quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Amun-Ra The Ultimate
You have an incorrect idea about what this company can and cannot do. You are not seeing these results in the context of what DNATribes tells customers they can do. Have you seen any other results from MODERN people of African descent? I have, i have seen dozens in fact.
The fact that African Americans and people of the Caribbean have high matches in Egypt, Canary Islands, Southern Morocco, Saharawi, Ethiopia, Libya, Afro-Arabs in Qatar - Does not mean they have ancestry in these places NOR does it mean part of their ancestry has common ancestors with Libyans/Ethiopians/Egyptians.
This is getting pretty repetitive and what is being said has not already been said before. Most of the GOOD info is from page 1-15. Its pretty hard to evaluate these results without seen the results of other Africans and other people of African descent...It also helps being familiar with consumer genetic testing as a whole and the different projects that have come into existence to analyze the DNA of Africans and those of the Diaspora.
BTW I have plenty of wild theories regarding the results - Most times I try to note their are my PERSONAL opinions.
Supposedly if a predominantly African group possesses some admixture with Eurasian such as African Americans they will come out bundled with groups that have equally high intermixture as with Mozabite samples for example at 23and me or some other North AFrican population.
So it is all the more surprising that the Amarna pharaohs should come out so strongly linked to peoples of the far south of Africa. The expected east African wasn't strongly represented either.
If they had a some considerable admixture with Europeans that would have showed up in them being linked to some mixed group, but it didn't. They showed they were African to the core. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So are you sayin the Amarna mummies dont show how Egyptians were in every period??
The Amarna group is the family which they have been trying to say had Asiatic mixture. Their genetic affinity with southern Africa may be reflective or indicative of the majority of Egyptian dynasties, and then again it may not be.
It may turn out that the Amarna period were either substantially more mixed, or less mixed than other dynastic groups. Only time and more autosomal studies will tell.
I, myself, have a feeling the earlier dynasties will prove even more AFrican and less mixed than the Amarna group, and that we are in for more wonderful surprises from the AFrican ancestors. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
hahaha!!!! here this scumbag has created a thread with over 1000 posts LOL
This is utter and sheer desperation folks! The filthy degenerate cannot find a method to get around the MLI scores, so it attacks DNA tribes instead! LOL
The DNA analysis of the Armana mummies, which are King Tut and his ENTIRE family beginning with his great grandparents Thuya and yuya show them all to be sub saharan Africans
The DNA analysis shows that the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians (armana mummies) are the MODERN DAY populations of people in these parts of Africa, and in exactly this order
1) South Africa 2) Central Africa 3) West Africa
The only course of action that the stringy haired devil is left with is to suggest that the ANCIENT populations in south Africa, west Africa and central africa were caucasoid! hahahaha
These filthy pigs have invested so much time in attempting to whitewash north africa, the horn of Africa and even East Africa and it turns out they should have been fevorishly tryinmg to convince you that it was actually South Africa, Central Africa and West Africa that was initially inhabited by caucasoids LOL
I wonder if the lauaghble monkey tries to make that case! Hahahahaha!!!!!!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Amun-Ra The Ultimate
You have an incorrect idea about what this company can and cannot do. You are not seeing these results in the context of what DNATribes tells customers they can do. Have you seen any other results from MODERN people of African descent? I have, i have seen dozens in fact.
The fact that African Americans and people of the Caribbean have high matches in Egypt, Canary Islands, Southern Morocco, Saharawi, Ethiopia, Libya, Afro-Arabs in Qatar - Does not mean they have ancestry in these places NOR does it mean part of their ancestry has common ancestors with Libyans/Ethiopians/Egyptians.
This is getting pretty repetitive and what is being said has not already been said before. Most of the GOOD info is from page 1-15. Its pretty hard to evaluate these results without seen the results of other Africans and other people of African descent...It also helps being familiar with consumer genetic testing as a whole and the different projects that have come into existence to analyze the DNA of Africans and those of the Diaspora.
BTW I have plenty of wild theories regarding the results - Most times I try to note their are my PERSONAL opinions.
Supposedly if a predominantly African group possesses some admixture with Eurasian such as African Americans they will come out bundled with groups that have equally high intermixture as with Mozabite samples for example at 23and me or some other North AFrican population.
So it is all the more surprising that the Amarna pharaohs should come out so strongly linked to peoples of the far south of Africa. The expected east African wasn't strongly represented either.
If they had a some considerable admixture with Europeans that would have showed up in them being linked to some mixed group, but it didn't. They showed they were African to the core.
The funny thing is that modern Egyptians especially those in the Delta have substantial admixture (both West Asian and European) so if the Amarna mummies were those of mixed ancestry, then they would at least show affinities to modern "Levantine" Egyptians as they are labeled in DNA Tribes. That they don't and show affinities with Africans further south, says something-- both about ancient Egyptian royal ancestry and about DNA Tribes population classifications.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So are you sayin the Amarna mummies dont show how Egyptians were in every period??
The Amarna group is the family which they have been trying to say had Asiatic mixture. Their genetic affinity with southern Africa may be reflective or indicative of the majority of Egyptian dynasties, and then again it may not be.
It may turn out that the Amarna period were either substantially more mixed, or less mixed than other dynastic groups. Only time and more autosomal studies will tell.
I, myself, have a feeling the earlier dynasties will prove even more AFrican and less mixed than the Amarna group, and that we are in for more wonderful surprises from the African ancestors.
And again, we have NO evidence whatsoever (yet) that Amarna mummies were 'mixed' that is have any other ancestry but African. Even Yuya whose mummy is known for his aquiline nose and striking blonde hair shows the same African affiliations as the other mummies tested. The Amarna family was part of the New Kingdom which is known to already have foreigners dwelling within the country. No doubt the chances of admixture among royals or any segment of the population would be far less the further you go back in time.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Barack Obama and Eric Holder sure have been fantastic in ensuring that truth is dessiminated! ELECTIONS DO MATTER! The neanderthal genome project told us that neanderthal was a 48 chromosome ape and that whites share ZERO% ancestral Y line DNA with any African, East Asian, Australian or True Dravidian
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT FOLKS!
So here we have Over 1000 posts that this scumbag has created in his fake names in this thread. Over 1000 of them because it destroys his ability to manipulate you by throwing around haplogroups LOL
This filthy pink assed, stringy haired monkey is so desperate that he posts over 1000 times in this thread hoping that something will change LOL
Lets go through this again! The DNA analysis of the Armana mummies irrefutably prove who the ancient Egyptians were and who they were NOT!
The ancestors of the ancient Egyptians are the modern day populations in
1) South Africa 2) Central Africa 3) West Africa
and they are NOT the modern day populations in North Africa or Egypt itself! Hahahahaha!!!
It kinda makes it difficult for the scumbag to throw around haplogroups dosent it? LOL Thats why the devil has resorted to all of these posts!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is getting more and more pathetic as time goes on! LOL
We have the body of yuya which is almost 3500 years old. We have the 3500 year old body of an African man whose hair and skin was chemically treated during mummification and we get to watch cultureless pigs show pictures of a 3500 year old dried out body. The DNA analysis does not matter it is the pictures of a dried out 3500 year old body that this filthy monkey wants to show you!
THE DNA ANALYSIS OF YUYA SHOWS THAT HE IS 100% AFRICAN. THEN ANCESTORS OF YUYA ARE THE MODERN DAY PEOPLE IN
2) CENTRAL AFRICA 2) SOUTH AFRICA 3) WEST AFRICA
His ancestors can also be found in modern day populations in the americas. Could it be that Amerinds were in ancient South East and West Africa? Hahahaha!
Or does it mean that AFRICANS are in the americas?
this monkey is getting more pathetic and desperate as time goes by! LOL
But we know why the scumbag likes to show pictures now dont we? LOL
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You have the complete right to not like it. But this is a graphical representation of the 18th Dynasty mummies match:
Great, now you're trolling.
When they can't debate em, they spam em.
You're clearly confused. You keep involving DNA Tribes' maps and quotes when they don't even support your unsupported theories. What DNA Tribes actually said:
quote:Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep involving DNA Tribes' maps and quotes when they don't even support your unsupported theories. What DNA Tribes actually said:
What "unsupported" theories of mine the DNA Tribes results or maps does not support?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Amun-Ra The Ultimate
You have an incorrect idea about what this company can and cannot do. You are not seeing these results in the context of what DNATribes tells customers they can do. Have you seen any other results from MODERN people of African descent? I have, i have seen dozens in fact.
The fact that African Americans and people of the Caribbean have high matches in Egypt, Canary Islands, Southern Morocco, Saharawi, Ethiopia, Libya, Afro-Arabs in Qatar - Does not mean they have ancestry in these places NOR does it mean part of their ancestry has common ancestors with Libyans/Ethiopians/Egyptians.
This is getting pretty repetitive and what is being said has not already been said before. Most of the GOOD info is from page 1-15. Its pretty hard to evaluate these results without seen the results of other Africans and other people of African descent...It also helps being familiar with consumer genetic testing as a whole and the different projects that have come into existence to analyze the DNA of Africans and those of the Diaspora.
BTW I have plenty of wild theories regarding the results - Most times I try to note their are my PERSONAL opinions.
Supposedly if a predominantly African group possesses some admixture with Eurasian such as African Americans they will come out bundled with groups that have equally high intermixture as with Mozabite samples for example at 23and me or some other North AFrican population.
So it is all the more surprising that the Amarna pharaohs should come out so strongly linked to peoples of the far south of Africa. The expected east African wasn't strongly represented either.
If they had a some considerable admixture with Europeans that would have showed up in them being linked to some mixed group, but it didn't. They showed they were African to the core.
This is true.
But, I don't know why you or anyone could call them the "Amarna" pharaohs because beside Akhenaten both King Tut and King Amenhotep III resided in Waset (Thebes in Greek language). The would be Akhenaten mummy (KV55) was not even found in Amarna since the city was long abandoned by the Ancient Egyptian right after the death of that king. They are 18th Dynasty Royal family mummies. They usually resided in Waset (Thebes) and their tomb/body were found there.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep involving DNA Tribes' maps and quotes when they don't even support your unsupported theories. What DNA Tribes actually said:
What "unsupported" theories of mine the DNA Tribes results or maps does not support?
Do you even know what the point of contention is about? After several back and forth posts and interventions by Beyoku, you still don't know what the points of contention are?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep involving DNA Tribes' maps and quotes when they don't even support your unsupported theories. What DNA Tribes actually said:
What "unsupported" theories of mine the DNA Tribes results or maps does not support?
Do you even know what the point of contention is about? After several back and forth posts and interventions by Beyoku, you still don't know what the points of contention are?
Answer my question if you want or we can agree to disagree, I don't care. You have the right to have your own opinion about the results.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep involving DNA Tribes' maps and quotes when they don't even support your unsupported theories. What DNA Tribes actually said:
What "unsupported" theories of mine the DNA Tribes results or maps does not support?
Do you even know what the point of contention is about? After several back and forth posts and interventions by Beyoku, you still don't know what the points of contention are?
Answer my question if you want or we can agree to disagree, I don't care. You have the right to have your own opinion about the results.
I guess that is a no. You don't know what MLI scores indicate, and you don't know what the point of contention is about (you think its an issue of semantics), and despite DNA Tribes' own official statements regarding the meaning of MLI scores (i.e., MLI scores are simply hotspots of where ancestors today simply left their strongest marks), you still parade and spam the MLI scores around as if they indicate that the people of Southern Africa/the Greak Lakes and Ancient Egypt have anything more than ancestry in common (i.e., that either one must have had an ancestor/descendant relationship with the other). SMH.
I rest my case, its not like you have any credentials anyway. Just a confused newbie who hard of hearing towards his own DNA Tribes citations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I guess that is a no. You don't know
Then stick to *your* opinion about the results and leave alone what you think *I* know or don't know. You're ridiculous. Instead of answering my simple question you just respond with insults and posturing. It would have been much more useful and faster to just to answer my question. You still can answer my question if you want (or not).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
_______________________________________________ from the above, remarks added in parenthesis:
Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa.
(mainly South Africa, Great Lakes, West Africa)
These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE. Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies.
If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.
_____________________________________________
They seem to contradict themselves in their conclusion. They said:
a) "8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis"
and
b) geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies.
^^^^ the geographical analysis which are allowed by the STR analysis showed suggests links NOT with neighboring populations in Africa but instead with populations much further away from Egypt: South Africa, Great Lakes region, West Africa. The neighboring region North African region scored lower MLI than Northwest Europeans, both low scoring.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes but the keyword is modern populations. Meaning either the ancestors of those modern populations once inhabited Egypt and adjacent regions or DNA Tribes has holes in their population sampling so which is it?
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
Your point? Obviously your point is to still hold out hope for admixture. LOL So far, there is no evidence for that. By the way, that blow-up picture of Yuya does no good for you since his face shows features no different from modern northeast Africans like Beja.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes but the keyword is modern populations. Meaning either the ancestors of those modern populations once inhabited Egypt and adjacent regions or DNA Tribes has holes in their population sampling so which is it?
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
Your point? Obviously your point is to still hold out hope for admixture. LOL So far, there is no evidence for that. By the way, that blow-up picture of Yuya does no good for you since his face shows features no different from modern northeast Africans like Beja.
piece of shit ,in this post I made no comment just provided a fair compilation of information so that people can judge for themselves. now move on
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
DNATribes analysis suggests that the Amarna familiy later migrated out of Egypt South and West
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
hahahaha!!!! Look at the filthy monkeys desperation!!! LOL
The DNAtribes analysis of the Armana mummies shows very clearly that King Tut, his mother Nefertiti (KV35YL) his father Akhenaten his grandparents Amenhotep III AND Queen Tyie (KV35EL) and his great grandparents Yuya and Thuya were African
The DNAtribes analysis of the Armana mummies irrefutably proves that the ancestors of these people reside in the modern populations in
1) South Africa 2) Central Africa 3) West Africa
WHAT DNA TRIBES IS SAYING IS THAT THE MODERN POPULATIONS THAT CURRENTLY RESIDE SOUTH OF THE SAHARA ARE THE ANCESTORS OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
in other words what DNAtribes DNA analysis says is that the modern populations in Egypt are NOT the ancient Egyptians. Its really very simple for anyone except a desperate,m stringy haired, pink assed degenerate who cant handle the truth!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: DNATribes analysis suggests that the Amarna familiy later migrated out of Egypt South and West
This is one possible scenario.
Another scenario would see all the groups involved sharing relatively recent common ancestors *then* splitting into different group *before* the foundation of Ancient Kemet. In that scenario, the 18th Dynasty mummies studied and the African ethnic groups wouldn't directly descend from one another but would share relatively recent ancestors, probably living at the same x location (maybe the Mountain of the Moon at the beginning of the Nile) , before the split into different migratory direction including along the Nile toward what would be later called Kemet and toward Southern Africa. This is just one possible scenario considering the DNA results.
A combination of both those scenarios is also possible. With a constant ancient migratory movements across all the regions involved (Ancient Kemet, Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Tropical West Africa, Sahelian, etc). Well before and also after the multiple foreign invasion and occupation of Kemet by various foreign ethnic groups (Hyksos, Assyrians, Romans, Persians, Muslim Arabs, Greeks, British, etc). Invasion which would push the original inhabitant of Ancient Kemet further down south, following the migratory path of common ancestors in the past.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: DNATribes analysis suggests that the Amarna familiy later migrated out of Egypt South and West
This is one possible scenario.
Another scenario would see all the groups involved sharing relatively recent common ancestors *then* splitting into different group *before* the foundation of Ancient Kemet. In that scenario, the 18th Dynasty mummies studied and the African ethnic groups wouldn't directly descend from one another but would share relatively recent ancestors, probably living at the same x location (maybe the Mountain of the Moon at the beginning of the Nile) , before the split into different migratory direction including along the Nile toward what would be later called Kemet and toward Southern Africa. This is just one possible scenario considering the DNA results.
A combination of both those scenarios is also possible. With a constant ancient migratory movements across all the regions involved (Ancient Kemet, Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Tropical West Africa, Sahelian, etc). Well before and also after the multiple foreign invasion and occupation of Kemet by various foreign ethnic groups (Hyksos, Assyrians, Romans, Persians, Muslim Arabs, Greeks, British, etc). Invasion which would push the original inhabitant of Ancient Kemet further down south, following the migratory path of common ancestors in the past.
Its seems you are going down the right track but I think your hypothesis is backwards. To analyze this you will have to break down what you describe as "sharing relatively recent common ancestors". How recent is relatively recent? If you are talking about "recent" as opposed to OOA then you basically support Swenet because you are talking about VERY old wide spread common ancestry....this goes WAY Back. This can be supported with ideas like widesrepad Barbed Harppoon points and aquatic technology and stuff like that. But then you are talking about 90-10 kya...that is a long time frame. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g36v03001423n142/ http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007697
If you are talking about recent as in the last 3-6 thousand years then provide evidence of large scale migration from the great lakes region INTO Egypt. As far a recent movement the data actually says something else. See something like dotted wavy line pottery. Or even the distribution of cattle which did not exist in the great lakes region and comes much later....meanwhile Egyptian has loan works of Eastern Sudanic origin regarding cattle..
There is a actually a ton of info already in the thread about this.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [ If you are talking about recent as in the last 3-6 thousand years then provide evidence of large scale migration from the great lakes region INTO Egypt. As far a recent movement the data actually says something else. See something like dotted wavy line pottery. Or even the distribution of cattle which did not exist in the great lakes region and comes much later....meanwhile Egyptian has loan works of Eastern Sudanic origin regarding cattle..
There is a actually a ton of info already in the thread about this. [/QB]
While maybe you didn't like it, or even agreed with it, but I always knew Ancient Kemites shared geographical, cultural, anthropological, linguistic, religious and historic linkage and origin with other African people. The DNA Tribes analysis just provide further proof. You trying to say otherwise simply baffles me. You're in denial about the results.
The DNA STR analysis show strong close genetic relationship between African ethnic groups posted above, mainly Southern Africans, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africans. Not Europeans ethnic groups, Levantine ethnic groups, Asiatics/Middle Eastern ethnic groups, or modern ethnic group close to those but truly: African ethnic groups.
I understand how some biased people may not like it but it's what the data says. Contrary as you, it seems, I always believed, as many people on this site I think, that all other pointers like cultural, geographical, religious, anthropological, historical, linguistic, etc pointed in that direction too. So for me the DNA tribes results are a great significance which *confirm* even more the up Nile river, black African origin of Ancient Kemet. It's not Levantine, Europe or whatever, it's Africans similar to current Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans and Tropical West African mainly. They share the same STR loci repeats of their great great parents ancestors (STR loci repeats transmitted from both parents to child). If it was closer to lets say current Europeans, current Levantine population or current East Africans or Middle Eastern population it would show up on the data.
Ancient Egyptians mummies predates the foreign invasion of Kemet and share the closest relationship with current black African groups such as Southern Africans, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africans mainly.
I'm also glad all the seven 18th Dynasty Royal mummies matches about the same profile. So it's not just King Tut alone, or Akhenaten alone or Amenhotep alone, it's true for the whole 7 mummies of the 18th Dynasty Royal family studied.
Migratory movements are usually a slow process. The arrival of African people genetically similar (sharing the same close ancestors parents population) to current Southern, Great Lakes and Tropical Africans in the Ancient Kemet location is probably something that went on for decades and centuries before the creation of the first Dynasty and the unification of all the Kemet Nomes.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
As written in the DNA Tribes reports, they used STR DNA Data from the JAMA study (Journal of the American Medical Association). They took the data about the STR DNA from the publicly available JAMA report and input it in their database. Matching them with the world population groups which share the same STR profiles than those 18th Dynasty Royal mummies. Showing a close ancestral relationship between the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies and African population ethnic groups. So the PCR STR sample analysis of the mummies was not done by DNA Tribes but by the JAMA researchers. DNA Tribes simply input the results in their database of world population to find matching ancestral linkage.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
As written in the DNA Tribes reports, they used STR DNA Data from the JAMA study (Journal of the American Medical Association). They took the data about the STR DNA from the JAMA report and input it in their database. Matching them with the world population groups which share the same STR profiles than those 18th Dynasty Royal mummies. Showing a close ancestral relationship between the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies and African population ethnic groups. So the PCR STR sample analysis of the mummies was not done by DNA Tribes but by the JAMA researchers. DNA Tribes simply input the results in their database of world population to find matching ancestral linkage.
that's correct I put up the full JAMA report earlier in the thread. But same question, why are, Americans allowed to have data leading to a public release of analysis before the Egyptians?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
you REALLY live on the twilight zone, don't you? You're exceptionally slow. Completely coo-coo.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: DNATribes analysis suggests that the Amarna familiy later migrated out of Egypt South and West
This is one possible scenario.
Another scenario would see all the groups involved sharing relatively recent common ancestors *then* splitting into different group *before* the foundation of Ancient Kemet. In that scenario, the 18th Dynasty mummies studied and the African ethnic groups wouldn't directly descend from one another but would share relatively recent ancestors, probably living at the same x location (maybe the Mountain of the Moon at the beginning of the Nile) , before the split into different migratory direction including along the Nile toward what would be later called Kemet and toward Southern Africa. This is just one possible scenario considering the DNA results.
A combination of both those scenarios is also possible. With a constant ancient migratory movements across all the regions involved (Ancient Kemet, Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Tropical West Africa, Sahelian, etc). Well before and also after the multiple foreign invasion and occupation of Kemet by various foreign ethnic groups (Hyksos, Assyrians, Romans, Persians, Muslim Arabs, Greeks, British, etc). Invasion which would push the original inhabitant of Ancient Kemet further down south, following the migratory path of common ancestors in the past.
Its seems you are going down the right track but I think your hypothesis is backwards. To analyze this you will have to break down what you describe as "sharing relatively recent common ancestors". How recent is relatively recent? If you are talking about "recent" as opposed to OOA then you basically support Swenet because you are talking about VERY old wide spread common ancestry....this goes WAY Back. This can be supported with ideas like widesrepad Barbed Harppoon points and aquatic technology and stuff like that. But then you are talking about 90-10 kya...that is a long time frame. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g36v03001423n142/ http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007697
If you are talking about recent as in the last 3-6 thousand years then provide evidence of large scale migration from the great lakes region INTO Egypt. As far a recent movement the data actually says something else. See something like dotted wavy line pottery. Or even the distribution of cattle which did not exist in the great lakes region and comes much later....meanwhile Egyptian has loan works of Eastern Sudanic origin regarding cattle..
There is a actually a ton of info already in the thread about this.
Indeed. It should be a no-brainer that MLI scores South of the Sahara can be safely ignored, in terms of looking at the origins of the Amarna family, because the Saharan populations with whom the Ancient Egyptians had the strongest ties, evolved locally.
Look for example, at the Levantine regional cluster (which hosts Egypt), and notice how low the chance is of finding each Pharaonic STR profile there. If one would take the results of the DNA tribes analysis literal, one would have to conclude that the Amarna family was not ethnically Egyptian. Yet, the mummies ARE North African.
The obvious implication then, is that the Pharaonic STR profiles were present in and around Southern Egypt, but that it wasn't preserved well in DNA Tribes' samples of the populations in the region in and around Southern Egypt. SNP analysis, (but also haplogroup analysis sometimes) confirms the idea that a huge chunk of Egypt's modern population is virtually the result of wholesale replacement from the Middle East.
The exact proportions differ somewhat, but Egypts pie chart is very similar to that of Oman. We see the same picture in Henn et al 2012.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [ If you are talking about recent as in the last 3-6 thousand years then provide evidence of large scale migration from the great lakes region INTO Egypt. As far a recent movement the data actually says something else. See something like dotted wavy line pottery. Or even the distribution of cattle which did not exist in the great lakes region and comes much later....meanwhile Egyptian has loan works of Eastern Sudanic origin regarding cattle..
There is a actually a ton of info already in the thread about this.
While maybe you didn't like it, or even agreed with it, but I always knew Ancient Kemites shared geographical, cultural, anthropological, linguistic, religious and historic linkage and origin with other African people. The DNA Tribes analysis just provide further proof. You trying to say otherwise simply baffles me. You're in denial about the results.
The DNA STR analysis show strong close genetic relationship between African ethnic groups posted above, mainly Southern Africans, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africans. Not Europeans ethnic groups, Levantine ethnic groups, Asiatics/Middle Eastern ethnic groups, or modern ethnic group close to those but truly: African ethnic groups.
I understand how some biased people may not like it but it's what the data says. Contrary as you, it seems, I always believed, as many people on this site I think, that all other pointers like cultural, geographical, religious, anthropological, historical, linguistic, etc pointed in that direction too. So for me the DNA tribes results are a great significance which *confirm* even more the up Nile river, black African origin of Ancient Kemet. It's not Levantine, Europe or whatever, it's Africans similar to current Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans and Tropical West African mainly. They share the same STR loci repeats of their great great parents ancestors (STR loci repeats transmitted from both parents to child). If it was closer to lets say current Europeans, current Levantine population or current East Africans or Middle Eastern population it would show up on the data.
Ancient Egyptians mummies predates the foreign invasion of Kemet and share the closest relationship with current black African groups such as Southern Africans, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africans mainly.
I'm also glad all the seven 18th Dynasty Royal mummies matches about the same profile. So it's not just King Tut alone, or Akhenaten alone or Amenhotep alone, it's true for the whole 7 mummies of the 18th Dynasty Royal family studied.
Migratory movements are usually a slow process. The arrival of African people genetically similar (sharing the same close ancestors parents population) to current Southern, Great Lakes and Tropical Africans in the Ancient Kemet location is probably something that went on for decades and centuries before the creation of the first Dynasty and the unification of all the Kemet Nomes. [/QB]
You have got to be freaking kidding me.
Please, PLEASE do yourself a favor and go over all 21 pages of this thread in detail and see exactly what I have written and who I have responded to. You seem to have come in on the tail end of the discussion and do not know nor understand what has already been written over 6 months ago! I keep telling you to read the full thread and its clearly obvious you have not. This is intellectual laziness.
I am done here.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^My point exactly. This guy is really full of himself to be talking down to people about ''not liking results''. LOL.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Swenet - I dont think any of the scores can be ignored. Maybe it would be more fitting to say "South of the Equator" instead of "South of the Sahara".
I think all the scores tell us something........we just have not seen an satisfactory explanatory hypothesis behind the "Southern African" scores..Other than what is technically true. Dont want to beat the dead horse on the Great Lakes score but it think that explanation is very promising and is echoed by the Nubian Ancient DNA as well as Modern samples of Southern Sudanese by DNA tribes.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the sentence again (it says in terms of the origin of the Amarna fam). We corresponded shortly about whether or not these results indicate whether the origin of the Egyptians was further South, and now I lean more towards your end of the spectrum. Do you agree that this is very ancient and widespread genetic material, or do you still think STR data gives only a small window to look back into time, in terms of ancestry? I've come across several authorities who said that, but I still don't know exactly what they mean with it. Judging by the distant relationships between the Sub Saharan people who carry these alleles, it seems much more likely their origin (the alleles) is very ancient.
Can you also explain what data you're referring to when you say:
quote:as well as Modern samples of Southern Sudanese by DNA tribes.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
you REALLY live on the twilight zone, don't you? You're exceptionally slow. Completely coo-coo.
and you're exceptionally an asshole
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: why was DNATribes a private company allowed to obtain DNA samples of the mummies and release an analysis to the public before Hawass?
you REALLY live on the twilight zone, don't you? You're exceptionally slow. Completely coo-coo.
and you're exceptionally an asshole
Its like your brain resets itself, after a certain amount of time, with every topic. Limb proportion data, yellow depicted females in Ancient Egyptian art, cranial analysis, DNA Tribes analysis. You're really need to get yourself looked at. Seriously.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: SNP analysis, (but also haplogroup analysis sometimes) confirms the idea that a huge chunk of Egypt's modern population is virtually the result of wholesale replacement from the Middle East.
The exact proportions differ somewhat, but Egypts pie chart is very similar to that of Oman. We see the same picture in Henn et al 2012.
I think we can all agree that the Egyptians have assimilated a lot of foreigners in the last 3,000 years, but I've never heard any record of the native Egyptians ever being wiped out or leaving their homeland. I can see the foreigners out-breeding the natives, similar to how Hispanics are projected to form a larger proportion of the American population in the future, but even then I wouldn't call that a wholesale replacement. That phrasing implies some kind of ethnic cleansing.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Perhaps I didn't pick the right words, to describe the idea I was getting at. What I meant to say was that the set of indigenous genetic diversity in Egypt seems in some studies to have been almost completely replaced by a Middle Eastern set of genetic diversity. The reason why I used the term, is because their haplogroup diversity is almost exactly the same. In such studies, most, if not all the haplogroups are shared, and present in similar frequencies.
When you look at Greece and Yugoslavians, for example, you don't see a 'mini Asia' in their haplogroup frequencies, for a lack of a better word. You see various forms of J, and perhaps, some other ME lineages, not necessarily in a proportional amount.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: SNP analysis, (but also haplogroup analysis sometimes) confirms the idea that a huge chunk of Egypt's modern population is virtually the result of wholesale replacement from the Middle East.
The exact proportions differ somewhat, but Egypts pie chart is very similar to that of Oman. We see the same picture in Henn et al 2012.
I think we can all agree that the Egyptians have assimilated a lot of foreigners in the last 3,000 years, but I've never heard any record of the native Egyptians ever being wiped out or leaving their homeland. I can see the foreigners out-breeding the natives, similar to how Hispanics are projected to form a larger proportion of the American population in the future, but even then I wouldn't call that a wholesale replacement. That phrasing implies some kind of ethnic cleansing.
then what is your explanation for the very low MLI score of Levantine, the category that DNATribes had classified Egypt in (unless the Amarna family were exceptional)
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: then what is your explanation for the very low MLI score of Levantine, the category that DNATribes had classified Egypt in (unless the Amarna family were exceptional) [/QB]
From the DNA Tribes data it is clear the Ancient Egyptian mummies don't share ancestors with modern Levantine population, nor modern Egyptian population, nor modern Europeans populations. The original/Ancient Kemet ethnic composition has been long diluted by the multitude of foreign invasion (Hyksos, Assyrians, Muslim Arabs,Romans, etc), migration in and out of ancient Kemet (which now long lost its original name) and intermixage.
If you would now go now to Egypt and by an incredible luck find an completely isolated group of people directly descendant of the Ancient Kemites. People who would have been so isolated in the last 5000 years that they would look exactly (have the same DNA) like the Ancient Egyptians. If you took the DNA of those hyper isolated people. Their DNA would be like the 18th Dynasty Royal mummies sampled in this study and they would share the closest ancestry with modern Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans and Tropical West Africans. Their closest modern common relatives. Descendant from the same parents population (since they share STR repeats value of their parents population, their common ancestors).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Nor Sudan?
If you go to Sudan (or Egypt) and find an hyper isolated group of people direct descendant of the Ancient Kemites.
Their DNA would match the DNA of the 18th Dynasty Royal mummies and their closest modern relatives with whom they share ancestors parents (and DNA STR repeats value) would be modern Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans and Tropical West Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Indeed. It should be a no-brainer that MLI scores South of the Sahara can be safely ignored, in terms of looking at the origins of the Amarna family, because the Saharan populations with whom the Ancient Egyptians had the strongest ties, evolved locally.
It's ridiculous to ignore MLI scores South of the Sahara for whatever reasons or because it doesn't reflect some preconceive notion you had (and still have).
There's *no* contradiction about Ancient Kemites being an indigenous population from Kemet and them sharing common ancestors with Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Tropical Africans and Sahelians Africans.
All the contrary. All those African groups including the Ancient Egyptians share common DNA STR repeats and thus common ancestors at some level. Those African groups (southern, great lakes, etc) are the closest common relative to the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies.
It's like any genetic ethnic group derived by DNA Tribes.
For example, all the groups in this map below, share STR repeats profiles and thus share common ancestors:
This map tell us, for example, that you can re-group "Tropical West Africans" into a genetic ethnic category of people sharing STR profiles thus sharing common ancestors. As we know, you could probably subdivide them further. Same thing for other genetic ethnic groups on the above map like "Eastern European", "Levantine", "Ojibwa" and "Arctic" genetic ethnic categories.
In fact, every colored ethnic group in the above map are people sharing common DNA STR repeats profile and thus common ancestry. (The name given to those genetic ethnic category were chosen by DNA Tribes and/but seems to reflect basic historic knowledge about those groups)
Even more interesting: Each of the genetic ethnic groups in the above map can either be 1) Subdivided into smaller genetic ethnic groups like Celtic, Norse, Yoruba, Igbo, etc (not seen on the above map)
OR,
2) Combined together to form larger genetic ethnic groups (also not seen on the map) like "Eurasian" and "Sub-Sahara Africans".
This last fact, we can see it on the following map (from DNA Tribes) for example:
For example, by looking at the above map, for any person or mummies, DNA Tribes can know if they are from the "American Indian" genetic ethnic group or the "non-American Indian" genetic ethnic group by looking at the STR repeats profile.
When it is determined to be "non-american indian". They further pinpoint whether they are from the "Sub-Saharan African" genetic ethnic group or from the "Eurasian" genetic ethnic group.
Then they can determine if they are closer to Southern Africans or Sahelian ethnic groups for example. Every time simply by comparing and matching STR repeats profiles.
So Ancient Kemites (Ancient Egyptians) sharing common ancestors with African groups from the South of the Sahara and being indigenous to Kemet, doesn't contradict one another. All the contrary. They are just all part of a large group of people, sharing common DNA profile, thus common ancestors, who seems to occupy all the main zones of Africa south of the Sahara.
We can also subdivide those genetic ethnic categories into smaller groups such as Zulu, Ancient Kemites, Yoruba, Shona, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So Ancient Kemites (Ancient Egyptians) sharing common ancestors with African groups from the South of the Sahara and being indigenous to Kemet, doesn't contradict one another. All the contrary. They are just all part of a large group of people, sharing common DNA profile, thus common ancestors, who seems to occupy all the main zones of Africa south of the Sahara.
This seems similar to what Swenet was saying, namely that the Amarna mummies' genetic profiles were widespread in ancient Africa.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So Ancient Kemites (Ancient Egyptians) sharing common ancestors with African groups from the South of the Sahara and being indigenous to Kemet, doesn't contradict one another. All the contrary. They are just all part of a large group of people, sharing common DNA profile, thus common ancestors, who seems to occupy all the main zones of Africa south of the Sahara.
This seems similar to what Swenet was saying, namely that the Amarna mummies' genetic profiles were widespread in ancient Africa.
Well. Swenet is saying a lot of different things. For example he says: "It should be a no-brainer that MLI scores South of the Sahara can be safely ignored, in terms of looking at the origins of the Amarna family ". I don't know if you agree with that but that is what I was responding to.
Clearly the 18th Dynasty mummies and Sub-Sahara Africans share common ancestors thus STR genetic profiles.
I don't know how widespread their genetic profiles was but it was distinctive of their common parents ancestors (compared to other people on earth) to which they pass those STR repeats distinction eventually to their great (great) children descendants (18th dynasty royal mummies, Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Tropical West Africans, Sahelians Africans).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So Ancient Kemites (Ancient Egyptians) sharing common ancestors with African groups from the South of the Sahara and being indigenous to Kemet, doesn't contradict one another. All the contrary. They are just all part of a large group of people, sharing common DNA profile, thus common ancestors, who seems to occupy all the main zones of Africa south of the Sahara.
This seems similar to what Swenet was saying, namely that the Amarna mummies' genetic profiles were widespread in ancient Africa.
It IS similar to what I've been saying. This is not the point of contention, though (although he repeatedly confuses it with the point of contention [he says its all semantics]). The point of contention between me and him, is whether the results indicate contact between the physical regions of Southern Africa and the Great Lakes regions on the one hand, and Egypt on the other hand. I'm sure contact did happen, somewhere along Egypt's lifespan (e.g., importation of Pygmies, and perhaps slaves from the Great Lakes region that landed in Ancient Egypt's lap via Puntites) but this obviously isn't the data to be inferring it from, regardless of the relatively high MLI scores in modern Southern Africa and the Great Lakes.
He doesn't know how internally conflicted he sounds when it comes to these results. On the one hand he agrees that the genetic material on the 8 loci is very widespread in Africans traditionally called 'Sub Saharan' (although he seems wishy washy when it comes to this as well), yet, at the same time he wants to act as if the data necessarily indicates that the genetic material was spread to/from South(eastern) Africa to/from Egypt.
If the data is as widespread as he says, why couldn't the ancestry have come from the ancestors of the people in the Sahel, why couldn't it have come from the ancestors of some of the other so called Sub-Saharan 'looking' group in Northern Africa, e.g., Haratin? The obvious answer is that he finds his unsupported Great lakes/Egypt explanation emotionally appealing.
At the end of the day, the DNA Tribes must be reconciled with the already existing data, especially when the other interpretations (significant origin related contact between the physical regions of the Great Lakes and Egypt) have already been disqualified by the other disciplines of science:
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas. [Research] must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography.
-Nancy C. Lovell
So yes, in terms of the origin of the bulk of the Ancient Egyptians, the MLI scores South of the Sahara can be safely ignored. When you look at peculiar features, (i.e., features that aren't as widespread among Africans) relationships between the Ancient Egyptians and Africans much further South of the Sahara tend to quickly fall apart. Body log data, craniofacial discrete traits, Mesolithic trends in facial reduction, cranial vault expansion and other changes shared with contemporary Mesolithic Nubians, as well as dental data are quick examples that come to mind.
These examples, amongst other things, are what could be considered the 'local variation', and 'local evolution' mediated by culture and geography, Nancy Lovell speaks of.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one you must stop telling what *I* said when it is not true, but only your mis-interpretation of it. It's boring and unproductive to talk to someone who is like a wall. Read slowly what I say. I usually pick my words carefully.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He doesn't know how internally conflicted he sounds when it comes to these results. On the one hand he agrees that the genetic material on the 8 loci is very widespread in Africans traditionally called 'Sub Saharan' , yet,
It's crazy to say I said that because just in the post above I say something else entirely. Not 10 posts above, but the post just above your reply. I said:
I don't know how widespread their genetic profiles was but it was distinctive of their common parents ancestors (compared to other people on earth) to whom they pass those STR repeats distinction eventually to their great (great) children descendants.
So I said, I don't know how widespread it was since this is not relevant. What is relevant to a genetic study of that kind is how distinctive their genetic STR profiles are compared to other world population genetic groups. It's very important to understand those basic facts.
For example, a mummy can have a STR Loci repeats value of 10 at the STR location D13S317. A STR repeats profile of 10 at location D13S317 can only been seen in, lets say, 4% of the Sub-Sahara groupings (tropical, southern, great lakes, sahelian). So it's not that widespread, only 4%. But if a STR loci value of 10 at location D13S317 exist only in 0% in other ethnic groups around the world then it's distinctive enough (in high percentage enough) to tell us that this STR loci value (of 10) from the mummy is Sub-Saharan African. Obviously for a person or mummy, you check both alleles and 7 more STR location in this case. And you continue to derive the probability of each STR loci from being more in that region or more in another one (due to shared ancestry). Generating a MLI value.
quote: at the same time he wants to act as if the data necessarily indicates that the genetic material was spread to/from South(eastern) Africa to/from Egypt.
Maybe you misinterpreting how I act like. Genetic material are passed from parents to children. Distinctive STR loci genetic material are pass from parents to children. Two entities (person, mummies, people) sharing similar distinctive STR loci value, means they share common ancestors parents. So genetic material was effectively pass from one to the other, probably through common parent ancestors or by one group being the ancestor of the other.
quote: So yes, in terms of the origin of the bulk of the Ancient Egyptians, the MLI scores South of the Sahara can be safely ignored. [/QB]
Stop saying that, it's just crazy. You can't ignore data because it doesn't fit your pre-conception.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
you REALLY live on the twilight zone, don't you? You're exceptionally slow. Completely coo-coo.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic