posted
I think one problem is that as Swenet has pointed out, there is a genetic distinction between indigenous North Africans and Sub-Saharans particularly in autosomal alleles which the Euronuts try to misconstrue as 'Eurasian' ancestry which may be easy to do if these North African populations and specifically northeast Africans (especially Egyptians) may possess pre-OOA ancestry.
That said, it's no surprise that even uniparental clades like E-M215 (E1b1b1) were labeled as 'North African' even though it's found among Sub-Saharan populations as well.
quote:Originally posted by capra: Of the 3 genome-wide samples one is from Greco-Roman era, the other two are from the 3rd Intermediate-Late Period. The mtDNA samples are from the New Kingdom (4), 3rd Intermediate Period (22), Late Period (14), Ptolemaic Period (30), and Roman Period (20) - when radiocarbon date range overlapped a period boundary I've taken the midpoint. So that is like 40 mtDNAs from before the Greeks arrived (but after Hyksos etc).
Excluding the Roman Period, do you have any idea how many demographic changes have occurred since the 3rd Intermediate Period?? Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta. The New Kingdom ended when the Ramesside dynasty ended bringing about the 3rd Intermediate Period (1069–653 BC) with the Libyan dynasties ruling with an alliance of various Asiatic Nations, followed by the short native 24th dynasty and then the Kushite 25th dynasty which ended with Assyrian invasion and rule. The Late Period (672–332 BC) began with Assyrians leaving and a number of wars in Asia taking place with the culmination of Egypt being annexed by the Persians. Then with the conquest of Alexander the Great came the Hellenistic Period (332–30 BC) and then with Roman annexation the Roman Period (30 BC–641 AD).
With all these invasions and movments of peoples, why would the authors even assume these mummies genetic profiles would represent 'pure' native Egyptians of pharaonic culture??
If experts want a genetic profile of indigenous Egyptians from middle Egypt, why not use mummies from Giza from say the pyramid building era??
I mean I don't want to assume a conspiracy per say, but I can't help but get the feeling this study was nothing more than a giant strawman to distract from the true origins of Egypt.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.
The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.
It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.
A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Precisely. This is basically them trying to take the little bits of data obtained from one selection of unidentified, unknown, unlabeled and uncertain remains and trying to act as if this represents all of AE history. And that is what is wrong with the current state of genetics. Too much reliance on small amounts of data and a bunch of hypothetical mathematical models which fall apart with solid data, which in this case would be ancient DNA from various populations. There is no substitute for hard data. While you can extrapolate from a small set of available DNA samples, there is absolutely no way to verify or validate the proposed models without hard data to compare against.
So what they SHOULD have said in this study is that this one sample set gave promising results for the possibility of successfully extracting the full genomes of other "KNOWN IDENTIFIED" mummies in Egypt along with other collections of mummies in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, because of how these 'tomb raiders' collected these mummies in the past and how many of the mummies were destroyed as a result of making mummy powder medicine, it is hard to say whether any large number of intact mummies from the old, middle or new kingdom exist to provide reliable DNA samples.
Hence, it is not ironic that the focus is going to be on late period mummies because those seem to be the only large caches of mummies that are left for DNA sampling, aside from the "famous" mummies that are kept by the Egyptian authorities.
And the fact is that this study is for those people who really believe that the black folks of Upper Egypt are not the "real" Egyptians. So in their minds, those black and brown Egyptians that have been used on all these dig sites and look like all the ancient portraits of Egyptians aren't the same as the ancients. No see what happened wuz they was brought into Egypt as slaves by the ancient caucasian master race and that is the reason for the mixing you see today. This is exactly the same kind of Eugenics racist garbage that was discussed by Petrie and others over 100 years ago in their literature about the "races" of Egypt. Because what they really are saying is that white people need to exterminate all the "lesser races" of the earth in order to bring progress. And to prove why this is necessary, they need to make Egypt the prime example of what happens when a "superior" race conquers another and race mixing occurs. And it assumes of course that the white Eurasians are the "superior" race in ancient Egypt.
Hence:
quote: Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilisation has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilisation, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual, mixture, until they have a distinct type, which will start a new civilisation when transplanted. The future progress of man may , depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.
Because European civilization came about through war, conquest and genocide. So in their minds this is the way civilization started. But it is not. Europe has no ancient civilization to speak of. Civilization started as the slow process of cultural evolution IN AFRICA and as it became more complex it spread and germinated in other populations and places around the world slowly. But every culture was distinct and unique and had its own practices and traditions. That is why they need to rewrite history in order to put themselves into the picture and make their presence required for the evolution of culture and progress. Because they need to justify their global quest to steal the cultures of the world, the resources of the world and use the populations of the world as a global 'petrie dish' for experimentation and subjugation for the benefit of a few.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
Definitely interested in more information on this.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study
A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete
Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871
The first advanced Bronze Age civilization of Europe was established by the Minoans about 5,000 years before present. Since Sir Arthur Evans exposed the Minoan civic centre of Knossos, archaeologists have speculated on the origin of the founders of the civilization. Evans proposed a North African origin; Cycladic, Balkan, Anatolian and Middle Eastern origins have also been proposed. Here we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by analysing mitochondrial DNA from Minoan osseous remains from a cave ossuary in the Lassithi plateau of Crete dated 4,400–3,700 years before present. Shared haplotypes, principal component and pairwise distance analyses refute the Evans North African hypothesis . Minoans show the strongest relationships with Neolithic and modern European populations and with the modern inhabitants of the Lassithi plateau. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis of an autochthonous development of the Minoan civilization by the descendants of the Neolithic settlers of the island.
The first Neolithic humans reached Crete about 9,000 years before present (YBP)1,2, coinciding with the development and adoption of the agricultural practices in the Near East and the extensive Neolithic population diffusion (8,000–9,500 YBP) that brought farming to Europe3. The most likely origins of these Neolithic settlers were the nearest coasts, either the Peloponnese or south-western Anatolia4,5,6. These humans established the first major European civilization on the island of Crete at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age7. Sir Arthur Evans, named the people who built this civilization ‘Minoans’ after the legendary Minos, the King of Knossos. Evans also suggested that the founders of the Minoan civilization were refugees from the Delta region of Egypt when North Egypt was conquered by the Southern king Narmer (Menes of ancient historians) at about 5,000 YBP7,8; his evidence were the similarities between Minoan and Egyptian art and elements he was considering Libyan in origin, such as the cod piece worn by Bronze Age Cretans and the circular tombs of the early inhabitants of Southern Crete that were similar to tombs built by the Libyans7,8. Based on a variety of archaeological finds, other archaeologists have argued for Cycladic9, Anatolian9,10, Syrian or Palestinian11,12 migrations or for an autochthonous development of the Minoan civilization from the initial inhabitants of Crete13. Attempts to infer ancient ancestry of the Bronze Age Cretans using Y-chromosomal or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies of the modern Cretan populations have yielded conflicting results, supporting Balkan14, Anatolian15, or Middle Eastern and Balkan16 origins.
In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP. We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete. Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange.
Genetic affinity with Neolithic and modern European populations The Minoan mtDNA haplotypes resembled those of the European populations (Figs 2b, 3a and 4; Supplementary Figs S1–S3). The majority of Minoans were classified in haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). Haplogroups U5A, W, J2, U, X and J were each identified in a single individual. The greatest percentage of shared Minoan haplotypes was observed with European populations, particularly with individuals from Northern and Western Europe (26.98% and 29.28%, respectively) (Figs 2, 3, 4; Supplementary Table S7). Notably, in Fig. 4, a gradient can be observed, with the lowest affinity for Minoans found with Northern African populations and the percentage of haplotype sharing increasing as we move through the Middle East, Caucasus and the Mediterranean islands, southern Europe and mainland Europe (Fig. 4a). Of notice also is the high percentage of haplotype sharing with Bronze Age (Fig. 4c) and Neolithic (Fig. 4d) European populations.
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.
The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.
It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.
A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
Cosigned.
The authors are even biased in their response.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ^^^^Precisely. This is basically them trying to take the little bits of data obtained from one selection of unidentified, unknown, unlabeled and uncertain remains and trying to act as if this represents all of AE history. And that is what is wrong with the current state of genetics. Too much reliance on small amounts of data and a bunch of hypothetical mathematical models which fall apart with solid data, which in this case would be ancient DNA from various populations. There is no substitute for hard data. While you can extrapolate from a small set of available DNA samples, there is absolutely no way to verify or validate the proposed models without hard data to compare against.
So what they SHOULD have said in this study is that this one sample set gave promising results for the possibility of successfully extracting the full genomes of other "KNOWN IDENTIFIED" mummies in Egypt along with other collections of mummies in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, because of how these 'tomb raiders' collected these mummies in the past and how many of the mummies were destroyed as a result of making mummy powder medicine, it is hard to say whether any large number of intact mummies from the old, middle or new kingdom exist to provide reliable DNA samples.
Hence, it is not ironic that the focus is going to be on late period mummies because those seem to be the only large caches of mummies that are left for DNA sampling, aside from the "famous" mummies that are kept by the Egyptian authorities.
And the fact is that this study is for those people who really believe that the black folks of Upper Egypt are not the "real" Egyptians. So in their minds, those black and brown Egyptians that have been used on all these dig sites and look like all the ancient portraits of Egyptians aren't the same as the ancients. No see what happened wuz they was brought into Egypt as slaves by the ancient caucasian master race and that is the reason for the mixing you see today. This is exactly the same kind of Eugenics racist garbage that was discussed by Petrie and others over 100 years ago in their literature about the "races" of Egypt. Because what they really are saying is that white people need to exterminate all the "lesser races" of the earth in order to bring progress. And to prove why this is necessary, they need to make Egypt the prime example of what happens when a "superior" race conquers another and race mixing occurs. And it assumes of course that the white Eurasians are the "superior" race in ancient Egypt.
Hence:
quote: Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilisation has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilisation, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual, mixture, until they have a distinct type, which will start a new civilisation when transplanted. The future progress of man may , depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.
Because European civilization came about through war, conquest and genocide. So in their minds this is the way civilization started. But it is not. Europe has no ancient civilization to speak of. Civilization started as the slow process of cultural evolution IN AFRICA and as it became more complex it spread and germinated in other populations and places around the world slowly. But every culture was distinct and unique and had its own practices and traditions. That is why they need to rewrite history in order to put themselves into the picture and make their presence required for the evolution of culture and progress. Because they need to justify their global quest to steal the cultures of the world, the resources of the world and use the populations of the world as a global 'petrie dish' for experimentation and subjugation for the benefit of a few.
quote:In a 1909 speech to the Society for German Scientists and Physicians, the anthropologist and eugenicist Felix von Luschan made the dichotomy between the valuable and the inconsequential clear in his response to the question, ”Who is inferior? “ ” e sick, the weak, the dumb, the stupid, the alcoholic, the bum, the criminal; all these are inferior,’“ von Luschan main- tained, ”compared with the healthy, the strong, the in- telligent, the clever, the sober, the pure’“ (p. 95). Gen- erally, two overlapping categories were expendable: the disabled (especially the mentally ill) and those who were economically unproductive. Non-European ”races,“ too, were consigned to moral oblivion as a result of the contribution of evolutionary theory to racial science.
—Richard Weikart.
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. (2004)
Reviewed by Jonathan Judaken (Department of History, University of Memphis) Published on H-Ideas (June, 2005)
posted
With all this documented history of racism in Anthropology and genetics in Europeans own writings, it is laughably absurd that these folks claim that things today have changed and are otherwise "objective". Almost ALL anthropology books from the 1800s right up to the 1960s were openly and blatantly racist. And of course who are the ones responsible for changing that at least on a superficial level: The African Scholars and Civil Rights movement. But to hear them tell it, it is the Africans who invented racism and put it into science.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.
Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.
quote:The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.
Yes, I can't help but to assume they are falling back to the old hypothesis that Egypt was inundated by Sub-Saharan immigrants [read: slaves] to explain the black appearance of many Baladi Egyptians especially in the south. As far as model population samples for PCR analysis, ironically Western academics from the beginning of Egyptology in the 18th century to the 19th century have stated the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled modern Lower Nubians and Beja with the latter said to have a striking resemblance to late predynastic Egyptians. Although for the record these black peoples were not considered "true negroes" but rather "Hamitic Caucasoids". As for E1b1b, the authors displayed uncertainty to its provenance and said it was either Levantine or North African. I find their conjecture to be somewhat incredulous considering that E1b1b has a significant presence in sub-Sahara, specifically Eastern Sub-Sahara with greater diversity, to the point that it is almost consensus in the genetics community that it originated in Sub-Sahara rather than North Africa let alone outside the African continent.
quote:It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.
Ya think?! LOL
quote:A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
I too am interested in what this contact has found (Beyoku??).
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete
Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871 ...In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) **exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP.** We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete. Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange....
Very interesting indeed, Andromeda! The findings of the DNA study on the Abusir mummies very much contradicts the findings of the study of the Minoans you cited even though both were published by the [i]same journal!! So which is correct? How could the ancient Egyptians show nil Sub-Saharan ancestry but rather share close ties to Neolithic forebears of the Levant, Anatolia, and Europe but then the Minoans share the same ties to the Neolithic forebears but show no ties to Egypt??! LOL
Excellent deductive work Andromeda! I had completely forgotten about that Minoan study which was presented here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete
Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871 ...In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) **exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP.** We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete. Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange....
Very interesting indeed, Andromeda! The findings of the DNA study on the Abusir mummies very much contradicts the findings of the study of the Minoans you cited even though both were published by the [i]same journal!! So which is correct? How could the ancient Egyptians show nil Sub-Saharan ancestry but rather share close ties to Neolithic forebears of the Levant, Anatolia, and Europe but then the Minoans share the same ties to the Neolithic forebears but show no ties to Egypt??! LOL
Excellent deductive work Andromeda! I had completely forgotten about that Minoan study which was presented here.
So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?
The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?
Cointelpro in action
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.
Early 2000 there was a study done on mummies. However the paper is unknown to me. There is mention of this in a PBS documentary: "The Secrets of the Pharaohs: Lost City of the Pyramids".
February 21, 2001 by Mark Rose First aired February 20, 2001 (Part 1)
I never saw the actual paper, stating that ancient Egyptians (work force) are the same as modern Egyptians "living in the Nile Valley". The video linked here below, shows a snipped of the PBS documentary:
"PROOF Modern Egyptians descend from Ancient Egyptians"
I always assumed video / article above was about the following paper by A. Stevanovitch et al., 29 January 2004. But that can't be, since this paper is younger than the 2001 article.
quote: Summary The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.
This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt
A. Stevanovitch1,*, A. Gilles2, E. Bouzaid1, R. Kefi1, F. Paris3, R. P. Gayraud4, J. L. Spadoni1, F. El-Chenawi5 andE. Béraud-Colomb1,*
I did notice, or at least from my understanding they started to take M1 out of Africa.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are inbreeding and disease the explanations for the bizarre depictions of Akhenaten--showing him with an elongated head, broad hips, pot-belly, and spindly limbs--and the demise of Egypt's 18th Dynasty (1550-1307 B.C.)? Tut's Family Curse uses a number of lines of evidence--archaeology, bioanthropology, and DNA analysis--to examine this and other questions.
After an obligatory opening shot of the Giza Pyramids, Tut's Family Curse turns to its real subject, the 18th Dynasty, particularly Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. Carter's discovery of the finding of Tut's tomb is re-enacted and the video then takes us to the Cairo Museum where Nasry Iskander and Brigham Young University microbiologist Scott R. Woodward and archaeologist C. Wilfred Griggs are examining the royal mummies. As the mummies are shifted from old display cases to new ones, Woodward judiciously snips off a tissue sample here or there for analysis.
Testing of Tut's DNA, however, was not permitted when this show was being made and a recent agreement to do so was abruptly terminated. Without access to Tut, who is in his coffin back in the Valley of the Kings, the researchers track down two mummified fetuses that Carter found in a box in Tut's tomb. The fetuses--both female, one about five months, the other seven months--had been placed in miniature coffins. The video devotes some time to this search, which is equal parts comical and depressing. There is, astonishingly, no record of the fetuses in the Cairo Museum, though in the conservation lab Woodward and Griggs find their mini-coffins. Eventually they locate the mummies at the Cairo Medical School, where they are under the care of anatomy professor Fawzi Gaballah. The mummies have deteriorated over the years since Carter found and photographed them but no bone pathologies are evident (how thorough this examination was is not clear from the video) and samples are taken for DNA analysis.
The extraction and amplification of the DNA--the processes are shown in lab shots filmed at BYU--can take months or more the video informs us. While that's going on, the video takes up the other line of evidence. (Re-creations of Howard Carter at work, Tutankhamun eating grapes, etc., serve as somewhat campy interludes between segments featuring current research, usually shot in the Cairo Museum or at Brigham Young University, with a few location shots in the Valley of the Kings, where the pharaohs were buried, and at el-Amarna, Akhenaten's capital city.)
Why depictions of Akhenaten are so bizarre has long been debated. Some opt for a biological explanation, a congenital disease known as Marfan's syndrome is often suggested. In the video, Egyptologist Joann Fletcher cautions against a genetic explanation and Nicholas Reeves, of the Amarna Royal Tombs Project, makes the point that viewed from below the exagerrated features are less bizarre, though very striking. For him, the depictions are an artistic way of portraying Akhenaten's power and separation from his subjects. James E. Harris of the University of Michigan, however, notes that the skull of Amenhotep III, father of Akhenaten, was both very large for the pharaoh's body size and that his chin is rather pointy. Both of these characteristics are accentuated in portrayals of his son, Akhenaten.
The sequences about the identity of the skeleton found in Valley of the Kings Tomb 55 are particularly effective. There is no doubt that the ancient Egyptians who defaced the coffin in the tomb--ripping out the cartouches and breaking the face--thought the remains were Akhenaten's. Nicholas Reeves, filmed in the tomb, presents the archaeological evidence for it being Akhenaten: the epithets that appear on the coffin (not defaced like the cartouches) are those used by Akhenaten and two of the four clay bricks found in the tomb bear his prenomen. The archaeology, Reeves concludes, points squarely at Akhenaten. Reeves, it should be noted, believes that Smenkhare, who briefly reigned between Akhenaten and Tut, was none other than Nefertiti ruling after Akhenaten's death. Little is known about Smenkhare and others have suggested he might have been a brother of Tut or even of Akhenaten. Harris says that the skull from Tomb 55 is morphologically almost identical to Tut's, indicating a "first-order" relation between the two individuals, father-son or brother-brother. The Tomb 55 individual was either Tut's father (most scholars accept that Akhenaten was Tut's father) or Tut's brother, the elusive Smenkhare.
There's always been a problem with equating the skeleton and Akhenaten, however, and it has to do with the age of the deceased. Akhenaten was about 35 years old when he died, but earlier examinations of the Tomb 55 remains have suggested they are of a younger man. Here, bioanthropologist Joyce Filer is called in to examine the skeleton, now in the Cairo Museum. Filer's study is well shown. She first looks at the pelvis, confirming that it is a male, and skull, noting no evidence for Marfan's syndrome or other pathology. Filer then turns to the question of age, examining the teeth first. The third molars (wisdom teeth) she notes are recently erupted and show little wear: score one for early twenties. Visual inspection of the fusion of the distal femur suggests 20-25. X-ray images of the pelvis and long bones, again to assess fusion of the bones, points to early to mid-twenties (for example, she places the state of fusion of the proximal humerus between 18 and 25). Interestingly, in his forthcoming book Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet, Reeves disucsses another study of this same skeleton, conducted by Harris and Fawzia Hussein. According to Reeves, they concluded the remains were of a man in his mid-thirties (dentition) or in excess of 35 years (X-ray assessment of fusion, especially of long bones). These results, presented at a conference in 1988 but never published, are spot on for Akhenaten.
On the basis of Filer's examination, it seems that the occupant of Tomb 55 is not Akhenaten. There will undoubtedly be more debate on this point, but the video moves forward with an identification of the individual as Smenkhare. Neither Tut's skull nor that from Tomb 55 reveals evidence of Marfan's syndrome. No mention is made in the video of whether or not sampling of the bones or teeth from the Tomb 55 skeleton for DNA analysis was permitted. Presumably not.
Meanwhile, the results of the DNA analysis have come back! While the smaller fetus yielded only a partial sequence, the mitochondrial (mtDNA) sequence of the larger fetus, a female aged eight to nine months, was recovered. Transmitted through the maternal line, it should be identical to that Ankhesenamun (Ankhesenpaaten), if she was indeed their mother, and to that of her mother, Nefertiti. (And no, this doesn't mean anybody is going to clone Nefertiti!). As Tut had no other recorded wife, this seems likely. No sign of Marfan's syndrome. Furthermore, according to Woodward, the mtDNA shows that although the 18th Dynasty was marked by brother-sister marriage initially, there was a break in the maternal line introducing new genetic material. The inbreeding bogie (Tut's family curse), he concludes, was just that. It apparently cannot be blamed for Akhenaten's freaky appearance, Tut's dying early, or the stillbirth of the two fetuses buried with him. So much for the "curse."
Secrets of the Pharaohs is enjoyable and informative. It is also successful in pulling together a complex set of issues and evidence, but is it the final word on who is who at the end of the 18th Dynasty? Probably not. How old was the gentleman in Tomb 55? Beyond that question, perhaps one day DNA analysis of Tut (and the man in Tomb 55?) will be permitted. Until then, the debate will continue.
Mark Rose is Managing Editor of ARCHAEOLOGY.
Secrets of the Pharaohs: Tut's Family Curse February 13, 2001 by Mark Rose
quote: Disease, drugs, sex, and death are the topics on offer in this last episode of Nova's three-part series, Secrets of the Pharaohs, which features the detailed examination of the 3,000-year-old mummy of Asru, who was a chantress at the temple of Amun at Karnak ca. 1000 B.C. There is, however, no unwrapping as the episode's title suggests. Asru had been stripped of her bandages in the early nineteenth century, shortly before she was donated to the Manchester Museum in 1825. That she lacks the layers of linen makes the extracting of tissue far easier.
While Asru may have lived the good life by ancient Egyptian standards, it was a painful one, according to the team of pathologists, led by Egyptologist Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum. The first half of the episode is devoted to the analysis of X-ray images and tissues extracted from the mummy and the identification and description of the many ailments that plagued her.
Disease
Evidence of guinea worm is detected in her intestines. The disease would have caused severe diarrhea and intestinal bleeding, resulting in anemia. The chantress likely had difficulty breathing; her lungs scarred by the inhalation of sand. Thought to be well over 50 at the time of her death, Asru suffered painful septic arthritis in her hands and osteoarthritis in her back. The latter was complicated by a fractured vertebra and a herniated disk. And if that were not enough, say our pathologists, she also suffered from shistosomiasis, aka Bilharzia, evident the X-ray images which show clear calcification of her bladder wall. Diagnosis of Bilharzia, which is caused by a flatworm that breeds in freshwater snails, is confirmed by the analysis of bladder tissue and the presence of antibodies for the disease that were isolated and identified by a team of pathologists in Cairo.
Drugs
What, if anything, did Asru do to alleviate her pain? Did she take drugs for it or simply bear it in silence? If narcotics were used, traces of them should be found in her hair. There is a slight problem, however. As a chantress, Asru was shaved to maintain ritual purity, making it difficult for researchers to find enough hair to conduct toxicological analyses. Several hairs were recovered from her scalp, which revealed only henna, used to give her head and remaining hair a red color; other body hair revealed only traces of plant remains. Could plants have been ingested, sniffed, or otherwise used to relieve pain?
The question sends researchers Vic Garner and Dave Counsell on a quest to analyze the plants most widely used by the ancient Egyptians, including the blue lotus, which is shown in many tomb paintings being added to wine. Our team consults botanists at the British botanical garden at Kew, where they collect blue lotus samples both ancient, from the tomb of Rameses II and from the Greco-Roman cemetery at Hawara, and modern, growing in the garden's waterlily pond. After much analysis, it is determined that the blue lotus possesses the same properties as Ginkgo biloba, being an antioxidant and bloodflow stimulant. While the plant would have offered a certain overall sense of wellbeing, it did not necessarily eliminate pain. So why was it so popular, and so often depicted on tomb paintings? The answer--taken over time, it seems, the flower would have acted as a natural viagra, a sexual stimulant.
Sex
According to Danish Egyptologist Lise Manniche, the sexual-stimulating properties of the blue lotus are documented in a papyrus found at Deir el-Medina, the village of where the builders and artisans responsible for the tombs in the Valley of the Kings lived. Depicted in the document are two women--one confronted by a man with a large phallus, the other sitting on a phallic stool--each with a blue lotus painted above her head. But what role did the flower play in the funerary rites depicted in the tombs?
Death
The connection, says Manniche, maybe that sex was the key not only to earthly rebirth, but rebirth in the afterlife.
Like the other two episodes in this triptych, Unwrapping the Mummy, is concise and well thought out. It explains in detail the manner in which each analysis is undertaken and why. Discussions such as that of Bilharzia are accompanied by scenes by modern scientists attempting to control such diseases in modern populations. That one mummy, Asru, could yield so much evidence on ancient disease is simply remarkable.
Anglea M.H. Schuster is Senior Editor of ARCHAEOLOGY.
Secrets of the Pharaohs: Unwrapping the Mummy February 26, 2001 by Anglea M.H. Schuster
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.
Early 2000 there was a study done on mummies. However the paper is unknown to me. There is mention of this in: "The Secrets of the Pharaohs: Lost City of the Pyramids"
February 21, 2001 by Mark Rose First aired February 20, 2001
I never saw the actual paper, stating that ancient Egyptians (work force) are the same as modern Egyptians "living in the Nile Valley". The video linked here below, shows a snipped of the PBS documentary:
"PROOF Modern Egyptians descend from Ancient Egyptians"
I always assumed video / article above was about the following paper by A. Stevanovitch et al., 29 January 2004. But that can't be, since this paper is younger than the early 2000 there was a study.
quote: Summary The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.
This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt
A. Stevanovitch1,*, A. Gilles2, E. Bouzaid1, R. Kefi1, F. Paris3, R. P. Gayraud4, J. L. Spadoni1, F. El-Chenawi5 andE. Béraud-Colomb1,*
I did notice, or at least from my understanding they started to take M1 out of Africa.
High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
Definitely interested in more information on this.
BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Andromeda2025: High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well. [
L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
Interesting, Yes I see it now, L3 lol, THEY never stop... Subclades are X & R
L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]
Yes, that is true. In other to understand what has been going on we have the revised a lot of old papers. (the authors of this Abusir paper referred to old papers as well 1998-1999) They have twisted their way into a certain outcome. Thus claiming that E1b1b is uncertain to be African, because Hammer said so in 1998-1999. Of course they didn't show the Masalit and Fur:
quote: Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
quote: In order to conform to the cladistic notation proposed by Richards et al. (1998), we will modify the preliminary subdivision of the Afro-Eurasian super-haplogroup L3 (defined by -3592 HpaI) into L3a, L3b, L3c as performed by Watson et al. (1997). In particular, the range of L3a and L3b is now narrowed: here L3a designates only the subcluster of L3 defined by k10394 DdeI ; L3b is now defined by j10084 TaqI, whereas the sister group to this (sharing the transition at np 16124) with the characteristic site loss k8616 MboI is now denoted by L3d. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U. Another basal subcluster of L3 seen in the data of Chen et al. (1995) will be referred to as L3e: it is characterized within L3 by the site gain j2349 MboI. In order to clarify the cluster status of the sequences under study we apply partial RFLP typing, especially in thoses cases where the HVSI status alone did not allow unambiguous cluster assignment.
We use network methods based on parsimony to display the variation within specific mtDNA clusters, compiled from the world-wide mtDNA database, which are relevant for the study of Northwest African populations.
quote: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
Interesting, Yes I see it now, L3 lol, THEY never stop... Subclades are X & R
L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]
Yes, that is true. In other to understand what has been going on we have the revised a lot of old papers. (the authors of this Abusir paper referred to old papers as well 1998-1999) They have twisted their way into a certain outcome. Thus claiming that E1b1b is uncertain to be African, because Hammer said so in 1998-1999. Of course they didn't show the Masalit and Fur:
quote: Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
quote: In order to conform to the cladistic notation proposed by Richards et al. (1998), we will modify the preliminary subdivision of the Afro-Eurasian super-haplogroup L3 (defined by -3592 HpaI) into L3a, L3b, L3c as performed by Watson et al. (1997). In particular, the range of L3a and L3b is now narrowed: here L3a designates only the subcluster of L3 defined by k10394 DdeI ; L3b is now defined by j10084 TaqI, whereas the sister group to this (sharing the transition at np 16124) with the characteristic site loss k8616 MboI is now denoted by L3d. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U. Another basal subcluster of L3 seen in the data of Chen et al. (1995) will be referred to as L3e: it is characterized within L3 by the site gain j2349 MboI. In order to clarify the cluster status of the sequences under study we apply partial RFLP typing, especially in thoses cases where the HVSI status alone did not allow unambiguous cluster assignment.
We use network methods based on parsimony to display the variation within specific mtDNA clusters, compiled from the world-wide mtDNA database, which are relevant for the study of Northwest African populations.
quote: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.
Please correct me. But in terms of the K=10 image the Abusir mummies are STILL showing significant Mota like admixture via the purple.
BUT... When we look at the Natufians they are showing SIGNIFICANT repeat SIGNIFICANT pink which I remember you saying was "Saharo-Sudanese Nilotic/ Ancient Egyptian"
Finally as for the K=12 image things are a bit different. Natufians are still showing pink but not as much as before. But THIS time they show a lot more green which is found a lot in Nilotic/Nubia/Sudanese populations! They also show much more purple than K=10! If my observations are correct... As for the Abusir mummies they still show a lot of purple but they are not similar to the Natufians. Not only that but they have more African like admixture(purple) than modern Egyptians. So if what I am saying is correct along with this data then these Abusir mummies having less African admixture than modern Egyptians would be incorrect.
I am curious to know what the k=10 color represents.
Anyways, Djehuti what are your thoughts!?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
There are a number of factors.
The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
There are a number of factors.
The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.
Thanks for the explanation.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?
Haplogroup T (approx. 25,000 years old) is found in both Africa and Eurasia, though basal T* seems to occur more often in Africa. Haplogroup X (approx. 30,000 years old) is also spread out between Africa and Eurasia as far east as North Africa, though there are two subgrouops- X1 and X2 with the former being largely restricted to North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia. Haplogroup R is a much larger and far older clade (approx. 66,000 years old) dating back to the initial Out-of-Africa expansion. As far as I'm aware the highest frequency of basal R* is found in Northeast Africa, while it's daughter R0 is most frequent in Arabia though some occuring in the Horn. A sister clade of R0 is Pre-JT which gave rise to hg J and hg T. The spread of J and T seem to be heavily correlated with the spread of the Neolithic revolution. Hg U is another daughter of R. Haplogroup R itself is a daughter of Hg N and interestingly enough there was a study published over a decaded ago presented here showing the mtDNA profile of the earliest European farmers.
[quot]The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?
Cointelpro in action [/QUOTE] Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups are uniparental genetic signatures, with the former found in the Y-chromosome and the other found in mitochondria. Because these signatures are passed directly to offspring with no recombination they are used to determine lineages. Principal Component Analysis or PCA uses frequency of alleles from RNA or autosomal DNA to determine population affinity rather than lineages. Obviously the closer in geographic proximity a population is the more affinities are likely to be shared which is why I find it nonsensical that their Sub-Saharan model would be Yoruba and not some other population much closer to Egypt.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
1. At K=10, if the purple is not Mota/HG then what is it?
2. At K=12. the yellow-like K=9 is East African? So according to this unofficial run the Abusir mummies are significantly East African? And I've seen your Hadza theory before in that thread on FBD.
3. Was I on point about the Natufians?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?
Haplogroup T (approx. 25,000 years old) is found in both Africa and Eurasia, though basal T* seems to occur more often in Africa. Haplogroup X (approx. 30,000 years old) is also spread out between Africa and Eurasia as far east as North Africa, though there are two subgrouops- X1 and X2 with the former being largely restricted to North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia. Haplogroup R is a much larger and far older clade (approx. 66,000 years old) dating back to the initial Out-of-Africa expansion. As far as I'm aware the highest frequency of basal R* is found in Northeast Africa, while it's daughter R0 is most frequent in Arabia though some occuring in the Horn. A sister clade of R0 is Pre-JT which gave rise to hg J and hg T. The spread of J and T seem to be heavily correlated with the spread of the Neolithic revolution. Hg U is another daughter of R. Haplogroup R itself is a daughter of Hg N and interestingly enough there was a study published over a decaded ago presented here showing the mtDNA profile of the earliest European farmers.
[quot]The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?
Cointelpro in action
Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups are uniparental genetic signatures, with the former found in the Y-chromosome and the other found in mitochondria. Because these signatures are passed directly to offspring with no recombination they are used to determine lineages. Principal Component Analysis or PCA uses frequency of alleles from RNA or autosomal DNA to determine population affinity rather than lineages. Obviously the closer in geographic proximity a population is the more affinities are likely to be shared which is why I find it nonsensical that their Sub-Saharan model would be Yoruba and not some other population much closer to Egypt. [/QUOTE]
Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
There are a number of factors.
The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.
If the official data uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run, how come they didn't run "U6a2 and E-V22" in Africa? Or at least from my understanding they didn't.
"U6a2 comprises mainly of Ethiopian sequences with some outsiders"
"In the present study, the U6a2 branch shows an important radiation centered in Ethiopia (Table 2) at around 20 kya (see Additional file 2)."
—B Secher et al.( 2014)
Bahariyya Egyptian E-V22 score = 21,95%
Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%
—Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2007)
Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%
E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
—Hisham Y. Hassan et al. (2008)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
What software was used?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Thanks for the response.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
1. At K=10, if the purple is not Mota/HG then what is it?
2. At K=12. the yellow-like K=9 is East African? So according to this unofficial run the Abusir mummies are significantly East African? And I've seen your Hadza theory before in that thread on FBD.
3. Was I on point about the Natufians?
It looks to be a West Asian component that spread with European Farmers. NOt "European Famers" bu the Near Eastern/Anatolian folks that spread Farming into Europe.
Also at K=10 Natufian have large chunk of North East African Pink. Kep in mind somtimes that clusters are just the computer doing its thing and are not based on REAL demographic events.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta.
You have a good memory. In my mind I had always subscribed to the view that slow demographic change happened over time from the 1st dynasty onward, so I didn't know what post of mine you were referring to, here. But now that I think about it, I do remember that we had a conversation years ago about increased heterogeneity specifically in post-NK Egypt.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: It looks to be a West Asian component that spread with European Farmers. NOt "European Famers" bu the Near Eastern/Anatolian folks that spread Farming into Europe.
I see.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also at K=10 Natufian have large chunk of North East African Pink. Kep in mind somtimes that clusters are just the computer doing its thing and are not based on REAL demographic events.
So what you are telling me is that at K=10 the Natufians do not carry large chunks of Northeast African? I apologize if I am not reading you right.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
Beyoku is a troll. He's known for posting fake results.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
Beyoku is a troll. He's known for posting fake results.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.
At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%
At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.
At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
If any other poster sees close references of U6a2 and E-V22, please make it known.
These two characterize Sahara-Sahel ethnic groups.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [...]
Can you make a dedicated frontpage or thread for dedicated software, such as ADMIXTURE (and alike). Then lock it down to keep it clean, since it's not a commenting page / thread, but merely a reference page for members to look up specialized software.
Thanks in advance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I was actually thinking about asking for the same thing. Also k10 & 12 appears a bit noisey, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
BBH what do you think about what ish just posted? Lol (feel free to take it to pm)
Also...
quote: So what you are telling me is that at K=10 the Natufians do not carry large chunks of Northeast African? I apologize if I am not reading you right.-
^this is a good question, what do you (BBH, Beyoku & others) feel about Natifians & "North East African"?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.
I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.
As S.O.Y. Keita put it: The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)
Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.
If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!
By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Egypt - : Egypt, archeological excavation by German archeologists in Abusir - - undatedVintage property of ullstein bild (GERMANY OUT) Egypt - : Egypt, archeological excavation by German archeologists in Abusir - - undatedVintage property of ullstein bild (Photo by ullstein bild/ullstein bild via Getty Images)
Details Credits: ullstein bild / Contributor nr.: 541561171 Collection: Ullstein Bild Made : 01 januari 1906
The guy says the granite came from Aswan, 500 miles away. (When I was in Egypt they told me the same thing, how the materials came from the South, and were taken up north by the Nile stream)
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.
Please correct me. But in terms of the K=10 image the Abusir mummies are STILL showing significant Mota like admixture via the purple.
BUT... When we look at the Natufians they are showing SIGNIFICANT repeat SIGNIFICANT pink which I remember you saying was "Saharo-Sudanese Nilotic/ Ancient Egyptian"
Finally as for the K=12 image things are a bit different. Natufians are still showing pink but not as much as before. But THIS time they show a lot more green which is found a lot in Nilotic/Nubia/Sudanese populations! They also show much more purple than K=10! If my observations are correct... As for the Abusir mummies they still show a lot of purple but they are not similar to the Natufians. Not only that but they have more African like admixture(purple) than modern Egyptians. So if what I am saying is correct along with this data then these Abusir mummies having less African admixture than modern Egyptians would be incorrect.
I am curious to know what the k=10 color represents.
Anyways, Djehuti what are your thoughts!? [/QB]
The results do look rather interesting. Beyoku, if I may as which ES poster generated these results??
Again, I think a lot of this depends on what the authors consider 'African' or rather 'Sub-Saharan'. I am very much curious about this affinity to Mota or even the Sandawe/Hadza. I see Mahas Nubians and Halfawein Nubians but not Kenuzi Nubians. I also would like to know how a sample from the Beja would come into play assuming there is a correlation between various populations along the Red Sea coast of Africa.
Also, I think there may be an ancient Lower Egyptian component in the mix which may be connnected to the Levant i.e. Keita's "Coastal North African" type
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.
I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.
As S.O.Y. Keita put it: The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)
Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.
If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!
By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.
So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta.
You have a good memory. In my mind I had always subscribed to the view that slow demographic change happened over time from the 1st dynasty onward, so I didn't know what post of mine you were referring to, here. But now that I think about it, I do remember that we had a conversation years ago about increased heterogeneity specifically in post-NK Egypt.
I think you will like this:
quote: Paleopathological find of a sacral neurilemmoma from ancient Egypt
Abstract
A large, smooth-walled cavity molded from the pressure of a relatively hard, globular, and lobulated tissue mass was found inside the sacrum of the mature female, Imakhetkherresnet. She was the sister of the lector-priest Iufaa, whose unmolested tomb dates to the late 26th Dynasty (prior to 625 BC). The origin of the lesion could be determined unambiguously by macroscopic, radiographic, and histological analysis. It was caused by a neurilemmoma (schwannoma, neurinoma), a benign tumor originating in a nerve sheath. This is the first description in the paleopathological literature of this kind of tumor occurring in the sacrum.
—Eugen Strouhal, Alena Němečková
Volume 125, Issue 4, December 2004, Pages 320–328 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10404
quote:Skeletal remains of Iufaa found inside his intact Shaft-tomb at Abusir in 1998 by the Czech Institute of Egyptology have been compared with two adult skeletons unearthed in a corridor adjoining the Shaft-tomb, discovered in 2001. Craniometrics show a striking proximity of an old male Nekawer and a mature female Imakhetkherresnet. At the same time, the young adult male Iufaa, due to the very broad and low neurocranium and broad face, reveals a two and half bigger distance from both of them. If only splanchnocranic dimensions (except bizygomatic breadth) were compared, the three persons appear very close, Iufaa resembling more Nekawer (both males) than Imakhetkherresnet (female). Similarities between the three individuals can also be detected in cranial indices, cranial profile angles, cranioscopic features and postcranial skeleton (cranial variation of the spine and foramen arcuale atlantis). Craniometric comparison was not possible in a fourth person, male Padihor, found in another tomb 25 m east of Iufaa's tomb, because of the fragmentary state of his skull. However, on the skeleton as well as in his body build and stature no features similar to any of the other three persons were revealed, making thus his blood relationship with them improbable. The anthropological results are discussed in light of the archaeological and textual evidence.
—Eugen Strouhal
RELATION OF IUFAA TO PERSONS FOUND BESIDE HIS SHAFT-TOMB AT ABUSIR (EGYPT) (2002)
quote: Lady Imakhetkherresnet was buried at the age of 35-45 years in the southern corridorof a well preserved shaft tomb of priest Iufaa at Abusir (end 26th Dynasty, 625 BC).The tomb was excavated by the Czech Institute of Egyptology from 1994 to 2004.Morphometric, genetic and epigenetic features linked her by blood to Iufaa; epigraphicevidence concluded that she was his sister.Her pathography includes the usual tooth diseases, and early stage vertebral osteophytosis and degenerative osteoarthritis. She also suffered a spiral fracture of both right lowerleg bones. A large smooth-walled cavity was found in her sacrum, moulded by the pressure of arelatively hard tissue mass. Its extent and lobulated form were first assessed macroscopically and then by standard radiography. CT sections revealed wide cavities extendingfrom the spinal canal to both 2nd sacral foramina and to the left 3rd sacral body. Abenign neurilemmoma was diagnosed by macroscopy and radiography, and confirmedby histology. This benign tumour is the first of its kind and localization to be identifiedin palaeopathology and in the history of medicine.
[…]
—Eugen Strouhal1, Alena Němečková2, Fady Khattar3
PATHOGRAPHY OF LADY IMAKHETKHERRESNET, SISTER OF PRIEST IUFAA (2007)
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.
I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.
As S.O.Y. Keita put it: The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)
Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.
If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!
By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.
So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?
I think the proto-Natufians was a group similar to the Fur and Masalit (which split from Central Sudan) who happen to carry the main linage E1b1b.
This also evident in the tool industry carried by Natufians, which shows a pattern from Central Sudan going into the Levant. Even when you put Brace's finding into it, is makes sense.
And it is not that Max Plank is completely ignorant about these people's existence:
Young people from various villages in Dar Masalit.
And whenever we speak of this region we have to keep in mind:
quote:African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al. The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Yeah, I emphasize on this Sarah A. Tishkoff because it is very important in understanding the drift.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Can you make a dedicated frontpage or thread for dedicated software, such as ADMIXTURE (and alike). Then lock it down to keep it clean, since it's not a commenting page / thread, but merely a reference page for members to look up specialized software.
Thanks in advance. [/QB]
You want me to make a stickied and closed thread based on dedicated software? I'll see as there are MANY stickied threads at the moment and I may have to unsticky one.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] ^ I was actually thinking about asking for the same thing. Also k10 & 12 appears a bit noisey, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
So what you're telling us they shouldn't be trusted?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
BBH what do you think about what ish just posted? Lol (feel free to take it to pm)
First please respond to my PM on FBD.
And what I think about his post is that we should expect the OG Egyptians to carry these type of lineages.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
this is a good question, what do you (BBH, Beyoku & others) feel about Natifians & "North East African"?
It should make sense for the Natufians to carry some significant NE African admixture which is why I think the pink is not unrealistic.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?
Natufians are a culture in the Levant. Some of them carried high amounts of E1b1b which suggests African origins since E1b1b like all E1 clades have their highest occurance and diversity in Africa, yet the Natufians autosomal DNA says they are Eurasian. The study I cited on modern day Gulf Saudi Arabs which was first shown to me by Swenet interestingly shows they carry maternal L3 derived clades yet autosomally they show not African admixture. The authors claim this as 'proof' that L3 originated in Southwest Asia (not South Asia) even though the vast majority and diversity of L3 is again found in Africa. There has to be an explanation for this. I believe it may have to do with the fact that there is a genetic split between most modern day Sub-Saharans and ancient or prehistoric Africans who genetically were the ancestors of OOAs hence pre-OOAs.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic