posted
Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa 1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1 , Safaa G. El-Sayed4 , Marwa A. Abdelazeem5 , Samah M. Mahdy6 , Hend Y. Othman1 , Dina W. Ibrahim1 , Rabab Khairat2,5, Somaia Ismail2,5
quote: The genetic relatedness of individuals from archaeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38, 55-57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uni-parental markers were utilized. An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 B.C.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4- generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).
For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:
Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad, R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al. (2020) Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M., Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.) Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).
I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.
But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat ____________________________
Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. February 2020 In book: Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi HawassPublisher: Czech Institute of Egyptology Project: Ancient Egyptian Genetics Project
Authors:
Yehia Z Gad, Somaia Ismail, Dina Fathalla, Rabab Khairat, Suzan Fares, Ahmed Zakaria Gad, Rama Saad, Amal Moustafa, Eslam ElShahat, Naglaa H. Abu Mandil, Mohamed Fateen, Hisham Elleithy, Sally Wasef, Albert R Zink, Zahi Hawass, Carsten M Pusch
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Griffith is really keeping this under wraps. Even the book with the research behind mtDNA K is as yet unpublished.
Gad, Y.Z., …. Wasef, S. et al. 2020. Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family in J. Kamrin, M. Bárta, S. Ikram, M. Lehner, M. Megahed (éd.), Guardian of Ancient Egypt, Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass.
Djehuti where you at? Time to reexamine ye old Levantine Queen Tiye sources.
Anyway, Tiye's mother Thuya, her autosome profile is Sudani and Upper Egyptian so pour that on her Special K. Tiye's parentage is non-royal something to remember when guessing 18th Dynasty foreign origin that didn't start with Thuya.
As for Levantine infusion into the dynasty consider this wiki info
Amenhotep III is known to have married several foreign women:
Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign. Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign. A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon. A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon. A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa. A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).
One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.
That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch Zinck retrieved.
. King Tut was African. In fact the Kushites took y-chromosome R1 to Eurasians.
. Y-CHROMOSOME R1 WAS INTRODUCED TO EURASIA BY KUSHITES
Clyde Winters
ABSTRACT The Kushites lived in Africa and Eurasia. Kushites originated in Africa. Researchers have observed that many of the Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and early European farmers (EF) populations carried R1a and R1b clades, and cultivated millet, which was not cultivated in Central Asia and the Middle East until 1000s of years after it was cultivated at Nabta Playa in Africa, and in the Ukraine by CHG and EF populations . Interestingly, the CHG carried the R1b1, and R1b1a lineages. Some researchers claim that these clades are “distant relatives” of V88, and that V88 is the result of a back migration from Eurasia to Central Africa. The archaeological evidence, on the other hand, lacks any corroboration of a back migration from Eurasia. Instead, the archaeogenetic evidence indicates that Niger-Congo speaking Africans from North Africa and the Saharo-Sahel, called Kushites in the historical literature early settled Crete, Iberia and Anatolia, and that these Africans introduced R1b, the Bell Beaker and the agro-pastoral cultural traditions into Eurasia during the Neolithic.
The phylogenetic profile of R-M173 supports an ancient migration of Kushites from Africa to Eurasia as suggested by the Classical writers. This expansion of an African Kushite population probably took place over 5kya.
" We analyzed the craniometric , linguistic, archaeological and y-chromosome sequences of African and Eurasian populations from the literature relating to these diverse fields.
This literature provides us with a critical examination of the distribution of R1*-M173 . It presents a genetic pattern of this haplogroup from Africa to Eurasia, and the dispersal of a significant African male contribution to Eurasia.
The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al, 2002, 2010).The frequency of Y-chromosome R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5% (Coia et al,2005). The R*-M173 (haplotype 117) chromosome is found frequently in Africa, but rare to extremely low frequencies in Eurasia. The Eurasian R haplogroup is characterized by R1b3-M269. The M269 derived allele has a M207/M173 background.
In Figure 1 we provide the frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between 8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in Africa."
Coia et al (2005) provides substantial data that the presence of R1*-M173 did not follow the spread of mtDNA haplogroup U6, which is found in North Africa (Coia et al, 2005).This supports the view that its presence in Africa is not the result of a back migration.
The Ounanian culture was not isolated in Africa. It was spread into the Levant. As a result, we have in the archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .
Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert. Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian. The tangled Ounanian points are also found at Foum Arguin . These points were used from Oued Draa, in southern Morocco, to the Banc d’Arguin and from the Atlantic shore to the lowlands of northwestern Sahara in Mauritania . We now have DNA from Ounanian sites in Morocco. All the burials in Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa site IAM1-IAM7 , are devoid of any artifacts, except for an original funeral ritual, which consists of placing a millstone on the skull (5) . These burials were dated from 4,850 to 5,250 BCE, they carried U6, M1, T2, X and K (Fregel et al, 2017). This suggests that Africans were already carrying this mtDNA. The spread of the Ounanians to Harif in the Levant explains the presence of these Kushite clades in the Levant and Anatolia. The first Kushites came to the Levant with Narmer. Narmer was the first ruler to unify ancient Egypt. The reason we know Narmer was a Kushite is the fact that the bulla called this part of the Negev ḫЗts.t ("Kush") or ḫ3s.tj ("Kushite"). and we find Narmer's name on jars and serekhs from excavations in Israel and Palestine , for example Tel Erani, Arad, 'En Besor, Halif Terrace/Nahal Tillah and more, we can assume that if he was recognized as ruler of the area he was also a Kushite (Levy et al,1997). The Kushites were called ḫЗšt in Africa and the Levant. Kushites had early settled in the Levant since Narmer times. The Kushites were called ḫЗšt , Ta-Seti and Tehenu by the Egyptians (Winters,2012,2017). The Egyptian Pharaoh Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu” . The name Hati, correspond to the name Hatti for a Kushite tribe in Anatolia. The Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a few things to note here: -These results have really been sat on for over a decade?? -This would be the first official publication declaring Ramses and Pentaware as E-M2 -There seems to be low resolution as it relates to all HG assignments. -K is indicative of a recent (historically speaking) levantine people in Egypt.
My question to the OP and others who don't foolishly assign every arbitrary HG as African, is? [i]If we get Thuya's Autosomal profile and turns out to look very "SSA" lets say generously 80% putative African, what would that say about her recent ancestry? would you be compelled to push K1a's presence in Africa back? Would you and would you investigate her relationship with levantine and Sudanese people?
...I'll keep it generous, what if Thuya resembled the early pastoralists escavated at Prettejohn’s Gully from Pendergast 2019 Who I believe were the oldest sequenced carriers of K1 in Africa so far. And also who Wang 2020 has as 47% Leventine (chl) related, 43% mota related and 10% dinka related. Would you say the levant_chl source was an accurate proxy under this context? When would it had Arrived?
-Lastly, what if Thuya resembled the Abusir mummies Autosomally? What would that say about her recent ancestry? would you be compelled to push K1a's presence in Africa back? Would you and would you investigate her relationship with levantine and Sudanese people? Would you say the levant_chl source was an accurate proxy under this context?
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Whaddaya mean IF we get Thuya's autosomal profile?
posted
What is actually going on here is the reverse one drop rule. So in America or other places where Europeans want to control things socially and economically, no amount of Eurasian mixture stops you from being black African in origin. Yet here we are reading papers where they go to great lengths to say African populations with some mixture are not black African. Its ridiculous. The presence of mixture isn't the issue, as opposed to the overall population affinity of said individuals or groups. This is where the Abusir paper is so problematic in trying to make sweeping statements with limited data. It is the same thing here, because you need way more data in order to make any overall conclusion about overall population affinity in ancient times.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
They have already concluded Africa is mixed Sardine or mixed Anatoli or mixed Irani whatever.
Anyway no Levantine population otherside of ancient Lebanon even liked ancient Egyptians.
They'd be angry modern people trying to turn them into Levantines. Even Macedonian lineage Cleopatra is claimed to be Levatine now in Israel for the sake of Gal Gadot's movie.
I'm rather disgusted at the biased approach of scientists to uphold Euro propaganda on history, ethnicity, and their innate superiority expressed in genomic research write-ups.
But why ES now wants AE to be Levantine is ... well ... I'm speechless.
Any way the wind blows the latest paper's interpretation I guess. Never mind the raw data or the fact algorithms are biased the way their human designers are biased. That includes the ADMIXTURE pgm and all those other tools. But when something doesn't make sense who checks for and updates a pgm ? Ah well, its mostly accurate and where it isn't it's biased in favor of west Eurasia, i.e., Europe, then secondly for what used to be called southwest Asia.
But lemme calm myself down. Hope this Fuente Lost City and St Lucia Forgotten Cask does the job. From the 4th grade to tomorrow it seems "Egypt may look like it's in Africa but it's really Asia" if you don't want your test question marked wrong.
=-=
Meanwhile someone needs to go over HVR1 sequences for what K has in common with L", L3-M, L3-N, or U6, since we saw how Kefi's aMazigh nationalist reading looked right over possibilities that weren't fitting North-Afrocentric propaganda. HVSII and RFLP can overrule even a proper multi-polymorphism HVSI alone.
Ah, the blacks. At least we strive for objectivity as we were taught in school that science should have. Meanwhile the whole world uses science for politics and sociology ala "Oops we never said our Abusir discussion applies to all dynastic Egypt the whole length of the Nile. It's not our fault media and the public took it that way. We have a tiny one sentence disclaimer to that effect right there in the article."
Not say Gad et al will try and turn a solo HVSI polymorphism into a fully sequenced haplogroup like Kefi did but best to be wary.
Just something to consider if you really want to investigate if this is R-V88 (goes for Askia, too, who says he suspects Tut has V88).
You have to look at the ISOGG tables and confirm that R1b1a2 was V88 at the time of this article. You can't assume that the writer did it's homework and got it right in the followup article.
Nomenclature changes, e.g. E-M2's position changed from E3a, to E1b1a to E1b1a1.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hundreds of Siwan people form a circle (zikr) of peace and forgiveness, marking the annual "Siyaha" Peace Festival of Siwa Oasis. LINK
___________________________________________
In 2010 Cruciani reported 26.9% Siwans tested R-V88 Sudanese Copts who migrated out of Egypt in recent times also were reported in another article to carry 14% R1b which is probably R-V88 but tested before R-V88 was discovered
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
2020
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa 1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1 ,
The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).
I looked at the whole preprint as of yet as you say the particular clade of the R1b has not been stated yet, just that it was R1b
Does the media roll with articles before they are published? I hope not
If it turns out to R-V88 which is likely the current thinking is that it originates in Sardinia or the Levant because it was found in Neolithic samples from Sardinia as well as in 6,200 remains in Catalonia Spain and R1b is also the most common paternal haplogroup in Europe. However as we know this clade of it R-V88 can be found in Cameroon as high as 95% in some groups and is very rare in Europe with only very low percentages in Sardinia and also 1-4% in parts of the Levant
Eupedia:
According to Cruciani et al. (2010) R1b-V88 would have crossed the Sahara between 9,200 and 5,600 years ago, and is most probably associated with the diffusion of Chadic languages, a branch of the Afroasiatic languages. V88 would have migrated from Egypt to Sudan, then expanded along the Sahel until northern Cameroon and Nigeria. However, R1b-V88 is not only present among Chadic speakers, but also among Senegambian speakers (Fula-Hausa) and Semitic speakers (Berbers, Arabs).
R1b-V88 is found among the native populations of Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau. The wide distribution of V88 in all parts of Africa, its incidence among herding tribes, and the coalescence age of the haplogroup all support a Neolithic dispersal. In any case, a later migration out of Egypt would be improbable since it would have brought haplogroups that came to Egypt during the Bronze Age, such as J1, J2, R1a or R1b-L23.
The maternal lineages associated with the spread of R1b-V88 in Africa are mtDNA haplogroups J1b, U5 and V, and perhaps also U3 and some H subclades (=> see Retracing the mtDNA haplogroups of the original R1b people).Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign. Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign. A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon. A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon. A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa. A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).
One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.
That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch Zinck retrieved.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Waiting for what autosomes? Why do you think Thuya's autosome profile isn't on record?
EDIT: your pardon. I think I misread what you said but I got it now. Combo 'Nubian' autosomes with K of possible earlier 'Nubian' origin than immediate Levantine.
Interesting. I see a lot of spin offs like K entering 'Nubia' in pre-dynastic times maybe as war trophy wife in a campaign like Weni's or a merchant's daughter in 1st Intrmdt-MK times from a trade expedition not so great like Harkhuf's.
posted
As I said in the other thread and for years, many people have tried HARD to make the Siwans less Berber or descendants of SS-African Slaves but they can't, the Siwans history of Isolation and intermarriage and genetics does'nt allow for that.
The modern Siwans are a good example of what their ancestors probably looked like.
I also think its interesting in light of what Swenet said about Chadian language being instrumental to the development of A.Egyptian.
Even the R-1b=European article Lioness posted HAS to admit that V88 is found high as hell in Chad and the Siwans.
Its interesting to me personally because of the thesis ive been pursuing for years(Hopefully I can one day publish something) about the Ta-Seti Royalty in Kemet, but this is pointing to another "SS-African" penetration into the Royalty of Kemet but from Lybia or the North.
Very interesting to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hundreds of Siwan people form a circle (zikr) of peace and forgiveness, marking the annual "Siyaha" Peace Festival of Siwa Oasis. LINK
___________________________________________
In 2010 Cruciani reported 26.9% Siwans tested R-V88 Sudanese Copts who migrated out of Egypt in recent times also were reported in another article to carry 14% R1b which is probably R-V88 but tested before R-V88 was discovered
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
2020
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa 1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1 ,
The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).
I looked at the whole preprint as of yet as you say the particular clade of the R1b has not been stated yet, just that it was R1b
Does the media roll with articles before they are published? I hope not
If it turns out to R-V88 which is likely the current thinking is that it originates in Sardinia or the Levant because it was found in Neolithic samples from Sardinia as well as in 6,200 remains in Catalonia Spain and R1b is also the most common paternal haplogroup in Europe. However as we know this clade of it R-V88 can be found in Cameroon as high as 95% in some groups and is very rare in Europe with only very low percentages in Sardinia and also 1-4% in parts of the Levant
Eupedia:
According to Cruciani et al. (2010) R1b-V88 would have crossed the Sahara between 9,200 and 5,600 years ago, and is most probably associated with the diffusion of Chadic languages, a branch of the Afroasiatic languages. V88 would have migrated from Egypt to Sudan, then expanded along the Sahel until northern Cameroon and Nigeria. However, R1b-V88 is not only present among Chadic speakers, but also among Senegambian speakers (Fula-Hausa) and Semitic speakers (Berbers, Arabs).
R1b-V88 is found among the native populations of Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau. The wide distribution of V88 in all parts of Africa, its incidence among herding tribes, and the coalescence age of the haplogroup all support a Neolithic dispersal. In any case, a later migration out of Egypt would be improbable since it would have brought haplogroups that came to Egypt during the Bronze Age, such as J1, J2, R1a or R1b-L23.
The maternal lineages associated with the spread of R1b-V88 in Africa are mtDNA haplogroups J1b, U5 and V, and perhaps also U3 and some H subclades (=> see Retracing the mtDNA haplogroups of the original R1b people).
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm talkin bout commoner born Thuya and mtDNA K. Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her 16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.
A III's "R1b" lineage goes back to before Dyn 18 unless his or some male ancestor's fathering was by someone other than Senakhtenre Ahmose Dyn 17. His consort list goes to show sex bias in post MK Egy explains any non-continental mtDNA. All them women's various "SW Asian" autosomes and mtDNA entered the royalty and populace forever.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign. Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign. A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon. A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon. A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa. A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).
One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.
That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch Zinck retrieved.
.
=-=
A lot's happened since 2010, A 2018 table of R-V88 with Trombetta and Cruciani on the preparation team is available to check Siwan haplogroups against who else in Afr shares it and to what extent.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a
If we are crediting the OP Tut is V88 and Ranses and Pentaware ARE E-M2.... Just as much as Thuyas line is K1.
But how do you view the "non African" looking portion of North East African ancestry given the fact that such a high profile mummy carries such a putative neolithic levantine Marker?
@Tukuler, I'm referring to an SNP panel, and even if I were not, it still begs the question, with Thuya having a predominantly sudanese profile, what does that say about her maternal lineage & when did it enter the region? Does it call into question how historically Afican the Sudani profile is going back to the 17th dynasty? If not why and can you prove it with available data?
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Ok I see, yes we know that the Egyptians did intermarry with Levantines, esp. women. I do recall Keita pointing out the Levantine Weavers...sorry Ive been busy with school, kinda slipping on the Genetics stuff
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I'm talkin bout commoner born Thuya and mtDNA K. Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her 16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.
A III's "R1b" lineage goes back to before Dyn 18 unless his or some male ancestor's fathering was by someone other than Senakhtenre Ahmose Dyn 17. His consort list goes to show sex bias in post MK Egy explains any non-continental mtDNA.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign. Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign. A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon. A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon. A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa. A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).
One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.
That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch Zinck retrieved.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a
If we are crediting the OP Tut is V88 and Ranses and Pentaware ARE E-M2.... Just as much as Thuyas line is K1.
But how do you view the "non African" looking portion of North East African ancestry given the fact that such a high profile mummy carries such a putative neolithic levantine Marker?
what do you mean view?
King Tut was Jewish ???
__________________________________
wikipedia
Haplogroup K
Haplogroup K appears in Central Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, South Asia and West Asia and in populations with such an ancestry.
Haplogroup K is found in approximately 10% of native Europeans.[5][6]
Overall the mtDNA haplogroup K is found in about 6% of the population of Europe and the Near East, but it is more common in certain of these populations. Approximately 16% of the Druze of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, belong to haplogroup K.[7] It is also found among 8% of Palestinians.[8] Additionally, K reaches a level of 17% in Kurdistan.[9]
Approximately 32% of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are in haplogroup K. This high percentage points to a genetic bottleneck occurring some 100 generations ago.[7] Ashkenazi mtDNA K clusters into three subclades seldom found in non-Jews: K1a1b1a, K1a9, and K2a2a. Thus it is possible to detect three individual female ancestors, who were thought to be from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe.[10] A 2013 study however suggests these clades to instead originate from Western Europe.[11]
K appears to be highest in the Morbihan (17.5%) and Périgord-Limousin (15.3%) regions of France, and in Norway and Bulgaria (13.3%).[12] The level is 12.5% in Belgium, 11% in Georgia and 10% in Austria and Great Britain.[9]
Haplogroup K is also found among Gurage (10%),[8] Syrians (9.1%),[8] Afar (6.3%),[8] Zenata Berbers (4.11%),[13] Reguibate Sahrawi (3.70%),[13] Oromo (3.3%),[8] Iraqis (2.4%),[8] Saudis (0%-10.5%),[8] Yemenis (0%-9.8%),[8] and Algerians (0%-4.3%).[13]
Mtdna K was found in 0.9% of Beijing Han in a group of sampling
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have the thread where you discuss this...sorry if its a burden then just ignore me.
@Elmestro Anyway I don't see how the 18th Dynasty is a Levanting Transplant if even Thuya has Sudani/Upper Egyptian alleles. Also the Egyptians intermarried with Levantines and then there's the Hyksos, so why jump to diffusionism when it could have come from more simple and localized circumstances...?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her 16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Isnt R-1b a Male Marker, would'nt the R-1b have to have come from a Male Ancestor?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Gilukhepa, the daughter of Shuttarna II of Mitanni, in the tenth year of his reign. Tadukhepa, the daughter of his ally Tushratta of Mitanni, Around Year 36 of his reign. A daughter of Kurigalzu, king of Babylon. A daughter of Kadashman-Enlil, king of Babylon. A daughter of Tarhundaradu, ruler of Arzawa. A daughter of the ruler of Ammia (in modern Syria).
One thing's certain if no one hopped the fence then 18th Dyn is R1b in origin based on A III whose paternal lineage goes clear back to Dyn 17.
That aDNA kit collected no SNP info so MSY Hg is inferred unless Gad's not using what Hawass Pusch Zinck retrieved.
[/QB]
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Just something to consider if you really want to investigate if this is R-V88 (goes for Askia, too, who says he suspects Tut has V88).
You have to look at the ISOGG tables and confirm that R1b1a2 was V88 at the time of this article. You can't assume that the writer did it's homework and got it right in the followup article.
As we know this European DNA testing company leaked what they had seen on a computer screen in a documentary on DNA analysis of Tut (I think Hawass team) of which the results were never published (Why ??). iGENEA claimed the above alleles were on the screen which was filmed in distracting motion and at times blurry. At the bottom of this Tutankhamen page which is still on their website they are selling testing kits.
Anyway the media then picked up on this. I am wondering how Reuters said
"The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA."
How is it Cruciani said in 2010 R1b1a2 was a V88 clade and Reuters said in 2011 that iGENEA said Tut was R1b1a2
but iGENEA said it was M269 on their website
something is rotten in Denmark
If R1b1a2 aka V88 is correct then Reuters had the right Haplogroup yet were using the iGENEA description of R-M269 which was that is was basic European rather than this unique sub clade which has such high frequencies in Cameroon and significant frequencies in berbers of the Siwa oasis , Egypt
Perhaps iGENEA had first interpreted R1b1a2, Reuters made an article and then iGENEA changed it later to M269
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see much support for Diffusionism/Transplants of non Egyptians sitting on the Throne of Kemet comfortably. Even the Hyksos and the Ta-Seti royals were subtle in their domination and did so through a gradual "Egyptianizing" process that took years. The Hyksos f-ked up by trying to monopolize power while the Ta-Seti royals were so subtle and good at it no one even knows they existed unless they look underneath the surface.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
and also the K
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Do you have the thread where you discuss this...sorry if its a burden then just ignore me.
No burden, itsa lifetime pastime to Each-One-Teach-One. Who are my teachers? All of them are! I've learned something from even the most backward troll and am glad to share back and forth with anyone willing not toying. But exactly what's the 'this' you wanna link up to?
quote:@Elmestro Anyway I don't see how the 18th Dynasty is a Levanting Transplant if even Thuya has Sudani/Upper Egyptian alleles.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her 16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.
Um I wrote that for you and the forum. 'Stro seems to side with Schuenemann on the Hawass Putsch Zinck Thuya autosome data worth being ignored. But that's not his position though. Stro sees mtDNA K somehow tied to 'Nubian' autosomes.
I guess a good start there is examining K in Upper Egypt/Nubia/Sudan. There's no reason the K didn't come from the Levant. The question is when. Thuya's K ancestress could go back 3-4 generations in which case her autosomes'd be lost while her mtDNA haplogroup will go on as long as daughters come out mothers.
I trust it and until shown false by data I also accept Thuya being K provided both she and Tut carry the same K, tho precision would demand each Tut maternal ancestress get the test. I imagine Gad probably uses the same method and tools Schuenemann did on either the 2010 samplings or new ones of his own.
I got no beef with Levantine-Egyptians. Doc Ben, Chancellor Wms, all o dem taught Semitic speakers trickled then floodgated into Egypt forever altering the population of the land and nation.
quote:@Elmestro Anyway I don't see how the 18th Dynasty is a Levanting Transplant if even Thuya has Sudani/Upper Egyptian alleles. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: Her presumed K enters Dyn 18 rather late. Her 16 allele profile is extant in Sudan and Up Egy.
Um I wrote that for you and the forum. 'Stro seems to side with Schuenemann on the Hawass Putsch Zinck Thuya autosome data worth being ignored. But that's not his position though. Stro sees mtDNA K somehow tied to 'Nubian' autosomes.
I guess a good start there is examining K in Upper Egypt/Nubia/Sudan. There's no reason the K didn't come from the Levant. The question is when. Thuya's K ancestress could go back 3-4 generations in which case her autosomes'd be lost while her mtDNA haplogroup will go on as long as daughters come out mothers.
I trust it and until shown false by data I also accept Thuya being K provided both she and Tut carry the same K, tho precision would demand each Tut maternal ancestress get the test. I imagine Gad probably uses the same method and tools Schuenemann did on either the 2010 samplings or new ones of his own.
I got no beef with Levantine-Egyptians. Doc Ben, Chancellor Wms, all o dem taught Semitic speakers trickled then floodgated into Egypt forever altering the population of the land and nation.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point about the one drop rule and all the "hype" about Levantine K lineages is this. If some Thuyas grand mom or great great grand mom was Levantine but the rest of the family was African then what? Are we going to say that Thuya is "Levantine"? Seriously? One great great grand mom makes you Levantine? That is absurd and that is what is going on here. Since MtDna and Y Male DNA gets passed down through multiple generations, the presence of a lineage does not imply continuous mixing.
Likewise a few "Levantine weavers" in Middle Kingdom or later Egypt does not make all of the Nile Valley Africans suddenly "Levantine transplants" either. This is the simplistic propaganda that is being put on display with all of these papers and some of the discussions taking place around them. Anything and everything to downplay African ancestry in the Nile valley.
Also, even if a pharaoh had children by foreign concubines we know the succession order was based on the great royal wife who always had to be of Sudani/Upper Egyptian ancestry. Both Thuya and Tiye fit that profile as did most of the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom ruling families. God's Wife of Amun was a powerful institution tied to Kingship and Queenship both originating from further South and we know there was continuous flow of populations from the South. So any discussion about DNA from the Valley not reflecting that flow and purely being of "Levantine" extract is pretty much nonsense.
And beyond the Nile Valley populations there is always going to be the question of other African populations in the Sahara, Chad and into Central Africa.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If I'm allowed my own mind's opinion and can speak plain, it's more the groundless specialness assigned to K.
Thuya doesn't go back to DYN 17. She's in the middle of DYN 18. Who's her momma, and her momma's mama, in this K ascendancy? Do we know of any her daughters descendants? Then don't know when or where Thuya's K entered Egypt (if not aboriginal) or into her family heritage or if it lived on or bred or died out of royalty or nobility.
Jari got me thinking bout Siwa and now with your Sudani K I have to bring up the relation between Saite DYN 26, Siwa Oasis so far from the Nile, and banished DYN 25 prisoners both martial and political.
Way back in the 70's Independent Afrikan scholarship recognized the bulk of the population went from continental African to the Levant-Continental hybrids never to the 'pure' Levantine.
Go where the data leads. Don't lead the data.
<<And don't you call call me no spade, spade.>>
You do want a Levantine AE. You're allowed your opinion but nothing points in that direction and the Academe has been pushing it ever since Napoleon. Reisner even de-Africanized the Nubians.
Nothing indicates Levantines founding or peopling Egypt beyond what's explored in Ase's threads on the Levatine contribution to pre-Dynastic to 2nd Intermediate Egypt. The two peoples recognized each other as of different ancestry and only the ancient Lebanese wilfully embraced ancient Egyptian culture and service perhaps why Canaan is a son of Hham like Kush and Egypt.
Please expand on your points to facilitate response to your questioning. Why I say that? Straight from the mare's mouth: 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. ... Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from * southern Egypt * and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
What caveats if any are other Egy mummy researchers making since 2017?
And I'll add this for the record. Asiatic women in the Black/Ultimate Nation did not begin with nor limited to "weaver women".
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
Yes but if Tutankhamun was R1b and maybe R-V88 then Rameses III (an maybe the whole Rameses) were E1b1a
If we are crediting the OP Tut is V88 and Ranses and Pentaware ARE E-M2.... Just as much as Thuyas line is K1.
But how do you view the "non African" looking portion of North East African ancestry given the fact that such a high profile mummy carries such a putative neolithic levantine Marker?
@Tukuler, I'm referring to an SNP panel, and even if I were not, it still begs the question, with Thuya having a predominantly sudanese profile, what does that say about her maternal lineage & when did it enter the region? Does it call into question how historically Afican the Sudani profile is going back to the 17th dynasty? If not why and can you prove it with available data?
As we know this European DNA testing company leaked what they had seen on a computer screen in a documentary on DNA analysis of Tut (I think Hawass team) of which the results were never published (Why ??). iGENEA claimed the above alleles were on the screen which was filmed in distracting motion and at times blurry. At the bottom of this Tutankhamen page which is still on their website they are selling testing kits.
Anyway the media then picked up on this. I am wondering how Reuters said
"The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA."
How is it Cruciani said in 2010 R1b1a2 was a V88 clade and Reuters said in 2011 that iGENEA said Tut was R1b1a2
but iGENEA said it was M269 on their website
something is rotten in Denmark
If R1b1a2 aka V88 is correct then Reuters had the right Haplogroup yet were using the iGENEA description of R-M269 which was that is was basic European rather than this unique sub clade which has such high frequencies in Cameroon and significant frequencies in berbers of the Siwa oasis , Egypt
Perhaps iGENEA had first interpreted R1b1a2, Reuters made an article and then iGENEA changed it later to M269 [/qb]
I see you figured it out. Nice.
So at the very least we know the corrected article (reuters?) did its homework and carried its own weight. Any mistakes are not on their part.
If you want to continue this you can figure out if the designation was correct in the first place. You can use Y-STR tools and see if the answer they give is consistent with V88 or M269. If it indeed turns out to be R1b1a2-V8, and if you want to continue, you can use D'Anastasio's supplemental tree and yfull, to see if R1b1a2-V8 has Egyptian members in modern Egypt, or if all the V88 in modern Egypt is non-V8. Needless to say, if modern Egyptians have V8, it becomes much more convincing that Tut also had it.
But this all makes or breaks with whether the party (iGENEA?) who first announced Tut's lineage as 'R1b1a2', was correct in naming it that. If that person was not correct, or used some dated nomenclature (maybe in 2005 R1b-M269 was called R1b1a2), it doesn't matter that ISOGG had R1b1a2 as V88 in 2010.
Simple investigations like this is how you can get way ahead of anyone talking in opinions and hypotheticals (like the people who insist Tut must be R1b-M269).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you want to continue this you can figure out if the designation was correct in the first place. You can use Y-STR tools and see if the answer they give is consistent with V88 or M269. If it indeed turns out to be R1b1a2-V8, and if you want to continue, you can use D'Anastasio's supplemental tree and yfull, to see if R1b1a2-V8 has Egyptian members in modern Egypt, or if all the V88 in modern Egypt is non-V8. Needless to say, if modern Egyptians have V8, it becomes much more convincing that Tut also had it.
But this all makes or breaks with whether the party (iGENEA?) who first announced Tut's lineage as 'R1b1a2', was correct in naming it that. If that person was not correct, or used some dated nomenclature (maybe in 2005 R1b-M269 was called R1b1a2), it doesn't matter that ISOGG had R1b1a2 as V88 in 2010.
Simple investigations like this is how you can get way ahead of anyone talking in opinions and hypotheticals.
I entered the alleles listed by iGENEA into NevGen and got R1b, but nothing more specific than that (i.e. I could not tell whether it was V88, M269, or something else). But given that iGENEA got their data from what could have been stock footage on a Discovery documentary, these may not necessarily be the alleles Tut etc. actually had.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you want to continue this you can figure out if the designation was correct in the first place. You can use Y-STR tools and see if the answer they give is consistent with V88 or M269. If it indeed turns out to be R1b1a2-V8, and if you want to continue, you can use D'Anastasio's supplemental tree and yfull, to see if R1b1a2-V8 has Egyptian members in modern Egypt, or if all the V88 in modern Egypt is non-V8. Needless to say, if modern Egyptians have V8, it becomes much more convincing that Tut also had it.
But this all makes or breaks with whether the party (iGENEA?) who first announced Tut's lineage as 'R1b1a2', was correct in naming it that. If that person was not correct, or used some dated nomenclature (maybe in 2005 R1b-M269 was called R1b1a2), it doesn't matter that ISOGG had R1b1a2 as V88 in 2010.
Simple investigations like this is how you can get way ahead of anyone talking in opinions and hypotheticals.
I entered the alleles listed by iGENEA into NevGen and got R1b, but nothing more specific than that (i.e. I could not tell whether it was V88, M269, or something else). But given that iGENEA got their data from what could have been stock footage on a Discovery documentary, these may not necessarily be the alleles Tut etc. actually had.
watch the video, maybe there is better resolution at the Discovery channel but I'm looking at all these alleles listed by iGENEA and wondering even on better video you can actually see all those numbers Either they could see them all on better video, or they made some up, or they had an inside connection to the data and only pretended they say t all on this video
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: As I said in the other thread and for years, many people have tried HARD to make the Siwans less Berber or descendants of SS-African Slaves but they can't, the Siwans history of Isolation and intermarriage and genetics does'nt allow for that.
The modern Siwans are a good example of what their ancestors probably looked like.
I also think its interesting in light of what Swenet said about Chadian language being instrumental to the development of A.Egyptian.
Even the R-1b=European article Lioness posted HAS to admit that V88 is found high as hell in Chad and the Siwans.
Its interesting to me personally because of the thesis ive been pursuing for years(Hopefully I can one day publish something) about the Ta-Seti Royalty in Kemet, but this is pointing to another "SS-African" penetration into the Royalty of Kemet but from Lybia or the North.
Very interesting to say the least.
Just a caveat in relation to that source.
Based on some evidence (e.g. Mboli's work), the Egyptian affinities with Hausa don't seem to extend to Coptic (or not as much). In Mboli's tree for instance, Coptic is with Somali (among other 'nearby' inner African languages), while Middle Egyptian is with Hausa (among other inner African languages, some of which extremely distant from Egypt). One interpretation of this is that Coptic does not have the Chadic influences detected by Lexa (or not as strongly).
Relevance? It could be that the Chadic-Egyptian merger comment ascribed to Lexa in that paper, was specific to the Egyptian dialect mainly used by Middle Kingdom scribes and officials, not to dialects used by later (or earlier) dynasty founders with no connection to the 11th dynasty.
Other than Central African migration to MK Egypt affecting Middle Egyptian, I don't know what Lexa's comments mean for the Egyptian language as a whole (which also includes Late Egyptian, Archaic Egyptian, Coptic, etc).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
King Tut Related to Half of European Men? Maybe Not By Stephanie Pappas August 03, 2011
A personal genomics company in Switzerland says they've reconstructed a DNA profile of King Tutankhamen by watching the Discovery Channel, claiming the results suggest more than half of Western European men are related to the boy king. But researchers who worked to decode Tut's genome in the first place say the claim is "unscientific."
Swiss genomics company iGENEA has launched a Tutankhamen DNA project based on what they say are genetic markers that appeared on a computer screen during a Discovery Channel special on the famous pharaoh's genetic lineage.
"Maybe they didn't know what they showed, but we got 16 markers from the Y chromosome from these pharaohs," Roman Scholz, the managing director of iGENEA, told LiveScience.
If the claims were true, it would put King Tut in a genetic profile group shared by more than half of Western European men. That would make those men relatives — albeit distant ones — of the pharaoh.
But Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tubingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, said that iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." Pusch and his colleagues published part of their results, though not the Y-chromosome DNA, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2010. The Y chromosome is the sex chromosome found only in males, and looking at the genes in this chromosome would show Tut's male lineage.
Pusch's team used snippets of Y-chromosome DNA to link Tut to his closest relatives, identifying his mom and dad. But they didn't publish the full genetic data that would allow genomics companies like iGENEA to link modern people to the Tutankhamen lineage. According to Scholz, that crucial data is what appeared on the Discovery Channel.
"Dr. Albert Zink from the EURAC [European Academy of Bolzano, an independent research center] in Bolzano and co-author of the 2010 JAMA publication screened the footage and confirmed that the company acts very unscientific," Pusch wrote in an email to LiveScience. "The Swiss company did not try to get into contact with us prior to launching their new Internet page."
The alleged Discovery Channel markers put Tut in a genetic profile group, or haplogroup, that also includes more than half of the men in Western Europe. Scholz said the company is now searching for the closest living relatives of Tutankhamen, men who share all 16 genetic markers on the pharaoh's supposed Y chromosome. Exact matches get a refund for their $179 to $399 test and will also get free additional DNA analysis.
The haplogroup R1b1a2, which iGENEA claims includes King Tut, arose 9,500 years ago in the Black Sea region. How Tut's ancestors would have gotten from that region to Egypt is unknown, but Scholz said iGENEA hopes to learn more by collecting more close and exact matches from modern people of Western European descent.
"The better the match, the more recent the common ancestor," Scholz said.
But people hoping to prove that they've got an ancestor in common with the notoriously sickly boy king should take iGENEA's claims with a grain of salt, Pusch said: "It appears that they try to better sell their DNA testing kit by using the media attention connected to King Tut."
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness: "The confusing identity of R1b1a2"
There is no such thing as an identity to R1b1a2. M269 and V88, and so on, are the identities. The R1b1a2 part is the position. It's code for where the mutation falls within R. That is why new mutations like E-V38 can demote E-M2 from E1b1a to E1b1a1. That extra 1 behind it signifies a specific position that helps haplogroup enthusiasts visualize or illustrate the position of E-M2 relative to other mutations.
"not resolved by year"
It is not the New Year's transition that changes the R1b tree. It's work on the R1b tree by geneticists (and hobbyists) that changes the Y-DNA tree. And yes, sometimes geneticists still use dated nomenclature like E3b (which is now E1b1b). That doesn't mean organizations like ISOGG weren't set up for people to keep track of the changes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness: "The confusing identity of R1b1a2"
There is no such thing as an identity to R1b1a2. M269 and V88, and so on, are the identities. The R1b1a2 part is the position. It's code for where the mutation falls within R. That is why new mutations like E-V38 can demote E-M2 from E1b1a to E1b1a1. That extra 1 behind it signifies a specific position that helps haplogroup enthusiasts visualize or illustrate the position of E-M2 relative to other mutations.
"not resolved by year"
It is not the New Year's transition that changes the R1b tree. It's work on the R1b tree by geneticists (and hobbyists) that changes the Y-DNA tree. And yes, sometimes geneticists still use dated nomenclature like E3b (which is now E1b1b). That doesn't mean organizations like ISOGG weren't set up for people to keep track of the changes.
R1b1b
are clades descendant of P297 including M269 the most common paternal clade in Europe
___________________________
R1b1a
"a" at the end is V88, highest frequencies in Cameroon
M269 is not descendant of that branch
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In the last decade V88 has been called everything from R1b* to R*, to R1b1* to R1b1c. In light of that, how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?
Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.
From R1b's wiki:
quote: R1b1a1a2 (R-M269) was previously R1b1a2, From 2003 to 2005, what is now R1b1a2 was designated R1b3. From 2005 to 2008, it was R1b1c. From 2008 to 2011, it was R1b1b2.
^Even these longhand designations (the ones wiki considered correct at the time of writing) may be dated now in 2020.
Anyway, the most important thing is you now know how to research Tut's haplogroup. That was why I commented.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Are you listening?
In the last decade V88 has been called everything from R1b* to R*, to R1b1* to R1b1c. In light of that, how can it help you to use a 2010 publication to name haplogroups in 2020?
Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.
From R1b's wiki:
quote: R1b1a1a2 (R-M269) was previously R1b1a2, From 2003 to 2005, what is now R1b1a2 was designated R1b3. From 2005 to 2008, it was R1b1c. From 2008 to 2011, it was R1b1b2.
^Even these longhand designations may be dated now in 2020.
Anyway, the most important thing is you now know how to research Tut's haplogroup. That was why I commented.
do you see an problem with this that came out on 2011 and if so what problem?
do you see an problem with this being as is until now?
Setting aside the sketchy way they attained the information, assume the allele numbers that show here are correct, any problem with this?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the reuters/iGENEA difference, it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. The wiki quote says R1b1a2 was M269 in the mid-2000s and later became associated with V88.
So, it's only a matter of what convention was used, the older or newer. That's why you go to ISOGG tables and look up what the convention was, in the year of the iGENEA publication talking about R1b1a2. It turns out they were using the longhand where R1b1a2 stands for M269. It was dated then, but they still used it. It's not incorrect, but it does give us more work in figuring out what they were doing.
The problem comes from how iGENEA knows R1b returned by Y-STR calculator is necessarily M269. If the calculator said R1b, then you can't spin that into M269, unless they know more than they are letting on.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.
Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.
Of course you are open to address the questions I asked in the thread earlier, if you think observation of relevant available genetic data not just in A.Egypt is "anxiety".
@Tukuler I find it weird that I have to expand on my points to facilitate responses to open ended questions. I don't think my point should even matter if you have an answer, especially if I'm wrong on the matter. Nonetheless I guess I should clarify, because I'm seeing things about one drop rules to people of the Levant forming Egypt, when none of that is even relevant nor my point.
Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.
Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.
It's just me making sense of what we have available genetically. This has nothing to do with me wanting anything. And at this point this has nothing to do with the culture or the people responsible for forming A.Egypt. I'm specifically theorizing about the Authenticity and role that ACTUAL near Eastern ancestry played in the region Starting with Thuya. It needs to be addressed.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I basically believe that even if no further data became available genetically we should be able to model ancient North African populations as a cline geographically and temporally between Africa and the Levant. Meaning there should be shared lineages between North Africa and the Levant and temporally the cline would skew more towards Africa as the source of said clinal relationships the further you go back and as you come forward in time the cline would skew to the Levant as the origin of more lineages but there still would be echoes of the previous lineages mixed in as well and some that may no longer be detectable. Disentangling what was where when is a good exercise in determining the accuracy and validity of genetic modelling based on extant populations, but beyond that this shouldn't be an either or scenario. North Africa and the Nile are historic corridors of migration between Africa and the Mediterranean and vice versa and most people aren't in disagreement with that for the most part. Historical baggage around the population origin of the ancient people of Kemet aside, this really shouldn't be as complex as some folks make it out to be.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I basically believe that even if no further data became available genetically we should be able to model ancient North African populations as a cline geographically and temporally between Africa and the Levant. Meaning there should be shared lineages between North Africa and the Levant and temporally the cline would skew more towards Africa as the source of said clinal relationships the further you go back and as you come forward in time the cline would skew to the Levant as the origin of more lineages but there still would be echoes of the previous lineages mixed in as well and some that may no longer be detectable. Disentangling what was where when is a good exercise in determining the accuracy and validity of genetic modelling based on extant populations, but beyond that this shouldn't be an either or scenario. North Africa and the Nile are historic corridors of migration between Africa and the Mediterranean and vice versa and most people aren't in disagreement with that for the most part. Historical baggage around the population origin of the ancient people of Kemet aside, this really shouldn't be as complex as some folks make it out to be.
. SMH. It is amazing that many members of this group continues to ignore archaeology. There is no "accuracy and validity of genetic modelling" without archaeology because the native populations in these areas have been replaced in the last 3000 years.
If members of this group investigated the archaeology of the Levant, the Caucasus and Mediterranean areas they would see that these areas were colonized by Kushites. Thusly, the so-called Eurasian genes are African genes.
You guys keep waiting for Europeans and their black lackeys to tell the truth about African Phylogeography. It will never happen because if Europeans tell the truth about African Phylogeography they would have no history. SMH
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.
I agree! With every genetic study the "black genetic blogsphere" (greatphrase) comes with these WILD baselss theories that essentially hinge on the racialiszation of haplogroups. It's utterly ridiculous.
Linguistics - Black African languages(Bantu mostly)
Anthropology - A wide range of Black African variability with some having overlapping features with non Africans whom descend from them (gee I wonder why genetics would not say the same thing).
Archaeology - Keita makes it clear that there is NO EVIDENCE of a dynastic race theory, and they were thus indigenous Africans
Genetics - The baby of the group that suffers horribly from coded racialized ideology. Nothing found yet has presented any sort of narrative based on any consistency in results.
Culture - We already know from other threads that the culture was closely related to Bantoid populations.
King Tut was found to be R1b V-88, and the highest concentration of this is found in Central West Africa;
Are there any racial implications of his maternal haplogroup K? Since some of you went right into this notion that these carriers and women of black African descent are mutual exclusive then please provide a phenotype of those people associated with the haplogroup (since that is what you all are low key trying to emphasize), since we can assume that these were not simply black African people living in the neighboring Levant). What I'm getting at is....genetics which has nothing to do with race being inserted into a conversation that has EVERYTHING to do with race is completely asinine.
If a white devaluer were to come and say see the ancient Egyptians were not black, BECAUSE they have this and that haplogroup who is so DUMB that they would allow them to slide with equating race with haplogroups? That's what you want us to fear right? Giving the Devaluers ammo to deny ancient Kemet's blackness?
Anyway what does this haplogroup's identification have to do with the other peer reviewed findings that they were most closely related to Super Saharan Africans?
Like what in the Hell are we arguing here?
In my opinion for what it's worth...there is a conspiracy to switch the goal post to genetics, because the white boys were getting their backs blown out in these debates by black scholars in the 1990's using all of the other forms of evidence. When people on this board completely disregard that white people are obsessed WITH LYING about this particular subject, and take everything that they put out at face value....you have to be complicit in the fukkery! The race of the Kemites is NOT up for debate, so this BIG BANAZA every time some BS is pushed out is an online minstrel show.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we please get BACK on track and focus on addressing the DATA at hand or I'll start taking action. Jesus Christ can people please stay on topic?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.
That's what it comes down to at this point. It's the 2017 playbook all over again.
-------------------- "Nothing hurts a racist more than the absolute truth and a punch to the face" Posts: 101 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2020
| IP: Logged |
King Tut was found to be R1b V-88, and the highest concentration of this is found in Central West Africa;
The new article is in preprint stage , not published yet in a final version, they said R1b but have not yet indicated V88 (and I read the whole things to check)
______________________
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
"It says The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]...
The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55)."
_____________________________
That is three kings,
Amenhotep III
Akhenaten
Tutankhamen
It says R1b but has not yet specified the clade of R1b
Here we have Amenhotep III
and it seems probable that the clade V88 of R1b might be the clade since some of the the Siwa in Egypt carry that clade as well as haplogroup K found in the maternal line of these kings. Note that in Cameroon with some very high frequencies of R1b-V88 the maternal side is L not K as in some of the Siwas
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
'Someone' could take a look at the supplemental.....run some of the V88 STR results through Whit Athey, Nevgen, or other predictors and see if it differentiates "V88" from a generic "R1b".
Again, someone can do it, but not me.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Maybe my approach is an overreaction, but to be honest I don't "want" A.Egypt to be Levantine. I want to see actual contextualizing African aDNA. The idea behind "waiting for the autosomes" was not to turn a blind eye to the STR reports or historical accounts of who these people were, but to address the lack of importance we're giving a putative levantine marker coming out of "Nubia". The point of the matter is almost everything in the last 6 years or so coming out of the region show levantine correspondence. In this case I'm applying the same logic as I would if I found African haplogroups outside of Africa.
At some point in time we'd have to call a spade a spade or at least consider the possibility that the bulk of the ancestry in the region could have been from Outside of Africa. I'd love to be wrong, and I've built cases for the contrary all over the place. But I'd find it unbelievable and somewhat impressive if all these years there's just been an elaborate plot to hide how African, these Africans were in A.Egypt.
I'm sure noone will address the questions I posted above here, but those are some points I need addressed from any perspective. Maybe more meaningful discussion can help me see things differently, but the wait n see approach is not cutting it.
With all due respect, the anxiety induced in the Black genetic blogosphere by the publication of ancient African DNA samples (or even rumors of these publications) linked to the Levant is becoming embarrassing at this point. Let's just throw away and ignore decades of Ancient Egyptian and African scholarship based on Eurocentric analysis of a limited number of ancient DNA samples, by historically illiterate Ancient DNA scientists.
Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem.
Of course you are open to address the questions I asked in the thread earlier, if you think observation of relevant available genetic data not just in A.Egypt is "anxiety".
@Tukuler I find it weird that I have to expand on my points to facilitate responses to open ended questions. I don't think my point should even matter if you have an answer, especially if I'm wrong on the matter. Nonetheless I guess I should clarify, because I'm seeing things about one drop rules to people of the Levant forming Egypt, when none of that is even relevant nor my point.
Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley (in relation to the formation of Kmt). My recurrent stance on the matter was that indigenous (North) African ancestry gradually became more and more obfuscated and hard to detect in more modern humans due to being absorbed by Non-Africans... And also due to us not having good representative samples of Ancient Africans. I believed that Ancient north Africa was on a West-East cline of related (ANA) ancestry, And this ancestry in it's pure form is "extinct," but would look like non-African(SSA) components when observed in extant populations. As a result when we see Nubians scoring ~50% Jordanian_EBA I can hypothesize, that the bulk of that Ancestry is actually indigenous African DNA.
Right now I've arrived at a fork. If a born commoner from upper Egypt happened to carry a Levantine marker by the 18th dynasty, I feel its safe for someone regardless of their biases to inquire about it's commonplace. If thuya's Autosome resembled that of contemporary Nubaians but she carried K1 since way back then, This calls into question how I previously viewed This supposed levantine portion of the Nubian genome. If I was to say that Thuya's K1 is devorced from her actual Levantine ancestry (autosomally) then I'd have to push K1 back a few generations in Egypt. On the flip side, if her K1 is more recent, then her Autosome speaks to that of one who has actual substantial levantine ancestry. The latter will be reflected in many populations who inadvertently show admixture from the near east, such as the Ancient east African pastoralist, who without a doubt SHOULD have egyptian ancestry, The christian nubian samples who should have AEgyptian ancestry, the abusir mummies who should have AEgyptian ancestry, and the contemporary North East African populations.
It's just me making sense of what we have available genetically. This has nothing to do with me wanting anything. And at this point this has nothing to do with the culture or the people responsible for forming A.Egypt. I'm specifically theorizing about the Authenticity and role that ACTUAL near Eastern ancestry played in the region Starting with Thuya. It needs to be addressed.
It certainly is anxiety. The kind of anxiety induced from adopting the shabby approach of the largely White genetic blogosphere, who have declared traditional historical and archaeological data and scholarship as outdated.
What on earth is so remarkable about a royal from the 18th dynasty having a haplogroup that is not typically SSA? Do we not already know that this 18th dynasty mummy is like two generations removed from the Hyksos period?
Are you really arguing that some random K haplogroup from the Bronze Age is better explained by a mass Israeli migration in the neolithic period into the Nile Valley (for which there is not a scrap of evidence) than by the well-documented intermarriage of Asiatics into Egypt from since the end of the Middle Kingdom period to the end of the Second Intermediate period?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic