quote:Originally posted by Cass/: North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
What a joke.
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Have you lost your mind? Don't you see they mean the same dam thing logically? EEF is a mixture of different DNA anyway. It is not monolithic and includes various amounts of different lineages across different populations. That is why I don't like it.
Lol. The dynastic Abusir sample is closest to EEF and EEF-like groups and he's still pulling all sorts of distractions out of his ass. This clown keeps running away from the fact that he has been thoroughly debunked and reduced to a wobbly shape-shifting mess.
I haven't been reduced to anything. The results released so far say those mummies sampled were had a lot of EURASIAN DNA. Period. Calling it EEF doesn't change that.
I don't know what part of this you don't get.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
So basically:
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa; in contrast your pan-African politics stops you from dividing Saharan and SSA's because you want to lump all Africans into a continental group, i.e. dividing them conflicts with your political interests.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
What a joke.
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
quote: E-M78 subclades
The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were com- pletely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub- clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
[...]
The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.
It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.
--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
So basically:
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa; in contrast your pan-African politics stops you from dividing Saharan and SSA's because you want to lump all Africans into a continental group, i.e. dividing them conflicts with your political interests.
quote: Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree has been constructed manually following YCC 2008 nomenclature20 with some modifications.35 The tree (Supplementary Figure S1) contains the E haplogroups of Eritrean populations from this study and those reported in the literature.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Genotyping results for E-V13, E-V12, E-V22 and E-V32 reported for Eritrean samples and elsewhere23, 27 were retracted to E-M78 haplogroup level. All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[...]
Median-joining (MJ) network. Network manipulated to fit the geography of the extant populations. MJ network was constructed using E haplogroup frequencies. Group represented by ITAL contains all the Italian samples pooled. Populations’ descriptions are given in Supplementary Table S1.
NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
[...]
Indeed the trail of such historical movements are detectable by molecular signatures of markers like Y chromosome giving insights into episodes of even more regional nature, for example, the high frequency of E-V32 in Eritrea, in concordance to oral history, supports the historical ties between North East Africa (Egypt) and East Africa including Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.
--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism EJHGOpen
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Umm, what specimen was used to collect the "data" above? From where and when? Ogaden Somali?
quote: North Africa
53. Egypt/Predynasty 17–63 Badari and Naqada, ca. 5,000–4,000 B.P. (Cambridge Univ.)
54. Egypt/12–29th Dynasty 12–176 Lisht, Cairo, Omdurman, and Gizeh (Cambridge Univ., National Museum of Natural History)
—Tsunehiko Hanihara
Metric dental variation of major human populations
quote: Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
—R. J. Forshaw
Dental health and disease in ancient Egypt
British Dental Journal 206, 421 - 424 (2009) Published online: 25 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.309
quote:
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[…]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
—Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
--Meredith F. Small* et al.
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
quote:“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
—Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
—Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13 (2009): 147–74
--M. Kobusiewicz, J. Kabacinski, R. Schild, J.D. Irish, M.C. Gatto, F. Wendorf, Gebel Ramlah, Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt, Poznan 2010
quote:"Berget Playa el Sheb, Gebel Ramlah Playa - Combined Prehistoric Expedition Combined Prehistoric Expedition Research Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology were conducted in the 2011 season in the area of the Western Desert, approx. 150 km west of Abu Simbel. They focused in the area of two paleojezior (playa): Barget el Sheb and Gebel Ramlah Playa Playa.
In the area of El Sheb Barget continued excavations at the settlement early and
środkowoneolitycznej. In the first stage of the research in the area of Gebel Ramlah exploration work was carried out around the NE, E and S edge paleojeziora. During these meetings, N of cemeteries
późnoneolitycznych, located on the surface fragments of human skeletons. In the second part of the season the pit excavation area of 3 x 18 m, is located in the area of occurrence of bone. The result of this work was to capture a fragment of another, very large graveyard, the mid-Neolithic age. The excavation uncovered 18 graves containing the remains of 20 individuals."
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
I don't really understand your strange infatuation with African history. Why does the history of Northeast African blacks matter to you? Are you trying to associate your people with Northeast Africans in some terribly illogical and inconceivable perverse racial block? It's always "Eurasians" this and "Eurasians" that in relation to a Northeast African civilization that was essentially a Sudanese transplant. It's sick.
You should stick to the Minoans, Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. That's your European legacy.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
Even if what you're saying is true...so what? Why does the variation among black Africans matter to you so? Can you not see that your obsession with certain blacks is unhealthy? Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
There were different intrusions (ethnic groups), with some as out-layers, however still cluster within the main dataset, hence the reference by Kathryn A. Bard.
quote: At El Barga cemetery, individuals were buried in a flexed position, mostly (43%) with the head in the NW quadrant. They are quite robust and show affinities with other populations we know of from the Nile valley, such as those of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (Wendorf 1968; Croevecour 2012).
—Donatella Usai
A Picture of Prehistoric Sudan: The Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.56
quote: Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
—R. J. Forshaw
Dental health and disease in ancient Egypt
British Dental Journal 206, 421 - 424 (2009) Published online: 25 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.309
To put things in perspective for you:
See, no matter how you spin it. The population arose from the South.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
See, this is the part where it itches.
Irish:
TABLE 2. Dental trait percentages (%) and number of individuals scored (n) for 15 Egyptian samples 1 Trait 2 Upper Egyptian samples Lower Egyptian samples GRM BAD NAQ HRK ABY THE QUR HES KHA TAR SAQ LIS GIZ GEG HAW
--Joel D Irish
Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples
Apr 2006 · American Journal of Physical Anthropology
quote: There is no significant dental difference between the Hierakonpolis C-Group and samples originating in Nubia proper
--J.D. Irisha, R. Friedman
Dental affinities of the C-group inhabitants of Hierakonpolis, Egypt: Nubian, Egyptian, or both?
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. “
--Irish JD (2006).
"Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote: "Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
quote:
”As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Cass
I don't really understand your strange infatuation with African history. Why does the history of Northeast African blacks matter to you? Are you trying to associate your people with Northeast Africans in some terribly illogical and inconceivable perverse racial block? It's always "Eurasians" this and "Eurasians" that in relation to a Northeast African civilization that was essentially a Sudanese transplant. It's sick.
You should stick to the Minoans, Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. That's your European legacy.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
Le sigh:
"Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990.. et al.,)... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions.." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization (rather than diffusion from sub-Saharan Africa, as claimed by some Afrocentric scholars.)"
Source: The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28 Donald Redford (ed).
And you do know you can be both related and phenotypically dissimilar from someone else,even BLOOD relatives right? Just ask Sandra Laing.
"Sandra Laing (born 1955) is a South African woman notable for appearing as and being classified as "Coloured" by authorities during the apartheid era, due to her skin colour and hair texture, although she was the child of at least three generations of white ancestors. At the age of 10, she was expelled from her all-white school, and the authorities' decisions based on her anomalous appearance disrupted her family and adult life."
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
So basically:
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa;
You say SSA are not monolithic but group them together as though this would be legitimate to do under your distance claims. Yes it's arbritrary, but you've insisted limitations on the arbitrary grouping of Africans because of "distance." Why is SSA "useful for analysis" if populations that should be considered "close enough" need to be of some arbitrary distances you've insisted cannot be farther than Egypt to the Sahel? In what world is the distance from the Sahel to the coasts of Southern Africa shorter than Egypt to the Sahel?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
I'd just be mocking people for trying to peddle their BS over the years and trying to pretend these aDNA results are "business as usual". To the outside mocking people looks unwarranted but if you weren't here during all the discussions and pretty much the whole forum siding with retards like Amun Ra you wouldn't understand why certain people are mocked. [/QB]
THIS, the bomb was dropped and folks are STILL like "business as usual". When the Ancient DNA from the Mahreb dropped folks was like "business as usual". Even when Ancient DNA from European Farmers and Huntergathers dropped certain ES Clowns were (and STILL) trying to Coax them into "Blackness". Natufian? = Business. ES barely batted an eye at the near absence of SSA specific affinities and presence of CT/E.
I would actually suggest to those that are confused to spend the hour or more and READ THIS FULL THREAD
Elsewhere on the Web there are scores of ES flunkies all posting "Fake News" in various facebook feed and groups and spend TONS of hours lurking on ES. This MOSTLY goes out to them and not even current posters. THEY are the ones saying LITERALLY "You posting it on FB but why dont you say it to their face on Egytpsearch". Well here it is.
Its obvious ES had a "Culture" and we ALL knew ES modus Operandi. Remember when we could tell certain folks in National geographic was "Reading Egyptsearch"..........Remember when National Geographic made a specific page dedicated to address certain things SPECIFICALLY associated with research and documentation by Egyptsearch members? We were able to easily point this out because this site had a specific theme. We were somewhat monolithic.
As things went on Ancient DNA revealed some obvious truths. It was obvious some of the "Old Guard" arguments could not be sustained. ES basically said "Business as usual". XYYMan kept speaking in riddles. Ish continued to post like an RNG . Chatty Patty kept up the Gossip. Zarahan keep posing those collages with those thick women......and Skin color reign supreme over genetic affinity (Even now why post the Dark Skin Syrian...what is the point?). The site splintered, ES declined, it was somewhat stagnant and folks not familiar with the latest genomic revelations because they been spamming DNA Tribes (or that Leaked data which I REPEATEDLY said to imply "Ignore") just got caught with their pants down, now they are getting raped by 90 Mummies of which only 2-5 have Mtdna L.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Right??? It's like this guy is seriously expecting us to believe that this Tuareg from Algeria
And this Tuareg from Mali:
Are less related than a Shilluk from South Sudan
and a Fon from Benin
That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and if that makes me an afrocentrist up for mocking people can kiss my afrocentrist arse!
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: “XYYMan kept speaking in riddles….. just got caught with their pants down, now they are getting raped by 90 Mummies of which only 2-5 have Mtdna L” Ok! No more riddles. I will ask it again. Where is the OFFICIAL paper? Maybe I missed it. Is this another “leaked” paper like Tut was R1b-M269 caught on a “researchers” computer screen. YOU, also posted BS about “leaked info” that NEVER materialized. And YOUR leaked info had mostly mtDNA L IIRC. So WT … are you farting about? Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. 50% mtDNA L in ancient Iberians. Anatolia has an ancient presence of mtDNA L. There were SSA admixture going back 4000BC in Armenia. Sources cited. That is why I say let us wait until the paper are FULLY released. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the AEians NOT to be Africans. That is why I am not worried and ignoring this thread until proof if obtained NOT “screen shots”. I don’t get caught up in gossip and alternative truths. L1b go far back in Western Europe. Southern Europeans have as much as 80% African vs non-African per Lazaridis et al. That will never change. I curious to see how this paper “spins” that AEians are not closely related to SSA. It is geographically impossible for that to be the case. We know Rameses III and man E is E1b1a and the Amarnas are STR south Africans. Confirmed by DNAConsultants ans DNATribes andy popaffli Software. When the paper is released let me know the link. I don’t respond to data that cannot be proven or verified. In the mean time I have a bone to pick with Davidski. He desperately removing post after post I make. He did not ell his groupies that Villabruna and the Steppes nomads carried black skin. These guys are frantic. Lol! Ignorance is bliss….. There are researchers still trying to put yDNA E originating OUTSIDE Africa and those who won’t give up on Regional Theory. You just shrug them off and move on. AEians cannot be NOT related to SSA. The horse is out the barn…..
-------------------- 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
@Beyoku while I don't think it's wrong to theorize limited L lineages, how are Nile Delta Egyptian samples that have probably always had more mixture (but especially so during an era where Egypt suffered eastern invasions) "rape?" older upper Egyptian samples would be closer to such a crude phrase, but this doesn't shatter what a lot of people seemed to think before this study. A lot of these people could be very, very wrong in their assumptions, but this won't prove that on it's own. I just want this issue to be over. FFS I wish they'd could just find some predynastic data and be done with it already.
IDK what this Amun Ra guy said in his entirety, but he posted your data. People keep bringing up your data that had all those L lineages. I get Swenet being upset, but I'm still not understanding how someone who posts a bunch of AE Old Kingdom/New Kingdom data with a bunch of L lineages, is now poking at other ES members for believing AE would have that in larger quantity. Correct me if I'm wrong but these people bumping and reposting your stuff, it sounds like what you released at least contributed to this "position" you speak of from posters in a similar position to Amun Ra. Do you no longer stand by it? Why if the data was real? You know what the answer is possibly too political to explain, I just want to know if you no longer stand by what you posted so that people can move on.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Egyptsearch. See XYYMAN, in typical ES fashion talks about all other SSA affinities as if somehow they over-ride these 90 mummies. XYYMAN doesnt quite understand how Ramsess may NOT be E-M2 and could also be E-V22. XYYMAN doenst even understand Y-dna STR vs Y-dna SNP and he has been here for 10 years. XYYMAN still thinks Black skin is significant in its genetic context.
@Oshun.. I made it pretty clear that it was NOT "My Data". Like the Piss Dossier on Trump, it was passed to me. I let it loose in the public. By and large I ignore it and only think about it off hand to compare it to other ancient remains. YES what i release DID contribute, it was somewhat different then what ES and I expected though. THE PROBLEM IS.....all other data, published data started to make some AE ideas untenable.
Its like Ivan van sertima being debunked by 200 mummies from America going back 14,000 years. Or by Black Hebrew Isrealites being DEBUNKED by Slave Burials being genetic stand ins for Senegambians and West Central Africans.
Why would i stick to that Ideology if it is untenable because of new technology. Some of these fools think Europeans of 30-40 thousand years ago have some genetic affinity to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why would i stick to that Ideology if it is untenable because of new technology. Some of these fools think Europeans of 30-40 thousand years ago have some genetic affinity to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans. [/QB]
Trust and believe if similar results come out for Predynastic/Old Kingdom Egyptians then as far as I'm concerned the Euronuts can have all of AE. I'm not even close to shaking in my boots yet and I'd dare someone to necro a post I made denying any foreign influence in AE. Find it first.
Yet people are going to have to stop picking and choosing.
Its bad enough that people in here conflate afrocentrist with black posters as if the two are goddamned synonyms. Then you have someone honestly expecting us to believe the AE had zero ties to Sub-Saharans in East and Central Africa despite proven instances of contact and interaction even in Dynastic times while also claiming only people living in close proximity can be related (and then further qualifying it by saying only people who have similar teeth/crania are related).
Somehow the AE are more related to Levantines across Sinai and not at all to the people in the same part of the same continent as them.
People like Djoser had "broad" features reminiscent of the "negroid" stereotype but I guess the crania similarity test stops applying then. But making it even better we have this guy loping all Sub-Saharans together even ones at two completely different ends of Africa at a much greater geographic distance than Egypt was from Sudan/Ethiopia/Somalia/Eritrea/Chad/Central African Republic.
Where's the mockery for this guy??
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Egyptsearch. See XYYMAN, in typical ES fashion talks about all other SSA affinities as if somehow they over-ride these 90 mummies. XYYMAN doesnt quite understand how Ramsess may NOT be E-M2 and could also be E-V22. XYYMAN doenst even understand Y-dna STR vs Y-dna SNP and he has been here for 10 years. XYYMAN still thinks Black skin is significant in its genetic context.
@Oshun.. I made it pretty clear that it was NOT "My Data". Like the Piss Dossier on Trump, it was passed to me. I let it loose in the public. By and large I ignore it and only think about it off hand to compare it to other ancient remains. YES what i release DID contribute, it was somewhat different then what ES and I expected though. THE PROBLEM IS.....all other data, published data started to make some AE ideas untenable.
Its like Ivan van sertima being debunked by 200 mummies from America going back 14,000 years. Or by Black Hebrew Isrealites being DEBUNKED by Slave Burials being genetic stand ins for Senegambians and West Central Africans.
Why would i stick to that Ideology if it is untenable because of new technology. Some of these fools think Europeans of 30-40 thousand years ago have some genetic affinity to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans.
I mean, I understand there's some sort of history to this whole ordeal... But in regards to this particular unreleased study and this particular thread I don't understand the need for the banter to this level. I mean, yeah the "SSA black Egypt" doctrine is In hot water right now, however, if you have like I think you have; an above average knowledge of genetics or evolutionary biology, you'd know that that's not the only thought or theory being placed in a blender right now...
You haven't suggested a model, a hypothesis or even a thought about how this study in relation to EVERYTHING you guys have studied and understood makes sense. Like I get it, folks are dragging their feet to adjust their views... But can you at least provide insight every once in a while... It's not only the SSAers that need to adjust their views. Most users with a certain beleif on here haven't in no way came up short in presenting evidence from multiple studies which can help explain what is going on, not to mention the study we're speaking about is unreleased.
It's kinda offensive to newer members to have to read through these discouraging posts which may or may not have anything with us, with very little to no new insight or useful commentary. I was with you in the beginning but I'm actually kinda lost now... And don't care to go into the black thread AT ALL.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
You and Swenet are undoubtedly the most well informed posters on this forum in the field of genetics and are thus deserving of respect, but it's an exaggeration to equate the series of completely eviscerated fantasies with what you perceive this yet to be released study has done to an African origin of Egypt.
Your position would have been entirely unassailable had this study been comprehensive in all the relevant facets. I would be just as quick to concede if this study had sourced samples from the "two lands" at periods relevant to insights on the founding population instead of retrieving samples specifically from a region most affected by foreign rule and immigration.
Questions regarding the founding population of ancient Egypt must necessarily start at the source -> in Upper Egypt, and the early dynastic period is most crucial. One cannot understand a book by discarding the beginning.
Predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and "Nubia" created ancient Egypt, so until data is presented that severs the biological affinities of virtually indistinguishable predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and "Nubia", I will not now accord Lower Egypt the kind of significance it simply did not enjoy in ancient times.
Provided that it turns out these samples are unquestionably sourced from ethnic Egyptians, it will have significance in how we perceive and approach Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt is another kettle of fish.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
I believe I already stated my views position and prediction in regards to this, but again for the people in the back.
The mummies most likely will not be so low in A/B/E, but if they are, then IDK why we're having this discussion, These samples are 100% foreign... To the contrary though, if these samples have lets say <23-50% A/B/E, There is still a chance that they are foreign but the odds of them being representative of Egypt being ancient Near east implant is stronger.
...Do you want us to predict J, R, G, Y-hap %'s too?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
If their aDNA shows that they are mostly Eurasians and not local Northeast African then I would doubt the mummies would be native.
Also not carrying signature Northeast African paternal clades would also be a hint that they are not native. Just my 2 cents.
On the other hand, just because they are low in African paternal clades doesn't necessarily mean they can't be native.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
Your question requires data from the early dynastic period in order for it to be answered in full and demands questions of its own. For instance, are these incredibly low levels of African Y-Chromosomes a continuum of predynastic and or early dynastic genetic profiles of Northern Egypt? Or did they make an appearance much later in the third intermediate period? If they precede the formation of the Egyptian State and the attendant identity that it created, then they are Egyptian by virtue of time and their early participation in the development of the Egyptian State, but their genes would concurrently be foreign to Africa in recognition of the fact that their genetic profiles developed outside of Africa.
If they arrived on the scene long after the formation of the Egyptian State, then they are not Egyptian in the ethnic sense -- naturalization notwithstanding.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [QB] Re: Oshun
Right??? It's like this guy is seriously expecting us to believe that this Tuareg from Algeria
I predict based on geographical distance that Taureg from Libya or Algeria will be closer genetically to Europeans than Sub-Saharan Africans. Those Taureg in the Sahel (southern Niger and Mali), i.e. on the border of Sub-Saharan Africa, will be closer genetically to Sub-Saharan Africans. This does not mean I am saying these populations are European or Sub-Saharan African - North Africa is intermediate between these extremes. But northernmost North African populations tend to be closer to Europeans based on closer geographical proximity, while the more southern populations, learn towards SSA's.
While we have little genetic data on the Taureg (and no modern cranial studies I'm aware of), I believe MtDNA roughly divides the Libyan/Algerian Taureg from Mali/Niger Taureg, so for example observe the Fst distance between [1] (Libyan Taureg) to [53] (Sahel Taureg). The former fall in the North African grouping by the analyst, but the latter with central sub-Saharan Africans.
Ottoni et al. 2009 "First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
you are such a ditz! lol! You are not even worth a response. You and your psychological problems of being acknowledged as a "geneticist" with "inside" track. :rolleyes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: XYYMAN doesnt quite understand how Ramsess may NOT be E-M2 and could also be E-V22. XYYMAN doenst even understand Y-dna STR vs Y-dna SNP and he has been here for 10 years. XYYMAN still thinks Black skin is significant in its genetic context.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok! No more riddles. I will ask it again. Where is the OFFICIAL paper? Maybe I missed it. Is this another “leaked” paper like Tut was R1b-M269 caught on a “researchers” computer screen. YOU, also posted BS about “leaked info” that NEVER materialized. And YOUR leaked info had mostly mtDNA L IIRC. So WT … are you farting about? Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. 50% mtDNA L in ancient Iberians. Anatolia has an ancient presence of mtDNA L. There were SSA admixture going back 4000BC in Armenia. Sources cited. That is why I say let us wait until the paper are FULLY released. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the AEians NOT to be Africans. That is why I am not worried and ignoring this thread until proof if obtained NOT “screen shots”. I don’t get caught up in gossip and alternative truths. L1b go far back in Western Europe. Southern Europeans have as much as 80% African vs non-African per Lazaridis et al. That will never change. I curious to see how this paper “spins” that AEians are not closely related to SSA. It is geographically impossible for that to be the case. We know Rameses III and man E is E1b1a and the Amarnas are STR south Africans. Confirmed by DNAConsultants ans DNATribes andy popaffli Software. When the paper is released let me know the link. I don’t respond to data that cannot be proven or verified. In the mean time I have a bone to pick with Davidski. He desperately removing post after post I make. He did not ell his groupies that Villabruna and the Steppes nomads carried black skin. These guys are frantic. Lol! Ignorance is bliss….. There are researchers still trying to put yDNA E originating OUTSIDE Africa and those who won’t give up on Regional Theory. You just shrug them off and move on. AEians cannot be NOT related to SSA. The horse is out the barn…..
-------------------- 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 beyoku: Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
Why would there be an increase Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Egypt?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: .
The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
. I dunno, but, the Israeli Bedouin A sample are the closest to Stuttgart and would likely be sourced from Levant_N which could've been in the east Delta before unification. The Jordanians and Palestinians are next in line.
Europe_N and Anatolian_N f3 is not significantly lower than Stuttgart for Beduin A, but their Z score is way lower. Any Z< -4 shows admixture.
This is when African and EEF are references in f3 tests against coastal N Africa, the Levant, and Arabian Peninsula modern populations.
The others with Stuttgart related genomes are Lebanese and Syrian Moroccan and Libyan Jews Saudis.
All their Z scores also point to modern Sardinia, usually much lower than Neolithic Stuttgart.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Somebody asked about this a while but i can't find the post to reply. Don't laugh too hard at my %age guesses for pre-Ptolemaic.
Slide by Schuenemann from report in press. Can't wait? Go to her AAPA presentation on April 20.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [QB] Re: Oshun
Right??? It's like this guy is seriously expecting us to believe that this Tuareg from Algeria
I predict based on geographical distance that Taureg from Libya or Algeria will be closer genetically to Europeans than Sub-Saharan Africans. Those Taureg in the Sahel (southern Niger and Mali), i.e. on the border of Sub-Saharan Africa, will be closer genetically to Sub-Saharan Africans. This does not mean I am saying these populations are European or Sub-Saharan African - North Africa is intermediate between these extremes. But northernmost North African populations tend to be closer to Europeans based on closer geographical proximity, while the more southern populations, learn towards SSA's.
While we have little genetic data on the Taureg (and no modern cranial studies I'm aware of), I believe MtDNA roughly divides the Libyan/Algerian Taureg from Mali/Niger Taureg, so for example observe the Fst distance between [1] (Libyan Taureg) to [53] (Sahel Taureg). The former fall in the North African grouping by the analyst, but the latter with central sub-Saharan Africans.
Ottoni et al. 2009 "First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective".
There are several "Tuareg" ethnic groups stretching from the sub Sahara, into the Sahara into North Africa. Some of the ethnic groups indeed carry high signals of what is conciderd Eurasian, just like Hg E-M78 and others sequences have been considered "Eurasian". Heck, even E1b1b1b-M81 was considered Eurasian, and some still force this notion to be true.
quote:"In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81 [34], [35]. The Tuareg are seminomadic pastoralist groups that are mostly spread between Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Niger. *They speak a Berber language and are believed to be the descendents of the Garamantes people of Fezzan, Libya* (500 BC - 700 CE) [34]."
--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.
Genome-Wide and Paternal Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa
Kiffian
Forensic reconstruction Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
Forensic reconstruction Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Southern Europeans have as much as 80% African vs non-African per Lazaridis et al. That will never change.
stop making up stuff, thanks
Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry
It depends on how they describe the findings and by methodology being used. This will make it increase or decrease.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
Your question requires data from the early dynastic period in order for it to be answered in full and demands questions of its own. For instance, are these incredibly low levels of African Y-Chromosomes a continuum of predynastic and or early dynastic genetic profiles of Northern Egypt? Or did they make an appearance much later in the third intermediate period? If they precede the formation of the Egyptian State and the attendant identity that it created, then they are Egyptian by virtue of time and their early participation in the development of the Egyptian State, but their genes would concurrently be foreign to Africa in recognition of the fact that their genetic profiles developed outside of Africa.
If they arrived on the scene long after the formation of the Egyptian State, then they are not Egyptian in the ethnic sense -- naturalization notwithstanding.
You need to read this paper.
--Elena A.A. Garcea
Successes and failures of human dispersals from North Africa (2011)
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Somebody asked about this a while but i can't find the post to reply. Don't laugh too hard at my %age guesses for pre-Ptolemaic.
Slide by Schuenemann from report in press. Can't wait? Go to her AAPA presentation on April 20.
Glade to hear and see from you what has been discovered and reported.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I don't think I see any M1. To me that looks like it says M5.
I think it is M5 as well.
But I find it stranch if M1 was not found, especially since in eurocdntrism they've emphasized on this as being a return to Africa (Eurasian gene pool)
quote: Summary The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.
This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
Gurna near Luxor (see Figure 1). Gurna individuals hold an ancient cultural oral tradition that they con- sider as coming from ancient Egypt, and the inhabitants are sedentary people and quite isolated from recent in- fluence (as opposed to those of a large metropolis).
Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt
A. Stevanovitch1,*, A. Gilles2, E. Bouzaid1, R. Kefi1, F. Paris3, R. P. Gayraud4, J. L. Spadoni1, F. El-Chenawi5 andE. Béraud-Colomb1,*
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
This is indeed a great question and riddle.
quote: Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. 50% mtDNA L in ancient Iberians. Anatolia has an ancient presence of mtDNA L. There were SSA admixture going back 4000BC in Armenia. Sources cited.
That is why I say let us wait until the paper are FULLY released. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the AEians NOT to be Africans.
...
This is indeed very questionable.
quote:HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
—Fernández, E. et al., MtDNA analysis of ancient samples from Castellón (Spain): Diachronic variation and genetic relationships, International Congress Series, vol. 1288 (April 2006), pp. 127-129.
quote: The Mushabian culture (alternately, Mushabi or Mushabaean) is an Archaeological culture suggested to have originated east of the Levantine Rift Valley c. 14,000 BC in the Middle Epipaleolithic period.[1][2] Although the Mushabian industry was once thought to have originated in the Nile Valley it is now known to have originated in the previous lithic industries of the Levant.
[...]
Ricaut et al. (2008)[13] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant; and then into Europe.
So….”assuming” what Sage posted there is correct I don’t see what the big bruhahaha is about. Lol.. First these are mtDNA haplogroups, NOT yDNA haplogroups. Also these are not autosomal STR as was released in the Amarnas and Rameses III and man E. In other words the picture does not debunk or contradict previous released data about AEians being SSA. I don’t see what the big deal is. This was another sensationalism type headline.
If you break done mtDNA haplgroup by haplogroup these are all Africans EXCEPT maybe mtDNA J. But mtDNA J is also found in Bantus in West Africa. So I don’t get it.
HV = Yemen/Sudan H = North African T2 = Kenya T1= Kenya T=Kenya U (6) = North Africa R0 = Sudan/Near east R= Sudan/Near East X=North Africa W = North Africa I = Kenya N= Ethiopia/Yemen M1 = throughout Sub Saharan Africa L4 = Yemen and East Africa L3 = North And SSA L2 = Africa L1= Africa L0= Africa
I thought the study included TreeMix with ADMIXTURE
These are Great Lakes Africans with Yemenis mixed in!! Who we know are Africanized. So, What is the argument about again?
Now I understand what they mean by “ANCIENT” Near East and not the modern Near East.
Notice there is “no” European mtDNA H1 and H3. These are Africans!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
. I dunno, but, the Israeli Bedouin A sample are the closest to Stuttgart and would likely be sourced from Levant_N which could've been in the east Delta before unification. The Jordanians and Palestinians are next in line.
Europe_N and Anatolian_N f3 is not significantly lower than Stuttgart for Beduin A, but their Z score is way lower. Any Z< -4 shows admixture.
This is when African and EEF are references in f3 tests against coastal N Africa, the Levant, and Arabian Peninsula modern populations.
The others with Stuttgart related genomes are Lebanese and Syrian Moroccan and Libyan Jews Saudis.
All their Z scores also point to modern Sardinia, usually much lower than Neolithic Stuttgart.
From what I understand the origin of the Levantine Bedouin lies at the Negev Bedouin.
These people look very close to the ancient Egyptian glazed art/ heads.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are Sub Saharan Africans!! Assuming what is posted by Sage is correct.
Quotes:
In Africa, haplogroup T is primarily found among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations, including the basal T* clade.[1] Some non-basal T clades are also commonly found among the Niger-Congo-speaking Serer
In Africa, haplogroup J is concentrated in the northeast. It is found among Algerians (3.23%-14.52%),[10] as well as Copts (10.3% J1a; 10.3% J2),[11] Sudanese Fulani (10.7% J1b),[11] Meseria (6.7% J1b),[11] Arakien (5.9% J1b),[11] Egyptians (5.9%),[12] Mozabite Berbers (3.53%),[10] Sudanese Hausa (2.9% J1b),[11] Zenata Berbers (2.74%),[10] Beja (2.1% J1b),[11] and Reguibate Sahrawi (0.93%).[10]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said I was not worried.
So….”assuming” what Sage posted there is correct I don’t see what the big bruhahaha is about. Lol.. First these are mtDNA haplogroups, NOT yDNA haplogroups. Also these are not autosomal STR as was released in the Amarnas and Rameses III and man E. In other words the picture does not debunk or contradict previous released data about AEians being SSA. I don’t see what the big deal is. This was another sensationalism type headline.
If you break done mtDNA haplgroup by haplogroup these are all Africans EXCEPT maybe mtDNA J. But mtDNA J is also found in Bantus in West Africa. So I don’t get it.
HV = Yemen/Sudan H = North African T2 = Kenya T1= Kenya T=Kenya U (6) = North Africa R0 = Sudan/Near east R= Sudan/Near East X=North Africa W = North Africa I = Kenya N= Ethiopia/Yemen M1 = throughout Sub Saharan Africa L4 = Yemen and East Africa L3 = North And SSA L2 = Africa L1= Africa L0= Africa
I thought the study included TreeMix with ADMIXTURE
These are Great Lakes Africans with Yemenis mixed in!! Who we know are Africanized. So, What is the argument about again?
Now I understand what they mean by “ANCIENT” Near East and not the modern Near East.
Notice there is “no” European mtDNA H1 and H3. These are Africans!!
Strangly R0 relates close to dark skinned populations who look like East Africans. As do many of the other Haplo types.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
All these haplogroups are found in Sub-Saharan Africa and Yemen. So how can they assert that and increase in SSA AFTER Roman period. Are they assuming mtDNA L1-3 is the ONLY SSA lineage when SSA carry the BASAL clades of most of these. Lol! Come on Sweetness and AstenB stop your bulshyte!!
These are NOT Europeans these are Africans from the Great Lakes and Sudan…and the Affricanized Yemenis.
The highest frequency of mtDNA I is found in SSA in the south of Arabia. Yemen/Socotri(sp?)
Quote: “Outside of Europe, the highest frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroup I observed so far appear in the Cushitic-speaking El Molo (23%) and Rendille (>17%) in northern Kenya (Castrì 2008). The clade is also found at comparable frequencies among the Socotri (~22%).[1]”
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic