...
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 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug
I'm for analyzing synthesizing and independently
interpreting stuff, I don't care much for the
perzonalities and their rambunctious behavior
or Lord High Muckamuck look down the nose
attitude.

We're all amateurs here. Not a one has been
formally schooled in molecular biology with
anything like a degree. At least now we can
look forward to more students taking classes
contributing to our forum.


With internal admin we can go at these things
on merit now without name calling and grand
standing obscuring what one really said and
what readers really want to know about.


And yes the academic discipline of Afrocentricity
has failed to do anything but soft sociology. It's
not equipped for what we do here. For me it even
fails in simple textbook African history as
evinced in the encyclopedias they published.

--------------------
truth is prism refracted fact -- i'm just another point of view -- what's yours

Posts: 3715 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Doug
I'm for analyzing synthesizing and independently
interpreting stuff, I don't care much for the
perzonalities and their rambunctious behavior
or Lord High Muckamuck look down the nose
attitude.

With internal admin we can go at these things
on merit now without name calling and grand
standing obscuring what one really said and
what readers really want to know about.

My only opinion on the issue is some folks really want to be on the "inside" for whatever its worth. But to me the point at the end of the day is not to be a professional forum poster. My intent has always been to show that if I as a layman can come up with convincing evidence and facts that challenges current scholarship then other folks can and should be able to take it further but that requires being a true professional scholar, which is as I said Afrocentrism failed. Too many so-called "conscious" folks are nothing more than professional debaters and not really doing anything to change anything. I can't imagine folks still debating Egypt 20 years from now... At some point it needs to be put to rest once and for all.
Posts: 7077 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

[ 06. June 2017, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]

--------------------
Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing the same way over and over again but expecting different results.

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah ahn, no rehashed biblical Exodus in my science. Nope. Religion and science don't
mix, Religion already knows the answers
without a doubt no update possible.
Science doubts everything not put
to the test and corrects itself.

Your response belongs in Deshret afaic.

--------------------
truth is prism refracted fact -- i'm just another point of view -- what's yours

Posts: 3715 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Children of Israel are more and mightier than the Egyptians themselves? They need Trump....build that wall!

--------------------
Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing the same way over and over again but expecting different results.

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
[QB] Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly.

so what haplogroups would the Hyksos be carrying that the Egyptians were not carrying prior ?
Posts: 31279 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^ opps disregard question I thought that was xyyman, sometimes I just look at the picture. Got to remember it's Einstein now
Posts: 31279 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

Posts: 2064 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

And in the following thread when the preview was given what did I say? That they probably had limited data and it wouldn't be that "groundbreaking". And of course I get challenged as if what I said didn't turn out to be correct.....

Not to mention the limitation of African DNA to "Sub Saharan" Africa....

I mean some folks want to pretend things have changed but they haven't. Not that much. Otherwise why do folks spend so much time reading these reports if everything is so correct and unbiased?

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=3
Posts: 7077 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

 -

^ this is a screen shot of supplement figure 3 from the thread topic article Ancient Mummy Genomes..


*** I had a glitch so the headings are messed up. I couldn't post it properly
Maybe somebody else can post it

Supplementary Data 3
Comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear Haplogroups. As the nuclear results do not have any specific enrichment applied for mitochondrial DNA retrieval, there are cases where the position was either not covered (yellow) or covered with less than 3 reads (red). Matching mutations were marked in green respectively between both captures.


haplogroups listed:

J1d
U6a2
M1a1


I don't have the headings, not sure which are a attributed to a particular time period of a mummy.
More limited number of genomes, 3 , in the study as noted by beyoku


Note J1d is mtDNA not Y


quote:


Genetic Stratigraphy of Key Demographic Events in Arabia
2015


The migration of J1d1a lineages into eastern Africa in the Neolithic period is confirmed in the whole-mtDNA sequencing (S14 Fig.) and complemented by the frequency interpolation and founder analysis (S13 Fig.) performed here.

Haplogroup J also shows signs of having crossed into eastern Africa, particularly the sub-clade J1d1a1, necessarily after its emergence in Arabia at ∼7.1 ka (S14 Fig.).
_____________

S14

Phylogenetic tree of haplogroup J1d1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4349752/bin/pone.0118625.s014.tif

quote:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872530/

Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 25501.
Published online 2016 May 19. doi: 10.1038/srep25501
PMCID: PMC4872530

The mitogenome of a 35,000-year-old **** sapiens from Europe supports a Palaeolithic back-migration to Africa

After the dispersal of modern humans (**** sapiens) Out of Africa, hominins with a similar morphology to that of present-day humans initiated the gradual demographic expansion into Eurasia. The mitogenome (33-fold coverage) of the Peştera Muierii 1 individual (PM1) from Romania (35 ky cal BP) we present in this article corresponds fully to **** sapiens, whilst exhibiting a mosaic of morphological features related to both modern humans and Neandertals. We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage. Consequently, we propose that the PM1 lineage is an offshoot to South East Europe that can be traced to the Early Upper Paleolithic back migration from Western Asia to North Africa, during which the U6 lineage diversified, until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages.



someone please fill us in on which mummy of which time period corresponds to mtDNA J1d, U6a2 and M1a1
Posts: 31279 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

I'm no genetic expert, so what would 91 nuclear genomes have provided that 90 mitochondrial genomes do not?
Posts: 1579 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why is J1d1 in the Great Lakes region?? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


 -

Posts: 555 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
a female picture might be more appropriate being that J1d1 is mtDNA
Posts: 31279 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

I'm no genetic expert, so what would 91 nuclear genomes have provided that 90 mitochondrial genomes do not?
YOu can take a look at the Samples here There are 3 "Ancient Egyptians". All 3 look to be a combination of the Brown component that peaks in Natufian. Followed by the Blue that peaks in Anatolia Neolithic....and lastly the light Blue of Iran Neolithic. Each one of those Bars is ONE sample. There are 3 Samples total. IF we had 90 mummies you would have 90 bars and in essence you could see what type of variability would be found. For instance of you look at the Supp file. Take a look at the Nama or the Hadza. They show a bit of diversity between individuals. With some being total "Hadza" while others sporting Yoruban and Natufian components. On the other hand there is virtually little variation in the Somali sample. 90 Mummies over a 2000-3000 year history could show a gradual change and the increase or decrease of certain components. We dont really get that becuase we only have 3 Autosomal components. Another thing that could have happened wiht 90+ Autosomes...or even 10 is that they would have created their own component. I doubt it with samples this late but its a possibility.
Posts: 2064 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became [Wink] ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike2,3,4.
 -

Let it be known that the first ancestry test on ancient Egyptians were done on people with foreign names.You see what I mean about playing stupid?

Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They were saying that has been a frequent problem in archaeology, not that the samples this had came from a cemetery with this problem. Plus they're concluding that outside influences played a role BEFORE Greeks and Romans arrived there to be "trendy." The coalescence date for larger influx is around 2nd Millennium B.C. If you must think about foreigners, what was happening in Egypt around that time which would make the author discuss Canaan or the Hyksos?
Posts: 1579 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
They were saying that has been a frequent problem in archaeology, not that the samples this had came from a cemetery with this problem. Plus they're concluding that outside influences played a role BEFORE Greeks and Romans arrived there to be "trendy." The coalescence date for larger influx is around 2nd Millennium B.C. If you must think about foreigners, what was happening in Egypt around that time which would make the author discuss Canaan or the Hyksos?

Exactly. Why mention it but not give us names? Otherwise they would just give us Egyptian names.
Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it's irrelevant? They're saying Greek or Latin names were adapted as status symbols to be "exotic" by both foreigners and natives. If thousands of years in the future, Afro English or Afro Americans were uncovered, if the tombs frequently had Indo European names, would that mean they weren't Afro English/American? If native Egyptians considered it cool to have Greek or Latin names (and took them), there'd be no way to definitively know if the remains were foreign just because they have a foreign name.
Posts: 1579 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes its irrelevant if they are Egyptian names which is why the extra information is dubious. I since a freudian conversation.
Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
A good poster from Forumbiodiversity posted this. Tests on the Ancient Samples have been done. Here are their K6 scores.

JK2134 776-569 cal BC
quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan

JK2911 769-560 cal BC
quote:
2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan

JK2888 97-2 cal BC

quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan

According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample

Thoughts?

@Capra glad to see you're still here. [Smile]

The poster, on FBD, what other populations were in his/her structural analysis? I want to point out something in the future, regarding the Natufian Genomic Make up.... Something that the following image from the OP study makes kinda clear.

 -

Just read through the last 5 pages or so in FBD, with a big ass grin across my face, I tried to join the forum but I couldn't make it past the captcha, but damn ...I don't want to get all "A priori" and self righteous, but damn man...

quote:
Previous studies (Achilli et al. 2005; Ottoni et al. 2010; Pereira et al. 2010) provided evidences of mtDNA flow from Europe toward North Africa during the Holocene; thus, North Africa would represent the Southern African edge of post–Last Glacial Maximum
expansions spreading from European refugee. Here, we show, for the first time, genetic evidence signaling prehistorical movements
in the opposite direction, from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe. It is likely that most of the signals in the nuclear genome of this
ancestral gene admixture between African immigrants and local Europeans had been erased by historical recombination and genetic
drift. Therefore, as demonstrated in the present study, the mtDNA genome (and perhaps the Y chromosome) (Capelli et al.
2009) is the source to rescue the echoes of prehistorical sub-Saharan movements into Europe.

http://bit.ly/2s2gXiW
...and boy does it get better.

didn't find the quote yet though BBH.

Posts: 555 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ What you said. People too many times equate "affinity" with migration into Africa. Affinity is a two way street. What poeple are doing over there...........and here too actually is actually like North Africa (and the diversity that comes with it) does not exist.
Posts: 2064 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been holding this in for a minute, but to ignite discussion I'ma bring this up. I might've been beaten to the punch on another blog, forum or site (I haven't been active or reading from anywhere else).

But a good portion that brown "Natufian" component from the OP study could actually be Indigenous African. And it's correlation with Basal Eurasian might be Overhyped as F*ck. The Abusir mummies might have somewhat "Indigenous African" Ancestry being overlooked due to large amounts of Non-African admixture and so might a lot of East Africans.

What beyoku says above is absolutely right about North African Diversity but more importantly, a lot of people here were right, What's happening was more complex than it was made out to be. To my fault I oversimplified SSAn Ancestry and overstated the Non-Indigenous component in the North African Genome. I also have to shout Tukuler for recently highlighting the *Heratin-indigenous North African phenomena* and how it might relate to Km.t. That explanation is probably closest to the truth in the most simplest way.

The talk about Basal-Eurasians for months on here was all hype.

Posts: 555 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlessedbyHorus
Moderator
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlessedbyHorus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I've been holding this in for a minute, but to ignite discussion I'ma bring this up. I might've been beaten to the punch on another blog, forum or site (I haven't been active or reading from anywhere else).

But a good portion that brown "Natufian" component from the OP study could actually be Indigenous African. And it's correlation with Basal Eurasian might be Overhyped as F*ck. The Abusir mummies might have somewhat "Indigenous African" Ancestry being overlooked due to large amounts of Non-African admixture and so might a lot of East Africans.

What beyoku says above is absolutely right about North African Diversity but more importantly, a lot of people here were right, What's happening was more complex than it was made out to be. To my fault I oversimplified SSAn Ancestry and overstated the Non-Indigenous component in the North African Genome. I also have to shout Tukuler for recently highlighting the *Heratin-indigenous North African phenomena* and how it might relate to Km.t. That explanation is probably closest to the truth in the most simplest way.

The talk about Basal-Eurasians for months on here was all hype.

@Beyoko and @Tukuler what are yall thoughts on this. I DO remember discussions on how Haratin like ancestry may relate to Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 924 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
Member
Member # 19944

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ el Maestro
Thx 4/t shout.

@BBH
Dunno what yr asking me.

--------------------
truth is prism refracted fact -- i'm just another point of view -- what's yours

Posts: 3715 | From: the Tekrur bordering Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I predicted we're still at the same place we were before those results in term of determining the origin and ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians.

If Ancient Egyptians are mostly Eurasians or mostly Africans, so be it but we must have more aDNA results. Especially from mummies with confirmed native status like Ramses III, Amenhotep III, King Tut, etc. Ramses III and Pentawere (his son) are E1b1a while all the 18th Dynasty royal mummies genotyped have shown us strong affiliations with modern African populations. Those were low density DNA but it's more than enough mathematically speaking. The probability of having 8 random str showing us African affiliations by mistake is very low and we're talking about quite a few mummies. Do you know any other culture in the world where they have a tradition of using headrests like Ancient Egyptians and other Africans?

I've discussed many other studies (genetics, archaeology, history-ancient Egyptian writings, etc) and results (Kadruka , Pickrell, Pagani, Mota, etc) earlier here.

We know they share a common history with Kushites during the Tasian, Badarian and Pastoral era (Nabta Playa, Kadruka, Cave of Swimmers/Best, etc).

quote:
From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)

CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts [edit:Cave of Swimmers, Cave of the Beast, Nabta Playa, etc] surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).

Kadruka/Kushite Ancient DNA results

The Abusir mummies show us West Asian/Levant affiliations but Amenhotep III, Ramses III, King Tut, other 18th Dynasty mummies, Kadruka, Mota have shown us African affiliations. Even the old Paabo study said the same thing for the 12th dynasty mummies (it was before aDNA studies were mature and more common).

The Ancient Egyptian culture itself is a southern transplant (Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, etc) at the time Narmer unified the country.

I would like to see high density analysis of the 18th Dynasty royal mummies, same for Ramses III and Pentawere. The technology is better now and it happens to be one of the most well known Dynasty. Same for the Middle Kingdom (which is before the Hyksos/Heka khasut/Aamu dynasties). IMO, those mummies will show admixtures with Aamu (as well as Libu, Kushite, Medjay) like any neighboring populations in the world but the African affiliations will be prevalent like the results we already have demontrated. I don't see the Ramses III, Pentawere and the 18th Dynasty royal mummies aDNA results to be a mistake or something.

quote:
"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 Levant5""


Posts: 2976 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I bumped into this one unexpected.


 -

Picture Id: 526734
Rights Managed

Editorial
Description:
A skull, of unknown origin, on the desert floor at Abusir.

Keywords:
ABUSIR, DESERTS, SKULLS, HUMAN BONES AND SKELETONS

Location:
ABUSIR, EGYPT.

Photographer:
KENNETH GARRETT/National Geographic Creative
See More Images by this Photographer

Technical details:
Dimensions: 5076px x 3392px

https://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/526734

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^  -
Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
a female picture might be more appropriate being that J1d1 is mtDNA

The dude in the picture neither represents a Great Lake reason inhabitant.
Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
someone please fill us in on which mummy of which time period corresponds to mtDNA J1d, U6a2 and M1a1

Perhaps this is helpful? [Cool]


quote:
Introduction

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"

[...]

The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.


—Hervella et al. 2016


 -

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1339 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On an unrelated note:

What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

Is this true?

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1339 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

The issue is that according to most current studies the only "indigenous" mtdna lineages of Africa are the "L" lineages and these are not ironically also labeled "sub saharan". Which would mean that any other lineage becomes evidence of Eurasian back migration and mixture. But whether that is true or not depends on finding ancient remains that are 3, 4, 5, 10 and 20 thousand years old in North Africa and along the Nile Valley that supports this. Because otherwise, some of those non L mtdna lineages could be "indigenous" African lineages. Or many of the "indigenous" lineages in North Africa and the Egyptian Nile Valley are "L" lineages. But that would mean that "L" lineages are not restricted to "sub saharan" Africa and never were. This paper assumes that "L" lineages are "sub saharan". So they have created an a-priori set of parameters that automatically precludes any "indigenous" lineages in Egypt that could be both "indigenous" and "North African" but are not related to black flow from Europe or "Sub Saharan" L lineages. This is the game being played.

The real issue is determining when the splits to the L lineages and the branches M and N came about. But I doubt these people really want to dig too deeply into that and absolutely prove those arose in "Eurasia". And even if they did, the those 'back migrants' returning to Africa > 40kya would still for all intents and purposes be black African in phenotype and if they stayed in Africa would justly be called "indigenous" if their descendants were still there 30,000 years later. But they haven't proven any of this yet and it would require heavy filtering and analysis of a lot of data from across North African, both ancient and modern to begin to try and prove it.

Posts: 7077 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

1/3 sounds excessive (more like 10-25%?), and not specifically Bantu but generically West-Central African/Niger-Congo. I think it's based mainly on ADMIXTURE results like here which I gather show up fairly consistently.

Awale would probably be the best one to ask.

Posts: 178 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  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 sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

The Abusir mummies prove that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes. The presence of so-Called Eurasian genes at Abusir show that these genes were native to the Egyptians and other Africans.

 -


.

The problem with most people who have read the Abusir article don’t understand how to critically analyze a research article and the data therein, and form a conclusion. As a result, when they read a paper they accept what is written at face value without looking critically at the data and making their own interpretation.

The idea that Eurasians dominated Lower Egypt is ludicrous. First of all, Afro-American scholars have accepted that the Egyptians were Black/African people for the past 200 years, i.e., Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois, and J.A. Rogers, and the Senegalese scholar Anta Diop ; but, Negro Apologist : Gates, Kittles and etc, spend their time parroting the status quo line that the Egyptians were a mixed race.

This same group attempt to make it appear that the Fulani, Somalis and Ethiopians are black skinned whites, because of their facial features. This is stupid, because man originated in Africa, so the physical features of these populations are African features.

The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.

The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.

In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:
  • Haplogroup Frequency
    U 18.5
    T 22.2
    J 18.5
    X 0.0675
    M1a 0.0675
    H 0.0675
    I 0.0675
    HV 0.037
    RO 0.037
    K 0.037
    N 0.037

The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.

In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of the so-called Eurasian mtDNA.

Reference:

Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 11964 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

"What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning?"

That is the best question thus far, "EVUUUR" . [Cool]

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I am missing or over looking something here, but how does this timespan convey to a "Pre-Dynastic Egypt"?

"The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period."

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.
Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlessedbyHorus
Moderator
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlessedbyHorus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.

Lets lose the "albino" talk.
Posts: 924 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see how you leftist are with your Political correctness. I'm Forty2Tribes not Forty2ethnicgroups.
Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlessedbyHorus
Moderator
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlessedbyHorus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I see how you leftist are with your Political correctness. I'm Forty2Tribes not Forty2ethnicgroups.

And I'm BlessedbyHorus MOD of this section and I'm telling you to leave the pseudo-science out of this discussion. Its not needed.
Posts: 924 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It might be offensive someone other than Doxie (don't know) but it is not Pseudo science.
Posts: 663 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.

Lets lose the "albino" talk.
I propose an alternative: "edomites"?
Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JMT2
Member
Member # 16951

Icon 1 posted      Profile for JMT2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

There is no indication that Hyksos were not Africans. Africa did not end once one entered Western Asia. It is discussed repeatedly on this forum that Diop's assessment of Libyans - who were in Africa - and Western Asians were all about other African featured people. Heka Khasut/Hyksos were not white people.

Why do people continually perpetuate falsehoods on this forum knowing a particular subject matter has been covered repeatedly?

Posts: 187 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlessedbyHorus
Moderator
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlessedbyHorus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Credit for this goes to the homies Elmaestro and beyoku... [Cool] [Cool]

 -

beyoku posted it on FBD where I saw it.

Posts: 924 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  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 JMT2:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

There is no indication that Hyksos were not Africans. Africa did not end once one entered Western Asia. It is discussed repeatedly on this forum that Diop's assessment of Libyans - who were in Africa - and Western Asians were all about other African featured people. Heka Khasut/Hyksos were not white people.

Why do people continually perpetuate falsehoods on this forum knowing a particular subject matter has been covered repeatedly?

Correct the Hyksos and other Asian groups were Kushites or Africans. That's why the Rulers of the Hyksos titled themselves in their inscriptions: Heqe Khas, or "King of the Kushites".

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 11964 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
genetiker has put up his analysis of the Egyptian Y DNA https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-egypt/

JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.

JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.

JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).

IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.

If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?


 -

Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%

 -


Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Andromeda2025
Junior Member
Member # 22772

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Andromeda2025     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A homeland, but not the homeland

"It seems increasingly likely that ancient DNA has identified a massive expansion, or a series of expansions, from Mesopotamia and/or surrounds in basically all directions dating to the Chalcolithic (ChL) and Bronze Age (BA). This phenomenon is mainly characterized by the simultaneous spread of:"
- Iran_ChL-related genome-wide ancestry

- Y-haplogroup J

- South Caspian-specific mitochondrial haplogroups such as R2 and U7

At least two of these characteristics are shared by five groups that have appeared in the Near Eastern and African ancient DNA record as probable post-Neolithic newcomers, at least in part, at their respective sampling sites:

- Anatolia_BA, Western Turkey, 2836-1800 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2017)

- Egyptian mummies, Middle Egypt, 776-2 calBCE (Schuenemann et al. 2017)

- Iran_ChL, Western Iran, 4839-3796 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Levant_BA, Northwestern Jordan, 2489-1966 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Sidon_BA, Southern Lebanon, 1750-1600 BCE (Haber et al. 2017)

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-homeland-but-not-homeland.html

Posts: 19 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?

A Y chromosome is only a small part of your genome, inherited from only one of your many ancestral lines. Sharing a Y haplogroup does not mean you share your whole autosome. East Indians don't cluster with Poles, nor Albanians with Somalis.

Just because they aren't close together autosomally doesn't mean they are completely unrelated - and obviously the Bahariya probably *are* highly related to the ancient Egyptians.

Posts: 178 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?

A Y chromosome is only a small part of your genome, inherited from only one of your many ancestral lines. Sharing a Y haplogroup does not mean you share your whole autosome. East Indians don't cluster with Poles, nor Albanians with Somalis.

Just because they aren't close together autosomally doesn't mean they are completely unrelated - and obviously the Bahariya probably *are* highly related to the ancient Egyptians.

I know that, but the issue I am having here is that these SSA groups do show part of the parental ancestral genome. This is not mentioned in that paper. The Fulani carry the highest frequency of this specific lineage. And the Fulani are pastoralists who have roamed all over Africa.

Pulaar - Africa Fulani Peul Kemet Oral History


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHWGcUxNYC8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dVTTFYbY98


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3cOZK28CuQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iakEJ_ALBgU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1z_nLaAHo4


I will try to find more info on the Bahariya Egyptians when time suits.

 -

Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"More generally, it has often been suggested that there is an extant tropical belt of human populations that anatomically resemble sub-Saharan Africans (with 'racial' features such as very dark skin, curly hair and so on). They include some southern Indians, the Andamese, the so-called Negritos of the Phillipines (Aeta/Agta) and the Malay Penisula (Semang), Papuans and Aboriginal Australians. These people, it as suggested, might be the survivors of a 'southern coastal route' from the Horn of Africa along the tropical coastline through to SOutheast Asia and Australia (Nei and Roychoudhury 1992). The bulk of EUrasian populations were then suggested to be the survivors if a 'northern route': out of Egypt into the 'Levantine corridor', and thence into both Europe and Asia (Lahr 1996).'"
-- Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens. p. 234
Posts: 17959 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Unfeature 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