quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: 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.
By tool industry, I assume you are referring to the Halfan Culture of the Nile Valley which some claim to be ancestral to the Kebaran Culture of the Levant which in turn is the antecedant of the Natufian. Even Mathilda has made the claim, and uses E-M78 and M1 to make her case.
While I do see a resemblance in certain features of tool assemblage, for me the affinity between Halfan and Kebaran is not that great for it to be totally conclusive. I still say a large piece of the puzzle is to be found in the Egyptian Delta.
Also, how wise is it for you to hold up modern populations like Fur or Masalit as "ancestral" E-M78. I used to subscribe to such a simplistic and static way of thinking but in the past several years of research as well as reading material presented here, I've changed. So many demographic changes can happen in just a short time span let alone before the Holocene to use any modern population as a model for the forebears of a clade.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have therefore enriched the databases of mtDNA L3 diversity in Eastern Africa by firstly characterizing at low-resolution 327 samples from Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia and then selecting from these 70 L3 lineages for complete mtDNA genome sequencing. The application of several methods and mutation rates for the evaluation of TMRCAs allowed us to narrow the time span for the emergence of L3 and establish an upper bound for the out-of-Africa migration. In addition, Bayesian skyline analysis of 328 complete L3 sequences and founder analysis of 2,359 L3 hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences enabled us to infer both local demographic expansions and migrations within Africa.
[...]
We have therefore enriched the databases of mtDNA L3 diversity in Eastern Africa by firstly characterizing at low-resolution 327 samples from Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia and then selecting from these 70 L3 lineages for complete mtDNA genome sequencing. The application of several methods and mutation rates for the evaluation of TMRCAs allowed us to narrow the time span for the emergence of L3 and establish an upper bound for the out-of-Africa migration. In addition, Bayesian skyline analysis of 328 complete L3 sequences and founder analysis of 2,359 L3 hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences enabled us to infer both local demographic expansions and migrations within Africa.
[...]
Samples, mtDNA Sequencing, and Haplogroup Affiliation
We collected a total of 102 Sudanese, 77 Ethiopian (both emigrants in Dubai), and 148 Somali (refugees in Yemen) samples, belonging to unrelated individuals, who gave appropriate informed consent for their biological samples to be used for mtDNA characterization. The work complied with the Helsinki Declaration of Ethical Principles (59th World Medical Association General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Porto (11/CEUP/2011). We sequenced hypervariable segments I and II (HVS-I and HVS-II) of all Sudanese and Ethiopian samples and HVS-I in the Somali population, using a procedure described previously (Pereira et al. 2000). This information was used to assign samples to haplogroups, following the most recent phylogenetic evidence, reported in Phylotree website (van Oven and Kayser 2009). The sequences obtained are reported in supplementary table S1 and supplementary material 2, Supplementary Material online.
--Pedro Soares et al.
The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa
quote:Originally posted by Andromeda2025: PIC OF Abusir Mummy
Would be curious to know if this mummy was actually sampled and was one of the ones with a full genome capture. Not to mention given all the studies of these mummies, I would also be curious about the craniofacial and skeletal metrics of the mummies in the study and a description of the conditions of said remains....
Of course this could just be a photo op.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. [/QB]
It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.
But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.
quote: Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.
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.
T
Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged |
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.
Anyway, in regard to the Ks, it just occurred to me what about Siwa Berbers?? Also what number of SNPs wer used??
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042
As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:
' '
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.
But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.
quote: Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.
posted
There is one thing that has been bugging me about the Abusir el-Meleq mtDNA results for a while.
Presumably, the mtDNA lineages that would be indigenous to Northeastern Africa would still be non-MN, or sorted into L since that's where all the non-MN lineages go. So why don't we see more L's in this sample? I agree that this sample probably has a large degree of foreign ("Asiatic") admixture, but even then you'd expect plenty of L lineages to creep in from further up the Nile (i.e. Upper Egypt and Nubia) as well. After all, Lower Egypt stands between Upper Egypt and the Levant geographically---it would have received gene flow from both these regions throughout Pharaonic history.
So would northern Middle Egypt have been more or less completely Eurasianized during the time frame of the study's sample, or are we dealing with a foreign enclave completely shut off from the rest of the country?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: There is one thing that has been bugging me about the Abusir el-Meleq mtDNA results for a while.
Presumably, the mtDNA lineages that would be indigenous to Northeastern Africa would still be non-MN, or sorted into L since that's where all the non-MN lineages go. So why don't we see more L's in this sample? I agree that this sample probably has a large degree of foreign ("Asiatic") admixture, but even then you'd expect plenty of L lineages to creep in from further up the Nile (i.e. Upper Egypt and Nubia) as well. After all, Lower Egypt stands between Upper Egypt and the Levant geographically---it would have received gene flow from both these regions throughout Pharaonic history.
So would northern Middle Egypt have been more or less completely Eurasianized during the time frame of the study's sample, or are we dealing with a foreign enclave completely shut off from the rest of the country?
What they claimed in this Abusir paper is simply impossible. And of course nowhere Hassan was cited by Schuenemann et al.
Ancient DNA results from Kush and the Tasian site of Kadruka (precusor to Badarian/Naqada):
From Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan (Hassan 2009)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042
As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:
' '
.
Yes, it can go both ways. But their "conclusions" are based off on BAM, the European Nucleotide Archive. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena
quote:Data availability The mapped BAM files for the 90 mitochondrial samples and three nuclear samples are deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) with the study ID ERP017224.
—Schuenemann et al.
Ps, you need to use a "compressor" on your mic line.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.
But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.
quote: Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.
The problem I am having here is that this Max Planck institute has a history associated with the NAZI's. And Felix von Luschan has been criticized for being a racist (during his days). These are very important factors. With that being said this "The Make America Great Again" rise of white nationalism era.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Would def like to know mow about this and any other studies that have disappeared down a rabbit hole.
Btw anyone know of any other studies on the AE aDna in the pipeline?
quote: Artificial mummification was practised in Egypt from approximately 2600 BC until the fourth century AD. Because of the dry Egyptian climate, however, there are also many natural mummies preserved from earlier as well as later times. To elucidate whether this unique source of ancient human remains can be used for molecular genetic analyses, 23 mummies were investigated for DNA content. One 2,400-yr-old mummy of a child was found to contain DNA that could be molecularly cloned in a plasmid vector. I report here that one such clone contains two members of the Alu family of human repetitive DNA sequences, as detected by DNA hybridizations and nucleotide sequencing. These analyses show that substantial pieces of mummy DNA (3.4 kilobases) can be cloned and that the DNA fragments seem to contain little or no modifications introduced postmortem.
—Pääbo S.
Nature. 1985 Apr 18-24;314(6012):644-5. Molecular cloning of Ancient Egyptian mummy DNA.
Several chemical and enzymatic properties were examined in the DNA extracted from dry remains of soft tissues that vary in age from 4 to 13,000 years and represent four species, including two extinct animals (the marsupial wolf and giant ground sloth). The DNA obtained was invariably of a low average molecular size and damaged by oxidative processes, which primarily manifest themselves as modifications of pyrimidines and sugar residues as well as baseless sites and intermolecular cross-links. This renders molecular cloning difficult. However, the polymerase chain reaction can be used to amplify and study short mitochondrial DNA sequences that are of anthropological and evolutionary significance. This opens up the prospect of performing diachronical studies of molecular evolutionary genetics.
—Pääbo S.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Mar;86(6):1939-43. Ancient DNA: extraction, characterization, molecular cloning, and enzymatic amplification.
posted
This is somewhat off, but still interesting in comparable.
Didier Stainier (MPI) 3: Genetic Compensation
Part 1: Vertebrate Organ Development: The Zebrafish Heart: Zebrafish heart development requires the orchestration of cell proliferation, differentiation, and movement. How is this complex process regulated?
posted
They will, I'm primarily concerned about how it will be perceived or explained. I feel like enough of the peices have been tossed on the board, but people are having a hard time putting shit together.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
It's not about our personal beliefs. It's about what we can make a case for. And based on familiarity with the data I know you will have a hard time proving there was substantial "added SSA" ancestry in Egypt in between the Natufian period and the formative period of Pharaonic Egyptians. There is certainly no evidence for more added SSA ancestry than added Eurasian ancestry in any period after that (except the Post-Ptolemaic increase of ~20% SSA announced in the 2017 paper).
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Sue me... [/QB]
You already seem my arguments MANY times and so I am not sure why you are saying all of this and saying that I am denying the data when you KNOW I accepted it. Not only that but you SEEN my arguments on Forumbiodiversity and not only that but I even said on FBD that I STILL believe that Upper Egyptians would have some SSA admixture. You yourself seen that same exact post.
So again I am confused? When I mean by "added", I mean SSA admixture on top of the ALREADY EXISTENT indigenous Egyptian admixture. I made it clear this would be the only case for Upper Egypt.
So again I am confused why you think I have some agenda when you seen first hand what I meant.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
I'm aware of that which is why I said added. I wasn't saying the Upper Egyptians or even Nubians themselves would have been of SSA origins. But due to proxity they could have had some SSA genetic influence. Like how Northwest Africans have some SSA genetic influence due to proximity. Not that they WERE SSA. We know they are mainly North African.
But is the Green Sahara migration still relevant? More importantly what about L2 in the Levant during the Bronze age? Correct me but that seems to hint at a SSA migration. That is where I am mostly basing my argument at.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
From previous conversations I know you subscribe to the view that Pharaonic AE was a melting pot with ethnic groups from different parts of Africa living side by side and being equally Egyptian.
Are you saying something like that wasn't what you were hinting at in your comment about Upper Egypt?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: From previous conversations I know you subscribe to the view that Pharaonic AE was a melting pot with ethnic groups from different parts of Africa living side by side and being equally Egyptian.
Are you saying something like that wasn't what you were hinting at in your comment about Upper Egypt?
I threw that theory in the bushes a long time ago especially after these results. Come on now... More importantly see the PM I sent you.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
A3b2 were carried by complete Eurasians and north Africans? also.. what North African clade do the Egyptians belong too? You discovered a NE African clade? you aren't superimposing the Natufian/Near eastern levant component on North Africa right?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
A3b2 were carried by complete Eurasians and north Africans? also.. what North African clade do the Egyptians belong too? You discovered a NE African clade? you aren't superimposing the Natufian/Near eastern levant component on North Africa right?
That's exactly what needs to be resolved. These Abusir genomes are Eurasian, so I suppose they can demonstrate that this is precisely the same ancestry that is to be found in the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians.
The Badarians and Naqadans were representative of dynastic Egyptians, so were they transplants from the Levant? When did this happen?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: These Abusir genomes are Eurasian,
unless their Y-DNA is haplogroup E.
Then they might be only half Eurasian
So, what happened to this theory of genetic drifts? Or is it only for "euwrasiun" and not for Africa? I mean the African continent is founder effect of many subsets, after all.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: represent a focal rather than a clinal phenomenon resulting most likely from genetic drift.
posted
This is somewhat crazy and funny at the same time, on multiple levels.
quote:
Introduction
Two main routes out of Africa are still widely discussed: the Sinai, linking Egypt to the Levant, and the Bab el-Mandab strait, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula (Derricourt 2005). Early dates for the settlement of Southeast Asia by ∼50 ka (Barker et al. 2007) and Australia by 48 ka (Turney et al. 2001) combined with the distribution and ages of mtDNA lineages (Kivisild et al. 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005; Thangaraj et al. 2005; Atkinson et al. 2008; Soares et al. 2009) have suggested a “southern coastal route” via Arabia (Field and Lahr 2005) as the sole major exit from Africa in the Late Pleistocene (Beyin 2006; Mellars 2006; Richards et al. 2006; Bulbeck 2007). Nevertheless, controversy about the timing in particular remains.
[…]
Eastern African Origins
Furthermore, L3c is extremely rare: Only two samples have been detected so far, one in Eastern Africa and the other in the Near East.
[…]
North Africa
We performed a founder analysis stipulating three migration times, including a third one of 35.0 ka, based on the ages of U6, L3k and the population increase in the BSP (supplementary fig. S7, Supplementary Material online) with results presented in table 1
[…]
The other major lineages contributing to the 6.6 ka partition (Central African L3b, L3e1, and L3e2 lineages: founders F17, F28, and F41 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online), suggest the postglacial period was characterized by gene flow across the Sahel belt (Cerný et al. 2007); these founder clades are mainly restricted to Northwest Africa and absent from Egypt.
—Pedro Soares et al.
The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa
quote: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 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U.
—Rando JC1, Pinto F, González AM, Hernández M, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Bandelt HJ.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa (Supplementary Table 3).
^^ where is it shown in the chart? Is the YDNA on one of the tables?
There was an mitochondrial analysis of 90 mummies You can't assume the ratio of YDNA J 2/3 and E 1/3 to be the same proportion for all the mummies.
If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot
^^ save this chart for your records
Somebody said that it is JK2888 with the E1b1b1. As we see on the chart that person carries mtDNA U6
Notice how very diverse is the mtDNA of these mummies There are only 3 U6 carriers out of 91 and all 3 different versions of U6
The 2 YDNA J mummies (notice on the chart the J is mtDNA not Y) The 2 YDNA mummies that somebody said were YDNA J, one of them is J1d (mtDNA) and the other is M1a1
How many mtDNA J1d's are there in the sample? One only!
How about M1a1 ? three of them
All of this looks to me like Egypt was far from homogeneous or at least in Abusir el-Meleq
At a recent meeting in Oakland of the American Research Center in Egypt three scientists announced with confidence they had ruled out all of those five locations, and there was no disagreement from the 300 archaeologists there.
The Land of Punt, the scientist said, must have existed in eastern North Africa - either in the region where Ethiopia and Eritrea confront each other, or east of the Upper Nile in a lowland area of eastern Sudan.
--Scientists zero in on ancient Land of Punt
David Perlman Chronicle Science Editor The San Francisco Chronicle May 08, 2010
quote: Baboon mummy analysis reveals Eritrea and Ethiopia as location of land of Punt
Analysis of mummified baboons in the British Museum has revealed the location of the land of Punt as the area between Ethiopia and Eritrea. To the Egyptians, Punt was a place of fragrances, giraffes, electrum and other exotic goods, and was sometimes referred to as Ta-netjer, or 'God’s land'.
There are several ancient Egyptian texts that record trade voyages to the Land of Punt, dating up until the end of the New Kingdom, 3,000 years ago. But until now scholars did not know where Punt was. Ancient texts offer only vague allusions to its location and no 'Puntite' civilization has been discovered. Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen and even Mozambique have all been offered as possible locations.
However, it appears that the search for Punt may have come to an end according to new research which claims to prove that it was located in Eritrea/East Ethiopia. Live baboons were among the goods that we know the Egyptians got from Punt. The research team included Professor Salima Ikram from the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and Professor Nathaniel Dominy and graduate student Gillian Leigh Moritz, both from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
The team studied two baboon mummies in the British Museum. By analysing hairs from these baboons using oxygen isotope analysis, they were able to work out where they originated. Oxygen isotopes act as a 'signal' that can let scientists know where they came from. Depending on the environment an animal lived in, the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen will be different. “Oxygen tends to vary as a function of rainfall and the water composition of plants and seed,” said Professor Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz.
Only one of the two baboons was suitable for the research – the other had spent time in Thebes as an exotic pet, and so its isotopic data had been distorted. Working on the baboon discovered in the Valley of the Kings, the researchers compared the oxygen isotope values in the ancient baboons to those found in their modern day brethren. Although isotope values in baboons in Somalia, Yemen and Mozambique did not match, those in Eritrea and Eastern Ethiopia were closely matched.
“All of our specimens in Eritrea and a certain number of our specimens from Ethiopia – that are basically due west from Eritrea – those are good matches,” said Professor Dominy.
The team were unable to compare the mummies with baboons in Yemen. However, Professor Dominy reasoned that “We can tell, based on the isotopic maps of the region, that a baboon from Yemen would look an awful lot like a baboon from Somalia isotopically.” As Somalia is definitely not the place of origin for the baboon, this suggests that Yemen is not the place of origin either.
He concluded that “We think Punt is a sort of circumscribed region that includes eastern Ethiopia and all of Eritrea.”
The team also think that they may have discovered the location of the harbour that the Egyptians would have used to export the baboons and other goods back to Egypt. Dominy points to an area just outside the modern city of Massawa: “We have a specimen from that same harbour and that specimen is a very good match to the mummy.”
Next, the team hopes to get the British Museum’s permission to take a pea-sized sample of bone from the baboon mummy and use it strontium isotope testing. This would hopefully confirm Eritrea/Eastern Ethiopia as the baboon’s origin and narrow down its location more specifically.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot
Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.
quote:
Q8: Note 8: Test of Population Continuity: the analysis here was not described. Other than collapsing mtDNA lineages into haplogroup frequencies to compare ancient and contemporary groups, there is no description of what the actual test was. Even if the method was described in Brandt et al. (2013) [not even in the main text, only in their supplement], the authors should lay out the assumptions, parameter choices and models invoked in using this method. Why for example, is TPC preferable over Approximate Bayesian Computation models typically used to test the relative liklihood of two different population demographies (in this case continuity w/ minimal drift vs. migration).
Answer: We have extended the description of our analysis both in the methods part of the manuscript and our supplementary information for clarification and to explain our main findings. Our intention to use the TPC as applied in Brandt et al. 2013 was to evaluate with a simple method whether we can assume genetic continuity (null hypothesis) between our ancient groups and modern-day populations. We agree that complex ABC models would have been the ideal choice to explore alternative scenarios that could explain discontinuity under varying parameters (drift, migration, time, etc.), but were not deemed necessary given that we can more reliably estimate the origin and timing of admixture with nuclear data.
This thing is rigged and that is exactly what Sudaniya is referring at.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot
Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.
the article reports mtDNA for 91 mummies
So couldn't they have YDNA for 91 mummies instead of three?
Posts: 42936 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
All of this looks to me like Egypt was far from homogeneous or at least in Abusir el-Meleq
similarly diverse:
The riddle here is, was it truly due to back migration or was it all indigenous? Physical anthropology is critical here to determine the cranial and post-cranial metrical data.
According to Luca Pagan et al. early people left Africa from Northeast Africa (Egypt) correct?
quote: "Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt."
[…]
Sequence data avoid the effect of ascertainment bias that one encounters when dealing with SNP arrays from the same populations (Figure S1). If the northern route was the predominant path followed by the ancestors of the OOA populations, and modern African populations are representative of those at the time of the exit, Egyptians should be genetically more similar to modern non-Africans. Conversely, if the southern route was the main way out of Africa, Ethiopians should be closest to the OOA populations. However, extensive historical and genetic data show that recent gene flow has drastically influenced the genomes of present-day Egyptians and Ethiopians.
To minimize the confounding effect of this gene flow back to Africa while testing this hypothesis, we first identified and then masked the recent non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes.
—Luca Pagani et al.
Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians
So what are these Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes?
That is exactly what Sudaniya is referring at.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot
Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.
the article reports mtDNA for 91 mummies
So couldn't they have YDNA for 91 mummies instead of three?
I asked you before,
Are these SNP's of single individuals? And why are they so low in frequency. And how come it is so diverse, because they seem to be all over place in subclades?
Lastly you say "91 mummies", but I can't verify this. Can you? I mean I deal with an institute with a Nazi history, so I am cautious if you don't mind. Even the "skull collector" himself had an "ambiguous" history.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why are you saying they are low in frequency?
Because it is, hence my previous statement.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said many times it is a good idea to go back and revisit past studies. Going back to Schuenemann et al and the Abusir mummies. I missed a few things first time around.
1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans. 2. Based upon SNP they cluster first with Neolithic Lavant/Natufians. We know the Natufians are SSA from East Africa. Also included are the BedoiunA(not B), Tunisians and Yemenis. Schuenemann et al did NOT include SSA from the Great Lakes 3. They do NOT cluster with Druze!!! It is a myth. Western Europeans are not even in the discussion. And should get out. 4. We know Bedouins, Tunisians and Yemenis are heavily Africanized groups. We also know that Lazaridis postulated that the Natufians originated IN Africa. 5. The Abusir mummies are closest to modern Egyptians. At last count, modern Egyptians are 80% African and 20% “foreign”.
I am waiting on that STR result from ElMaestro. Wink! Wink! Anyone has the STR profile of MODERN Egyptians. Lol! We are waiting….. for the impossible
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.
why?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.
why?
The riddle here is, was it truly due to back migration or was it all indigenous? Physical anthropology is critical here to determine the cranial and post-cranial metrical data, along with other "evidence".
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked you to wait, and you continue to type my name over and over again accompanied with useless information. If you cant wait a few days, genotype the STRs yourself... I'll even pm you a tutorial if you want.
Sir, you may feel free to pad all day, but try to show some restraint when referring to me, you fooled me like 3 times already into believing you had something remotely important to say to or about me. Chill out fam.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am chilling out. I am posting for the more intelligent readers who want to get in on this.
They now have access to the BAM files and can do their own analysis. Maybe one day I will get the time and that to really get into this. The information is out there.
My bad! I will not use your name again. I wasn't posting to you. Some of you know I target a bigger audience. But if you look at Suppl FIG3 you will see why your effort is futile. The Abusir mummies are Africans. Modern Tunisians and Modern Egyptians are the closest of the populations they used ....based upon autosomal SNP. As you know Tunisians has the least amount of "European" ancestry of North Africans but carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" mtDNA. The four closest to Abusir are Tunisans, Modern Egyptians, Yemenis and Bedoiun!!! All heavily Africanized. Great Lakes weren't included.
Keep in mind Lazardis(2014) could not disentangle YRI from "Basal Eurasians" and therefore used Bedouins as a proxy. In 2017 he came back and admitted Basal Eurasian/Natufians had a "recent" African origin.
Nah! Abusir are Africans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why are you saying they are low in frequency?
Because it is, hence my previous statement.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ the lioness, how do you feel about the nazi history these institutes have? I am referring to University of Tuebingen and Max Planck.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] I said many times it is a good idea to go back and revisit past studies. Going back to Schuenemann et al and the Abusir mummies. I missed a few things first time around.
1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans. 2. Based upon SNP they cluster first with Neolithic Lavant/Natufians. We know the Natufians are SSA from East Africa. Also included are the BedoiunA(not B), Tunisians and Yemenis. Schuenemann et al did NOT include SSA from the Great Lakes 3. They do NOT cluster with Druze!!! It is a myth. Western Europeans are not even in the discussion. And should get out. 4. We know Bedouins, Tunisians and Yemenis are heavily Africanized groups. We also know that Lazaridis postulated that the Natufians originated IN Africa. 5. The Abusir mummies are closest to modern Egyptians. At last count, modern Egyptians are 80% African and 20% “foreign”.
I am waiting on that STR result from ElMaestro. Wink! Wink! Anyone has the STR profile of MODERN Egyptians. Lol! We are waiting….. for the impossible
[IMG][/IMG]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic