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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  11  12  13   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He seems to believe the hyksos were canaanites and is attributing the admixture date with foreigners somewhere around 2k point BC:

quote:
This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
He also doesn't rule out another possibility I'd considered: That this "Sub Saharan" DNA could be from Nubians and southern Egyptians.

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
I already know what is going on. [Big Grin] [Wink] [Cool]
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats the interesting part, and what we have been speculating on. The Pan-Africans are breathing a sigh of relief but it is still interesting that Modern Egyptians are more SSA than these Ancient samples, that the 3 ancient Samples cluster together AND cluster closer to the modern Levantine/Middle East samples.

quote:
We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples
and

quote:
n contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples
Though the study does make it clear this is just ONE section of Egypt and that the Southern Egyptians should/could have more ancient and continuous SSA Gene Flow from Nubians/Nilo-Saharans.

I suspect Southern Egyptians will resemble Ramses III and the Armarna Samples tbh. This is an interesting find

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.


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

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note all these schizophrenic flip-floppers. lol.

Who remembers like 4-5 years ago, numerous threads were made on Herodotus' description of ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation. 90% (if not more) of the Afro-loons in those threads said Herodotus was an eyewitness of "black skinned" Egyptians (distorting the actual definition of μελάγχροος that as classicist Alan B. Lloyd notes does not strictly mean a dark brown pigmentation, but can be as light as a "bronze-complexion".)

We now know ancient Egyptians, from these 8th-1st century BCE samples, had light to intermediate brown skin, as opposed to dark brown ('black') since they carried derived SLC24A5. The latter accounts for 25-38% of the average skin colour variation between Europeans & Sub-Saharan Africans (Lamason et al. 2005).

Suddenly now these Afro-loons are saying these peoples were light[er] brown skinned and not black, directly contradicting all their postings on Herodotus. [Roll Eyes]

Also note, Herodotus' main eyewitness testimony was Lower Egypt, so it was northern Egyptians he was describing-

"It will be observed that the number of sites visited in Lower Egypt is greater than in Upper Egypt in the proportion 8: 5 and that general reference to Lower Egypt, if we include the Western Desert, and also more numerous. This suggests a longer stay in the north than the south, an indication which tends to be confirmed by the fact that the centre of gravity of Egyptian culture and political life had by Herodotus' time long lain in the north." (Lloyd, A. B. 1976 "Herodotus' Travels in Egypt". In: Herodotus Book II, Commentary 1-98. Leiden.)

Now what? Afrocentrics denying their old posts again.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?

Because they spent months talking **** due to fact that they themselves had no idea how to interperate the leak. So all of this is padding basically. I'd give it a few days before ES actually attempt to break down this study with a multidisciplinary approach. Hopefully the site won't disappear before then.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
~ Watch these pathological liar Afrocentrists deny their posts again and now claim the argument Herodotus saw 'black' Egyptians is a straw man (Charlie Bass' favourite term), despite the fact its a text-book Afro-loon argument tracing back to Diop's The African Origin of Civilization; Diop repeatedly quoted from Herodotus to make the "black Egypt" argument as were 90% of the Afrocentrists here 4-5 years ago (including most in this thread).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.

Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.

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

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.

Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.

mtDNA of Egyptian Coptic immmigrant sample from Sudan:

n=29
L1c1a1 (6.9%)
R/U6a1 (27.6%)
M1 (10.3%)
M1a (3.4%)

N/J1 (10.3%)
N/J2 (10.3%)
preHVI (13.8%)
R/T1 (17.2)

(Hassan 2009)

Not a geographically SSA sample in the world (not even Horners) that becomes 'Eurasianized' like this, with their African ancestry split between predominantly North African mtDNAs and little SSA lineages. The Abusir sample, this Coptic sample, and to a lesser extent, Canary Islanders, did become Eurasianized like this. So if people want to fool themselves and deflect to Upper Egypt and expect AE=SSA in future samples because Abusir is mixed, that's their prerogative. But that don't mean I have to play along. Lol.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

Not true actually, upon seeing the initial headlines I did advocate a "flux" hypothesis where the AE started off as African (with the first inhabitants migrating down from SSA), became more Eurasian overtime, and received a post-Roman infusion of SSA ancestry from events such as the Saharan/Arab slave trade.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansamusa
Member
Member # 22474

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansamusa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By now, is it not obvious that the lack of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Ancient Egyptians and Natufians and other groups expected to be SSA is due to the extinction of the prehistoric groups that gave birth to these ancient people? These are prehistoric and ancient populations, who probably originated from the South of the Sahara, and made a home of the harsh desert. They were small, highly mobile and precarious populations. They probably died out and became dead-end populations. It would not be unique to Africa. In Europe, there is little no relationship between stone age Europeans and modern Europeans. What we need is more ancient DNA from historic and pre-historic African populations.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

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

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
I already know what is going on. [Big Grin] [Wink] [Cool]
DAMN this conversation was useful. (Negan's voice Lol).

Sometimes a discussion forces you to look closer at the data. I thought I had stumbled on the answers yesterday in my last reply. But I'm getting more out of this paper every time I revisit this specific issue.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I still maintain that such a "clash" was heavily lopsided in favor of African contributions(Africa being the main source for the native population with influences from the Levant/Fertile Crescent). So yeah still waiting on Upper Egyptians and older aDna before reconsidering my opinion on that.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To the chagrin of geno-hamiticists the
Natufians of the Levant 10000 yrs ago
show us 'SSA' features can accompany
non-'SSA' genomes. Black don't equal
your 'SSA' code word for West African
forest true negro.

Pan-African assessment of AE? Never
seen any. Pan-Africanism is about
politics and economics. I don't
know what these kids here mean
or their private definition of
Pan-Africanism/Pan-Africanist.

If Diop and Ch Wms are Afrocentrics
then the Afrocentric view is Egypt
was created and inhabited by African
blacks of the South. The north was
different. North African Libyan red
Africans and some Levantines were there.
Foreigners entered at the north attracted
to the world's only 1st World economy.
Eventually the northern types trickled
southward impacting the demographic.

These founding southerners were out
of Western Desert Nubia and adjacent
Lower Nile Sudan per archaeology and
cultural anthropology. These people
were Sudanese and offshoot Saharo-Sudanese.

Egypt was very cosmopolitan by the
New Kingdom. We see foreigner welcome
events like Akhenaten settling `Apiru
as far south as n the cities of Kush.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
reviewer 5"It
is indeed questionable how accurate ancient admixture rates can be learned from either a single locus
(mtDNA) or just three samples in a case in which admixture is so recent that ancestry blocks are
necessarily large and the variation in admixture rates between individuals expected to be very high.
However, the authors are aware and transparent about these shortcomings in their data.

According to the peer review response the author is arguing for E1b1b1 as non-African. GTFOH!

Anything from the Max Plank Institute and written by David Reich is suspect. These researchers are firmly interested in maintaining the status quo and the Hamitic myth.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.

I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.

But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?

Little. Its one inner city. What it tells me is that these images from Abusir
 -

Were legit.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.

I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.

But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago

That 'black' is not exclusive to to SSA is not a pill for me to swallow. You have people here alternating between "black is only skin pigmentation" to talking about "light skin, but with black features". These flip floppers trying to play both sides of the fence have to deal with their own cognitive dissonance. I stopped using the term a long time ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are eastbound Capsians indigenous
but the eastbound Saharo-Sudanese not?

You guys and your untenable assumptions
acting like they're proven facts. Lol.

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

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

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

Agreed.


@Tukuler

Elaborate?

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I said black

I have no idea what 'black' is.





How can I elaborate something
you wrote and I don't agree to?


"two major African ancestries accompanying one another
• (Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs
• Sudanese/East African SSA influence"

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoever said that "black" people in Africa are exclusive to SSA?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?

Little. Its one inner city. What it tells me is that these images from Abusir
 -

Were legit.

 -
they do quite resemble the Copts.


Lmao.

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

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't read the full paper or supps yet. Just a quick look over of the peer review pieces. But from the posts I am reading M1 linaeage is very high and others found in Kenyans of the Great Lakes. So was DNATribes right or what?

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

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

I said elaborate because you don't quote or @ who you are referring to.

Anyways what I mean by "Indigenous Egyptian North African influence" is ancestry in Egypt prior to the Green Sahara and migrations south to north on the Nile Valley. Basically "Natufian ancestry" which I believe Swenet has been referring.

It doesn't have to be non-African/black.

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

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All I have to say (to unbiased lurkers) is beware of unfounded accusations coming from people who can't read PCAs or even papers. We're talking about people who make threads about papers assuming some sort of pretentious teacher role, but can't even read them without help.

How can you make a whole thread about Angel 1972 and still throw a tantrum for weeks protesting backmigration when Angel is talking about farmer backmigration throughout the paper? Then they create some Dinka Egypt fake news and throw a tantrum about "hypocritical cock strutters".

quote:
Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) (Angel, 1967a; Caffey, 1937; Moseley, 1965) and hence also falciparum malaria (Carcassi, Cepellini & Pitzus, 1957) from Greece (perhaps also Italy (Gatto, 1960) and Anatolia (Angel, 1966) to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and Africa.
—Angel 1972

Clearly, there is a structural problem on this site with reporting information about Egypt accurately. Folks simply can't be trusted to do accurate reporting. Mind you, the recent thread about Angel was supposed to break with past misrepresentations of Angel on this site and represent Angel "the right way". The thread still managed to botch Angel. Lol.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

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

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't Angel assuming Sickle Cell and Thalsemia (sp) originate in Greece and North. Did he NOT realize this is a TROPICAL disease? So these diseases originated in Greece.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.

Once again, louder, for the people in the back.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
common sense says that this population you speak of would be either between Natufian and North African or closely shifted to one another. Both ofcourse whom probably spent some history developing OOA. Or in isolate away from SSA, as it was explained in the 2nd abusir mummy thread. A constant non SSA, or non conventional N.African settlement in the absence of detectable geneflow on the east before 4.5kya is at odds with probability.

...but who knows.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes lurkers beware of whining bitch know it
all strutting cock Grandstand Dan who'll
stop at nothing to convert disciples
to his faith based Ancient Egypt
settled and created by the 600
population Nea Nikomedeia
village in Greece not by
downriver bound Africans.


The boy's such a whiny bitch
always with the bitch clicking
claptrap about so and so is a
this and so and so is that just
like my teenage girl relatives.

Cut the bitch whining out his
post and you get what? Maybe
two misleading on-topic sentences
that aren't personal attacks or
Don Quixote windmill tilting at
imaginary bogeyman inka-Dinka-doo
and other substaneless willothewhisps

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
?? sarcasm. I am little slow today. But I thought Natufians were Africans(North) according Lazardis et al. He also stated they were not ancestral to modern Europeans/EEF but to population in Eurasia to the East like Eastern Farmers. They also carried E1b1b*. Are we all reading from the same paper?


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.

It is amazing how these papers promise so much but deliver very little…anti-climatic. These writers are good at playing EuroCentrics against Afro-Centrics. Until we realize that there is no race and never any isolation so “Eurasian” ancestry is meaningless since “Eurasian(SNP)is found from the Cape to the Straits and Suez. And it will be found in the Malawi LSA African.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.

[Roll Eyes]

Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol. Look at that pretentious title:

Topic: What Angel really said about AE and early farmers
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009652;p=1#000000

I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!

Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
I don't care when you talking about.
We talking about the epipaleolithic
to predynastic Egypt and the people
who founded it.

You're saying Nabta transhumants and
the like are not indigenous but the
migrants into the Fayoum and the Delta
were indigenous .

Listen, the civilization belongs to the
indigenous northern Africans of
the Lower Nile Valley, period.


What really sucker punched me was
you trying to hide behind some
but they wuz both blak issue
that's got nothing to do
with the direction the
civ founders came from.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.

Ayo, speak up! What are you asking, what is your POV. Elaborate. What do YOU expect to be in north east Africa prior to south-North gene flow. Is it not a post bottleneck African population? To the east you have Natufians to the west Conventional North Africans and all the E3b lineages in between, no? Are you asking if this population is Basal Eurasian? I'll answer that for you right now, no. Do you wanna know how close to the aforementioned populations they are? Where are you right now, stop hiding, and show that you have a mind of your own.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.

Yes grandstanding to lurkers is just that.
quote:

rolleyes

Like a bitch.

quote:

Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol.

Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed
in the What Angel really said thread. No
need drag here what everybody read there.

quote:

I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!

Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.

Talk about self-importance? You reek it constantly.


What? More inka-Dinka-doo? Mistaking a grey
circle for a black circle and then alerting
the board of my bad is a full blown hypothesis?
Don Quixote schizophrenia, mmm mmm mmm.

All that to dodge your big egg face
Nea Nikomedeia ancient Egypt debacle.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok can someone tell me what the hell this "Nea Nikomedeia Ancient Egypt" mess is about???
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I done asked him that over 10 times
with no clarification expansion nor
precision ever forthcoming to date.

Hold on. I'll link you to him
pompously preposturing it

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=5#000207
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anybody with a brain will see this for what it is. Keep looking until you find the data that suits your agenda. How many mummies from across ALL of Egypt are there in various European museums? So why did they pick these particular mummies from this particular time period? What about the previous DNA tests done on other mummies?

This study was supposedly to test the ability to extract full DNA profiles from ancient specimens. But of course they just had to throw some "forest Negroes" in there for comparison and to be the REAL purpose of the study. Seems to me if these folks really were serious they would try to do tests on ALL the mummies available, in and outside Egypt. Therefore, the fact that they try and use modern Yoruba as proxies for all Africans (not just Sub Saharan Africans) tells you everything. No populations close to Egypt in Africa were sampled. There is no definition of "indigenous North African" DNA. So for all this talk of "Sub Saharan" Africans, what DNA represents indigenous Nile Valley Africans? Or are we supposed to think that the Nile Valley never had an indigenous population except for "near Easterners".

Amazing.

quote:

We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

.....
On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

It also affirms what I said before, that "African" mtDNA lineages are limited to "L0-L4" lineages, while all other mtDNA lineages like M1 and U6 are considered non African. This means that the ONLY African lineages according to science are the mtDNA L lineages which just so happens to what folks call "sub saharan" Africa. Everything else, including the DNA in North Africa is supposedly "non African" as a result of ancient Eurasian back migration.

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^^More Evil European Conspiracy theories from Doug...As usual [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed
in the What Angel really said thread.
No
need drag here what everybody read there.

I'll let unbiased lurkers make their mind up on their own. No need to waste time with the laughably incompetent self-styled "interpreter" of Angel's views on ancient Egypt. Here is the actual Angel quote:

quote:
Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid (beyond A2) early population (cf. Ferembach, 1962, Briggs, 1955), linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region (A2β) (Ewing, 1966; Anderson, 1968), as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend (B2β) in the gracile Badarians (Morant and Stoessiger quoted in Angel, 1951).
Angel, J. L. (1971). The people of Lerna. Washington: American School of Classical Studies and Smithsonian Institution Press. p101, 102

For the record, B stands for Mediterranean, while A stands for "Basic White" or what we'd today call early OOA:

quote:
A Basic White
A1 Atlanto-Mediterranran
A2 Upper Palaeolithic
A3 Basic, cf. Eurafrican
A4 Basic, Eastern
A5 Basic, Royal

B Classific Mediterranean
B1 Mediterranean
B2 Mediterranean Angular
B3 Desert, Classic
B4 Desert, Eastern

—Angel 1971

======================

Now look how Mr Egypt=Dinka deliberately botched the aforementioned quote, removed all references to Angel's phylogenetic information, but conveniently kept all references to negroid features:

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Trodding on down that path,
who got the full context of

quote:

Egypt includes

• an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region,

•as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians



J.L. Angel (1972)
Journal of Human Evolution

[Eek!]

And how do you make a pretentious "I gotz tha answers" thread about Angel's views on ancient Egypt and then call for help half way?

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
who got the full context of
[...]
Who can vet this or trash it?

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

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh and I forgot to mention again that this time period of the 3rd intermediate period was also the era of the 25th dynasty which came from Kush. So are we to think that the Kushites are also covered by these DNA profiles.....

Right.

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


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


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3