quote:Originally posted by Manu: The Tel Amarna mummies' STR data does suggest that. But the question is how accurate is it?
Why do these mummies appear to have cymotrichous (wavy) hair if they are predominantly South-Central African? You do realize that those regions have a frequency of nearly 100% ulotrichous (spiraled) hair.
Ahhh you are retarded. If you pull up the STR data on a crime database and you get matches with "African Americans" does that mean the Mummies are descendads of New world people of African descent?!
Do the math Dumbo.
Answer please 1 - What date are the mummies from. 2 - What is Autosomal STR 3 - What time-frame does Autosomal STR measure 4 - What was going in in South/Central Africa during the time that these STR's indicate? As a matter of fact was was going on in these regions during the time these Amarna people were alive.
Easy questions. please answer.
Indeed, and his "hair" claim is dubious. Egyptians vary in "hair" type, just as they do in skin color (like other indigenous tropical African populations), and their territory would include Nubia as well, not to mention southern Egypt, all sources of native variation.
===============================
Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote: DNA doesn't lie and that's all that matters.
^^No but initial starting assumptions, methodologies, sampling profiles, etc sure can, as we have seen repeatedly in DNA studies, such as "pre-grouping" DNA samples into "Racial" categories. As Armelagos notes:
"Despite a research design that should have maximized the degree to which the researchers were able to classify individuals by racial category, the results are something less than "high resolution" with respect to this goal. For example, 88% of individuals were classified as coming from the right continent, while only 46% were classified as coming from the right region within each continent. Notably, 0% success was achieved in classifying East Asian populations to their region or origin. These results occurred despite the fact that Bowcock and co-workers entered their genetic information into a program that already used the a priori racial categories they were trying to replicate."[67]" --Apportionment of Racial Diversity: A Review, Ryan A. Brown and George J. Armelagos, 2001, Evolutionary Anthropology, 10:34-40
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 1 - What date are the mummies from.
~1300 BC.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 2 - What is Autosomal STR
Basically short sequences of DNA that are repeated a number of times in the autosomes.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 3 - What time-frame does Autosomal STR measure
It depends on the markers. Some are fast mutating ones others are slow mutating ones.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 4 - What was going in in South/Central Africa during the time that these STR's indicate? As a matter of fact was was going on in these regions during the time these Amarna people were alive
The Bantu expansion.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ surface answers. In any case if they bantu had not reached South Africa by 1300BC then how do mummies in Egypt come from South Africans who are not even in South Africa yet?
What are the rates of THESE specific STR's. If you dont know try and take a guess at it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ^ surface answers. In any case if the bantu had not reached South Africa by 1300BC then how do mummies in Egypt come from South Africans who are not even in South Africa yet?
Again as I said numerous times these low res STRs are not useful to ascertain regional ancestry. At best they can reveal continental origins and that's about it.
I agree with Dienekes on this:
''The results of that analysis suggest that even this small number of markers is sufficient to place a sample in a continental group with high accuracy, but insufficient to estimate levels of admixture.''
quote:Originally posted by astenb: What are the rates of THESE specific STR's. If you dont know try and take a guess at it.
I don't see how the mutation rates are relevant to this discussion, their population affinities are far more interesting.
quote: I don't see how the mutation rates are relevant to this discussion, their population affinities are far more interesting.
^ Well you are not that bright.
quote: DNA TRIBES Question: Q: Do my DNA Tribes results prove my membership in a certain ethnic group?
DNA TRIBES Answer: A: Your top matches are the places in our database where your DNA profile is most common. A match with a particular ethnic or national population sample does not guarantee you or a recent ancestor (parent or grandparent, for instance) are a member of that ethnic group. However, a match does indicate a population where your combination of ancestry is common, which is most often due to shared ancestry with that population.
For instance, an African-American might match populations from Cape Verde (an island nation off the coast of West Africa) or Belem, Brazil. Like African-Americans, each of these populations is descended from a recent blending of Europeans and Africans. A Global Population match with either of these populations could be due a similar blending of African and European ancestors. Likewise, a match with a population of Caucasians in Indiana, U.S.A. does not necessarily indicate your ancestors came from Indiana, but instead indicates your blend of genetic ancestry is present within that population.
NOW what this means is that DNA from this Nile valley 3300 years ago is similar Southern Africans and Great Lakes region because it has a similar "blend of genetic ancestry is present within that population.".............and it may indicate some "shared ancestry with that population." ..............or even "similar blending of African and European ancestors."
Since South African Bantu and Great lakes region Africans have no "European Ancestors" that part can be discarded. So instead we are looking at groups that have Heavy Nilotic ancestry and other African ancestry seemingly of a West African type. Since we have a antiquated dates for the mummies you cna hypothesize the BLENDING of these different components and see how they are to be found in the PRESENT population. It also helps you to narrow down indications of "Common Ancestry" because you can see which TIME FRAME you are looking at for that common ancestry to occur. That is why these STR's matter.
What is the TIMEFRAME in which Nilotic and West African (and Cushitic if you want to add that) have some type of "Blending" and or Converge? Of course you dont know, I do. Go ahead and read the data I posted to Doctoris. Central Sudaic, Saharan and Songhai, - Look at that map. Research at what time they left the Nile valley. This IS discussing genetic affinity.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Significant Nilotic ancestry in South African Bantus???? LOL!
Again more conjecture based on a flimsy panel of STRs which were never meant to show intra-continental substructure.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^We are discussing genetics not phenotype kid, your claim in that regard has been debunked on here ad nasuem. Please don't resurrect those petty debates. DNA doesn't lie and that's all that matters.
How accurate is it? As accurate as my own results I'd presume, dumb question.
Ulotrichous hair is a very dominant trait. Just look at Obama, he is only half Nilo-Bantu, but has ulotrichous hair.
These mummies can't be over 75% Nilotic for sure since most of them have cymotrichous hair, a recessive trait relative to ulotrichous hair.
1) Hair is no substitute for raw genetic data.
2) You haven't scientifically validated your claim. Only way to measure hair thickness is with a trichometer.
^Either way, you are an eye-ball anthropologist who is in denial. Hair forms and phenotypes change with environment. DNA doesn't (at least not nearly as often).
The DNA of the Pharaohs have spoken.
BTW, I don't break humans down into percentages because i don't agree with the concept of race (fixed biological units). They aren't "75%" anything. They were 100% humans who happened to be closely affiliated with today's great lakes inhabitants. Your mind has been contaminated by this race-blogger nonsense.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Significant Nilotic ancestry in South African Bantus???? LOL!
Again more conjecture based on a flimsy panel of STRs which were never meant to show intra-continental substructure.
Like i said YOU ARE NOT THAT BRIGHT. You are not supposed to be looking at a MODERN population in SOUTH AFRICA as the SOURCE POPULATION of 2 NILE VALLEY families 3300 years ago. South African Bantu probably did not even exist at this time. You are now missing the forest AND the trees by concentrating on Leaves. You are fvking clueless.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The closest South African match is the Ovambo Bantu (Namibia) - This is the main group that I believe is matching the Amarna samples. This is based on the frequency this sample pops up on Most people of African descent. From most test results that I have seen the South African match is THIS sample.
The third closet match is Karamoja, Uganda - I have already gave my hypothesis on them.
Regionally the matches as followed in descending order:
African Great Lakes Southern African Tropical West African Sahelian Horn of Africa North African Arabian Mestizo
^ The Above looks pretty familiar.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Like i said YOU ARE NOT THAT BRIGHT. You are not supposed to be looking at a MODERN population in SOUTH AFRICA as the SOURCE POPULATION of 2 NILE VALLEY families 3300 years ago. South African Bantu probably did not even exist at this time. You are now missing the forest AND the trees by concentrating on Leaves. You are fvking clueless.
3300 years isn't a long time from an evolutionary/genetics perspective. The Niger-Congo and Nilotic genetic components in Tishkoff et al. brake up BEFORE East Asians and South Asians/Australians split!
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
the Ovambo Bantu (Namibia) - This is the main group that I believe is matching the Amarna samples.
This is based on the frequency this sample pops up on Most people of African descent. From most test results that I have seen the South African match is THIS sample.
In Yuya and Amenhotep III what may point to Southern Africa over the other African regions is D21S11=34. In popStr San have it at 8.3% but it peaks, 15%, out of the region in their Central African Republic BiAka sample.
ALFRED indicates the Venda Sotho at 2.6% but the allele peaks in the Mbenzele of SW C.A.R. at 5.5%
Note that ALFRED has no D21S11 data on the Ovambo since Fujihara (2007) used AmpFlSTR Profiler loci.
CSF1PO=6 points Amenhotep III to Southern Africa and it is the Ovambo in ALFRED who have this very globally rare allele at 0.3% with no record of other Africans having it though pop.STR shows San with 16.7%.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I already told you numerous times that those old sources refer to paragroup L3.
Duh, why do you think I asked Doc to be more specific about his L3a marker? I knew this, and provided a citation on it from two different sources, including Salas. But what did you do, you decided to nitpick on the lettering of the alphabet 'a', only to provide yet another source that only defeats your quibbling over how "a" is written --capitalized or not.
You are not "already" telling me anything I did not know, buddy. In fact, you learned about this, because of me. If you hadn't, you would not have questioned me on why I pressed Old Doc to be more specific.
quote: The sub-clade we are speaking of did not exist during that time.
Whether Behar's particular "sub-clade" was known or not, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, Doc did not specify the L3a marker, which is a pan-African haplogroup as I said, and which remains true. You reacted emotionally, and tried to cover up the fact, but it is going to unravel, with or without your coorporation.
To date, you are unable to tell me what L3a marker was found in the Tutsi specimen; yet you claim that it is not necessary to specify the marker. You are not correct in the head, you know that, right?
''The definition and labelling of the haplogroups follows the scheme of earlier studies (Torroni et al. 1996; Richards et al. 1998; Watson et al. 1997; Macaulay et al. 1999). L3a is a super-haplogroup (indicated by arrows) encompassing Eurasian haplogroups. Another super haplogroup is R, which on the other hand is a sub-cluster to L3a.''
Your citation has it wrong. L3a or L3A, you pick which "lettering" you like best--LOL, denotes the original African branch of the haplogroup, minus its M and N derivatives.
quote: They are basically referring to paragroup L3 and not the sub-clade in question. Haplogroup R is not a sub-clade of present-day L3a. What is so difficult about this very simple fact? This is starting to get really pointless.
Nothing difficult. You just don't have a clue about what you are talking. The status quo hasn't changed. "L3a" remains the basal L3 clade; I dare you to defy this. Behar's, Torroni's and Soares' respective sub-clades are just that; paraphyletic sub-clades that had just been differentiated further. Genetics is obviously not your forte; you need to either find yourself a new hobby, or at least be willing to learn from the more informed.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: But what do the Tutsi have to do with the results from the Amarna mummies? Did you see the examples i gave that showed the difference between STR and SNP? Why dont you comment on that instead of distracting us with talk of some Tutsi Mtdna.
Tutsi mtDNA has nothing in particular, relevant to the ancient Egyptian specimens, other than that they are supposedly part of the Great Lakes geographical sphere, which was directly implicated in the DNA/STR comparisons. Doc seized on the Tutsi issue--basically around 3 Tutsi individuals--to derail from the issue, just as Manu is doing.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The Tel Amarna mummies STR results aren't that surprising. All they show us is that the Ancient Egyptians had an indigenous African component, which had been speculated about for a while now.
Talk about a U-turn. You were crying about the results, now you say that the "results aren't that surprising". The results say more than the idea that the ancient Egyptians had "an indigenous African component". They say that they were *mainly* indigenous Africans, not that they had "an" indigenous component. They also say that the ancient Egyptians had a gene pool that was obviously different from certain known samples from among modern Egyptians, and that the ancient Egyptian specimens in question, had a gene pool pattern that best approximates those found in contemporary Southern African samples, and around the Great lakes region. Samples from western Africa did not fall behind too far either, in this respect. These results upset your stereotypes of Ancient Egyptians resembling modern people in the African Horn. That's what got your pants bunched up; ain't that true, Manu?
quote:If we were to test them with more markers I'm sure their primary African component would be Cushitic.
Prove it!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
''The results of that analysis suggest that even this small number of markers is sufficient to place a sample in a continental group with high accuracy, but insufficient to estimate levels of admixture.''
Your pseudoscience guru has got it partially wrong. In the fore-section of that comment, he is right. In the remaining section, he fell flat. As we have seen, the STRs were able to delineate a certain genetic *structuring* in the African continent: the ancient Egyptian specimens positioned closer to the Southern African samples, before the collection did samples from other parts of the continent. How was the STRs able to do this, if they did not have the capacity to do more than just place specimens in the most-likely continent of origin?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Since South African Bantu and Great lakes region Africans have no "European Ancestors" that part can be discarded. So instead we are looking at groups that have Heavy Nilotic ancestry and other African ancestry seemingly of a West African type.
I'd modify that to say, that the STR results likely reflect "ancient" or "deep-root" layer(s) and another layer(s) similar to a gene pool pattern seen in western Africa, and hence, its "Bantu" offshoot.
A few side notes:
The absence of Ethiopian samples, if the list provided earlier is anything to go by, may have contributed a bit to the "Horn of Africa" bloc having lower MLI scores against the STR profiles of ancient Egyptian specimens, while the pooling of Sudanese samples with other "North African" or else "Sahelian" samples, assuming they included southern Sudanese samples and that the Sudanese samples were included in the "North African" or "Sahelian" bloc, may have *diluted* the impact of those samples in the resultant matching scores.
The observation made for the "Horn of Africa" is predicated on the understanding that the Ethiopian gene pool is relatively more diverse than the Somali counterpart. It would have had higher incidences of "deep root" clades, especially if the small communities of Ethiopian Nilote groups were added to the mix. By the same token, some lineage shared with "west Eurasians" would have diluted the impact of this component to some degree or another. I doubt however, the inclusion of the Ethiopian sample would have dramatically changed the structuring observed.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Like i said YOU ARE NOT THAT BRIGHT. You are not supposed to be looking at a MODERN population in SOUTH AFRICA as the SOURCE POPULATION of 2 NILE VALLEY families 3300 years ago. South African Bantu probably did not even exist at this time. You are now missing the forest AND the trees by concentrating on Leaves. You are fvking clueless.
3300 years isn't a long time from an evolutionary/genetics perspective. The Niger-Congo and Nilotic genetic components in Tishkoff et al. brake up BEFORE East Asians and South Asians/Australians split!
That has NOTHING to do with what really goes on. The minor diversity of non-Africans is should not even be in the discussion. BUT you are going along the right track. Read tishkoff Again and see when the west African affiliated clusters break off from the other Sudanese ones. Also see how she talks about the ancestry in Central Sudan and have these migrants moved south into Kenya, Tanzania, Uganada etc. SHE Actually provides some dates on this. After you do this go back to page 11 and read for there.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hate to get off topic but there's another Tutsi on 23andme, from Burundi, who also possess a very similar genetic profile to the Tutsi samples already analyzed.
That makes 4 Tutsi samples and one Hutu sample, 3 samples less than what Tishkoff et al (2009) had in their analysis of the Rwandan population.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Please just stay on topic. I think people are tired of reading on about this irrelevant Tutsi vs Hutu matter. You should start your own thread entitled "23andme's Tutsis" or something.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Sara (Sa-Ra) designation appears to have been given to them by the Arabs, meaning the Sons of Ra, the ancient Egyptian Sun-God. The Sara lived in the north-east along the Nile River before they sought refuge in the south against northern Arab slave raids, whom eventually overtook and Arabized North Africa. Most Sara are Traditionalist in religion, some worshipping the Sun.
From Tishkoff et al:
quote: K=10 and higher; the Cushitic speaking populations of southern Ethiopian origin (Borana, Burji, Konso) and northern Kenya (Wata, Rendille and Gabra) at K = 11 and 13 (light purple); at K = 14, Nilotic Nilo-Saharan speaking populations (i.e. Maasai, Dogon, Sengwer, Saboat, Tugen, Samburu, Marakwet, Sengwer, Okiek, Nandi, Saboat, Turkana, Pokot; red) are distinguished from the Central Sudanic Nilo-Saharans (Laka, Ngambaye, Kaba, Bulala, Kenembou, Sara; tan), and Chadic-speaking populations (Mada, Ouldeme, Giziga, Mandara, Kotoko, Zulgo, Pdokwo, Massa, Hausa) and Semetic-speaking Baggara (maroon).
Hmm, so the Sara - who NOW live in Chad were living along the Nile valley?..........Worshiping the Sun. I pretty sure you and I agree that their Cetnral sudanic component had been long distinguished from their Nilotic kin while they were in the Nile valley. Now where these component distinguished earlier, like say 3300 year ago?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Sara (Sa-Ra) designation appears to have been given to them by the Arabs, meaning the Sons of Ra, the ancient Egyptian Sun-God. The Sara lived in the north-east along the Nile River before they sought refuge in the south against northern Arab slave raids, whom eventually overtook and Arabized North Africa. Most Sara are Traditionalist in religion, some worshipping the Sun.
Maybe this needs it's own thread.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Finally, results indicated genetic links between North Africa and two regions of Sub-Saharan Africa: Sahelian (9.2%) and African Great Lakes (5.9%). The Sahelian links might express contacts dating to the medieval Moorish (Berber) expansions, as well as older links via Trans-Saharan cultures such as the Tuareg and perhaps the more ancient Garamantes and Gaetulians. Similarly, genetic links with the African Great Lakes might express contacts via nomadic cultures of the Sahara Desert, as well as older “Green Sahara” contacts linking ancient Capsians with Eburran cultures of East Africa.
Now if you go back 3500 years (18th Dynasty) ago you will find ancestry seen as "African Great Lakes" much higher in value in the Nile Valley. If you go back further you will see that these are the People that were in the Sahara Desert that moved INTO the Nile Valley. And even FURTHER back these are the "Green Saharans".
See also:
quote: Results for both autosomal SNP and autosomal STR markers indicated North African genetic links with populations of the Middle East, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa (summarized in Table 3). Differences between results (SNP and STR) express the separate reference datasets available for each type of marker. At present, STR data incorporate a larger global database of populations, which allows for a more detailed analysis of regional admixture components. However, results for both types of marker identified similar geographical links between North Africa and neighboring world regions.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The South and Central African ties surprised me too. Then again, the Nile does flow from one of the Great Lakes, so perhaps this indicates ancient Egyptians having ancestry from further upriver?
But it shouldn't surprise you. Populations retreating from the desiccating Sahara had found their way southward, not only to the coastal areas of the north.
Also on notice: Manu went on a holliday from ES, after I challenged him on the latest points.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Finally, results indicated genetic links between North Africa and two regions of Sub-Saharan Africa: Sahelian (9.2%) and African Great Lakes (5.9%). The Sahelian links might express contacts dating to the medieval Moorish (Berber) expansions, as well as older links via Trans-Saharan cultures such as the Tuareg and perhaps the more ancient Garamantes and Gaetulians. Similarly, genetic links with the African Great Lakes might express contacts via nomadic cultures of the Sahara Desert, as well as older “Green Sahara” contacts linking ancient Capsians with Eburran cultures of East Africa.
Now if you go back 3500 years (18th Dynasty) ago you will find ancestry seen as "African Great Lakes" much higher in value in the Nile Valley. If you go back further you will see that these are the People that were in the Sahara Desert that moved INTO the Nile Valley. And even FURTHER back these are the "Green Saharans".
See also:
quote: Results for both autosomal SNP and autosomal STR markers indicated North African genetic links with populations of the Middle East, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa (summarized in Table 3). Differences between results (SNP and STR) express the separate reference datasets available for each type of marker. At present, STR data incorporate a larger global database of populations, which allows for a more detailed analysis of regional admixture components. However, results for both types of marker identified similar geographical links between North Africa and neighboring world regions.
Unfortunately this DNA tribes analysis is full of the same holes as the other recent claim of back migrations to North Africa. For example:
quote: North Africa is traditionally known as the Maghreb, referring to the West or "Place of Sunset." This area is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert , which have both isolated North Africa and also connected it to neighboring lands of Africa, Europe, and the Near East.
During the Last Glacial Maximum (when much of Europe, Asia, and North America was covered by ice), North Africa was home to Iberomaurusian cultures linked to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) between 20,000 and 10,000 BCE.
Although is relatively arid today, North Africa’s climate has been wetter and greener in the past. During the Mesolithic period between 10,000 and 6,000 BCE, hunting-gathering Capsian cultures flourished on the grassy North African savannas. Saharan rock art portrays the lost landscapes of the "Green Sahara," including elephants, antelopes, giraffes, buffalo, and other animals now absent from North Africa.
Also dating to this "Green Sahara" period are early megalithic sites such as Nabta Playa, predating Stonehenge by 1,000 years. Like the earlier Iberomaurusian cultures, Capsian hunting peoples continued to interact with the West Mediterranean (the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily). Capsian cultures were also probably in contact with the Eburran culture of East Africa (including Kenya).
In other words the Sahara blocked Africans from the South from reaching the coastal areas (which are the core of this study and allowed Europeans and "Mediterraneans" to flow freely. And when the Sahara was wet it allowed these European derived or mixed cultures to flow South into other parts of Africa. LOL! The same B.S. these folks have been claiming for years. And note that not only do they limit North Africa to the coastal regions, which is geographically inaccurate, they also make Egypt a separate entity lumped under "Levantine". So what you have is a bunch of pure nonsense based on absurd data sets and groupings that are then used to "flesh out" the same old historical paradigm as before. The Berbers are not the result of waves of Migrants from the Mediterranean as Berber is a language not a gene and that Language originated in East Africa.
And note that they put North Africa as part of the "European" region even though the Sahara itself is almost 3 times as big as Europe.
quote: European and Near Eastern Regions:
Aegean: The eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia region, including modern territories of Southern Italy and Sicily, Greece, and Turkey. Arabian: The Arabian Peninsula. Eastern European: The Slavic speaking region of Eastern Europe. Finnic: Uralic speaking peoples of Northeastern Europe. Levantine: Populations along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean: The Romance speaking region of Southwestern Europe. Mesopotamian: The historical “Cradle of Western Civilization” including modern Iran, Iraq and nearby territories. North African: Populations of the Atlas Mountains and Sahara Desert. Northwest European: The Celtic and Germanic speaking region of Northwestern Europe.
posted
^^ All true, showing the bogus categories and labels prevalent in many parts of the European academy, although not all scholars are like this- some are more balanced.
5-POINT RECAP FOR NEW READERS ON THE SKEWED LABELING PROBLEM:
1) Bogus "biodiversity" claims of "denying" the presence of "Middle Easterners" etc in Egypt. No sane person "denies" this. The real issue is how significant was this movement. There were no mass influxes to give the natives "civilization." Everyone knows Egypt had small scale movement from "Middle Eastern" countries in earlier time- sure- small time traders, merchants, war captives, etc. And sure- everyone knows that in the later eras of AE history, such movement was more prominent, as Greeks, Romans, Persians etc and lastly Arabs entered the land. To say people are "denying" this is yet another bullshiit strawman "biodiversity" types specialize in creating. But these movements did not fundamentally alter the core tropical African population of AE until the later times.
Henn 2012 used typical selective sampling with a distantly located "true negro" category for "comparison." Numerous other studies debunk claims that so-called "Sub-Saharan" elements only showed up in "North Africa" around 750kya.
2) Too often Eurocentric definitions of "North African" is primarily sampling near the Mediterranean coast that conveniently leaves out MOST of "North Africa"..
4) The people closest ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are Nubians- another blow to fantasy hopes of massive Caucasoid "input"..
5) The much touted "back migration to Africa" from the "Middle East" is less than advertised. The so-called "back migrants" looked like tropical Africans to begin with. There goes another rickety leg of hoped for mass Caucasoid "input"
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I am confident of the basic validity of DNAtribes'findings on the maternal lineage of the Amarna mummies but I do note their Table 1 indices for Yuya do not list the Americas populations circled on Yuya's regional analysis map Appendix Figure 3.Perhaps it is just a glitch.
A friend told me about this site and I am happy to see discussion of the DNA Tribes report, feel free to correct or educate me as my interest (great) and knowledge (very little) are not aligned.
When I saw the two locations in the USA, I wondered what people could they be, then it hit me that the south west location seems to be in Utah, which I believe has a depository of DNA. Now which people within that place (if it is the site) is up for grabs, they will need to reveal it. I have no idea where the great lakes of USA other location represents. There are a few more that might be noise, one seems to indicate the La Venta or Belize locations, I cannot really tell but wanted to throw that out there since there seems to be almost total blackout on the internet about these DNA results.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to add that it is not surprising to me that the closest populations are further away from the original location(s), we see that today when a new government or people come into power, the former population, for various reasons, are either exiled or move far away to begin again, just look at how fast African Americans left the southern United States after formal slavery ended, even after very few generations some people no longer call it home (not implying it is home, just an example).
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Hawass Z, Gad YZ, Ismail S, et al. Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family. JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. eAppendix. Details of Methods, Results, and Comment (text updated online April 26, 2010) eFigure 1. Comparison of El Amarna Art (circa 1353-1323 BC) With the Remains of Akhenaten (KV55) (Figure legend updated online April 26, 2010) eFigure 2. Variant STEVOR Gene Sequences Obtained From DNA Extracts of Tutankhamun eFigure 3. Grave Goods Found in Tutankhamun’s Tomb KV62 (Figure legend updated online April 26, 2010)
This supplemental material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional nformation about their work.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was the DNA results published in scientific journals in 2010 and just now being analyzed by a commercial company, what happened to the universities, aren't they usually involved in something this important to the knowledge of the oldest human civilization still existing? I know this probably has been asked, I am just trying to sort out why no one has touched this before DNA Tribes, it is almost two years, even if what they say differs what DNA Tribes is found. Personally I had all the data I needed to be convinced that Egypt was an indigenous African civilization, long before anyone used DNA. I don't want to call out any names but should not some folks be on record with this already (Skip Gates)?
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I am confident of the basic validity of DNAtribes'findings on the maternal lineage of the Amarna mummies but I do note their Table 1 indices for Yuya do not list the Americas populations circled on Yuya's regional analysis map Appendix Figure 3.Perhaps it is just a glitch. I look at Dna stuff but I am more of a culture relatedness kinda guy. Welcome btw and you are also welcome to take a peek and sign-up at ESR a sister site to this http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgiPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Deeana: I wanted to add that it is not surprising to me that the closest populations are further away from the original location(s),
It's not a new theory. It's a known fact that the Bantu in Southern Africa come (in large part) from the Great Lakes region in Africa situated at the beginning of the Nile River during the African wide/Bantu migration. In other word, people in Southern Africa have their origin in the Great Lakes at the source of the Nile. This nobody ever denied it.
Btw other DNA tribes analysis confirm the Great Lakes and Western African Ancestry of Southern Africa Bantu people something which was known for decades and related to the African wide Bantu Migration. A DNA confirmation of ancestral migration pattern we knew from decades of historical, anthropological and linguistic studies.
Obviously, what is surprising for some people or is finally a confirmation for other people, is that Ancient Kemet mummies share the same DNA, the same ancestry as Africans from Southern Africa, The Great Lakes, Tropical West Africa and to a lower degree, Horn of Africa and Sahelian. Obviously since that time far ago Africans moved around a lot around Africa, including the Bantu Migration pattern where some settled in Southern Africa or anywhere along the way.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: amarna mummies:
North African 2.2%
dana how do you feel about this?
.
Great! Because the truth will all set you free!
If the pharaohs were from the Great Lakes Region - so BE IT. A lot of them certainly looked like it! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: @ Zarahan: When did Early Europeans stop looking displaying African body plans?
[QUOTE]
There are European physical types in the Mesolithic and Paleolithic period in Western Europe as well as places like Cyprus, living along with the predominant African types who possessed the tropical African body plans.
In the Neolithic other African groups entered the Near east and Europe bearing some link to peoples who are now inhabiting Benin, Dahomey etc.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"These mummies can't be over 75% Nilotic for sure since most of them have cymotrichous hair, a recessive trait relative to ulotrichous hair. "
This statement is irrelevant. Scientists have already discovered and stated what occurs to hair that's been mummified and plastered with the types of chemicals that were used in mummification. Egyptian hair was not wavy, especially not as it looks in mummified form.
I suspect someone here has been on some Euronut site.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know, but I find it all intriguing. By the way, I can't help but notice that 'Manu' seems to be clinging on to some sort of 'Hamitic' premise although he disguises it as 'Cushitic'. LOLPosts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed the Eurocentric cultural imperialism has not yet ended. Whether it be 'Hamitic' or 'Cushitic', he and his ilk are basically saying different from "true negroes". LOL Yet nobody is suggests that Greeks as different from Nords are not "true blancos". Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"DNA Tribes debunks their own claims, as well as other geneticists meanwhile the negrocentrics continue to wrap themselves in yet another layer of denial.."
-------------------- I define who I am! Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
If you pull up the STR data on a crime database and you get matches with "African Americans" does that mean the Mummies are descendads of New world people of African descent?!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic