quote:Originally posted by Manu: Look at the list which was posted earlier.
DNAtribes already uses samples from Somalia and Sudan to compare them to these Ancient Egyptian mummies.
However, these mummies were MUCH closer to South Africans than to the Horn of Africa. This is why I think these results make no sense, from what we already know about Ancient Egyptians.
No, you're a troll and you know nothing about AE
When I asked you earlier about what exactly you deemed inconsistent with the STR data, you repeatedly gave me data concerning every African group in the book, other than AE, 4 times in a row
You talked about Nilotes and their ancestry, you talked about Horners and their ancestry, you talked about Niger Congo speakers and their ancestry
Don't you think it's a tad bit funny that you jump up and down screaming AE couldn't have had inner African ancestry, when none of your arguments pertain to AE, and every objection you throw shows just how little you know about anthropology in general?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No, you're a troll and you know nothing about AE
When I asked you earlier about what exactly you deemed inconsistent with the STR data, you repeatedly gave me data concerning every African group in the book, other than AE, 4 times in a row
You talked about Nilotes and their ancestry, you talked about Horners and their ancestry, you talked about Niger Congo speakers and their ancestry
Don't you think it's a tad bit funny that you jump up and down screaming AE couldn't have had inner African ancestry, when none of your arguments pertain to AE, and every objection you throw shows just how little you know about anthropology in general?
I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people. But I am just not very convinced of the affinities these results show. I will remain skeptical for now, until higher resolution data is presented on Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Africa Ehret reveals cannot be described as unchanging or peripheral to world history. Among his most exciting ideas is that of an "African classical age," from about 1000 BCE to about 300 CE. During this period, he argues, peoples from four language families Khoisan (sometimes known as Khoi-San and best known for the "clicks" in their languages), Afrasan (a.k.a., Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic), Nilo-Saharans and Niger-Congo peoples—encountered one another in the African Great Lakes region and along the eastern Rift Valley. That encounter helps account for the southward expansion of Bantu-speaking Niger-Congo communities, who adopted cattle-raising from Nilo-Saharan groups and independently worked iron. Recently, Ehret summarized much of this work in The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 [..]...WHC: Right… and you focus particularly on the Bantu-speaking Mashiriki people. In the textbooks most of us use, the Bantu migrations start about 3,000 years ago, and end about a thousand years ago. The Bantu push the Khoisan southwest into African deserts. What does your work do that changes that picture?
Ehret: It's not just my work. Everyone who has worked on the Bantu language family more recently knows that it's a family that splits off from other Niger-Congo languages four or five thousand years ago, something in that range. It takes the first 2,000 years of expansion just to cross the equatorial rainforest. It's the arrival of certain Bantu in the Great Lakes area and the whole western Rift Valley, a geologically and environmentally varied area, which leads all kinds of varied adaptations. That encounter leads to what people have thought of as the Bantu expansion.
That's only eastern Africa. There's also a southern expansion from the rainforest in Cameroon at the same time. So it only looks like it's one migration. And in a way, they're interconnected. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/2.1/ehret.html
^Wonder if theories on Niger-Kordofanian plays into this?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolic meaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people. But I am just not very convinced of the affinities these results show. I will remain skeptical for now, until higher resolution data is presented on Ancient Egyptians.
DUDE do you KNOW who are the people in the Great lakes region? You are trying to study things in a bubble that is why YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALIKNG ABOUT. If you ONLY study Egypt and the horn in a bubble you will have no idea what is going on. Why is it you come asking all the questions but seem to know ALL the answers? Go back and READ everything ALL over again. Furthermore go back and read ALL that DNA tribes has on the samples that are African and then "insert your coin" and try again.
As i aksed before LOOK at that image from DNA tribes and the STR profile. If you cannot tell us what this means then you have no clue how to interpret the results.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Indeed, Astenb already showed this guy data showing that most of the Somali affinity attributed to Africa comes from the Great Lakes region and that most of the Amarna samples possessed predominant ancestry from the Great Lakes region, but if he isn't satisfied it speaks more to his obtuseness and stubbornness than the persuasiveness and consistency of the results.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Indeed, Astenb already showed this guy data showing that most of the Somali affinity attributed to Africa comes from the Great Lakes region and that most of the Amarna samples possessed predominant ancestry from the Great Lakes region, but if he isn't satisfied it speaks more to his obtuseness and stubbornness than the persuasiveness and consistency of the results.
DNAtribes already used those very same Somalia samples grouped in the ''Horn of Africa'', yet those mummies show pretty low affinity to them and instead were much closer to South Africa.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, So now some of yall are gonna support that Horners and Sudanese are mixed with Non Africans from back Migrations?? Not saying I agree with Manu not am I against the idea that South Africans being the closest to A. Egyptians, but in all honesty It is quite odd considering how far away South Africans are from the Nile Vally. IMO its akin to saying the Irish are the closest to the A. Romans rather than Italians.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ^ Was told long ago from people "in the know" that Tut was E1b1a.
What inside people are you referring to?
?
I cannot give up these good other than saying it was university folk. Whatever "Haplogroup IV" is...that is what he has.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question I have is that the "Horn of Africa" sample seems small. Somali people are the only Horners in that sample, while the South Africans have aleast 10 different groups. Perhaps the sample size can explain the results.
quote:Originally posted by Manu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Indeed, Astenb already showed this guy data showing that most of the Somali affinity attributed to Africa comes from the Great Lakes region and that most of the Amarna samples possessed predominant ancestry from the Great Lakes region, but if he isn't satisfied it speaks more to his obtuseness and stubbornness than the persuasiveness and consistency of the results.
DNAtribes already used those very same Somalia samples grouped in the ''Horn of Africa'', yet those mummies show pretty low affinity to them and instead were much closer to South Africa.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: I would have no problem believing they were very similar to Sudanese/Horn people.
As was said earlier, Sudanic and Horn populations are not necessarily static entities. Egyptians may have been closely related to the Sudanic and Horn peoples that were around 4,000 years ago, but those may have been quite genetically distinct from the current inhabitants of those regions (especially with Arabs and other people back-migrating into Africa during historical times).
Indeed, Astenb already showed this guy data showing that most of the Somali affinity attributed to Africa comes from the Great Lakes region and that most of the Amarna samples possessed predominant ancestry from the Great Lakes region, but if he isn't satisfied it speaks more to his obtuseness and stubbornness than the persuasiveness and consistency of the results.
DNAtribes already used those very same Somalia samples grouped in the ''Horn of Africa'', yet those mummies show pretty low affinity to them and instead were much closer to South Africa.
1 - So what is the main difference between "Horn of Africa" ancestry and "Great Lakes" ancestry that would be found in EGYPT and SUDAN?
2 - What would be more important in the region.
3 - Most important ho were the last people to LEAVE the Upper Nile valley and enter the great lakes region?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ok, we'll just have to wait and see for confirmation..
----------------
To be fair, I agree with Manu on this point, ie, that the Great Lakes affinity attributed to the Somali's doesn't seem to be the same as the great lake region ancestry that was found in the Ancient Egyptians.
This can be seen in the fact that South Africa isn't a contibuter to Somali ancestry according to them (only West Africa and the Great Lakes region are African contributers according to DNA tribes), but South Africa purportedly is running toe to toe with the Great Lakes region when it comes to those 8 STR's.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 1 - So what is the main difference between "Horn of Africa" ancestry and "Great Lakes" ancestry that would be found in EGYPT and SUDAN?
Irrelevant. DNATribes clearly had a separate ''Horn of Africa'' category, which those AE mummies show negligible affinity to.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 2 - What would be more important in the region.
Afroasiatic ancestry obviously.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 3 - Most important ho were the last people to LEAVE the Upper Nile valley and enter the great lakes region?
Nilotic people obviously.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 1 - So what is the main difference between "Horn of Africa" ancestry and "Great Lakes" ancestry that would be found in EGYPT and SUDAN?
Irrelevant. DNATribes clearly had a separate ''Horn of Africa'' category, which those AE mummies show negligible affinity to.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 2 - What would be more important in the region.
Afroasiatic ancestry obviously.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: 3 - Most important ho were the last people to LEAVE the Upper Nile valley and enter the great lakes region?
Nilotic people obviously.
Afro-Asiatic is a language, not an ancestry.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only differences I see with the extant specimens from South Africa and the Great Lakes is that the former seems to also share alleles with local Khoisan populations. That this would be somewhat more anomalous to people is understandable but why the Great Lakes matches would seem "odd" is beyond me and I give Manu no ground whatsoever as he is clearly confused and has no valid point.
People need to heed what Al Takuri has already alluded to in that there were no Bantu-speaking populations in South Africa during the Amarna period, nor anywhere else. The dynamics of the Bantu expansion seems to be confusing some people. We are not discussing "Bantu ancestry". Those who shared that modern structure spoke some extinct Niger-Congo language which is why I invoked Niger-Kordofanian (people like Blench also see Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan as comprising a macro family). It is no surprise that afroasiatic speakers coming from adjacent territories would share the same or similar profiles with Africans from the Great Lakes and upper Nile, like Somalis or Chadic-speakers. It would be informative to compare them to modern Chadic-speakers for linguistic correspondences yet they don't have any samples from Chadic-speakers, who according to other studies share ancestry with Nilo-Saharans from the upper Nile and Great Lakes region.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The only differences I see with the extant specimens from South Africa and the Great Lakes is that the former seems to also share alleles with local Khoisan populations. That this would be somewhat more anomalous to people is understandable but why the Great Lakes matches would seem "odd" is beyond me and I give Manu no ground whatsoever as he is clearly confused and has no valid point.
People need to heed what Al Takuri has already alluded to in that there were no Bantu-speaking populations in South Africa re the Amarna period, nor anywhere else. We are not discussing "Bantu ancestry". Those who shared that modern structure spoke some extinct Niger-Congo language which is why I invoked Niger-Kordofanian (people like Blench also see Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan as comprising a macro family). It would also be informative to compare them to modern Chadic-speakers for linguistic correspondences yet they don't have any samples from Chadic-speakers, who according to other studies share ancestry with Nilo-Saharans from the upper Nile and Great Lakes region.
^ THIS.
quote: The patterns of population structure we found in northeast Africa, in particular the similarity of Nubian (a northern Sudanese group that speak Nilo-Saharan languages) and the Egyptian population. is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia, probably resulting in genetic flow between the two regions. However, the Nubian group and the Karamoja group from Uganda share a relatively large number of private alleles (Figure 4), potentially reflecting the shared ancestry of the Nubians with populations from southern Sudan and Uganda. Our results, in addition to mtDNA [7] and Y-chromosome [6,34,35] data, suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile between Egypt and Nubia.
Yall understand that the Karamoja are in the DNA tribes database under "Great Lakes Region" right? Would not this element be INCREASED if we go back through time 3300 years? Manu you seem to be fimiliar with those ameture Admixture/Structure exercises... Remeber when the southern Egyptian sample was pulling toward the SUDANESE/Chadic samples and NOT the Horn African samples?
See the southern Egyptians sample here
What ancestry is more important M35 or B2a1a?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
For example. Looking at Akhenaton's (Tut's father) profile, his ancestry is predominantly skewed towards the Great Lakes. Looking at "The Younger Lady", her ancestry is heavily skewed towards the Southern African. The null hypothesis would be that the profile of their offspring, Tut, then should be one with ancestry roughly equal in proportion from the Great Lakes and Southern Africa. Guess what? hint: see Figure 8
Besides, DNAtribes themselves claim they only use "more markers" for higher resolution to better identify "ethnic" affiliation. There is no reason why these results aren't satisfactory as is applied to their flawed, but in this case practical concept of "world regions". Clearly these people were ancient Africans.
Indeed.
Resemblances between Egyptians and South African populations is not new, but a decades old observation as Godde 2009 recapped in her Nubian study: QUOTE:
"On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990). --GOdde 2009.
As others have said the markers picked up may relate to ancient variants moving in and out of the Nile Valley. SOme of these variants may have blended with others moving even further south as part of the Bantu expansion. The time range is thousands of years, and the DNA blend (disease vectors, new migrations, or whatever) is an ancient one. Whatever the exact details, remnant DNA traces of those earlier ancient tropical Africans may well be reflected today in both the Nile Valley and on into Southern Africa. No one need draw a rigid line from Zululand to Cairo. There are thousands of years, and thousands of different possibilities, bypaths and routes in between, with intermediate stops and intermediaries in between.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not object to strong Nilotic ancestry in Egypt. However, the fact that SOUTH AFRICANS were much much closer to these mummies than the Horn region was should be an obvious indication something is not right.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manu, do you want to play another classic Egyptsearch game of having facts repeated to you thousands of times without ever absorbing them? The Horn of Africa back in ancient Egyptian times =/= the Horn of Africa today! Who knows what sort of genetic structure the region had 4,000+ years ago?
Recall this from Keita and Boyce's submission to Celenko's Egypt in Africa:
quote:"Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Is it now so damn difficult for you to process the possibility that the peoples of the Horn of Africa have undergone significant genetic change in the last several thousand years?
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Manu, do you want to play another classic Egyptsearch game of having facts repeated to you thousands of times without ever absorbing them? The Horn of Africa back in ancient Egyptian times =/= the Horn of Africa today! Who knows what sort of genetic structure the region had 4,000+ years ago?
Recall this from Keita and Boyce's submission to Celenko's Egypt in Africa:
quote:"Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Is it now so damn difficult for you to process the possibility that the peoples of the Horn of Africa have undergone significant genetic change in the last several thousand years?
That is unlikely, as said groups are very much native to their respective regions. The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is a way too low resolution. I am sure that higher resolution analyses on these mummies will show significantly different results.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manu LOL. Notice the difference in the average frequency. 323 vs 326 that is not a statistical difference.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is ...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My thoughts:
Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.
We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.
This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.
This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).
quote:Originally posted by Manu: The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is a way too low resolution. I am sure that higher resolution analyses on these mummies will show significantly different results.
Denial.
quote:Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of 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.
^As I stated before, they only use "more markers" for higher resolution to better identify "ethnic" affiliation. There is no reason why these results aren't satisfactory as is applied to their flawed, but in this case practical concept of "world regions". Clearly these people were ancient Africans.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: That is unlikely, as said groups are very much native to their respective regions.
You did not read the Keita and Boyce excerpt. They say that even if a group is stationary, it can undergo significant genetic change over millennia as long as it is exposed to foreign migrations, and the Horn of Africa has definitely experienced such migrations in the last 4,000 years. I agree that further studies are needed for a clearer picture of ancient Egyptian genetic affinities (no one here has denied that), but so far the justification you've offered for your incredulity has been unsatisfactory as it is founded in the unwarranted assumption that Africans are static and segregated populations.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Careful!
DNAtribes' Digest Jan 2012 01 01 Table 1 doesn't give frequencies.
It lists proprietary average MLI (MatchLikelihoodIndex) scores
Freq and MLI must bear some relationship but that info is withheld.
.
.
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.
To simulate DNAtribes regions I used 5 population sets</font>
Kenya (Bantu NE)
Namibia (San) + South Africa (Bantu)
Senegal (Mandenka)
Yoruba (Nigeria)
Algeria (Mzabi)
popSTR Db is nowhere near as robust as DNAtribes DB but will suit the purpose of example.
* -- not complete yet more to come -- check back here *<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
^alTakruri, not a genetics expert but the sideline notations below Table 1 do seem to suggest their MLI method is constructed solely by looking @ STR profile frequencies (likelihood of occurrence).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is ...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My thoughts:
Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.
We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.
This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.
This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).
In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:
The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:
The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.
quote:Originally posted by Manu: The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is ...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My thoughts:
Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.
We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.
This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.
This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).
In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:
The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:
The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.
Thoughts?
Are you supposing the ancient Egyptians are direct descendants of Nazlet Khater?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A big portion, but not all of them. Read my original post (the top part) for further clarification of my viewpoint on that particular matter.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Had a connection bug. Let's try this again now.
Careful!
DNAtribes' Digest Jan 2012 01 01 Table 1 doesn't give frequencies.
It lists proprietary average MLI (MatchLikelihoodIndex) scores
Freq and MLI must bear some relationship but that info is withheld.
.
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.
To simulate DNAtribes regions I used 5 population sets
Kenya (Bantu NE)
Namibia (San) + South Africa (Bantu)
Senegal (Mandenka)
Yoruba (Nigeria)
Algeria (Mzabi)
popSTR Db is nowhere near as robust as DNAtribes Db but will suit the purpose of example to show the MiniFiler 8 STR haplotypes can and do validly delineate geographies and ethnies
Use CTL+ to enlarge the captures for pair values and bar graph comparison.
It's tedious but one can
select any mummy
note its 8 loci's pair values
match them to popSTRs results
Using Tut for example we find the pooled Southern African set as perfect a match as our tool allows. And since the haplotypes match for all given alleles we don't need to check frequencies for the most likely match. If we want to complete the ranking for all five sets we'd have to take highest frequencies of matching alleles into consideration.
And no, the science is NOT this crude.
PS this board's nested listing sucks!Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.
We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.
This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.
This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).
[/qb][/QUOTE]In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:
The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:
The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.
Thoughts? [/QB][/QUOTE]
^^Quite possibly. The mix of peoples in and out of the Nile Valley, over several millenia, as the Saharan climate fluctuated would more than account for differing genetic variations in the reshuffled groups. Lingustic analysis shows that the greater Sudanic area, Greenberg's "core area" or the "Sudanic Belt" is one of the most linguistically dense in Africa, stretching into the highlands of Ethiopia. It did and does contain "Bantu" speakers. It is thus no big thing to find Bantu speakers in the Horn of Africa.
With millennia to play around with, finding traces of their passage found in the Nile Valley is no big surprise.
And again, Godde 2009 does note that Egyptlogists have long observed resemblances between the ancient Egyptian Badari and South African groups. These are observations of old-line, conservative researchers, not something dreamed up by so-called "Afrocentrists".
"On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990)." --Godde 2009
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent work alTakuri! Again, not surprised by the "South African" hits simply due to the dynamic nature of migrations and language phyla.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: And how come its information hasn't already gone viral?
Just take a wild guess. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@ Sundjata Thank you
@ Centric Oh, once our friend Carport X aka VideoLedWall aka SoccerShoes aka ad infinitum gets ahold of it it will be.
And, like comic books, some periodicals are released pre-date.
Also it is just an article in an online digest. It is not a journal published scientific report or study. Thankfully DNAtribes was sensible to not go to the media with it.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
What else would they be, other than indigenous people from that part of Africa?
To claim anything otherwise is ridiculous. And shows a lack of understanding of demic diffusion and how man lived prior to the age of intercontinental travel. The “highways” of pre-history were the river and lakes of the land man lived in.
It is lunacy of anyone to suggest Tut and his family is anything else but people from that part of the world/Africa.
Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci. 4
Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.
Discussion: 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).
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why are you looking for the presence of "Horners" when the data tells you they are not there in this case? Afters seeing the results of 7 seperate mummies you have to change YOUR idea because the results from these mummies is NOT about to change this instant.
326 vs 14 is not what the argument should be. 323 vs 326 is, and its not statistically different.
Discuss THE RESULTS not what you want, or what you thought the results were going to be. That is DENIAL!
Truthcentric - We are not discussing the alleged change of Horn Africans. You are going about it the wrong way. The genetic continuity of Horners is not what is under question because we dont have ancient genetic data from Horners. We DO have genetic date from Egypt to discuss THEIR continuity. You cannot use this data to hypothesize the continuity of Ethiopians....JUST BECAUSE WE THOUGHT ancient Egyptian would be similar. You and Manu are basically trying to refute results that countered your assumptions with more assumptions. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The genetic composition in the Horn may very well have differed in past. Actually, I'm pretty sure of it, looking at the dominant Somali y chromosomes, but IMO, the sampled African variants in DNA tribes' ''Horn'' cluster were not affected by Eurasian immigration to the degree that those STR profiles would decrease from Great Lakes/South African frequencies to DNA Tribes' present day ''Horn of Africa'' frequencies.
8 STR profiles however, are far from enough. More STR profiles are needed.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the sense that some here had doubts about the indigenousness and Africaness of AEians. What else can they be?
The really intriguing question is how far SSAians migrated. Is greater Africa a fact or fiction? As cited in the middle East/falasheen thread. African female lineage(L*) extended into the Arabian Peninsula going as far back to the end of the LGM. And in that University of Barcelona study 50% of the ancient lineage were MtDNA (L*). Maelstrom et al concluded that modern Europeans are genetically different to ancient remains. He discovered they were primarily mtDNA – HG-U* with origins again, in the Great Lakes region. And I always go back to craniometric studies, ie Sergi, where he stated it all started around the Grate Lakes region. And these people reached as far is Iberia, Stonehenge, ancient Persia etc I have to admit I was a skeptic when I first started reading, now, to me, the real question is how far these African peoples extend into Eurasia.
Of course, the present population of Eurasia is far different. Which lends credence to what Mike and Clyde have been saying from day one
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What else would they be, other than indigenous people from that part of Africa?
To claim anything otherwise is ridiculous. And shows a lack of understanding of demic diffusion and how man lived prior to the age of intercontinental travel. The “highways” of pre-history were the river and lakes of the land man lived in.
It is lunacy of anyone to suggest Tut and his family is anything else but people from that part of the world/Africa.
Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci. 4
Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.
Discussion: 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).
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic