...
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 Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
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 Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Also, all of these North African samples are admixed and so of course they're going to perform poorly as a pooled region compared to other African regions.

This is my interpretation too. As an aside, we know Egyptian royals across dynasties tended to be inbred. So their ancestry might have been less "mixed" than those of other ancient Egyptians. Has anyone ever looked into how phenotypically representative Egyptian royals would have been of the population they ruled?
If there was an elite population from which dynasty founders were 'drawn', they may have been inbred themselves. There is >60% overlap in alleles between Ramses III, his son on the one hand and the Amarna family on the other hand. This is interesting because both sets of samples are two dynasties apart.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:


This is the 2nd time you dodged the challenge to give an example of the aforementioned hypothetical SSA population. Why, if such a SSA population supposedly exists?

I answered the question. Almost a million African Americans.

These might not be populations anymore. Its millions of people around the world with the highest populations of people who share all the genes living in the areas that score the highest. 

quote:

What you did post yesterday proves my point and bears little resemblance to DNA Tribes analyses of the pharaonic alleles (if one takes the analyses literally):

Its not supposed to. My highest ethnic groups were Ovambo, Fang and Ashanti. Actually Fang is probably the highest because it rates Guinea twice before Ovambo. Even if the majority of the Ashanti migrated from the Nile Valley (as they say) it would not make ancient Egyptians modern Ashanti anymore than the ratios already suggest. It is interesting that the Ovambo have similar ratios. http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-sample-hutu-rwanda.pdf
Points towards a common ancestry among ancient Nilotes and Lakers.


quote:

Today, ["Thuya's gene"] highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians.

Today, ["Akhenaten's gene"] is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt.

DNA Tribes analysis is popular in some circles because it's an unfair analysis where North African samples with good MLI scores are obscured and pooled with North African (and Levantine) samples with lower MLI scores. Also, all of these North African samples are admixed and so of course they're going to perform poorly as a pooled region compared to other African regions. The lower MLI scores of North Africa's pooled regions could be mostly be a function of dramatic population change in North Africa, not a lack of relatedness.

And DNA Tribes never intended for their analysis to be taken literally. They never said that these alleles are transplants from their Great Lakes and South Africa regions. So, again, who is supporting this narrative other than those here who want it to be true? Who are your views represented by in the academic world in terms of reputable names? We're not supposed to be putting our own stamp of approval on things.

Its not a matter of what anyone wants to be true. Dnatribes's data says what it does and Consultants explains the whys. If you have a problem with it then start with this missing data that Tukuler is talking about. I think you might have a point there. That syncs better than using one gene that is 50% in Somali and Coptic as a Red Herring. It does not change the fact that the majority of the people who have all of the genes Consultant's analyzed are scattered around the world with highest frequencies of people who share in all of them located in the areas with the highest MLI. That to me is a literal interpretation. I doubt that all of these genes were shared by the Amarna themselves considering how much their scores verified in totals and how some of them like Amenhotep iii had foreign wives.

I'm not ready to say that North Africa is treated unfairly. Modern Egypt has the second highest population in Africa and its heavily tested. I would think Upper Egypt would do better in a higher res SNP test that pulls some of those scattered Euro genes to North African populations like Upper Egypt Copts. The same could be said for tribes like the Ashanti, Kalenjin the Ngunis or any tribe that traces their history to the Nile. The fact that the Egyptian government keeps saying this and not demonstrating it keeps me on the fence until I see some evidence. .  

   
quote:
I know this. I have discussed this in the 'black' thread you also participated in. Beyoku has also made this point countless times. So why take such blatantly crude (meaning, that it may need a lot of analysis and explanation before it can make sense) results at face value in the case of the pharaonic alleles? [/qb]
I need some clarity on what you mean by literal. What context is missing? Even though I would love to buy a wand in Benin I'm not a magical negro. I'm binary af in the land of is and/or ain't. I wonder if you aren't looking at things literally enough.

STR test are good at telling what people mostly are and what they arent. Consultant's explains how it did and why the numbers are low.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 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 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

EEF is not theoretical; Early Neolithic European farmers are all genetically similar and come from the same roots in Turkey, having spread into the Balkans and up the Danube and along the Mediterranean coast. Some of the latter pioneers even settled in Morocco. Of course it is formed from a mixture of populations; so is everyone on the planet.

quote:
Wadi Kubbaniya is a good example of the early survival strategies that would identify the proto-farmers in Africa. Populations like these migrated into the Levant carrying this toolkit and helped kick start the neolithic.
What were Wadi Kubbaniya people, or other Northeast Africans, doing that makes them 'proto-farmers', that other Upper Palaeolithic populations weren't doing?

Obviously movement from Egypt to Levant or vice versa is plausible on geographical grounds, but what's the archaeological evidence? Not something Bar-Yosef said 30 years ago, is there anything up to date?

Exactly what do you estimate EEF average in Europeans? According to Pinhasi (2012) the estimates wildly vary from 20-70%. Furthermore I got access to a paper not even yet published [I got the draft] on the genomes of Neolithic Baltics - they are 0% EEF. Some now argue that the Baltic was some sort of special "refuge" area and wasn't affected by incoming agriculturalists, like the rest. However it seems more likely EEF has been over-estimated for the whole Europe.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansamusa
Member
Member # 22474

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansamusa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

What is the big deal though? Why should people be so desperate for EEF to be linked directly to Sub Saharan Africa? The indirect morphological affinities of EEF to "Subsaharan Africa" are stil there. Its just that their mixed African ancestry would have been North African-like. I think this is what I get from reading about Basal Eurasian and Natufians and their role in the neolithic for the Levant and Europe.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I answered the question. Almost a million African Americans.

So, let me get this right. You're saying that the African STR alleles of Aframs is consistently scattered over SSA and West Eurasia and often peaks in Egyptians and Somalis? Do you have evidence for this?

quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
It does not change the fact that the majority of the people who have all of the genes Consultant's analyzed are scattered around the world with highest frequencies of people who share in all of them located in the areas with the highest MLI.

Let's look at the facts. The only information you have thanks to DNA Tribes is that the pooled South African, West African and Great Lakes regions outperform the two pooled North African regions (one of which is problematically pooled with the Levant). Your next step is proving that these regions outperform the Adaima Coptic sample from Coudray et al. Then, your next step is proving that admixture in North Africa doesn't limit the North African regions' capacity to compete in terms of posting high MLI scores. Before you do that DNA Tribes can be dismissed as an unfair analysis. And this is not a criticism of DNA Tribes, because they never intended it to be taken literally.

quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
If you have a problem with it then start with this missing data that Tukuler is talking about.

I manually counted the frequencies of the pharaonic alleles in African populations. I posted by results and challenged nay sayers to falsify them. My results look nothing like DNA Tribes. Two Egyptian sample are among the best scoring samples, while other Egyptian samples score poorly. The fact that Egyptian samples rank among samples with the best and the mediocre results clearly shows that DNA Tribes pooled regions makes the analysis unfair and that admixture in North Africa plays a huge role.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).
So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.


quote:
Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians are widely separated along the y-axis, and are somewhat distinct from 11 or so other samples forming a cluster near the diagram’s center; Badari, Thebes, and Hawara are at the heart of this cluster. Lisht and El Hesa are removed from the lat- ter grouping along the x- and z-axes, respectively. Lastly, Abydos, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis are located next to one another.
quote:
Were predynastic Badarian peoples descendants of Western Desert Neolithic groups?

If the answer to this question is yes, as suggested by many workers based on cultural affinities between groups (e.g., Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a), the Western Desert Gebel Ram- lah and Nile Valley Badari samples might be expected to share a close affinity. Gebel Ramlah is, in fact, significantly different from Badari based on the 22-trait MMD (Table 4). For that matter, the Neolithic Western Desert sample is significantly different from all others. Does this divergence then support a non-Egyptian origin for the Badarians, as suggested by some (Brunton and Caton- Thompson, 1928; Arkell, 1975; Krzyz ´ aniak, 1977)? Not necessarily. Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah is clos- est to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Aby- dos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). The lack of a closer affinity may be a result of purported supplementary influence on the Badarians from the Levant (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000) or Eastern Desert (Holmes, 1989). Moreover, Gebel Ramlah is in the south- ernmost part of the Western Desert. The primary source of the Badarian culture is thought to have been the oases farther north (Caton-Thompson, 1926; Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989). Final Neolithic artifacts from the south and north are known to be quite different (Wendorf and Schild, 2001). In the end, although the present dental findings do not provide definitive proof, the fact that Gebel Ramlah is closest to early Upper Egyptians, including Badari, suggests that a Western Desert origin remains a viable hypothesis.

quote:
Was there biological continuity between predynastic Naqada and Badarian peoples?


Most researchers believe there is a direct relationship between these groups, based on material culture similarities (Brunton, 1932; Mond and Meyers, 1937; Massoulard, 1949; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Fairservis, 1972; Midant- Reynes, 2000a,b). A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples is supportive of this hypothesis, and contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970). Badari is concordant with both Naqada samples for most traits (Table 2). This correspondence is reflected by Badari’s 22-trait MMDs with Naqada (0.000) and Hierakonpolis (0.012). The former affinity indicates no difference between samples, and the latter is insignificant (Table 4). These relationships are also evidenced by the nearness of all three samples in the MDS diagrams (Figs. 2, 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these results are at odds with those of workers who reported significant cranial nonmetric (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) and metric (Keita, 1996) differences between the same Badari and Naqada (NAQ) sam- ples studied here. The reason for this disparity is unknown, but may be related to different sample sizes or types of data employed. Dental evidence for Badarian continuity does not simply end with the Naqada period. Of all samples, Badari exhibits the closest affinity to the 14 others based on its low mean MMD of 0.028 and central location in all diagrams (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). In fact, in the 22-trait MDS (Fig. 2), Badari is at the centroid of all 15 Egyptian samples, as shown in Figure 6. These results seemingly run contrary to evidence suggesting that Badarian cultural influence was mostly limited to the vicinity of the type site (Hassan, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). If the present affinities are indicators of genetic variation, then the Badari sample is a good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like.

quote:
Was the dynastic period an indigenous outgrowth from the Naqada culture?

Before addressing this question, it is of interest to mention the close Naqada-Hierakonpolis affinity based on trait concordance, the low MMD (0.006), and the proximity of the samples to one another (Figs. 2, 3, 5). At first thought, a close relationship might be expected. After all, the culture is known to have expanded from its center at Naqada to influence north and south by the Naqada II phase (Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). However, beginning at this time and intensifying in Naqada III, Hierakonpolis became a major competing political/cultural center (Has- san, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). There are indications (Holmes, 1989) that the inhabitants of these two centers engaged in warfare (for an opposing view, see Wildung, 1984); the result may have been the subjugation of Naqada by Hierakonpolis (Baumgartel, 1955; Bard, 1987), perhaps in alliance with a third major center at Abydos (Bard, 2000). Although the impetus for this conflict is unknown, it probably did not involve major biological differences between the peoples of these two cities, based on the dental findings. Concerning the hypothesized Naqada/dynastic link (Childe, 1952; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Holmes, 1989; Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Rey- nes, 2000a), the homogeneity among most samples provides positive support. Naqada and Hierakonpolis share low, insignificant MMD values (Table 4) with many dynastic samples, as illustrated by their membership in the cluster of 10–11 samples in the MDS of MMD (Fig. 2) and D 2 distances (Fig. 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos (MMDs Ľ 0.013 and 0.000, respectively). Abydos, in turn, is not significantly different from First Dynasty Tarkhan (0.044), and both share low MMDs with most later dynastic and postdynastic samples (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’ (Petrie, 1939)

quote:
Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first?

Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD Ľ 0.050), 11– 12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.

quote:
Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?

Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five- cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility.

quote:
CONCLUSIONS

The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehen- sive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions. Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of: 1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada, 3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods. Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples.


Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  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 Mansamusa:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

What is the big deal though? Why should people be so desperate for EEF to be linked directly to Sub Saharan Africa? The indirect morphological affinities of EEF to "Subsaharan Africa" are stil there. Its just that their mixed African ancestry would have been North African-like. I think this is what I get from reading about Basal Eurasian and Natufians and their role in the neolithic for the Levant and Europe.
I agree. They can choose to accept the data as it is or be in denial about it. That's their right. But trying to lecture people on facts they don't like because it doesn't sit well with them? [Confused]
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:


It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But does the E1b1a of Rameses III make him paternally SSA?
Short of that it would be DNA that is in common with SSA, the predominant clade thereof.

(assuming there was no chance the misinterpreted E1b1b as being E1b1ba in the analysis, I think I saw in a forum somewhere suggesting this possibility - don't know what the chances would be)

Is SSA determined biologically or is it merely geography?

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  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 sudaniya:
[QB]
quote:
Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).
So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.
Reread the part of my post you quoted. It says the Gebel Ramlah sample has substantial SSA ancestry, not that it is identical to the 'Greek' sample. The 'identical' part only refers to how distant they both are to the Egyptian centroid. The 'Greek' Egyptian and Gebel Ramlah samples are equidistant to this centroid. However, the Gebel Ramlah gravitates more to SSA samples (and early Upper Egyptian samples), while the 'Greek' sample gravitates more to Europeans.
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 the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:


It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But does the E1b1a of Rameses III make him paternally SSA?
Short of that it would be DNA that is in common with SSA, the predominant clade thereof.

(assuming there was no chance the misinterpreted E1b1b as being E1b1ba in the analysis, I think I saw in a forum somewhere suggesting this possibility - don't know what the chances would be)

Read this:

quote:
HVS-I analysis of four Fulani populations revealed the different proportions of the mtDNA gene pool. A major role is played by West African mtDNA haplogroups, such as L1b, L3d, L3b, L2b, L2c, and L2d, which together make up 79.6% of the whole. The far from negligible presence of some haplogroups from western Eurasia (8.1%), such as U5, U6, and J1, is not particularly surprising in a sub-Saharan context because these haplogroups currently appear in North Africa. This may suggest an ancient origin of the nomads in the more northerly mountain massifs of the Central Sahara (Dupuy 1999). According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by “West Eurasian-like” individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common “Fulani type” peoples.
Source

Translation to common English: the Fulani individuals with the non African haplogroups don't stand out from their population. You always look like, and have the autosomal ancestry of the population you belong to. It doesn't matter what your haplogroup is. Haplogroups are only informative in terms of what people may look like or their autosomal ancestry, when you have a sample with a lot of haplogroups. And even then there can be things that can throw you off (e.g. founder effect). But Ramses III being predicted E1b1a changes just as much as the Fulani carrying a U haplogroup or Hitler carrying E-M34. It changes very little.

An exception to this would be if a E1b1a male with West African ancestry entered recently into Ramses III's pedigree. A more modern example: Obama's European mtDNA (whatever it is) is actually informative of his autosomal affinity and how he looks, because Obama looks like a mixed race person. His European mtDNA is also informative of how his daughters look. This is because the ancestry associated with Obama's European mtDNA entered his daughters' pedigree very recently (two generations ago).

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Exactly what do you estimate EEF average in Europeans? According to Pinhasi (2012) the estimates wildly vary from 20-70%. Furthermore I got access to a paper not even yet published [I got the draft] on the genomes of Neolithic Baltics - they are 0% EEF. Some now argue that the Baltic was some sort of special "refuge" area and wasn't affected by incoming agriculturalists, like the rest. However it seems more likely EEF has been over-estimated for the whole Europe.

I don't know off the top of my head, but probably looking at something more recent than a review paper from 2012 would give you a more accurate estimate.

Those Baltic Neolithic genomes are from areas that weren't settled by farmers, so it is not terribly surprising that they don't have EEF ancestry. Keep in mind that in Eastern European nomenclature 'Neolithic' doesn't mean agriculture, it means ceramics. Agriculture didn't show up until Corded Ware; before then it was foragers with pottery.

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  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 Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?
If you can find a term that reflects genetic realities better than 'SSA' I'll be on your team. For now, I see usefulness in the term as it is used in global contexts (e.g. conversations involving Basal Eurasian, Eurasian, EEF, etc).
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 Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB]
quote:
Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).
So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.
Reread the part of my post you quoted. It says the Gebel Ramlah sample has substantial SSA ancestry, not that it is identical to the 'Greek' sample. The 'identical' part only refers to how distant they both are to the Egyptian centroid. The 'Greek' Egyptian and Gebel Ramlah samples are equidistant to this centroid. However, the Gebel Ramlah gravitates more to SSA samples (and early Upper Egyptian samples), while the 'Greek' sample gravitates more to Europeans.
 -

Note that grm (Gebel Ramlah) and geg ('Greek' Egyptians) are equidistant to the Egyptian center, but both plot on opposing sides.

 -

Same thing is shown here with grm and geg.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB]
quote:
Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).
So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.
Reread the part of my post you quoted. It says the Gebel Ramlah sample has substantial SSA ancestry, not that it is identical to the 'Greek' sample. The 'identical' part only refers to how distant they both are to the Egyptian centroid. The 'Greek' Egyptian and Gebel Ramlah samples are equidistant to this centroid. However, the Gebel Ramlah gravitates more to SSA samples (and early Upper Egyptian samples), while the 'Greek' sample gravitates more to Europeans.
 -

Note that grm (Gebel Ramlah) and geg ('Greek' Egyptians) are equidistant to the Egyptian center, but both plot on opposing sides.

Thanks, Swenet. I do apologise for jumping the gun on that one. I'm still very much a novice.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  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 
No biggie happens to all of us.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:


So, let me get this right. You're saying that the African STR alleles of Aframs is consistently scattered over SSA and West Eurasia and often peaks in Egyptians and Somalis? Do you have evidence for this?

That is exactly what Dnaconsultants is saying about 1% of African American alleles. They even said the same for a gene that was found in modern Egyptians and not found in the royals.


Although not detected in the royal mummies whose DNA has been examined so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin. Today it enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. About 1 in 10 Africans or African Americans have it, but a sharp spike occurs in Copts, today’s successor population in the Land of the Nile, where up to 27% possess it.

These are old markers that aren't even shared by all the royals or in this case any of the three Consultants tested.

quote:
Let's look at the facts. The only information you have thanks to DNA Tribes is that the pooled South African, West African and Great Lakes regions outperform the two pooled North African regions (one of which is problematically pooled with the Levant). Your next step is proving that these regions outperform the Adaima Coptic sample from Coudray et al. Then, your next step is proving that admixture in North Africa doesn't limit the North African regions' capacity to compete in terms of posting high MLI scores. Before you do that DNA Tribes can be dismissed as an unfair analysis. And this is not a criticism of DNA Tribes, because they never intended it to be taken literally.
Thanks to Dnatribes, Dnaconsultants and the Ramses test. This again questions the definition of 'literally'. The test literally says that the the majority of people who share a greater combination of those genes are located in those regions. The only narrative I would present is that they are descendants of what was probably an ancient population of shared ancestry likely along the Nile it's source or the Green Sahara. The fact that certain Coptic populations share some or even all of those genes at high frequencies does not change that. It makes a case that they would be better represented in an SNP test (same would probably be true with other ethnic groups).

quote:
I manually counted the frequencies of the pharaonic alleles in African populations. I posted by results and challenged nay sayers to falsify them. My results look nothing like DNA Tribes. Two Egyptian sample are among the best scoring samples, while other Egyptian samples score poorly. The fact that Egyptian samples rank among samples with the best and the mediocre results clearly shows that DNA Tribes pooled regions makes the analysis unfair and that admixture in North Africa plays a huge role.
That doesn't mean its anymore unfair than an inverse analysis. It points to how Egypt was diverse, invaded and gentrified. The same is true for much of the Sudan. I was surprised at how many tribes in the Sudan are of dark skin people who claim to be Arabs from Arabia. Tribes, like the Bamilike, Dogon, and Kalenjin that trace their history to Egypt or the Yoruba to the Sudan during a time when their ethnic groups were more intact could make the same case that the test is unfair because it focuses on shared ancestry within a large region. Even if DnaTribes ran an African panel it would still favor tribes within the regions that have high MLI scores ie a combo of Consultant's genes.

What alleles and what African populations did you use? If less than 1% of African Americans share all of Consultants's three Amarna genes good luck with any individual African ethnic group. The Tribes and Consultants analysis do not favor frequency in small populations as much as shared genetics however like I said, even if they ran an African panel it would still favor tribes in the regions with the higher MLI scores. Besides, compared to Yoruba in my test, North Africa had a huge MLI score among the royals tested.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?
If you can find a term that reflects genetic realities better than 'SSA' I'll be on your team. For now, I see usefulness in the term as it is used in global contexts (e.g. conversations involving Basal Eurasian, Eurasian, EEF, etc).
I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
A nice piece on the Ovambo

http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/03/ovambo-owambo-people-agricultural-and.html

I was all over that site years ago. Its one of the reasons I started getting ancestry test. The real irony is the Fang. SNP time.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ would you mind sharing your DNA Tribes Info?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
A nice piece on the Ovambo

http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/03/ovambo-owambo-people-agricultural-and.html

I was all over that site years ago. Its one of the reasons I started getting ancestry test. The real irony is the Fang. SNP time.
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  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 Fourty2Tribes:
That is exactly what Dnaconsultants is saying about 1% of African American alleles. They even said the same for a gene that was found in modern Egyptians and not found in the royals.

Please listen carefully bro. This is not difficult. In my analysis the Amarna alleles have a good showing in Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims and Omran et al's Upper Egyptians. The papers where these samples were genotyped are listed below:

Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims (I said Adaima Copts earlier, but the Adaima sample with the most affinity was the Adaima Muslim sample, not the Coptic sample from the same site)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073806001678

Omran et al's Upper Egyptians
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497308000859

The Amarna alleles are not as common in the Ovambo sample, which was genotyped here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344622307001502

As you correctly point out, the Amarna alleles also show up in African Americans. Because of this, you and I may carry these Amarna alleles. However, the fact that the Amarna alleles peak in the aforementioned Upper Egyptian samples, while your STR alleles peak in the Ovambo (as you just admitted), shows that you are not primarily like the Amarna family. There is overlap but, obviously, merely carrying an allele doesn't mean that your predominant ancestry has the same affinity as some of Amarna alleles you may carry.

Do you at least follow me so far? Just give me a yes or no.

Below are the most relevant results I got back then:

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above

^Also, as you can see, it doesn't matter that the Amarna alleles occur in a population. They occur in a lot of populations. In a Chinese sample (Yunnan) they occur at a rate of 7.11 per person (on average). What matters is, do the Amarna alleles match the predominant ancestry that is in that comparative sample or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What is this purple component in the African samples, Doug?

 -

Are you serious? This isn't kindergarten play by the numbers coloring books.

My point was "PROTO FARMING" communities existed in the Nile Valley Region long before the Neolithic. Some of those folks migrated into the Near East and helped instigate the development of Agriculture as we know it. Therefore, some of those elements which came from Africa would have been close to other populations of Africans who were closely related but stayed in Africa. That does not make those Africans into "EEF". The relationship is from the lineages of Africans who migrated into the Levant prior to and during the development of the Neolithic cultures that led the way towards introducing farming into Europe. A label like "EEF" is not a good way of modelling this migration pattern. Primarily because it confuses the downstream descendants of those Neolithic populations who migrated into Europe with the original populations of proto farmers long before they even left Africa. The founding members of the Dynastic Egyptian population would have included members of this Proto-Farming community along the Nile. That does not make them into "EEF" either.

Now what would be good to know is what the DNA profile was of these populations at Wadi Kubbaniyah and Nabta Playa as they are central to the development of later Nile Valley civilizations.

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?
Actually the question is what do they consider African. Sounds like what they are trying to do is limit "African" to being South of the Sahara. Otherwise, why is it relevant to ancient populations along the Nile, the Sahara or near the Red Sea?

How on earth do we jump from SSA straight into Europe? Seriously how is that even making sense?

That is why I don't buy into this false narrative of relationship to SSA as if that defines what is "African".

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
 -

Keep running Doug. When you ready to face what you're running from, let me know.

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 
 -

I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao

I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?

But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.

 -

Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.

... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
 -

Keep running Doug. When you ready to face what you're running from, let me know.

I am not running I am stating the same thing I have always been stating which is that some folks are running with the distorted language and terminology of these latest studies and not understanding that it distorts logic and fact.

The point is they keep trying to maintain this myth of Africa being isolated and separate from downstream populations of OOA descendants, even in areas right next to Africa. And this whole paper and all the terminology related to it are explicitly built around MASKING OUT African mixture. And they got folks on a wild goose chase looking for "SSA mixture" when the point is where is the AFRICAN mixture in the Levant. It is obvious.

quote:

It is striking that the highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East, given the hypothesis that it was there that most admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans occurred19,23. This could be explained if Basal Eurasians thoroughly admixed into the Near East before the time of the samples we analyzed but after the Neanderthal admixture. Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.

A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/

And then this:
quote:

But the ancient Iranian DNA was dramatically different from that of the western Anatolian farmers. The two groups of farmers, who lived about 2000 kilometers and 2000 years apart, must have descended from completely different groups of hunter-gatherers who separated 46,000 to 77,000 years ago, Burger says.

A similar genetic disjunction appears in a study led by Harvard University’s David Reich and posted on bioRxiv. This study analyzed ancient DNA from 44 Middle Easterners who lived 14,000 to 3400 years ago, including Natufian hunter-gatherers in Israel, Zagros farmers, and Bronze Age pastoralists in the Eurasian steppe, and compared it with that of 2864 living and ancient people from around the world. By sequencing 1.2 million nucleotides from across each genome, the team found that early farmers of Israel and Jordan (known as the Levant) were genetically distinct from those in the Zagros Mountains, and that both populations were distinct from the western Anatolians who later spread their genes throughout Europe.

The third study, also published on bioRxiv, reported the same stark differences. That study analyzed the complete genome of a 10,000-year-old woman from Ganj Dareh, a site in the Zagros Mountains with the world’s oldest evidence of goat herding.

Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse

In fact, the more data they release, the more they contradict themselves. First they claimed that Basal Eurasian descended from a split between Africans and Non Africans as a result of Neanderthal interogression, but now they are saying that these populations have little Neanderthal ancestry indicating that the early OOA populations in these areas didn't mix with Neanderthals. As they said:
quote:
Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.
Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.

Not only that, they claim there is TREMENDOUS diversity among all these populations which means that EEF is a composite term referring to many different DNA lineages, including some African DNA lineages. Again, a good example of how they aggregate actual DNA data into these aggregate clumps in order to hide the actual relationships between populations and in his case the ancestral relationship of Africa to Europe. Not to mention none of these Early farmers were even Europeans! (HINT: The Levenat and Anatolia aren't considered "Europe"). Yet some folks keep clinging to EEF as some "holy grail" of knowledge. Please.

Then this:
 -
There is an image showing a direct path from Africa into the "Near East" which could coincide with ancient migration patterns of OOA populations going back 60,000 years or more and also later migrations of "proto farming" populations out of Africa. Yet strangely, their map stops Africa. And of course they keep claiming "no relationship to SSA". But what about relationship to Africa period? Are you seriously claiming no African DNA was around in the Levant 15,000 - 9,000 years ago?

Come on man,give it up. These folks are up to their normal antics. No longer do these studies simply list the DNA markers any more, now all the tables are full of Acronyms representing place names and population groups. Which is what I meant by EEF being used to MASK African lineages. So now they are using alternate facts to keep from pointing out the actual lineages involved because at the end of the day they should be able to trace all of these lineages back to the Africans OOA populations they descended from and these populations would rightly be labelled as Africans.... But according to them Eurasian genes are super genes and go everywhere but African genes die as soon as they leave Africa.... duh.

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elmaestro

I'm not sure what you think my position is and exactly just what it is you're trying to say. Please explain your position.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  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 sudaniya:
Elmaestro

I'm not sure what you think my position is and exactly just what it is you're trying to say. Please explain your position.

It wasn't completely directed at you but most those who trade ideas with you. No one (but beyoku probably, I think?) tapped you on the shoulder and said "Nah man, There's no pre OOA admixed distinct North East African genetic cluster."

I believe I tried to tell you even before the leaks came out for this paper, I don't think you digested it then, Idk what you believe now though. But noone came out and said it yet.

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 
@Doug

Still running away from explaining what the purple component in Africans is. All you do is post walls of text to compensate for the fact that you're running from the matter at hand.

 -

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug

Still running away from explaining what the purple component in Africans is. All you do is post walls of text to compensate for the fact that you're running from the matter at hand.

I wasn't talking about color charts I stated point blank what my position was relative to early farmers along the Nile being part of the populations who developed farming in the Levant. So unless your "purple colors" relates to that it is irrelevant. You really didn't address what I said at all. So in reality you are running away from what I keep saying, which is that all these populations of "Early Farmers" have key components that originated in Africa and may be related to early "proto farmers" along the Nile. But heck I can go even further back on that one:

quote:

The consumption of wild cereals among prehistoric hunters and gatherers appears to be far more ancient than previously thought, according to a University of Calgary archaeologist who has found the oldest example of extensive reliance on cereal and root staples in the diet of early Homo sapiens more than 100,000 years ago.

Julio Mercader, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Tropical Archaeology in the U of C's Department of Archaeology, recovered dozens of stone tools from a deep cave in Mozambique showing that wild sorghum, the ancestor of the chief cereal consumed today in sub-Saharan Africa for flours, breads, porridges and alcoholic beverages, was in Homo sapiens' pantry along with the African wine palm, the false banana, pigeon peas, wild oranges and the African "potato." This is the earliest direct evidence of humans using pre-domesticated cereals anywhere in the world. Mercader's findings are published in the December 18 issue of the research journal Science.

"This broadens the timeline for the use of grass seeds by our species, and is proof of an expanded and sophisticated diet much earlier than we believed," Mercader said. "This happened during the Middle Stone Age, a time when the collecting of wild grains has conventionally been perceived as an irrelevant activity and not as important as that of roots, fruits and nuts."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
Doug, I know you want to talk about your 22ky old "farmers" that don't exist. But (pre)dynastic Egyptians had this purple component you keep running away from. Care to explain what it is without running away?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lazaridis (2013) defined an EEF cluster
* Stuttgart: ~7k Linear Pottery Culture mtDNA T2 c1d1 SLC24Ŕ5 female
* Tyrolean Iceman: ~5.3k male
* southern Swedish farmer: ~5k Funnelbeaker female.
He says today's Sardinians are genetically
nearest to EEF.

Laz says EEF [Stuttgart] is
* 44% Basal Eurasian [via the Near East],
* ~10% other ancient Near Eastern farmer
* <45% WHG [Westeuropean Hunter-Gatherer], and
* 01.8% Neanderthal


In 2016 Laz breaks the ancient Near Eastern farmers
into three groups spreading in as many directions.
* Anatolian related: 9-25% Basal Eurasian, west into Europe;
* Levant related: 44% Basal Eurasian, south into East Africa
and
* Iran related: 66-48% Basal Eurasian, north into the Eurasian Steppe.

Laz says Anatolian originating farming in Europe means
direct ancient southern Levant farmers didn't introduce it.


I guess since NE (ancient Near East farmers)
is not EEF the developing paradigm doesn't
rely on the known 3k Red Sea event for pre-
3rd Intermediate EEF in Egypt?

Mediterranean Europe's had EEF for like 5000
years from the Eneolithic to the Chalcolithic to
today.

What time EEF period corresponds
to which Ancient Egypt period and
is there archaeological etc support?

Was this EEF ever in the Green Sahara,
Western Egyptian Desert, Nubian and
Sudanese Nile antecedents of AE or
the deserts to Fayum pre-dyn culture?
Does it show in what EEF culture(s)?


Unless it was always among Mediterranean
African and/or north Sahara Africans then
I can see genomic EEF entering with Minoan
trade, Sea Peoples, and if Naukratis Greek
mercenaries imported their bed mates.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug, I know you want to talk about your 22ky old "farmers" that don't exist. But (pre)dynastic Egyptians had this purple component you keep running away from. Care to explain what it is without running away?

So just say you don't agree that the folks of Wadi Kubbaniya were proto farmers then. I can't comment on some snippet of something without the report or study it originates from.

And again, I don't have a PROBLEM with some "Eurasian" DNA being in Africa at any time period. The issue I have is with it being called EEF. As posted, they are lumping together a whole bunch of different DNA lineages together as EEF. They are inconsistent in that definition across various authors. I prefer to call it Eurasian. Period.

Technically the populations in the Levantine region and Anatolia aren't "EEF". EEF is a reference to the DOWNSTREAM populations in Europe who are a mixture of those folks from Anatolia and the Levant who carried what they call "Basal Eurasian".

And again as I keep saying this whole scheme is about coming up with a set of nomenclature that MASKS (REMOVES and HIDES) the African component from all these groups. That is the whole point.

quote:

The findings from Raghavan et al. (43) discussed above suggested the existence of an ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population, with affinities to both Native Americans and Europeans. In a related study, Lazaridis et al. (51) obtained high-coverage genomes from an ancient Western European hunter-gatherer (found near Loschbour, Luxembourg) and an ancient Central European farmer (found near Stuttgart, Germany), and proposed a three-way mixture model of European origins. According to this model, the Loschbour individual belonged to the original modern human occupants of Europe, called Western hunter-gatherers (WHG). The ancestors of this population mixed with a basal Eurasian population coming from the Near East during the Neolithic to produce a population called Early European farmers (EEF), which likely brought agriculture into the region. This is the population to which the Stuttgart and Ötzi individuals belonged. Afterward, a third wave of migration from the Pontic steppe introduced the ANE ancestry component into the region.

In the past year, the number of Eurasian aDNA genomes has exploded from less than a dozen to over a hundred (4, 5, 52). Insights from whole-genome shotgun sequence data (5) as well as SNP capture data (4) have helped refine previous theories. For example, Haak et al. (4) showed that the Yamnaya—an Early Bronze Age population from the Pontic Steppe—contained ∼50% ANE ancestry. Haak et al. argued that a population stemming from this source may have been the one responsible for bringing ANE ancestry into Eastern and Central Europe via a massive westward migration 4,500 y ago (the “Corded Ware” culture), and might therefore have been responsible for importing horses and Indo-European languages. Moreover, Allentoft et al. (5) found that people living in the Altai Mountains in Russia until 4,500 y ago (the Afanasievo culture) shared close genetic affinities with the Yamnaya, which could explain why Indo-European languages are also spoken in central Asia.

Haak et al. (4) also detected a resurgence of WHG ancestry immediately before the Yamnaya immigration into Europe (6,000–5,000 y ago) and placed a date on the first Near-Eastern migration of early farmers in the early Neolithic at 8,000–9,000 y ago. Additionally, Jones et al. (53) showed that the other half of the Yamnaya ancestry came from a fourth source population: the “Caucasus hunter-gatherers” (CHG), who split from the WHG ∼45,000 y ago and from the EEF ∼25,000 y ago. At present, it appears that western Eurasian populations are mixtures of four ancestral sources (ANE, EEF, WHG, CHG). Nevertheless, given the changes in our understanding of European history that come with each new group of fossils sequenced, it seems likely that the current models will soon be superseded.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/23/6380.full

Note that two of these populations the ANE and EEF SHOULD have high levels of African DNA lineages. But by using these composite labels as a reference for multiple DNA lineages it is easy to mask out that there was an African presence in Eurasia from the very beginning and that this presence continued right through to the present day. Because the way they are saying it, Africans suddenly stopped migrating out of Africa 60,000 years ago.

Using their own words, the whole point of all these studies is to mask out any African populations. Hence:

quote:

Admixture proportions for Stuttgart in the absence of a Near Eastern ancient
genome. We used Loschbour and BedouinB as surrogates for ‘unknown
hunter-gatherer’ and Near Eastern (NE) farmer populations that contributed to
Stuttgart (Supplementary Information section 13). Ancient Near Eastern
ancestry in Stuttgart is estimated by the f4 ratio 8,15 f4 (Outgroup,
X;Loschbour,Stuttgart) /f4 (Outgroup, X ;Loschbour, NE). A complication is
that BedouinB is a mixture of NE and African ancestry. We therefore subtracted
the effects of African ancestry using estimates of the BedouinB African
admixture proportion from ADMIXTURE (Supplemen-tary Information section 9) or
ALDER 68.


Admixture graph modelling. We used ADMIXTUREGRAPH (version 3110) to model
population relationships between Loschbour, Stuttgart, Onge, and Karitiana
using Mbuti as an African outgroup.
We assessed model fit using a block
jackknife of differences between estimated and fitted f statistics for the set
of included populations (we expressed the fit as a Z score). We determined
that a model failed if j Z j . 3 for at least one f statistic. A basic tree
model failed and we manually amended the model to test all possible models
with a single admixture event, which also failed. Further manual amendment to
include 2 admixture events resulted in 8 successful models, only one of which
could be amended to also fit MA1 as an additional constraint. We successfully
fit both the Iceman and LaBrana into this model as simple clades and Motala12
as a two-way mixture. We also fit present-day west Eurasians as clades,
two-way mixtures, or three-way mixtures in this basic model, achieving a
successful fit for a larger number of European populations ( n = 26) as
three-way mixtures.We estimated the individualadmixture proportionsfromthe
fittedmodel parameters. To test if fitted parameters for different populations
are consistent with each other, we jointly fit all pairs of populations A and
B by modifying ADMIXTUREGRAPH to add a large constant (10,000) to the variance
term f3 (A0, A, B). By doing this, we can safely ignore recent gene flow
within Europe that affects statistics that include both A and B . Ancestry
estimates from f4 ratios. We estimate EEF ancestry using the f4 ratio 8,15
f4 (Mbuti, Onge; Loschbour, European)/ f 4 (Mbuti, Onge; Loschbour, Stuttgart)
, which produces consistent results with ADMIXTUREGRAPH (Supplementary
Informa- tion section 14). We use f4 (Stuttgart,Loschbour; Onge MA1)/ f 4
(Mbuti, MA1; Onge, Loschbour) to estimate Basal Eurasian admixture into
Stuttgart. We use f4 (Stuttgart, Loschbour; Onge Karitiana) / f 4 (Stuttgart,
Loschbour; Onge MA1) to estimate ANE mixture in Karitiana (Fig. 4). We use f 4
( Test ,Stuttgart;Karitiana,Onge)/f 4 (MA1, Stutt- gart; Karitiana, Onge) to
lower bound ANE m ixture into north Caucasian populations.
MixMapper
analysis. We carried out MixMapper 2.0 (ref. 7) analysis, a semi-supervised
admixture graph fitting technique. First, we infer a scaffold tree of
populations without strong evidence of mixture relative to each other (Mbuti,
Onge, Loschbour and MA1). We do not include European populations in the
scaffold as all had significantly negative f3 statistics indicating
admixture
. We then ran MixMapper to infer the relatedness of the other
ancient and present day samples, fitting them onto the scaffold as two- or
three-way mixtures. The uncertainty in all parameter estimates is measured by
block bootstrap resampling of the SNP set (100 replicates with 50 blocks).
TreeMix analysis. We applied TreeMix 21 to Loschbour, Stuttgart, Motala12,
and MA1 (ref. 3), LaBrana and the Iceman1 , along with the present-day samples
of Karitiana, Onge and Mbuti. We restricted the analysis to 265,521 Human
Origins array sites after excluding any SNPs where there were no-calls in any
of the studied individuals. The tree was rooted with Mbuti and standard errors
were estimated using blocks of 500 SNPs. We repeated the analysis on
whole-genome sequence data, rooting with chimp and replacing Onge with Dai as
we did not have Onge whole genome.
sequence data 55 .Wevariedthenumberofmigrationevents( m)between0and5. Inferring admixture proportions with minimal modelling assumptions. We devised a method to infer ancestry proportions from three ancestral populations (EEF, WHG, and ANE) without strong phylogenetic assumptions (Supplementary Information section 17). We rely on 15 ‘non-west Eurasian’ outgroups and study f 4 ( European, Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2) which is expectedtoequal ab f 4 (Loschbour, Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2) 1 a ( 1 2 b) f 4 (MA1,Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2)if European has1 2 a ancestry from EEF and b ,1 2 b ancestry from WHG and ANE respectively. This defines a system of 15 2  ~ 105 equationswithunknowns ab , a (1 2 b), which we solve with least squares implemented in the function lsfit in R to obtain estimates of a and b . We repeated this computation 22 times dropping one chromosome at a time 20 to obtain block jackknife 67 estimates of the ancestry proportions and standard errors, with block size equal to the number of SNPs per chromosome. We assessed consistency of the inferred admixture proportions with those derived from the ADMIXTUREGRAPH model based on the number of standard errors between the two (Extended Data Table 1). Haplotype-based analyses. We used RefinedIBD from BEAGLE 4 27 with the set- tings ibdtrim 5 20 and ibdwindow 5 25 to identify identity-by-descent (IBD) tracts: genomic segments or recently shared ancestry between Loschbour and Stuttgart and populations from the POPRES data set 69 . We kept all IBD tracts spanning at least 0.5 centimorgans (cM) and with a LOD score . 3 (Supplementary Informa- tionsection18).We alsousedChromoPainter 29 tostudy haplotype sharingbetween Loschbour and Stuttgart and present-day West Eurasian populations (SI19). We identified 495,357 SNPs that were complete in all individuals and phased the data using Beagle 4 (ref. 27) with parameters phase-its 5 50 and impute-its 5 10. We did not keep sites with missing data to avoid imputing modern alleles into the ancient individuals. We used both unlinked (-k 1000) and linked modes (estimating -n and -Mby sampling 10% of individuals). We combined ChromoPainter output for chro- mosomes 1–22 using ChromoCombine 29 . We carried out a PCA of the co-ancestry matrix using fineSTRUCTURE 29 . 31. Delsate, D., Guinet, J.-M. & Saverwyns, S. De l’ocr[/b]

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Datasets_files/2014_Nature_Lazaridis_EuropeThreeAncestries.pdf

Of course the reason for masking the African ancestry, according to them, is to understand the ancient ancestral populations involved in the development of European populations purely within Europe, but the problem is that IN REAL LIFE, African DNA is part of the development of European populations going all the way back to the beginning. EEF, ANE and WHG are all similarly affected by MASKING out the African component in order to understand intra-European gene flow.

As for the development of farming itself, it is already widely documented that it was BEHAVIORS related to subsistence strategies that laid the basis for the development of farming. And there are various evidences of this both IN and OUTSIDE Africa, not ironically many of the sites outside Africa being in the nearby Levant. I don't see that as a coincidence.

quote:

Abstract

Use-wear analysis of five glossed flint blades found at Ohalo II, a 23,000-years-old fisher-hunter-gatherers’ camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Northern Israel, provides the earliest evidence for the use of composite cereal harvesting tools. The wear traces indicate that tools were used for harvesting near-ripe semi-green wild cereals, shortly before grains are ripe and disperse naturally. The studied tools were not used intensively, and they reflect two harvesting modes: flint knives held by hand and inserts hafted in a handle. The finds shed new light on cereal harvesting techniques some 8,000 years before the Natufian and 12,000 years before the establishment of sedentary farming communities in the Near East. Furthermore, the new finds accord well with evidence for the earliest ever cereal cultivation at the site and the use of stone-made grinding implements.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167151

quote:

Ohalo II is located 5.5 miles (9 km) south of the modern city of Tiberias, and was discovered in 1989 when the level of the lake plummeted.

Excavations at the site exposed six brush hut dwellings, a human grave, copious and well-preserved remains of both animal and plant foods, beads from the Mediterranean Sea, as well as evidence of flint tool manufacture and use.

“The plant remains from the site were unusually well-preserved because of being charred and then covered by sediment and water which sealed them in low-oxygen conditions,” said Prof Ehud Weiss of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel, team leader and senior author of a paper published in the journal PLoS ONE.

“Due to this, it was possible to recover an extensive amount of information on the site and its inhabitants – which made this a uniquely preserved site, and therefore one of the best archaeological examples worldwide of hunter-gatherers’ way of life. Here we see evidence of repeated sowing and harvesting of later domesticated cereals.”

In the Ohalo II dwellings was a particularly rich assemblage of some 150,000 plant remains, showing that the residents gathered over 140 different plant species from the surrounding environment.

Among these, the archaeologists identified edible cereals – such as wild emmer, wild barley, and wild oats.

These cereals were mixed with 13 species of so-called proto-weeds – ancestors of the modern-day weeds known to flourish in cultivated, single-crop fields – indicating that they grew and were subsequently unintentionally gathered together.

“Because weeds thrive in cultivated fields and disturbed soils, a significant presence of weeds in archaeobotanical assemblages retrieved from Neolithic sites and settlements of later age is widely considered an indicator of systematic cultivation,” said co-author Prof Marcelo Sternberg of Tel Aviv University.

The archaeologists also found a grinding slab – a stone tool with which cereal starch granules were extracted – as well as a distribution of seeds around this tool, reflecting that the cereal grains were processed into flour. This flour was probably used to make dough, maybe by baking it on an installation of flat stones, found just outside one of the shelters.

Until now, scientists believed farming was invented 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization – Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran – an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. The researchers’ discovery offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier – some 23,000 years ago.

“While full-scale agriculture did not develop until much later, our study shows that trial cultivation began far earlier than previously believed, and gives us reason to rethink our ancestors’ capabilities. Those early ancestors were more clever and more skilled than we knew,” Prof Sternberg said.

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-farming-ohalo-ii-israel-03052.html

And of course Wadi Kubbaniyah also follows the same pattern.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mtOhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=wadi+kubbaniya&source=bl&ots=0Hh3f0mpPF&sig=jjKgjLFDQUMtBwi6IJIm0o3cwQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZhsXu66PTAhXIQCY KHdRdBuAQ6AEIczAQ#v=onepage&q=wadi%20kubbaniya&f=false

Not to mention other sites also found in Europe:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28139-stone-age-people-were-making-porridge-32000-years-ago/

So the idea of Africans grinding wild grains 100,000 years ago is not far fetched and neither is the idea that this "survival toolkit" migrated out of Africa along with modern humans.

 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pilon.jpg

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.

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 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will at some point do a thread on Multiregionalism in Africa; that will apply to its two peripheries: the extreme south and north. In the inhabited north (the Maghreb coast/Morocco, and to a lesser extent the northern Sahara), e.g.

"Nonetheless, the clear association between the Holocene and Middle/Late Pleistocene specimens in Northwest Africa is thought provoking. Over 200,000 years separate the Late. H. erectus from Morocco and the Ibermaruusians from Taforalt. Yet, the statistical results demonstrate that these specimens are closely associated." (Pinhasi, 2002)

What I also see in the Upper Palaeolithic Egyptians (as north Saharans) is regional morphological continuity, e.g. Brauer & Rimbach (1991) in their craniofacial analysis of Nazlet Khater, but using 8 measurements, have it "within the 90% ellipse of the North Africa [Sahara] group", not European, or Sub-Saharan African, although closer to the latter than the former (the reverse for its inner ear structure: "the similarities between NK 2 and the Upper Paleolithic [European] sample, suggested by the discriminant analysis, may indicate a close relationship between this Nile Valley specimen and European Upper Paleolithic modern humans." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724840800242X This mosaic pattern is consistent with living North Africans plotting intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan African populations.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ would you mind sharing your DNA Tribes Info?

Sure. I'll post it this weekend. It just dawned on me that the Guinea was Guinea Bissau so Balanta just jumped to number one. An SNP test or a company with a larger African database might stir change that though I'm betting Balanta will remain numero uno.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
But according to them Eurasian genes are super genes and go everywhere but African genes die as soon as they leave Africa.... duh.

Someone posted this today, on a youtube channel.

http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In all fairness, Lazaridis (2013) SI13
is trying to assay Neolithic ancient
Near Eastern Farmer contribution
to the Stuttgart EEF.

Knowing modern Levantines are
admixed it makes sense to mask
the known ingression to simulate
the base.


I can't see where Laz is out to hide
Africa away. He related Basal Eurasian
to African incursion of the Arabian
Peninsula. He also tied Natufians
to migrant Africans.

I tabled Laz's f3 data and query it by
* 10 South of Sahara African ethnic groups
* 15 Canary, s & e Med and 'Arabian' ethnic groups
* 5 W Eurasian EEF-like sets plus the Basque.

Results of one query show Levantines, Moroccan
and Libyan Jews as Esan and Stuttgart admixtures.

Another query shows that Yoruba, the Esan's Nigerian
neighbors, pair with Europe_EN for Moroccan and
Libyan Jews, and Levantines (except Syrians who
are Dinka and Europe_EN admixed).

A surprise to me was the Canary as a Mende
and Europe_MNChL admixture. Sierra Leone
Mende-like input in Canary Islanders is a
first, AFAIK.


A lot of good info about African genomes
in island, south, and east Mediterraneans,
and Arabian Peninsulars yielding many
potential hypotheses.

Laz allows us to see better African proxies
in global analysis. Esan turned out better
than Yoruba as a Niger-Congo A/general
African proxy revealinga deeper time of
incident.

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ would you mind sharing your DNA Tribes Info?

Sure. I'll post it this weekend. It just dawned on me that the Guinea was Guinea Bissau so Balanta just jumped to number one. An SNP test or a company with a larger African database might stir change that though I'm betting Balanta will remain numero uno.
.
Wow! Without promising, I'll have to sneak out and
use a PC to run your 8 loci MiniFiler STRs against
the popSTR database + the UpEgy and Sudan data
like I did for the royals.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
 -

I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao

I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?

But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.

 -

Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.

... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.

I find it ironic they emphasize on something NOT being of SSA extraction.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -


 -
Modern Day Coptic Northern Sudanese Priest Rev Farag, who also serve in the ruling party in Northern Sudan. There are 3 million people in Northern Sudan that follow the Orthodox faith. These people are primarily Egyptians and NOrthern Sudanese of varies backgrounds.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

I have never personally come across a Sudanese Copt,

Ethiopian and Sudan orthodox Christians side by side

 -

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Please listen carefully bro. This is not difficult. In my analysis the Amarna alleles have a good showing in Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims and Omran et al's Upper Egyptians. The papers where these samples were genotyped are listed below:

Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims (I said Adaima Copts earlier, but the Adaima sample with the most affinity was the Adaima Muslim sample, not the Coptic sample from the same site)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073806001678

Omran et al's Upper Egyptians
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497308000859

The Amarna alleles are not as common in the Ovambo sample, which was genotyped here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344622307001502

As you correctly point out, the Amarna alleles also show up in African Americans. Because of this, you and I may carry these Amarna alleles. However, the fact that the Amarna alleles peak in the aforementioned Upper Egyptian samples, while your STR alleles peak in the Ovambo (as you just admitted), shows that you are not primarily like the Amarna family. There is overlap but, obviously, merely carrying an allele doesn't mean that your predominant ancestry has the same affinity as some of Amarna alleles you may carry.


Do you at least follow me so far? Just give me a yes or no.

I have some questions some more technical questions that I will get to but first I have a fundamental question. I don't see how your analysis conflicts with the logic behind how Consultants explains Tribes's STR results. If more than 0.5% of African Americans have the genes found in three royals and one in modern Egyptians then we are talking about 500K people in a portion of the west African region which would strongly suggest that Central and Southern Africa have much more and that and these genes are old enough to predate most ethnic groups. I would guess that any peaks in those ethnic groups would be a result of admixture but STR test seem to over-account for that.

quote:

Below are the most relevant results I got back then:

Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above
^Also, as you can see, it doesn't matter that the Amarna alleles occur in a population. They occur in a lot of populations. In a Chinese sample (Yunnan) they occur at a rate of 7.11 per person (on average). What matters is, do the Amarna alleles match the predominant ancestry that is in that comparative sample or not. [/QB]

How do you determine predominant ancestry and how many alleles are those matches based on? I have other questions but I'll wait until I read the studies first. Give me a day or two.


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

The Greenberg families are arguably the ultimate shoehorn.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.

Yes I have a problem with it. You just can't seem to accept these people are just using composite labels to hide the African genetic input into Eurasia over the last 100,000 years and more. Sure there was some Eurasian inflow into ancient Africa but that is trivial compared to the ORIGIN of all human DNA in Africa and subsequent African migrations into Eurasia over time. This is the part they are trying to conceal using these new labels and their own methodologies show this clearly.

It is fine if one is trying to model population movements within Europe but such labels become disingenuous when one uses them as absolute references for overall population movements between Africa and Eurasia over time.

The Kubbaniya example and the other examples are support for the point that PATTERNS of subsistence behavior involving harvesting wild grains laid the foundation of modern farming in the Levant at least partly as a result of African influence on Levantine populations. But you are trying to pigeonhole this into one group of traits or another at a biological level which is the problem. If you are going to categorize things and label things as a way to show relationships the categories and labels should be relevant to what is being discussed. And what i am saying simply is that African genetic signatures have ALWAYS been in the Levant and masking it out simply promotes false history. And migrations of Africans with adaptive strategies such as harvesting wild grains could and would have been a significant influence on the Levant STARTING with OOA and continuing all the way through the Neolithic....

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
We're going in circles.

quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
If more than 0.5% of African Americans have the genes found in three royals and one in modern Egyptians then we are talking about 500K people in a portion of the west African region which would strongly suggest that Central and Southern Africa have much more and that and these genes are old enough to predate most ethnic groups.

As I've already pointed out, your own source (DNAconsultants) has the frequency of the Thuya and Akhenaten "genes" higher in Egypt and Somalia than anywhere else. So why even still bring up what DNAconsultant says about African Americans' frequency at this point? Why does it make sense to you to still bring up a lower frequency as evidence of what you're saying when your source says the peaks are in northeast Africa? There are southern and Central Africans in DNAconsultants' database and they are mentioned in your own quotes from DNAconsultants as having lower frequencies. So why speculate about southern and Central Africans having "much more of these genes"? This is wishful thinking.

quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
How do you determine predominant ancestry and how many alleles are those matches based on?

Look at the list. Living Egyptians and Somalis have ancestry in common and the Somali, Adaima Muslims and Upper Egyptians are at the top of the list. What more is there to say? By contrast, The Ovambo and Tanzanian samples are outscored by highly admixed Egyptian Muslims from Adaima. Even though there is no non African ancestry hampering their ability to score well (as is the case in the North African samples), Ovambo and Tanzanians barely outscore the Coptic, Greek and Moroccan samples. The Somali sample outscores samples with such mediocre scores with more than a full point. Very suspect if the pharaonic alleles are supposed to match DNA that is in DNA Tribes Great Lakes and South Africa regions. There is obviously a trend in that list, which is also reflected in the fact that Thuya's and Akhenaten's "rare genes" have a completely different distribution than the "rare genes" from SSA:

quote:
One in 9 Hutus have [the Kilimanjaro "rare gene"], whereas on the opposite end of the range it is found in only 1 in 3333 Greek Cypriots. It is practically absent in Central Asia, the Mediterranean, Middle East and Far East. Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in Africa and dominates the Great Rift Valley, the volcanic fault line believed to mark humanity’s earliest home. The Kilimanjaro gene has a frequency of about 6% in Africans (slightly less in African Americans).
Nothing here says that the Ovambo and Tanzanians are anything like the Amarna family as suggested by your interpretation of DNA Tribes. At best they are more "Amarna" than Greeks and some thoroughly admixed North Africans at this level of resolution.
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 
The Moroccan score was wrongly copied from the original results. It's corrected below, along with a repost of the original screenshot. Note the weird Greater Syrian position at the bottom of the list. As I said a year ago, there might be something wrong with that sample. I will soon use another sample from the Middle East to test if all those zeros are corrupt or poorly entered data.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 7.92 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above
^Also, as you can see, it doesn't matter that the Amarna alleles occur in a population. They occur in a lot of populations. In a Chinese sample (Yunnan) they occur at a rate of 7.11 per person (on average). What matters is, do the Amarna alleles match the predominant ancestry that is in that comparative sample or not.


 -

Red, blue and green colors correspond with the colors Hawass et al used for the inherited alleles of Yuya, Thuya and Amenhotep III (the three genetic founders of the Amarna family).

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 Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark. [/qb]

Yes I have a problem with it. You just can't seem to accept these people are just using composite labels to hide the African genetic input into Eurasia over the last 100,000 years and more. Sure there was some Eurasian inflow into ancient Africa but that is trivial compared to the ORIGIN of all human DNA in Africa and subsequent African migrations into Eurasia over time. This is the part they are trying to conceal using these new labels and their own methodologies show this clearly.

It is fine if one is trying to model population movements within Europe but such labels become disingenuous when one uses them as absolute references for overall population movements between Africa and Eurasia over time.

The Kubbaniya example and the other examples are support for the point that PATTERNS of subsistence behavior involving harvesting wild grains laid the foundation of modern farming in the Levant at least partly as a result of African influence on Levantine populations. But you are trying to pigeonhole this into one group of traits or another at a biological level which is the problem. If you are going to categorize things and label things as a way to show relationships the categories and labels should be relevant to what is being discussed. And what i am saying simply is that African genetic signatures have ALWAYS been in the Levant and masking it out simply promotes false history. And migrations of Africans with adaptive strategies such as harvesting wild grains could and would have been a significant influence on the Levant STARTING with OOA and continuing all the way through the Neolithic....

So you admit you wasted everyone's time spamming information about subsistence strategies 22ky ago. And these subsistence strategies are supposed to undermine a genetic concept associated with a population that lived 16ky after Wadi Kubbaniya? You have no idea what you're doing, do you?

In the meantime, you have yet to address the matter at hand; the purple component in Africans.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Question to ES-members:

If one has a bag skittles.

And the question is being asked: "get 10 skittles out of the bag" and put them on the table. The person in the testpanel picks 10 skittles of the same color.

Is that bias sampling or accurate sampling, or perhaps both?


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.

Yes I have a problem with it. You just can't seem to accept these people are just using composite labels to hide the African genetic input into Eurasia over the last 100,000 years and more. Sure there was some Eurasian inflow into ancient Africa but that is trivial compared to the ORIGIN of all human DNA in Africa and subsequent African migrations into Eurasia over time. This is the part they are trying to conceal using these new labels and their own methodologies show this clearly.

It is fine if one is trying to model population movements within Europe but such labels become disingenuous when one uses them as absolute references for overall population movements between Africa and Eurasia over time.

The Kubbaniya example and the other examples are support for the point that PATTERNS of subsistence behavior involving harvesting wild grains laid the foundation of modern farming in the Levant at least partly as a result of African influence on Levantine populations. But you are trying to pigeonhole this into one group of traits or another at a biological level which is the problem. If you are going to categorize things and label things as a way to show relationships the categories and labels should be relevant to what is being discussed. And what i am saying simply is that African genetic signatures have ALWAYS been in the Levant and masking it out simply promotes false history. And migrations of Africans with adaptive strategies such as harvesting wild grains could and would have been a significant influence on the Levant STARTING with OOA and continuing all the way through the Neolithic....

So you admit you wasted everyone's time spamming information about subsistence strategies 22ky ago. And these subsistence strategies are supposed to undermine a genetic concept associated with a population that lived 16ky after Wadi Kubbaniya? You have no idea what you're doing, do you?

In the meantime, you have yet to address the matter at hand; the purple component in Africans. [/QB]

The color purple is not the issue at hand. Whatever colors on some chart you found does not change what I am saying. African influence on populations in the Levant and Eurasia has been ongoing and persistent since OOA. African DNA lineages never DISAPPEARED from the Levant and other parts of Eurasia. And there is no "new research" or "new data" that is going to overturn that fact. This really isn't even up for debate. You can post whatever data you want or whatever charts you want and still it wont change what I said.

And no, there is nothing "political" about saying that. It is just a fact and no more political than saying there were "Eurasians" in parts of Africa during ancient times.

Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence. THAT is political. Mixture is a two way street, especially when it comes to Africa vs everywhere else. But somehow these folks keep trying to "cook the books" in order to make Eurasia seem pristine and pure, free from any African mixture.

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 Doug:
Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.

So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.

If you're not saying that they tampered with the chart, your post is just a big red herring intended shift the conversation away from the purple component you have yet to describe in terms of affinity.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  23  24  25   

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