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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA. (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  26  27  28   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA.
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Swenet and BBH.....Ok so I re-read the paper, you guys were right it was a Response to Ehret and Keita's position by Peter Bellwood, Dept. of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT. He prposes the Natufian complex is where AA originated and questions Omotic is even part of the family.

Sorry I mis-read..lol

and yes Swenet I would def. like a copy, though Im going to be out at sea(With the Navy) in the net few months Ill give you my Email or PM you when Im back assuming you're finished by then.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I think the author may have been someone else. Keita has been debunking Nostraticists (or, at least, the version of Nostraticism that sees Afroasiatic as a branch within Nostratic) for a long time and has published work with Ehret doing the same:

Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40034328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

quote:
Originally posted by Jari:
I would be really interested in your finds on Egypt's relationship with the Levant.

When I have a presentable draft I'll send it to you if you're interested.

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You should get no heat because you are right the bible does group the Levantines aka Cannanites with Ham's proginity(Egyptians, Ethiopian, North Africans and Levantines.) Not only the Hebrews but the Greeks with Eastern Aethiopia and Herodotus' claims of black curly haired Colchians, and even dark brown bedouin Syrians made by the Egyptians. Heck many of the Arab posters here will admit that the dark Bedouins and Arabs are an aboriginal type, a proto Caucasian dark skinned people.

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:


I personally believe the Ancient Egyptians and early Levantine populations were almost the same. And I believe the bible(I know I am gonna get a lot of heat from this) kinda cosigns it.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
This is the response I received from Sarkoboros when I commented on his post:

quote:
I find a lot to object to in Pagani et al.’s piece. Masking leaves me uneasy even when the target isn’t the vast majority of your samples’ ancestry (roughly 80%, of modern Egyptian ancestry, iirc more in Copts, seems to be Eurasian) and we have a more constrained sense of what the reference populations ought to be. See the discussion of the analogously mostly European Aleut samples in the SI for Reich et al. 2012.

Even had it worked perfectly, I’m not sure what point it makes. We know that the non-Eurasian ancestry in modern Egyptians is a palimpsest, and the admixture signal most readily retrieved by linkage disequilibrium methods (I would bet there are earlier events beyond easy resolution) looks like a pulse input of “Nilotic” ancestry just 25 generations ago. (I’m quite sure however that this isn’t the sole contribution and expect heterogeneity across Egypt in sources, proportions, and timing.) Not to acknowledge this — that’s a major problem.

I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.


It seems most people are on the same page, however, I would be incredibly surprised if we found "WHG-like" ancestry in Early dynastic Egyptians, where would it come from? I find it incredible how we found a way to lump two source populations separated by over 10 millennia together. The unidirectional dispersal pattern of a population such as Basal Eurasian is enigmatic to me because it seems improbable in the first place with all things considered. This component is really faint in non-Eurasian admixed extant populations of eastern Africa, for a population that is postulated to have emerged south east Sudan or the Sahara by some. Anything that remotely resembles or smells like a possible PreOOA Basal Eurasian Geneset is accompanied by peripheral OOA admixture, notably West Asian. I'm basically saying that Basal Eurasian as a lingering pre-OOA component won't be distinguished if its here or there or nowhere at all & WHG-like ancestry in the nile valley should be indicative of introgression from early Levantine or other Eurasian populations alike.

I also forgot the fact that it was the possible Nilotic component via Maasai that was estimated to have mixed in 750ya, If the variables are consistent we might see signals of Bantu-Like/Luhya Ancestry if any SSA element persist?(henn et al 2012) - eh, its w/e, Considering the obvious & well known fact that there was a Nilotic presence in the earliest state formation of Kemet, IDK how to feel about this. - I'll just wait for more tangible info

SideNote: Jari & BBH
What do you think about the glaring cultural differences specifically during the beginning of both near-middle eastern & Egyptian populations.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^^
Honestly I dont think the two groups were closely related outside trade and language, though there is evidence of Lower Egypt being culturally different than Upper Egypt during predynastic times and the two cultures Merging with the conquest of Lower Egypt and the Delta by the more advanced culture of Upper Egypt/Lower Nubia and the formation of Dynastic/Pharonic Egypt. I could see Levantine types being incorporated into the Delta sphere of influence. Dont forget I think as early as the 3rd Dynasty the Egyptians were colonizing/mining the Sinai Peninsula...

The son of King Khasekhemwy and Queen Nimathap. Djoser engaged in several military conquests as king into the Sinai Peninsula.

but that is my opinion from what Ive researched over the years...
[edit]

This is why Im interested in Swenet's finding on the Levantines, as I dont have a concrete argument due to lack of in depth research..

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^I can see why you mistook that as Keita's article due to the layout of the letters.

You won't be disappointed regarding what I have to say about the Levant. Trust me. When you get back this will blow your socks off.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
T-Rex posted this and no one bit. SMH. Sarkoborosis here admitting “basal Eurasian” is African. He is admitting Europeans are a subset of Africans. And no one got that?!

BS!!! @ “I doubt it’s **entirely** the former”

Quote
“I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.”

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"entirely" doesn't he realize that WHG is also of African origin. lol! Or is he blindly stubborn and refuse to believe that his world is crumbling?


In North Africa the semi-isolated Canary Islanders carry the high frequency of WHG. San carry a high frequency of WHG also. Doesn't he see what is happening? lol!

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Swenet count me in for that draft when you're done > [Big Grin]

--------------------
 -

Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square.

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Jari

Like I said you should check out the thread I linked because I actually address all of that with sources from the Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Romans and other classical writers. Classical writers also differentiated the darker Canaanites and the whiter ones.


PS: You're in the Navy!? thats pretty neat! I have friends that are in the marines. You're lucky to see the whole world. I know I would be glad to because I myself love traveling.


@Elmaestro

I don't know about Upper Egypt but in my opinion Lower Egypt maybe cultural similar to the Levant. But however I heard that Lower Egypt was sparsely populated. I agree with Jari that most similarities would come with trade.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.

Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking?

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Swenet count me in for that draft when you're done > [Big Grin]

Same here. Would also like to hear his thoughts on Sarko's response to my comment.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You should get no heat because you are right the bible does group the Levantines aka Cannanites with Ham's proginity(Egyptians, Ethiopian, North Africans and Levantines.) Not only the Hebrews but the Greeks with Eastern Aethiopia and Herodotus' claims of black curly haired Colchians, and even dark brown bedouin Syrians made by the Egyptians. Heck many of the Arab posters here will admit that the dark Bedouins and Arabs are an aboriginal type, a proto Caucasian dark skinned people.

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:


I personally believe the Ancient Egyptians and early Levantine populations were almost the same. And I believe the bible(I know I am gonna get a lot of heat from this) kinda cosigns it.


Yet, Hippocrates describes the Colchian skin colour as ὠχρός (ochros), yellow-white/sallow-

"To Hippocrates the Phasians of Colchis were sallow (ochros) (Aer 15) whilst the complexions of the modern Georgian population have been described as 'fair, sallow or ruddy' (Land, The Georgians, p. 19)." - Lloyd, A.B. 1975. Herodotus, Book II: Introduction. Leiden. p. 22

I do see sallow complexion in Caucasus populations like Georgians from photos I have seen, particularly among the women; Tamar Iveri (google image) is a good example; clearly Herodotus was mistaken, although what he wrote might actually be interpreted in different ways. Frank Snowden offered a good explanation, but I can't be bothered to dig it up right now.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.
And what is the % of near-eastern admixture? There is a wide range of estimates; I put a quote from Pinhasi saying from 20 to 70%. Regardless there is no "basal Eurasian" even if applied Mesolithic/Neolithic:

"Mesolithic or Neolithic origin, genetic studies have delivered diverse and often conflicting inferences on the contribution of NE/A farmers to the modern European gene pool. Estimates for this contribution have varied from 20% to 70%." - Pinhasi et al 2012 "Genetic History of Europeans"

There's nothing as of yet falsifying the lower estimates in the 20% range that are in line with my own views.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Genetics is above his pay grade . ..reading and comprehending problems ?

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.

Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking?


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Genetics is above his pay grade . ..reading and comprehending problems ?

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe

This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.

Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking?


Show me the Ancient DNA studies that show massive near eastern (or in your view African) admixture in Europe.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!

Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!

this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.

everything is aligning now

quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
T-Rex posted this and no one bit. SMH. Sarkoborosis here admitting “basal Eurasian” is African. He is admitting Europeans are a subset of Africans. And no one got that?!

BS!!! @ “I doubt it’s **entirely** the former”

Quote
“I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.”


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Punos and Nodnarb
Count yourselves in. I'll just PM you here Punos and Nodnarb I will contact you on fb when I'm ready. Beyoku, you already know you're in, too.

@Nodnarb

I wanted to reply with all sorts of stuff but I don't want to give away the stuff I've reserved for my book too much. The thing though is that the most important information in the Pagani paper does not derive from what I think are poorly masked Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes. It derives from the preOOA haplotype (or small set of haplotypes, I can't remember how many) that they counted in various regions in Africa and that appeared most in Egypt out of all African regions. See the figure with the green, blue, white etc. vertical bar charts, which has nothing to do with the masked genomes and is separate analysis. I find it interesting that that blogger said absolutely nothing about this. I also don't think you brought up masked genomes so it just distracts from your question (he might not have done it intentionally though).

BTW, I'm going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that this is correct. You might want to reread the paper to be absolutely 100% certain that they are two separate analyses. This (double checking) is always good practice in debates. Look at my overestimated recollection of Levantine TribeScores.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Swenet

Basically I cited Pagani et al not for the masking stuff but to back up my suggestion that there would be an indigenous African element in AE that would look pre-OOA rather than stereotypically equatorial African (what you and others would call SSA). Sarko seems to acknowledge the possibility that "Basal Eurasian" split off from proper Eurasian ancestry while still in Africa, but given his expectation of significant WHG ancestry in early dynastic Egyptians, I am less confident he's open to our point of view.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Xyyman

For someone who goes around calling others 'pussy' you sure love to quote the "lying white man" (your words) for 'extra credibility'. Ole appeal to authority a**. Ole I can't make up my mind up whether to seek their approval or curse them out a** [Razz] You posted a rolling eyes emoji when I said that lurkers will be going to European blogs but you know you can't stay away from Davidski's blog. Lol. All over that site's comment section scavenging for perceived agreement. I bet you're going to be all over Sarkoboros' blog now too because of that little bone he threw you.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Swenet

Basically I cited Pagani et al not for the masking stuff but to back up my suggestion that there would be an indigenous African element in AE that would look pre-OOA rather than stereotypically equatorial African (what you and others would call SSA). Sarko seems to acknowledge the possibility that "Basal Eurasian" split off from proper Eurasian ancestry while still in Africa, but given his expectation of significant WHG ancestry in early dynastic Egyptians, I am less confident he's open to our point of view.

Dynastic AE did change over time and was surrounded by EEF-like groups (or let me say ENF-like groups to get rid of the European connotation). If he means that WHG would have come as part of ENF-like populations I don't necessarily disagree with him because WHG (or some other HG component) is naturally built into all ENF genomes given their origins as partially North African and partially local HG. If he means that there would have been additional WHG on top of that, that seems uncalled for. Northeast Africans, even highly admixed Ethio-Semitic speakers, have very little WHG independent of their ENF-like ancestry. Some U6 carrying West Africans might have more WHG than northeast Africans via Afalou and Taforalt-like groups. You can still see WHG-like ancestry in Northwest Africans. For instance, the black Loschbour component here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886/F3.large.jpg

Note that there is very little of it even in modern Egypt. I think if dynastic AE have had it, it would have come from the Maghreb, not Europe or as part of some population replacement or colonization as he seems to hint at when he says modern Egyptians are at least 80% Eurasian.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Punos and Nodnarb
Count yourselves in. I'll just PM you here Punos and Nodnarb I will contact you on fb when I'm ready. Beyoku, you already know you're in, too.

@Nodnarb

I wanted to reply with all sorts of stuff but I don't want to give away the stuff I've reserved for my book too much. The thing though is that the most important information in the Pagani paper does not derive from what I think are poorly masked Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes. It derives from the preOOA haplotype (or small set of haplotypes, I can't remember how many) that they counted in various regions in Africa and that appeared most in Egypt out of all African regions. See the figure with the green, blue, white etc. vertical bar charts, which has nothing to do with the masked genomes and is separate analysis. I find it interesting that that blogger said absolutely nothing about this. I also don't think you brought up masked genomes so it just distracts from your question (he might not have done it intentionally though).

BTW, I'm going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that this is correct. You might want to reread the paper to be absolutely 100% certain that they are two separate analyses. This (double checking) is always good practice in debates. Look at my overestimated recollection of Levantine TribeScores.

Can I get a PM too please????
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!

Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!

this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.

everything is aligning now

Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.

Fu et al do mention at roughly the start of the Holocene: "all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East." That's great (no one has denied some Near East gene flow), but what is the figure of %. [Confused] [Confused] [Confused] None provided as usual and this is irritating, and as I said the estimates range from 20 - 70%, and none of these studies are ever specific. The lower estimates do not contradict IBD, and note Fu et al also mention isolation-by-distance in relation to population structure and Near eastern ancestry in Europe: "a plausible alter-native is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe harboured multiple groups [i.e. a cline] that differed in their relationship to the Near East".

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
.
First off,. Davidski is a fool. A dogmatic one at that. He is being beaten over the head that the male line did NOT come from the Steppes but he refuse to admit it, why? Spinning all the BS not to acknowledge that fact. I go to his blog because it saves me time on searching the web for research papers. He usually has the inside track on the latest news and events. Dumb as a door knob but he serves my purpose. Dienekes was that to me same as FTDNA Forum, I was kicked out.. These site are now dead and what they are spweing has played out. He doesn’t welcome decent now. His site will die also. Maybe ES do have a long life. So too has ESR. One extremely conservative but well managed by Brada and the other where anything goes. Both successful. Why?

Bottom-line is white people do the research, they lie, yes, most do, but the good part of all this is they provide the data pack for us layperson to anaylze. Anyone with half a brain will acknowledge that Europeans are depigmented Africans. They are as much as 80% EEf in some regions. As your boy Sakros just admitted and agreed with me. Basal Eurasian is African. I knew that over 3years ago when I analyzed the paper by Lazaridis. This is not rocket science.


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Xyyman

For someone who goes around calling others 'pussy' you sure love to quote the "lying white man" (your words) for 'extra credibility'. Ole appeal to authority a**. Ole I can't make up my mind up whether to seek their approval or curse them out a** :p You posted a rolling eyes emoji when I said that lurkers will be going to European blogs but you know you can't stay away from Davidski's blog. Lol. All over that site's comment section scavenging for perceived agreement. I bet you're going to be all over Sarkoboros' blog now too because of that little bone he threw you.


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW – if you read Davidski bloggers you will be entertained. It is unbelievable the fantsay BS that rolls out of their brick head. And Davidski is part of that dumb clan. The few who has some abstarct analytical ability are also fearful. They know R1b-M269 has a southern origin but fearful of saying African . They use the code-word like “Isles”. Like Islands off Africa. Malta, Sardinia, Sicily etc. Like these ancient humans “appeared” from nowhere and or evolve in the….. Isles. Lol! Dumb fugks!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Remember there was a concerted effort to get me kicked off of here, ES, also. lol! Maybe I should and then I will refocus only playing ball again.

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dummy. Read the Lazaridis papers. ALL THREE OF THEM!! Read Matheisen et al also and many papers within the last 3-4 years. Read Rosenberg from 2002. This is not a secret. The Lazaridis paper was co-authored by over 100 well know geneticist. YES, 100!!!!!!!!!! Not two or three. Over 100!!!!! It was a landmark paper. Fu probaly co-authored also. You don’t understand the Fu paper and the context. This is not bone-ology0 This hard science not susceptible to mis-interpretation,.


quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!

Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!

this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.

everything is aligning now

Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.

Fu et al do mention at roughly the start of the Holocene: "all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East." That's great (no one has denied some Near East gene flow), but what is the figure of %. [Confused] [Confused] [Confused] None provided as usual and this is irritating, and as I said the estimates range from 20 - 70%, and none of these studies are ever specific. The lower estimates do not contradict IBD, and note Fu et al also mention isolation-by-distance in relation to population structure and Near eastern ancestry in Europe: "a plausible alter-native is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe harboured multiple groups [i.e. a cline] that differed in their relationship to the Near East".


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bingo. [Smile]

Just found a study last month.

The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers
Jones et al. Current Biology. 2017 27(4):576–582

"The emergence of Neolithic features in the absence of immigration by Anatolian farmers highlights the roles of horizontal cultural transmission and potentially independent innovation during the Neolithic transition."

And I'm thinking many geneticist have overestimated near-eastern admixture for other European regions, it doesn't make much sense you find negligible admixture in the Baltic, but massive elsewhere. I think more evidence will come to light supporting the cultural transmission model.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass - I will help you out. There are tables in the Lazaridis paper. I posted here and on ESR. Most southern Europeans are a high 80% EEF. Even your Nordic Scandanians are as much as 55% Africa Neolithics. Yes, Nordics are more ANE than WHG but mostly EEF.

Looks are deceiving …plasticity?

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
my advice READ the paper, UNDERSTAND it then get back to me. You are talking above your pay grade. AMRTU where are you?

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Bingo. :)

Just found a study last month.

The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers
Jones et al. Current Biology. 2017 27(4):576–582

"The emergence of Neolithic features in the absence of immigration by Anatolian farmers highlights the roles of horizontal cultural transmission and potentially independent innovation during the Neolithic transition."

And I'm thinking many geneticist have overestimated near-eastern admixture for other European regions, it doesn't make much sense you find negligible admixture in the Baltic, but massive elsewhere. I think more evidence will come to light supporting the cultural transmission model.


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
C'mon gramps. You know you have three Davidski tabs open right now. Bookmarked and everything. Stop lying. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Can I get a PM too please????

You're in..
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been very interested in your research since our discussions. Mind if I get a PM too @Swenet?

Really want to see what you say on the early Maghrebi population.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is why the aDNA in stone age Malawi will be revealing. Can’t wait for the paper. While you guys are getting a hard-on about the OP. The real teaser is LSA Malawi aDNA. The skeleton had Caucasoid features and the author is implying he had “Eurasian” DNA. I am think Basal Eurasian in LSA Africa!!!!! That would be a bombshell. I wonder how they will spin it. Let me see. …….”he was a Eurasian King who had slaves in Southern Africa”…lol! you can’t make this stuff up.

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking? [/QB]

Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.

I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
 -

YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.


Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@BBH

Got you. Anyone else can leave a note in this thread or PM so we don't take away from others reading experience here. Updates will be posted there also.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what does all this mean? There is no race. There never was. It is called isolation by distance ie gnetic surfing. Sergio was correct..mostly. Coon was correct…mostly. Neolithics that make up most Euroepans has an African origin most likely close to the Great lake….anyone saying Malawi? DNA is prving them to be correct. Europeans are depigmented Africans. A subset of Africans. Can wait for that Malawi paper of LSA Africans.

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.

I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.


It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.

nonetheless, there's no published Distance measurement/FST values for the pop that I'm nudging you to look at, with Natufians. Also, even if there were, as it relates to your point it doesn't matter. You were trying to trace OOA AE presence using the ghost component, a preOOA Basal-EA component, I think you're preemptively lumping characteristics of a not yet sequenced pop with the EEF. What you say in regards to proportional YRI-Natufian/BasalEA might hold true, but its the mechanism or prehistoric events that you should highlight. The ones that could potentially explain the relationship between the composite population that is YRI, and EEF.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of curse there are still puzzles. Like why r1b-m269 came to dominate in the North of the Sahara in Europe. And e1b1a south of the Sahara. two very young clades why the older clades virtually vanished. Was there an ancient FEMALE dominated society? Did women hold the power . I am speculating that is the case.

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.

I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.


It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.

nonetheless, there's no published Distance measurement/FST values for the pop that I'm nudging you to look at, with Natufians. Also, even if there were, as it relates to your point it doesn't matter. You were trying to trace OOA AE presence using the ghost component, a preOOA Basal-EA component, I think you're preemptively lumping characteristics of a not yet sequenced pop with the EEF. What you say in regards to proportional YRI-Natufian/BasalEA might hold true, but its the mechanism or prehistoric events that you should highlight. The ones that could potentially explain the relationship between the composite population that is YRI, and EEF.

Ancient samples with substantial SSA admixture have come forth (e.g. Switzerland HG can be modeled as WHG + Mota). Your problem is that doesn't happen with Eurasian samples with known Egyptian DNA and YDNAs (at least it does not to the same degree), and so you're salty and start making weak objections. But your objections don't bespeak familiarity with the literature so there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Xyman,

Mittnik et al. 2017 "The Genetic History of Northern Europe" (forthcoming)

Neolithic Baltics (Kunda):

 -
No orange (EEF). [Eek!] [Big Grin] [Wink]

If we have this in the Baltic, why not other pockets of Europe, that haven't even been sampled yet for ancient DNA? Also, doesn't this suggest other areas are perhaps overestimated for admixture? Time will tell.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
for those relatively new, can someone explain acronyms like eef ,whg, etc??
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.

I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.


It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.

nonetheless, there's no published Distance measurement/FST values for the pop that I'm nudging you to look at, with Natufians. Also, even if there were, as it relates to your point it doesn't matter. You were trying to trace OOA AE presence using the ghost component, a preOOA Basal-EA component, I think you're preemptively lumping characteristics of a not yet sequenced pop with the EEF. What you say in regards to proportional YRI-Natufian/BasalEA might hold true, but its the mechanism or prehistoric events that you should highlight. The ones that could potentially explain the relationship between the composite population that is YRI, and EEF.

Ancient samples with SSA admixture have come forth (e.g. Switzerland HG can be modeled as WHG + Mota). Your problem is that doesn't happen with Eurasian samples with known Egyptian DNA (at least it does not to the same degree), and so you're salty and start making weak objections. But your objections don't bespeak familiarity with the literature so there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
Lmao what... Look at the image you posted... It's not my problem.
You approach me as if we have history, bruh, do your thing and stop stressing about what you beleive I feel... Talk data, every time you press me with this presumptuous rhetoric is a waste of energy for your fingers.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).

You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.

If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
for those relatively new, can someone explain acronyms like eef ,whg, etc??

I only learnt what those were recently. EEF= early European farmers (but since farming spread from Anatolia/Levant they should not be confused as indigenous to Europe), WHG/EHG = western and eastern European hunter gatherers i.e. indigenous. The 2017 study I posted introduces SHG as Scandinavian hunter gatherers as a clinal population between WHG/EHG.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
So what does all this mean? There is no race. There never was. It is called isolation by distance ie gnetic surfing. Sergio was correct..mostly. Coon was correct…mostly. Neolithics that make up most Euroepans has an African origin most likely close to the Great lake….anyone saying Malawi? DNA is prving them to be correct. Europeans are depigmented Africans. A subset of Africans. Can wait for that Malawi paper of LSA Africans.

lol. You cannot be proposing IBD if you're saying Europeans are up to 80% EEF (who you think are Africans). The model I propose is IBD, hence why I support the cultural transmission model of farming (with small-scale neighbouring amount of gene flow from Levant > Europe). We're now getting ancient DNA on Neolithic Baltics which shows EEF admixture in them is negligible to non-existent. This supports IBD and the cultural transmission model rather than those people arguing for large scale admixture or near population replacement.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol @ "presumptuous rethoric". This dude really thinks I'm not onto his fake act of feigning familiarity with the data. All he does is try to lecture people on stuff he learned yesterday and expects people to not point out how wet behind the ears he is on this subject.

Not too long he was trying to lecture Nodnarb about how E carriers must necessarily be SSA in autosomal makeup. A week later the same turd flip flopped from lecturing, to asking questions how come Natufians don't cluster like a typical hybrid SSA population in light of their E haplogroups. One cannot know and not know at the same time. Either you know, or you don't know. Typical newbie trying to flip flop flop from lecturing to leeching information (which he will then use to lecture people again a day later). Amun Ra all over again.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.

I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.

But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).

You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.

If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?

According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geebers, You've got me all figured out,
But let's say I did learn everything "yesterday" ...kek
**** does that have to do with what we were talking about, swenet.

How many times have I attacked you Swenet. Accused you of lying swenet, or even straight up call you out for saying some BULLSHIT un-aggravated Swenet...? If I'm wrong say I'm wrong and for what, I mean... You do it with everyone else but you treat me differently, are you in love with me swenet, talk data bruh... If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mukherjee's 'Negro Egyptian' sample dates to the Roman period (200-400 AD) and has Egyptian cultural associations.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Irish/publication/229961799_The_Ancient_Inhabitants_of_Jebel_Moya_Redux_Measures_of_Population_Affinity_Based_on_Dental_Morphology/links/0 0b7d513f1a2865920000000.pdf

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  26  27  28   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


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


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3