posted
^Dienekes doesn't know what he's talking about concerning the Greco-Roman [Fayum] portraits anyways (which don't even depict ancient Egyptians for the most part). This also places doubt on some cranio-metric interpretations/assumptions seeing as how Tut would have fit the mold of his "intermediate continuum" yet we aren't seeing intermediate results, of which he admits are accurate. Probably why he painfully admits at the end that these kind of "qualitative" [and subjective] observations are no substitute for hard data.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now this thread is what ES old E/S was all about,learned alot here personally.
Remember all the hoopla,premature celebrations of the Aryanist Euro centrist types about Tut's R1b now come to find out that his R1b may have came from Cameroon the home of the dreaded Bantu I look forward to them tripping over themselves trying to explain away this or claiming a Caca origin for Bantus and other "West Africans" the hated region..special shot out goes to Al-Takruri here for keeping a cool head and did some fine detective work exposing the leaked screen shot for exactly what it was.... a leaked screen shot I am not vindictive by nature but i'll smile watching them eat crow.. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Now this thread is what ES old E/S was all about,learned alot here personally.
Remember all the hoopla,premature celebrations of the Aryanist Euro centrist types about Tut's R1b now come to find out that his R1b may have came from Cameroon the home of the dreaded Bantu I look forward to them tripping over themselves trying to explain away this or claiming a Caca origin for Bantus and other "West Africans" the hated region..special shot out goes to Al-Takruri here for keeping a cool head and did some fine detective work exposing the leaked screen shot for exactly what it was.... a leaked screen shot I am not vindictive by nature but i'll smile watching them eat crow..
I noted the African origin of king Tut's R1b back in July here .
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).
Even Dienekes is claiming a "African" origin of the Amarna mummies.
They seem to indicate that there is something definitely "African" about this collection of mummies. - Dienekes
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone had already correctly pointed out above that those 8 STRs plus about 5 more are used in forensic analysis and paternity test and such, which was the reason why Hawaas et.al had amplified them in the first place. This means that more STRs will definitely NOT show those mummies to be non-Africans it will merely narrow them to a specific group in Africa.
FBI CODIS Core STR Loci:
-------------------- It was high time Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Basically more bitching about 8 STRs not being enough.
quote:This is an important specification because research has demonstrated that studies using only 10 autosomal loci have a huge statistical margin of error of over 30%. And that margin of error steadily decreases as one increases the number of markers analysed.
quote:"Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."
The error rate the Witherspoon paper is talking about refers NOT to identifying individuals' ancestry but whether or not two individuals from one population will be found to be more dissimilar from each other than two individuals from two different populations. The Witherspoon quote says nothing about the utility of STRs in determining individuals' ancestry which is what DNATribes is trying to measure.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup there they go with the phenotype, conveniently side stepping Bantus and Nilo-Saharan who have narrow features and posting the broadest features they can find.
Bantu and a Nilo Saharan respectively sorry your Union is busted!!lol
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
So if use of 100 loci turns in an error rate of 20% then why is he relying on a study directly above that uses 15 [as you've shown, because the kid has his wires crossed and can't discern what the different studies are trying to measure]? There's no use even responding to that loon and his convoluted garbage (it WOULD be lioness who posted that).
You asked earlier: "What sort of excuses will they contrive to explain the data?"
^Well, there's a good example.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata that is the rouse they are going to take,when in doubt and can't refute..make sh!!t up,and I am glad Lioness posted this because we now know the approach they are going to take.hehehe Hamitic union no!! African union yes!!Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Why dont you stop being a retard and read the full study. Notice they they dont just match south African Bantu. Look at the numbers.....MOST of the mummies match "Great Lakes Region" First. Great lakes region are Nilo-Saharan folks:
I'm not sure whether you are referring to the region within the context of specific groups mentioned by "DNA tribes", but the "Great Lakes region" hosts Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan-speaking and some KhoiSan-speaking groups.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: LOL! Clyde Winters wasn't the first to say this. Not by a long shot. The only thing Clyde does is try to tie everything to Mande peoples and Mande languages which is absolutely not the same as say what Diop or Obenga were doing.
As for the Mountains of the Moon and ties to Southern Africa, people are missing the clues in Egyptian cosmology. The ancient Egyptians called inner Africa "Gods land"? Why? Because they themselves acknowledged and understood that humanity was born inside Africa. That is the core of their cosmology. When you see the diety Min depicted as jet black it is a symbol of God's seed in man originating in Africa.
The Egyptians knew that humanity originated in Africa and that they themselves along with many of their traditions and gods originated there as well.
They knew what modern biology just found out with DNA studies thousands of years ago. But then again, people don't realize the symbolism of Isis as the basis of biological understanding in ancient Egypt. As mother nature Isis or Hathor symbolizes the female chromosome, the incubator and the gene pool and Osiris represents the X chromosome, the male principle and the seed for the male gene pool.
quote:he ancient Egyptian name for Medinet Habu, in Arabic the "City of Habu" was Djamet, meaning "males and mothers." Its holy ground was believed to be where the Ogdoad, the four pairs of first primeval gods, were buried.
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.
Your explanation cannot be "reasonable" unless it is backed by evidence. Do you have tangible evidence that the DNA sequencing's resolution was "way too low"?
And no: Saying that it is impossible for the South African sample to have greater sharing with the ancient Egyptian samples than the Horn of Africa samples, does not constitute this evidence.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't know, if more STR's would only further exclude other relationships, it means those 8 STR's would be more than enough, as Sundiata has said along.
What you're saying to explain DNA tribes' comment would pertain to ALL populations, and is a common sense. Maybe it's just their way of submitting results they didn't feel comfortable about, either because of their own pre-conceived notions or because of fearing some sort of backlash, as has been so often the case when it comes to proclaiming Egypts African ties (eg, Diop, Bernal etc).
Either way, you were right Sundiata.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Thanks. It isn't about being "right" though as much as getting to the bottom of all of this. There's a lot to untangle.
The above exchange is how we should behave on this thread. We can disagree without being disagreeable (provided the intent of the parties is genuine constructive debate). And if it turns out the other person is right, then so be it no biggie.
This was an excellent thread Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
I donno but I'd say this is a pretty good similarity certainly deserving of further investigation, good find Doug.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.
Let's use 3 major geographic population sets
Africa (including Mzab)
Europe
South West Asia
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
Using the same algorithm as before we
select a mummy
note its 8 loci's pair values
match them to popSTRs results
Using Tut for example we find the pooled 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 complete ranking for all three sets we'd have to take the highest frequencies of matching alleles into consideration noting where gaps are insignificant. But here we can see by simple matching that Europe is likelier than SW Asia though the latter has more of the highest frequencies for some loci's alleles. And no, the science is NOT that crude.
As with our earlier comparison of DNAtribes' MLIs against popSTR's results we find the allele pairs of two loci to be decisive in a one to one match of Tut's mummy to a specific population. They are
D21S11 = 29,34
CSF1PO = 06,12
This should quell internet "yelps" that Applied Biosystems' 8 loci AmpFℓSTR® MiniFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit (link) cannot accurately distinguish an individual's major geographic population affinity just as the earlier check showed it can filter intra-continental regional probability.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
do you assume Yuya had afro hair originally? ^^^ His hair is not that short
If Yuya's hair was originally an afro would it be worn natural like the man above and it got straightened out by the mummification process or was it artificially straightened as a style when he was alive? What would his hairstyle most likely have been?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get your silly ass out of this thread, troll, and take your off-topic questions with you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You known full well asking such questions (hair morphology) can only lead to page after page of debate, which will end up nowhere. Let's keep this thread about DNA tribes' STR analysis and related matters.
It's been a long time we aint had a gamechanging thread like this, can we keep this spam free for once? Thank you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree and we have oral history to prove it.
quote:Babutidi in “Bantu Migration and Settlement,” in Laman’s Kongo Cultural Collection, (20,000 pp. microfilm, Lidingo, Sweden, 1914. Film No. 1, Cahier XVIII/13),
A long time ago in antiquity, people did not exist in this Lower-Congo; they come from the north of the country. There also, in the north, people came from far off north, the very north of Kayinga. Kayinga is the name of the country [region] where lived our ancestors in antiquity…There they already knew how to weave the cloths they wore, forge hoes and knives that they used. The main reason for their coming in this country [area] was the famine that hit Kayinga. For many years the drought reigned; crops and fruit trees they planted dried up. They suffered a lot for this. Unable to support the suffering they said to each other: “Let’s go to Banda-Mputu [Let’s pass through the dense forest, the unbreakable wall] and organize chieftaincies, because we have a lot of hunger up here.” So they agreed: “Let’s go.”
In the past, two chieftaincies ruled this part of the world [region]. When people escaped from the north of Kayinga, they separated on their way; some crossed the Nzadi [Congo river], these are people who live in the Nsundi area [the left shore of Nzadi] and others are those who live on the Simu-Kongo [the right shore of the Nzadi].”
Kayinga is the word for the Sahara desert. The So-called Bantu migrations never made sense to me because they could never explain why this ONE group of people would move so rapidly without any indication of wars or for any reason at all. People don't migrate for no reason. Usually wars and natural disasters force movement and the Sahara drying would have been a legit reason for this group to move.
As I've demonstrated time and time again, Bantu speakers were in Egypt and it is detectable in the language. They called themselves BANTU (untu, Kiswahili Wantu), just under a different form: rmT = Luntu, Rumtu, Lomi, Romi (in Coptic and Bantu). This should be a big clue. In my upcoming book I will show definitively that Bantu people were in Egypt and left a mark on the cosmology and language. There are features in Egyptian culture that can ONLY be explained as Bantu. This article, if it pans out to be legit, only adds more evidence to an already growing pile of evidence: part of which I hope to reveal soon.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna mummies and that their STRs were all present in the Lower Nile Valley at that time.
Also keep in mind the Southern Africa of the DNAtribes article extends from Angola & Namibia to South Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana, Zimbabwe, & Mozambique. We don't know the precision since they withold it.
That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.
Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to the south and east.
Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.
So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies could well have come from people migrating east from the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.
So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples from the southern third of the continent making moves northwards.
The below maps are all we have to go on for precision of the sampled populations of the given regions' STRs
posted
Someone on ForumBiodiversity had this to say about the DNATribes analysis:
quote:I had a look at global frequency tables for alleles D18S51=19 and D21S11=34. These were used in the article as examples of alleles found in the mummies that are more frequent in Africa than in other parts of the world, so presumably these alleles contributed significantly to the high MLI scores with certain African regions.
The D21S11=34 allele is rare in West Eurasians (it is found in 0.4% of modern Egyptians). The highest frequency among Africans and West Eurasians is found among the Mbenzele, who are Central African Pygmies. The D21S11=34 allele was found in 5.5% of the Mbenzele Pygmies. The second highest frequency of this allele among Africans and West Eurasians is found in the Venda, a Bantu-speaking group from Southern Africa who have absorbed significant Khoisan admixture according to Tishkoff's study on Africa from 2009. But the highest frequency of this allele around the world is actually found in the Southeast Asian Balinese, where it is found in 8.2% of the population! This allele is also relatively common in South Asia. However, South Asians and Southeast Asians were not included in the DNA Tribes analysis. Only Africans and West Eurasians.
The D18S51=19 allele (found in 1.1% of modern Egyptians) has a similar pattern. This allele also peaks in the Mbenzele Pygmies, where its frequency is 16.7%. The second highest frequency among Africans (13.8%) is found among the Xhosa. The Xhosa are Southern African Bantus who possess significant Khoisan admixture, just like the Venda. The second highest global frequency (13.8%) is found in the Balti, a group of Tibetan descent.
So what does all this mean? What is clear is that these alleles, which were used as examples of particularly "African" alleles, are highest among people who descend from African hunter-gatherers. The Khoisan are not included in the frequency tables I linked, as far as I can see, which is why these alleles peak in the Mbenzele Pygmies, and then South African Bantus with significant Khoisan admixture.
When you think about it, this is not at all strange. The Khoisan and Pygmy are the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically. This is based on Y-DNA, mtDNA, as well as genetic distances based on full genome sequencing. So, in general, you would expect alleles that distinguish Africans from Eurasians to peak in the Khoisan and/or Pygmies.
I am pretty confident that this explains the affinities of these Ancient Egyptian mummies in that analysis performed by DNA Tribes. There is nothing particularly Southern African about the alleles they tested. Some of the alleles are just very African, which, in a low resultion test like this that is based on the "likelihood of occurrence of an STR profile in that region versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole" can lead to results that seem illogical. Keep in mind that San samples are included in the population database used by DNA Tribes, as well as samples from many other hunter-gatherer groups.
He seems to be claiming that the African tendencies of the mummies in DNATribes's analysis hinge on two of the eight alleles.
EDIT: I actually responded to him on the forum, but my post hasn't been approved by a moderator yet...
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You known full well asking such questions (hair morphology) can only lead to page after page of debate, which will end up nowhere. Let's keep this thread about DNA tribes' STR analysis and related matters.
It's been a long time we aint had a gamechanging thread like this, can we keep this spam free for once? Thank you.
O.k. we'll stick to DNA here, I'll start a new thread.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You known full well asking such questions (hair morphology) can only lead to page after page of debate, which will end up nowhere. Let's keep this thread about DNA tribes' STR analysis and related matters.
It's been a long time we aint had a gamechanging thread like this, can we keep this spam free for once? Thank you.
O.k. we'll stick to DNA here, I'll start a new thread.
posted
@ Swenet, Altakruri et al. can I get you guys to give me your take on the results so I can publish it to my blog, thanks.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Well, he tested two allelles at two STR's, Altakruri tested all of those available that pertain to Tut:
Kinda hard to be claiming the inner African peaks are caused by just two allelles when you've never tested more than two.
Like you said yourself yesterday Truthcentric; more STR's (and thus more allelles) would only further narrow down possible contenders. Why would you then be impressed by analysis which comprises of two allelles, when it is already surpassed in allelle amount by DNA tribes' and alTakruri's analysis?
If only two allelles were at work for those peaks in inner African regions, the weight of the other allelles not associated with Africans would've dropped the inner African MLI score, and increase the MLI scores of the other tested regions.
Notice that Mesopotamia is the DNA tribes' region directly adjacent to South Asia (the region he seems to be implicating as a contender), but Mesopotamia's MLI score is the lowest of all other regions.
There is clearly an inner African ''epi-center'', discernable when looking at the MLI scores. With a few exceptions (eg, Northern Africa), regions closer to inner Africa score the highest, and regions further away score lower, the further they are away from inner Africa:
I find it hard to believe that MLI scores would go ''the other route'' regarding this trend, and increase to inner African scores, conveniently where DNA tibes decided to stop giving data (ie, east from the Mesopotamian cluster). DNA Tribes obviously have Tibetan and South Asian data in their database.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I agree and we have oral history to prove it.
quote:Babutidi in “Bantu Migration and Settlement,” in Laman’s Kongo Cultural Collection, (20,000 pp. microfilm, Lidingo, Sweden, 1914. Film No. 1, Cahier XVIII/13),
A long time ago in antiquity, people did not exist in this Lower-Congo; they come from the north of the country. There also, in the north, people came from far off north, the very north of Kayinga. Kayinga is the name of the country [region] where lived our ancestors in antiquity…There they already knew how to weave the cloths they wore, forge hoes and knives that they used. The main reason for their coming in this country [area] was the famine that hit Kayinga. For many years the drought reigned; crops and fruit trees they planted dried up. They suffered a lot for this. Unable to support the suffering they said to each other: “Let’s go to Banda-Mputu [Let’s pass through the dense forest, the unbreakable wall] and organize chieftaincies, because we have a lot of hunger up here.” So they agreed: “Let’s go.”
In the past, two chieftaincies ruled this part of the world [region]. When people escaped from the north of Kayinga, they separated on their way; some crossed the Nzadi [Congo river], these are people who live in the Nsundi area [the left shore of Nzadi] and others are those who live on the Simu-Kongo [the right shore of the Nzadi].”
Kayinga is the word for the Sahara desert. The So-called Bantu migrations never made sense to me because they could never explain why this ONE group of people would move so rapidly without any indication of wars or for any reason at all. People don't migrate for no reason. Usually wars and natural disasters force movement and the Sahara drying would have been a legit reason for this group to move.
As I've demonstrated time and time again, Bantu speakers were in Egypt and it is detectable in the language. They called themselves BANTU (untu, Kiswahili Wantu), just under a different form: rmT = Luntu, Rumtu, Lomi, Romi (in Coptic and Bantu). This should be a big clue. In my upcoming book I will show definitively that Bantu people were in Egypt and left a mark on the cosmology and language. There are features in Egyptian culture that can ONLY be explained as Bantu. This article, if it pans out to be legit, only adds more evidence to an already growing pile of evidence: part of which I hope to reveal soon.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna mummies and that their STRs were all present in the Lower Nile Valley at that time.
Also keep in mind the Southern Africa of the DNAtribes article extends from Angola & Namibia to South Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana, Zimbabwe, & Mozambique. We don't know the precision since they withold it.
That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.
Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to the south and east.
Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.
So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies could well have come from people migrating east from the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.
So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples from the southern third of the continent making moves northwards.
The below maps are all we have to go on for precision of the sampled populations of the given regions' STRs
Look forward to taking a look at your book Asar. maybe its a clue to ziggurats and pyramids around the world built by people who appear to have been more Bantu then cushitic in morphology. I suspect the Bantu were like peoples of Jebel Sahaba. those remaining in Egypt or Sudan may have undergone a gracilization that led to a smaller and more gracile Beja or Haratin type people there and in the Horn.
Time will tell I guess.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Well, he tested two allelles at two STR's, Altakruri tested all of those available that pertain to Tut:
Kinda hard to be claiming the inner African peaks are caused by just two allelles when you've never tested more than two.
Like you said yourself yesterday Truthcentric; more STR's (and thus more allelles) would only further down possible contenders. Why would you then be impressed by analysis which comprises of two allelles, when it is already surpassed in amount by DNA tribes' and alTakruri's analysis?
If only two allelles were at work for those peaks in inner African regions, the weight of the other allelles not associated with Africans would've dropped the inner African MLI score, and increase the MLI scores of the other tested regions.
Notice that Mesopotamia is the DNA tribes' region directly adjacent to South Asia (the region he seems to be implicating as a contender), but Mesopotamia's MLI score is the lowest of all other regions.
There is clearly an inner African ''epi-center'', discernable when looking at the MLI scores. With a few exceptions, regions closer to inner Africa score the highest, and regions further away score lower, the further they are away from inner Africa:
I find it hard to believe that MLI scores would go ''the other route'' regarding this trend, and increase to inner African scores, conveniently where DNA tibes decided to stop giving data (ie, east from their Mesopotamian cluster).
I told him that the reason South Asian and other non-African/non-Western Eurasian populations were not included in DNATribes's chart may have been because the African and Western Eurasian groups that were mentioned in the chart were the only populations in the world that showed any likelihood of similarity with the Egyptians, not because they were the only populations used in the study (let's recall Yuya's anomalous "matches" with Native Americans).
Still, has anyone looked at this article, which an opponent of mine used to discredit this DNATribes study?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had a look at global frequency tables for alleles D18S51=19 and D21S11=34. These were used in the article as examples of alleles found in the mummies that are more frequent in Africa than in other parts of the world, so presumably these alleles contributed significantly to the high MLI scores with certain African regions.
The D21S11=34 allele is rare in West Eurasians (it is found in 0.4% of modern Egyptians). The highest frequency among Africans and West Eurasians is found among the Mbenzele, who are Central African Pygmies. The D21S11=34 allele was found in 5.5% of the Mbenzele Pygmies. The second highest frequency of this allele among Africans and West Eurasians is found in the Venda, a Bantu-speaking group from Southern Africa who have absorbed significant Khoisan admixture according to Tishkoff's study on Africa from 2009. But the highest frequency of this allele around the world is actually found in the Southeast Asian Balinese, where it is found in 8.2% of the population! This allele is also relatively common in South Asia. However, South Asians and Southeast Asians were not included in the DNA Tribes analysis. Only Africans and West Eurasians.
The D18S51=19 allele (found in 1.1% of modern Egyptians) has a similar pattern. This allele also peaks in the Mbenzele Pygmies, where its frequency is 16.7%. The second highest frequency among Africans (13.8%) is found among the Xhosa. The Xhosa are Southern African Bantus who possess significant Khoisan admixture, just like the Venda. The second highest global frequency (13.8%) is found in the Balti, a group of Tibetan descent.
So what does all this mean? What is clear is that these alleles, which were used as examples of particularly "African" alleles, are highest among people who descend from African hunter-gatherers. The Khoisan are not included in the frequency tables I linked, as far as I can see, which is why these alleles peak in the Mbenzele Pygmies, and then South African Bantus with significant Khoisan admixture.
When you think about it, this is not at all strange. The Khoisan and Pygmy are the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically. This is based on Y-DNA, mtDNA, as well as genetic distances based on full genome sequencing. So, in general, you would expect alleles that distinguish Africans from Eurasians to peak in the Khoisan and/or Pygmies.
I am pretty confident that this explains the affinities of these Ancient Egyptian mummies in that analysis performed by DNA Tribes. There is nothing particularly Southern African about the alleles they tested. Some of the alleles are just very African, which, in a low resultion test like this that is based on the "likelihood of occurrence of an STR profile in that region versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole" can lead to results that seem illogical. Keep in mind that San samples are included in the population database used by DNA Tribes, as well as samples from many other hunter-gatherer groups.
I keep hearing stuff here about more STR alleles narrowing down to specific populations; I'm not sure how more generic STR alleles can achieve that, and radically change what is already posted in the DNA tribes list, but maybe someone will clue me in.
To the stuff specifically posted above:
As far as the "exclusion of the San and the pygmies" go, I'm not sure how the author of the above piece knows this, since after all, "Southern African" was mentioned, as was "tropical Western Africa" and the "Great Lakes". I'd like to think that the San are part of "Southern Africa", while the pygmies reside on the inner fringes of Western Africa and near the Great Lakes region, don't they.
It makes sense to leave South Asia out of the equation, because geographically speaking, the mentioned territories have the highest probability of exchanging genes with inhabitants of Africa.
It is also not out of the ordinary to find sharing of alleles between continental Africans and Southeast Asians; after all, a good segment of Southeast Asian populations have common recent ancestry with YAP+ lineage Africans, whereas no other non-African geographical entity have their own YAP+ branch. Certain similarities can be attributed to roots in such interesting shared ancestry between continental Africans and Southeast Asians.
Some similarities could very well also be attributed to convergent evolution, since tandem repeats can be prone to homoplasy. However, given the heavy structuring pattern listed in the list, it is more likely that common recent ancestry is the dominating contributor.
And what's this deal about the "Khoisan and Pygmy" being "the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically"?
There is no KhoiSan and Pygmy and the rest of humanity dichotomy; there is however, manifestations of African and OOA dichotomy. KhoiSAn and pygmies are not far removed from African populations, since they share common recent ancestry with other African populations that are otherwise rare outside of the continent. Naturally, African populations who have received considerable levels of Eurasian gene flow are going to be relatively distant from hunter-gatherer societies, due to their relative isolation.
Even segments of south African KhoiSan, not the desert San, have not been spared European gene flow, and possibly some from southern Asia (like India). Moroever, both the pygmies and the KhoiSan have had noticeable genetic exchanges with Bantu-speaking groups.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stealing my thunder . But, we are on the same page.
Originally posted :
That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.
Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to the south and east.
Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.
So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies could well have come from people migrating east from the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.
So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples from the southern third of the continent making moves northwards.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Yup there they go with the phenotype, conveniently side stepping Bantus and Nilo-Saharan who have narrow features and posting the broadest features they can find. ]
posted
^Pseudoscience (by pre-labeling the arbitrary partitioning of relative genetic similarity). Manu essentially is well-versed in internet blogger race/junk science.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype and of their cultural affinity to East Africans because this unpeer reviewed study represents the ancient Egyptians as southern Africans. They had the nerves to bitch about the Western European tut findings and how some white people "desperately" ran towards that finding against all previous evidence, yet they do the same **** when it's in their favor. Their is no crania analysis that will group southern Africans having a phenotype clustering closely towards the ancient Egyptians. The hair of the ancient Egyptians was not tightly curled like southern Africans are today. In fact one of Zaharans own spammed graphics states that the hair of the ancient Egyptians was like that of Somalis and distinct from true Negroid hair. It then bitches on and on about how we shouldn't limit African diversity to true negroids, basically confirming that the ancient Egyptians were not True Negroids like southern and west Africans. Now they want to abandon all of that, because one genetic company publishes a study finding the ancient Egyptians be close to southern Africans. More reasons why Afronuts cannot be taken seriously.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Sorry for repeating myself, but again, has anyone seen this argument against ancestry-tracing organizations like DNATribes?
quote:* Most tests trace only a few of your ancestors and a small portion of your DNA, * Tests are unlikely to identify all of the groups or locations around the world where a test-taker's relatives are found, * Tests may report false negatives or false positives, * Limited sample databases mean test results are subject to misinterpretation, * There is no clear connection between DNA and racial/ethnic identity, * Tests cannot determine exactly where ancestors lived or what ethnic identity they held.
But what exactly is the problem? How do the points above (which talk about potential flaws in methods used to trace ancestry down to the ethnie level) relate to what is going on here, ie, identifying broad regions (eg, Southern Africa, Great Lakes) with the best matches for the STR profiles that were provided in Hawass et al 2010.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Sorry for repeating myself, but again, has anyone seen this argument against ancestry-tracing organizations like DNATribes?
First of all, this was not an "ancestry test" but a geographical [comparative] analysis, as Astenb points out, similar to what Tishkoff et al do in their analyses. The results were the results. Also, from the article:
quote:A third option, known as AncestryByDNA, or admixture testing, is more promising in that it examines non-sex chromosomes inherited from both parents, chromosomes that contain DNA segments from all ancestors. To a limited extent, this test can track the geographical movements of ancestors by examining single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), some of which influence such traits as skin color and resistance to regional diseases. That said, the same SNPs may be found among several populations around the world, and thus can produce false leads.
^They concede that point when they differentiate between this and uniparental "ancestry testing", which is indeed often criticized (see Rick Kittles' response to Sarah Tishkoff). The so-called "false leads" don't apply when you heighten the discriminatory probability.
I don't recommend that you preoccupy yourself anyways since the only reason that he posted it was to obfuscate things. How is your "opponent" going to directly contradict or discredit THESE particular results that were confirmed in this very thread by board members (i.e., alTakruri) savvy enough to use the require software to do so? Jeeze, even Dienekes admits that the use of these 8 core STR markers is enough to place an individual into the correct "continental grouping" with extremely "high accuracy".
You seem to be too worried about subjective criticism from people who half the time don't even understand/know what they're talking about.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Wart: Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype
ES members, and the person who coined the term (ie, Hiernaux) have argued since the very start that the that elongated physique is simply a plastic configuration, not a static racial type. In support of this, both Hiernaux and ES members have forwarded many examples of Niger-Congo speakers with such phenotypes (eg, Teita).
Since this position was taken by us from the start, there is no inconsistency. It is the Euronut rigid conception of ''elongated'' (ie, that elongated is a racial and static trait only carried by admixed Northeast Africans) that cause you idiots to be at a loss of words when result come out like the ones in the OP.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I don't recommend that you preoccupy yourself anyways since the only reason that he posted it was to obfuscate things.
***
You seem to be too worried about subjective criticism from people who half the time don't even understand/know what they're talking about.
I'm worried about winning debates on the Internet, but you have a valid point, it probably isn't worth continuing to argue with him or anyone else. Debates on issues like this are seldom productive anyway.
But yes, the guy didn't know what he was talking about either. His two other major arguments were 1) incredulity at the idea of Southern Africans being close to Egyptians and 2) the same misinterpretation of Witherspoon et al as seen on the Hamitic Union post.
I won't link to the thread in question and cause a forum war, but here's a screencap of the entire post: Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing we have to keep in mind is that the results are of a particular family in Ancient Egypt: not ALL Egyptians. If Someone was to take a DNA test of Baraka Obama's family (father, wife and kids), it would be determined that the primary clusters are in East and West Africa. That wouldn't mean ALL Americans are from East and West Africa. Some people are already using this to argue the whole Egyptian population derived from West and Central Africa and that would be incorrect. As I have always stated, there was definitely a "West" African and BaNtu presence there, but I wouldn't argue for the whole population being Bantu. So we have to always keep this fact in mind as opponents will rightly criticize and state that we are misrepresenting the scope of the data.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That those STR profiles would've been prevalent in AE times is indicated by the fact that Yuya, Tjuya and Amenhotep III, who were all unrelated, and hailed from different cities, all carried STR profiles that peak the highest in inner Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb]I don't recommend that you preoccupy yourself anyways since the only reason that he posted it was to obfuscate things.
***
You seem to be too worried about subjective criticism from people who half the time don't even understand/know what they're talking about.
I'm worried about winning debates on the Internet, but you have a valid point, it probably isn't worth continuing to argue with him or anyone else. Debates on issues like this are seldom productive anyway.
I see. Don't mean to discourage you from asking questions as in a way it IS productive if it also helps you get a better handle of what's going on. As Asar Imhotep just pointed out, you'll have no need to "worry" if you see these results for what they are and not take it to the extreme like what Clyde Winters is doing right now. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Another thing we have to keep in mind is that the results are of a particular family in Ancient Egypt: not ALL Egyptians. If Someone was to take a DNA test of Baraka Obama's family (father, wife and kids), it would be determined that the primary clusters are in East and West Africa. That wouldn't mean ALL Americans are from East and West Africa. Some people are already using this to argue the whole Egyptian population derived from West and Central Africa and that would be incorrect. As I have always stated, there was definitely a "West" African and BaNtu presence there, but I wouldn't argue for the whole population being Bantu. So we have to always keep this fact in mind as opponents will rightly criticize and state that we are misrepresenting the scope of the data.
It's true that a larger sample is needed to further clarify the issue, but I've heard of nothing to indicate that Tut and his family were of foreign (i.e. non-Egyptian) heritage.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype and of their cultural affinity to East Africans because this unpeer reviewed study represents the ancient Egyptians as southern Africans.
This is where the fraud of classifying Horners as heavily Eurasian admixed is exposed. More ancient DNA test will expose this fraud.
D21S11 = 34 or 35 repeats ranges from 1% to 5% in African and African-Americans populations. D21S11 = 34 or 35 repeats is virtually absent in Western Asia/European populations.
D18S51 = 19 repeats is 16% in Africans and 10% in African-Americans. Its only 5% in Western Asia/Europeans.
The frequencies for their other 6 STRs are virtually the same for Africans and West Asian populations so where do you suppose the armana mummies got those STR from?
Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic