quote:Schuenemann et al. seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion.” In spite of the implied generalization about ‘origins’ the authors do offer the caveat that their findings may have been different if samples had been used from southern Egypt, and this is a significant admission. Their conclusions deserve further discussion from multiple perspectives which cannot be fully developed due to space limitations.
There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.
By the way, SOY Keita is one of the authors. Much of what he and his co-authors have to say you probably already figured out, but I am nonetheless looking forward to seeing this little article get published in a journal somewhere.
posted
Yeah they seem to be discussing all the points I(WE) brought up in that the publishers, Schuenemann et al, based their outlandish and sensational claims based soley on Genetics of a Northern Late Dynastic population ignoring the Archeological and Anthropological data and work of the past. Their sensational claims were picked up by media outlets who have little understanding of not only Ancient Egypt but even Ancient Near Eastern history.
Almost every point ES posters brought up as a critique is layed out it seems in this paper. Ill try to finish it ASAP. Nice Find Brandon
quote:Schuenemann et al. seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion.” In spite of the implied generalization about ‘origins’ the authors do offer the caveat that their findings may have been different if samples had been used from southern Egypt, and this is a significant admission. Their conclusions deserve further discussion from multiple perspectives which cannot be fully developed due to space limitations.
There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.
By the way, SOY Keita is one of the authors. Much of what he and his co-authors have to say you probably already figured out, but I am nonetheless looking forward to seeing this little article get published in a journal somewhere.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest flaw from scheunemann was one that was pointed out by 42tribes as soon as the paper was initially published. It falls under the interpretation listed above as historiography... They couldn't Identify who exactly those people were and omitted their titles as insignificant. How can the available names and titles of ancient people found in peculiar region of a relatively complex civilization be deemed as non-important?
Prior to any DNA studies people have been discussing the fact that the faiyoum have received a boom in population size entering the "Late Kingdom." None of which was mentioned. The eerie similarity to Bronze age levant sample's were also kinda ignored in the paper as well... And the reason for that might be because if the Abusir three == BA West Eurasians then the parsimonious explanation would be that they're probably of recent extraction.. which can be backed up by the archaeological evidence they also decided to pretend does not exist.
Didn't read the OP paper yet but literally interpretation of schuenemmans own data can combat their conclusion and sensationalist title. I hope they talk about that.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also matching Y-DNA results from the male samples of the full 90+ Mummies Would have thrown a wrench in their shit REGARDLESS of the Y-DNA results.
They would have painted themselves into a corner they couldn’t back out of. I am willing to bet cash they are sitting on the Y dna results. All them mummies and they only pulled 3.........Shieeeet.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, It seems to me the more I learn about the Schuenemann et al paper the more it seems like a quasi thinly veiled hit piece on Afrocentrism or the Black/African origins of Egypt theory than an actual scientific unbiased study. Their sensational title and boastful claims that "The paper turns origins of Egypt on its head" without even adressing the Anthropology and Archeology gave it away to me, this critique only confirms it
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also matching Y-DNA results from the male samples of the full 90+ Mummies Would have thrown a wrench in their shit REGARDLESS of the Y-DNA results.
They would have painted themselves into a corner they couldn’t back out of. I am willing to bet cash they are sitting on the Y dna results. All them mummies and they only pulled 3.........Shieeeet.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, since it's Labor Day weekend I will have time to post thread I want on some findings.
I've expressed to Swenet and couple of other posters on here that the same Euronuts who obsess on Egypt do not take African populations including genetics into its proper context. There is a reason why those same Euronuts avoid Asian population studies like the plague! In fact I've brought up Asian population studies to a couple of HBD nuts and they seem to panic.
I'll give you guys a hint. Calling Ancient Egyptian genomes 'Near Eastern' is like calling Far Eastern Siberian genomes 'Amerindian'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Good to see Alain Anselin in on the OP analysis!
The Schuenemann article fails to deliver what it hints with
quote: ... in the first millennium BCE Egypt foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living Within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
in the abstract notice and introduction goal
quote: ... we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement [Abusir el Melek] were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination especially during the Ptolemaic (332-30 BCE) and Roman (30BCE-395 CE) periods.
by refusing to examine Levantine prescence in and ingressions into northern Egypt. She only applies it to her "sub-Saharan" population set.
Schu calls out literature and archaeology for "selective representation and preservation". But isn't fronting predominantly post New Kingdom northern site samples guilty of that?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Though citing other geneticists this figure limits Schu's modern Egypt sampling to the north only. The hi-lited text from the discussion section is a four pronged CYA for expected objections. I can't recall the media or blogs offering it. It's Schuenemann et al's shield against them originating reader implied or even their own explicit claims.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also matching Y-DNA results from the male samples of the full 90+ Mummies Would have thrown a wrench in their shit REGARDLESS of the Y-DNA results.
They would have painted themselves into a corner they couldn’t back out of. I am willing to bet cash they are sitting on the Y dna results. All them mummies and they only pulled 3.........Shieeeet.
I thought the reason they only pulled three nuclear genomes from the mummies was due to difficulties obtaining that data (due to its state of preservation or something)?
I do think the original article's emphasis on increased SSA admixture in modern Egyptians (as if Egyptians haven't received admixture from other world regions in the last 3,000 years) is suspicious, and of course the whole contention that AE were generally *less* African (or otherwise POC-looking) than the "degraded" moderns does have racist implications. But until further investigation reveals more shadiness, I think it's at least as likely that arrogant incompetence, rather than deliberate and malicious cunning, was at work there.
When I read their paper, I got the impression that the Max Planck peeps hadn't really looked into the bio-anthropological research on ancient Egyptian remains prior to doing their own study. They cited one article Keita co-wrote on modern Egyptian genetics but didn't even mention any of his analyses of ancient Egyptian and other African remains, nor the work of other researchers (e.g. Godde, Irish, Brace, etc.). If they'd even bothered to examine any of those papers, they'd notice a recurring theme of an apparent affinity between predynastic Upper Egyptians and Middle Nile populations instead of simply treating significant "Nubian" admixture in southern AE as an undiscovered possibility.
And then of course there's the whole issue of "Basal Eurasian" African admixture in Natufians and what that might imply for the authors' analysis on African ancestry in the mummies they studied. Disappointingly, while Keita seems to acknowledge African movements into the Middle East during the Natufian time frame, so far I haven't seen him tie this to Basal Eurasian. Someone should hit him up on that if they haven't already.
Of course, the Max Planck guys must have been cognizant of the old race debate about ancient Egypt, and they most likely entered this with preconceptions about the Egyptians' phenotype and appearance. They could very well be trolling people on the "Afrocentric" side with their stated interpretation of their results. What I'm currently skeptical about is the claim that there's some kind of behind-the-scenes conspiracy on these particular researchers' part. They could just as easily be little more than blinded fools who don't know what they're looking at.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'll give you guys a hint. Calling Ancient Egyptian genomes 'Near Eastern' is like calling Far Eastern Siberian genomes 'Amerindian'.
Are you referring to the Tianyuan individual? Because beyoku was telling me about that the other day.
posted
I refuse to believe that they're just incompetant when it concerns the first civilization on earth, especially considering the history of institutions like the Max Planck institute.
There is no accident in white supremacy. Everybody has already pointed all the flaws in the Abusir 'study', so I simply can't believe that this whole hack job was innocent of any ulterior motives.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: The 2 outliers Keita et. al published (kv35ylc and kv55b,c) were they ever identified?
Zink & Pusch (2010)
KV35YL is the Younger Lady. Mother of Tutankhamen. Daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Wife of Akhenaten. KV55 is Akhenaten.
They have same mother and same father.
Ok, so they're the offspring/kids... but wait a second. Maybe Akhenaten was heavily admixed then? But Akhenaten's mother is Tiye and her parents are >90% SSA. Amenhotep III (his dad) is also 90% SSA. And if the Younger lady herself was heavily mixed why is Tut >90% too? kv35ylc and kv55b,c have different (more mixed or foreign) mothers and fathers?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Incompetence" Nah, son. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I have little doubt that they began the study with a racialist agenda. From the title of the study to the articles in which it was featured, their wording directly targeted Afrocentrics (aka anyone with working eyes). "You're wrong, we're right, you look stupid now." is what they were saying. And they didn't completely fail. Catch the willfully ign'ant fools still referencing it to this day. And people who can see the truth but don't know the actual data stay silent.
But it's not that hard to see that the whole thing was a joke. They claim that it changes the whole profile of Egypt, then later contradict themselves by saying that it doesn't represent all of Egypt. Mess. But that didn't matter to them. They thought the average person wouldn't read that far (into it).
As was mentioned in another thread, you don't see them going after mummies from Southern Egypt. They know what they up to. They tryin so hard to silence Afrocentrics, that they would risk lookin foolish. Arrogant? Yes. Cunning? No. It's Racism Lite™. Make it look like your opponents are the ones being racialist, and you're driven by unbiased truth, when actually you're just as race-focused. Manipulating the data for their own purposes, it reeks of an agenda. They were deliberately out to get Afrocentrics (aka Realiticentrics).
Racism ain't gone from science. They just know how to hide it better.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little inclined to wonder about it. I can at least see how people could draw to that conclusion. They checked the genome to understand whether or not there was foreign inflow, but why were they checking for things like light skin and other phenotypic data of all things? What does checking for that type of stuff have to do at all for the goals of the study? I can think of several things they could've spent more time researching than to seemingly irrelevant details like that. It's not as though they covered just about everything on the population research. There were several things they were stuck "postulating" about that they had the chance to affirm or reject using the methods employed by people they directly mention in the study. Instead they didn't provide answers to the many questions and just offered potential explanations falling back on the other disciplines of Egyptology that they then mention was incomplete. So they settled to leave threads hanging on the population data but found time to waste researching and discussing the fact that they found genetic markers that can at most tell us the samples weren't jet black.
Without having a good reason to dedicate time to searching for stuff like that against the myriad of other questions they could've offered clarity to, it comes across to people like they weren't just trying to say "oh they were Arabs" or were more closely related to them, they were trying to say they were "non-BLACK" people.
I need to hear some kind of explanation, someone help me out. "Who else would be concerned with skin color or find it relevant in a study about population history unless they were trying to make a point to have racial undertones to the research?" When I talk to people who bring that up, I have very little to counter with. I do note that other features such lactose intolerance and eye color were found, but I have no reason as to why they would prioritize looking into phenotype (even if other things were found) in the first place when they didn't complete research on details they relied on other disciplines to discuss in the study. And all but lactose intolerance are phenotypic elements that have the potential to be directly racialized. Imagine if they all had crystal blue eyes.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pattern of DNA studies coming from some parties including Paabo et al is AKA renewed racist eurocentric supremacist eugenics. Including Reich's coded article in the NY Times. The enemy of my enemy is my friend which makes the Zionists and Eurocentric scientists in cahoots. Any other conclusion on The Schuenemann article is naive and a failure to put in in the context of historical racism.
Afrocentric s are bringing knives to a gun fight.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: The 2 outliers Keita et. al published (kv35ylc and kv55b,c) were they ever identified?
Zink & Pusch (2010)
KV35YL is the Younger Lady. Mother of Tutankhamen. Daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Wife of Akhenaten. KV55 is Akhenaten.
They have same mother and same father.
Ok, so they're the offspring/kids... but wait a second. Maybe Akhenaten was heavily admixed then? But Akhenaten's mother is Tiye and her parents are >90% SSA. Amenhotep III (his dad) is also 90% SSA. And if the Younger lady herself was heavily mixed why is Tut >90% too? kv35ylc and kv55b,c have different (more mixed or foreign) mothers and fathers?
Exactly!
Careful scrutiny is in order. Data interpretation is crucial. Is the fault popaffiliator or a users lack of uncommon sense? STR random jumbling from 2 parents is a fact. Interpreting geographies and regions/supposed ethnicities is fine art. Watch out for the finger painters!
Now how can offspring not be as the parents? STRs only pass one generation and totally by chance unlike SNPs that never change over generations to generation. Thuya's daughter and granddaughter don't have her CSF1PO=7 allele. Not her D2=19, D7=13, D13=9, D16=13, D18=8, D21=35, nor FGA=24 either.
So how can offspring not be as the parents? Random combination is the cause, admixture is uninvolved.
Keita and fellows were lazy. They defaulted to popAffilliator 65% accuracy. They didn't research for allele or loci values common or rare in geographic regions.
You know all this already but some other members and lurkers might not.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Keita and fellows were lazy. They defaulted to popAffilliator 65% accuracy. They didn't research for allele or loci values common or rare in geographic regions.
You know all this already but some other members and lurkers might not.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but it says 90% accuracy unless you use add two more (unlikely) populations in which instance the probability drops to 65%. Pop Affiliator is saying they measure probablity though so it's not saying admixture. They're not saying the kids are less than half SSA but there's a larger likelihood that they are. But everyone else is between 70 and 90% SSA....so... IDK. It still seems a little strange that would be. Well... again maybe not if they can change from generation to generation. So what more would you suggest Keita and co do with the STR data beyond what you've said they should've? Would your suggestions give a more definitive idea of where they "come from?" This is a preprint If I'm correct. May be great if someone could reach out to them. They have a great opportunity to use it if they can.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I used popSTR on Pusch & Link's dats 7 yrs ago. I simulated 5 way African substructure. Years later thanks to Beyoku & Swenet I added 6th substructure.
Professionals have access to resource (data tools grant$$$ colleagues). They can beat me ferretting out allele and loci specificity markers or frequencies.
Maybe I'll email Alain, see if they're up for a tinkering amateur's input.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I used popSTR on Pusch & Link's dats 7 yrs ago. I simulated 5 way African substructure. Years later thanks to Beyoku & Swenet I added 6th substructure.
Professionals have access to resource (data tools grant$$$ colleagues). They can beat me ferretting out allele and loci specificity markers or frequencies.
Maybe I'll email Alain, see if they're up for a tinkering amateur's input.
Check your PM
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you go into more detail as to what you mean? I don't know much about STRs but from what I understand the mother and father have been sampled.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Can you go into more detail as to what you mean? I don't know much about STRs but from what I understand the mother and father have been sampled.
you have been on this site far too long to be asking that in my opinion
In this context and most discussed in the forum we are dealing with Y-STR and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis.
The Y-STR is the male DNA and the female DNA is the mtDNA,Mitochondrial
So in some populations you can have male ancestors coming from one region and females from another as part of the scenario. So by looking at both the male and female DNA we get a complete picture. Because of a male's inheritance of both Y-DNA and mtDNA, a male may be tested for both his father's Y-DNA and his mother's mtDNA. A female may only test for her mtDNA because she has no Y-DNA from her father. Additionally there is another type of analysis the Autosomal DNA which also contributes information and it is DNA we carry that is not particular to the gender
The authors of Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Schuenemann et al tested 90 mummies for mitochondrial (mtDNA) female DNA in addition they did genome wide testing of both male and female DNA of just 3 of those mummies, each of different time periods. (and I have written before that 3 is not enough to support their conclusions)
This thread topic is about another article critiquing that article. They said the Sex-biased sampling of the Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes article "cannot recover population demography." There are referring to the authors of that article making broad conclusions based primarily on mitochondrial mtDNA, that is just the female side So in this new article the critique when they talk about the STRs from the Amarna royal mummies the percentage they are talking about is just the male side Y-DNA analysis from the STRS (Short Tandem Repeat)
quote: Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator1 based on the same published data indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
OP Gourdine's Table 1 uses autosomal STRs. Originally published in 2010 and 2012 under Hawass' name. Pusch and Link were the responsible scientists. Gourdine's Table 1 is Thuya lineage related Amarna royals plus Ramses 3 and son(?).
These basic 8 forensic STRs are in 16 pairs of alleles. For each locus(STR) one allele is from the mother. The other allele of the pair is from the father.
9 individuals from 6 New Kingdom generations can't rep all Egypt. They do represent the rulership pool over the entire Egyptian nation. At least for the 18 Dyn Amarna era and the Dyns 19&20 Ramesside period.
The authors of Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Schuenemann et al tested 90 mummies for mitochondrial (mtDNA) female DNA in addition they did genome wide testing of both male and female DNA of just 3 of those mummies, each of different time periods. (and I have written before that 3 is not enough to support their conclusions)
quote: Based on the partial Y-chromosomal information, on the amount of autosomal half-allele sharing (Figure 1) and family trio likelihood calculation, we reconstructed the most plausible royal pedigree. The full relationships between all mummies are shown in a 5-generation pedigree (Figure 2).
---February 17, 2010 Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family Zahi Hawass Albert Zink, Carsten M. Pusch, PhD Article Information JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.121
and family trio likelihood calculation, we reconstructed the most plausible royal pedigree. The full relationships between all mummies are shown in a 5-generation pedigree (Figure 2).
---February 17, 2010 Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family Zahi Hawass Albert Zink, Carsten M. Pusch, PhD Article Information JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.121
* The Identifiler kit and the AmpFℓSTR Minifiler kit (Applied Biosystems) were used for amplification of 8 polymorphic microsatellites of the nuclear genome (D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA).
* Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator⁸ based on the same published data⁵ ⁶ indicates ... most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with "SSA" which is not the only way to be "African"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] Can you go into more detail as to what you mean? I don't know much about STRs but from what I understand the mother and father have been sampled.
you have been on this site far too long to be asking that in my opinion
Don't throw stones in a glass house. Wanna go there? Lets go for a second. Do I need to remind you the difference in our post counts? Mine's is at 2k and while you--the one with nearly 40k posts, gets schooled here at least once a week. I know you are not talking about how far along I should be, especially since I've been on hiatuses while you've...been around a lot more consistently I'd say. And that's all I'll say on it. Keep your derogatory comments to yourself and stop baiting in hopes a derail will steer this off course. It won't work so you and your Eurocentric buddies will just have to deal.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] Can you go into more detail as to what you mean? I don't know much about STRs but from what I understand the mother and father have been sampled.
you have been on this site far too long to be asking that in my opinion
Don't throw stones in a glass house. Wanna go there? Lets go for a second. Do I need to remind you the difference in our post counts? Mine's is at 2k and while you--the one with nearly 40k posts, gets schooled here at least once a week. I know you are not talking about how far along I should be, especially since I've been on hiatuses while you've...been around a lot more consistently I'd say. And that's all I'll say on it. Keep your derogatory comments to yourself and stop baiting in hopes a derail will steer this off course. It won't work so you and your Eurocentric buddies will just have to deal.
you ask a lot of basic question that are easily looked up. Other people have noticed this, you are always asking somebody else to do the work Eurocentric buddies? who? You can go back to the Ancient Genomes where I disagreed with their broad based conclusions, that concur with what I said before it came out. All I'm saying now is there is no mitochondrial DNA published for the Amarna so we only have half the picture just like Abusir is missing the other half on most samples (although one of the 3 genome wides carries E1b1b1
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
and family trio likelihood calculation, we reconstructed the most plausible royal pedigree. The full relationships between all mummies are shown in a 5-generation pedigree (Figure 2).
---February 17, 2010 Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family Zahi Hawass Albert Zink, Carsten M. Pusch, PhD Article Information JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.121
* The Identifiler kit and the AmpFℓSTR Minifiler kit (Applied Biosystems) were used for amplification of 8 polymorphic microsatellites of the nuclear genome (D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA).
* Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator⁸ based on the same published data⁵ ⁶ indicates ... most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with "SSA" which is not the only way to be "African"
so do you contend that this 93.6% autosomal for Ramesses excludes the possibility that if his mtDNA was tested it could not possibly be mainly Eurasian?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
you ask a lot of basic question that are easily looked up.
Basic? No. Most people cannot wrap their head around genetics in any capacity. That's why people like Keita have to make these rebuttals in the first place. The whole Abusir debacle created a whole bunch of Eurocentric media hype that few were/are in any capacity to critically analyze because few understand how genetics work. I've made it clear I'm weak with genetics. I've also made no pretense about being a slow learner. It's not that I don't do work, I'm just reluctant to share it publicly.
quote:Other people have noticed this, you are always asking somebody else to do the work Eurocentric buddies? who?
Are you implying I don't do any? Being very private with my findings in part (though not entirely) because I don't trust posters/"leadership" like you doesn't mean I'm not putting in any work in to learn, especially on researching Lower/Middle Egypt. I've gone it alone for awhile because I wanted to review the potential of Lower Egypt being very different from SSA, regionally distinct in their own right and have as such explored potential differences in population history between Upper and Lower Egypt. Few seemed incredibly interested in where I was headed in my research so I don't demand people look at it, even if I think it's important. Abusir-el-Meleq is even called Lower Egyptian by AE, even as it's in Upper Egypt. Since you like to talk a big game, about doing work, try to put together the significance of it. I acknowledge I'm slower and have a difficulty understanding and retaining an understanding of many of these complex concepts. But hey, perhaps you'd be in a position to be so judgemental about it if you weren't getting dragged and schooled every week.
Why do you keep pulling up "other people" out your rectum as it suits you, while blissfully ignoring that if we're going by "other people" you are one of the least liked and least trusted forumers on this entire board? You are in no position to speak to me. I grasp I am a bit slow, but I own that. YOU strut about like you know what your talking about and you don't. YOU are one of the most ACTIVE longest forumers not me. But it is you who gets schooled the most on the forum, and has to have people stop the most for work to be injected into you. YOU not me are notorious for being called a Eurocentric troll. People are THAT exhausted with you and think you're just being deliberately obtuse to bait now. and YOU have more than 10x my post size for the level of attention that STILL has to be paid to you. Of course you don't think talking smack while being in your position is pathetic though.
quote:You can go back to the Ancient Genomes where I disagreed with their broad based conclusions, that concur with what I said before it came out. All I'm saying now is there is no mitochondrial DNA published for the Amarna so we only have half the picture just like Abusir is missing the other half on most samples (although one of the 3 genome wides carries E1b1b1
Ironically I would've probably had a bit more of an idea of what you were talking about if you'd worded it in this way, but I wouldn't have received it too much better it seems. I suspected I wouldn't once I had a layman's understanding of what you were getting at.
For one, why are you even saying this to begin with? Most here that have some understanding of genetics already know it's not the full story and within the context of the conversation it's irrelevant to what he's trying to say. Keita wasn't trying to imply he has a full picture and can prove fully SSA people were in southern Egypt. He's trying to smack down the readiness the Abusir researchers expressed in implying the SSA affinity found in the modern Egyptian sample was the result of the slave trade and that AE were as a collective completely divorced from common ancestors with SSA. You are about to derail the conversation into a territory he wasn't even headed as if you had anything new to say. Not a problem to say stuff that's old and recap, but why undercut his message? Oh wait...
Forgot for a second who this was. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, Oshun be coming strong with those gifs, you got a strong GIF game my dude..lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. Verena J. Schuenemann1,2,*, Alexander Peltzer3,4,*, Beatrix Welte1, W. Paul van Pelt5, Martyna Molak6, Chuan-Chao Wang4, Anja Furtwa ¨ngler1, Christian Urban1, Ella Reiter1, Kay Nieselt3, Barbara Temann7, Michael Francken1, Katerina Harvati1,2,8, Wolfgang Haak4,9, Stephan Schiffels4& Johannes Krause1 2016
Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies.
We find that all three ancient Egyptian groups cluster together (Fig. 3b), supporting genetic continuity across our 1,300-year transect.
Both analyses reveal higher affinities with modern populations from the Near East and the Levant compared to modern Egyptians (Fig. 3b,c).
The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-widedata was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa (Supplementary Table 3).
By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues16. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51–53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made. The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non- African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant
Looking at the mitochondrial DNA there was a wide variety of haplogroups. They only looked at 3 for Y DNA and many might have paternal SSA ancestry
They say " The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-widedata was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa"
I would call this an unfair statement about this group of 3. Of this random group a third is paternally African !
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found it surprising that Em-78 has a higher frequency in Lower Egypt than it does in Upper Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think that the authors downplayed the presence of foreigners. I hope Keita et. al will address this
quote:Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains. As is customary for the time, Rubensohn’s archaeological records are highly incomplete and many of the finds made by him were removed undocumented from their contexts. Furthermore, many of his excavation diaries and notes were destroyed during the Second World War. This lack of context greatly diminishes the possibility of ‘thick description’ of the analysed individuals, at least in terms of their names, titles and materially expressed identity.
But without material identity markers, how did they verify their cultural origins? Because the documentation is lost they have no idea how to determine how many of the mummies were foreigners, how many were mixed and how many were native Egyptians. They reason to ignore the use of foreign names because foreign names were popular. But that takes history and places into a vacuum. It assumes that Egyptians just liked foreign names just cuz, not that Abusir's history of being ruled by foreigners, and a source of invasion couldn't have normalized the presence of non Egyptian names.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I'll give you guys a hint. Calling Ancient Egyptian genomes 'Near Eastern' is like calling Far Eastern Siberian genomes 'Amerindian'.
Are you referring to the Tianyuan individual? Because beyoku was telling me about that the other day.
Well not Tianyuan specifically but in regards to Northeast Asians in general and specifically Far Eastern Siberia which is in the very northeastern corner of the continent the same way Egypt is the very northeastern corner of Africa. So even if one were to play devil's advocate on the issue of the Abusir Mummies' 'Near Eastern' ancestry which they share with the Natufians, it still won't support the white-wash assertions of the Euronuts.
But as far as the Keita piece is concerned, yeah he basically reiterates what we said in this forum. Why are these late period Lower Egyptians being held up as the par exemplar dynastic Egyptians?? Also, as Andromeda pointed out, the Nature study of the Abusir mummies contradicts the Nature study on ancient Cretans. How is it the ancient Cretans possess Neolithic Farmer ancestry with NO ancestry from Egypt, but then the Abusir Mummies who are supposedly Egyptian show the same Neolithic Farmer ancestry??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But as far as the Keita piece is concerned, yeah he basically reiterates what we said in this forum. Why are these late period Lower Egyptians being held up as the par exemplar dynastic Egyptians?? Also, as Andromeda pointed out, the Nature study of the Abusir mummies contradicts the Nature study on ancient Cretans. How is it the ancient Cretans possess Neolithic Farmer ancestry with NO ancestry from Egypt, but then the Abusir Mummies who are supposedly Egyptian show the same Neolithic Farmer ancestry??
quote:Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek.
But come now all those foreign names were simply popular at the time. It's not like foreigners were living there among northern Egyptian locals.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah, It seems to me the more I learn about the Schuenemann et al paper the more it seems like a quasi thinly veiled hit piece on Afrocentrism or the Black/African origins of Egypt theory than an actual scientific unbiased study. Their sensational title and boastful claims that "The paper turns origins of Egypt on its head" without even adressing the Anthropology and Archeology gave it away to me, this critique only confirms it
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also matching Y-DNA results from the male samples of the full 90+ Mummies Would have thrown a wrench in their shit REGARDLESS of the Y-DNA results.
They would have painted themselves into a corner they couldn’t back out of. I am willing to bet cash they are sitting on the Y dna results. All them mummies and they only pulled 3.........Shieeeet.
It was an Alt right trolling attempt of Afrocentrics, like a scientific version of "We wuz kangs!" As Trump would say: Sad!
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Data was not really trolling. Data is data. The narrative and the incomplete nature of the data is the issue. The status of Pigmentation and lactose mutations are pretty much standard fare these days.
What is NOT standard is the inclusion of maternal lineages with a 30:1 ratio in ancient dna studies.
I dont think they could have included the Y-dna and made the conclusion they wanted to make....in pretty much any scenario -The implications are simply too significant:
If the Y-DNA is equally as Eurasian as the mtdna would they lean toward the "foreigners" argument? If not how would they synthesize this Y-dna with contemporary results showing African lineages in abundance.....would those African lineages be post Roman influence too? They definitely cant say that.
If the Y-DNA was dominated by Any A/B/E(xE-M35) there would basically be hell to pay.
If dominated by E-M35 would they hypothesize the Nile valley was colonized by agricultural nomadic women?
"How about we just leave all these shits out." - Them.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with this, my problem is the sensational titles and the equally sensational media storm that followed.
BTW Beyoku since your more active of Biodiversity forums than me, are the people who were originally touting this study as the holy grail of Euroasian origins of Egypt now singing a different tune inlight of the incomplete evidence.
I mean I still see folks using R1b Tut...smh
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ The Data was not really trolling. Data is data. The narrative and the incomplete nature of the data is the issue. The status of Pigmentation and lactose mutations are pretty much standard fare these days.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ The Data was not really trolling. Data is data. The narrative and the incomplete nature of the data is the issue. The status of Pigmentation and lactose mutations are pretty much standard fare these days.
But though it's standard for other studies like Cheddar Man, results like pigmentation also created heated racialized discussion. Racialized conversation and phenotypic data have frequently gone hand in hand, especially if it's not what the general public thought it'd be. How standard is it to prioritize phenotypic data when the team hasn't finished research on other issues more relevant to their study? Why are they talking about the midpoint data of the modern Egyptians but won't perform the same research on the ancients? Instead they leave to conjecture the origins of their findings but can find time to look for phenotypic data. I guess if this has become so normal and ritualized that it's done without thought, I can possibly give it the benefit of the doubt. But I don't really know academia like that to judge so I'll leave that to those that'd know.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ The Data was not really trolling. Data is data. The narrative and the incomplete nature of the data is the issue. The status of Pigmentation and lactose mutations are pretty much standard fare these days.
What is NOT standard is the inclusion of maternal lineages with a 30:1 ratio in ancient dna studies.
I dont think they could have included the Y-dna and made the conclusion they wanted to make....in pretty much any scenario -The implications are simply too significant:
If the Y-DNA is equally as Eurasian as the mtdna would they lean toward the "foreigners" argument? If not how would they synthesize this Y-dna with contemporary results showing African lineages in abundance.....would those African lineages be post Roman influence too? They definitely cant say that.
If the Y-DNA was dominated by Any A/B/E(xE-M35) there would basically be hell to pay.
If dominated by E-M35 would they hypothesize the Nile valley was colonized by agricultural nomadic women?
"How about we just leave all these shits out." - Them.
The data is useful of course. As the researchers point out, it proves that DNA extraction and analysis from AE mummies is actually possible. However, the framing of the results and the weird obsession with proving an increase in SSA ancestry from ancient times to present is rather absurd, and the agenda is obvious. Their historically illiterate asses should have been content with proving that DNA extraction was possible and analyzing the local history of Abusir el melek. Instead, they made far fetched claims about AEs originating from the Middle East Turkey/ Anatolia, and Neolithic Europe.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Data was not really trolling. Data is data. The narrative and the incomplete nature of the data is the issue. The status of Pigmentation and lactose mutations are pretty much standard fare these days.
What is NOT standard is the inclusion of maternal lineages with a 30:1 ratio in ancient dna studies.
I dont think they could have included the Y-dna and made the conclusion they wanted to make....in pretty much any scenario -The implications are simply too significant:
If the Y-DNA is equally as Eurasian as the mtdna would they lean toward the "foreigners" argument? If not how would they synthesize this Y-dna with contemporary results showing African lineages in abundance.....would those African lineages be post Roman influence too? They definitely cant say that.
If the Y-DNA was dominated by Any A/B/E(xE-M35) there would basically be hell to pay.
If dominated by E-M35 would they hypothesize the Nile valley was colonized by agricultural nomadic women?
"How about we just leave all these shits out." - Them.
I too got the exact same impression from the paper. There are just too many discrepancies and yet the authors are still willing to jump to large conclusions. By the way, almost every study I've seen about Neolithic population expansions are male-biased showing that geneflow was male mediated. That and the fact that as Swenet has pointed out, Lower Egypt from late dynastic times was radically altered by foreign invasions already.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But though it's standard for other studies like Cheddar Man, results like pigmentation also created heated racialized discussion. Racialized conversation and phenotypic data have frequently gone hand in hand, especially if it's not what the general public thought it'd be. How standard is it to prioritize phenotypic data when the team hasn't finished research on other issues more relevant to their study? Why are they talking about the midpoint data of the modern Egyptians but won't perform the same research on the ancients? Instead they leave to conjecture the origins of their findings but can find time to look for phenotypic data. I guess if this has become so normal and ritualized that it's done without thought, I can possibly give it the benefit of the doubt. But I don't really know academia like that to judge so I'll leave that to those that'd know.
I've always thought that the Cheddar Man debacle is nothing more than a tactic to 'muddy the waters' so to speak or more accurately 'blacken the peoples' as a way to open the door to 'Eurasianizing' Africans like the Egyptians. Of course the right-wing ethno-nationalist whites are complaining about the black-painting of their ancestors, but I suspect that the left-wing, subversive, PC experts in charge of the reconstruction have more covert motives. Those who have been keeping up with the findings on pigmentation genetics know that UP Europeans had dark skin. But the question again is just how dark. I don't think an indigene to Northwest Europe just after the Ice Age would retain the complexion of his equatorial African ancestors. Cheddar Man is being used a Trojan Horse.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@djehuti why couldn't they be as dark as equatorial Africans? White skin is a recent occurrence in Europe,skin cancer is still a risk factor because of the reflective properties of snow. What actual proof exist showing very dark skin as being a negative in the artic and living above the equator?
@bless I get tones in between white and what some may consider jet black but why can't these ancient Euros be jet black if there's always natural variation in complexion excluding albinism and the effects of the sun is a constant.
@djehuti a cloudy day can be as bad as a sunny one if the UV index exceeds your skin tone threshold.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @djehuti why couldn't they be as dark as equatorial Africans? White skin is a recent occurrence in Europe,skin cancer is still a risk factor because of the reflective properties of snow. What actual proof exist showing very dark skin as being a negative in the artic and living above the equator?
White skin wasn't the only skin tone at the time. By the period of the Cheddar man Northwest Europeans would've NOT been THAT dark like equatorial Africans. Maybe the same skin tone as modern N. Sudanese.
I agree with DJ.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Still creating simplistic African objectss? Which equatorial Africans are so dark? In my experience Wolof, and even some other Senegalese, are much darker than your average Kenyan or Ruwandan.
All stereotyping opinion aside it's the MFingDS12 gene makes for eastern hemisphere tropical 'dark' and 'very dark skin'.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, almost every study I've seen about Neolithic population expansions are male-biased showing that geneflow was male mediated.
I'm not sure if this is true. This paper for instance claims that Neolithization in Europe would have involved both men and women rather than mostly men. Or are you thinking of some other studies?
posted
^ Yeah, I was referring to studies on Indian subcontinent (J-M172 in northwest and O-M95 in northeast), East (O-M134) and Southeast Asia (O-M95 & O-MM119), as well as the Maghreb (E-M81). But you're right about Europe. How could I possibly forget about the study that Tukuler presented here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @djehuti why couldn't they be as dark as equatorial Africans? White skin is a recent occurrence in Europe,skin cancer is still a risk factor because of the reflective properties of snow. What actual proof exist showing very dark skin as being a negative in the artic and living above the equator?
Thereal, I thought I already explained it to you here. Yes the mutation for 'white' or pale skin is a relatively recent occurance but there's no indication that skin went from just 'black' to 'white'. Tukuler already cited in the same thread I linked, that there was a diversity of shades and tones. You're talking about snow reflecting UV, but the issue is how much UV rays even reach that part of the globe in the first place! Cheddar Man is indigenous to England in northern Europe at a very high latitude where the UV isn't that great. Even today in England the climate is known to be cloudy even reducing UV even more just imagine how it would have been during the Ice Age.
So again, that Cheddar Man was dark-skinned is not the issue. The question is exactly just how dark and I'm sorry I doubt the guy was chocolate complexioned.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic