quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Blah Blah Blah....I really dont want to use my brain to break down that abstract and what It could mean.
That is why I thought. A bunch of idol talk.
quote: Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
The earliest samples are from around 1000 B.C. - Prior to the Nubian Dynasty. Time to cut the ****, man up and put on your thinking cap. In my ES ideological days, the same ideology most of y'all hold RIGHT NOW - There was no argument that I could make where Egyptians from 1000BC, prior to the Nubian Dynasties, would be LESS Sub Saharan than they are now.
How in ES Dogma do remain from 3000 Years ago have less SSA than today, using the robust sampling we use today?
Please dont waste time appealing to the board and talking about the racism or white people. Please save your typing skills to instead speak specifically on this data and how it can be explained to your advantage. You have been on this board for 12 years, you shouldnt need google for this answer. BE, ENF, WHG, ANE, EEF are term you should use to your advantage right now and understand that they mean. Dates are good, SPECIFIC cultures in Africa and Eurasia are also good to use. Man up, time to fight with the big boys. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
........
Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
quote: Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
So you haven't read studies that point out Eurasians diverge from Africans at at time PRIOR to OOA? So you haven't read studies that point out Native Americans diverge from Asians at a time PRIOR to when the Americas was populated? You are YEARS Behind man....YEARS!
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Blah Blah Blah....I really dont want to use my brain to break down that abstract and what It could mean.
That is why I thought. A bunch of idol talk.
quote: Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
The earliest samples are from around 1000 B.C. - Prior to the Nubian Dynasty. Time to cut the ****, man up and put on your thinking cap. In my ES ideological days, the same ideology most of y'all hold RIGHT NOW - There was no argument that I could make where Egyptians from 1000BC, prior to the Nubian Dynasties, would be LESS Sub Saharan than they are now.
How in ES Dogma do remain from 3000 Years ago have less SSA than today, using the robust sampling we use today?
Please dont waste time appealing to the board and talking about the racism or white people. Please save your typing skills to instead speak specifically on this data and how it can be explained to your advantage. You have been on this board for 12 years, you shouldnt need google for this answer. BE, ENF, WHG, ANE, EEF are term you should use to your advantage right now and understand that they mean. Dates are good, SPECIFIC cultures in Africa and Eurasia are also good to use. Man up, time to fight with the big boys.
Again, first off what on earth are you talking about? I already posted my opinion on the abstract and your attempts to pretend it means more than it does are telling. You indeed are acting like that kid in the gif you posted.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
........
Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
quote: Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
So you haven't read studies that point out Eurasians diverge from Africans at at time PRIOR to OOA? So you haven't read studies that point out Native Americans diverge from Asians at a time PRIOR to when the Americas was populated? You are YEARS Behind man....YEARS!
So are you saying that SCIENCE proves that there was a genetic marker that evolved in Africa among Africans before leaving Africa that made them into Europeans?
Again, don't get into semantic debates with me. Words count. To say that Eurasian lineages diverged in Africa before leaving Africa means that the Africans are the parent population of Europeans, which everybody knows. Just as the divergence of Amerindian DNA in Asia only proves what we already know that Asians are the parent population of Amerindians. That does NOT mean that Asians turned into Amerindians before leaving Asia. Native American, African and European are geographic labels being applied to DNA markers. You cant have "European" DNA if that DNA did not evolve in Europe. Hence whatever divergence happened in Africa before leaving, it did not turn those people into Europeans.
This really is going off topic and has nothing to do with the original post. Which I already addressed previously.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Doug Do you believe Early farmers were in Africa during the dry-phase?
Let me reiterate what I am saying for clarity as it relates to specific populations of "Early Farmers" in Africa:
Again, the issue here is those populations of AFRICANS who formed the core of the early populations in the Levant who developed farming. The DATA suggests that these populations of AFRICANS carried a toolkit that laid the basis for the evolution of farming in the Levant. And there is a further possibility that these populations of Africans were part of a group of AFRICANs who were already doing some level of plant domestication BEFORE leaving Africa. Of course this is a very small population and that population is what we are calling the African Proto Farming community. The question becomes if we can identify this population by genetic markers alone or via archaeological evidence in Africa and how isolated was this population from other surrounding Africans. Much of what we know about farming in Africa is that the spread took place after the development in the Levant. But is it possible that there was a smaller parallel development in Africa along the lines of the early domestication that took place among the ancestors and those who left Africa and migrated to the Levant. This is what I am calling the needle in a haystack. But make no mistake the needle and the haystack is African in terms of the DNA we are talking about. Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Speaking on DNA do you understand what the word "Diverge" means? Secondly, I reviewed the thread.
-The first time you open your mouth you start with :
quote: The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans....
You avoid the data all together instead focusing on your favorite friends : Europeans. -Your second comment talks about race and skin color...you avoid the data like the plague. -Third comment? Data dodge and a blurb on white racism..
quote: "Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color....." top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.....That is racialism or racism"........
-4th comment - data dodge. -5th comment - data dodge. "Racist Nazis in Europe", racist racism. Europe...european racist science.... -6th - data dodge. "racism", "Aryans". "Europe", "whites".
We are NOW at page 5, and your seventh post on the data describes it as "less than useless" but you weasel in the idea its useless regarding the "origin and development of AE society." :rolleyes - WHOA...wait a minute, you ignore biological affinity all together!
All of your subsequent posts argue on how the DATA should be changed...you want to keep your narrative the same.
You are just like Donald Trump.....a clown.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again trying to argue that the DATA ITSELF is racist is beyond ridiculous. I believe someone mentioned that it depends on how it is "interpreted" but still that doesn't even matter when AGAIN looking at the raw DATA. It is what it is.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya "EEF" is only 7,500 yo
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
[/b]- Eastern non-African (ENA),[/b] this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
quote: Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
Iosif Lazaridis, 2014
Abstract We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000 year old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analyzed these and other ancient genomes1–4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farmers (EEF), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that EEF had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages.
We found no models that fit the data with 0 or 1 admixture events, but did find a model that fit with 2 admixture events (SI14). The successful model (Fig. 2A) confirms the existence of MA1-related admixture in Native Americans3, but includes the novel inference that Stuttgart is partially (44 ± 10%) derived from a lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE. The existence of such “Basal Eurasian” admixture into Stuttgart provides a simple explanation for our finding that diverse eastern non-African populations share significantly more alleles with ancient European and Upper Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers than with Stuttgart (that is, f4(Eastern non-African, Chimp; Hunter-gatherer, Stuttgart) is significantly positive), but that hunter-gatherers appear to be equally related to most eastern groups (SI14). We verified the robustness of the model by reanalyzing the data using the unsupervised MixMapper7 (SI15) and TreeMix21 software (SI16), which both identified the same admixture events. The ANE/WHG split must have occurred >24,000 years ago (as it must predate the age of MA13), and the WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 or Arabia24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).
Several questions will be important to address in future ancient DNA work. Where and when did the Near Eastern farmers admix with European hunter-gatherers to produce the EEF? How did the ancestors of present-day Europeans first acquire their ANE ancestry? Discontinuity in central Europe during the late Neolithic (~4,500 years ago) associated with the appearance of mtDNA types absent in earlier farmers and hunter-gatherers30 raises the possibility that ANE ancestry may have also appeared at this time. Finally, it is important to study ancient genome sequences from the Near East to provide insights into the history of the Basal Eurasians.
posted
Lol. Egyptian aDNA around 1000BC was all fine and dandy when Ramses III and his son were predicted E1b1a. People can't seem to make up their mind. First, 20th dynasty aDNA (dating around 1000BC) is interpreted as a transplant from South Africa and the Great Lakes and filled with E1b1a. Now aDNA from the same general era is suspicious "white man's science" and "useless".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ok, let's look at the Sahara then. We have pottery spreading over the Sahara as a very early marker of SSA-affiliated groups. Ok, we all know that's a clear example of what Doug is talking about (at least in terms of cultural influence).
What about before this period? Would be interesting to see substantial specifics of that. And before people start moving the goal post. The period before the period in the map below is the goal post:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Egyptian aDNA around 1000BC was all fine and dandy when Ramses III and his son were predicted E1b1a. People can't seem to make up their mind. First, 20th dynasty aDNA (dating around 1000BC) is interpreted as a transplant from South Africa and the Great Lakes and filled with E1b1a. Now aDNA from the same general era is suspicious "white man's science" and "useless".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
I thought I answered the bolded question, but anyways heres my personal thoughts.
I believe the ancestor of West African people would have been in the Sudan/Chad area where they have not yet migrated to West Africa.OR they would have BEEN in West Africa since AT LEAST around 30-50k years based on L3e.
AA speakers specifically Horners I do not believe have yet split from the ancestors of Ancient Egyptians based on E-V22 which was brought down to the Horn if I remember correctly.
But yeah Africans would not be going "back and forth" until the Green Sahara which came quite recent in terms of PREHISTORIC African history.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Speaking on DNA do you understand what the word "Diverge" means? Secondly, I reviewed the thread.
-The first time you open your mouth you start with :
quote: The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans....
You avoid the data all together instead focusing on your favorite friends : Europeans. -Your second comment talks about race and skin color...you avoid the data like the plague. -Third comment? Data dodge and a blurb on white racism..
quote: "Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color....." top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.....That is racialism or racism"........
-4th comment - data dodge. -5th comment - data dodge. "Racist Nazis in Europe", racist racism. Europe...european racist science.... -6th - data dodge. "racism", "Aryans". "Europe", "whites".
We are NOW at page 5, and your seventh post on the data describes it as "less than useless" but you weasel in the idea its useless regarding the "origin and development of AE society." :rolleyes - WHOA...wait a minute, you ignore biological affinity all together!
All of your subsequent posts argue on how the DATA should be changed...you want to keep your narrative the same.
You are just like Donald Trump.....a clown.
Beyoku it is one thing to claim that data isn't racism but totally another to suggest that Europeans DID NOT create racism. This is the problem. I specifically addressed an issue about something related to DNA and now all you want to talk about is race. Yet that is all you have been talking about for the last page and a half. So if race and racism isn't an issue why do you keep bringing it up? If you like the data then fine lets talk data.
Just saying.
But please don't sit here and pretend to lecture me about race or racism in order to try and get me to agree with some of the things you are saying. Just studying data is fine but that doesn't give you a pass on making statements that are not correct.
Not once have you addressed what I called you out on yet you sit here and want to rant about why data isn't racist, as any idiot knows that there is no data that supports racism, because there are no human races.
So lets get back to the point. What data am I supposedly avoiding?
Definition of Divergence:
quote: Genetic divergence is the process in which two or more populations of an ancestral species accumulate independent genetic changes (mutations) through time, often after the populations have become reproductively isolated for some period of time.
Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Once again trying to argue that the DATA ITSELF is racist is beyond ridiculous. I believe someone mentioned that it depends on how it is "interpreted" but still that doesn't even matter when AGAIN looking at the raw DATA. It is what it is.
Stop creating strawmen. Nobody said data is racist. I don't get it with folks who get mad because somebody tells them that something they said is invalid so they feel the need to keep spamming nonsense in order to avoid the actual problematic issue.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If SSA groups were "everywhere, all the time" it should be easy to prove. But so far all I hear is cricket chirps.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ok, let's look at the Sahara then. We have pottery spreading over the Sahara as a very early marker of SSA-affiliated groups. Ok, we all know that's a clear example of what Doug is talking about (at least in terms of cultural influence).
What about before this period? Would be interesting to see substantial specifics of that. And before people start moving the goal post. The period before the period in the map below is the goal post:
I reposted it for Doug and those who agree with Doug's comment. If you say it doesn't conflict with your views then it doesn't apply to you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Oh, c'mon, you have to know by now that none of your main opponents in this thread seriously advocates that view. I certainly haven't seen Swenet or beyoku argue that indigenous Egyptians or other Saharans somehow turned into Europeans before OOA. They would still have been biologically African even if, as you acknowledge yourself, they were a distinct lineage from ancestral West Africans. This is a childish imitation of a strawman if I ever saw one.
posted
^I didn't want to say anything because I already had this discussion with him in the 'black' thread. And he simply doesn't get it, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Everyone knows EEF were colonists who entered Europe from elsewhere. They aren't thought of as Europeans. No one is saying that. Not even the authors who coined the term. Doug is simply fighting imaginary ghosts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont get what Doug is not understanding, obviously the Populations diverged into separate populations before leaving Africa....or am I wrong..
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
........
Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
quote: Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
So you haven't read studies that point out Eurasians diverge from Africans at at time PRIOR to OOA? So you haven't read studies that point out Native Americans diverge from Asians at a time PRIOR to when the Americas was populated? You are YEARS Behind man....YEARS!
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know/remember the population of AMH coming from Africa who first settled Europe were Hunter Gatherers and Farming was introduced later...
Im still curious on how Modern Egyptians have more SSA DNA than the Ancients
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Oh, c'mon, you have to know by now that none of your main opponents in this thread seriously advocates that view. I certainly haven't seen Swenet or beyoku argue that indigenous Egyptians or other Saharans somehow turned into Europeans before OOA. They would still have been biologically African even if, as you acknowledge yourself, they were a distinct lineage from ancestral West Africans. This is a childish imitation of a strawman if I ever saw one.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Oh, c'mon, you have to know by now that none of your main opponents in this thread seriously advocates that view. I certainly haven't seen Swenet or beyoku argue that indigenous Egyptians or other Saharans somehow turned into Europeans before OOA. They would still have been biologically African even if, as you acknowledge yourself, they were a distinct lineage from ancestral West Africans. This is a childish imitation of a strawman if I ever saw one.
OK. And I don't see where I specifically said anything about the AE or NE Africans being West Africans. Maybe I am missing something but this thread is going all over the place.
In terms of the original topic, I specifically said that the third intermediate period was a time of turmoil with many changes. So of course you would expect variation in DNA based on which mummies were sampled and what period within the TIP. I also said, that generally the position of the paper is problematic because I doubt they were able to do DNA samples across a wide range of mummies. To come to such a conclusion they need to also show what the average DNA profile of AE was before the TIP, during various parts of the TIP and then after. And I am skeptical on them actually having done that. Also, it is not "shocking" or "groundbreaking" to me or anybody familiar with AE history that there were periods of upheaval and even foreign presence in the country. Case in point the Hyksos period. So I don't understand why some people are making this one study into something that folks are supposedly so worried about. Why should I or anyone else be worried? Worried about what? That's what I don't get. Not to mention, my assumption is that most people on this forum already know that the AE were not West Africans. And on top of that, what is the point of calling out "SSA" DNA within African populations? Why not call out specific regions of African DNA because ALL of these ancient populations, whether in the Sahara, the Nile Valley or Sudan were Africans. Throwing the SSA label around provides nothing in the way of understanding anything because SSA is quite a large area and implies that somehow somebody thought that the AE were closely related to folks like the Zulu or Congolese, which I don't ever recall anybody saying.
Then from that we go off into the weeds of some hypothetical divergenges of African populations that formed the basis of Early Farmers in the Levant. And there it is made to seem as if the population that left Africa was not African before they left. Or even better, that there was something "special" about this population before they left because of the possibility of genetic divergence. OK fine. Show me the DNA markers and archaeological evidence for such a population and the time frame when they actually arose or "diverged" in Africa before leaving. Like I said, this is a needle in a haystack, it is going to be hard to find that popuolation in Africa and distinguish it as "special" and unique from other Africans in the same areas at the same time frame. And again I don't see whey some folks are beating the drum about this. Those were Africans. Period. What MORE needs to be said? All African populations have varations in DNA. What makes this one group so "special"?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I didn't want to say anything because I already had this discussion with him in the 'black' thread. And he simply doesn't get it, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Everyone knows EEF were colonists who entered Europe from elsewhere. They aren't thought of as Europeans. No one is saying that. Not even the authors who coined the term. Doug is simply fighting imaginary ghosts.
If I recall correctly, the problem I had with it wasn't the European down stream populations, as opposed to the sloppy way this label was being applied across the board to later downstream descendants in Europe, the mixed population of Africans and Levanntines AND the African populations before they even left the continent. Those are not all the same populations and they have different genetic profiles. The point being the original populations were African and therefore if that population was the KEY FACTOR for developing farming then why not include African in the label since it is the AFRICAN component. So the issue is about labels and meaning implied by labels. These people were not Europeans as you just said yourself. Not only that but now we are trying to claim that the ancestral population in Africa from which these early African proto farmers arose was somehow special and distinct from the rest of Africans. Bottom line is why can't we just call these people Africans? Seems like some folks have a hard time with that. That has been my only point. And this is coming up in a thread about so called SSA DNA being more dominant in modern Egypt than TIP AE. So? Does that mean that the indigenous dynasties of AE were not Africans? And what populations and DNA lineages are they identifying as SSA? Again, this is all about labels and there seems to be some folks who feel that "their" way of looking at data means words don't matter. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. And this thread is a perfect example.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I'm staying out of the EEF discussion. We've already talked about it. You think they should label the component African and they'd say they're not decided yet on where it ultimately originated. They'd also say they're simply following protocol by labeling sites and components according to the population's typesite and distribution. One can argue this for months.
But evidence on SSA groups being everywhere in North Africa before 14ky ago would be interesting. Do you have some specifics we can look into?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of labels, I don't think labels, as they are used so far in aDNA papers, are a problem in and of themselves. I think they are a problem when, every time explanations of these labels go from expert, to classroom teacher/lecturer, to lay person, people get 'forgetful' all of a sudden and convenient omissions happen. Also, labels can reinforce this process of selective memory a lot of these academics have. Obviously, a label like 'Eurafrican' is more susceptible to this.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This guy (HLG) actually said the AE didn't look like Michael Jordan in his argument against an African Egypt. Lol. I don't know why these scholars think their expertise in one area translates to expertise in another area. Historians especially should stay in their lane after their abysmal track record on population affinities. You can tell by their language that most of these scholars' grasp of the subject isn't very sophisticated. It's basically just parroting physical anthropologists who often also aren't specialists in African populations' history themselves. So by the time historians relay population affinities information to lay people, the picture is often completely botched. E.g. terms like 'Eurafrican' in reference to various groups in and outside of Africa suddenly become 'white' in the mind of the historian.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
In other words, the authors of the Egyptian aDNA paper aren't saying anything new. The Tunisian sample below maintains a degree of distance from Eurasians while, at the same time, showing little evidence of SSA admixture (the red lines go from the Yoruban sample to most North African populations, but not to the Tunisians). Obviously, there is some African ancestry that is unaccounted for in the Tunisian sample. And the Egyptian mummies will show the same thing, despite their apparently low SSA ancestry.
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
As I have shown the term EEF is not at issue. "EEF" is only 7,500 yo and is a population with ancestors who had been out of Africa for tens of thousands of years.
The problem is the term "Basal Eurasian", part of the first people who leave Africa tens of thousands of years ago not 7K EEFs. and I agree with Doug on that term and have written about it before. It's misleading. They found no remains which they are calling Basal Eurasian. It's a theoretical term so it's confusing to use it along with terms like EEF which are based ion human remains. They should have called them maybe "Basal Eurasian Africans" or "African Pre-Eurasians" I'm not sure which is better but this would show that they were Africans.
Try proceeding with your argument but use the different term and see how it sounds
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Labels haven't ever been a REAL problem. If their interpretation is incorrect, use the commonly accepted labels and show their interpretation is incorrect...Period. Furthermore when "They" discover something I think they have free will to name it whatever they want so long as its not Absurd. "Basal Eurasian" is not absurd, nor is ENF, ANE, WHG etc.
Ducking and dodging will do you no good. Talking about "racism" instead of a meaningful analysis of the data will do you no good.
If white mans racism in science is that big of an issue then you should avoid human population genetics all together. I find it interesting and amusing I "scold" a forum member for being too far in Europeans assholes to the point where they are the focus of comments on everything African....and that person turns around only to write MORE stuff about Europeans and their racism. Complaining about white folks requires zero brain cells, is barely even forces you to think.
ES is still years behind becuase as far as I am concerend it seems that folks are arguing the E-M78 Farmers from North East Africa colonized the Europe.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. One would think the concept of pre-OOA African ancestry would be intuitive to anyone who thought about the ramifications of OOA theory, but instead there's this tendency to assume that all native African ancestry is SSA-affiliated and any ancestry that isn't has to be full-blown OOA. Even the label "Basal Eurasian" implies that simplistic binary (though to be fair, it was first identified in remains that were geographically Eurasian).
I would have hoped Pagani et al 2015 would have woken people up to the possibility that there is African ancestry that has a closer affinity to OOA than does other African ancestry. But if the reaction I got from Sarkoboros after commenting on his blog is any indication, there is still a lot of inertia and resistance to such a simple concept. And frankly the pan-Africanists we have here---while indisputably contributing to that resistance---aren't necessarily its loudest voice from what I can see.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. .
People OUGHT to know better. But when they have been jacking off to great lakes region/E1b1a/Southern Africa DNA tribes results for the last few years.......they have no alternative explanation why a sample from 3000 years ago is less SSA than today.
"They racists" and or "They only using Yoruba for SSA" may have been fine in the past, but not in 2017.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of E1b1a(I think you guess may of addressed this), if SSA ancestry increased after after the third intermediate period/Roman then what does that say for King Ramesses POSSIBLY being E1b1a? Or was he most likely E1b1b?
I mean if I remember correctly Ramesses III life was quite close to the third intermediate period.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I have a few theories on why the data could be what it is. But My theory is not really what is under scrutiny. The collective doctrine of ES is. When i ask questions here people dodge them, or reply with a spiel on why Europeans are racists and or why they should be willing to risk life and limb and get decapitated by extremists in the Sahara and Sahel attempting to do genetic research.
Maybe your theory isn't of interest for discussion or scrutiny to you. But to demand my theory of a map, while avoiding the presentation of theories you say you have could be interpreted as somewhat dodgy. You didn't answer my question either. Neither here nor privately. Perhaps some are trying to be seen as all wise knowledge givers that are never wrong. But I don't make pretenses that I'm an info guru about the subject. I'm new at this and can only afford to research the subject from time to time where i can. Right now I'm trying to understand differentiation.
quote:This is a question for you, yes YOU. How would you hypothesize genetic affinity Levantine populations around 12-14,000 years ago? Around THIS TIME
With just that map I can't say I'd feel strongly about any hypothesis I made.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? Or does it mean before the differentiation between East Asians etc? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe? And assuming the later when did Africans differentiate into basal Eurasians?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES" Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views. Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between. What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems we have semantics wrapped up in a layer of somewhat adequate interpretation of classifications, which are at the heart, more semantics.
For one, no one really expressed what "SSA" means as it relates to GENETICS in this thread yet. It's loosely thrown around and basically has which and every definition based on the context it used.... but when it comes down to it, when we talk about how to "measure" or identify it, everything becomes shallow or almost superficial.
when it comes to SSA vs Basal Eurasian now things get even more muddy it seems. Basal Eurasian as a genetic component is only Identifiable because of its OOA Establishment. The source population didn't morph then leave... they changed because they left the more diverse genepool. confusion seems to be caused by the fact that what we considered "Basal Eurasian" or "Near eastern ancestry" might've left Africa much later than early Eurasian hunter-gatherers, etc.
Oshun
quote: So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? If this is correct, when did we see the end of Basal Eurasians?? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe?
Basal Eurasians WERE differentiated, they were closer to Africans than earlier OOA populations upon exit but were separated from the earlier genepool in Africa for possibly thousands of years... How long they were in the "Near East" is a good question though!
My question is do people here consider Mota SSAfrican? ...and why?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the aDNA evidence? Where are the STR values ? Let's look at it.
Are Aswan Nubians, TEBU/tebou, black libyan tuaregs, Beja also considered subsaharan Africans? since they are also black? And most have never lived below the the Sahara. Why use Yoruba DNA as a sample to represent all subsaharan Africans while we know Africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world. You can find more genetic diversity in Nairobi city than the whole of Europe and America combined.
Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? Or does it mean before the differentiation between East Asians etc? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe? And assuming the later when did Africans differentiate into basal Eurasians?
I'm going to have to go over it again. I thought I knew what it was but I'm looking at this chart and they've got a split between Mbuti (pygmy) and "non-African" that occurs even before Basal Eurasian. That implies outside of Africa population "non-African" before "Basal Eurasian" even starts . Above is the chart from the original Lazaridis article
Below DNATRibes has written "Basal Eurasian?" by Arabia
quote: When Siberian percentages are excluded in Step 2G, new Oceanian, Southeast Asian, and Tibetan components appear, together with a predominant Horn of Africa percentage (60.4%). This further supports contacts between ancestral Europeans (such as WHG populations) and ENA populations, contrasting with Basal Eurasian (Horn of Africa) related populations closer to the Nile River and East Mediterranean.
Then we go to a different digest article by then and we see this:
^ here, they have "Non-African" at the horn and "Basal Eurasian" (they use Lazaridis as reference) around Upper Egypt.
So the shit is funky
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to know this as well, I was going to ask but you beat me to it..
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES" Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views. Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between. What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
If your post is in response to my post which used the Yoruban sample. Can you post evidence showing that it matters which SSA sample is used?
I know it doesn't matter in this case. But since objecting from the sidelines is easier than posting valid counter evidence. Maybe the nay sayers should post evidence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm staying out of the EEF discussion. We've already talked about it. You think they should label the component African and they'd say they're not decided yet on where it ultimately originated. They'd also say they're simply following protocol by labeling sites and components according to the population's typesite and distribution. One can argue this for months.
But evidence on SSA groups being everywhere in North Africa before 14ky ago would be interesting. Do you have some specifics we can look into?
Why are you asking me for something I am not claiming in the first place? SSA is not a concept that I support when discussing African DNA or features. Africans have a common biological and genetic heritage as Africans and can easily be shown as such. SSA has no special bearing on this because all Africans South of the Sahara are not one monolithic biological or genetic type. Hence why I don't use the term. Like I said before, if you are going to go by regional variations and markers then fine. Saharan Africans, Sahelian Africans, Nilotic Africans, Horn African, etc is a start. But even then you have tremendous diversity within those groups. So again, if you are talking DNA then why even play that game of labels using SSA? Just name the specific markers identifying specific target populations of one area and time frame.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oops Doug's responded while I was reposting the challenge. Let me read his answer, first.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Labels haven't ever been a REAL problem. If their interpretation is incorrect, use the commonly accepted labels and show their interpretation is incorrect...Period. Furthermore when "They" discover something I think they have free will to name it whatever they want so long as its not Absurd. "Basal Eurasian" is not absurd, nor is ENF, ANE, WHG etc.
Ducking and dodging will do you no good. Talking about "racism" instead of a meaningful analysis of the data will do you no good.
If white mans racism in science is that big of an issue then you should avoid human population genetics all together. I find it interesting and amusing I "scold" a forum member for being too far in Europeans assholes to the point where they are the focus of comments on everything African....and that person turns around only to write MORE stuff about Europeans and their racism. Complaining about white folks requires zero brain cells, is barely even forces you to think.
ES is still years behind becuase as far as I am concerend it seems that folks are arguing the E-M78 Farmers from North East Africa colonized the Europe.
No man. The only I have is when you are trying to sit here and pretend there is something SPECIAL about one group of Africans versus another. And it is funny that this thread was not originally created to talk about EEF. As far as the OP goes, I already said there is nothing ground breaking or shocking about the presence of Non African DNA in Ancient Egypt.
So what is the fuss about? You are the one jumping up and down as if you have found some special nuggets of data that re SO UNIQUE and SPECIAL that we 'normal' folks should be cowering in fear about.
Seems to me you are just mad some folks don't buy into your hype and prefer just the facts instead and not a whole lot of straw man non-sequitur arguments. Which of course you keep failing to provide hence why you prefer to rant and rave about the mentality of posters on this board as opposed to supporting your points with some data, since you are supposedly such DATA CENTRIC person.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) The ancestry of living SSA groups is extremely monolithic when it comes to contrasting them with other regions outside of Africa or certain components in North Africa. Can you post evidence showing that naming the SSA components individually makes a useful difference when comparing them to Basal Eurasian or unadmixed OOA groups?
Saying "SSA" vs naming the SSA groups in the PCA below individually doesn't matter enough to go through the trouble. Generally speaking they're all roughly equidistant to predynastic Egyptians. The only exceptions are groups who aren't fully SSA in ancestry.
And note that "variation" has nothing to do with it. The SSA groups clearly vary in the vertical direction, but this variation is in a direction other than in the direction of predynastic Egyptians, who they're generally equidistant to (broadly speaking).
If you disagree, please post valid data, rather than merely objecting and writing a long post.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
In other words, the authors of the Egyptian aDNA paper aren't saying anything new. The Tunisian sample below maintains a degree of distance from Eurasians while, at the same time, showing little evidence of SSA admixture (the red lines go from the Yoruban sample to most North African populations, but not to the Tunisians). Obviously, there is some African ancestry that is unaccounted for in the Tunisian sample. And the Egyptian mummies will show the same thing, despite their apparently low SSA ancestry.
I am sort of confused about this chart. I have read papers that suggest that Basal Eurasians have no affinity to sub-Saharan Africans. The Tunisian sample seems a-lot closer to Yoruba than the other Eurasians are. If you are saying this Tunisian has alot of indigenous north African ancestry, how can basal eurasian not have any affinty to SSA (compared to eurasian dna) when it is a-lot closer then the other Eurasians with more SSA. It seems to conflict with the Fst chart concerning the nafutians that you posted on a previous page.
I like to stop by here once in a blue moon to check out AE. Its the same peopl fighting each other lol.
I don't think we can speculate too much on these results to much until the paper comes out. How many mummies did they use? One thingfor sure is that there not SSA. All these questions that people have can be resolved by studying predynastic automsomal egyptian dna. I would be very surprised if they (pre-dyn southern egyptians) have no SSA. Especially when they seem to be morphologically similar with known SSA rich populations.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
The suggestion that Egypt might have been one of the recipients of West African migrations during late Roman times is interesting but not what I had mind. I was referring to the likelihood of significant SSA contributions to proto-AE during the Green Sahara time frame, like others in this thread have suggested. Even if they were a minority element, it would be strange if these Green Saharan contributions hadn't impacted AE to the extent that they apparently impacted the ancient Maghreb.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Anyone have any studies on Green Sahara migration??? I was also looking for studies that discussed lingual or genetic divergence between East and West Africans. I found this. Not really on the subject I was looking for but it's an amended paper that talks about migrations from the East from about the time period of the study:
Erratum for the Report “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa” (previously titled “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent”)
quote:The conclusion of a migration into East Africa from Western Eurasia, and more precisely from a source genetically close to the early Neolithic farmers, is not affected. However, the geographic extent of the genetic impact of this migration was overestimated: The Western Eurasian backflow mostly affected East Africa and only a few Sub-Saharan populations; the Yoruba and Mbuti do not show higher levels of Western Eurasian ancestry compared to Mota. Hence, the title and abstract of the published paper did not accurately represent the geographical extent of the admixture, and both have been corrected accordingly. The authors acknowledge Pontus Skoglund and David Reich for detecting these problems.
That's about this study:
quote:Here, we present an ancient human genome from Africa and use it to disentangle the effects of recent population movement into Africa. By sampling the petrous bone (5), we sequenced the genome of a male from Mota Cave (herein referred to as “Mota”) in the southern Ethiopian highlands,with a mean coverage of 12.5× (6). Contamination was estimated to be between 0.29 and 1.26% (6). Mota’s remains were dated to ~4500 years ago [direct calibrated radiocarbon date (6)] and thus predate both the Bantu expansion (7) and,more importantly, the 3000-year-old West Eurasian back-flow, which has left strong genetic signatures in the whole of Eastern and, to a lesser extent, Southern Africa (3,4)
quote: Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. [/b]Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level. Source
um.. I'm no expert but isn't the 1,000 B.C migration during the same time period they discuss here for middle Egypt? I don't like how the title can be misconstrued by certain crowds of people, but they say in the text itself that the Middle Egypt was subject to foreign migrations at around this period. Compared to this period, there's more ancestry they term "SSA." Unfortunately there's a lot of reaching on both sides. This does not say anything about the origins of Egypt or even it's composition before foreign inflow. All it seems to be saying is that by 1,000 B.C there was more admixture that reached middle Egypt, and today that genetic composition has since seen replacement. Ancestry dubbed "SSA" could've been higher before this period, or it may not have been. But after this period it was noticeably lower than modern times. Combined with the other study, we can possibly conclude that Egypt was probably not alone in in experiencing this either. It seems like researchers have been alluding to back migration during this period for years, seeing the other paper today. That study that's being presented would only add to the research in the link above.Minus one for the static Egypt/East African idea. At least by 1,000 B.C anyway. Still about 400 years before many anticipated, since I've read some researchers say inflow would be around the Late Period. I haven't seen any evidence provided to suggest migrations by 1,000 B.C hadn't happened. If anyone would like to challenge it with opposing data (or additional problems with the study not reported in the erratum...) the floor's yours.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
In other words, the authors of the Egyptian aDNA paper aren't saying anything new. The Tunisian sample below maintains a degree of distance from Eurasians while, at the same time, showing little evidence of SSA admixture (the red lines go from the Yoruban sample to most North African populations, but not to the Tunisians). Obviously, there is some African ancestry that is unaccounted for in the Tunisian sample. And the Egyptian mummies will show the same thing, despite their apparently low SSA ancestry.
That puts it into perspective. Thanks a million, Swenet. Northeast Africans have their own genetic profile -distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans- so I think you're right about this. The release of the specifics in April will further clear things up.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came in late, so I may post some stuff already posted.
quote: Imagine: An Interview with Svante Pääbo
Pääbo (see Image 1) broke ground in 1985, working surreptitiously at night in the lab where he conducted his unrelated PhD research, to extract, clone, and sequence DNA from an Egyptian mummy. From there, he joined the late Allan Wilson as a post-doctoral fellow in Berkeley, where together they rejuvenated sequences from extinct species. Returning to Europe, he landed a full professor position in Munich. He is now Director of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig.
A sterile hotel lobby wasn't the venue I had hoped for in interviewing Pääbo. I would have preferred a natural history museum, or, even better, an archaeological dig to stimulate the interview juices. But, when I realized he was attending the American Society of Human Genetics meeting in San Diego last fall, I grabbed the opportunity. Though jet-lagged, he gamely agreed to a 10 p.m. interview, following the Presidential symposium and only seven hours prior to his planned surfing excursion in La Jolla.
Jane Gitschier: What happened in your youth to make you so interested in Egypt?
Svante Pääbo: Sometime in my late boyhood, I got very interested in archeology. I went around after big storms in Sweden to spots in which trees had fallen over. You can look at the roots for things—stone age pottery and things like that. Even in the suburbs of Stockholm, where I grew up, there was still a forest around. And you could run around and have fun. It certainly was common for kids to play “stone age” behind the school in the forest.
JG: Was there something that triggered your particular interest in archeology?
SP: Not really, but I think it was the realization that you could actually go out yourself and find these things!
JG: And did you find stuff?
SP: Yes, they are still at my mother's place, in a glass cabinet—thousands of pot shards that I collected. You can sometimes passel them together and can get part of a pot that was used 3,000 years ago. Quite fascinating.
Also, my mother had taken me to Egypt because I was interested in Egyptology. I think I was 14. That made me fascinated, as so many young kids are, with Egypt and mummies and pyramids. It was mainly the trips I took to Egypt—three times with my mom.
JG: Wow, was your mother into Egypt, too?
SP: It was partially through my fascination, but I think she still goes to lectures on Egyptology in Stockholm.
JG: Were your parents scientists?
SP: Yes. I grew up with my mother. My mom and dad were not married. My mom was a chemist and worked in industry. My dad had another family, but he was a biochemist and studied prostaglandins.
JG: And then you worked in biochemistry?
SP: I first started studying Egyptology and things like that at the University [Uppsala] and got somehow disappointed. It was not as romantic as I thought it would be. And after a year and a half or so, I didn't know what to do, because this wasn't really “it”. So I started studying medicine because I figured I would get a profession. And it was also a way into basic research.
JG: I read your paper from 1985 about sequencing the mummy remains. What was the genesis of that?
SP: I knew there were hundreds and thousands of mummies around in museums and that they found hundreds of new ones every year, and molecular cloning in bacteria was a rather new thing at the time, so I found in the literature that no one had tried to extract DNA from Egyptian mummies, or any old remains actually. So I started to do that as a hobby in late evenings and weekends, secretly from my thesis advisor.
JG: As a lowly graduate student, where do you find a piece of mummy to start this investigation?
SP: I had studied Egyptology, so the professor of Egyptology knew me quite well. He helped me to sample a mummy in the museum in Uppsala. He also had very good connections with a very large museum in Berlin, which was East Berlin at the time. Germany has a long, long tradition in Egyptology, going back to the 19th century. After the British Museum and the Museum in Paris, the Berlin Museum has the biggest collection outside Egypt.
JG: So you went with your professor to the museum in East Berlin…
SP: He had convinced them of our idea in advance. We sampled, I think, 36 different mummies. Small samples, of course.
JG: Had people ever looked at mummy tissue before, at things like proteins?
SP: There had been some work on histology of mummies, and there had been some work on trying immunoreactivity of proteins extracted from it, with very mixed results. I don't think there were any convincing results from Egyptian mummies.
JG: In what kind of state are the mummies? Are you wearing gloves or masks? What are you doing?
SP: We only worked with mummies that were already unwrapped and with things that were broken, so we were not destroying anything to get to the tissues. With a scalpel we removed a little piece. It was the first time this was done, so we had no big qualms about contamination. I had no idea this could be such a big issue.
JG: What did you do with these 36 scalpeled samples?
SP: We screened them with histology. We looked at both with traditional stainings—hematoxylin-and-eosin staining and staining with ethidium bromide—and under UV light to see if one could see any fluorescence from DNA. In the skin of a particular mummy, you could see that the cell nuclei lit up. So, there was DNA there and at the place you would expect it to be.
JG: Was your interest in this simply the challenge of getting DNA sequence out of it or was there a bigger idea?
SP: It was clearly the idea that if you could study the DNA of ancient Egyptians, you could elucidate aspects of Egyptian history that you couldn't by traditional sources of archeology and the written records.
JG: Do you mean the relationships between people?
SP: Population history. Say, when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, did that mean there were lots of people from Greece who actually came there and settled there? When the Assyrians came there, did that have an influence? Or was the population continuous? Political things that influenced the population.
Since then it has become clear that it is almost impossible to work with human remains because of contamination. It is very hard to exclude that the DNA you look at is not contaminated with modern humans.
JG: Then, how do we know that this sequence in the 1985 paper is in fact the sequence of a real Egyptian?
SP: In hindsight, we don't know that. In 1985, I had no idea how hard this is [to retrieve uncontaminated ancient DNA sequences] and thus did not do the controls we now know are necessary. We've even published at a later point on this.
JG: But there have been no data to refute the sequence of this mummy.
SP: But nothing to prove it either! It could well have been contamination, and if that was the last that had ever been written on ancient DNA, that would have been a sad state of affairs and the end of the field.
JG: Have people gone on to look at more mummy DNA since then?
SP: Egyptian mummies are actually quite badly preserved; also animal mummies. This probably has to do with climate. It seems the cooler it is, the better preserved things are. We looked at a few Neanderthal remains from Israel and Palestine and they have so far not yielded any DNA.
[…]
—Gitschier J (2008) Imagine: An Interview with Svante Pääbo.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic