quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem. [...] 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 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largely White genetic blogosphere, who have declared traditional historical and archaeological data and scholarship as outdated.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?
the issue is well stated... address it. Don't ask me irrelevant questions. I've not the patience.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Chris Rock belongs to B2a1. He is paternally descended from the Uldeme (Ouldeme) people of Cameroon. Interestingly if you look at the above Cruciani only 5% of Ouldeme were not B2a1. The rest were R-V88
But wikipedia also reports
Haplogroup B2a1a1a1 (M109, M152, P32), previously B2a1a is the most commonly observed subclade of haplogroup B.
5% (1/21) to 31% (4/13) of Uldeme males from northern Cameroon,
Haplogroup B2a1a1a1 Y-DNA has been found in 12.5% (5/40) of Sudanese and 2% (2/92) of Egyptians.
In Eurasia, B2a1a1a1 (B-M109) has been found in 3% (3/117) of a sample of Iranians from southern Iran and 2% (2/88) of a sample from Pakistan and India.
(and other places in Africa see wiki hap B Ydna) ______________________________________
another article as they mention 31% B2a1 in Ouldeme but their sample size was significantly lower than the Cruciani
Another group, the Adamawa in Northern Cameroon also carries hap B at 12.5%
The interesting thing about this is again the Siwa who carry R-V88 at 26.9% also carry B2a1 at 28%
but you don't see the mtDNA K in Cameroon but you do in Siwa and with these 18th dynasty kings
[QUOTE] The frequency of R1 among AAs in North America is similar to the frequency of this Y-chromosome in Haiti and Jamaica. Simms(6) observed that R1 clades in the Caribbean can be divided into R+, R1b (M269 ,V88) and RM306 (R (xRla-M20 and R1a-M420). Haitians carry 14.6% M269, and the Jamaicans carry 13.2% of the same clade . In relation to R-V88 Haitians carry 4.9% of the clade and Jamaicans carry 3.8% R-V88.
The frequency of M269 and V88 in the Caribbean and North America, are strikingly similar to those found along the Guinea coast where many AA slaves originated (5, 7).This view is supported by the reality that AA slaves include Hausa, Fula, and other tribal backgrounds that carried R1. Whereas, in Western and Central Africa and beyond we find V88 as the predominant R clade, RM269 is also found in high frequencies (5,7-10).
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Kinda busy right now but no I don't and have no idea where you get me holding this readily provable false view?
quote:'Stro said: Based on your comments I'm guessing you, like me, viewed major Levantine ancestry as more recent to the Nile valley
Huh?
I don't know about major and minor Levantine ancestry. I do know Levantine ancestry expanded upriver over time with constant accrual of newly arrived 'Asiatics' from mid- Holocene times up to tomorrow. That's most recently covered in Ase's threads on the Levantine elements in prehistoric and ancient Egypt where we don't opine and speculate but present actual cultural artifacts.
Clarity and expanding is in order El Maestro. We have to answer people's questions without dismissing them out of hand. Sociology and politics's always been part the game since Napoleon. Can't separate them from the field.
My stance on the peopling of AE since before I got here
'Sudanese' - from Nile and Sahara 'Libyans' - from Med coast and Sahara 'Asiatics' - from Levant
All transdisciplinary evidence available to me at the time indicated so. Nothing since has disconfirmed that.
Clarity and expanding on an idea is why I invite rational questions. In doubt? Just ask what I think. Say I'm wrong or disagree with a posited idea. Just state the idea then comment as you will w/o seeding readers I'm behind something you once believed in but I've been totally against because of the TRANSDISCIPLINARY evidence.
Geographically ancient Egypt's in the Nile Valley not North Africa, the subterfuge transformation now happening to it, and has a history, culture, and language not shared by the Maghreb including Libya.
Also for years trying to make beginners understand the correct way to name a MSY haplogroup is by mutation which is permanent unlike that antiquated alphanumeric chameleon merry-go-round.
=-=
and that's why I'd caution Beyoku & ES, as I did years ago, against the Whit Athey indicator which who knows if it's keeping up to date with the never from year to year consistent alphanumeric system. Is it updated? Can't tell because no release date or version number.
STR prediction of haplogroup is only resorted to for lack of the actual defining SNP mutations.
posted
There is a difference between genetic mixture and a genetic transplant. All populations have genetic mixture to some degree with other populations. That is normal. But a genetic transplant goes way beyond mixture and implies wholesale population replacement. They literally exist on two opposite ends of the spectrum. Again, many AAs have genetic mixture with non Africans going back hundreds of years. Nobody in their right minds would call them Eurasian transplants.
There should be some mixture in the Nile Valley in ancient times. That is not really a debate. The question is whether the mixture at any point in time represents ancient shared ancestry between the Nile and Levant, or specific episodes of migration/interaction from the Levant or wholesale population replacement. The first and second scenario is the most common scenario in Nile Valley history. The last scenario is the one that is being pushed by academia. That last scenario is not even science.
Just randomly inserting Levantine Weavers or Hyksos into the Nile Valley also does not imply population replacement either as opposed to some level of mixture. But again, it is the whole reverse one drop rule where just a few Hyksos or Levantine weavers is enough to signal population replacement/transplantation across the entire Nile Valley. That is the problem I see.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness Why would any of those paternal haplogroups should be linked with K1a? M150 raw most likely precedes the other Haplogroups in the region, M109 was thought of as a bantu marker. The most relevant way to tie B2a1 and V88 demographic history is through the Central Sahara or sahel, where they both could have radiated from at the same time into Egypt and later into the GGP basin and south central Africa, during the aridification of the Sahara.
@Tukuler for clarity my assumption was that you believed A.Egyptians upto the predynastics weren't upwards 50% putative Levantine... (That estimate is assuming continuity in the region.) That's what I was referring to with "major Levantine ancestry", If you believe the opposite then I apologize for making the assumption you didn't. That statement wasn't to set you up to disagree with. I was just prefacing my observation with context. You, dispite being one of two other people with anything meaningful to say (outside of the V88 discussion) haven't said much that I actually disagree with yet.
Also D'Antanasio used targeted NGS, to capture SNPs of R-V88, E-M2, E-M78 and A-M13. We only have access to tuts STR's for comparative purposes. What I can say about V88 is that the individuals who share the most alleles with Tut will also sit at R1b in both calculators (no V88), where as V88 would be estimated at lower confidence than R1b with Nevgen for some other individuals. In all cases there isn't enough coverage.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not prepared to hazard % guesstimates now.
On the QT, that Marsh Man Narmer's holding his lifebreath resembles Asiatics more so than any on that palette. One Asiatic ethny's name is spelled with the marsh glyph. Iconic evidence, debatable as is everything. Still a part less significant when subtracted from the greater than its summed parts whole.
Anyway, the more fleshed out disagreement the more sharpened critical mental blades.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: 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?
Recent research has proven that the Hyksos were native to Lower Egypt. What does "this 18th dynasty mummy is like two generations removed from the Hyksos period?", have to do with this discussion. There is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians and Levant populations changed until the "Sea People" invasion of the Meditteranean after 1400BC. Why are you claiming the so-called Asian and Egyptian populations were different prior to the Sea People?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until some actual DNA from the predynastic, Old Kingdom and New Kingdom populations get sampled and published this "debate" will go on. One camp, the 'academic' camp swears that the ancient flow of populations along the Nile came from North to South in prehistory and therefore is "Levantine" in origin. The other independent camp, sees "Levantine" as a signal of multiple waves of migration both out of Africa as well as later migrations the other way, on top of a dominant base African population which remained in place through the Dynastic era.
I doubt this will be reconciled any time soon because most of it is based on apriori assumptions, ideologies and models versus actual relevant facts (no DNA from 4 to 10,000 years ago).
And beyond the Nile Valley, this applies to Africa as a whole since DNA testing and sampling lags behind the rest of the world, even though Africa is the birthplace of human beings. So the standard is to use statistical models to try and guess the history of various lineages in Africa going back 10 or more thousand years and almost every time they actually get hard aDNA they are proven to be wrong...... But sure, this time maybe it will be different.
quote: Abstract
Genetic diversity across human populations has been shaped by demographic history, making it possible to infer past demographic events from extant genomes. However, demographic inference in the ancient past is difficult, particularly around the out-of-Africa event in the Late Middle Paleolithic, a period of profound importance to our species’ history. Here we present SMCSMC, a Bayesian method for inference of time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates under the coalescent-with-recombination model, to study ancient demographic events. We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages. This event accounts for previously unexplained genetic diversity in African populations, and supports the existence of novel population substructure in the Late Middle Paleolithic. Our results indicate that our species’ demographic history around the out-of-Africa event is more complex than previously appreciated.
Keep in mind the only populations on the planet for the most part 40 thousand years ago were people of African descent in some shape or form..... but hey why spoil the milk with facts?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
This finds that their genetic affinity is almost entirely SSA, which is consistent with their entire family. Does the revelations of their haplogroups render this null and void?
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
If it is V88 and K1a they would have one interesting thing in common. They would both be branches that are more frequent in SSA yet less frequent in North Africa and Europe within haplogroups that are more frequent in North Africa and Europe than SSA.
This is a small sample size because I'm comparing 4% of of 50 Neolithic SSAs to thousands of people sampled in Caucus mts. But still 4% beats 2.2 and the 2.2 didn't have to compete with the family tree.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cranial evidence of Tut implies that he was not entirely "Bantoid" (i.e. "True Negroid in old terminology), but has a distinct indigenous black African component that has been mislabeled as Caucasoid (per the reconstruction of his skull by the Susan lady who was emailed by someone on this forum last decade). Nilotic Africans have been described by Europeans as having "Caucasoid" and even "old European" crania.
We've seen from some DNA analysis (Beyoku can attest from Forum Biodiversity years ago) that Nilotic Africans ALSO have a somewhat intermediate positioning between Africans and non Africans (not just Cushitic East Africans). Per DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.
Not to mention that Tut's family came from the South per their tropical/"Super Negroid" limb proportions.
How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins? Do y'all really understand the established facts that would have to be thrown out, with the black genetic blogsphere's interpretation of "new genetic evidence"? Again only a dumb arse will actually use this information to imply that Tut and his family were anything, but of black African ancestry.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.
DNAtribes was a private DNA testing company. Their matching system was their own not standardized testing methods in scientific journal articles.
How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins?
The Physical Proportions and Living Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs G.Robins, C.C.D.Shute
1983
Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics,
To conform with usual anthropometric practice and with the procedures adopted by Trotter & Gleser (1958)
_________________________________
What they are using is a comparison of "whites" and "blacks" as per this well known 1952 and 1958 articles Trotter and Glesser
A re-evaluation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. M TROTTER, G C GLESER 1958 PMID: 13571400 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330160106
Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes†‡ Mildred Trotter Goldine C. Gleser First published: December 1952
The military persorinel were drawn from American World War I1 casualties in the Pacific zone. The remains were brought by the American Graves Registration Service to Hawaii for preparation for final burial at which time the long bones were measured.
The Terry Skeletal Collection is composed of complete skeletons of American White and Negro cadavers which had been assigned to the medical school for scientific study. The collection is well documented with respect to race, sex and age.... The subjects of the Terry Collection were all complete and of the military personnel, 568 White males and 55 Negro males were complete.
_______________________________________________
The yardstick they are using are limb ratios of of the remains white and black soldiers in World War II. However this does not cover many other types. Only a minority of them are Southern European.
So you cannot look at a collection like this (which has been used over and over again in various studies) and conclude that certain limb ratios are "evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins" although it's probably fair to conclude that the average white American is less similar in limb ratios to Thutmose III but the average black American does have similar limb ratios.
The largest ancestries of American whites are: German (17%), Irish (12%), English (9%), Italian (6%), French (4%), Polish (3%), Scottish (3%), Scotch-Irish (2%), Dutch (2%), Norwegian (2%) and Swedish (1%).
This means less than 6% of American whites are South European
Look at this area, in proximity or similar latitude to North Africa there's the
Levant
Iraq
Iran
Arabian peninsula
Southern Europe
Southern Turkey
I have never been able to find limb ratio data pertaining specifically to these areas and there probably is little or none. These areas don't get mentioned in these limb ratio articles
and does limb ratio = race anyway?
There's is a new article coming out. It is talking about a few of the Amarna kings being R1b but they haven't specified yet which clade and also haplogroup K This is what we are delaing with in the topic. These haplogroups aren't "race" either. We can look at the complexity of these things and not even consider "race". Genetics is bringing an new paradigm. It could still be used in a bad way but it reveals things that don't fit into and older paradigm of looking at things in black and white If you look at reality "black and white" is actually a spectrum that includes everything in between. Look at a region like Arabia for instance "black or white" is too simplistic in may cases to try to fit man of it's people into
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Beyoku Nevgen (web browser) attempts to assign some of them to V88 with lower confidence than general R1b. The desktop/batch version ofcourse, is inferior. Here's is all 154 unique STR calls per population for that study in the correct FTDNA order. Anyone can go to town and copy and paste these.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Nothing is being thrown away... which is exactly the problem. [...] 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 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?
the issue is well stated... address it. Don't ask me irrelevant questions. I've not the patience.
As the Sage said, it really is hard to answer your questions without you properly expanding or elaborating on your ideas.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results. [/QB]
The hp of King Tut is pretty surprising since one would expect him as a member of the native Egyptian dynasty to have the typical hp E1b1b.
Anyway, we definitely need the autosomal DNA to have the full picture. With that, we can't really say much about the ethnicity of Tut, but we’re left to make some educated guesses (and some wishful ones, too). That being said, Tut's mtDNA and Y- DNA are an indication for foreign admixture or ancestry. Hence, If Tut is proven to be R1b-M269 as a Swiss company 9 years ago already predicted, that would be definitely a big surprise.
The hp R1b-M269 and R1a, expanded from the Russian Steppe, along with the Indo-European languages. Hence, even if King Tut doesn’t show detectable autosomal Steppe component that would mean that at some point of time Indo-European folks found their way to Egypt, and were absorbed by the natives there. Besides, the Hyksos have usually been identified as a mixture of peoples, primarily West Semites, but with Indo-Europeans and Hurrians among their leadership. It seems that the genetic impact of the Hyksos on native Egyptians was underestimated.
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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.
Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.
quote: It wasn’t until 1972 that most or all of the photographs of the mummy, including its head, were published in a scholarly study by F. Filce Leek, part of the Griffith Institute’s Tutankhamun’s Tomb monograph series. That included the left profile above, where masking tape was applied to the negative before printing – again, to remove the paintbrush handle.
These different stagings of the head of Tutankhamun’s mummy matter, likewise the way the photographs did or didn’t circulate, or what adaptations were deemed necessary to make them presentable for publication. Clearly, that paintbrush handle was deemed inappropriate in some way in the 1960s – just as in the 1920s and 1930s, when Carter was still writing about the tomb, he must have deemed it inappropriate to show that second set of photographs at all.
And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones (to use the most common terms deployed in late 19th-/early 20th-century archaeology). ‘The face is refined and cultured’, so the Illustrated London News reported in its 3 July 1926 edition, almost certainly closely paraphrasing or directly quoting Carter. Placed underneath the cloth-wrapped left profile (the first photo I showed above), text and picture together made it clear enough to the paper’s middle-class readers that Tutankhamun was an ancient Egyptian of more Arab, Turkish, or even European appearance than sub-saharan African. The mummy’s sunken cheekbones seem high and sharp, and the crushed nose in profile looks high-bridged and narrow.
What really interests me here, though, is what we don’t see, because we still take such photographs, and drawings, and CT-scans, and 3D reconstructions, for granted: images like these have race science at their very heart, going right back to the 18th century.^^ So when I see a photograph like this – and there are thousands of them in the annals of archaeology – I don’t see Tutankhamun, and I certainly don’t see anything refined or cultured about mummified heads. I see the extent to which the doing of race had worked its way into pretty much every corner of archaeology, especially in the archaeology of colonized and contentious lands like Egypt. Why take these photographs? I assume that in 1925, it was inconceivable not to, just as it was inconceivable not to unwrap the mummy, not to take anatomical measurements, and not to detach the head from the body and pry it out of the mask.
quote: The present author has been informed that the R1*-M173 chromosomes in Cameroon appear to be one-step neighbors to those found in the Nile Valley. Perhaps, learning about the distance between Cameroonian R1* lineages and those detected in Omani and Jordanian samples would prove instructive, but at the least, it appears that the Nile Valley corridor played a role in the demic diffusion of R1*-M173. From Flores et al., the present author gets the sense that it is certainly plausible that R1*-M173 bearers diffused from Africa into the Levant via the Nile Valley corridor, likely sometime in the Upper Paleolithic. From Flores et al. we have :
quote:his plausibility [of said northeastern Africa-to-Levantine passage] is suggested by the support provided by the fact that these chromosomes appear relatively more common in Africa, particularly in Cameroon, and other genetic indicators as that provided by the authors above, exemplified by the distribution and frequency pattern of the African-specific G6PD-A allele on the X-chromosomes of Jordanian sampl es in association with that of the distribution and frequency pattern of R1*-M173.
quote: As a matter of note, the A- variant has a much lower intra-allelic diversity than the A+ variant. In any case, each of these markers show clear post-OOA emigration connections between African groups and the Dead Sea community from which Flores et al.'s (2005) sample set came.
quote: Hassan et al. 2008, Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history.
Remarks: The R1-M173 [~ 54%] chromosomes of the Sudanese communities of nomadic Fulani pastoralists, not inconsistent with that found in some west African Fulani [esp. in northern Cameroon], is one area of noteworthy, with regards to Hassan et al.2008. These R1 markers are highly likely those familiar undifferentiated R1*-M173 chromosomes found in Cameroon, and yes, Egypt as well. Of course, as noted in the study, these Sudanese Fulani retain their Niger-congo sub-phylum language.
quote: interestingly, upon revisiting Wood et al. (2005), it should be pointed out that paraphyletic clade of R*-M207 was detected amongst some "Afro-Asiatic" African groups, along with the paraphyletic clade R1*-M173 [it is worth noting that Wood et al. implicate the Egyptian sample here as something other than that of Semitic speakers (Arabic)], while some Niger-Congo groups — though in small frequencies [pooled] — tested positive for the paraphyletic R1b*, lacking the established downstream R1b markers. Henceforth, R*-M207, lacking downstream mutations have been identified in African groups via this study; and yes, the basic nodes of all presently known Hg R's downstream clades had been accounted for, which means that R*, as predicted above, is NOT relegated to the Indian sub-continent. All in all, this suggests that African Hg R pool is actually more diverse than many seem to think.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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.
Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!
If you don't know why I used the term just ask. Otherwise stop pretending to know what you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote: And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.
Show me a scientific source for your claim. The distribution of R1b-M269 in North Africa is puny 0.7%, and in Sub Saharan Africa(Central, West and East Africa) it's 0%.
Face it, R1b-M269 is of Eastern European origin.
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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.
Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!
If you don't know why I used the term just ask. Otherwise stop pretending to know what you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote: And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones
Yes they look like so many of the photos of Ethiopians and Somalis from periods of famine.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, the one-drop rule is a BS construct from the USA. The thing is, that Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with the USA, its history and culture. So you can't apply the USA one drop rule to determine the "blackness" or "whiteness" of ancient Egyptians.
Besides, many years ago I wrote on ES that Egyptians, especially the Copts are more or less the direct descendants of AE. Many here rejected my claim. However, it appears that my assumption is validated by the genetic study on Ancient Egyptians. Anyway, as I already said, we can only speculate about the ethnicity of King Tut and discuss probabilities.
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Also for years trying to make beginners understand the correct way to name a MSY haplogroup is by mutation which is permanent unlike that antiquated alphanumeric chameleon merry-go-round.
I agree. One can also do macrohaplogroup + mutation (e.g. E-V38) or partial longhand + mutation (e.g. E1b-V38). But once the longhands got out of 'hand' (e.g. E1b1b1b2a1a1) I never jumped on that bandwagon.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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.
Are you so desperate to cling on the racist one- drop rule from Jim Crow? The one drop- rule is a joke and was only a USA American thing and fetish. Even the Nazis didn’t have the one drop rule. Grow up please!
If you don't know why I used the term just ask. Otherwise stop pretending to know what you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote: And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones
Yes they look like so many of the photos of Ethiopians and Somalis from periods of famine.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, the one-drop rule is a BS construct from the USA. The thing is, that Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with the USA, its history and culture. So you can't apply the USA one drop rule to determine the "blackness" or "whiteness" of ancient Egyptians.
Besides, many years ago I wrote on ES that Egyptians, especially the Copts are more or less the direct descendants of AE. Many here rejected my claim. However, it appears that my assumption is validated by the genetic study on Ancient Egyptians. Anyway, as I already said, we can only speculate about the ethnicity of King Tut and discuss probabilities.
One drop rule is being used here to say that One Drop of a supposed "Eurasian" Haplogroup does not make the ancient populations in the Nile Valley into Eurasians. You know that and that is why you responded to it. And you also know that Americans and Europeans are the ones behind these papers hyping up so-called Eurasian genes in the ancient Nile Valley as if to say any amount of said genes changes the entire Nile Valley into an extension of Eurasia. Sorry. Stop trolling. You obviously believe this otherwise you wouldn't be here promoting it.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: [QB] R1b-M269 is also in Central Africa and Guinea B.
Stop taking the bait. The new article say R1b and does not indicate clade
I have spent so much time in this thread saying that it is likely R1b-V88 because that is found 26.9% in Siwa Oasis Egypt and the ringer on this is that they also found haplogroup mtDNA K which is also found in Siwa
A small European testing company said that that the DNA of Tut was R1b-M269 based on watching a blurry video in a documentary Why? So they could sell testing kits to Europeans who would think they had the same DNA as Tutankhamen however
R1b1a2 (PF6279/V88; previously R1b1c) is defined by the presence of SNP marker V88, the discovery of which was announced in 2010 by Cruciani et al
___________________________________
But when Reuters picked up on the story of this unofficial release by this company they named the clade R1b1a2
aka R-V88
a clade extremely rare in Europe but abundant in Northern Cameroon but accompanied by myDNA L on the maternal side
However these 18 dynasty mummies
Amenhotep III
Akhenaten
Tutankhamen
in the new article all also carry K like the Siwa do
As for R1b-M269 in Guinea-Bissau that is not prominent there and was probably introduced by Europeans and distant from Egypt I would bet money when that article is goes to the published peer reviewed stage that the clade will be R1b-V88
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:What they left out was that this clade was R1b1a2
They didn't leave anything out. R1b1a2 was R-M269 in the 2000s. It only became associated with V88 later, and is likely to change again to something else. So when iGENEA talks about R1b1a2 in 2010 and say it's R-M269, there is no trickery on their part for not identifying it as R-V88. Using nomenclature that is out of fashion is not trickery or a matter of correct/incorrect. It's just out of fashion.
Why is it so hard for you to understand?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, longhand designations are not identities; it can only be understood what they mean when you know the time of the publication.
quote:What they left out was that this clade was R1b1a2
They didn't leave anything out. R1b1a2 was R-M269 in the 2000s. It only became associated with V88 later, and is likely to change again to something else. So when iGENEA talks about R1b1a2 in 2010 and say it's R-M269, there is no trickery on their part for not identifying it as R-V88. Using nomenclature that is out of fashion is not trickery or a matter of correct/incorrect. It's just out of fashion.
Why is it so hard for you to understand?
2011
In August of 2011 iGENEA said Tut's DNA was M269 and citing R1b1a2
They still say today in 2020 >
"In the current project we search for the closest living relative of Tutankhamuns male lineage in Europe. To take part in the Tutankhamun DNA project order one of the following tests. If your profile matches Tutankhamuns in all 16 markers we refund your payment and you receive a further DNA test as an upgrade for free.
The haplogroup R-M269 arose about 9.500 years ago in the surrounding area of the Black Sea. "
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages Fulvio Cruciani
V88 defines a new monophyletic clade (R-V88 or R1b1a), which includes haplogroups
R-M18 (R1b1a1, formerly R1b1a),
R-V8 (R1b1a2),
R-V35 (R1b1a3, further subdivided by the V7 mutation to R1b1a3* and R1b1a3a), and R-V69 (R1b1a4) (Figure 1). __________________________________________
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.
I agree that Ancient egypt probably has more levantine ancestry than a lot of ppl here would say, but there is still some genetic evidence pointing to strong African affinities, archeological evidence indicating a local origin within north east africa, tons of cranial and skeletal evidence showing african affinities...
don't haplogroups make up a small amount of one's ancestry anyway?
Posts: 163 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King:
DNAtribes King Tut's DNAtribe analysis, his matching with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes (Bantu and Nilotic mixture) were essentially neck and neck.
quote:DNAtribes was a private DNA testing company. Their matching system was their own not standardized testing methods in scientific journal articles.
Yeah, and despite Keita and Gourdine agrees that their method is valid in determining ancestry.
“ Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”
How does his tropical limb proportions line up with the racial assumptions of his maternal haplogroup? Why does their "Middle Eastern" (and presumably non black African ancestry) line up with the fact that his entire family have evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins?
The Physical Proportions and Living Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs G.Robins, C.C.D.Shute
1983
Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics,
To conform with usual anthropometric practice and with the procedures adopted by Trotter & Gleser (1958)
_________________________________
What they are using is a comparison of "whites" and "blacks" as per this well known 1952 and 1958 articles Trotter and Glesser
A re-evaluation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. M TROTTER, G C GLESER 1958 PMID: 13571400 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330160106
Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes†‡ Mildred Trotter Goldine C. Gleser First published: December 1952
The military persorinel were drawn from American World War I1 casualties in the Pacific zone. The remains were brought by the American Graves Registration Service to Hawaii for preparation for final burial at which time the long bones were measured.
The Terry Skeletal Collection is composed of complete skeletons of American White and Negro cadavers which had been assigned to the medical school for scientific study. The collection is well documented with respect to race, sex and age.... The subjects of the Terry Collection were all complete and of the military personnel, 568 White males and 55 Negro males were complete.
_______________________________________________
quote: The yardstick they are using are limb ratios of of the remains white and black soldiers in World War II. However this does not cover many other types. No Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European and only a minority of them are Southern European.
What is in the Hell is a "Levantine". You're trying to assign legitimacy of these labels on these people based on contemporary geographic assumptions! From what we KNOW from anthropological studies these people (non black people on this Earth) in these particular lands (the Levant/Middle East) that they have only been in for less than 5,000 years.
In layman's term the "Levant" was comprised of black people from Africa, with osteological affinities closely tied to "Niger-Congo speaking" populations (per Ricaut). Until around 2,000 BC, white people from God knows where came into area. When they moved into the area they mullatocized the population. We have NEVER been dealing with a pure element in the Levant for this be considered anything but a product of miscegenation today. If these misceginated people have clinal affinities towards one end of their ancestry then another then that needs to be discerned. Now if you want to put that into historical context then do, so (even though it's already been done).
quote: So you cannot look at a collection like this (which has been used over and over again in various studies) and conclude that certain limb ratios are "evolutionary traits exclusive to people of tropical origins" although it's probably fair to conclude that the average white American is less similar in limb ratios to Thutmose III but the average black American does have similar limb ratios.
Yes I can for the reasons noted! You're talking as though you are not aware of the countless other limb proportion studies on the matter? Has Robin Shutes 83's "Super Negroid Body Plan" finding not been validated for the next three decades? You're trying to isolate this study as some anomaly that cannot be compared to other examinations of the same type. This study was cited because it deals with King Tut's FAMILY. Does King Tut's family differ in designation more or less so then the "general" population of ancient Kemet sampled in Robin and Shutes or all of the other examinations.
What you're doing is so disingenuous, and it makes me think of all kinds of reasons as to why you're being disingenuous.
quote: The largest ancestries of American whites are: German (17%), Irish (12%), English (9%), Italian (6%), French (4%), Polish (3%), Scottish (3%), Scotch-Irish (2%), Dutch (2%), Norwegian (2%) and Swedish (1%).
This means less than 6% of American whites are South European
I have never been able to find limb ratio data pertaining specifically to these areas and there probably is little or none.
If it takes 15,000 years to adjust to a new environment (per Keita)...... WHO IN THE HELL I THE AREAS THAT YOU LISTED HAVE BEEN IN THE MEDITERRANEA 15,000 YEARS????? You keep trying to make these populations in areas where there have been known population replacements and absorptions as model populations that would have their own distinct genetic clusters in Tishkoff 2009.
You're playing a game!
quote: and does limb ratio = race anyway?
Never made that argument, but they DO entail the phenotype. There is a correlation between tropically adapted humans and skin color intensification per Brace 1993.
The point of me bringing up limb proportions of Tut's family, was to NULLIFY any notion of his maternal haplogroup having any bearing on his race and or physical appearance. The biological evidence makes it clear that he and his family were a form of black Africans. It is my conjecture from various forms of evidence that he has substantial Nilotic/Chadic ancestry.
quote: These haplogroups aren't "race" either. We can look at the complexity of these things and not even consider "race". Genetics is bringing an new paradigm. It could still be used in a bad way but it reveals things that don't fit into and older paradigm of looking at things in black and white
Now you can tell US that, but we all know what these white boys do with these results over on more heavily trafficked forums with their racial implications. We see that that shit from those forums will leak into the mainstream (i.e. Joe Rogan). Everything has to be checked with dealing with devaluers.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Yes, that is what you have to do. Use ISOGG and work with convention in mind.
What that means, is that when you talk about R1b1a2 and relate it to V88, you have to avoid creating the impression that V88 has always been and will be linked to R1b1a2, and that iGENEA are pulling a fast one for not realizing this.
Don't get it mistaken. When wiki says V88 is R1b1a2, it's also just provisional. Do not think that because you benefit from a more updated R1b tree, that R-V88 = R1b1a2 is settled and that it's only iGENEA that is behind. This is also why I say it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. A lot is subject to change even today, and no one is going to go back to their old posts and update dated haplogroup nomenclature.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yes, that is what you have to do. Use ISOGG and work with convention in mind.
What that means, is that when you talk about R1b1a2 and relate it to V88, you have to avoid creating the impression that V88 has always been and will be linked to R1b1a2, and that iGENEA are pulling a fast one for not realizing this.
Don't get it mistaken. When wiki says V88 is R1b1a2, it's also just provisional. Do not think that because you benefit from a more updated R1b tree, that R-V88 = R1b1a2 is settled and that it's only iGENEA that is behind. This is also why I say it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. A lot is subject to change even today, and no one is going to go back to their old posts and update dated haplogroup nomenclature.
what do you think of in 2020 iGENEA saying Tutankhamun's DNA is M269?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Yes, that is what you have to do. Use ISOGG and work with convention in mind.
What that means, is that when you talk about R1b1a2 and relate it to V88, you have to avoid creating the impression that V88 has always been and will be linked to R1b1a2, and that iGENEA are pulling a fast one for not realizing this.
Don't get it mistaken. When wiki says V88 is R1b1a2, it's also just provisional. Do not think that because you benefit from a more updated R1b tree, that R-V88 = R1b1a2 is settled and that it's only iGENEA that is behind. This is also why I say it's not a matter of correct or incorrect. A lot is subject to change even today, and no one is going to go back to their old posts and update dated haplogroup nomenclature.
what do you think of in 2020 iGENEA saying Tutankhamun's DNA is M269?
I did not ask for a political map! I was referring to a genetic entity that is "Levantine". Why were "Levantines" nor contemporary North Africans for that matter not represented as having their own unique genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009? Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination, and nothing more. Why would we use misceginated people as a yard stick of biological affinity?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European
quote:False< Levantines are not primarily Western European
You are quoting and refuting YOURSELF. Please pay attention.
quote: and one of their signature haplogroups is YDNA J believed to have originated 42,900 years ago
Who is "their"? The same haplogroup J that comprises at least 40% of the Bantu Lemba in Southern Africa? Whose signature is it then?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
You're talking as though you are not aware of the countless other limb proportion studies on the matter?
quote:Stop trying to bluff me. Let us know when you find any data on limb proportions of any of the following
Levant
Iraq
Iran
Arabian peninsula
Southern Europe
Southern Turkey
They are not a yardstick populations, so using them would be useless. The ancient Kemites including King Tut's family overlapped with the Africans polarity NOT the cold adapted white boys nor the "spicy whites" of the adjacent regions.
That being said....Again his family came from the Tropics, and thus could not have been the result of cold or intermediately plotted "Asiatic" concubines.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
I did not ask for a political map! I was referring to a genetic entity that is "Levantine". Why were "Levantines" nor contemporary North Africans for that matter not represented as having their own unique genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009? Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination, and nothing more. Why would we use misceginated people as a yard stick of biological affinity?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European
quote:False< Levantines are not primarily Western European
You are quoting and refuting YOURSELF. Please pay attention.
No I'm quoting you who say Levantines are primarily Western European and pointing out that is wrong, Levantines are not primarily Western European. The predominant clade in the Levant is haplogroup J and no geneticist says Levantines are primarily Western European. That haplogroup has been in that region at high diversity to over 40,000 yeas and is still carried by people there.
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination
Miscegenation is an obsolete racist term. I we look at peoples who have lived near to the equator they are generally darker than people who have lived for long periods further from the equator. This means that while some people who are in between darkest and lightest brown are mixed others of the same color are not mixed, they are simply people who live in countries like countries north of Africa yet not that far North and again the places I am talking about is not only the Levant>
Levant
Iraq
Iran
Arabian peninsula
Southern Europe
Southern Turkey
India and some other places could be added. These are places not represented in limb ratios studies. A lot of science articles use the same specimens over and over again and you will discover this if you look at where the samples come from, for instance many studies use the Terry collection and those are a collection many of medical research acquired remains from 19th century people in St. Louis Missouri
Some brown skinned people are mixed others are not unless you believe in multi-regionalism
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
The ancient Kemites including King Tut's family overlapped with the Africans nor the "spicy whites" of the adjacent regions.
That being said....Again his family came from the Tropics, and thus could not have been the result of cold or intermediately plotted "Asiatic" concubines.
More racists talk of concubines, you must be an adherent of multi-regionalism
As per limb ratios in the new article the limb ratios of people in this map have not been compared in studies all that can be said is that limb ratios of of white Americans are not in their range however genetically they are R1b as re these kings
three kings,
Amenhotep III
Akhenaten
Tutankhamen
and
Thuya
KV35 Elder lady
Queen Tiye
KV35 Younger lady
he maternal lineage, the mitochondrial 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 |
I did not ask for a political map! I was referring to a genetic entity that is "Levantine". Why were "Levantines" nor contemporary North Africans for that matter not represented as having their own unique genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009? Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination, and nothing more. Why would we use misceginated people as a yard stick of biological affinity?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Levantines and white Americans are primarily Western European
quote:False< Levantines are not primarily Western European
You are quoting and refuting YOURSELF. Please pay attention.
No I'm quoting you who say Levantines are primarily Western European and pointing out that is wrong, Levantines are not primarily Western European. The predominant clade in the Levant is haplogroup J and no geneticist says Levantines are primarily Western European. That haplogroup has been in that region at high diversity to over 40,000 yeas and is still carried by people there.
No where did I say that the peoples of the Levant descend from Western Europeans, Lioness. You quoted yourself by mistake, and refuting your own silliness. Then from that you built up a staw man to knock down. Silly ish!
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Like I said....that entire region is the result of miscegination
quote: Miscegenation is an obsolete racist term. I we look at peoples who have lived near to the equator they are generally darker than people who have lived for long periods further from the equator.
Proximity to the equator is a theory of skin pigment gradient. The heavily pigmented Eskimos, and the black skinned Native Americans of the West Coast do not live in nor are they adapted to the "Tropics", but their skin is still black.
quote: This means that while some people who are in between darkest and lightest brown are mixed others of the same color are not mixed, they are simply people who live in countries like countries north of Africa yet not that far North and again the places I am talking about is not only the Levant
That is nothing more than complete assumption, based on the contemporary situation. A complete lack of thought went into your response. Who are these INDIGENOUS people to these regions? You say look at the tawny skinned people in North Africa, as though the last 2,500 0f years of white European incursion has not left an imprint on the genotype and phenotype. The proof in this fact again is the North Africa and the Levant did NOT have their own genetic cluster in Tishkoff 2009. The Northwest African sample was instead found to be nothing more than a mixture of various African and non African ancestries. It's such common sense.
You cannot be non black AND indigenous to Africa. What type of revisionist PC white liberal all inclusive, fairy tale BS is that? These misceginated people are nothing more than invaders both physically and mentally. Modern Egyptians refer to other people on the continent distinctly as Africans, because they KNOW that they have no true lie to the ancient legacy of the land that they stand.
quote:India and some other places could be added. These are places not represented in limb ratios studies.
Indians? Historical context is NOT your strong point is it? So Northern India and Pakistan was not originally Afro-Dravidian, and it was not invaded by the Aryans from the Caucus around 1,400 -1,200 BC? Did the invasion of the genetically recessive populations not bring about a phenotype nand genotype change in the once blue black Indus Valley inhabitants? Why would you ignore this to make it seem like the intermediate colored Indians are not differentiated from their darker brethren because of their misceginated blood with the Aryans? You keep trying to make mixed people a legitimate litmus test for biological affinity.
quote: A lot of science articles use the same specimens over and over again
Ok and most "science articles" (ran by white people) tell us that Bantu's came from Cameroon. Now given all of what know and have BEEM knowing about the history of West Africa, do you honestly believe that sh*t to be true?
That being said these people lie for racist reasons, and their black peers will tell you that. Do you need examples? I don't take their standards as gospel, and for good reason.
quote: Some brown skinned people are mixed others are not unless you believe in multi-regionalism
Silly arse labels....for what?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
The ancient Kemites including King Tut's family overlapped with the Africans nor the "spicy whites" of the adjacent regions.
That being said....Again his family came from the Tropics, and thus could not have been the result of cold or intermediately plotted "Asiatic" concubines.
quote:More racists talk of concubines, you must be an adherent of multi-regionalism
For one I am not nor am I in a position to be a racist, so stop that. Somebody in this thread implied that the haplogroup K maternal lineage indicated that King Tut was the product of Asiatic wives/concubines. If the "Asiatic" label is racialized to mean non black, then the biological affinities of King Tut's entire family per limb proportions refute that nonsense.
quote: As per limb ratios in the new article the limb ratios of people in this map have not been compared in studies
For reasons already explained about those populations in that map, your implications are baseless.
quote: all that can be said is that limb ratios of of white Americans are not in their range however genetically they are R1b as re these kings
Why in the Hell are you going clear across the Mediterranean to Western Europeans for the relation of R1b, when we find that the HIGHEST FREQUENCY of R1b ON EARTH in currently in Sub Saharan West-Central Africa?
You know what's interesting about this finding.....Dr. Clyde Winters has often stated that R1b in the Native Americans (whom many were migrating Africans from Hapi Valley civilization) CAME FROM West African V88. That is interesting. Now this finding that King Tut is R1b (in all likelihood V88) becomes interesting as it pertains to the Americas, and here's why;
" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US). Perhaps the R1b (presumably V88) in Tut was one of the primary African lineages that left the Hapi Valley following pale Eurasian incursion of the 6th century BC.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).
this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139
this isht
is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
" Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans .
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).
this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139
this isht
is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son
But it's NOT...see:
" “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”
FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt
Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.
Anyway yeah. That remnants in the "Native Americans" (which Foundational Black Americans are actually) is that shared V88 that also runs through our veins (including Tut).
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139
this isht
is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
But it's NOT...see:
" “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”
FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt
Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.
Anyway yeah. That remnants in the "Native Americans" (which Foundational Black Americans are actually) is that shared V88 that also runs through our veins (including Tut). [/QB]
please stop wasting my time with terrible research skills. You have a quote about Ramesses III having the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a. That comes from a Zahi Hawass article published in a medical journal BMJ and employing a team of biologists and geneticist.
That has nothing to do with the bogus DNA Consultants page that says a BS "King Tut Gene">>
"Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews."
^^this has nothing to do with E1b1a or Tutankhamun
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt[/i]
Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.
Again, poor research skills Gourdine and Keita list their references at the bottom of the page. DNA Consultants and DNA Tribes are not listed. Their table is derived from the Hawass article and it says so right next to the table they made. DNA tribes and their articles no longer even exist while research articles in peer reviewed medical journals last forever if published. And DNA Consultants are a lot more lacking than DNA Tribes. Academics like Gourdine and Keita will not reference or use private testing companies claims, companies who do not use standard testing methods and don't detail the methods they do use. That is essential in scientifically credible research so that other researchers can replicate the method to verify if they get the same result
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
quote:
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
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.
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
I should have noticed this when I first looked at the OP, the key article for the genetic analysis in this article appears to be another article which is not available yet in preprint or any form (mentioned at the end of the above)
Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.(Gad et al., 2020)
In Kamrin et al. (eds.) 'Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass', Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt[/i]
Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.
Again, poor research skills Gourdine and Keita list their references at the bottom of the page. DNA Consultants and DNA Tribes are not listed. Their table is derived from the Hawass article and it says so right next to the table they made. DNA tribes and their articles no longer even exist while research articles in peer reviewed medical journals last forever if published. And DNA Consultants are a lot more lacking than DNA Tribes. Academics like Gourdine and Keita will not reference or use private testing companies claims, companies who do not use standard testing methods and don't detail the methods they do use. That is essential in scientifically credible research so that other researchers can replicate the method to verify if they get the same result
Like I SAID I KNOW PERSONALLY WHAT KEITA BASED HIS APPROACH ON THIS STUDY ON. Why do you think they used the A SIMILAR TABLE FORMAT AND THE SAME SPECIMENS AS DNATRIBES. Keita even mentioned this in his interview Ausar Imhotep silly.
DNAtribes was GROUNDBREAKING, BECAUSE IT TOLD THE TRUTH. That's WHY the owner wound up DEAD shortly after he published those GROUNDBREAKING findings. He completely upset the Western conspiracy to hide to Bantu origin and connection of ancient Kemet.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
Putting these pieces together, it's lending credence to the argument that many of the Kemites came to the Americas (hence US).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
this is complete nonsense from yet another for profit private testing company and at the bottom of the page selling "Rare Genes from History Test" for $139
this isht
is a joke "The King Tut Gene", come on son
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
But it's NOT...see:
" “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”
FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt
Keita is directly talking DNAconsultant and DNAtribes.....TRUST ME I KNOW! That's why their own analysis is so heavily modeled after DNAtribes. The table is almost identical lol.
Anyway yeah. That remnants in the "Native Americans" (which Foundational Black Americans are actually) is that shared V88 that also runs through our veins (including Tut).
please stop wasting my time with terrible research skills. You have a quote about Ramesses III having the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a. That comes from a Zahi Hawass article published in a medical journal BMJ and employing a team of biologists and geneticist.
Ok so...the point of referencing Keita and Gourdine is that they acknowledge that the same method that DNAtribes and DNAconsultant uses to produce their results is reliable".
Did you somehow miss where Keita and Gourdine VERIFIED the results of those commercial genetic companies? Did you miss that Lioness? What basis do you have to dismiss them, because they are not "peer reviewed"... that is furking logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Saying "it's not peer reviewed so it's wrong" is NONSENSE.
quote: That has nothing to do with the bogus DNA Consultants page that says a BS "King Tut Gene">>
Lioness you seem so "angry". How DARE this company relate Foundational Black Americans to ancient Kemet....."HOW DARE THEY". Go sit down. It's been verified by published research that the "Sub Saharan African" affinity of everyone of those specimens in DNAconsultant is a fact, so what in the Hell are you crying about?
quote:"Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews."
^^this has nothing to do with E1b1a or Tutankhamun
It has to do with R1B V88(confidently so) that King Tut is found to be. The R1b is of black African origin, and finds it's peak in "Sub Saharan West Central Africa" NOT Europe. It's also found in "Native Americans", and the Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants stemming from a migratory event following the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization. That R1b in the "Native Americans" is remnant of that African gene that Tut belonged to, and FBA's are chalk full of (falsely calling it European).
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Also African in its ultimate source, the King Tut Gene finds modest distribution in East Coast American Indians, the Himalayas, Northeast Europe and scattered other populations, including Jews.
2) therefore if you guess it's V88 then when they say:
"distribution in ⁍East Coast American Indians, ⁍the Himalayas, ⁍Northeast Europe and scattered other populations including Jews."
then you would first have to see if this distribution fits R1b-V88
I can tell you now if it fits or not but this is step one on what you should be doing to check it and you're not doing it and wasting everybody's time . You have not looked up R-V88 distribution so you don't know what you are talking about
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: and finds it's peak in "Sub Saharan West Central Africa" NOT Europe. It's also found in "Native Americans"
R1b-V88 peaks in Cameroon
Some Sardinians carry R1b-V88 but the most common paternal haplogroup in Europe is R1b-M269
Native Americans do not carry R1b-V88
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: the Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants
you made this up?
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Native Americans especially on the East coast (and West coast and Southeast) were long settled black African migrants stemming from a migratory event following the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization.
what was the time period of the destruction of Hapi Valley civilization of which you make this fantastical claim that migrant Africans of this civilization went to the Americas? When was this?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study BMJ 2012; 345 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 (Published 17 December 2012)
Zahi Hawass, Albert R Zink, et al.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.
That is stretching based on limited facts. Lower Egypt was not always "Asiatic" oriented. And the nation was split for many reasons, not simply because of Levantine migrations. And again, the numerous restorations of the culture came from the South, aka the Deep South and along with that came waves of Southern migration.
The point is data point about Haplogroup K is intended to push a narrative that the Nile Valley was overrun by Levantine migrants even before the rise of the Nation state and hence not genetically African. But it is a data point because it is one piece of data in isolation and not combined with any comprehensive DNA analysis from before or after. So it is meaningless without a full context. And that does not even include that the specific K lineage is African in origin or was introduced a few generations before Tiye was born. Meaning it doesn't make her "Levantine" as if she had direct kin she was visiting and in touch with in the Levant. As opposed to all the facts we know about the people of the Dynastic era preferring rulers of SOuthern origin and intermarriage to keep that bloodline distinct.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
quote:
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. Mousa1,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
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]
For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece: (2020) Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.
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.
in King Tutankhamun’s family. Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press). In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M., Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.)
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.
what we have here is an article based on another article called
(2020) Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family.
the authors of this article are Egyptians from Egyptian institutions primary author Yehia Z. Gad.
_______________________________________
Gad was also an author of the well known 2012 article:
Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study BMJ 2012; Zahi Hawass, egyptologist1, Somaia Ismail, professor of molecular biology23, Ashraf Selim, professor of radiology4, Sahar N Saleem, professor of radiology4, Dina Fathalla, molecular biologist3, Sally Wasef, molecular biologist5, Ahmed Z Gad, molecular biologist3, Rama Saad, molecular biologist3, Suzan Fares, molecular biologist3, Hany Amer, assistant professor of pharmacology6, Paul Gostner, radiologist7, Yehia Z Gad, professor of molecular genetics2, Carsten M Pusch, molecular biologist8, Albert R Zink, paleopathologist9
Design Anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study of the mummies of Ramesses III and unknown man E, found together and taken from the 20th dynasty of ancient Egypt (circa 1190-1070 BC).
Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a.
_______________________________________
Since Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun are listed in this 2012 table as 93.7& and 98.9% Sub Saharan does that mean that affiliator was saying R1b-V88 is SSA ?
Also look at KV35El that is Elder Lady believed to be Queen Tiye That says SSA 71.9% , Eurasian (EA) 21.8%
and how would that be deriving from a person of haplogroup K in the upcoming article in 2020?
Somebody please explain to me how this is going to work because all this is Hawass team research 2012 and 2020, Yehia Z Gad et al. I don't see consistency between what they said in 2012 and this new R1b and K designation
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
First let's get this out the way ... PERMANENTLY. Autosomal STRs can't tell MSY nor mtDNA haplogroups. Only SNPs correctly assign haplogroup by mutational markers. Y chromosomal STRs estimate haplogroups by inference of occurences. Rarely do Y STR profiles point to only one clade or haplogroup in a clade.
Unlike Amarna autosomes, Ramses&Man DYS chromosomes can predict nrY haplogroups.
=-=
Why popAffiliator isn't so good for Amarnas and what STaRs are so good for as in popSTR.
This is an illustrative redux of Gourdine Keita Gourdine Anselin (2017)'s Armarna table by parents and children.
Here popAffiliator yields three geographic bins which are erringly labeled ethnic groups. On top of that there are Eurasia and Asia categories. Eurasia by definition is the continental landmass broken down into Europe and Asia. Are the Arabian Peninsula and the Caucasus included in Asia or Eurasia and why? Also where does Africa that's not SSA go? Asia or Eurasia? Too many vagaries with pA 1.
Couple #1 Thuya and Yuya made KV35EL (the elder lady Tiye).
Both parents are listed at above 93% SSA. But the child is just ~72% SSA.
The parents are < 7% EA. Their child a whopping ~22% EA
Where parents are practically 0% A what issues from them is at ~6% A 22% of Thuya & Yuya's SSA became an added 16% EA and 6% A in Tiye
How can Queen Tiye be less SSA than her mom and dad? How can her 'Eurasian' affiliation be 20X Thuya's and Yuya's? How can she have Asian affiliation when her mom and dad don't?
The answers of course are she isn't and doesn't. popAffiliator is a lazy man's way for amateurs.
popSTR lists frequencies by individual ethnic groups. There are research articles, papers, and letters that report forensic STR values for ethnicities in regions. No easy way to check a profile's affiliations using those sets of data. It's hard manual work to compare and note a particular STR allele count and match it up with [a] corresponding ethnic group[s]. Few STRs are specific. Frequencies showing up in ethnic groups of regions at higher rates helps determine a test sample's affinities.
Noting ethnicity revealing STR frequencies --forensic application-- is much deeper than simple three poorly defined meta regions. STR freq tables for individual ethnic groups can tell precise components, no vague and precision useless broad continental affinities and affiliations where Europe, Asia, and Africa combine to some unstated extent while Africa is sundered with ~1/3rd of her peoples subsumed elsewhere than SSA.
Professionals should compile tables of their own that pinpoint specific ethnicities where indicated instead of basing Amarna/Ramses critique on a tool even a child can use.
Using popSTR and other specific ethnic/location tables I have shown the affinites of Amarnas/Ramses down to their current ethnic frequencies. Why haven't the pros? I'd be glad to present algorithms for coders whenever ready. Also application integration of pgms, DBs, and user interfaces.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Lookit Thuya and her dauughter Tiye's raw STRs and pA 1 probabilities.
Just one look dispells anything like a notion of some generationally passed down "Thuya gene" STR profile. That's that ... non-science Madison Ave Madmen ad bait patter.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: [qb] They had centuries of immigration from western Asia that were so great and influential that it eventually divided Egypt. A division that Egypt (by the time she was born) only recently recovered from. People are confused as to where it could have came from? And before that there was more than a millennia of mixing with the descendants of predynastic Lower Egyptians that might've also been a source of it. I can't say that a haplogroup indicates degrees of ancestry, but even if she was largely or mostly related to Levanites there are so many other explanations possible.
That is stretching based on limited facts. Lower Egypt was not always "Asiatic" oriented.
quote: And the nation was split for many reasons, not simply because of Levantine migrations.
Nobody said there was one reason for the split, but heavy Asiatic immigration was certainly one of them.
quote: And again, the numerous restorations of the culture came from the South, aka the Deep South and along with that came waves of Southern migration.
Doesn't change a thing I said, but okay.
quote:The point is data point about Haplogroup K is intended to push a narrative that the Nile Valley was overrun by Levantine migrants even before the rise of the Nation state and hence not genetically African.
Even so, if indigenous deep southerners were the dominant culture, whether or not the Nile Delta and northern Valley was overrun with Levantine peoples is largely irrelevant to discussing Egypt as being originally African or as Black (which is more or less an issue involving their physical appearance).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic