...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians
Ani Iman
Junior Member
Member # 19982

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ani Iman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to get some other opinions on HamiticUnion's attempt to discredit the 2010 JAMA report.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=38


Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians
Post by admin on Dec 27, 2011, 11:51pm

A recent genetics study by the commercial genetic testing company DNA Tribes analysed the DNA of an Ancient Egyptian pharaonic family from the Amarna site in Middle Egypt. Among the studied remains were those of the boy-king Tutankhamun, his young mother, and his relatives Amenhotep III and Yuya. The authors examined the autosomal STR profiles of the mummies based on 8 loci, and basically conclude that, of all the contemporary populations they studied -- including modern Egyptians -- all of the mummies by far shared greatest affinities with the Sub-Saharan samples (Southern African, African Great Lakes and Tropical West African).

Admixture notwithstanding, Negroid peoples do not share any significant biological relations with modern Egyptians (who are the actual direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, as we'll see further below). That includes the neighboring Nilotes. Multiple studies have shown this, including the recent peer-reviewed Babiker et al. (2011), which analysed almost twice as many autosomal STRs as the DNA Tribes paper (15 vs. 8).

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.

"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."

http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full




This DNA Tribes paper uses even fewer loci than 10, so its margin of error is considerably higher than 30%. What good are genetic 'findings' that are around 40% likely to be wrong? Not especially useful let alone accurate.

The comparatively weaker biological ties suggested in the DNA Tribes article between Horners & North Africans with the Amarna mummies relative to those posited between Negroid Africans with the Amarna mummies is another immediate red flag. Neither craniometric analyses nor dental studies nor cultural affinities nor historical data (including recorded self-perceptions) nor hair morphology nor linguistic research support such a privileged relationship. Quite the opposite.

Except for obviously populations in North Africa & the Horn, the fact that kinky hair texture is the only hair form found in Africa also undermines a hypothesized Negroid origin for the Ancient Egyptians. As the anthropologist Jean Hiernaux has pointed out, "over most of the subcontinent, spiralled hair is the only category to be observed[...] the lowest frequencies of spiralled hair in sub-Saharan Africa have been observed in Ethiopia and Somalia, with a minimum in the Somali".

Despite all of the above, the DNA Tribes paper would have us believe that modern Egyptians, North Africans in general & Horners are much less related to the Amarna Egyptian mummies than are Negroid Africans... almost as distantly related to the Amarna Egyptian mummies as are Northwest Europeans. In fact, in its Table 1 shown below, mummy KV55 (who is identified as "possibly Akhenaten or Smenkhkare") has a Match Likelihood Index/MLI score for Northwest Europe that is over twice that of its MLI for the Horn and North African samples and higher than all of the other circum-Meditternanean usual suspects' MLIs too (Levantine, Arabian, Aegean, Mesopotamian, etc.). But all of these MLI scores are likewise completely dwarfed by the Negroid populations' MLI scores. And not just with respect to mummy KV55, but vis-a-vis all of the mummies; especially Tutankhamun.


Besides Yuya and Thuya's very different facial structure and features, their hair is of the typical Ancient (and modern) Egyptian cymotrichous/wavy Caucasoid variety; the blonde appearance is due to the mummification process.

The fact that the Meroites of Kush -- who shared morphological and cultural ties with the Ancient Egyptians to their north, and were actually considered on average to have had greater Sub-Saharan influences; see the Modern Nubians thread -- were found to be predominantly of Eurasian descent (~61%) also precludes Negroid origins for the related Egyptians.

"The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution."

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpre....ncient-nubians/

From what I've been able to gather on the company, DNA Tribes' SNP work is generally considered reliable. Its autosomal STR tests (i.e. this study's methodology), however, are another matter entirely. Folks have been complaining about their inaccuracies for years. Some examples:

--"The autosomal STR test from DNA Tribes is rather unreliable/inconsistent. The SNP test may not pinpoint to populations with 100% accuracy, but will rarely give results so wildly inaccurate as the DNA Tribes STR test."

--"Yeah, it is very unreliable, although my native population result was quite reliable, though global numbers were senseless. I noticed this question only because I saw earlier some small, but anyway interesting Asian admix values among Portugueses."

--"Although I am contrasted fully of Iberian Background, the analysis of DNA tribes show me that I'm overwhelming Chinese- Aboriginal Australian !!!! no European matches! They even tried to justify themselves with a possible "drift through Northern-Africa". Pleaseeeeeeeeee.... Not serious and a huge nonsense waste of money. of course, I don't recommend it at all"

So far, about three studies on the DNA profile of the Ancient Egyptians have been released. Two of them are questionable: the Swiss company iGENEA's claim that King Tut belongs to the common Western European paternal haplogroup R1b1a2, and of course this latest DNA Tribes misadventure.

The third analysis of Ancient Egyptian DNA was recently conducted in Egypt by a team of researchers, including Professor Moamena Kamel of the Cairo University Medical School. Its results are legit & logical; they were aired in the PBS documentary Secrets of the Pharaohs. The scientists found that "the DNA confirmed a close relationship between the modern Egyptians living in the Nile Valley and the ancient workers who had been buried there." According to Professor Kamel, (transcripted from the video):

"People who are living here, they are the same as the people who had been living 6000 years ago... And now the moderns are the descendants of these Ancient Egyptians."

Since most modern Egyptians are the lineal descendants of the ancient Egyptians and are, per Kamel et al., also essentially still "the same" as the Ancient Egyptians (i.e. there's population continuity), the autosomal affinities of the modern Egyptians are a good indication of the biological makeup of their ancestors. On this point, various studies, including genome-wide analyses, have consistently shown modern Egyptians in general as being overwhelmingly of West Eurasian descent. That includes Upper Egyptians according to Omran et al. (2009):


"Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others."

So the most that can be argued from this DNA Tribes study is that the Amarna royal dynasty may have largely, but not necessarily exclusively, been of non-Egyptian, West/South/Southeast African origin. In other words, they may have been among the group of foreigners that interrupted Ancient Egyptian rule at various periods throughout history, such as the Nubians, Persians, Greeks and Assyrians.

As it turns out, a putative non-Egyptian origin for the Amarna pharaonic family is the only claim that the DNA Tribes authors make. They do not use their results on this group of royals to infer anything about the genetic makeup of the general Ancient Egyptian population. This is a sensible move on DNA Tribes' part since ruling classes, particularly in Africa, are often not of the same ancestral background as the commonfolk.

However, as we already saw, even this somewhat conservative scenario is unlikely given the following:

Contra recommendations, the DNA Tribes study utilized a very small number of markers in reaching its conclusions. This results in a very large statistical margin of error/likelihood of being wrong; in this case, on the order of almost 40%.
Just about all lines of evidence consistently affirm much closer ties between modern Egyptian, North & Horn African (i.e. Hamitic) populations with the Ancient Egyptians than between the Ancient Egyptians and Negroid peoples. That includes very obvious phenotypic factors such as hair form and general physical appearance.
DNA Tribes' autosomal STR analyses have long had a reputation of unreliability and erratic matches.
The related peoples of ancient Meroe were shown to be predominantly of Eurasian descent, and they are traditionally viewed as having been more Sub-Saharan admixed than were the Ancient Egyptians.
A large-scale study on Ancient Egyptian DNA has already demonstrated that modern Egyptians are both direct descendants of and essentially the same people as the Ancient Egyptians.
Those same modern Egyptians also have little biological ties with Negroid peoples.

_______________________________________________________________


Please go to [/URL] [URL=http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=38]Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians for the full text.

Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, "Hamitic Union"...why waste time??
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of the Egyptians who live in Lower Egypt and in the cities of Cairo and Alexandria are descendants of settlers and invaders. That's obvious. It's those who live in mid and Upper Egypt who are related to the African Egypt of the pharaohs. Again, obvious.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again is there any research to affirm this that is readily available?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Again is there any research to affirm this that is readily available?

There are two types of data:

Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations.

Empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience.
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

In both cases, visual observation is a legitimate means of collecting data.

Ancient Egyptian:

From Kom Abou Billou, the necropolis of the ancient city of Terenouthis.

 -


Cairo.

 -


 -


Aswan, Egypt and other rural places.

 -

 -




 -


 -


 -


.
Any questions?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ you know, many of the light skinned Egyptians above look like my mother's family. Basically light skinned Black people.

--------------------
Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be.

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oshun - I forgot to mention that Terenouthis or Terenuthis was just a little "North" of Cairo.

Obviously the "Modern" people have nothing to do with the "Original" people of the area, but the people in the rural areas do.


Having answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine.
Why do people like you ask such "Lame" questions?
Even the most perfunctory reading of Egyptian history would answer the question before it is asked. Just as obviously, those people calling themselves Egyptians are Turks. Here again, visual data collection would readily indicate and confirm that.

To help you educate yourself about Egypt, please read these Wiki articles.

The Mamluks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

The Ottoman Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Eyalet

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ you know, many of the light skinned Egyptians above look like my mother's family. Basically light skinned Black people.

People such as they, and you, by your own description, are slightly less than 1/2 Black:
thus not quite Mulattoes, more akin to Quadroons.
Unfortunately, the cutoff for self identifying as Black is Mulatto.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3