posted                      

quote:

---

Mathilda: no comment

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Comparisons of linear body proportions of Old Kingdom and non-Old Kingdom period individuals, and workers and high officials in our sample found no statistically significant differences among them. Zakrzewski (2003) also found little evidence for differences in linear body proportions of Egyptians over a wider temporal range.


Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2003.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:
[/QB]

---

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

^ Either way, I still await the findings of any Eurasian lineages. I also eagerly await the findings of STR and SNP data collected by the JAMDA/Egyptian Antiquities team which they haven't published yet! I wonder why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

DNAtribes is not peer-reviewed. Its a private company, run by businessman who have no credentials whatsoever in science.

---

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Either way, I still await the findings of any Eurasian lineages. I also eagerly await the findings of STR and SNP data collected by the JAMDA/Egyptian Antiquities team which they haven't published yet! I wonder why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

DNAtribes is not peer-reviewed. Its a private company, run by businessman who have no credentials whatsoever in science.

---

Nice cop-out, but the actual genetic testing was not done by "businessmen who have no credentials" but actual scientists in a lab, dummy!

Let's see what your excuse is when the Egyptian Antiquities comes out with their findings (if they'll ever) along with JAMDA. LOL

---

Icon 1 posted 06-06-2012 08:48 PM Profile for the lioness Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote 6/6/2012


Mathilda: no comment


______________________________

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/forensic-analysis-of-king-tut-and-his.html

Dienekes:

December 29, 2011
Forensic analysis of King Tut and his relatives
DNA Tribes has released an analysis, based on 8 forensic autosomal STR markers, of the "Amarna Pharaohs". The analysis is based on data from Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family.

-
The desperation, frustration and exasperation of a fool i.e. Euronut "Dienekes" below.

Posted by LYING_SS - thanks for being good for something.

"The results of the DNA Tribes analysis can be seen below:

{They seem to indicate that there is something definitely "African" about this collection of mummies. I have previously used PopAffiliator and STRUCTURE with CODIS markers. The results of that analysis suggest that even this small number of markers is sufficient to place a sample in a continental group with high accuracy, but insufficient to estimate levels of admixture. There is a new version of PopAffiliator, which, unfortunately, does not allow for incomplete data entry, and hence cannot be used to verify the results of the DNA Tribes analysis.

The DNA Tribes results are interesting, but may hinge upon a few marker values that are more prevalent in Africa than in Eurasia. Also, it is not clear which population(s) make up the "North African" group. It would be interesting to extract full genome sequences from Egyptian mummies in order to properly place them in the global genetic landscape.

Pictorial evidence in Egyptian art, as well as the statements of classical Greco-Roman authors strongly suggest that the ancient Egyptians occupied an intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Near Eastern and "Ethiopian" people. It is also clear that there was variation within ancient Egypt itself: geographic, temporal, and even perhaps social aspects of this variation may have existed. But these qualitative observations are no substitute for the harder type of evidence that can be provided by authentic ancient DNA.

Hopefully, the debate on the genetic identity of the ancient Egyptians can proceed on the basis of new data, although I am not holding my breath that this will happen anytime soon, both because of the fluid state of politics in Egypt itself, the existence of various fringe theories outside of Egypt, and, the rather controversial state of mummy DNA analysis itself."}


This "Dienekes" guy is more disgusting than the no-nothing Mathilda because he does at least have some scientific knowledge and understanding. Racism at its best.

Beware people - Dienekes is an idol to certain folks on 23andme and other sites. Consider twice before letting these kinds of EuroNAZIES get hold of your dna.

Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
DNAtribes is not peer-reviewed. Its a private company, run by businessman who have no credentials whatsoever in science.

---

Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:
Not conviced by the DNAtribe results

---

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
6/6/2012


Mathilda: no comment


______________________________

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/forensic-analysis-of-king-tut-and-his.html

Dienekes:

December 29, 2011
Forensic analysis of King Tut and his relatives
DNA Tribes has released an analysis, based on 8 forensic autosomal STR markers, of the "Amarna Pharaohs". The analysis is based on data from Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family.




The results of the DNA Tribes analysis can be seen below:



They seem to indicate that there is something definitely "African" about this collection of mummies. I have previously used PopAffiliator and STRUCTURE with CODIS markers. The results of that analysis suggest that even this small number of markers is sufficient to place a sample in a continental group with high accuracy, but insufficient to estimate levels of admixture. There is a new version of PopAffiliator, which, unfortunately, does not allow for incomplete data entry, and hence cannot be used to verify the results of the DNA Tribes analysis.

The DNA Tribes results are interesting, but may hinge upon a few marker values that are more prevalent in Africa than in Eurasia. Also, it is not clear which population(s) make up the "North African" group. It would be interesting to extract full genome sequences from Egyptian mummies in order to properly place them in the global genetic landscape.

Pictorial evidence in Egyptian art, as well as the statements of classical Greco-Roman authors strongly suggest that the ancient Egyptians occupied an intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Near Eastern and "Ethiopian" people. It is also clear that there was variation within ancient Egypt itself: geographic, temporal, and even perhaps social aspects of this variation may have existed. But these qualitative observations are no substitute for the harder type of evidence that can be provided by authentic ancient DNA.

Hopefully, the debate on the genetic identity of the ancient Egyptians can proceed on the basis of new data, although I am not holding my breath that this will happen anytime soon, both because of the fluid state of politics in Egypt itself, the existence of various fringe theories outside of Egypt, and, the rather controversial state of mummy DNA analysis itself.

Comments section Dienekes' blog:

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...
IIRC, Tut and his relatives were a dynasty that emerged from Upper Egypt during an intermediary period associated with Hyskos rule. So, it isn't terribly surprising to see them further towards the Southern rather than the Northern end of the continuum from North to South along the Nile Basin - closer to modern South Sudanese than to modern residents of Cairo.
Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:24:00 PM

kbrabender said...
The two main areas on the African maps are where Capoid (C. S. Coon taxonomy) people lived. They were known to have lived many thousands of years ago in NW Africa and thence migrated south along the eastern highlands to the south. They were not always short; they were once full size. I wonder if the royal family was partially Congoid. Makes sense--but have the authors released the raw DNA data?
Friday, December 30, 2011 1:58:00 PM

Jprezy87 said...
"Tut and his relatives were a dynasty that emerged from Upper Egypt during an intermediary period associated with Hyskos rule. So, it isn't terribly surprising to see them further towards the Southern rather than the Northern end of the continuum from North to South along the Nile Basin - closer to modern South Sudanese than to modern residents of Cairo. "

Yep, Upper Egyptians (especially in ancient times but still true today to an extent) are more racially African than lower Egyptians, somethings that's been confirmed time and time again by over a century of anthropological research, so it's no surprise that King Tut and his kinfolk show ties to Africans to the south.
Sunday, January 08, 2012 1:37:00 AM

akb said...
Jprezy87 - I dont know if we can really say that they shows ties with the south. Yes of course they do but it is a mutual relationship. 3300 years ago there were no Bantu in south Africa and many of the Nilotic groups in the great lakes reagion and Kenya were still in Southern Sudan. I think its the case of the MODERN groups having a SNP profile NOW similar to people in the Nile Valley 3500 years ago.

Its somewhat the samething but...
Also, in a way I am not surprised by the lack of comments. :/
Monday, January 09, 2012 4:04:00 PM


Jprezy87 said...
"Jprezy87 - I dont know if we can really say that they shows ties with the south. Yes of course they do but it is a mutual relationship. 3300 years ago there were no Bantu in south Africa and many of the Nilotic groups in the great lakes reagion and Kenya were still in Southern Sudan. I think its the case of the MODERN groups having a SNP profile NOW similar to people in the Nile Valley 3500 years ago."

Yea looking at the paper again Im kind of surprised...shouldnt the ancient egyptians show closer relationships to the Sudanese and Horn Africans than to Bantu and West Africans?.. the former were people who were much closer to the country and who actually had a good deal of contact with the egyptians (via Nubia and Punt)..and the great lakes has seen some Nilotic groups move into the area...but the Great Lakes is still majority Bantu.

"Its somewhat the samething but...
Also, in a way I am not surprised by the lack of comments"

Yea any topic discussing what the ancient egyptians looked like is usually a contentious and hot subject..wheres Charie Bass and mathilda where you need em? lol jk
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:34:00 AM

Inzu said...
3300 ago the people occupying much of the great lakes region would have been more related to present day Hotentotts,ethiopids and bush men- I'm not surprised that their genetic imprint still prevails there . The great lakes & East africa is home to the oldest african populations - again no surprise if these bear close affinity to ancient Egyptians. Modern groups much of east africa and the great lakes are Bantu speaking but not necessarily bio-genetically bantu.The labels assigned to many African groups are more linguistic classifications than anything else -These references cannot be used to make an even educated guess of genetic affinity. There many groups in east Africa who are nilotic speakers but would cluster with bantu groups genetically,there bantu speaking groups who would gentically cluster with ethiopid and nilotic groups- morever the variability within groups is so high--its common to find groups who are linguistically and culturally unified but bio-ethnically variant.I think a greater understanding of the logic of social formation in Africa can elucidate this. Much of Uganda, Tanzania,Rwanda,Burundi and Kenya is full of people who have more of bantu linguistic and cultural influence and less genetic one - East africa and the great lakes is the confluence of Bantu, Nilotic, afro-asiatic, pygmoid, khoisan and nilo-hamtic people.Much of this region genetically speaking has a large remnant of ancient populations.
Friday, January 27, 2012 11:29:00 PM

---

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

..ancestry[/i] with all these groups.


The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)

As for the Great Lakes Region, are you aware that early Egyptologist Sir E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) held such a theory for Egyptian origins?

It is impossible for me to believe that Egyptian is a Semitic language fundamentally. There
are a very large number of words that are not Semitic and were never invented by a Semitic
people. These words were invented by one of the oldest African people of the Nile valley of
whose written language we have any remains. Their home lay far to the south, and all that
we know of Predynastic Egypt suggests that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes.
EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Dover, 1920.

As for West Africans, as I said two primary strands of genetic evidence is the presence of associated West African lineage E1b1a in southern Egypt as well as Benin form of sickle cell anemia in Egypt especially in the oases areas.

.. there is an abundance of evidence of occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene wet phase. There are neolithic cemeteries and even megaliths or remnants of such throughout the western Sahara and there are oral legends among West Africans of coming from further north or east. And let's not forget that there are West Africans who speak Afroasiatic languages specifically Chadic languages.

"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.[b] 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)

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

Not conviced by the DNAtribe results.

---

Do you even know what DNAtribes results are saying..??

Let me ask you this do you think West/Southern Africans aka Bantu's and Afro-Asians (East Africans and Nilotics) share a common origin/ancestor??

---

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

I'm not Horn African.
Horn African Cushitic speakers and Bantus were separated since the mutation of the 35k years old PN2 marker. Since then, all hell breaks loose.

---

So you agree that there is a common ancestry then. If that's the case, do you not agree that certain STRs can be held in common with say Egyptians and Central and Southern Africans among people that pre-date any Bantu arrivals?

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged |