.
lol... "The Hammer" hits hard again..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jar jar I never said any of these people weren't admixed, why do you persist to cry?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
PS: I suspect your Hema report comes from Wood et al. The E-M35 therein is about the same amount as the E-M2 component; the E-M75 was the largest component in that particular sample, on which it had shown that distinction only with a Nilotic group, the Alur sample.
Excuse me; above, I meant to say E-M41 rather than E-M75, as the "largest component in that particular Hema sample, on which it had shown that distinction [i.e. in terms of high frequency] only with a Nilotic group, the Alur sample."
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore:
The figures were from the African Structure Run... and they are correct, what are you talking about?
Let's make this simple: Break down how you came up with your numbers that you call "collective", and along with it, the respective reported figures (numbers) and names of the Maasai samples you are considering from the source (Tishkoff et al.) in question.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: [QUOTE]AHHH but see that is the problem. What you are saying is an ASSUMPTION that does not fit well with the data we have NOW. That is plausable last month but NOW we have a game changer. We dont have to guess at it. You are starting for the modern and trying to work your way backwards. There is a southern Egyptian sample in the DNA Tribes data base. There are sudanese samples as well as Somali samples. Take a look at the results from MODERN Dna tribes Egyptians and compare that with what we have now.
This recent DNAtribes analysis is definitely not a game changer, a step in the right direction... but a game changer? no. This analysis has at the least confirmed earlier predictions, that the Ancient Egyptians were in large part African and possessed ancestry similar to groups in Saharo-Tropical Africa. There are various modern Egyptian samples available on the net, Henn et al. 2010 for example (Delta Egyptians and one individual from Minya), which are very important in better understanding the biological regional affinities of the Ancient Egyptians, especially in reference to their African ancestry. Such African ancestry is predominantly of both Nilotic (possibly Niger-Kordofanian) and NE African origin, and I have no doubt in my mind that the Ancient Egyptians would've been primarily composed of these two aforementioned components. A more detailed study will likely uncover more legitimate regional results.
side note: The African component among modern Egyptians is very similar to African populations in the direct vicinity of Egypt, i.e. Chad, Sudan, and the African Horn.
quote: As an exercise it would really be interesting if you take tishkoff Pie graphs and create a specific graph for Modern and Ancient Egypt using those clusters and how you think they would come out..I plan to do this later. I am SURE our results will differ and we can talk about that.
The Ancient Egyptians, given the results of modern Egyptians and the African populations in the surrounding vicinity, were likely a complex mix of the following clusters (greatest to least) designated by Tishkoff et al. 2009: Cushitic, Chadic Saharan, Nilo-Saharan, Saharan/Dogon, and Niger-Kordofanian.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's make this simple: Break down how you came up with your numbers that you call "collective", and along with it, the respective reported figures (numbers) and names of the Maasai samples you are considering from the source (Tishkoff et al.) in question.
Tishkoff et al. 2009 sampled 4 Maasai samples from both Kenya and Tanzania; I don't have time to list their names, they're clearly listed as Maasai.
The Cushitic frequencies are as is, but the two other components are composed of various very related clusters, i.e. Nilo-Saharan/Chadic Saharan/Central Sudanic are all in reference to Nilotic ancestry, while Niger-Kordofanian/Western Bantu/Eastern Bantu donates West/Central African ancestry. Tishkoff et al. 2009 sampled 4 Maasai samples from both Kenya and Tanzania.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: According to Tishkoff et al. 2009, the Maasai are predominantly NE African, about ~50% among all four of the Maasai groups sampled by Tishkoff; in addition to possessing significant Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian (i.e. Bantu) ancestry.
I take it that "NE African" and "Nilo-Saharan" are mutually exclusive to you?
quote: Was I not the one who first mentioned the Tutsi/Hutu results from Tishkoff et al. 2009?
No, not as a sample which treated the Tutsi and the Hutu as indistinguishable.
quote: lol Tishkoff sampled a random group of Rwandans, given the current Rwandan policy which discourages ethnic identification; but when analyzing the Rwandan samples individually, you'll notice that while the majority possess only minor Cushitic admixture about two out of the 8 Rwandan samples possessed high frequencies of the Cushitic cluster. The logical assumption is that they're Tutsi, given to what we know about the Tutsi and the results from the two Tutsi individuals from 23andme.
I'm not sure you know what "we" know about the Tutsi because your replies don't seem to indicate it. What "we" know so far, is that there is essentially very little genetic differences between the Hutu and Tutsi. Your assumption is not logical based on recurring DNA reports on Tutsi and Hutu samples.
quote: It's becoming obvious that you don't know what your talking about; the "Eurasian affinity" among the Hima is in actuality a NE African affinity.
It's interesting that you attempt to follow Tishkoff et al.'s AAC labeling [and misleadingly interpreting it as "admixture"] to the book when implicating "Nilo-Saharan", "Niger-Kordofanian" and "Cushitic" AAC components, yet critically approach what you call the "Eurasian" affinity.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tishkoff et al. 2009 sampled 4 Maasai samples from both Kenya and Tanzania; I don't have time to list their names, they're clearly listed as Maasai.
You have time to throw out numbers not clearly cited on the Tishkoff et al. supplementary material that you cited, and time to say that it involved four samples, but no time to tell us how those numbers where achieved, and how each and which specific samples were factored into your estimations?
quote:The Cushitic frequencies are as is, but the two other components are composed of various very related clusters, i.e. Nilo-Saharan/Chadic Saharan/Central Sudanic are all in reference to Nilotic ancestry, while Niger-Kordofanian/Western Bantu/Eastern Bantu donates West/Central African ancestry. Tishkoff et al. 2009 sampled 4 Maasai samples from both Kenya and Tanzania.
Your posted "frequencies" could not have been cited "as is", because I could not directly match them up with those on the Tishkoff et al. supplementary material that you purported to use. So not only are your AAC proportions (numbers) a departure from those precisely posted on the supplementary material, but also your labeling of "ancestry".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is becoming ridiculous. NE African refers to the Horn of Africa, ancestry associated within the confines of that geographic region. Nilo-Saharan donates ancestry from the S. Sudan, while Niger-Kordofanian ancestry donates ancestry from West/Central Africa and in reference to SE Africa ancestry that was mediated into the region by Bantu speakers from the vicinity of Nigeria/Cameroon.
How do you know, say, "Nilo-Saharan" denotes ancestry exclusively from S. Sudan? Your "NE African" happens to be your own terminology, which I take, you are using interchangeably with the so-called "Cushitic" AAC; while I can see how you are equating that with the Horn of Africa, given that most of the Cushitic speakers live in that area, there is no indication nevertheless, that groups from that location are the only implicated parties.
quote:Isolated individuals? Two random Tutsi individuals who possess similar results, not to mention similar results regarding the northern Tutsi, i.e. the Hima, and the presence of significantly Cushitic admixed individuals included in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 study all indicate that the Tutsi are autosomally predominantly NE African with significant Niger-Kordofanian, i.e. "Bantu", ancestry.
"Similar results" of two "random" individuals here entails what? We know that at least one other "Tutsi" individual you referred to, had Hutu ancestry; which is kinda ironic, isn't it.
Again, I don't get why you are using Tutsi (Rwandan, and possibly from Burundi) interchangeably with the Hima, while ignoring reports for samples specifically involving the Tutsi. Care to elaborate?
Tishkoff et al. (2009) do not distinguish the Hutu and the Tutsi, yet you use their data to make some one-sided argument for the Tutsi. You don't find that strange?
quote:The aforementioned statement simply makes no sense; the Tutsi at 23andme are intermediate between Nigerians and Somalis, while closer to the latter than the former. Given that Nigerians are proxy to "Bantu" admixture and Somalis are proxy to indigenous SE African Cushitic speakers, that would imply that Tutsis possess more ancestors from the African Horn than Tropical West/Central Africa.
Care to share the DNA and background details of this one or two Tutsi individuals at 23andme that you so fervently like to use as the quintessential Tutsi?
Why are you taking for granted that Nigerian samples can serve as a proxy for a central African Bantu sample, while you treat the Somali as a proxy for Southeast African Cushitic speakers?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
If that's the case your going to have to assume that not only was there a process of population replacement in Egypt, where the indigenous Egyptian population was replaced by a Levantine-like group, the settler population would then eventually acquire significant African admixture from a source population completely different from what was previously dominant in Egypt. Very unlikely.
You are mischaracterizing the demography of modern Egypt. I'm not sure what you are calling a "replacement by a Levantine-like group", but I take it that you are referring to ancestry as reflected by hg J1, for example. Certainly, a good segment of the J1 gene pool therein would have come from the Arabian plate region, but the Egyptian J1 speaks to a more complex demographic background than just that. At any rate, gene flow from across the Red Sea is not evenly distributed in Egypt; there is a gradient of higher exposure in the Delta region than in those further up the Nile. As such, there looks to be a better preservation level in the latter.
If you examine, the "African" components of even the Delta area sampling, you'll have noticed that Egypt even then does not necessarily replicate those beyond its southern borders on the east. This begs the question: What then do you mean by "settler population would then eventually acquire significant African admixture from a source population completely different from what was previously dominant in Egypt"?
quote: Modern Egyptians are very important in better understanding the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians... via analyzing the African component of modern Egyptians.
Sure, modern Egyptian gene pool is insightful in estimating the demographic processes that must occurred in the region over the time, but can you say that it is an accurate quantifier of what the earlier core indigenous Dynastic Egyptian gene pool would have looked like? Importantly, were the modern Egyptians compared against the Dynastic samples under discussion; if so, how come they assumed the position they did with respect to the ancient specimens, versus that between modern samples from other parts of Africa with respect to the ancient Egyptian specimens?
quote: Just as how we are able to determine the African affinities of the African diaspora by analyzing the African component of contemporary African-African peoples. Modern Egyptians possess two primary African components... one that reaches it's highest frequencies in the African Horn and the other that seems to indicate Nilo-Saharan ancestry, and possibly even Niger-Kordofanian ancestry.
You speak of "two primary African components", yet go onto name three.
quote: As exemplified by the above, the Ancient Egyptians would've most resembled contemporary North Sudanese populations (who seem to be a even mix between the two aforementioned proxies mentioned previously, the Kanembou and the Beja) minus recent Arab admixture... not Horners who often lack the latter component.
Were the North Sudanese factored in the DNAtribe report? I know the "Horn of Africa" was represented, but my guess is that you don't like the way the results turned out for its reported relationship to the Dynastic Egyptian specimens at hand? I, however, am not surprised by these findings, since I realize that Egyptian populations even today, are not a replication of those in the African Horn.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]I take it that "NE African" and "Nilo-Saharan" are mutually exclusive to you?
I'm not here to argue about terminology. My use of NE African is in reference to African ancestry that is largely found within the vicinity of the African Horn and peaks among groups like the Oromo and Somali; while Nilo-Saharan donates exactly what it implies.
quote: No, not as a sample which treated the Tutsi and the Hutu as indistinguishable.
Tishkoff et al. 2009 simply sampled a group of Rwandans; the purpose of the study wasn't to differentiate the two groups. But if you were to actually analyze the accessible 8 samples from the aforesaid study you would recognize that a minority of the samples are much more closer to the African Horn than they are to largely "pristine" Bantu speaking groups in Central Africa, in contrast to their counterparts.
quote:I'm not sure you know what "we" know about the Tutsi because your replies don't seem to indicate it. What "we" know so far, is that there is essentially very little genetic differences between the Hutu and Tutsi. Your assumption is not logical based on recurring DNA reports on Tutsi and Hutu samples.
Please explain the results of the two Tutsi samples from 23andme and the results of the Hima which recognizes mark differences between the former and the Luhya (Kenyans who lack significant NE African admixture, about only ~6% on average) and other West/Central African groups? Even if you were to make the argument that the Tutsi and Hutu were essentially the same, you would have to accept significant NE African in that particular population. It's not a coincidence that both of these two aforesaid Tutsi samples from 23andme cluster in the direction of the Somali, in comparison to peoples in Nigeria or the DRC (even when considering that they both possess yDNA E1b1a). There have only been a handful studies in reference to unipaternal lineages on the basis of Rwandan genetic diversity, but recent results regarding the autosomal affinities of the Rwandan population is being to depict a different picture indeed; according to results regarding the yDNA diversity in Rwanda, you would expect no NE African admixture at all... but according to Tishkoff et al. 2009, Rwandans are collectively near ~20% NE African.
quote: It's interesting that you attempt to follow Tishkoff et al.'s AAC labeling [and misleadingly interpreting it as "admixture"] to the book when implicating "Nilo-Saharan", "Niger-Kordofanian" and "Cushitic" AAC components, yet critically approach what you call the "Eurasian" affinity.
I'm not following? How else would you explain the predominant affinity to the African Horn in contrast to S.Sudan or West/Central Africa of the Maasai? Besides admixture? Please explain...
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE] You have time to throw out numbers not clearly cited on the Tishkoff et al. supplementary material that you cited, and time to say that it involved four samples, but no time to tell us how those numbers where achieved, and how each and which specific samples were factored into your estimations?
Did I not clearly state that the figures that I had posted previously were in reference to the average Maasai results and that Nilotic and Bantu ancestry contained the collective results of a handful of very similar clusters that were in references to the aforementioned ancestries?
The Maasai groups sampled by Tishkoff are listed as:
quote:Your posted "frequencies" could not have been cited "as is", because I could not directly match them up with those on the Tishkoff et al. supplementary material that you purported to use. So not only are your AAC proportions (numbers) a departure from those precisely posted on the supplementary material, but also your labeling of "ancestry". [/QB]
The Maasai results regarding their "Cushitic" ancestry is exactly as is, as stated previously according to the African run the 4 Maasai groups where in the range of 45.9-50.5%. The Nilotic and Bantu affinities are in reference to the collective accounting of various similar clusters.
quote: How do you know, say, "Nilo-Saharan" denotes ancestry exclusively from S. Sudan? Your "NE African" happens to be your own terminology, which I take, you are using interchangeably with the so-called "Cushitic" AAC; while I can see how you are equating that with the Horn of Africa, given that most of the Cushitic speakers live in that area, there is no indication nevertheless, that groups from that location are the only implicated parties.
You can clearly recognize the regional affinities of these various clusters; the Nilo-Saharan cluster peaks among groups within or very close to South Sudan decreases as you move way from S. Sudan (the S. Sudanese samples possess the highest collective Nilotic ancestry, followed by near by groups in the SE Africa, and secondly Nilo-Saharan and Chadic speakers in the vicinity of Lake Chad and the Central Sahara.
No of course not, the Cushitic cluster was found among both NE Africans and groups who possess significant NE African ancestry (including Afrasan speaking populations in SE Africa, like the Iraqw for example).
quote:"Similar results" of two "random" individuals here entails what? We know that at least one other "Tutsi" individual you referred to, had Hutu ancestry; which is kinda ironic, isn't it.
There are two Tutsi samples from 23andme; one of them happens to 1/4th Hutu and is therefore less NE African than the other Tutsi with no known Hutu ancestry. The mixed individual is a 1/4 mix of the "pure" Tutsi and the sampled Bantu-Kenyans; The "pure" Tutsi sample is about ~60% NE African, while the other Tutsi is roughly ~50% NE African, in comparison to the core Bantu Kenyan cluster at roughly ~10%.
quote: Again, I don't get why you are using Tutsi (Rwandan, and possibly from Burundi) interchangeably with the Hima, while ignoring reports for samples specifically involving the Tutsi. Care to elaborate?
The Hima are Tutsi as previously mentioned; there's mutually understanding between both groups that they are in fact one and the same; the Hima are assumed to have migrated to southern Uganda from Rwanda relatively recently.
quote: Tishkoff et al. (2009) do not distinguish the Hutu and the Tutsi, yet you use their data to make some one-sided argument for the Tutsi. You don't find that strange?
Tishkoff et al. (2009) simply sampled a random group of Rwandans and made no effort to differentiate the 8 Rwandan samples; but if you would actually analyze the samples, a minority possess NE African admixture simpler to that of the two Tutsi individuals from 23andme.
[QUOTECare to share the DNA and background details of this one or two Tutsi individuals at 23andme that you so fervently like to use as the quintessential Tutsi?
Why are you taking for granted that Nigerian samples can serve as a proxy for a central African Bantu sample, while you treat the Somali as a proxy for Southeast African Cushitic speakers?
Both of the Tutsi samples possess yDNA lineage E1b1a (E1b1a7a and E1b1a8a1), while their mtDNA lineages vary ( L0a2d and L2a-d).
Nigerian, Zimbabwean, whatever... any group that's predominantly West/Central African. The mixed Tutsi is exactly intermediate between relatively "pure" Bantu Kenyans like the Luhya and Somalis and Oromos from the Horn of Africa, while the "pure" Tutsi is closer to the latter than the former besides his intermediate position.
There are 8 Bantu Kenyans samples used by 23andme, while the majority are about ~10% NE African... 3 out of the 8 are significantly more (~20-30%); and both of the Tutsi samples cluster significantly more closer to the Somali than these more admixed Bantu Kenyans.
Your post regarding Egypt is insightful, but given that your response is in way related to my objection to the DNAtribes analysis; in fact some of your statements are positions that I've taken in this vary same thread, for example the fact that modern Egyptians possess African ancestry divergent (yet overlapping)with the African Horn and that African ancestry increases (where it likely peaks in places like Luxor and Aswan) as you move south and reaches a minimum in places like the Delta and Sinai. I may take some time to honestly reply to the most in the future, but I don't have the energy to do so as of now.
sidenote: your first paragraph is addressing a hypothetical situation I posed to another poster.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The Old Doctore, I am equally confused by your terminology. When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
If not, how do you define "ancestry"? Is there any qualitative criteria that you go by or do you simply base this on the happenstance of certain clustering? If so, isn't this an ad hoc way of labeling populations and are you not essentially advocating the existence of "races"?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What's interesting, is that The old doctor views so many African populations that have otherwise proven to be related, but distinct units (eg, Ethiopians and Masai), as necessarily recently mixed amongst eachother, but when it comes to the Hutu and Tutsi, two peoples who are culturally, linguistically and uniparentally, not distinct units relative to eachother, who have been intermarrying a lot, for a long time, and who have been living under a centralised polity for centuries, he sees them as distinct. He views them as distinct to the degree that he thinks it's possible to assert that every peak that denotes Horner affinity in a mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample can be explained by exclusively invoking Tutsi's:
quote: Originally posted by The Old Doctore Tishkoff sampled a random group of Rwandans, given the current Rwandan policy which discourages ethnic identification; but when analyzing the Rwandan samples individually, you'll notice that while the majority possess only minor Cushitic admixture about two out of the 8 Rwandan samples possessed high frequencies of the Cushitic cluster. The logical assumption is that they're Tutsi, given to what we know about the Tutsi and the results from the two Tutsi individuals from 23andme.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The Old Doctore, I am equally confused by your terminology. When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
If not, how do you define "ancestry"? Is there any qualitative criteria that you go by or do you simply base this on the happenstance of certain clustering? If so, isn't this an ad hoc way of labeling populations and are you not essentially advocating the existence of "races"?
That was in reference to Tishkoff et al. (2009); according to the aforementioned analysis, there are three clusters (Nilo-Saharan, Chadic Saharan, and Central Sudanic) that could be referred to as "Nilotic" and or are associated with the linguistic phylum, Nilo-Saharan. These clusters, collectively, reach their peak in Southern Sudan and the periphery, decreasing in frequency as you move away from Southern Sudan and into the broader Sudan, SE Africa, the Central Sahara/Chadic Africa, and Central Africa.
I don't understand your objection to the above.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Dogon samples in Tishkoff's study had very high missing genotype rates, their results were severely skewed, quote from the study:
''It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).''
According to Xing et al. 2010 the Dogon were just like other West African groups and did not show any affinity towards North Africans or West Asians at all.
When a better sampling strategy and denser marker sets (240,000 data points) were utilized the Dogon from Mali came out as fully Sub-Saharan African with no Eurasian admixture whatsoever. There are certainly ethnic groups in the Sahel zone who do have substantial North African admixture, namely the Tuareg and Fulanis for instance, but the Dogon and Bambara are not one of them.Northern Cushitic-Semitic-speaking Ethiopian groups repeatedly show a significant, marginally dominant Eurasian component alongside a very large Sub-Saharan one. The mixed "Cushitic" or "East African" cluster (really "Pre-Nilotic & West Eurasian" in affinities) only shows up much later and is a mixture of earlier West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan components.Many of the so-called "Cushitic" speakers in southern Ethiopia are really assimilated Omotic peoples.
Nilotes belong to the mixed so-called "Cushitic" cluster (which, per the authors themselves, is really a mixed Nilotic-Cushitic cluster) are obviously those that have a long-documented history of Cushitic admixture. That would be the Nilo-Hamites, such as the Maasai, Samburu, and so forth. Neither I nor the authors mean the Dinka, Shilluk, etc., whom are not traditionally known as Nilo-Hamites since they don't have a significant Cushitic/Hamitic component. Per Tishkoff et al.: ,
Many Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations in East Africa, such as the Maasai, show multiple cluster assignments from the Nilo-Saharan (red) and Cushitic (dark purple) AACs, in accord with linguistic evidence of repeated Nilotic assimilation of Cushites over the past 3000 years and with the high frequency of a shared East African–specific mutation associated with lactose tolerance
. The affinities of the later Ks are determined by the earlier Ks, which the former are but sub-components of. And the initial Ks in multiple studies/analyses, of course, clearly show a dominant Eurasian component in both the Beja and the Beta Israel, in addition to a substantial Sub-Saharan component in those same northern Horn groups.
What Tishkoff believed way back in 2000, well before her own findings almost a decade later, some of which are documented in that study from 2009. She no longer believes that the Out-of-Africa exodus alone (or even predominantly) can explain the significant Eurasian affinities in the Horn. Here's what she writes in a more recent study from 2010: It also doesn't matter whether or not that Eurasian component in the Beja and Beta Israel is due to admixture. It is still a Eurasian component either way, which is why Tishkoff offers two alternative scenarios to explain its presence: one, postulating shared deep Eurasian ancestry (Out-of-Africa), and the other suggesting recent Eurasian admixture. Given the great quantity and variety of Eurasian mtDNA clades in the Horn, among various other factors, it's pretty safe to assume that the presence of the Eurasian affinities in the Horn is not solely due to shared deep ancestry.
"The reverse migration of non-Africans into Africa was also shown to contribute to the gene-pool of modern African populations. For example, high levels of both Middle Eastern/European and eastern African Cushitic ancestry were detected in the Saharan African Beja, indicative of possible gene-flow from non-African populations [18]. These genetic patterns correlate well with linguistic and archaeological data that suggest that modern-day Beja pastoralists descended from northern Cushitic-speakers who migrated from Ethiopia to the Red Sea coast of Sudan [56]. Furthermore, the Beja have also had more intensive contact with the Middle East through commercial trade across the Red Sea as early as the 9th century A.D. and with nomadic camel herders of Arab Bedouin origin who settled in Sudan beginning in the 14th century A.D. [6] (Figure 1). These studies demonstrate that migration in Africa occurred at different points in time and over a range of geographic areas, resulting in complex patterns of genetic variation."
Multiple migrations Out-of-Africa are possible, assuming of course that the recent African origin of modern humans is legit. But they still don't come anywhere close to even partially explaining, among other things, the presence of a large variety of mtDNA clades with proposed (and relatively recent) Eurasian origins in many different Cushitic and Semitic speaking groups in the Horn as well as points below, such as between 15%-22% of the maternal haplogroup I in the Cushitic-speaking El-Molo and Rendille ethnic groups in northern Kenya (a clade that is associated with the Lemkos of Central Europe and the Vikings). Only actual migration(s) from Eurasians into Africa, whether historic or pre-historic, can account for that.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^What's interesting, is that The old doctor views so many African populations that have otherwise proven to be related, but distinct units (eg, Ethiopians and Masai), as necessarily recently mixed amongst eachother, but when it comes to the Hutu and Tutsi, two peoples who are culturally, linguistically and uniparentally, not distinct units relative to eachother, who have been intermarrying a lot, for a long time, and who have been living under a centralised polity for centuries, he sees them as distinct. He views them as distinct to the degree that he thinks it's possible to assert that every peak that denotes Horner affinity in a mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample can be explained by exclusively invoking Tutsi's:
Tutsis and Hutus are very much differentiated, and while there are many cultural and linguistic similarities, the two groups recognize each other as distinctly different from one another. Tutsis and Hutus speak the same language yes (while they do speak distinct dialects), but they are in fact culturally different from one another contrary to popular Western belief; traditions often totted as "Rwandan" are in large part Tutsi and clearly associated with the historic Tutsi royalty and nobility. Also, intermarriage in Rwanda has always been one sided, Hutu men and Tutsi women, and given the fact that parentage is defined by the ethnicity of the father, the Hutu population has been steadily receiving Tutsi-mediated gene-flow up until the Rwandan 1994 Genocide.
There are various reasons that could explain the predominance of E1b1a among the Rwandan Tutsi and the fact they the Tutsi speak a Bantu language. The Tutsi likely possessed significant non-NE African ancestry prior to their arrival in the Great Lakes region, given that they likely descended from Great Rift Valley Cushitic speakers like the Datoga and Iraqw who also possess Bantu, Nilotic, and Sandawe admixture. With their arrival in Rwanda/Burundi/Uganda, these Cushitic migrants likely formed an alliance with the elite in the region, where they would acquire additional Bantu admixture and adopt the native language in solidifying control over the masses. But this is just a theory.
Fact is we have two Tutsi samples who cluster closer to the Horn of Africa than they do to indigenous Central Africans, in addition to the fact that the northern Tutsi possess the NE African derived lineage at a frequency of ~30% and that a minority of the Rwandan samples from Tishkoff et al. (2009) possess a similar affinity to NE Africa in comparison to the aforementioned 23andme samples.
The Maasai don't possess direct Ethiopian ancestry, but they were likely a SE African Cushitic speaking population that absorbed Nilotic and Bantu ancestry, in addition to adopting the Maasai language and in any case culture to an extent.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The Old Doctore, I am equally confused by your terminology. When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
If not, how do you define "ancestry"? Is there any qualitative criteria that you go by or do you simply base this on the happenstance of certain clustering? If so, isn't this an ad hoc way of labeling populations and are you not essentially advocating the existence of "races"?
That was in reference to Tishkoff et al. (2009); according to the aforementioned analysis, there are three clusters (Nilo-Saharan, Chadic Saharan, and Central Sudanic) that could be referred to as "Nilotic" and or are associated with the linguistic phylum, Nilo-Saharan. These clusters, collectively, reach their peak in Southern Sudan and the periphery, decreasing in frequency as you move away from Southern Sudan and into the broader Sudan, SE Africa, the Central Sahara/Chadic Africa, and Central Africa.
I don't understand your objection to the above.
I don't object to the data. I have the Tishkoff paper and don't necessarily need you to enlighten me on its contents. What I take issue with, or rather, what I am confused by is your labeling of these various components as static ancestral units.
You speak of "NE African" ancestry but have yet to define it. Calling it "Ancestry from NE Africa" is merely circular reasoning since you've yet to even define "ancestry". That Tishkoff labels them according to linguistic typology is one thing but I was trying to get at what you understood of such labeling.
Would you mind answering my initial question?
"When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
^In other words, why is it that you discuss clusters as unchanging units bound to geography?
Indeed, using enough markers you can discriminate ultimately at the individual level since no one will share every single allele with you. With that said, why are you treating these clusters, evinced by your percentage break downs, as if they were equivalent to biological races (e.g., 35% Nilo-Saharan this, 25% Niger-Kordofanian that). I am not arguing with Tishkoff's data, I disagree with your uncritical interpretation of terms. Your posts here strike me as a bit misguided.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^What's interesting, is that The old doctor views so many African populations that have otherwise proven to be related, but distinct units (eg, Ethiopians and Masai), as necessarily recently mixed amongst eachother, but when it comes to the Hutu and Tutsi, two peoples who are culturally, linguistically and uniparentally, not distinct units relative to eachother, who have been intermarrying a lot, for a long time, and who have been living under a centralised polity for centuries, he sees them as distinct. He views them as distinct to the degree that he thinks it's possible to assert that every peak that denotes Horner affinity in a mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample can be explained by exclusively invoking Tutsi's:
Tutsis and Hutus are very much differentiated, and while there are many cultural and linguistic similarities, the two groups recognize each other as distinctly different from one another. Tutsis and Hutus speak the same language yes (while they do speak distinct dialects), but they are in fact culturally different from one another contrary to popular Western belief; traditions often totted as "Rwandan" are in large part Tutsi and clearly associated with the historic Tutsi royalty and nobility. Also, intermarriage in Rwanda has always been one sided, Hutu men and Tutsi women, and given the fact that parentage is defined by the ethnicity of the father, the Hutu population has been steadily receiving Tutsi-mediated gene-flow up until the Rwandan 1994 Genocide.
There are various reasons that could explain the predominance of E1b1a among the Rwandan Tutsi and the fact they the Tutsi speak a Bantu language. The Tutsi likely possessed significant non-NE African ancestry prior to their arrival in the Great Lakes region, given that they likely descended from Great Rift Valley Cushitic speakers like the Datoga and Iraqw who also possess Bantu, Nilotic, and Sandawe admixture. With their arrival in Rwanda/Burundi/Uganda, these Cushitic migrants likely formed an alliance with the elite in the region, where they would acquire additional Bantu admixture and adopt the native language in solidifying control over the masses. But this is just a theory.
Fact is we have two Tutsi samples who cluster closer to the Horn of Africa than they do to indigenous Central Africans, in addition to the fact that the northern Tutsi possess the NE African derived lineage at a frequency of ~30% and that a minority of the Rwandan samples from Tishkoff et al. (2009) possess a similar affinity to NE Africa in comparison to the aforementioned 23andme samples.
The Maasai don't possess direct Ethiopian ancestry, but they were likely a SE African Cushitic speaking population that absorbed Nilotic and Bantu ancestry, in addition to adopting the Maasai language and in any case culture to an extent.
^No offense, but engaging you in debate leads to nowhere, because you'll simply stop responding when things get too hot under your feet.
Even now you're regurgitating assertions for which I have asked evidence numerous times.
Everyone can verify for themselves that Hutu and Tutsi mariages have, in fact, NOT been one sided; Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage occurred often, and went both ways. Even after the 1994 conflict. There exist numerous reports of Tutsi's being banned from their families because they took Hutu wifes.
Notice that the falsehood you're propegating about Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage being exclusively one-sided is just a distraction to the points I've been making. If Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage occurred only through Hutu men taking Tutsi wifes, you STILL wouldn't be able to tell whether Tutsi's or Hutu's were implicated in Tiskoff's samples with Cushitic affinity, now would you?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tutsis and Hutus are very much differentiated
^From the data I saw they actually overlap quite a bit even forming a large venn diagram which encompasses the majority of those sampled. At the end of the day you overemphasize these "differences" and seem to not understand what statistical significance entails in a comparative data set. They are BARELY differentiated and if less markers were used, they wouldn't be at all. If more markers were used, they'd be even MORE differentiated. You are looking at differences on a micro scale and don't account for that, which makes some of your posts confusing and misleading.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Dogon samples in Tishkoff's study had very high missing genotype rates, their results were severely skewed, quote from the study:
''It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).''
Oh shut up and stop parroting Perahu. You don't even make sense with the words you use ("missing genotype rates", "results were severely skewed"? wtf are you talking about?) showing me that you don't even understand what you've quoted and how it affects anything.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]^No offense, but engaging you in debate leads to nowhere, because you'll simply stop responding when things get too hot under your feet.
Some wasting my time, I've yet to back down from any of your responses to my various posts on this thread and have continued to engage with various posters opposed to my position, spare me the bs.
quote: Everyone can verify for themselves that Hutu and Tutsi mariages have, in fact, NOT been one sided; Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage occurred often, and went both ways. Even after the 1994 conflict. There exist numerous reports of Tutsi's being banned from their families because they took Hutu wifes.
I've worked extensively in Rwanda and anybody that knows me from forumbiodiversity can verify that claim; I'm the same individual who provided the Tutsi sample (previously mentioned here) to 23andme, the first identifiable Tutsi sample to have been autosomally analyzed.
Inter-ethnic marriages in Rwanda/Burundi have always been one sided, Hutu men and Tutsi women; I personally know of a handful of inter-ethnic unions in Rwanda and only of them involves a Tutsi man and Hutu woman.
Your lying, I've yet here of anybody being disowned for marrying a Hutu or vise-versa. End of discussion.
quote: Notice that the falsehood you're propegating about Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage being exclusively one-sided is just a distraction to the points I've been making. If Hutu/Tutsi intermarriage occurred only through Hutu men taking Tutsi wifes, you STILL wouldn't be able to tell whether Tutsi's or Hutu's were implicated in Tiskoff's samples with Cushitic affinity, now would you?
What are you talking about? It's not as if Hutu's lack NE African admixture, it's just that it's not as predominant as is the likely situation with the Tutsi. Most SE African groups possess significant NE African ancestry, from a low of ~5-10%% among groups like the Luhya to ~35% among groups the Kikuyu.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tutsis and Hutus are very much differentiated
^From the data I saw they actually overlap quite a bit even forming a large venn diagram which encompasses the majority of those sampled. At the end of the day you overemphasize these "differences" and seem to not understand what statistical significance entails in a comparative data set. They are BARELY differentiated and if less markers were used, they wouldn't be at all. If more markers were used, they'd be even MORE differentiated. You are looking at differences on a micro scale and don't account for that, which makes some of your posts confusing and misleading.
The quote your arguing against was in reference to cultural and linguistic differences btw.
What study are you referencing?
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, The Dumbass sat up and Spammed a Paper she did not even read or study into detail. What a dunce.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: lioness:
quote:The Dogon samples in Tishkoff's study had very high missing genotype rates, their results were severely skewed, quote from the study:
''It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).''
Oh shut up and stop parroting Perahu. You don't even make sense with the words you use ("missing genotype rates", "results were severely skewed"? wtf are you talking about?) showing me that you don't even understand what you've quoted and how it affects anything.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tutsis and Hutus are very much differentiated
^From the data I saw they actually overlap quite a bit even forming a large venn diagram which encompasses the majority of those sampled. At the end of the day you overemphasize these "differences" and seem to not understand what statistical significance entails in a comparative data set. They are BARELY differentiated and if less markers were used, they wouldn't be at all. If more markers were used, they'd be even MORE differentiated. You are looking at differences on a micro scale and don't account for that, which makes some of your posts confusing and misleading.
The quote your arguing against was in reference to cultural and linguistic differences btw.
What study are you referencing?
Would you mind addressing this first for the sake of conversational fluidity?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The Old Doctore, I am equally confused by your terminology. When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
If not, how do you define "ancestry"? Is there any qualitative criteria that you go by or do you simply base this on the happenstance of certain clustering? If so, isn't this an ad hoc way of labeling populations and are you not essentially advocating the existence of "races"?
That was in reference to Tishkoff et al. (2009); according to the aforementioned analysis, there are three clusters (Nilo-Saharan, Chadic Saharan, and Central Sudanic) that could be referred to as "Nilotic" and or are associated with the linguistic phylum, Nilo-Saharan. These clusters, collectively, reach their peak in Southern Sudan and the periphery, decreasing in frequency as you move away from Southern Sudan and into the broader Sudan, SE Africa, the Central Sahara/Chadic Africa, and Central Africa.
I don't understand your objection to the above.
I don't object to the data. I have the Tishkoff paper and don't necessarily need you to enlighten me on its contents. What I take issue with, or rather, what I am confused by is your labeling of these various components as static ancestral units.
You speak of "NE African" ancestry but have yet to define it. Calling it "Ancestry from NE Africa" is merely circular reasoning since you've yet to even define "ancestry". That Tishkoff labels them according to linguistic typology is one thing but I was trying to get at what you understood of such labeling.
Would you mind answering my initial question?
"When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
^In other words, why is it that you discuss clusters as unchanging units bound to geography?
Indeed, using enough markers you can discriminate ultimately at the individual level since no one will share every single allele with you. With that said, why are you treating these clusters, evinced by your percentage break downs, as if they were equivalent to biological races (e.g., 35% Nilo-Saharan this, 25% Niger-Kordofanian that). I am not arguing with Tishkoff's data, I disagree with your uncritical interpretation of terms. Your posts here strike me as a bit misguided.
^Whenever you have time of course as I know it's a bit hard to offer a well-thought out reply when at least three people are bombarding you simultaneously. I assume that's why you're being so selective in what you respond to?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Dogon samples in Tishkoff's study had very high missing genotype rates, their results were severely skewed, quote from the study:
''It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).''
Oh shut up and stop parroting Perahu. You don't even make sense with the words you use ("missing genotype rates", "results were severely skewed"? wtf are you talking about?) showing me that you don't even understand what you've quoted and how it affects anything.
There is no Perahu quote here. The results are skewed for the Dogan because the sample was only 9 people and they used blood spots which are less reliable. Please don't critisize me not indertanding when you don't.
posted
^You quoted Perahu verbatim and what was "skewed" towards what lioness? You can't even define the word "skewed" let alone intelligently inform me on how "blood spots are less reliable" and why. The issue here is that the team were unable to amplify all 121 markers, out of which 43% had missing data. What does that tell you? That they were able to amplify 69 of them. Why did the 69 microsatellites (which are more than sufficient at distinguishing population affinity) reveal what they did (I don't care if it was one single Dogon individual!)? Missing data don't give false positives you idiot!
This is exactly why I don't argue with Perahu and ignore you most of the time. You are both frauds.
Now back to the the topic at hand. Awaiting a response from the Doc. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is people should actually DNA studies before spamming and posting on them. Posting something without actually reading it disqualifies anything a person has to say on the matter.
Funny how Perahu never posts the results of Tishkoff 2009 in reguards to East Africans and the Tutsi..Naw he will ignore the insignificant Eurasian admixture in the Horn and only focus on the Beja.
Cherry picking what he wants from a study..lol
Dude's a dishonest Fraud
Nuff said.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact is people should actually DNA studies before spamming and posting on them. Posting something without actually reading it disqualifies anything a person has to say on the matter.
black people specifically need to learn more about DNA. It's the only way to get past stupid sh!t like this. So much could be done if our black youth weren't forced to take classes that are designed exclusively for middle class whites.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^No offense, but engaging you in debate leads to nowhere, because you'll simply stop responding when things get too hot under your feet.
Some wasting my time, I've yet to back down from any of your responses to my various posts on this thread and have continued to engage with various posters opposed to my position, spare me the bs.
If you say so man. Your history of posts are going nowhere though; they're there for everyone to see. Even right now, as we speak, you're avoiding questions other posters have directed at you.
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: Inter-ethnic marriages in Rwanda/Burundi have always been one sided, Hutu men and Tutsi women; I personally know of a handful of inter-ethnic unions in Rwanda and only of them involves a Tutsi man and Hutu woman.
Here you go again with your eclectic patchwork of ''evidence''. Do you think your silly anecdotal ''evidence'' has any bearing on generation of generation of intermarriage, going back more than seven centuries? No one has argued that intermarriage rates aren't higher among Hutu males, the point however, is that intermarriage rates throughout the centuries would have been enough to tell me you're talking out of your neck when you're attempting to pinpoint ''Cushitic'' affinity in Tishkoff's Hutu/Tutsi as necessarily Tutsi. Many Rwandans probably wouldn't know whether they're Hutu or Tutsi by lineage anyway.
quote:Your lying, I've yet here of anybody being disowned for marrying a Hutu or vise-versa. [Roll Eyes] End of discussion.
Yes, that's your MO, isn't it? I'm right, and when others won't buy into that, I'll pout and pout about others wasting my time, and when things get too hot, I'll simply stop responding. You're clearly questioning what I've said based on intuition, and what you deem likely, but the truth is, having worked in a given country is not enough to be able to confirm or deny incidents. Indeed, as is frequently seen with inter ethnic conflicts in general, even natives of affected areas are often in denial, or simply not in the know, about certain events. For things of that nature, one has to rely on published reports (you won't understand that though, with your patchwork of data). The evidence on the ground speaks loud and clear:
In the minds of Rwandans, the memory of the massacres has not dissipated. During the 1994 genocide there were reports of Hutus killing their Tutsi spouses (HRW March 1999, 216). In 1990, a government-sponsored publication named any Muhutu (Hutu) who married a Tutsi a traitor (HRI 1998). As late as 1996, there were reports that Tutsi men married to Hutu women were threatened by their Tutsi family members and driven off of their land (HRW Sept. 1996).
quote:What are you talking about? It's not as if Hutu's lack NE African admixture, it's just that it's not as predominant as is the likely situation with the Tutsi. Most SE African groups possess significant NE African ancestry, from a low of ~5-10%% among groups like the Luhya to ~35% among groups the Kikuyu.
I know. Strange isn't it? How people can be in the know about data that nullifies their dearly held positions (eg, you being well aware that those 2 Tutsi 23andme results are not an anomaly in the wider context of ''Cushitic'' affinity in nearby Bantu groups), and still say things like ''based on what we know about the Tutsi, the samples with ''Cushitic'' affinity in Tishkoff et al were Tutsi''.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
2010
Authors
Michael C. Campbell, Sarah A. Tishkoff
"The reverse migration of non-Africans into Africa was also shown to contribute to the gene-pool of modern African populations. For example, high levels of both Middle Eastern/European and eastern African Cushitic ancestry were detected in the Saharan African Beja, indicative of possible gene-flow from non-African populations [18]. These genetic patterns correlate well with linguistic and archaeological data that suggest that modern-day Beja pastoralists descended from northern Cushitic-speakers who migrated from Ethiopia to the Red Sea coast of Sudan [56]. Furthermore, the Beja have also had more intensive contact with the Middle East through commercial trade across the Red Sea as early as the 9th century A.D. and with nomadic camel herders of Arab Bedouin origin who settled in Sudan beginning in the 14th century A.D. [6] (Figure 1). These studies demonstrate that migration in Africa occurred at different points in time and over a range of geographic areas, resulting in complex patterns of genetic variation
there were nationalized foreigners and their descendents were Egyptians even if not of the indigenous variety.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote: The very earliest masks were experimentally crafted as independent sculptural work, and have been dated to the Herakleopolitan period (late First Intermediate Period). These early masks were made of wood, fashioned in two pieces and held together with pegs, or cartonnage (layers of linen or papyrus stiffened with plaster. They were molded over a wooden model or core. The masks of both men and women had over-exaggerated eyes and often enigmatic half smiles. These objects were then framed by long, narrow, tripartite wigs held securely by a decorated headband. The "bib" of the mask extended to cover the chest, and were painted for both males and females with elaborate beading and floral motif necklaces or broad collars that served not only an aesthetic function but also an apotropaic requirement as set out in the funerary spells. Hollow and solid masks (sometimes of diminutive size) were also built by pouring clay or plaster into generic, often unisex molds. To this, ears and gender specific details were than added.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2002):
Yuya was a powerful Egyptian courtier during the eighteenth dynasty of Ancient Egypt (circa 1390 BC).
(sometimes he was also lnown as Iouiya, also known as Yaa, Ya, Yiya, Yayi, Yu, Yuyu, Yaya, Yiay, Yia, and Yuy)
He was married to Tjuyu, an Egyptian noblewoman associated with the royal family, who held high offices in the governmental and religious hierarchies. Their daughter, Tiye, became the Great Royal Wife of Amenhotep. Yuya came from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmim, where he probably owned an estate and was a wealthy member of the town's local nobility. His origins remain unclear. The study of his mummy showed that Yuya had been a man of taller than average stature and the anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith considered that his appearance was not typically Egyptian. Taking into account his unusual name and features, some Egyptologists believe that Yuya was of foreign origin, although this is far from certain.[6] The name Yuya may be spelled in a number of different ways as Gaston Maspero noted in Theodore Davis's 1907 book—The Tomb of Iouiya and Touiyou.[7] These include "iAy", ywiA", yw [reed-leaf with walking feet]A, ywiw" and, in orthography—normally a sign of something foreign--"y[man with hand to mouth]iA".[8] It was not typical for an Egyptian person to have so many different ways to write his name; this may suggest that Yuya's ancestors had a foreign origin. In "The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt" (ISBN 1-59143-022-4) one solution is that Yuya had some Mitannian ancestry; this argument is based on the fact that the knowledge of horses and chariotry was introduced into Egypt from Asia and Yuya was the king’s "Master of the Horse." It was also suggested that Yuya was the brother of queen Mutemwiya, who was the mother of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and may have had Mitannian royal origins.[9] However, this hypothesis can not be substantiated, since nothing is known of Mutemwiya's background. While Yuya lived in Upper Egypt, an area that was predominantly native Egyptian, he could have been an assimilated descendant of Asiatic immigrants or slaves who rose to become a member of the local nobility at Akhmin.Through analysis of anomalous features of the mummy of Yuya as well as linguistic and chronological data, Osman points out how Yuya is the only Egyptian mummy to have his hands placed under his chin rather than across his chest, he has what appears to be Semitic features, and a beard style similar to that of the ancient Hebrews, whereas Egyptian officials were known to shave their facial hair.
Yuya mummy, resin coating, full beard
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me for some of my previous posts, some of the typos are extremely embarrassing.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]If you say so man. Your history of posts are going nowhere though; they're there for everyone to see. Even right now, as we speak, you're avoiding questions other posters have directed at you.
I'm relatively confident that fellow posters would recognize that I've yet to back away from my position and have continued to engage in conversation with three different individuals, who happen to oppose some of my previous statements in this thread.
quote:Here you go again with your eclectic patchwork of ''evidence''. Do you think your silly anecdotal ''evidence'' has any bearing on generation of generation of intermarriage, going back more than seven centuries? No one has argued that intermarriage rates aren't higher among Hutu males, the point however, is that intermarriage rates throughout the centuries would have been enough to tell me you're talking out of your neck when you're attempting to pinpoint ''Cushitic'' affinity in Tishkoff's Hutu/Tutsi as necessarily Tutsi. Many Rwandans probably wouldn't know whether they're Hutu or Tutsi by lineage anyway.
Anybody that knows me from forumbiodiversity and even egyptsearch can vouch that I have tremendous experience in Rwanda (I'm currently in Tanzania and just left Rwanda yesterday); I'm very much knowledgeable on the various biocultural dynamics of Rwanda and the greater Great Lakes region.
Both Tutsis and Hutus have clearly experienced gene-flow from one another; as demonstrated by the results of several Tutsi samples from 23andme, i.e. while they do possess a dominant affinity to NE Africa and are therefore closer to our Horn of Africa representatives at 23andme in comparison to groups in West/Central Africa, they do possess a significant component identical to that found among other groups in Central Africa (i.e. in correlation to "Bantu" mediated ancestry).
And yet again your wrong, all Rwandans are fully aware of whether they're Tutsi, Hutu, Twa, or in some cases mixed; and while the current political administration discourages ethnic identification, in favor of a primarily nationalistic identity, the ethnic identities of the people of Rwanda, and much more so Burundi, continue to play an important role among ordinary Rwandans.
quote:In the minds of Rwandans, the memory of the massacres has not dissipated. During the 1994 genocide there were reports of Hutus killing their Tutsi spouses (HRW March 1999, 216). In 1990, a government-sponsored publication named any Muhutu (Hutu) who married a Tutsi a traitor (HRI 1998). As late as 1996, there were reports that Tutsi men married to Hutu women were threatened by their Tutsi family members and driven off of their land (HRW Sept. 1996).
Anti-miscegenation testaments were one of the most dominant aspects of the pre-1994 "Hutu Power" ideology which was in large part in reference to relationships between Hutu men and Tutsi women; it was so important, that it was included in the "Hutu 10 Commandments" which basically highlighted the responsibilities of Hutus in the minds of the aforementioned extremists. But minus the above and therefore the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, inter-ethnic marriage between the Hutu and Tutsi was rather noticeable and accepted; but going back to the main point of this particular argument, it still doesn't negate the fact that relatively recent gene-flow between the two groups has been in large part one-sided, usually involving Hutu men and Tutsi women.
quote:I know. Strange isn't it? How people can be in the know about data that nullifies their dearly held positions (eg, you being well aware that those 2 Tutsi 23andme results are not an anomaly in the wider context of ''Cushitic'' affinity in nearby Bantu groups), and still say things like ''based on what we know about the Tutsi, the samples with ''Cushitic'' affinity in Tishkoff et al were Tutsi''.
They're definitely an anomaly within the Great Lakes region; according to Tishkoff et al. (2009) Bantu speakers from the vicinity of Lake Victoria possess minimal "Cushitic" admixture in comparison to their counterparts further east, for example the Luhya were reportedly only ~6% "Cushitic" while the Sukuma (who neighbor Rwanda and speak a closely related language) were only ~11% "Cushitic". Even when considering the greater SE Africa, the Tutsi samples from Tishkoff et al. (2011) are still divergent; The Tutsi from 23andme are about 3 times more closer to NE Africa than the most NE African-like Kenyan Bantu sample from 23andme, who are reportedly ~30-35% "NE African" (similar to the Kikuyu from the aforementioned study who possessed a similar affinity).
sidenote: What a coincidence, yet two other Rwandan samples from 23andme, one Tutsi and one Hutu; the Tutsi sample overlaps with the two other Tutsi samples already on hand (so approximately ~60% NE African), while the Hutu sample is clearly divergent and very similar to the core SE African Bantu cluster from 23andme (the sample is slightly more closer to NE Africa, but still less than 20% NE African given that his NE African affinity is less than the closes Bantu Kenyan outlier... so about ~15% NE African).
They both possess y-dna E1b1a, so nothing out of the ordinary.
This Tutsi samples mtDNA is L3a, which I'm positive is East African; the other Tutsi samples also seem to possess interesting mtDNA lineages (but I'm not exactly positive if they are East African or not); the Hutu sample is L3f1b4a.
Lets end the discussion here. We currently have 4 Rwandan samples from 23andme who follow the trend I had advocated in previous posts, and further discussion regarding this topic is therefore pointless. We're going to have to wait for a peer-reviewed study that compares the genetic affinities of the two groups to lay this topic to rest.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: a ^The Old Doctore, I am equally confused by your terminology. When you write about "Nilo-Saharan ancestry" and claim that most individuals who plot at the centroid of a "Nilo-Saharan" cluster reside in S. Sudan, are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes?
If not, how do you define "ancestry"? Is there any qualitative criteria that you go by or do you simply base this on the happenstance of certain clustering? If so, isn't this an ad hoc way of labeling populations and are you not essentially advocating the existence of "races"? I don't object to the data. I have the Tishkoff paper and don't necessarily need you to enlighten me on its contents. What I take issue with, or rather, what I am confused by is your labeling of these various components as static ancestral units.
You speak of "NE African" ancestry but have yet to define it. Calling it "Ancestry from NE Africa" is merely circular reasoning since you've yet to even define "ancestry". That Tishkoff labels them according to linguistic typology is one thing but I was trying to get at what you understood of such labeling.
Indeed, using enough markers you can discriminate ultimately at the individual level since no one will share every single allele with you. With that said, why are you treating these clusters, evinced by your percentage break downs, as if they were equivalent to biological races (e.g., 35% Nilo-Saharan this, 25% Niger-Kordofanian that). I am not arguing with Tishkoff's data, I disagree with your uncritical interpretation of terms. Your posts here strike me as a bit misguided. [/qb]
Before I respond to the aforementioned I would like to clarify that I'm not the one responsible for the figures previously posted, those are in references to results from Tishkoff et al. (2009) African STRUCTURE run.
My comments regarding Tishkoff et al. (2009) were posted in the context of SE Africa and it's respective populations. My use of ancestry in respect to "Nilo-Saharan", "NE African", or anything else for that matter is with regard to the fact that these clusters are predominantly found among peoples who currently reside in S. Sudan and it's periphery and in retrospect NE Africa and it's periphery; They're simply terms used to describe a particular genomic pattern. Simple. Especially given the context of my post, i.e. SE Africa, I find it perfectly legitimate in associating the various clusters found among these populations with assumed points of origin (in respect of departure into SE Africa); for example the "Cushitic" cluster in SE Africa likely indicates gene-flow from the direction of NE Africa, while "Nilo-Saharan" likely indicates gene-flow from S. Sudan, and lastly "Niger-Kordofanian" is clearly associated with "Bantu"-mediated gene-flow into SE Africa from Central Africa, and so on.
quote:are your arguing that these Sudanese people represent fixed biological archetypes.
No, simply that those aforementioned populations possess the highest affinity to a particular set of ancestral African populations.
quote: In other words, why is it that you discuss clusters as unchanging units bound to geography?
I'm assuming I answered this point in the above reply? My use of certain geographic terms in association with clusters is simply in reference to the place of location or groups of people in which these clusters possess the most significance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Honestly I feel like your making a big deal out of nothing. No love lost though. Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ this discussion is not about the Tutsi though, Their genetics has no impact on the 18th dynasty results.
THIS is very important to consider:
quote: Here is something to consider: -Think Kieta
-Think Tropical African variant / Northern Egyptian Mahgreb........BOTH populations were Indigenous with tropically adapted limbs.
If Nilotics are the "Tropical African variant" then who are the other group??? Horner types?
If the Northern phenotype converged on the southern and tended to "become dominate over time" what does that mean? as far as change in ANCESTRY over time?
Also it is important to understand the significance of STR vs SNP as stated in THIS post (Page 11):
[IMG]How this applies to Egyptian DNA. THIS DNA IS NOT RECENT! This DATA is the SUM of events and how the people's DNA coalesced and came together 3300 years ago. At this time STR indicative of "ARABS" didnt not even exist. And you have to go back even further because its takes a few 1000 years to generate the profile to ARRIVE at 1400BC So we are at over 5000 years! Think of this like the example of Egyptians already having a calender at 3300 BC.....but the calendar measured an event that happens ever 1460 years - The heliacal rising of Sirius - so they HAD to have the calender at least 1460 years PRIOR to that to even know about that event to have IN the calender in the first place. We dont know yet even if an STR profile characterizing "Bantu" would exist at this time. In other parts of Africa 5000 years ago they MAY not have the STR profile they have NOW because the events that generated that MODERN STR profile (12AD - 2012AD) would not have come into effect yet.[/IMG]
Along with that you have to fact or in that 1000's of years ago the people were NOT in the places they were in. "Southern Sudan" is NOT The homeland of Nilotic Ancestry when you get down to no nitty gritty details. Nilo-Saharan has an origin in areas MORE NORTHERN than Afro-Asiatic! Ancient Egyptians have depictions of people that look like MODERN southern Sudanese even before they got to the 6th cataract....and that is NORTH of KHARTOUM. I am reading a book from C. Ehret from 1974 where he clears this stuff up.
Here is another Nilo-Saharan map, Eastern Sudanic speakers are in Southern Egypt. Saharan speakers are Autosomally "West African". Songai speakers as you personally know are also autonomously "West African".
Are these groups autosomally West Africa AFTER or BEFORE they leave the Central Sudan and head West? The further back you go the more likely you are to get different results. This is why I spoke on Nilo Saharans not being all the same. If people of the Nile valley carried this ancestry 5000 years ago (See above example) it could manifest itself in different ways when using MODERN people as references. This is why the idea of them being Majority Cushitic is just a hypothesis...and many of the ways you slice it this new evidence does NOT support that. It CAN support it, but I have not seen anyone point it out yet - just saying.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes, let's end it right here. A lot of what you write above isn't even a reaction to anything I've said anyway (eg, I've never said you backed away from your position, or none of that other stuff). The more basic facts about Tutsi/Hutu dynamics you bluntly deny, while making me out to be a liar, the more it becomes apparent to me how large the gap is between what you imagine you know, and what is actually documented about them, by critical researchers.
It is a fact that many Rwandans can't know whether they're Tutsi or Hutu lineage wise, because there has historically never been a social system that could account for the mixed individuals that were the result of their high intermarriage rates. Throughout their history Rwandans were always either Hutu or Tutsi. There are also accounts of both Hutu's and Tutsi's giving up their Ethnic identity in favor of the other group, simply because they felt like it, and accounts of intermarrying women being seen as taking up the identity of their husbands group.
There is much more data similar to the above, that shows how flexible the Hutu/Tutsi identities are, and this data has led many researchers to conclude that the Tutsi/Hutu distinction shows much more likeness to social classes than to ethnicity. But what do you have other than being a big naysayer to everything you don't agree with ''because you've worked with them''?
No, I'm not going to have to wait for a peer reviewed research because properly done research (ie, not 23andme small sample size pseudo research) has been quite conclusive. YOU will have to wait for properly executed research to challenge the already established consensus.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly I feel like your making a big deal out of nothing. No love lost though.
I actually wasn't making it a big deal but I'll back off if you feel I'm pressing you too hard. My main concern was that you were subconsciously advocating race with respect to the context in which you use the terms. You are usually on point so I was confused. You say this is not the case so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let it go.
The Tutsi/Hutu data I referenced earlier I got from a source posted recently in this very forum. I didn't save it to my HD so I'd have to sift through recent thread posts to find it again (don't feel like it right now).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I actually wasn't making it a big deal but I'll back off if you feel I'm pressing you too hard. My main concern was that you were subconsciously advocating race with respect to the context in which you use the terms. You are usually on point so I was confused. You say this is not the case so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let it go.
No problem, I just didn't understand your opposition against my position that's all. Like I said earlier no love lost bro.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you look at Yuya's figures, his do look different than Thuya and Amenhotep who I'll assume are Native to Egypt in the face of no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Though even if everyone were to discard his figures as well as Tiye's and Tut's by extension... Thuya and Amenhotep still show an affinity for south Africa and west Africa before they do the Horn and the East.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're supposed to be different, Yuya is from a different family than Amenhotep III and Tjuya.
If you look at DNA Tribes' MLI scores of other "black people" with high similarity to West and Southern Africa, you'll come to the conclusion that Yuya's minor matches with New World populations aren't out of the ordinary, as I've been arguing in this thread all along
Small matches with certain "Mestizo" samples occurred a few times, which is not surprising given how keen certain blacks in the new world are on identifying as "Mestizo". Alternatively, these could also genuinely be Mestizo's, but who have absorbed some African ancestry.
Some of the matches with "Mestizo" samples are likely reflective of real Mestizo ancestry, or common ancestry Mestizo's have with whites.
See their article on "50 black Canadians".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's not really an issue that Yuya's figures are different, but how significantly different they are from Amenhotep and Thuya. His figures for Tropical West African are about as great as Amenhotep's are for the Levant.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're generally different in amount of MLI scores, not in proportions. Yuya's MLI scores generally follow that of the others, in terms of STR profile similarity to other regions, but on a smaller scale.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
End of discussion. 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic