posted
Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Admitted their genetic haplogropu composition is very similar to Horners...Which would make Swenet happy,
-------------------- 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 |
posted
The GREEN highlights are unique and unusual haplogroups found in Eastern Africa eg L1b found in West Africa and ancient Europeans, M5 and M76 found in Madagascar and India? N1b andR0, U5b and U6
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Admitted their genetic haplogropu composition is very similar to Horners...Which would make Swenet happy,
Don't deflect and try to make it about me, gramps. You feel the need to paint me as having an axe to grind because you're looking for an edge after the Abusir and Natufian aDNA bombshells left you with your pants down.
You posted the highlights of where in Africa the Abusir mtDNAs are found. Now bask in their full implications instead of making it about me.
Feel free to also post highlights of where in Africa Natufian Y-DNAs are found. In the meantime, I'll be going over your old posts, like:
posted
It is not necessary to see a high frequency of L mtDNA to support the African heritage of the Egyptians and Abusir mummies, because African maternal lineages should not be solely delegated to L branches. This is due to the fact Eurocentrists are constantly tinkering with names of L3 and L3(M,N) clades to deny the African origin of many so-called Asian lineages. This is supported by the change in the name of the mtDNA L3c group. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) was renamed U6 (Richards et al. 1998). This along with changing Y-Chromosomes R1b1 and R1b1a found in Africans into R-L278 and R-L754/L761 respectively , while Europeans carrying these clades are simply referred to as R1b1 and R1b1a, to make it appear the these clades do not exist in Africa and promote the idea that R-V88 is of non-African origin.
.
.
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042
As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup.
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 Eurasian mtDNA.
Click on the video below:
' ' .
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: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They cannot be genetically different because they are ...what...300 miles apart? Valley of the Kings vs Abusir
If the Amarnas are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are Negro also.
The "negro" label aside, you are aware that foreign incursions have affected northern Egypt including Middle Egypt a lot more than southern Egypt, and that such incursions have been happening since the Hyksos period. So how can you be confident that the peoples of the 'Two Lands' are genetically identical??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The ancient Egyptians of lower Egypt are closely related to modern Southern Africans like Ethiopians and Somalians. And to a lesser extent modern Sudanese
posted
What "foreign" incursion. Africans invading Africa is not....foreign. Many fail to realize the Bedouins of the Levant and Arabia are the indigenous population of the Levant and Arabia.
The Bedouins are Africans from the Nile and North Africa. Sources cited.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that, whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbours, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its outstanding Eurasian haplogroup U3 frequency (39%) and its south-Saharan Africa lineages (19%) are the highest in the Middle East. On the contrary, the lack ((preHV)1) or comparatively low frequency (J and T) of Neolithic lineages is also striking. Although strong drift by geographic isolation could explain the anomalous mtDNA pool of the Dead Sea sample, the fact that its mtDNA lineage composition mirrors, in geographic origin and haplogroup frequencies, its Y-chromosome pool, points to founder effect as the main cause. Ancestral M1 lineages detected in Jordan that have affinities with those recently found in Northwest but not East Africa question the African origin of the M1 haplogroup.
CONCLUSION: Results are in agreement with an old human settlement in the Jordan region. However, in spite of the attested migratory spreads, genetically divergent populations, such as that of the Dead Sea, still exist in the area
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Notice Yasin et al labels the Dead Sea population as "African Jordanians". No, Lioness I did not doctor the chart. :D
-------------------- 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 |
posted
BTw - later studies proved M1 is of African origin.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
While we wait on ElMaestro to come up with STR proving the Abusir mummies are NOT Africans here are some reading material for those interested. Get a head start!!!
---- (1)Analysis of 15 short tandem repeats reveals significant differences between the Arabian populations from Morocco and Syria - Louai Abdin
Abstract The short tandem repeat (STR) systems D3S1358, TH01, D21S11, D18S51, Penta E, D5S818, D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, CSF1PO, Penta D, vWA, D8S1179, TPOX and FGA were studied in Arabian population samples from Morocco and Syria. No significant deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium could be observed in either preparation. Comparing the Moroccan and Syrian populations using the program R×C, no similarity could be observed at all 15 loci. In the Moroccan and Syrian populations the matching probability is 1 in 1.4×1017 and 1 in 2.6×1017, respectively. Thus, the combination of these 15 STR loci is powerful tool for forensic identification in Arabian populations
(2)Jordanian population data on five STR forensic loci: D16S539, TPOX, CSF1PO, Penta D, and Penta E - Khawlah Salem
(3)Allele frequency distribution for 15 autosomal STR loci in Afridi Pathan population of Uttar Pradesh, India - Sabahat Noor
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again while we wait on "the Master" to come up with data proving the Abusir are NOT Africans(which is an impossible task) let me post a few notes on why STRs are used by forensic scientist and not SNPs. SNPs cannot give the investigator a most likely GEOGRAPHIC region from which the perpetrator ORIGINATED. STR would or uniparental markers. That is why the Armanas came as Sub-Saharan regardless of what you think a Sub-Saharan should look like. Under the skin they were sub-saharan Africans. That is why Berbers are African.
---- Paternity testing and forensic DNA typing by multiplex STR analysis using ABI PRISM 310 Genetic Analyzer- Sherif H.El-Alfy
Abstract Short tandem repeats (STRs) are widespread throughout the human genome and are a rich source of highly polymorphic markers which can be detected by PCR. To gain a better appreciation for how the polymorphism at a particular locus impacts the individual identity, the present study was undertaken to explore the use of 15 STR loci in forensic investigation and paternity testing. Multiplex STR typing was used to study the 15 STR loci (D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA) in addition to a gender identification marker, amelogenin, by capillary electrophoresis on 310 Genetic Analyzer. Samples from 85 trio and duo cases of disputed paternity were investigated. The data were analyzed to give information on paternity index, probability of paternity, frequency of number of exclusions and rate of mismatch at each STR locus. The method was also successfully applied to forensic personal identification in theft and murder cases. The results demonstrated that the STR typing is a reliable and robust tool for analyzing the forensic practice as well as for paternity testing. The advantages of using multiplex STR analysis over other conventional methods are discussed. ---
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What "foreign" incursion. Africans invading Africa is not....foreign. Many fail to realize the Bedouins of the Levant and Arabia are the indigenous population of the Levant and Arabia.
The Bedouins are Africans from the Nile and North Africa. Sources cited..
Okay, by foreign incursions I am referring to ancient invasions from the Levant starting with the Hyksos. Ancient Levantine folks like the Hyksos are not exactly the same as modern day Bedouin which you like to cite. I believe Swenet posted a study elsewhere showing how Bronze Age Jordanians differed from modern Jordanian Bedouins.
Second, if these [modern] Bedouin are indigenous to the Levant and Arabia then how can they be "African" then, let alone Nile Valley Africans. Mind you there are some Bedouin groups around the Nile Valley of both Egypt and Sudan who are descendants of indigenes but if that's so I don't see what they have to do with those of the Levant and Arabia other than adopting the language and customs of the latter.
Swenet is right, these latest results of the Abusir mummies as provoked your dementia even more! LOLPosts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
It's getting to the point where I'm about to add gramps to the ignore list along with Clyde. People who are too caught up in their ethnocentric delusions where they can no longer rationalize let alone assess data are no longer worthy of addressing.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know I have a a problem with brown-nosing Hindus. You can ignore away....knock yourself out. I don't have to be pissed off by your bitch ass comments.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
So your logic is if a modern African carries a particular haplogroup then that haplogroup is therefore indigenous to Africa?
It seems all your theories are based on this assumption.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hyksos were not a foreign incursions. The Hyksos are Kushites, they were only returning to Lower Egypt which had always been settled by Kushites.
Eurocentrists attempt to limit the extent of the Kushite empire. The Weni inscription makes it clear that many states were inhabited ḫ3st, or Kushites.
.
.
. The map above makes it appear that only Irthet was Kush, but the Weni inscriptions includes Wawat, Yam and Temeh as being inhabited by Kushite = ḫ3st.
quote:
The inscription of Weni reads:
“His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet khas [Kusites], the Mazoi khas [Kushites], the Yam khas [Kushites], among the Wawat Khas [Kushites], among the Kau khas [Kushites], and in the land of Temeh.”
In the Weni inscription we can clearly see that Kushites were living in Upper and Lower Egypt. The final comment in the Weni inscription made it clear that ḫ3st (khas=Kushites) were also “in the land of Temeh”.
On this map, Temeh is situated to the south of Irthet, but in Egyptian Temeh, meant Lower Egypt.
The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA .
Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).
The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.
Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st .
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those who can follow this stuff. Here is what the repeats at the STRs look like for the Afro-Jordanians. When "The Master" get us the STR of Abusir mummies we can have a quick comparison to work with. Keep in mind these are indigenous Africans in the Levant. The author calls them Afro-Jordanians.
--- African Jordanian Population Genetic Database on Fifteen Short Tandem Repeat Genetic Loci - Salem R. Yasin et al
Results The observed allele frequencies for the fifteen STR loci found in African-Jordanians are shown in Table 1. The data in Table 1 shows the most predominant and the least common alleles for the D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, TH01, vWA, TPOX, CSF1PO, FGA, Penta D, and Penta E STR genetic loci. Alleles 15, 12, 10, 13, 12, 11, 16, 29, 7, 16, 8, 10, 22, 13, and 8 were the most frequent alleles for the D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, TH01, vWA, TPOX, CSF1PO, FGA, Penta D, and Penta E STR genetic loci, respectively.
-----
Also Hamad M, Yasin SR, Elkarmi A. Polymorphism of HUMvWA31, HUMTH01, HUMF13A1 and HUMFES/FPS STR genetic loci in Jordanians.
Yasin SR. Allele frequencies at nine PCR-based STR loci in Jordanians. Korean J Genetics. 2002
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
So your logic is if a modern African carries a particular haplogroup then that haplogroup is therefore indigenous to Africa?
It seems all your theories are based on this assumption.
That assumption is indeed very likely.
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
posted
Hey Xyyman, relax... when I get home in a week or so, I'll calculate the FSTs using STR's myself, don't worry. I know you feel the need to pad because you haven't realized yet that I actually can run these programs/tests on my own without the help of the lying Euros... So with confidence that I have no access to get any data at all you're doubling down on the rhetoric.
....But I got you, just gimme a few days OK? In the meantime while we wait, how about you actually do what I suggested in my previous comment and make some estimations or hypothesis in what you expect to see lmao... It's coming, don't worry.
..Mind you this whole time I could have been of help to you but you let your pride betray you. It has to be that, I honestly don't beleive you are that foolish or dishonest tbh...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I actually can run these programs/tests on my own without the help of the lying Euros"---- More power to you. I cannot. Just don't have the time.
But Given the actual STRs I can run it through a publicly available software. I cannot pull the STR from the actual genome. Maybe when you do you can look up SLC24A5 etc as to what FortyTribes alluded to.
If I have the time I can do a deep dive into this. And I would have to rely of the "lying Euros".
-------------------- 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 |
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
quote:These important differences have lead some, such as James Watson (1996), codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, to endorse eugenics, when free of bias and of state compulsion.
—Thomas C. Leonard
Retrospectives Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 207–224
Note: Watson, James D. 1996. “President’s Essay.” Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Annual Report, pp. 1–20.
quote: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
quote: What is today known as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was once at the center of the American eugenics movement, when it was home to the Eugenics Record Office from 1910 to 1939, at first under the tutelage of the infamous eugenicists Charles Benedict Davenport and Harry Laughlin. […]
posted
yyman I already tried to get calls for rs16891982, and rs1426654 from the complete genome, whatever was reported in the study was all I could find, so as far as "complete" genome, They haven't omitted anything. Someone else downloaded the strands but IDK if they used the compiled BAM as I did or used the unsorted files (which would be better). However they didn't get much different results than Scheunamen. I believe they were uploaded on ES too.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They cannot be genetically different because they are ...what...300 miles apart? Valley of the Kings vs Abusir
If the Amarnas are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are Negro also.
People live in the same house and are genetically different.
The border's of the 17th dynasty were below Asyut. Egypt above Asyut was controlled by people they called foreigners. This was before firearms, so invasions needed great numbers to succeed and occupy. This was especially true along the borders. Obviously Egypt was not ethically cleansed in any absolute sort of way, however with the ability to selectively release test its plausible to eventually find a region where the “Modern Egyptians are more subsaharan African than Ancient Egyptians” slogan jives in an initial report.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You know I have a a problem with brown-nosing Hindus. You can ignore away....knock yourself out. I don't have to be pissed off by your bitch ass comments.
Okay, so good thing for you there are no "Hindus" here. Though apparently I hit a nerve with my post. You are still in denial and grossly misinterpreting data I see. Speaking of "brown nosing", after you change your depends, why don't you change your prescription for whatever it is you're taking for your mental faculties.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
People live in the same house and are genetically different.
The border's of the 17th dynasty were below Asyut. Egypt above Asyut was controlled by people they called foreigners. This was before firearms, so invasions needed great numbers to succeed and occupy. This was especially true along the borders. Obviously Egypt was not ethically cleansed in any absolute sort of way, however with the ability to selectively release test its plausible to eventually find a region where the “Modern Egyptians are more subsaharan African than Ancient Egyptians” slogan jives in an initial report.
According to Manetho, there was an event called the "Smiting of God" which left Kmt defenseless so that the Hyksos were able to invade. The actual entry of the Hyksos was described more as an immigration than an actual invasion and that their rise in Lower Egypt became gradual after which they took power. What's interesting is despite their Semitic origin betrayed by their names and names of their deities, they largely adopted Egyptian culture and other Egyptian deities as their own.
This is the reason why I am somewhat skeptical of the Abusir mummies being true representatives of indigenous Egyptians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
Theoretically that would make sense.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Yeah, funny how some Afrocentrics are so keen on tying Nile Valley (Egypt & Nubia) with West African ancestry when the part of North Africa more likely to have such ancestry is the Maghreb. Also, I personally believe prehistoric Central Saharan populations to be somewhat of a 'wild card' so to speak in terms of African population genetics since not much is known about them. We only get bits and snippets of their ancestry from modern populations living around the Sahara today. We know more about them archaeologically from from experts like Edmond Bernus and Barbara Barich. I believe they are the 'missing link' between the Nile Valley and the Maghreb as well as the Mediterranan and the Sahel.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@DJ, some ethnic groups from West African Sahel, South-Sahara, relate to Northern Magrebi groups, Northern Sahara.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the local Africans can help me out here. Why are the Mandenka ancestral to Levantines/Middle Easterners and some West Asian( Indians) but NOT Europeans but the Yorubans are ancestral to West Europeans?
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Last comment before I get banned...
Maybe the local Africans can help me out here. Why are the Mandenka ancestral to Levantines/Middle Easterners and some West Asian( Indians) but NOT Europeans but the Yorubans are ancestral to West Europeans?
Lioness, I did not doctor the chart. Honest!. This is from the original author.
While we wait..... TreeMix.
LOL. They would claim that this is an outliner and that you are reading the chart wrong. Now we know that this claim is bs, because researchers have found that the Mande carry Eurasian admixture, and that African populations carrying R1, usually have Neanderthal admixture.
The discovery of Eurasian "admixture" among West Africans is not a recent discovery. Pickrell et al (2014) found that the Mande people carry 2% Eurasian admixture. This supports the claim of the authors of the Mota article. .
. If it has been known since 2014 that West Africans were carrying Eurasian admixture the findings of, the authors of the Mota article that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups was "Eurasian" was not an error.
Moreover the xyyman chart above is not an outliner as researchers, would claim--it reflects an actual relationship.
/Mod
Large image converted to link form to make page readable.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Yeah, funny how some Afrocentrics are so keen on tying Nile Valley (Egypt & Nubia) with West African ancestry when the part of North Africa more likely to have such ancestry is the Maghreb. Also, I personally believe prehistoric Central Saharan populations to be somewhat of a 'wild card' so to speak in terms of African population genetics since not much is known about them. We only get bits and snippets of their ancestry from modern populations living around the Sahara today. We know more about them archaeologically from from experts like Edmond Bernus and Barbara Barich. I believe they are the 'missing link' between the Nile Valley and the Maghreb as well as the Mediterranan and the Sahel.
Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans. Most of them look like Mesolithic Nubians. And the latter, in turn, look like prehistoric equatorial East Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Prehistory of the Horn of Africa
Steven A. Brandt
The African Archaeological Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 41-82
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial....Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Haifa (McCown n.d.).
So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
And thanks for those leads. I will look those names up soon.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
According to you anything in the Sahara is no longer West/Central African so really its not even the west.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
According to you anything in the Sahara is no longer West/Central African so really its not even the west.
In your view, what nomenclature should I use for these respective regions?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Geographically, in topology that is a bit complex. Can you be a bit more specific when you say Western part of the Sahara? What would that be like in modern day borders vs classical borders?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Geographically, in topology that is a bit complex. Can you be a bit more specific when you say Western part of the Sahara? What would that be like in modern day borders vs classical borders?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans...
By "West/Central African" related remains, I take it you mean those remains which display typical "negroid" morphology. Of course despite claims to the contrary by Euronuts like Oliver a.k.a. the Anglo bozo of many alises, such remains have been found in Egypt since at least the mesolithic. [By the way, I'm actually thinking of making a thread on this issue alone.] In fact, in the Fayum we have the epipaleolithic Qarunian Culture a.k.a. Fayum B (c.7000-5180 BCE) which you may recall the description of one Qarunian body by Beatrix Midant-Reynes:
The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type.
The Prehistory of Egypt Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82
quote:Most of them look like Mesolithic Nubians. And the latter, in turn, look like prehistoric equatorial East Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Prehistory of the Horn of Africa
Steven A. Brandt
The African Archaeological Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 41-82
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial....Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Haifa (McCown n.d.).
So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
And thanks for those leads. I will look those names up soon.
So what of the remains that display non-negroid features typically identified as "Mediterranean"? What do you think is their provenance?-- the Horn or Upper Nile Valley??
Posts: 26270 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So testing for shared ancestry is different from testing for genetic distance? Can someone illustrate to me how someone could in theory have more shared ancestors with one group of people but be more genetically closer to another group of people that don't share as many ancestors? Was some of the research posted here supposed to explain that because I am still confused. And if there haven't been any studies that shows that can happen please post it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans...
By "West/Central African" related remains, I take it you mean those remains which display typical "negroid" morphology. Of course despite claims to the contrary by Euronuts like Oliver a.k.a. the Anglo bozo of many alises, such remains have been found in Egypt since at least the mesolithic. [By the way, I'm actually thinking of making a thread on this issue alone.] In fact, in the Fayum we have the epipaleolithic Qarunian Culture a.k.a. Fayum B (c.7000-5180 BCE) which you may recall the description of one Qarunian body by Beatrix Midant-Reynes:
The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type.
The Prehistory of Egypt Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82
Yes I was alluding to her and also some Natufians with certain features diagnostic of West/Central African ancestry. I've written about this, as you know, and the L2a1 people's influence on the North African ancestors of the Natufians. Those are the only skeletal remains I know of that hint at this terminal Pleistocene L2a1 migration to the eastern Sahara. What I'm interested in is evidence of additional, post-Neolithic, migration of these people to the eastern Sahara. For all the wishful optimism that they represent a large population in early dynastic Egypt, the evidence is very weak, or simply doesn't exist:
quote:Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.
^Look at that time frame. This is why Natufian aDNA is so damning to Afrocentrists as far as providing an approximation of the West/Central African ancestry in Egypt. Xyyman and other DNA Tribes dupes refuse to address this and act like it doesn't exist. I have posted this paper many times for DNA Tribes-touting ES members to comment on. They never do, for obvious reasons.
quote:So what of the remains that display non-negroid features typically identified as "Mediterranean"? What do you think is their provenance?-- the Horn or Upper Nile Valley??
North Africa. I especially like Ehret's ideas on where various North African linguistic communities were concentrated over time. Although there may have been refugia in the Horn where some of these people retreated from time to time. What are your thoughts?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic