Re: Real vs. Bogus Affinities of the Ancient Egypt « Reply #1 on Jan 6, 2012, 10:10pm »
There have been some new developments in the odd Amarna mummy saga.
The DNA Tribes paper culled its raw data from an earlier Discovery Channel-financed, Egyptian-led study from 2010 by Albert Zink et al. that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It was this JAMA study's researchers that actually extracted the DNA from the mummies. The DNA Tribes authors just analysed the raw data, which had been made publicly available for independent analysis:
Plugging the indicated STR values in the table above into one of the various free online population affiliation calculators (such as PopAffiliator), one consistently gets a Sub-Saharan affiliation for all of the Amarna mummies. This is in agreement with DNA Tribes' own analysis of the raw data. On its face, these results indeed suggest Sub-Saharan affinities for the Amarna royal family.
However, the various lines of evidence discussed in the OP that preclude a Sub-Saharan biological origin for the Ancient Egyptians beg the question: Just how accurate is the JAMA raw data to begin with?
The answer to that query is that it is apparently not very reliable at all. As it turns out, many geneticists have already expressed serious doubts about the validity of Zink et al.'s reported findings. These scientists have concluded that the likelihood of the indicated STR values actually being accurate is very low. This is due to a variety of reasons, chief among which is the difficulty of avoiding contaminating the mummy tissue with modern DNA (probably the single biggest obstacle to ancient DNA extraction).
In plain language, this simply means that the DNA attributed by Zink et al. to the Amarna royals may actually be the DNA of people that physically handled/touched the mummies over the centuries and whose own DNA was then mistakenly analysed in lieu of the mummies' DNA. That's potentially a lot of people too. This scenario is highly likely given the lack of precautions that were apparently taken to prevent any such possible contamination. It is also especially likely given the fact that the reported Sub-Saharan affinities of the raw data are completely at odds with the already affirmed affinities shared between a general sample of Ancient Egyptian workers and modern Egyptians (see the Cairo University Medical School quote and link in the OP). By their own admission, the JAMA team didn't even get the same results each time.
The following articl e published in Egyptological magazine's December 7, 2011 edition sums up the situation well:
[B]AWT Conference 2011 Review: Curse of the Pharaoh’s DNA (Jo Marchant)
Review by Kate Phizackerley.
Published on Egyptological, Magazine Reviews, 7th December 2011 (Edition 3).
Introduction
Many people were looking forward to hearing Jo Marchant speak about the DNA tests undertaken by Drs Zink, Pusch et al, and she didn’t disappoint. She was an outstanding speaker. She opened her talk by describing DNA itself, a topic which need not be repeated in this review, but which was useful for those in the audience who do not have a scientific background.
Marchant noted that the first study of ancient mummy DNA was conducted by Svante Pääbo in the 1980s whilst he was studying for his PhD at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, but is now himself sceptical of his results. The study of ancient DNA remains a subject of academic debate, with some experts believing that it is not possible to reliably sequence ancient DNA. Marchant was at pains to highlight that there are two camps, with a stark division between those who work on ancient DNA, especially human DNA, and those who believe it is not technically possible to produce valid results, with some labs refusing to take commissions. Throughout her lecture, Marchant presented the viewpoint from both sides of the debate, but her own position seemed to be that of a sceptic. The lecture needs to be considered in that context: an ancient DNA adherent might well have been more positive about some of the findings.
DNA from Egyptian Mummies
Contamination is a problem with studying DNA, which is why labs are such sterile environments and why controls should be run to eliminate the technicians’ DNA. Marchant described an early attempt to analyse the DNA of a woolly mammoth. It was later discovered that the published sequence was the project leader’s own DNA. Marchant explained how a process called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)works by amplifying a small amount of DNA typically extracted from ancient, degraded samples in order to improve the size of the sample available for testing, and suggested (without discussing the evidence) that PCR is particularly susceptible to contamination from ancient DNA.
She explained why DNA from Egyptian mummies is particularly controversial. Mummies have been subjected to quite violent chemical processes during mummification, which are not entirely understood. (This was covered more extensively by Stephen Buckley in an earlier lecture.) They are then stored in fiercely hot, sometimes also rather damp, tombs and may have been disturbed and handled both in antiquity and by modern archaeologists. All of these conditions are bad for the preservation of DNA and Marchant said that computer studies have shown that DNA in Egyptian mummies can be preserved for no more than 500 years. “Preserved” in this case means that DNA strands are still long enough for analysis by the PCR method – over time the long strands of DNA break down into shorter and shorter pieces, eventually becoming too small for the minimum length for PCR analysis. (See conclusions at the end of the article for my views on this.) Scientists like Albert Zink and Helen Donoghue disagree and are still publishing papers . Marchant says that those scientists believe, instead, that mummification acts to preserve DNA.
Analysing the DNA of 18th Dynasty Royal Mummies
As most readers will know, the DNA of Tutankhamun and that of a dozen or so contemporary royal mummies was analysed and the results published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) during 2010. The project was funded by the Discovery Channel for a series of TV documentaries and Marchant observed that some commentators are concerned that commercial considerations may have increased the pressure on the team to report newsworthy findings. The analysis was undertaken in Egypt by Egyptians, with Albert Zink and Carsten Pusch acting as consultants. The approach adopted was DNA fingerprinting – known as micro-satellite analysis / short tandem repeats (STR). For instance one of the loci examined is termed locus D13S317. A locus is the location in a DNA sequence of a specific gene. The same sequence of DNA can repeat at this location a variable number of times, from 7 repeats in some people up to 16 repeats for some others. DNA, and therefore the number of repeats, is inherited which is why it can be used to assess parentage given analysis of a sufficient number of loci. The team published the “most likely” family tree based on their reported findings and this is consistent with previous blood type analysis.
The study was criticised by a number of experts, and a subsequent JAMA edition carried a number of highly critical letters from other geneticists. Marchant listed the following key criticisms:
* It is hard to avoid contamination when taking samples from the long bones of a mummy * The study didn’t check the DNA of those involved in the sampling and analysis, so it is possible that their DNA could be eliminated * Nuclear DNA was tested but most teams working on ancient DNA believe that mitochondrial DNA is more reliable * DNA finger printing is rarely used for ancient DNA studies * PCR can create “stutter bands” (errors) through mis-amplification of DNA
Marchant reports that Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged “most likely” based on “majority rule”.
On the positive side, the team didn’t find a Y-chromosome for any of the female mummies [author’s note: assuming that KV55 is male of course, and not all researchers yet are convinced of this]. This is encouraging as many of the team members were male so the results have not been contaminated by their Y-chromosome results. Marchant also reported that the team were expecting to publish mitochondrial DNA results during 2011 and that Zink believes the royal mummies are a special case, with DNA preserved by the exceptional standard of mummification the elite enjoyed.
Interestingly, Zink told Marchant that he does not believe that KV35YL can be Nefertiti but he is starting to suspect that KV21B could be – although he reports needing more results before this could be published.
Next Generation DNA Tests
The next generation of DNA tests have the potential to be successful with strands as short as 30 base pairs (c.f. 100 with PCR) so Marchant hopes that these tests might in time be used.
CT Scans and Tutankhamun’s Bones
Marchant concluded her talk by looking at Tutankhamun’s bones. His bones are broken in many places so it is hard to distinguish between pre-mortem breaks, damage during mummification and subsequent breaks. His sternum is missing and several ribs are broken.
Conclusion and Author’s Remarks
This is a subject of deep interest to me, so I wish to follow the review above with a personal assessment. There is no doubt that Marchant was one of the most skilled presenters and her ability to make technical matters accessible to a lay audience was very much appreciated by many. Her talk was widely applauded by attendees in conversations over coffee afterwards, and deservedly so because it was very, very good.
Reviewer’s Commentary
At the same time, I was rather disappointed for some of the same reasons for which I am unhappy with the original JAMA paper. While Marchant explained DNA and DNA testing with consummate skill, she made no attempt to explain the maths, or the various mathematical models she relied upon. For instance, she cited a computer study that showed that ancient DNA isn’t preserved beyond 100 years but didn’t state the source, the assumptions or even the results other than the headline. Similarly, while I agree with her dislike of Zink’s use of “majority rules” to present uncertain PCR results, I disagree with her conclusion that this is a major issue. Techniques like Bayesian inference can wrest results from uncertain data. What is clear, and Marchant herself made the point, is that it is important that Zink and colleagues publish the raw data so that independent analysis of the results can be undertaken.
For those reasons, I think Marchant leans overly to a sceptical position. There is indeed a great deal to criticise in the methodology and publication of the DNA study, and I have been quite vocal in my own criticisms on my News from the Valley of the Kings blog, including DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably not Akhenaten (News from the Valley of the Kings, Phizackerley, 2010). My personal view is that the team did successfully sequence DNA from Tutankhamun and the other royal mummies but that the level of confidence in the results was badly reported: some of the results may not be as certain as the paper indicates and any partial results omitted from the paper might still be valuable if published and submitted to more detailed mathematical assessment.
In short, Marchant’s excellent talk was presented from the standpoint of a geneticist but overlooked that mathematics is an equally important discipline in interpreting ancient DNA results. It would be wrong to be overly critical of Marchant on this point. Within the context of a lecture to an enthusiast rather than academic audience, there was little scope to cover the mathematics in detail but I would have preferred that she had at least identified the areas in which the mathematics in the published paper could have been more thorough. « Last Edit: Jan 8, 2013, 5:11pm by Noah »
_____________________________________________
egypt1101
I contacted DNATribes and this is the response they gave. It appears they did not want to admit the study was flawed (out of bias) or that they used so few loci to determine origins:
Thank you for your interest in the recent Digest article. The 8 STR loci tested do not allow a fine level admixture analysis to identify percentages of ancestry from world regions or continents. However, in this case available results indicate the Amarna mummies have inherited several alleles that are most frequent in African populations, which suggests some African ancestry (not necessarily excluding other ancestral components) for these ancient individuals.
Best regards, Lucas Martin DNA Tribes
AND:
Thank you for following up regarding your the recent Digest issue. The presence of some African specific alleles among the Amarna mummies does not necessarily exclude that ancient Egyptian populations were descended from multiple ancestral components (possibly including regional contacts related to modern populations of Egypt).
These preliminary results only suggest that based on the 8 STR markers tested for the Amarna mummies, one of these ancestral components might have been indigenous to Africa.
Best regards, Lucas Martin DNA Tribes
And I contacted Mike at GenDNA. Here is what he had to say:
The testing of only 8 Y-DNA markers would only give you a bare minimum amount of information about the ancestral origin of the direct paternal line. It may not even be enough to definitively place the paternal line in a specific major haplogroup. And, as far as being used for matching with others and finding genealogical connections, 8 markers is inadequate and although a minimum of 25 markers can be used, 37 markers or more are really needed to find meaningful matches. I would recommend the 37-marker test at [...].
So the testing of 8 loci is, as we already know, is extremely unreliable - inadequate - for placement of ancestry. One would expect a different outcome if more markers would have been tested. In fact, I would expect the finding to be more aligned with DNATribes previous article:
The suggestion from DNATribes is unreliable. It goes against everything we know based on the genetic, linguistic, anthropologic and historical information that has been obtained for this NE African population.
__________________________________________
Noah
Great initiative!
The DNA Tribes representative appears to indicate all he really can given the unusual circumstances:
a) The Amarna mummies probably also had non-African components.
b) We can't be confident about the relative percentages of each ancestral component since the 8 loci aren't enough to allow such a detailed resolution.
So it seems likes it's the sub-optimal number of markers and the JAMA raw data itself that are the problem.
In their global genetic analysis based on Euclidean distance, the DNA Tribes researchers actually group their North African and Horn samples under the "Near Eastern" branch of their "Caucasian (West Eurasian)" genetic cluster. They group their other African samples separately under "Sub-Saharan African". The researchers attribute the overall clustering pattern to genetic contact/gene flow and to the degree of relative isolation from other regions.
The dendrogram above of course pertains to modern populations. As such, it doesn't necessarily tell us much about the ancient Egyptians unless population continuity has been established, either with modern Egyptians or with other contemporary populations. Given the aforementioned Cairo University Medical School study explicitly asserting that its ancient Egyptian samples (pyramid builders, not royals) were genetically quite similar to its modern Egyptian ones, that genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians has more or less already been established. So to find out what exactly those biological affinities were, we need look no further than the clustering pattern of the ancient Egyptians' direct descendants, the modern Egyptians.
Loring Brace, among others, already suggested this population continuity a few years back.
It didn't seem plausible that the Amarna mummies should cluster with West/South/Southeast Africans before even modern Egyptians. For one thing, if we assume that this royal family was of Egyptian origin (which is likely), then its members would've likely possessed certain phenotypic characteristics peculiar to both ancient and modern Egyptians that Sub-Saharan peoples in the main do not possess. Unique traits such as low bone mineral density.
Afrocentrists would probably counter that the Ancient Egyptians had "tropical limb ratios" like Sub-Saharan Africans, so they must've had a "tropical African origin". But this is an exceedingly weak argument since:
Tropical limb proportions are not exclusive to Sub-Saharan Africans and never have been.
"The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super-Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “super-tropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”"
Neighboring peoples in South America from related ethnic groups were found to have evolved markedly different limb proportions due to one group having adapted to a higher, colder elevation than the others from lower, more tropical elevations.
"Living human populations from high altitudes in the Andes exhibit relatively short limbs compared with neighboring groups from lower elevations as adaptations to cold climates characteristic of high-altitude environments."
Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa -- had tropical limb ratios.
"Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments. The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans."
Even African Americans do not consistently show the tropical limb ratios of their West African ancestors. While some are still tropically adapted, many others actually have a cold-adapted body plan as a consequence of both admixture with cold-adapted peoples (modern Europeans and Native Americans) and localized adaptation. And this change in their limb ratios at the population level did not take place over thousands of years, but instead over just a few hundred years of living in North America.
"The argument from morphology depends on the presupposition that body proportions are to a large degree genetically controlled. The fact that contemporary African Americans do not have tropical limb proportions but have in a few hundred years changed to more European body proportions (through adaptation to new climate plus intermixture with Europeans and First Nations Peoples) puts this claim into perspective (Pat Shipman, adjunct professor of biological anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, personal communication, 14 May 2004)."
It's now up to Zahi Hawass et al. to roll up their sleeves and conduct a proper genetic study on the Ancient Egyptians. This time hopefully they'll try and set up safeguards against modern DNA contamination. I'd also like to see them if possible focus more on the predynastic Egyptians, like the Naqada folks. « Last Edit: Jan 10, 2012, 9:08pm by Noah
____________________________________________
egypt1011
Indeed. The whole study appears flawed from the start. As you previously quoted "the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged “most likely” based on “majority rule”
If the data cannot be replicated, then it has no validity whatsoever and is therefore rendered worthless.
The JAMA report confirms/mentions 2 of the 16 DYS values as seen in the video above which would further confirm the screen shots were actual data and not concocted out of air as Afrocentrics claim.
Also, regarding the "tropical limb length" issue, Zakrzewski's study was based on several Egyptian populations, the only population that was noted as having "tropical limb lengths" was the population at Gebelein, which was a Middle Kingdom Nubian settlement.
“Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. 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.” (“Variation In Ancient Egyptian Stature And Body Proportions” Sonia Zakrzewski 2003)
The ancient Egyptians have been described as having a “Negroid” body plan (Robins, 1983). Variations in the proximal to distal segments of each limb were therefore examined. Of the ratios considered, only maximum humerus length to maximum ulna length (XLH/XLU) showed statistically significant change through time. This change was a relative decrease in the length of the humerus as compared with the ulna, suggesting the development of an increasingly African body plan with time. This may also be the result of Nubian mercenaries being included in the sample from Gebelein…The earliest evidence of Nubians living in Egypt comes during the OK. Throughout the MK, the pharaonic frontier lay on the Second Cataract (in present-day Sudan); during this period, movements northwards from Nubia are especially likely. Together with the known presence of Nubian mercenaries in Gebelein (Fischer, 1961), the MK sample may represent a Nubian rather than Egyptian population… (“Variation In Ancient Egyptian Stature And Body Proportions” Sonia Zakrzewski 2003)
Robins, who Zakrzewski cites is refuting Robins negroid claim. However, Robins, who coined the so-called "super Negroid"term stated:
“This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south.”
Kemp affirms that the MK population at Gebelein was indeed Nubians:
“…a group of Nubian bowmen were settled upstream from Thebes, in the vicinity of Gebelein, where a number of them were buried. Our only means of identification are small gravestones, the idiosyncratic hieroglyphs of which point to a date in the first Intermediate period. They identify themselves as Nubians by sometimes using…”Nehesy”. They are shown with bushy hair, darker skin colour, and a distinctive sash which hangs down the front of their kilts. They carry bows and arrows and sometimes attended by dogs. As riverine Nubians their cultural background is well known from excavations in Nubia itself and is quite distinctive. So far few traces of it have been found much to the north of Elephantine.” (“Ancient Egypt: Anatomy Of A Civilization” 2006 Barry Kemp)
Goyon and Cardin also confirm the population consisted of Nubians:
“The results for the MK are of particular interest, despite the small skeletal sample size studied from this period. This sample exhibited the greatest cranial sexual dimorphism. This may be a reflection of the unusual composition of the sample, deriving as it does from Gebelein. Evidence from stelae suggests that from the First Intermediate Period onwards, Gebelein had a colony of Nubian mercenaries, e.g. Stela Turin 1290. Six stelae from Gebelein indicate that these Nubians lived with and were buried near the Egyptian community that they served, and that they were buried in an Egyptian manner, whilst still being depicted as Nubian…The skeletal variation seen may therefore be the result of Nubian mercenaries marrying into Egyptian families and being buried within Egyptian (rather than Nubian) contexts, and thus that the MK sample studied comprises of a mixed Egyptian and Nubian population.” (“Proceedings Of The Ninth International Congress Of Egyptologists, Volume 2” 2007; Goyon, Cardin)
So those "super Negroids" are mixed (their term), being roughly half Caucasoid.
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the super-negroid body plan described by Robins (1983)…The sample studied originates from Gebelein in Upper Egypt. Interestingly, the only other sample deriving from Gebelein, an EPD sample, was found to be significantly biologically distant to the MK sample. This result suggests that there is no simple biological population continuity at Gebelein. Stele indicate that Nubian mercenaries lived, married, died, and were buried at this site over the MK period (Fischer, 1961). Previous research has suggested that this sample may include some of these Nubians… (“Variation In Ancient Egyptian Stature And Body Proportions” Sonia Zakrzewski 2003)
Now anyone who studies ancient Egyptians will be familiar with "Ginger" an EPD Egyptian. Ginger is stated as being a "European type" (Egyptologist Najovits; 2003) and was discovered near Gebelein. This would explain why Ginger is "significantly biologically distant to the MK sample" for which there is "no simple biological population continuity at Gebelein". Nubians only arrived in Egypt during the OK as indicated by the study. This completely excludes Nubians as founders of the Egyptian populace - likewise excluding them from any type of contribution to the rise of the Egyptian state.
Most notably is what Zakrzewski states below regarding tibia length in relation to the femur:
"Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length." (“Variation In Ancient Egyptian Stature And Body Proportions” Sonia Zakrzewski 2003)
The Afrocentrics gloss over this fact. Noteworthy are other studies which conclude:
“cold-adapted” populations are known to have both relatively wide bodies and relatively short tibiae (Holliday, 1997, 1999; Ruff et al., 2005)
Zakrzewski mentions the size of Egyptian mastoids:
"The size of the mastoids was considered, but all Egyptian cranial material studied has relatively inflated mastoids as compared to other populations." (Zakrzewski; 2003)
Egyptians did not represent themselves as "tropical people" - nor did they depict themselves with "tropical" type hair - as one would expect coming from or having origins from a tropical environment. They refused to depict themselves in the same fashion as they did their neighbors to the south.
______________________________________
Noah
The Ancient Egyptians indeed rather tellingly contrasted the physical features of the Nilotes to their south from their own appearance. As discussed in the Modern Nubians thread, there's actually a stela featuring an inscription where Thutmose I boasts about how he defeated "the kinky-haired" (a byword here for "Negro" and the Noba in particular).
On the other hand, the Ancient Egyptians depicted the peoples of the Land of Punt (which was probably further to their south and east) in a very similar fashion as themselves. They were also careful to differentiate the Puntites from Negroid peoples:
"when Puntites and Africans are depicted on one and the same monument, care is taken to bring out the physical differences between them".
What's especially bizarre is that there are Afrocentrists who now claim that non-kinky hair texture is indigenous to tropical Africa. This is despite the fact that not one study suggests this and that such hair texture is completely foreign to their own (typically West African) ancestors. Indeed, in every single African population where there's a notable incidence of such hair form, there's also an appreciable level of Eurasian ancestry since that's of course where that hair texture comes from in the first place. North Africans, Horners, the Tuareg, the Sahrawi -- you name it. That's why Jean Hiernaux, whom I quote in the OP, at one point describes kinky hair as "typically African".
The Ancient Egyptians probably did have tropical limb proportions. But this in no way rules out West Eurasian affinities for them since West Asia already hosted tropically adapted peoples starting at least 100,000 years before present. The Skhul-Qafzeh skeletons of ancient Israel had a tropical body plan, and they were most certainly not Negroid. So did the proto-Caucasoid Cro-Magnons of Europe, who were the siblings of the Iberomaurusians of North Africa.
Recall that Europeans only very recently developed cold-adapted limb proportions, and their ancestors ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East. What does this tell us? It tells us that there were non-Negroid Near Easterners who were tropically adapted, just like the Ancient Egyptians. The fact that many African Americans are today cold-adapted tells us the opposite: that there are Negroid peoples who are cold-adapted, and they partially got that way through morphological adaptation over a very short period of time.
Despite this, Afrocentrists argue that the tropical limb proportions of the Ancient Egyptians means that they were black, "Elongated Africans". According to them, this makes modern Egyptians and most North Africans biracial; a mixture of Elongated African and intrusive West Eurasian genes.
What's most amusing and ironic about this theory is that the very man who created the "Elongated African" concept, Jean Hiernaux, explicitly and repeatedly states in his book The People of Africa that North Africans in general, including ancient and modern Egyptians, are basically Mediterranean peoples.
"In this book the emphasis is on sub-Saharan Africa, the specifically African anthropological area. Because North Africa and Egypt belong much more to the Mediterranean and the area of Western Asia than to Africa in that which concerns physical anthropology, these regions will be touched on only briefly."
Hiernaux also indicates that the Sahel is a region of admixture, but that certain Sahelian groups, like many Tuareg tribes, are still essentially Caucasoid. Based on multiple biological factors, he likewise describes many Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in the Horn as essentially Caucasoid, albeit also possessing appreciable admixture. For example, he writes:
"As repeatedly stressed here, reliance on a single indicator of an exotic genetic influence can be misleading. We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia[...]
The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
Like the above, most of Hiernaux's work is actually quite logical and well-conceived. It's just been taken out-of-context and/or heavily distorted by Afrocentrists writing in secondary sources. Hiernaux was a colleague of Carleton Coon's, and they often referenced each other's work. Here's what Coon concluded on the overall body proportions of the Horners he examined, including the distal segments of the limbs (forearms and lower legs):
"The hands and feet of all but the palpably negroid are small and extremely narrow, the lower legs and wrists usually spindly and ill-muscled. This attenuation of the distal segments of the limbs reaches its maximum among the Somalis[...] The bodily build of the African Hamites is typically Mediterranean in the ratio of arms, legs, and trunk, but the special attenuation of the extremities among the Somalis is a strong local feature, which finds its closest parallels outside the white racial group, in southern India and in Australia."
This Mediterranean affinity in overall body proportions was further confirmed by the morphological study Bi lly et al. (1988), which analysed many of the very same samples that Hiernaux used in his earlier work:
About the R1b affair, I'm not certain that King Tut belongs to the clade. Not necessarily because it's R1b per se, but because of how the STR values were actually obtained i.e. apparently through video screenshot glimpses of random figures. As such, we can't really be sure that that STR profile does, in fact, belong to him. I'm still open to the idea that it might, though. As we'll see later on in the month (once I hopefully finish up some new research that I'm working on), such a paternal ancestry is not completely ruled out; it's just less likely than the typical Egyptian/Hamitic E1b1b. I also think overemphasizing the possibility that Tut may carry other Y DNA haplogroups could perhaps be interpreted as a tacit admission that haplogroup E isn't of Hamitic origin... though the bulk of the evidence -- increasing by the month -- indicates that it is. So that's another thing we should be aware of. « Last Edit: Jan 12, 2012
_______________________
Noah
We may have actually understated the sheer scale of the controversy surrounding the validity of the JAMA study's raw data.
Nature magazine ran an interesting piece on the Amarna mummy debate in its April 2011 issue. Various researchers were quoted in it as taking exception to the inadequate "genetic fingerprinting" methodology used, to the point where the field is now described as "fractured".
Thankfully, there are indications that next-generation sequencing techniques are already here. Researchers are about to use them on ancient Egyptian and other hoary remains, so this surreal episode should be sorted out soon enough.
Ancient DNA: Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA
Some researchers claim to have analysed DNA from Egyptian mummies. Others say that's impossible. Could new sequencing methods bridge the divide?
Jo Marchant
Cameras roll as ancient-DNA experts Carsten Pusch and Albert Zink scrutinize a row of coloured peaks on their computer screen. There is a dramatic pause. "My god!" whispers Pusch, the words muffled by his surgical mask. Then the two hug and shake hands, accompanied by the laughter and applause of their Egyptian colleagues. They have every right to be pleased with themselves. After months of painstaking work, they have finally completed their analysis of 3,300-year-old DNA from the mummy of King Tutankhamun.
Featured in the Discovery Channel documentary King Tut Unwrapped last year and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)1, their analysis — of Tutankhamun and ten of his relatives — was the latest in a string of studies reporting the analysis of DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies. Apparently revealing the mummies' family relationships as well as their afflictions, such as tuberculosis and malaria, the work seems to be providing unprecedented insight into the lives and health of ancient Egyptians and is ushering in a new era of 'molecular Egyptology'. Except that half of the researchers in the field challenge every word of it.
Enter the world of ancient Egyptian DNA and you are asked to choose between two alternate realities: one in which DNA analysis is routine, and the other in which it is impossible. "The ancient-DNA field is split absolutely in half," says Tom Gilbert, who heads two research groups at the Center for GeoGenetics in Copenhagen, one of the world's foremost ancient-DNA labs.
Unable to resolve their differences, the two sides publish in different journals, attend different conferences and refer to each other as 'believers' and 'sceptics' — when, that is, they're not simply ignoring each other. The Tutankhamun study reignited long-standing tensions between the two camps, with sceptics claiming that in this study, as in most others, the results can be explained by contamination. Next-generation sequencing techniques, however, may soon be able to resolve the split once and for all by making it easier to sequence ancient, degraded DNA. But for now, Zink says, "It's like a religious thing. If our papers are reviewed by one of the other groups, you get revisions like 'I don't believe it's possible'. It's hard to argue with that."
Rise and fall
The disagreement stems from the dawn of ancient-DNA research. In the 1980s, a young PhD student called Svante Pääbo worked behind his supervisor's back at the University of Uppsala in Sweden to claim he had done what no one else had thought was possible: clone nuclear DNA from a 2,400-year-old Egyptian mummy2. Soon researchers realized that they could use a new technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify tiny amounts of DNA from ancient samples. There was a burst of excitement as DNA was reported from a range of ancient sources, including insects preserved in amber and even an 80 million-year-old dinosaur3.
Then came the fall. It turned out that PCR, susceptible to contamination at the best of times, is particularly risky when working with tiny amounts of old, broken-up DNA. Just a trace of modern DNA — say from an archaeologist who had handled a sample — could scupper a result. The 'dinosaur' DNA belonged to a modern human, as did Pääbo's pioneering clone. Once researchers began to adopt rigorous precautions4, including replicating results in independent labs, attempts to retrieve DNA from Egyptian mummies met with little success5.
That's no surprise, say sceptics. DNA breaks up over time, at a rate that increases with temperature. After thousands of years in Egypt's hot climate, they say, mummies are extremely unlikely to contain DNA fragments large enough to be amplified by PCR. "Preservation in most Egyptian mummies is clearly bad," says Pääbo, now at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthroplogy in Leipzig and a leader in the field. Ancient-DNA researcher Franco Rollo of the University of Camerino in Italy went so far as to test how long mummy DNA might survive. He checked a series of papyrus fragments of various ages, preserved in the similar conditions to the mummies. He estimated that DNA fragments large enough to be identified by PCR — around 90 base pairs long — would have vanished after only around 600 years6.
Yet all the while, rival researchers have published a steady stream of papers on DNA extracted from Egyptian mummies up to 5,000 years old. Zink and his colleagues have tested hundreds of mummies, and claim to have detected DNA from a range of bacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Escherichia coli, as well as the parasites responsible for malaria and leishmaniasis.
In a high-profile study last year, a team led by microbiologist Helen Donoghue at University College London reported finding DNA from M. tuberculosis in Dr Granville's mummy7 — named after physician Augustus Granville, the first person to autopsy a mummy, in 1825.
In the case of tuberculosis (TB) at least, Donoghue vehemently disagrees with the idea that DNA can't survive in Egyptian mummies. Mycobacteria such as M. tuberculosis have cell walls that are rich in lipids, which degrade slowly and protect the DNA, she argues. Donoghue claims that in many cases she has confirmed the presence of the bacterium by detecting these lipids directly. She says the extreme anti-contamination measures demanded by the big ancient-DNA labs are not as vital for ancient microbial DNA as they are for human DNA. After all, she says, modern diagnostic labs routinely detect TB using PCR — which suggests that the test is not as susceptible to contamination as the sceptics fear. In Donoghue's view, "some of the precautions they talk about are totally over the top compared to every diagnostic lab in the country".
The sceptics are unmoved. Without highly stringent controls in place, it's impossible to show that any microbial sequences are from ancient DNA and not from related modern microbes, says Gilbert. "How do you know you've got TB and not some other bacterium with a similar DNA sequence?" He and other critics believe that this entire body of research is based on wishful thinking.
The two groups have now grown tired of arguing. "It's largely dealt with by ignoring each other," says Ian Barnes, a molecular palaeontologist at Royal Holloway, University of London, who works on DNA from ancient animals, including mammoths. "There's enough dead stuff around, you're not obliged to get into anyone else's area."
A royal argument
After the JAMA study on Tutankhamun and his family, however, the arguments resumed in force. Studies of human DNA from Egyptian mummies are the most controversial of all. One reason is the high profile of the claims. Another is that contamination from modern human DNA is excruciatingly difficult to detect, because its genetic make-up is almost identical to that of a human mummy's. On top of that, restricted access to samples makes it hard to check any claims in an independent lab. After more than a century in which valuable artefacts flooded out of the country to museums and private collections all over the world, the Egyptian authorities imposed a ban on removing archaeological samples from Egypt. Most non-Egyptian researchers wanting to study mummies are limited to museum exhibits elsewhere.
The Tutankhamun project was carried out by an Egyptian team recruited by archaeologist Zahi Hawass, Egypt's top official in charge of antiquities. It was the first ancient-DNA study on royal mummies, and the country lacked the necessary expertise. So Hawass asked Zink, a prominent researcher at the EURAC Institute for Mummies and the Iceman in Bolzano, Italy, and Pusch, of the University of Tübingen, Germany, to act as consultants. The pair designed and oversaw the study, including the building of two dedicated labs in Cairo. The labs were partly paid for by the Discovery Channel, which filmed the project.
The researchers deny that the television involvement put them under excessive pressure to produce dramatic results. But working for the cameras did make a challenging project even tougher, says Pusch. "Each time they came in to film, we had to close the lab for a week to clean." Eventually the TV crew was banished and the lab scenes reconstructed.
In the end, the project seemed to be a wild success, and its findings drew wide press attention. The researchers claimed to have detected DNA from the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in several of the mummies, including Tutankhamun, suggesting that the infection had contributed to their deaths. They also said they had retrieved fragments of human DNA from every mummy tested and used the data to construct a five-generation family tree, from Tutankhamun's great-grandparents to the two tiny bodies found in his tomb, identified as his stillborn children.
The whole episode has only raised eyebrows in the other half of the community. "I'm very sceptical," says Eske Willerslev, director of Copenhagen's Center for GeoGenetics, who co-authored a letter to JAMA disputing the results8. His major concern, shared by others, was the method of DNA analysis used. Rather than extracting and sequencing DNA, the team used a technique called genetic fingerprinting, which involves measuring the size of the DNA products that have been amplified by PCR. It is rarely used in ancient-DNA studies, say critics, because without sequence data it is especially difficult to rule out contamination. And on a well-handled mummy such as Tutankhamun, say sceptics, contamination could be rife.
Bones of contention
The Tutankhamun team carried out many controls, including replication of the tests by different teams in the two labs and comparing the mummy DNA fingerprints with those of the research team to cross-check for contamination. Zink and Pusch add that the samples were taken from within the mummies' bones where, they say, contaminating DNA should not have reached.
Zink and Pusch think that the mummification process protected the DNA from degrading in the hot tomb by removing water, which is required for the main mechanism of DNA decay, called depurination. Egyptian embalmers dried bodies with natron, a naturally occurring mixture of salts, immediately after death. "The Egyptians really knew how to preserve a body," says Zink. "They got rid of the water very fast." Tutankhamun was also smothered with embalming and anointing materials, thought to contain ingredients such as bitumen, plant oils and beeswax, and Pusch believes it gave the DNA additional protection from the damaging effects of water. Hawass was not directly involved in the DNA research, but he stands by the team's conclusions, saying that the DNA in Egyptian mummies seems to be well preserved.
"There are a number of things right about the paper," says David Lambert, an ancient-DNA researcher and evolutionary biologist at Griffith University in Nathan, Queensland. Lambert points out that the Tutankhamun team was not able to amplify Y-chromosome markers from the female mummies, which argues against contamination from modern archaeologists, who are generally male. In unpublished work, he says he has amplified DNA from mummified ibises, a sacred bird in ancient Egypt. "We're confident that traditional PCR methods work with some of the material that we've got," he says.
Sceptics, however, doubt that there was sufficient DNA left in Tutankhamun for the result to be real. They say that a mummified body would soon soak up any moisture available in the atmosphere, especially into its porous bones. When British archaeologist Howard Carter first opened Tutankhamun's coffins in 1925, he reported that they had been damaged by humidity. But it is difficult for anyone else to replicate the DNA work without permission to access the samples.
The Tutankhamun study has left the field more divided than ever, with clear frustration on both sides. "I don't understand people's harshness," Pusch says. "This is pioneering work." He and Zink say that they are sequencing DNA from the mitochondria and Y chromosomes of the mummies, and plan to publish these results this year.
But now, after years of conflict, strides in sequencing technology are changing the game. The newest techniques can read much shorter fragments — easily down to the 30 base pairs that might be found in a 2,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. "That pushes the [DNA] survival time a long way back," says Gilbert. "Things that we wrote off in the past, we can now get genomes on." And, crucially, the speed of the techniques makes it much easier to sequence a sample multiple times and to rule out contamination by checking for patterns of damage characteristic of ancient DNA.
Last year, these techniques enabled Willerslev, Gilbert and their colleagues to publish the full genome sequence of a palaeo-Eskimo from Greenland that is some 4,000 years old9. Within weeks, teams led by Pääbo published the genome of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal10 and a previously unknown hominin from southern Siberia11. Meanwhile Zink's team is on the brink of publishing the genome of Ötzi the Iceman.
All these specimens were preserved in the cold — but Willerslev is already using next-generation techniques to extract DNA from various South American mummies, some of which have been preserved in warmer conditions. "Some are definitely working," he says. But, he adds, he is finding tremendous variability in whether samples yield DNA — a possible reason why Egyptian mummies have yielded such conflicting results. With the cost of sequencing falling sharply, researchers are lining up to try the techniques on Egyptian mummies.
Zink and Pusch are now negotiating the complex political path towards using next-generation techniques on Tutankhamun and his kin. "We would love to do this," says Zink. "It would absolutely make sense. The problem is to do it in Egypt." With no samples allowed out of the country, they would have to take the sequencing machines to Cairo, an expensive proposition. And there is concern, says Zink, that such work might yield politically sensitive information about the genetic origin of the pharaohs, and whether any of their descendants are alive today. "This goes right to their history."
Still, Zink is optimistic that next-generation sequencing will help to bring the fractured field back together. "I think it is really time to bring together the different sides and stop arguing about each other's work," he says. "With next-generation sequencing, people can't just say 'I don't like it'. People have to discuss the work based on the data themselves." Willerslev agrees, offering a rare olive branch. "I think we will find that the believers have been too uncritical," he says. "But the sceptics have probably been too conservative."
_______________________________________
egypt1011
I've been re-analyzing the JAMA paper as well as DNATribes.
Could it be possible JAMA is correct but DNATribes wrong? In the JAMA paper, there are only two published values:
DYS393=13 Y-GATA-H4=11
When plugged into WAHP we get an outcome of R1b 88%. This would agree with the Discovery Channel documentary and what genetic forums on the interent relay.
As far as DNATribes, they seem to zone in on only two of 8 alleles: D18S51=19 and D21S11=34 and ignore the other six. They further state that these alleles:
"today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world."
This leads me to conclude that it wasn't so in the past. Further, with a little investigative research, I have found that the D21S11=34 allele can be found across ALL populations and the highest frequency is represented in the Asian Balinese population.
D18S51=19 is found in the Asian Balti group, and is just as high in the Xhosa (African) group, both at 13.8%. It's found in 1.1% of Egyptians and 3.6% of both Berbers and European Americans.
So DNATribes appears to be misleading in this aspect, neither alleles are African specific, much less "black" specific.
______________________________________
Noah
I haven't yet had the opportunity to re-examine the Amarna values. However, I do think you may be onto something because many of the autosomal markers in Zink's more recent Ramesses III paper show non-Sub-Saharan affinities. They are quite bizarre overall, actually.
I took the initiative and ran Tutankhamun's microsatellite marker values in the table above through the Earth Human Short Tandem Repeat Allele Frequencies Database (EHSTRAFD)'s Allele Frequency Global Tracking (AFGT) module.
Like Ramesses III's results, Tut's alleles showed a highest incidence amongst modern South Asian communities. There were also some secondary links with Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, East Asian and Eastern European groups.
TUTANKHAMUN (KV62)
Locus: D13S317
*Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Yupik - South-Western Alaska, United States (42.5%) 2. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (28%) 3. Inupiat - Northern Alaska, United States (26.61%) 4. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (22.77%) 5. Ximeng - Inner Mongolia (20.5%)
Population affinity: Inuit, South Asian, Mongolian
Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (48%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (47.8%) 3. Afro-Caribbean - United Kingdom (45.5%) 4. African American - Jamaica (45.49%) 5. Berber - Ghardaia, Algeria (44.3%)
Population affinity: West African, Northwest African
Locus: D7S820
Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (44%) 2. Tutsi - Central Rwanda (43.103%) 3. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (42.2%) 4. Argentine - Salta, Argentina (41.7%) 5. Mozambican - Maputo, Mozambique (39.1%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Northwest African, Amerindian
Allele: 15 (2nd parent)
1. Buddhist - Ladakh, India (2.8%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (1.6%) 3. Berber - Southern Morocco (1%) 4. Northern Arab - Dubai Emirate (0.5%) 5. Chinese - Eastern China (0.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Berber, Chinese
Locus: D2S1338
Allele: 16 (1st parent)
1. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 2. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 3. Albanian - Kosovo (8.1%) 4. Tutsi - Central Rwanda (8.065%) 5. Saudi Arabian - Dubai Emirate (8%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Tutsi, Gulf Arab
Allele: 26 (2nd parent)
1. Lithuanian - North-Eastern Poland (3.6%) 2. Japanese - Japan (3.3%) 3. Caucasian - United States (3%) 4. Romanian - Bucharest, Romania (2.9%) 5. Romanian - Bucharest, Romania (2.9%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Japanese
Locus: D21S11
*Allele: 29 (1st parent)
1. Argon - Ladakh, India (34.8%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (33.3%) 3. Chinese - Macau, China (32.8%) 4. Egyptian - Cairo, Egypt (32.5%) 5. Albanian - Kosovo (31.6%)
Population affinity: Indian, North African, Chinese, Albanian
Population affinity: Amerindian, Sub-Saharan African, South Asian
Locus: D16S539
Allele: 8 (1st parent)
1. Jat - Uttar Pradesh, India (12.8%) 2. Tibetan - Gannan, China (12.2%) 3. Tamil - Tamil Nadu, India (12.08%) 4. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (12%) 5. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (10.8%)
Population affinity: Indian, Chinese
Allele: 13 (2nd parent)
1. Bosnian - Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.4%) 2. Native American - Michigan, United States (24.14%) 3. Kurmi - Uttar Pradesh, India (23.5%) 4. Colombian - Bogota, Colombia (22.28%) 5. Caucasian - Transylvania, Romania (21.9%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Amerindian, South Asian
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Indian, Northwest African
Locus: CSF1PO
Allele: 6 (1st parent)
1. Katkari - Maharashtra (4.9%) 2. Black - Cape Town, South Africa (1.5%) 3. Mara - Mizoram, India (1.1%) 4. Asian-derived Brazilian - Sao Paulo, Brazil (0.9%) 5. White - Cape Town, South Africa (7.6%)
Population affinity: South Asian, Sub-Saharan African (Khoisan?), Amerindian
*Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Lai - Mizoram, India (59.8%) 2. Han - Henan, China (58.9%) 3. Mahadeo-Koli - Maharashtra, India (55.7%) 4. Salishan - United States (50%) 5. Saskatchewan - United States (49.37%)
Population affinity: South Asian, Chinese, Amerindian
Locus: FGA
Allele: 23 (1st parent)
1. Han - Henan, China (26.6%) 2. Han - South-Eastern, China (26.2%) 3. South Korean - South Korea (25.4%) 4. Chaoshan - Chaoshan, China (24.3%) 5. Han - Shaanxi, China (24.14%)
Population affinity: East Asian
Allele: 23 (2nd parent)
1. Han - Henan, China (26.6%) 2. Han - South-Eastern, China (26.2%) 3. South Korean - South Korea (25.4%) 4. Chaoshan - Chaoshan, China (24.3%) 5. Han - Shaanxi, China (24.14%)
Population affinity: East Asian
What's nice about the AFGT module is that you can actually see what the top 100 population matches are in the database for each allele. There's no guessing involved as to how a Match Likelihood Index or other similarity metric may have come about since we can actually see the constituent parts.
Also notice how in the DNA Tribes table in the opening thread post, no Indian or Amerindian populations appear to have been included for comparison against the Amarna microsatellite values. Perhaps this is why Sub-Saharan Africans occupied the top three MLI spots? Had the researchers included Indian samples in their analysis, South Asia probably would have topped the table.
But what do we make of the continued lack of close matches between the Amarna mummies' microsatellite profiles and those of modern Egyptians and Horners in the AFGT module (where they are again both included as reference populations)? Why do Tunisians from time to time appear as top matches on certain alleles on certain loci, while Egyptians and Horners do not? I think this may come down to the provenance and movements of the original haplogroup E1b1a carriers, a clade which today has slightly higher frequencies in Northwest Africa than in the Northeast. Perhaps they were originally of Libyan or Western Hamitic stock?
__________________________________
egypt1101
DNATribes lacks a lot to be desired and they give no information on how they arrived at their MLI scores. Their article is NOT peer-reviewed and does NOT agree with the vast amount of peer-reviewed studies on the subject.
I was reviewing the JAMA paper and the only two haplotype values they publish are stated in the following sentence:
"Markers DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif located in the microsatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively)"
If we plug DYS393=13 and Y-GATA-H4=11 into WAHP, it gives a score of 88% R1b. This would be in agreement with and validate the Discovery Channel documentary results.
____________________________________
Noah
We can't really make any definite predictions as to what paternal haplogroup Tutankhamun may have belonged to based on those two allele values. This is because the Jama researchers indicate that they actually tested fourteen other Y-DNA STRs, or sixteen markers in total: DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y-GATA-H4, DYS437, DYS438, DYS448.
Experimentation with plugging in different values on Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor (WHAP) shows that so much as one change can often produce a drastic difference in the predicted haplogroup. This unfortunately means that we can only wait until the remaining fourteen other STR values are released to the public or leaked before making a prediction on Tut's paternal lineage.
According to DNA Tribes, after Tutankhamun, Thuya is the Amarna royal with the next highest Match Likelihood Index/MLI scores relative to the Southern African, African Great Lakes and Tropical West African Sub-Saharan regions. To see if this is perhaps another error (likely caused at least in part by an omission of South Asian and Amerindian reference populations), I ran Thuya's microsatellite marker values in the table above through EHSTRAFD's AFGT module.
Like both Ramesses III's and Tut's results, Thuya's alleles showed a highest occurence amongst modern South Asian communities. There were also some secondary links with Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, East Asian and Eastern European groups.
If this is how the Ancient Egyptian royals with allegedly the most Sub-Saharan affinities are panning out, one can only imagine what the situation is with, say, Yuya, who DNA Tribes scored as having a much lower MLI vis-a-vis the Sub-Saharan reference populations.
THUYA (KV46)
Locus: D13S317
*Allele: 9 (1st parent)
1. Huastecos Amerindian - San Luis Potosi, Mexico (37.64%) 2. Native American - Northern Ontario, Canada (36.4%) 3. Huasteco Amerindian - Huasteca, Mexico (36.4%) 4. Otomi Amerindian (Hna-hnu) - Tenango de Doria & San Bartolo Tutotepec, Mexico (35.5%) 5. Hna-hnu Amerindian - Hidalgo, Mexico (34.94%)
Population affinity: Amerindian
Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (48%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (47.8%) 3. Afro-Caribbean - United Kingdom (45.5%) 4. African American - Jamaica (45.49%) 5. Berber - Ghardaia, Algeria (44.3%)
Population affinity: West African, Northwest African
Locus: D7S820
Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (44%) 2. Tutsi - Central Rwanda (43.103%) 3. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (42.2%) 4. Argentine - Salta, Argentina (41.7%) 5. Mozambican - Maputo, Mozambique (39.1%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Northwest African, Amerindian
Allele: 13 (2nd parent)
1. Baiti - Ladakh, India (14.7%) 2. Thakur - Uttar Pradesh, India (12.9%) 3. Honduras - Honduras (8.49%) 4. Berber - Ghardaia, Algeria (8%) 5. Han - South-Eastern China (7.1%)
Population affinity: Indian, Amerindian, Berber, Chinese
Locus: D2S1338
Allele: 19 (1st parent)
1. Huasteco Amerindian - Huasteca, Mexico (39.2%) 2. Otomi Amerindian (Hna-hnu) - Tenango de Doria & San Bartolo Tutotepec (29%) 3. Mestizo - Valley of Mexico, Mexico (26.9%) 4. Malay - Malaysia (24.3%%) 5. Thai - Thailand (24.2%)
Population affinity: Amerindian, Southeast Asian
Allele: 26 (2nd parent)
1. Lithuanian - North-Eastern Poland (3.6%) 2. Japanese - Japan (3.3%) 3. Caucasian - United States (3%) 4. Romanian - Bucharest, Romania (2.9%) 5. Romanian - Bucharest, Romania (2.9%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Japanese
Locus: D21S11
Allele: 26 (1st parent)
1. Thakur - Uttar Pradesh, India (4.7%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (2.9%) 3. Byelorussian - North-Eastern Poland (2.4%) 4. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (2.2%) 5. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (31.6%)
Population affinity: Indian, Eastern European, Tunisian
Allele: 35 (2nd parent)
1. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (6.5%) 2. African American - Florida, United States (4.79%) 3. Thakur - Uttar Pradesh, India (4.7%) 4. Gabonese - Gabon (4.2%) 5. African American - Jamaica (4.12%)
Population affinity: West African, Indian
Locus: D16S539
Allele: 11 (1st parent)
1. Inupiat - Northern Alaska, United States (61.47%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (45.5%) 3. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (44%) 4. Yemenit - Dubai Emirate, United Arab Emirates (41.1%) 5. Yadav - Bihar, India (39.5%)
Population affinity: Inuit, Tunisian, Indian, Yemeni
Allele: 13 (2nd parent)
1. Bosnian - Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.4%) 2. Native American - Michigan, United States (24.14%) 3. Kurmi - Uttar Pradesh, India (23.5%) 4. Colombian - Bogota, Colombia (22.28%) 5. Caucasian - Transylvania, Romania (21.9%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Amerindian, South Asian
Locus: D18S51
**Allele: 8 (1st parent)
1. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (2.8%) 2. Pawara - Maharashtra, India (0.9%) 3. South Korean - South Korea (0.2%) 4. Caucasian - Transylvania, Romania (0.2%) 5. South Korean - South Korea (0.2%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Indian, Northwest African
Locus: CSF1PO
Allele: 7 (1st parent)
1. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (11%) 2. Angolan - Cabinda, Angola (8.18%) 3. African American - Alabama, United States (8.06%) 4. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (8%) 5. Afro-Caribbean - United Kingdom (7.6%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African
*Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Lai - Mizoram, India (59.8%) 2. Han - Henan, China (58.9%) 3. Mahadeo-Koli - Maharashtra, India (55.7%) 4. Salishan - United States (50%) 5. Saskatchewan - United States (49.37%)
Population affinity: South Asian, Chinese, Amerindian
Locus: FGA
Allele: 24 (1st parent)
1. Baiti - Ladakh, India (29.3%) 2. Pawara - Maharashtra, India (27.6%) 3. Bamileke - Cameroon (25%) 4. Tamil - Southern India (25%) 5. Ximeng - Inner Mongolia, China (24.9%)
Population affinity: Indian, West African, Chinese
Allele: 26 (2nd parent)
1. Mestizo - Guatemala (14.5%) 2. Otomi Amerindian (Hna-hnu) - Tenango de Doria & San Bartolo Tutotepec, Mexico (14%) 3. Hna-hnu Amerindian - Hidalgo, Mexico (13.86%) 4. Argentine - Salta, Argentina (12.5%) 5. Argentine - Neuquen, Argentina (12.16%)
Population affinity: Amerindian
_____________________________________
Noah:
I skipped a bit ahead and ran Yuya's microsatellite marker values in the table below through the Earth Human Short Tandem Repeat Allele Frequencies Database (EHSTRAFD)'s Allele Frequency Global Tracking (AFGT) module.
Like Ramesses III's, Tutankhamun's and Thuya's results, Yuya's alleles showed a high incidence amongst modern South Asian communities. There were also some secondary links with Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, East Asian, Eastern European and Austronesian populations.
What sets Yuya apart is that he had a record four loci (marked below with a single asterisk) where Sub-Saharan African groups did not appear at all amongst the top 100 reference populations. These were also alleles that occurred at relatively high-to-moderate frequencies in various Eurasian communities (over 19% for the top five populations); yet, they appeared to be altogether absent from the database's Sub-Saharan populations. The converse, however, never occurred: neither Yuya nor any of the other Ancient Egyptian mummies cited above had any alleles where Sub-Saharan populations exclusively constituted the top 100 reference populations.
In other words, not only did South Asian groups constitute the highest matches for most alleles on each of the tested mummies' loci, the alleles that appeared to be geographically exclusive all had Eurasian distribution patterns as well.
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian
Allele: 27 (2nd parent)
1. Tutsi - Central Rwanda, Rwanda (3.226%) 2. Turk - Western Mediterranean Reg., Turkey (1.9%) 3. Han - Jilin, China (1.3%) 4. Indian - Malaysia (1%) 5. Angolan - Cabinda, Angola (0.91%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Turkish, Chinese, Indian
Locus: D21S11
*Allele: 29 (1st parent)
1. Argon - Ladakh, India (34.8%) 2. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (33.3%) 3. Chinese - Macau, China (32.8%) 4. Egyptian - Cairo, Egypt (32.5%) 5. Albanian - Kosovo (31.6%)
Population affinity: Indian, North African, Chinese, Albanian
Population affinity: Amerindian, Sub-Saharan African, South Asian
Locus: D16S539
**Allele: 6 (1st parent)
1. Tamil - Tamil Nadu, India (1.67%) 2. Tibetan - Gannan, China (0.9%) 3. European-derived Brazilian - Sao Paulo, Brazil (0.5%) 4. Angolan - Cabinda, Angola (0.45%) 5. Venezuelan - Maracaibo, Venezuela (0.38%)
Population affinity: Indian, Tibetan, Iberian, Angolan, Amerindian
Allele: 10 (2nd parent)
1. Adi Pasi - Arunachal Pradesh, India (38.1%) 2. Hmar - Mizoram, India (31.4%) 3. Otomi Amerindian (Hna-hnu) - Cardonal, Mexico (29.8%) 4. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (29.21%) 5. Huastecos Amerindian - Sain Luis Potosi, Mexico (27.85%)
Population affinity: South Asia, Amerindian, Inuit
Locus: D18S51
*Allele: 12 (1st parent)
1. Egyptian - Cairo, Egypt (23.6%) 2. Kurmi - Bihar, India (20.4%) 3. Male - Madeira, Portugal (20%) 4. Basque - Alava, Spain (19.59%) 5. Northern Arab - Dubai Emirate (19%)
Population affinity: Egyptian, Indian, Iberian, Gulf Arab
Allele: 22 (2nd parent)
1. Lusei - Mizoram, India (4.3%) 2. Argentine - Neuquen, Argentina (3.15%) 3. Huastecos Amerindian - San Luis Potosi, Mexico (2.91%) 4. East Timor - East Timor, Timor-Leste (2.7%) 5. African American - Bahamas (2.55%)
Population affinity: Indian, Amerindian, Austronesian, Sub-Saharan African
Locus: CSF1PO
Allele: 9 (1st parent)
1. Corsican - Upper Corsica, France (22.92%) 2. Corsican - Southern Corsica, France (22.29%) 3. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (17%) 4. Tutsi - Central Rwanda, Rwanda (11.667%) 5. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (10.4%)
Population affinity: Corsican, Rwandan, Inuit
*Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Lai - Mizoram, India (59.8%) 2. Han - Henan, China (58.9%) 3. Mahadeo-Koli - Maharashtra, India (55.7%) 4. Salishan - United States (50%) 5. Saskatchewan - United States (49.37%)
Population affinity: South Asian, Chinese, Amerindian
Population affinity: Basque, Indian, Eastern European
Allele: 25 (2nd parent)
1. Huastecos Amerindian - San Luis Potosi, Mexico (29.55%) 2. Huastecos Amerindian - Huasteca, Mexico (29.4%) 3. Apache - United States (22.98%) 4. Otomi Amerindian (Hna-hnu) - Tenango de Doria & San Bartolo Tutotepec, Mexico (21.5%) 5. Yupik - South-Western Alaska, United States (21%)
Population affinity: Amerindian, Inuit
__________________________________
Noah
I ran Amenhotep III's microsatellite marker values in the table above through EHSTRAFD's AFGT module. The results showed the same predominant South Asian affinities for most loci as all of the aforementioned Ancient Egyptian mummies. Amerindian links were the next most salient. There were also some tertiary ties with Sub-Saharan African and East Asian populations.
The 23 allele at the FGA locus is especially interesting since, as can be seen below, the top five reference populations where it occurs most frequently in the database are all East Asian. China and South Korea are about as far removed geographically from DNA Tribes' Sub-Saharan African regions (Southern African, African Great Lakes and Tropical West Africa). Despite this, the DNA Tribes team in their earlier analysis scored the latter as having the highest Match Likelihood Index/MLI vis-a-vis the Amarna mummies. This apparent error, again, probably has to do with the fact that the researchers neglected to include any South Asian and Amerindian populations for comparison. Had they, the situation would almost certainly have been a lot different. South Asia likely would have topped the Match Likelihood Index table for each specimen. This is essentially what happens when the mummies' respective alleles are run through EHSTRAFD's AFGT module and its much more extensive, global database of 451 reference populations.
AMENHOTEP III (KV35)
Locus: D13S317
*Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Yupik - South-Western Alaska, United States (42.5%) 2. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (28%) 3. Inupiat - Northern Alaska, United States (26.61%) 4. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (22.77%) 5. Ximeng - Inner Mongolia, China (20.5%)
Population affinity: Inuit, Indian, Chinese
**Allele: 16 (2nd parent)
1. Oman - Oman (0.3%) 2. Caucasian - North-Eastern Spain (0.25%) 3. Venezuelan - Maracaibo, Venezuela (0.24%) 4. Brazilian - South-Central Brazil (?%) 5. Indian - Singapore (0%)
Population affinity: Gulf Arab, Spanish, Amerindian (?)
Locus: D7S820
Allele: 6 (1st parent)
1. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (8%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (6.2%) 3. Asian-derived Brazilian - Sao Paulo, Brazil (1.8%) 4. Thakur - Uttar Pradesh, India (1.4%) 5. Jat - Uttar Pradesh, India (1.2%)
Population affinity: South Asian, Amerindian
**Allele: 15 (2nd parent)
1. Buddhist - Ladakh, India (2.8%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (1.6%) 3. Berber - Southern Morocco (1%) 4. Northern Arab - Dubai Emirate (0.5%) 5. Chinese - Eastern China (0.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Berber, Chinese
Locus: D2S1338
Allele: 16 (1st parent)
1. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 2. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 3. Albanian - Kosovo (8.1%) 4. Tutsi - Central Rwanda (8.065%) 5. Saudi Arabian - Dubai Emirate (8%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Sub-Saharan African, Gulf Arab
Allele: 27 (2nd parent)
1. Tutsi - Central Rwanda, Rwanda (3.226%) 2. Turk - Western Mediterranean Reg., Turkey (1.9%) 3. Han - Jilin, China (1.3%) 4. Indian - Malaysia (1%) 5. Angolan - Cabinda, Angola (0.91%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Turkish, Chinese, Indian
Locus: D21S11
*Allele: 25 (1st parent)
1. Thakur - Uttar Pradesh, India (7%) 2. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (2.9%) 3. Khatri - Uttar Pradesh, India (2.2%) 4. Northern Arab - Dubai Emirate (1%) 5. Turk - Aegean Region, Turkey (0.9%)
Population affinity: Amerindian, Indian, Sub-Saharan African
Locus: D16S539
Allele: 8 (1st parent)
1. Jat - Uttar Pradesh, India (12.8%) 2. Tibetan - Gannan, China (12.2%) 3. Tamil - Tamil Nadu, India (12.08%) 4. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (12%) 5. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (10.8%)
Population affinity: Indian, Tibetan
Allele: 13 (2nd parent)
1. Bosnian - Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.4%) 2. Native American - Michigan, United States (24.14%) 3. Kurmi - Uttar Pradesh, India (23.5%) 4. Colombian - Bogota, Colombia (22.28%) 5. Caucasian - Transylvania, Romania (21.9%)
Population affinity: Eastern European, Amerindian, Inuit, Caucasian (?)
Locus: D18S51
*Allele: 16 (1st parent)
1. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (26.7%) 2. Apache - United States (25.25%) 3. Equatorial Guinean - Madrid, Spain (24.7%) 4. Bamileke - Cameroon (23.58%) 5. Arab - Morocco (23.1%)
Population affinity: Northwest African, Amerindian, Sub-Saharan African
Allele: 22 (2nd parent)
1. Lusei - Mizoram, India (4.3%) 2. Argentine - Neuquen, Argentina (3.15%) 3. Huastecos Amerindian - San Luis Potosi, Mexico (2.91%) 4. East Timor - East Timor, Timor-Leste (2.7%) 5. African American - Bahamas (2.55%)
Population affinity: Indian, Amerindian, Austronesian, Sub-Saharan African
Locus: CSF1PO
**Allele: 6 (1st parent)
1. Katkari - Maharashtra, India (4.9%) 2. Black - Cape Town, South Africa (1.5%) 3. Mara - Mizoram, India (1.1%) 4. Asian-derived Brazilian - Sao Paulo, Brazil (0.9%) 5. White - Cape Town, South Africa (0.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Khoisan (?), Amerindian
Allele: 9 (2nd parent)
1. Corsican - Upper Corsica, France (22.92%) 2. Corsican - Southern Corsica, France (22.29%) 3. Hutu - Nyarurema, Rwanda (17%) 4. Tutsi - Central Rwanda, Rwanda (11.667%) 5. Athabaskan - Alaska, United States (10.4%)
Population affinity: Corsican, Rwandan, Inuit
Locus: FGA
Allele: 23 (1st parent)
1. Han - Henan, China (26.6%) 2. Han - Southeastern China (26.2%) 3. South Korean - South Korea (25.4%) 4. Chaoshan - Chaoshan, China (24.3%) 5. Han - Shaanxi, China (24.14%)
Population affinity: East Asian
**Allele: 31 (2nd parent)
1. Brazilian - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (0.5%) 2. Egyptian - Cairo, Egypt (0.4%) 3. Colombian - Valle del Cauca, Colombia (0.05%) 4. Brazilian - South-Central Brazil (0.023%) 5. Oman - Oman (0%)
Population affinity: Amerindian, Egyptian _____________________________________
Noah
I've managed to complete the merging of ALFRED's and EHSTRAFD'S top results for Tutankhamun's autosomal STR profile. This was already done for Ramesses III on his ancestry thread. The exercise cross-analysed the autosomal STR profiles of 1,170 present-day world populations against Tutankhamun's DNA (viz. ALFRED's 719 populations + EHSTRAFD's 451 populations).
As expected, Tutankhamun had fewer top five Sub-Saharan matches overall as other, higher-scoring Eurasian populations were now uncovered. The analysis revealed a couple of new Eurasian population affinities that had hitherto been obscured by a lack of reference samples, including Italian and Indonesian links on certain alleles, in addition to more Eastern European associations. Generally-speaking, the South Asian affinities were predominant, as before.
What immediately jumps out here is that the D7S820=10 allele in the combined ALFRED and EHSTRAFD analysis now shows exclusively Eastern European and South Asian top five matches. As can be seen in the lone EHSTRAFD analysis above, the allele previously matched highest with Bantu samples from Rwanda (the Hutu and Tutsi scored highest at 44% and 43.103%, respectively). However, when the autosomal STR profiles of the reference populations in both the ALFRED and EHSTRAFD databases were compared against Tutankhamun's DNA, the top five matches for the D7S820=10 allele all turned out to be Croatian and Indian, at higher frequencies of 45%+.
Overall, 13 out of the 16 tested alleles that Tutankhamun inherited from both his parents (i.e. 81.25%) show Eurasian highest affinities. These include D13S317=10, D7S820=10, D7S820=15, D2S1338=16, D2S1338=26, D21S11=29, D21S11=34, D16S539=8, D16S539=13, CSF1PO=6, CSF1PO=12, and FGA=23 (twice). By contrast, only two alleles show predominant Sub-Saharan affinities: D13S317=12 and D18S51=19 (twice).
I will now run a similar cross-analysis on the other Amarna mummies and then we can start examining more closely what all of this perhaps means. So far, it seems to lend support to the South Africa-based Slovakian researcher Dr. Cyril Hrmonik's Indo-Africa theory. This thesis posits wide-ranging Indian influences in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the Southern Africa region. This would include genetic contributions to the local Bantu and Bushman populations through gradual assimilation of early Indian colonists, the latter of whom Hromnik argues built the Great Zimbabwe structures for gold mining.
TUTANKHAMUN (KV62)
Locus: D13S317
Allele: 10 (1st parent)
1. Yupik - South-Western Alaska, United States (42.5%) 2. Atayal - Formosa, Taiwan (36%) 3. Triracial Brazilian - Piaui, Brazil (31.1%) 4. Madia-Gond - Maharashtra, India (28%) 5. Inupiat - Northwestern Alaska, United States (26.6%)
Population affinity: Amerindian, Indian, Inuit
Allele: 12 (2nd parent)
1. Afro-Venezuelan - San Jose de Heras, Venezuela (60.6%) 2. Ovambo Bantus - Namibia (49.7%) 3. African American - Texas, United States (48.3%) 4. Afro-Jordanian - Jordan Valley, Jordan (48.9%) 5. Guinean - Guinea-Bissau (48%)
1. Reddy/Vanne - Andhra Pradesh, India (3.1%) 2. Buddhist/Mongolian - Ladakh, India (2.8%) 3. Vaddi - Andhra Pradesh, India (2.5%) 4. Reddy/Pokanati - Andhra Pradesh, India (1.8%) 5. Akuthota - Andhra Pradesh, India (1.8%)
Population affinity: Indian, Mongolian
Locus: D2S1338
Allele: 16 (1st parent)
1. Italian - Puglia, Italy (8.9%) 2. Ami - Formosa, Taiwan (8.9%) 3. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 4. Old Believers - North-Eastern Poland (8.8%) 5. Albanian - Kosovo (8.1%)
Population affinity: Italian, Taiwanese, Eastern European
Allele: 26 (2nd parent)
1. Yerukula - Andhra Pradesh, India (5.4%) 2. Lithuanian - North-Eastern Poland (3.6%) 3. Japanese - Japan (3.3%) 4. Caucasian - United States (3%) 5. Romanian - Bucharest, Romania (2.9%)
Population affinity: Indian, Eastern European, Japanese
Locus: D21S11
*Allele: 29 (1st parent)
1. Khandait - Orissa, India (36.1%) 2. Argon - Ladakh, India (34.8%) 3. Arab - Zriba, Tunisia (33.3%) 4. Chinese - Macau, China (32.8%) 5. Egyptian - Cairo, Egypt (32.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Tunisian, Chinese, Egyptian
Allele: 34 (2nd parent)
1. Balinese - Bali, Indonesia (8.2%) 2. Mbenzele Pygmies - Central African Republic (5.5%) 3. Colombian - Boyaca, Colombia (4.5%) 4. Satnami/Chamar - Chhattisgarh, India (2.6%) 5. Venda - South Africa (2.6%)
Population affinity: Indonesian, Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, Indian
Locus: D16S539
Allele: 8 (1st parent)
1. Gowda - India (15.2%) 2. Chenchu - Andhra Pradesh, India (14%) 3. Bhumihar - India (13.2%) 4. Jat - Uttar Pradesh, India (12.8%) 5. Lambadi - Andhra Pradesh, India (12.3%)
Population affinity: Indian
Allele: 13 (2nd parent)
1. Bosnian - Bosnia and Herzegovina (24.4%) 2. Native American - Michigan, United States (24.14%) 3. Kurmi - Uttar Pradesh, India (23.5%) 4. Bosnian - Dejcici, Bosnia and Herzegovina (23.3%) 5. Colombian - Bogota, Colombia (22.28%)
Population affinity: Bosnian, Amerindian, Indian
Locus: D18S51
Allele: 19 (1st parent)
1. Botswananian - Botswana (17.3%) 2. Mbenzele - South Africa (16.7%) 3. Baiti - Ladakh, India (13.8%) 4. Xhosa - South Africa (13.8%) 5. Bosnian - Lukomir, Bosnia and Herzegovina (13%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Indian, Bosnian
Allele: 19 (2nd parent)
1. Botswananian - Botswana (17.3%) 2. Mbenzele - South Africa (16.7%) 3. Baiti - Ladakh, India (13.8%) 4. Xhosa - South Africa (13.8%) 5. Bosnian - Lukomir, Bosnia and Herzegovina (13%)
Population affinity: Sub-Saharan African, Indian, Bosnian
Locus: CSF1PO (CSF1R)
**Allele: 6 (1st parent)
1. Katkari - Maharashtra (4.9%) 2. Javanese - Indonesia (1.9%) 3. Atayal - Taiwan (1.7%) 4. Filipino - Philippines (1.7%) 5. Black - Cape Town, South Africa (1.5%)
Population affinity: Indian, Southeast Asian, Sub-Saharan African
1. Reddy - Andhra Pradesh, India (40%) 2. Naga - India (35.7%) 3. Han - Henan, China (26.6%) 4. Western Polynesian - New Zealand (26.6%) 5. Samoans - American Samoa and Samoa (26.3%)
Population affinity: Indian, Chinese, Polynesian
Allele: 23 (1st parent)
1. Reddy - Andhra Pradesh, India (40%) 2. Naga - India (35.7%) 3. Han - Henan, China (26.6%) 4. Western Polynesian - New Zealand (26.6%) 5. Samoans - American Samoa and Samoa (26.3%)
Population affinity: Indian, Chinese, Polynesian
___________________________________
Noah
As a change of pace, I decided to try a direct approach to get more quickly to the bottom of this whole Amarna/Ramesses III affair. Specifically, I set out to statistically compare the biogeographical likelihood of Tutankhamun's autosomal STR profile belonging to an average modern Upper Egyptian versus an average modern Tutsi. Since DNA Tribes suggested that Tutankhamun's Match Likelihood Index/MLI score was by far highest with respect to contemporary populations inhabiting the Southern African, African Great Lakes and Tropical West African regions, his allele profile was logically the first choice to test the validity of this claim.
The Upper Egyptian autosomal STR data that I used in the calculations is shown in Table 2 below. It was taken from Omran et al. (2009), a paper which describes the alleles' overall affinities as follows:
"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."
The Tutsi autosomal STR data was culled from Regueiro et al. (2004)'s Table 1:
Biogeographical likelihood ratios and probabilities were calculated using statistical protocols recommended by DNA-Fingerpr int, a Germany-based laboratory. Like DNA Tribes, the DNA-Fingerprint team of researchers previously offered commercial genetic testing services and analysis. However, it now mainly provides free reference materials and tools.
Alleles that were not observed are noted as "0.00001" rather than zero so as to render the calculations possible.
Upper Egyptian frequencies for Tutankhamun's alleles:
L = Likelihood Ratio PRUE = Product of allele frequencies for Upper Egyptians PRT = Product of allele frequencies for Tutsis P = Probability of Tutankhamun autosomal STR profile being Upper Egyptian versus Tutsi
The analysis above reveals that Tutankhamun's autosomal STR profile has a much higher match likelihood with modern Upper Egyptians than it does with modern Tutsis; on the order of 92%+. As with our previous rankings of global allele frequencies, this new finding overwhelimingly runs counter to the claims asserting primary Sub-Saharan affinities for the Amarna royals. It instead supports biological continuity in the Egyptian population.
More match likelihood comparisons to come.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is what I always have stated. However, there are ethnic groups in the sub-Sahara (Sahara-Sahel) who do relate to Upper Egyptians. These ethnic groups are at the built up of the proto-Egyptians. Who, again, is indeed came from the South.
These ethnic groups do have a oral and recorded tradition, of ancient Egypt.
Lastly, the Eurocentric stereotype of "the negro" has nothing to do with reality of Africa's Africoid diversity, with more or less gracile facial traits.
Final conclusion is: Hg E-M35 is at the establishment of Egypt.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must reject the entire proposition of this post claiming that the the corespondence between Egyptians and SubSaharan Africans is the result of contamination. This whole idea is ludicris because these mummies have been handled by Europeans--not SubSaharan Africans. If they were contaminated as imagined by the author(s) of the blog discussed herein, the results would imply the Egyptians were Europeans, not SubSaharan Africans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contamination charge is ridiculous. Most of the people working on Tut, Ramses III, and the rest would have either been European or modern Egyptian, not sub-Saharan African or Afro-Diaspora.
I tried using that DNA-Fingerprint program (I presume it was Amatch?) Noah mentioned in his last post, and so far I'm not even sure how to enter in the Amarna data. If you notice, each STR listed in the JAMA paper has two values (e.g. CSF1PO has 6 and 12) , but the Amatch program only gives you one text field per locus.
Additionally, does anyone know if DNA Tribes has Upper Egyptians in their database?
posted
It is sad that members of the Hamitic Union are trying to prove that the Egyptians are related to Northeast Africans as claimed by Egyptologist for the past 100 years. This proposition was never supported by the evidence, especially historical and archaeological evidence that indicated that after the fall of Egypt, Egyptians migrated into West Africa, and the Meroitic Empire not Northeast Africa.
There is little , if any, continuity between the contemporary Egyptian population and the ancient Egyptians. Since the Assyrians first conquered the Egyptians there has been a slow replacement of ancient Egyptians by Middle Eastern and Western European peoples.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other ancient Egyptian caused political and military conflicts that led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deerters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testfy to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
In addition to Romans, Nubians probably also migrated into Upper Egypt as the Egyptians migrated out.
The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.
As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign dominantion the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population.
The remnants of the Egyptians living in Meroitic Empire, were forced westward by the Beja,Nubians and Axumites after Kush declined.There was never a migration of Egyptians into Northeast Africa after the establishment of Egypt,
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [QB] The contamination charge is ridiculous. Most of the people working on Tut, Ramses III, and the rest would have either been European or modern Egyptian, not sub-Saharan African or Afro-Diaspora.
I'm not following that closely yet. If contamination were an element could it have possibly been from earlier periods of handling of the mummies?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmmm! Let me see.......they expected the geographic origin(STR) to be European?
Only delusional Europeans would harbor such a thought. LOL!
As I said when the results were first published, before the DNATribes analyzed the data. I expected the result to be e1b1b, e1b1a, hg-A, hg-J in that order. Why? Geographic location.
But guess what? ***ALL EIGHT***of the Amarnas were sub-saharan. Euros are freaking out.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Hmmmmm! Let me see.......they expected the geographic origin(STR) to be European?
Only delusional Europeans would harbor such a thought. LOL!
As I said when the results were first published, before the DNATribes analyzed the data. I expected the result to be e1b1b, e1b1a, hg-A, hg-J in that order. Why? Geographic location.
But guess what? ***ALL EIGHT***of the Amarnas were sub-saharan. Euros are freaking out.
keep in mind the OP cotains dialog from two different posters Noah and egypt1101 as shown
I don't know much about them. I think the main poster Noah (maybe the owner of the site) considers himself a hamite and related to caucasians morphologically but African, he may have horn ancestry, I'm not sure of his background.
Ther was that poster Betty Boo, an African, she had her own type of hate for bantus, was she a Horner also?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I ignore "tribal" beef between Africans. That is their thing. Amazigh thinks they are white, Horners think ....what ever.
The fact is they are ALL Africans. E1b1b and E1b1a. It doesn't matter what they "believe", what their cultural beef is. They are ALL unmistakeably AFRICAN...even the southern Arabians.
Yep. Back migration of hg-E. This has been played out...
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] the term "Saharan-Arabian" has led to a lot of confusion
Confusing to whom?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: The contamination charge is ridiculous. Most of the people working on Tut, Ramses III, and the rest would have either been European or modern Egyptian, not sub-Saharan African or Afro-Diaspora.
I tried using that DNA-Fingerprint program (I presume it was Amatch?) Noah mentioned in his last post, and so far I'm not even sure how to enter in the Amarna data. If you notice, each STR listed in the JAMA paper has two values (e.g. CSF1PO has 6 and 12) , but the Amatch program only gives you one text field per locus.
Additionally, does anyone know if DNA Tribes has Upper Egyptians in their database?
Here are some usable tools.
This page includes free software packages, data tools.
Such as:
MixMapper 1.0 software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
ALDER 1.0 software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
HAPI-UR software for phasing large datasets now available from the Software page.
ADMIXTOOLS software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
posted
The contamination excuse is just ridiculous as stated above.
As if the studies was carried out by a multiple number of sub-saharan Africans, related to one another on two different studies (18th dynasty and 20th dynasty with Ramses III being E1b1a/E-M2)
Even in this forum, some people like Swenet and Beyoku didn't like the results. Trying to say that Ancient Egyptian are closer match to some oasis in modern egypt than what the results show. Even if it were true, those people in any oasis, as well as Ancient Egyptian, would be closer to sub-saharan Africans than any other population on earth. In other word, they would be sub-saharan Africans only tempered by their degree of "recent" foreign admixture.
The only way to counter the results, is trying to say they are wrong in some fashion. Contamination, bad database, etc. Which we know is highly unlikely.
As people know on this site, it's important to note than since the holocene period and just before the foundation of Ancient Egypt. "Sub-sahara" Africa so to say, was shifted northward because of the Monsoon rains. So the Sahara wasn't a sahara/desert at all. It was a green sahara. So Ancient Egypt was just part of the current sub-Sahara. The western desert of egypt (eastern sahara) and the rest of the Sahara for example. Was a nice place to live. It's afterward, when the sahara became a desert again, that those people from sub-sahara, now living in the green sahara, migrated at different location in Africa including along the Nile in search of greener pasture. Probably meeting there people who also went north along the Nile. The level of Eurasian admixture was present but minimal in the formative stage of Ancient Egypt. With foreign invasion like the Hyksos, it was a little bit more. But still very low. It's only at the end of the dynastic era that foreign power like Assyrians, phoenecians, greeks, romans, muslim arab, british occupied egypt and further injected foreign element. Even now, the region south of countries such as Egypt, Libya, etc are often inhabited by so called sub-Saharan African living the desert/oasis lifestyle. For example, the Nubian in modern egypt. Obviously since Ancient Egypt time, there's been more admixture with foreigners even in those region, but it's all good of course. We are interested in the ancient populations composition, not the recent ones in those regions. The recent ones clearly is more admixed with foreign genes than the ancient ones. Recent admixture is nice for humanity, a good way for the human species to survive with a variety of genes, it just not good to tell the story of ancient populations composition prior to the recent admixture.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Even in this forum, some people like Swenet and Beyoku didn't like the results. Trying to say that Ancient Egyptian are closer match to some oasis in modern egypt than what the results show.
Excuse me, but I recall Beyoku or Swenet were actually among the fiercest defenders of the DNATribes findings. I think you may be confusing their argument again.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Even in this forum, some people like Swenet and Beyoku didn't like the results. Trying to say that Ancient Egyptian are closer match to some oasis in modern egypt than what the results show.
Excuse me, but I recall Beyoku or Swenet were actually among the fiercest defenders of the DNATribes findings. I think you may be confusing their argument again.
Defending it and not liking the results (and try to make them say something else) are not the same thing!!
Since they know they can't attack the DNA Tribes results directly. They adopt a different strategy. They simply try to twist their meaning to make them means something else than what the results show directly.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Defending it and not liking the results (and try to make them say something else) are not the same thing!!
Since they know they can't attack the DNA Tribes results directly. They adopt a different strategy. They simply try to twist their meaning to make them means something else than what the results show directly.
And what would that be?
I have observed your insistence that these results show that African people are all closely related, but I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation. My understanding is that African populations all have a lot of genetic diversity and that Eurasians and the rest represent only a narrow subset of that. All the DNA Tribes analysis shows is that the tested mummies fall outside the narrow non-African clade. That would indeed make them African from a phylogenetic view, but that would only mean that they are not non-African, not necessarily that the rest are all close kin.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
You can then tell me, or yourself, what 3 population groupings on earth are the closest match to Ancient Egyptians. It is the populations with the higher MLI scores.
Suffice to say, that it doesn't involve any Oasis in modern egypt or any populations in modern egypt at all. Directly at least.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then Truthcentric above talks about something else. The genetic closeness of African populations. This is not something that can be derived, directly at least, from the DNA Tribes studies of the Ancient Egyptians mummies I posted above.
It's something you can see directly from another DNA Tribes document (as well as other genetic studies). This one:
It is on that document, that you can see the genetic closeness and relationship of various African and world populations. In the DNA Tribe study, posted above there's a Eucledian distance tree showing us the genetic distance between various African populations. This distance tree was made by using the same STR database that was used to match Ancient Egyptian mummies.
Here's the genetic distances in question:
Among other things, you can see that the Southern African, African Great Lakes, Tropical West African and Sahelians populations are relatively genetically close. They are all grouped under the category called "Sub-Saharan African". Those sub-saharan Africans groups happens to be the same groups which matches the Ancient Egyptian mummies more in the other documents from DNA Tribes also using STR values. So they are close to each other in term of genetic distance and they also matches Ancient Egyptian mummies more.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish you guys will get it straight. DNATribes did NOT perform the "study" on the Amarnas. Hawass and his buddies did. ie JAMA.
What DNATribes did was take the freely available published data from the JAMA report and plug it into their "extensive" database to come up with a most likely match(MLI). The comparision shows that the closest match is South African, Great Lakes and West African in that order. All SSA.
ANYONE can do the same thing. There is a lot of available software out there that can do the same thing. Even anyone of you. The information was pissing in our face for over two years before DNATribes said "hey guys...".
In most cases only 2-3 str values are needed for a priliminary geographic placement. Hawass disclosed eight(8) str!!.
Yeah contamination maybe an issue but ALL eight mummies were SSA STR. Contamination is unlikely. Also keep in mind a family tree was established. So unless the aunt, uncle, sister, great aunt touched the mummies would you please stop the SSA contamination nonsense. lol! Use your fughking head and think!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hope some of you get the great aunt joke! I think it is funny. He! He! But also seriously you should first read and understand the JAMA study before reading nonsensical blogs by nobodies. And frantic Euronuts.
If you read and understood the study you will know that the work was carried out by 2 INDEPENDENT labs. And the results needed to be duplicated in order to be accepted. Some results were NOT duplicated and was therefore discarded. So more information was available but not published because the two teams could not duplicate the results.
So would you people start reading instead of repeating gossip from bloggers.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Ultimate - I can't help myself. Limited vocabulary and being Alpha
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. You're aunt joke is spot on. Believing in contamination is believing some ssa researcher and different members of his family, all different, have touched the Ancient Egyptian mummies too. It's ridiculous.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
SSA researcher??? You kidding me! May be it was a family janitorial business...He! He!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
A new study by the Zink et al. team that produced the controversial 2010 Armana paper suggests that the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III and one Unknown Man E, who may be his son Prince Pentawere, probably both belonged to haplogroup E1b1a. This is the most common paternal lineage today in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, it is nearly absent in North Africa and the Horn region:
As it turns out, several of the STR values indicated in the study are highly improbable. The men would instead appear to have belonged to the V22 sub-clade of haplogroup E1b1b. This lineage is, by contrast, quite common throughout Northeast Africa, with a very limited occurrence in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I won't say much more since a poster on RootsWeb was good enough to have already done the necessary legwork:
"The study states it ran the mummy's haplotype through Athey's Haplogroup Predictor and the result was 93% E1b1a. The problem is that the haplotype unquestionably has erroneous STR values: 393=8, 19=19, 391=8, 392=17. These aren't impossible values, but they're close, and all 4 occuring simultaneously does indeed seem statistically almost impossible. I know that the exact same haplotype was found in another mummy, and I have no explanation for this second impossibility of obtaining the exact same erroneous results twice, but the STR values are unquestionably filled with erroneous results. I tried to see if they commited some conversion mistakes, but the study listed several reference haplotypes they used of modern people, and they were perfectly normal, so those bizarre results like 393=8 really do mean 393=8.
If we exclude the ridiculous STRs, the most likely haplotype is E1b1b, and probably specifically E1b1b-V22, which also happens to be centered in Egypt. In other words, the mummy would have a quintessentially Egyptian haplogroup, like finding an Irishman belong to R1b-M222.
390=21 is E1b1a, that's true, E1b1b-V22 has 24.
385a/b=20/20 is a very rare high value, very unlikely for E1b1a or most E1b1b haplogroups, but in E1b1b-V22 it would be ok. This is the single STR value that allows to guess the specific E1b1b subcluster, since V22 has unusually very high values for 385, unlike other E1b1b haplogroups. To which we can add the circumstance that V22 also happens to be the most common variety of E1b1b in Egypt.
389a/b=13/33 is another very rare high value, specifically the second STR, the first one is normal. There's no difference in these STRs in E1b1a, E1b1b, or E1b1b-V22. But by now we can see that even the values that aren't flat out insane aren't exactly normal, either, they tend to be extreme, just not as extreme.
437/448 = 14/20 is, for a change, an absolutely perfectly normal value, which is perfect for E1b1a or E1b1b.
H4=13 is a little high but not unusual. This high value is pretty common in E1b1b-V12, somewhat rare in other E1b1b, and rare in E1b1a.
456=13 is a very rare low value. E1b1a and E1b1b-V22 tend to have lower values for this STR compared to other E1b1b haplogroups, but still the reported value is very rare in any of these haplogroups, and it looks like another suspicious STR value.
438=10 is a normal value. It's typical of all E1b1b haplogroups, but E1b1a has instead 438=11 and only 2% of E1b1a samples have 438=10.
So... The haplotype has several guaranteed erroneous values, and several more that look suspicious of being so, too. Amongst the normal looking ones, 390=21 strongly favors E1b1a, 438=10 strongly favors E1b1b. To me the most likely haplogroup is E1b1b-V22, but it's only a good guess. Also in favor of E1b1b-V22 is the fact that E1b1a occurs in 2% of Egyptians, while E1b1b-V22 occurs in 15% of north Egyptians, 5% in Egyptians from several oasis to the west of the Nile, and 4% in south Egyptians. It's centered in Egypt, there's nowhere else in the world with a higher frequency, and in fact the frequency gradually goes down in the 3 directions radiating out of Egypt: the second highest frequencies are in Northwest Africa, Ethiopia/Sudan, and the Levant."
posted
I want to answer another misconception about the DNA Tribes results and the Ancient Egyptians mummies.
Some people don't understand that the DNA Tribes world regions like Great Lakes Africans, Celtic, Levantines, NorthWest Europeans are genetic regions of closely related populations. Populations which are genetically close to each others. Not ethnic ,political or geographical regions. Although people sharing a geographical regions tend to be close to each other genetically because of shared origin and/or because they exchange DNA between each others (admixtures).
So all populations within the Great Lakes genetic regions are closely genetically related to one another. They cluster with each other. They are relatively genetically close to each other. They share a lot of the same genes and alleles.
So, somewhere else, somebody said that we didn't know if Ancient Egyptians were matching Nilo-Saharans or some other populations within the Great Lakes regions. But it doesn't matter because all the populations within the Great Lakes genetic family are genetically close to each other. That's why they are within the same genetic groupings called Great Lakes Africans!!
DNA Tribes talk of shared history and geography. Which is the same as to say shared origin and admixture between each others. (since shared geography in this context means share DNA between populations geographically close to each others).
Obviously those regions also have a different relative relationship between each others. For example, the Great Lakes genetic grouping is closer to the Tropical West African genetic group than the Levantine genetic group. Which is obvious of course. We can see it on the genetic distance tree I posted above.
So I hope, people understand that the DNA Tribes world regions like Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans, Levantine, West Africa, Northwest European, etc. Are genetic groupings of populations which are closely genetically related to each others. They are closely genetically related to each others because of 1)Common origin 2)Admixture (people who are geographically close tend to admix with each others)
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tajima's D and Fu's Fs, our unpublished data). An intriguing increased frequency of L0a1 in the Balanta might parallel A1-M31 and A3b2-M13 Y chromosomes in representing East African traces. Although the founder L0a1 haplotype is shared in an east-to-west corridor, the emerging lineages are exclusive of Guineans, indicating a rapid spread and local expansion after arrival.
The analysis of our data provides further evidence for the homogeneity of the Y chromosome gene pool of sub-Saharan West Africans, due to the high frequency of haplogroup E3a-M2. Its frequency and diversity in West Africa are among the highest found, suggesting an early local origin and expansion in the last 20–30 ky. Hypothesizing on the existence of an important local agricultural centre, this could have supported a demographic expansion, on an E3a-M2 background, that almost erased the pre-existing Y chromosome diversity. Its pattern of diversity within Mandenka and Balanta hints at a more marked populational growth, these people possibly related to the local diffusion of agricultural expertise.
The Papel and Felupe-Djola people retain traces of their East African relatives, to which the short timescale of residence in Guinea-Bissau and higher isolation from major influences have contributed.
These minor imprints may represent movements from Sahel's more central and eastern parts, seen, for example, in the typically Ethiopian/Sudanese E3*-PN2 lineages that have reached Senegambia [2,3,5].
--Alexandra Rosa et al.
Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: The contamination charge is ridiculous. Most of the people working on Tut, Ramses III, and the rest would have either been European or modern Egyptian, not sub-Saharan African or Afro-Diaspora.
Indeed. The only ones working in the labs of Egypt and handling the mummies are either Arabs or whites (European descent). LOL So the contamination theory is absurd.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is sad that members of the Hamitic Union are trying to prove that the Egyptians are related to Northeast Africans as claimed by Egyptologist for the past 100 years. This proposition was never supported by the evidence,..
Newsflash. The Egyptians WERE/ARE Northeast Africans! Egypt IS in Northeast Africa, the populations that were ancestral to Egyptians and became the Egyptians were northeast Africans. Exactly what evidence do have to the contrary?? Never mind, I don't want to see any of your pseudo-scholarly spam.
quote:especially historical and archaeological evidence that indicated that after the fall of Egypt, Egyptians migrated into West Africa, and the Meroitic Empire not Northeast Africa.
The Meroitic Empire is also in Northeast Africa, twit. And there is no evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt to West Africa. The most pristine Egyptians can still be found today in the rural Nile Valley, and in the oases and deserts.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do we care what anyone from 'Hamitic Union' even says?? We all know the very concept of 'Hamitic' is debunk and invalid yet you have ignoramuses rallying around the concept and create a 'Union' based on it! LMAOPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Newsflash. The Egyptians WERE/ARE Northeast Africans! Egypt IS in Northeast Africa
By itself that's a dumb argument. Yes, Ancient Egypt is where modern Egypt is now, but there's been a lot of population movements and changes in the genetic composition of the populations in Northeastern Africa since the last 6000 years. In fact, it's true for the rest of Africa and the world in general. Native America and Mesopotamia are other examples (see latest study about Mesopotamia). Same as the Bantu migration which changed the population composition all over Africa. It's always possible that some populations in modern Egypt we don't know about yet are closely related to Ancient Egyptians, but according to the genetic results thus far, they would need to be genetically closer to other African populations as a whole than to modern Eurasians or other modern North Africans. They will be as close to Ancient Egyptians as they are to other modern African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
The suggested case of contamination is pure desperation and insecurity, ignoring actual data.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol! Who said anything about origin. I hate repeating myself but I do enjoying listening to myself. "Location of ...". Ie frequency does not equate to origin! Sheesh.!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
^^^ This map is not that precise, not reflecting the Horn origin of the Hg .
.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you E and J1 is of Great Lakes/Sudan origin.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I agree with you E and J1 is of Great Lakes/Sudan origin.
Stop bullshyting, how do the maps I posted of E1b1b1 and J1 originate in the Horn and Arabian penninsula respectively correspond to the Great lakes region?
Additionally E1b1 has greatest diversity in Ethiopia Somalia it has the older branches there and some of the highest diversity of J1 is found in Turkey
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda ... What's the difference ?
On J1 , highest diversity is found in Sudan and Yemen. Ancestral form is found in Sudan and the Hadramat of Yemen. You know about that Yemeni group... right?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's what I keep trying to tell Firewall. That even if J1 is of Southwest Asian origin, it still originated in tropical region among tropically adapted folks and NOT cold adapted modern 'white' Arab looking people.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: By itself that's a dumb argument. Yes, Ancient Egypt is where modern Egypt is now, but there's been a lot of population movements and changes in the genetic composition of the populations in Northeastern Africa since the last 6000 years. In fact, it's true for the rest of Africa and the world in general. Native America and Mesopotamia are other examples (see latest study about Mesopotamia). Same as the Bantu migration which changed the population composition all over Africa. It's always possible that some populations in modern Egypt we don't know about yet are closely related to Ancient Egyptians, but according to the genetic results thus far, they would need to be genetically closer to other African populations as a whole than to modern Eurasians or other modern North Africans. They will be as close to Ancient Egyptians as they are to other modern African populations.
Of course, and I never argued to the contrary. I actually forgot to mention in my last posting that the idiot Hamiticists are in denial that even though the Egyptians were northeast Africans, they and other northeast Africans still share genetic continuity with the rest of Africa including so-called 'Sub-Saharans' in West and Central Africa. As far as population movements are concerned, as I stated there is no evidence of Clyde's claims of a mass exodus to West Africa post-dynastic period. Instead what evidence we do have is Saharans during the Green Holocene moving the opposite direction i.e. from WEST to EAST. This is the reason why certain genetic elements like Benin HBS which is especially prominent in the oases areas.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda ... What's the difference ?
On J1 , highest diversity is found in Sudan and Yemen. Ancestral form is found in Sudan and the Hadramat of Yemen. You know about that Yemeni group... right?
The difference is the spread of Islam when Arabs came into the region
J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements
Sergio Tofanelli,2009
A fine-grained map of the present day distribution of J1 chromosomes is given in Figure 1. The pattern is uneven, as is typical of Y lineages with a very deep genealogy and low-size demes. Frequency peaks over 50% of the whole binary variation are present in Arabia (Yemen, Qatar), Northern Caucasus (Dagestan), Sudan and in Negev Bedouins (Supplementary Table S1). Frequency is inversely correlated to haplotype diversity (R2=0.387, P<0.001, Supplementary Table S6), with Near Easterners showing the highest diversity, Dagestanians and Arabic Sudanese the lowest.
The locale of highest J1* frequency occurs in the vicinity of eastern Anatolia. The high YSTR variance of J1e in Turks and Syrians (Table 1, Figure 1e) supports the inference of an origin of J1e in nearby eastern Anatolia. -Chiaroni 2010
_________________________________________________
Contacts between Nubians and Arabs long predated the coming of Islam, but the arabization of the Nile Valley was a gradual process that occurred over a period of nearly 1,000 years. Arab nomads continually wandered into the region in search of fresh pasturage, and Arab seafarers and merchants traded in Red Sea ports for spices and slaves. Intermarriage and assimilation also facilitated arabization.
______________________________
This is how the J1 got there, stop the nonsense
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That's what I keep trying to tell Firewall. That even if J1 is of Southwest Asian origin, it still originated in tropical region among tropically adapted folks and NOT cold adapted modern 'white' Arab looking people.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: By itself that's a dumb argument. Yes, Ancient Egypt is where modern Egypt is now, but there's been a lot of population movements and changes in the genetic composition of the populations in Northeastern Africa since the last 6000 years. In fact, it's true for the rest of Africa and the world in general. Native America and Mesopotamia are other examples (see latest study about Mesopotamia). Same as the Bantu migration which changed the population composition all over Africa. It's always possible that some populations in modern Egypt we don't know about yet are closely related to Ancient Egyptians, but according to the genetic results thus far, they would need to be genetically closer to other African populations as a whole than to modern Eurasians or other modern North Africans. They will be as close to Ancient Egyptians as they are to other modern African populations.
Of course, and I never argued to the contrary. I actually forgot to mention in my last posting that the idiot Hamiticists are in denial that even though the Egyptians were northeast Africans, they and other northeast Africans still share genetic continuity with the rest of Africa including so-called 'Sub-Saharans' in West and Central Africa. As far as population movements are concerned, as I stated there is no evidence of Clyde's claims of a mass exodus to West Africa post-dynastic period. Instead what evidence we do have is Saharans during the Green Holocene moving the opposite direction i.e. from WEST to EAST. This is the reason why certain genetic elements like Benin HBS which is especially prominent in the oases areas.
Also Djehuti I would also like to expand on your point. I stated this on the Facebook.
Do you agree that the DNAtribes/JAMA results showed that the ANCESTORS of West Africans/Bantu people clustered with Ancient Egyptians, but that does not mean West Africans/Bantu people are the closet cluster group to the Ancient Egyptians? It just means the Ancient Egyptians and West Africans/Bantu people share a COMMON Ancestor and that West Africans/Bantu people do not descend from the Ancient Egyptians, but they do cluster with them due to both groups having a common ancestor. Again like you stated the ANCESTORS of West Africans/Bantu people originally lived in the Sahara when it was wet. And like you stated when it dried up, the groups migrated to two different regions. Remember E1b1a originated in East Africa in the first place. And I believe this video agrees with your points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98viuKQnIWU
So is this what DNAtribes is saying? Not that West Africans/Bantus are the closest cluster group to the AE or that they are descendants of the AE, but that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR with the AE.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen babe...eh..dude. did you read Tofanelli paper, including the supplementals? Unlike most brothas here I believe many of the so-called "Caucasoid" North Africans are indigenous. No admixture needed. I am on the fence on J1 origins. Like most genetic researchers I believe the Islamization was cultural and did not include movement of people. J2 was introduced may be during Ottoman period that is why it is localized in the cities while J1 is more widespread indicating a prehistorical spread. I need to do a refresher on Tofanelli.
I have an entire spread on J on ESR.
This is one of the few times DJ is not sucking up to someone and has something worthwhile to add. Tropical Black Yemini and Sudanese ..what’s the difference?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Taking another look at Sanctum the movie over the weekend reminding of “Negroid” features worlwide. LOL!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is why I implore you brothas to read…and try to understand that way you can’t be fooled. The opening paragraph sums it up.
1. J1 cannot be used to trace Jewish and Arab abcestry. 2. The demographic movement occurred during pre-history ie not Isalmic times as I said. It is climate driven. 3. Need I go on. 4. You are wasting my time 5. Who is BSing. From: J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements Sergio Tofanelli,2009 To better understand the modes and timing of J1 dispersals, we reconstructed the genealogical relationships among 282 M267*G chromosomes from 29 populations typed at 20 YSTRs and 6 SNPs. Phylogenetic analyses depicted a new genetic background consistent with climate-driven demographic dynamics occurring during two key phases of human pre-history: (1) the spatial expansion of hunter gatherers in response to the end of the late Pleistocene cooling phases and (2) the displacement of groups of foragers/herders following the mid-Holocene rainfall retreats across the ***SAHARA AND ARABIA(part of greater Africa)****. Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity
b]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually Lioness is partially right. Much of the J lineages in Africa, is the result of Islamic invasion. However, not all of it is. For example there are J1 subclades in the Horn that date back to Neolithic times well before the 'Arab' ethnicity let alone Islam.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Also Djehuti I would also like to expand on your point. I stated this on the Facebook.
Do you agree that the DNAtribes/JAMA results showed that the ANCESTORS of West Africans/Bantu people clustered with Ancient Egyptians, but that does not mean West Africans/Bantu people are the closet cluster group to the Ancient Egyptians? It just means the Ancient Egyptians and West Africans/Bantu people share a COMMON Ancestor and that West Africans/Bantu people do not descend from the Ancient Egyptians, but they do cluster with them due to both groups having a common ancestor. Again like you stated the ANCESTORS of West Africans/Bantu people originally lived in the Sahara when it was wet. And like you stated when it dried up, the groups migrated to two different regions. Remember E1b1a originated in East Africa in the first place. And I believe this video agrees with your points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98viuKQnIWU
So is this what DNAtribes is saying? Not that West Africans/Bantus are the closest cluster group to the AE or that they are descendants of the AE, but that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR with the AE.
Yes, that's the impression I got as well. You see, there are many alleles present in the mummies that are not present in today's Egyptian population yet are found in other populations in Sub-Sahara. This points to common ancestry. However, note that Egypt in contrast to these other Sub-Saharan nations experienced dramatic population changes via incursions and immigrations.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is why you always come across a kiss ass. You really have a bad habit of not reading an article but insist on getting your Hindu ass to butt in.
Quote by DJ:”. Much of the J lineages in Africa, is the result of Islamic invasion.” Quote by Tofanelli : “To better understand the modes and timing of J1 dispersals, we reconstructed the genealogical relationships among 282 M267*G chromosomes from 29 populations typed at 20 YSTRs and 6 SNPs. Phylogenetic analyses depicted a new genetic background consistent with climate-driven demographic dynamics occurring during two key phases of human pre-history: (1) the spatial expansion of hunter gatherers in response to the end of the late Pleistocene cooling phases and (2) the displacement of groups of foragers/herders following the mid-Holocene rainfall retreats across the ***SAHARA AND ARABIA(part of greater Africa)****. Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity Do you understand what he just said there DJ? I will help you. J1 had NADA, Nothing to do with Islamic Expansion.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
From: J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements Sergio Tofanelli,2009 To better understand the modes and timing of J1 dispersals, we reconstructed the genealogical relationships among 282 M267*G chromosomes from 29 populations typed at 20 YSTRs and 6 SNPs. Phylogenetic analyses depicted a new genetic background consistent with climate-driven demographic dynamics occurring during two key phases of human pre-history: (1) the spatial expansion of hunter gatherers in response to the end of the late Pleistocene cooling phases and (2) the displacement of groups of foragers/herders following the mid-Holocene rainfall retreats across the ***SAHARA AND ARABIA(part of greater Africa)****. Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity
b] [/QB]
the above is from
J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements
- but for some reason you forgot to mention the article title and link
More excerpts same article that contradicts your claims
Frequency is inversely correlated to haplotype diversity (R2=0.387, P<0.001, Supplementary Table S6), with Near Easterners showing the highest diversity, Dagestanians and Arabic Sudanese the lowest.
The genetic legacy of the mid-Holocene dispersal of foraging groups in the Sudanese Sahara, North Africa and Arabia would be tracked by Arabic J1-M267 chromosomes while the dispersal of agro–pastoralists with near eastern origins by other Y (E1b-M34 and E1b-M7818) or mitochondrial (U6b19) lineages.
____________________________________________
this is key quote from the article:
This time window is related to a pre-historic phase of regionalisation in the human occupation of Sahara and Arabia, when semi-nomadic tribes, once diffused all over the Desert, retreated in water-rich refuges (ie, the Atlas range,15 the Sudanese plateau,16 Southern Arabia17) as a consequence of the rapid decline of monsoon rainfalls. In Eastern Sahara, it is associated with the rise of a dual productive economy, where specialised cattle pastoralism came to coexist with sedentary lifestyles, cereal farming and pottery production, clearly rooted in near East traditions. The genetic legacy of the mid-Holocene dispersal of foraging groups in the Sudanese Sahara, North Africa and Arabia would be tracked by Arabic J1-M267 chromosomes while the dispersal of agro–pastoralists with near eastern origins by other Y (E1b-M34 and E1b-M7818) or mitochondrial (U6b19) lineages.
- the article actually expands the near eastern origin from J1 to M34 an M78 -they are placing these migrations from the near east to Africa an earlier date than later Islamic and Judaic expansions
xyyman, this article you mention clearly indicates near eastern origin for these hgs, even attributing these particular sub clades of E
this at a time before "Arab" and "Judaic" cultural identities
On the Arbians penninsula the artilce is referring to retreat out areas which had become drier, What was happening before the Arab period was a drying of the penninsula, to the effect that much of it became unihabited, before that the Ubaid was the earliest civilzation there, an extension of an empire from Mespotamia
"the displacement of groups of foragers/herders following the mid-Holocene rainfall retreats across the Sahara and Arabia "
^^^ ket word "retreats" a retreat from hgs that had originated as the article states, in the near east and form there across the Sahara but you intetionally left that out and try to spin it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That's what I keep trying to tell Firewall. That even if J1 is of Southwest Asian origin, it still originated in tropical region among tropically adapted folks and NOT cold adapted modern 'white' Arab looking people.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: By itself that's a dumb argument. Yes, Ancient Egypt is where modern Egypt is now, but there's been a lot of population movements and changes in the genetic composition of the populations in Northeastern Africa since the last 6000 years. In fact, it's true for the rest of Africa and the world in general. Native America and Mesopotamia are other examples (see latest study about Mesopotamia). Same as the Bantu migration which changed the population composition all over Africa. It's always possible that some populations in modern Egypt we don't know about yet are closely related to Ancient Egyptians, but according to the genetic results thus far, they would need to be genetically closer to other African populations as a whole than to modern Eurasians or other modern North Africans. They will be as close to Ancient Egyptians as they are to other modern African populations.
Of course, and I never argued to the contrary. I actually forgot to mention in my last posting that the idiot Hamiticists are in denial that even though the Egyptians were northeast Africans, they and other northeast Africans still share genetic continuity with the rest of Africa including so-called 'Sub-Saharans' in West and Central Africa. As far as population movements are concerned, as I stated there is no evidence of Clyde's claims of a mass exodus to West Africa post-dynastic period. Instead what evidence we do have is Saharans during the Green Holocene moving the opposite direction i.e. from WEST to EAST. This is the reason why certain genetic elements like Benin HBS which is especially prominent in the oases areas.
I agree that the largest part of West African ancestry doesn't derived from Ancient Egyptians. West Africans are not direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians, at least not to a significant level. But both Western Africans, as well as other so-called "sub-Saharan" Africans, and Ancient Egyptians share common ancestors. Common ancestors postdating, for example, the OOA migration of non-Africans populations (but predating the birth of the Ancient Egyptian state).
I don't agree with you that the direction of genetic exchange within the Green Sahara populations, which include the Nile and the future location of Ancient Egypt, was only west to east. It was in both directions. West to east and East to West. The Green Sahara period, with its up and down, was a relatively long period in human history like at least 3000 years. We're in the years 2000s, and we talk about 3000 years here, so there has been time for a lot of population movements and admixture in all directions during the Green Sahara period.
During the Green Sahara period, predating the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, "sub-Sahara" Africa so to say, was shifted northward. So rain, vegetation, animals and humans populations that followed them moved from "sub-Sahara" Africa to Northeastern Africa and the Sahara in general for at least 3000 years.
Also a bit before that time, or at the edge of it, all modern African genetic groups (like E-P2, probably true to for downstream A and B haplogroups too) and modern African languages phyla originate around northeastern Africa (around Sudan, Southern Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc). So most of all the modern Africans ancestry, as well as the Ancient Egyptian ancestry, can be found in eastern/northeastern Africa. It's afterward that they migrated to the rest of Africa like what would become the Green Sahara (probably meeting small group of humans there). Then when the Sahara got dry again, they had to move to Western Africa, Southern Africa, the Nile, etc (again meeting very small group of humans there. A00, Mbuti, etc). All those small groups of humans were absorbed by the migration of a much more demographically large African population from the Sahara. Leaving almost no trace of them in Western Africa (although the recently discovered A00 hg, is probably small traces of them).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
So is this what DNAtribes is saying? Not that West Africans/Bantus are the closest cluster group to the AE or that they are descendants of the AE, but that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR with the AE.
You're mistaken. The DNA Tribes results, which used autosomal STR DNA, DOES say that Ancient Egyptian cluster more with modern Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans and Western Africans population than any other population on earth. For example, Ancient Egyptians are genetically closer to populations in Western Africa than populations in modern Egypt.
With the genetic data, we have at the moment both the possibility of those African groups being descendant of Ancient Egyptians and them sharing common ancestors with them is possible. They are both technically possible from a genetic point of view (we don't know the direction/history of the shared ancestry between AE and modern Africans). But considering other disciplines like archaeology we can consider common ancestry, before the birth of Ancient Egypt (and after the main OOA migration), to be much more important.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice ... get us back on track. At least we agree it had nothing to do with Islamic expansion. We can discuss its origin in another thread. Or just read my post on ESR .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Nice ... get us back on track. At least we agree it had nothing to do with Islamic expansion. We can discuss its origin in another thread. Or just read my post on ESR .
that article argues near eastern origin for J1, M43 and M78 that expanded from there into other parts of Arabian penninsula and across the Sahara
The article does not deny that J1 was further spread into North Africa during the Islamic period by traders from Arabia who intermarried-and by other Arab prior to Islam There is no denying that, according to the article it also had prior near east origin so you cant attribute to only the Arabs, including Anatolia and Caucus regions. In other words that article is not an argument for African origin of J1
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last off topic comment. @ Lioness . I just had an Eureka!! moment. Looking at map you just posted I just realize that J1, E1b1b and E1b1a have similar geographic spread. Reading through the Tafonelli paper I see you have a relevant section highlighted. I saw that too. Which makes me lean futher to an African origin of J1. In the Great Lakes region. I need to follow up on the diversity. The paper does not have the raw data. It just has a chart in the supplementals. I was curios why they lump Ethiopians in with Eurasuans but Qatar , Tunisia , Iraq etc in with Arabic
Agreed the paper points to not an African origin. But it points to a spread PRIOR to the Islamic Expansion. As I said to be continued.
One paper I cited on ESR said eastern origin but when you look at the raw data Sudanese and Yemen diversity was equivalent. That is why I look at the raw data. The jury is still out but I am leaning to an African origin for J1.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Nice ... get us back on track. At least we agree it had nothing to do with Islamic expansion. We can discuss its origin in another thread. Or just read my post on ESR .
There must have been some Western Asian ancestry in Ancient Egypt, but it must have been minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies don't cluster with Levantine or Western Asian populations. The Beyoku's preview study, while being an unproven source, gives the good idea. For example, in the Beyoku post we can see for example one J hg, among 21 mummies, but with an African mtDNA L hg on his mother side. So it was from a person who was admixed to some, probably low, degree.
Since the rest of the AE populations carried African haplogroups (all using the unconfirmed/unpublished Beyoku's preview study), the autosomal DNA of the individual carrying the J haplogroup in the ancient Egyptian sample probably are much closer to other Africans than to Western Asian populations. Most of his genome is probably African despite having a J hg from Western Asia. I use the Beyoku preview study here, just as an example to explain my point. The Beyoku's preview study post happens to be how I see the situation and provide a good example. The DNA Tribes analysis does provide hard fact about all of this since they analyzed autosomal STR (so both male and female side) provided by the JAMA and BMJ study. Same with the BMJ study itself, which point Ramses III to be E1b1a/E-M2.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic