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).
I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information. Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic. So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| 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 Rain King: It has to do with R1B V88(confidently so) that King Tut is found to be.
Again more terrible research.
quote: 1) Your source DNA Consultantes who sell tetsing kits to see if your DNA matches Tutankhamun https://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene/ says nothing about R1b-V88
You keep trying to take away from the legitimacy of the of the findings by mentioning that it's a commercial company. Go sit down with that juvenile logical fallacy.
I've already relayed the context as to why I say that it's V88 (it's African..), rather than the European version. The African V88 is extremely understudied, and we know why. Dr. Winters throughout the years has juggled you all up and down on the furkery regarding R1b in Africa and the Americas.
quote: 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
Again we know that it's understudied.
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
quote: Native Americans do not carry R1b-V88
From what has been published, but a decade ago when R1b was found in Cameroon it shifted the Eurocentric hegemony of the haplogroup. That stems back to my original point in posting in this thread. Genetic research is NEW AND HIGHLY VARIABLE. The research is just beginning. You cannot make any solid conclusions based solely on it. None the less the data is the data
We have two independent genetic sources implying that a relationship exist between the Amarna pharaohs and so called "Native Americans". It's kind of heavy that an affinity in the same region as the Olmec civilization's center exist. Is this all an accident Lioness or is this worth investigating in your eyes?
Is this fake new Lioness, OR is there a Western conspiracy to hide this connection?
quote:
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?
No I did not Lioness. There have been entire three plus page threads showcasing the black Native Americans on this forums. Why are you playing dumb?
quote:
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?
The original settlement of the Olmec civilization coincides in time with the centuries long Hyskos incursion into Northern Kemet. If someone were to ask what triggered a migration of Africans into the Americas, well the first non African invasion of the continent would definitely make sense. These people likely sailed over to West Africa (which is around the time that the Nok empire is also formed), and from there on into the Americas. Notice how the times of political disturbances in Hapi Valley civilization correlate with a new phase of civilization in other regions of the World. During for example the time of the 25th dynasty we see the earliest formation of the Zapotec empire, which was essentially an extension of the Olmecs. The civilization proper formed during the 6th century BC, which correlates with the time of the destruction of Kemet and subsequent migrations of it's inhabitants.
Is it a coincidence.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information.
The Egyptians said that Egypt north of Cusae was Asiatic, they didn't even consider them the same Egypt. In the absence of the genetic data, it is not unreasonable for people to consider the words of the Egyptian people. And so far what genetic evidence we do have isn't refuting what Egyptian leadership have said about the issue of immigration.
quote:Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic.
Even if it was, the academics are focused on northern Egypt or involving time periods where northerners had time to mix with many southerners to put out data about Egypt's origins. It only becomes an issue when they perpetuate the LIE that the north was equally responsible to Nile Valley culture. So they'll say "Oh no Egypt had a cline of races or mixture" without making it clear that the dominant culture was produced towards the south. Yeah there were Levanites in northern Egypt well before the predynastic. But they were culturally distinct from the south and assimilated for a better life. They weren't responsible for the culture, "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians were. I'm tired of this attitude that we have to achieve a higher standard or "proof." Many of the strongest white nations in the world today began as colonies and have from the start had plenty of non whites. Sometimes these countries would even be overwhelmingly non-white. If people don't take seriously calling them Aboriginal, Native, mixed or non white nations due to differences in power, why the hell do I have to care whether or not there were loads of Levanites in the Delta or northern valley that assimilated to Southern culture? I'm not going to be forced to care about such nonsense as it's conceding to a ridiculous double standard.
quote: So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.
They've already confessed it was an African culture though and physically they were a Black people. In fact, their culture extended into Sudan which is called "Nubia" for the specific intent to obscure the common cultural continuity that was found within Sub Saharan Africa all the way into southern Egypt. They were a Black people practicing African culture regardless of what their DNA said. I don't care if these researchers try to argue they were closely related to martians or whatever else they'll pull out their ass. Ignoring Blacks OUTSIDE Africa, "African DNA" is so diverse that the distances exceed those between other races. There are Sub Saharan Africans that are closer genetically to non Africans than to other groups of Sub Saharan Africans. This idea that "African DNA" can subtly be discussed as this genetic racial phenomenon is nonsense. Lately the racialists are trying to associate races with specific continents, but the genetic distances between the people they've said are Blacks globally and in Africa just don't support this. Even strictly considering SSA: There is no VALUE in trying to discuss such a high level of human diversity in such monolithic ways without the motive of race. Why else would anyone be trying to cluster human DNA in a way that just so happens to be along a modern geopolitical construct? What are the odds it's coincidental it is still happening when the distances do NOT fit neatly with such ideas? If WE know race doesn't exist genetically, people need to stop giving legitimacy to racialist psuedoscience and reject their "genetic" discussions. SSA is not a proper genetic (racial) monolith, and there is no reason to compare SSA against non Africans unless race is the subject at play. And honestly phenotype informs who is what race, not genotype. What racialists are trying to do skew genetic data or pretend race operates in a certain way it doesn't for the purposes of making their opinions of phenotype seem valid genetically. I refuse to sweat such stupidity.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information.
The Egyptians said that Egypt north of Cusae was Asiatic, they didn't even consider them the same Egypt. In the absence of the genetic data, it is not unreasonable for people to consider the words of the Egyptian people. And so far what genetic evidence we do have isn't refuting what Egyptian leadership have said about the issue of immigration.
quote:Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic.
As I said before, there are no hard facts to say for sure that Northern Egypt was "overrun" with Asiatics during the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom. This is purely speculation. It isn't "objective" because there are no hard facts to confirm it. And if you are going to go by what the people of Kemet said, they said they associated their culture and the renewal of that culture with Southerners. And as we see from the evidence in their culture the renewal of the Old Kingdom came from Southerners in the Middle Kingdom and the renewal of the New Kingdom again came from Southerners. In fact the Southern border of the nation was extended all the way to Kush and therefore, there would have been plenty of Southerners flowing North.
So again, the issue is those who WANT the ancient nation of Kemet to be unlike any other ancient empire which respected their roots and origins and did not blindly accept any old groups into the fold as being part of the core of the culture. All ancient cultures had multiple nationalities and ethnic groups, but none of them are claimed to be melting pots as much as some push for Kemet. Kemet was no more of a melting pot than Rome or Greece or Persia, all of which were empires and all of which had lands far from home with various ethnic groups. Yet they still honored and respected their roots as a culture no matter how much "diversity" there was in the empire.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Even if it was, the academics are focused on northern Egypt or involving time periods where northerners had time to mix with many southerners to put out data about Egypt's origins. It only becomes an issue when they perpetuate the LIE that the north was equally responsible to Nile Valley culture. So they'll say "Oh no Egypt had a cline of races or mixture" without making it clear that the dominant culture was produced towards the south. Yeah there were Levanites in northern Egypt well before the predynastic. But they were culturally distinct from the south and assimilated for a better life. They weren't responsible for the culture, "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians were. I'm tired of this attitude that we have to achieve a higher standard or "proof." Many of the strongest white nations in the world today began as colonies and have from the start had plenty of non whites. Sometimes these countries would even be overwhelmingly non-white. If people don't take seriously calling them Aboriginal, Native, mixed or non white nations due to differences in power, why the hell do I have to care whether or not there were loads of Levanites in the Delta or northern valley that assimilated to Southern culture? I'm not going to be forced to care about such nonsense as it's conceding to a ridiculous double standard.
quote: So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.
They've already confessed it was an African culture though and physically they were a Black people. In fact, their culture extended into Sudan which is called "Nubia" for the specific intent to obscure the common cultural continuity that was found within Sub Saharan Africa all the way into southern Egypt. They were a Black people practicing African culture regardless of what their DNA said. I don't care if these researchers try to argue they were closely related to martians or whatever else they'll pull out their ass. Ignoring Blacks OUTSIDE Africa, "African DNA" is so diverse that the distances exceed those between other races. There are Sub Saharan Africans that are closer genetically to non Africans than to other groups of Sub Saharan Africans. This idea that "African DNA" can subtly be discussed as this genetic racial phenomenon is nonsense. Lately the racialists are trying to associate races with specific continents, but the genetic distances between the people they've said are Blacks globally and in Africa just don't support this. Even strictly considering SSA: There is no VALUE in trying to discuss such a high level of human diversity in such monolithic ways without the motive of race. Why else would anyone be trying to cluster human DNA in a way that just so happens to be along a modern geopolitical construct? What are the odds it's coincidental it is still happening when the distances do NOT fit neatly with such ideas? If WE know race doesn't exist genetically, people need to stop giving legitimacy to racialist psuedoscience and reject their "genetic" discussions. SSA is not a proper genetic (racial) monolith, and there is no reason to compare SSA against non Africans unless race is the subject at play. And honestly phenotype informs who is what race, not genotype. What racialists are trying to do skew genetic data or pretend race operates in a certain way it doesn't for the purposes of making their opinions of phenotype seem valid genetically. I refuse to sweat such stupidity.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Academics have never accepted an African origin for Kemet. This isn't an issue of trying to "balance" two opposing points of view by settling on "well the North could have been overrun by Asiatics in x time period" and the Academics just happened to be focusing there. The only thing we should be settling on is the facts and right now there are no hard facts saying that the North was overrun or mostly mixed with Levantines in the Middle or New Kingdom. But on the other hand we have plenty of evidence of Southern migrations into the North during these same time periods but for some reason people just keep ignoring that.
That is the point I am making. Folks who want Kemet to be portrayed as a "Eurasian" civilization in Africa are not simply claiming the North was overrun by Asiatics from mixing. They are saying it was always Eurasian in origin from the very beginning, even in the South. Trying to pretend that this is a Northern vs Southern thing is ridiculous and has nothing to do with it. In their minds there was NEVER a significant African presence there period. There is nothing objective or unbiased about it is my point.
All of that is to say that these people will manufacture and misrepresent any and all data to push the view that the ancient Nile Valley never had a significant African presence. You can claim some kind of "objective" view of whatever you want to believe but the facts are these people are pushing an agenda and objective has nothing to do with it. Representing the DNA of the 18th Dynasty as Levantine in origin is part of that is my point. All that other nonsense about European colonies is irrelevant because Kemet was not a colony versus an indigenous culture and nation. But the actual colonists need to flip those facts in order to represent Kemet as some kind of ancient Eurasian colony in order to claim that colonization and conquest are the "roots" of civilization which is a lie.
So there is no way that the "mainstream" of Academia is admitting to the people of Kemet being African or an African culture. A few individual scientists stating their own opinions is not the same as what the body of Egyptology accepts and teaches as core accepted doctrine. And that doctrine says that ancient Kemet was of Eurasian origin. And because of this the ideas of "race" were inserted into the discussion which has absolutely nothing to do with African scholars and researchers.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get back on topic or I will be handing out MULTIPLE suspensions. The topic is Haplogrouo R1b and K of the 18th dynasty. Stick to it. Last warning.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
I remember years ago news that Tut had R1 based on a leaked photo of a control sample being run and now this.
This is not to discount the possibility but I can't help but get the feeling this is another attempt at white-washing. It's as if they are not satisfied with Egyptians being E-M215, they want them to share the same lineage as most white European men.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I remember years ago news that Tut had R1 based on a leaked photo of a control sample being run and now this.
This is not to discount the possibility but I can't help but get the feeling this is another attempt at white-washing. It's as if they are not satisfied with Egyptians being E-M215, they want them to share the same lineage as most white European men. [/QB]
there is a new plot twist to the story, iGENEA was the company that had seen the control sample in the documentary 2011. At the time and still, they call it R-M269 However when I went to look at old news stories on it I discovered that Reuters had the early name for this clade R1b1a2 which sometimes was called 269 prior to 2010 but since is called R-V88 which is found in Cameroon and with the Siwa. Reuters got the information from iGENEA but iGENEA was calling it R-M269 (probably to sell test kits to Europeans to make them feel linked to Tutankhamen)
However R1b1a2 is not called R-M269 today it's called R-V88 and M269 is regard as a separate branch V88 up to 95% in some groups in North Cameroon who look very similar to many other West Africans, despite E-M215 predicted for Rameses III, both African clades but not the same lineage. Also the mtDNA K, in this yet to be published article on Tut is also found in the Siwa nad Tut's female relatives
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You are being disingenuous. Dna Tribes and Consultants are fine sources. Both are ancestry test from ancestry companies that used published ancient Egyptian STRs. Tribes had a large database and Consultants has a good understanding of Where those STRs are located.
*Rain* The people of the Levant are not Western European and you know who proved that? Your own source. DNA Tribes proved it. What they also demonstrated is that humans migrate in a way that would not create something like a modern miscegenation zone. The people of the Levant speak languages that cluster with African languages. This is true with Greenberg and Asar and Mboli. The same is true with Berbers.
Like I said before, who outside of Africa is more related to Africans than the people from the Levant? Once you grasp that you will understand that your cultural connections are just icing on the cake. Ancient Egyptians are Africans because there is nothing else for them to be. Some of Tribe's STRs were heavy in Bantu and near exclusive to San and Batwa which skewed the results to Central Southern and West Africa but that was only one of their results. They also have the Tribe's score in parentheses.
Notice its as strong in the Levant and North Africa as it is in West Africa and Southern Africa. Its especially strong in the Horn. Tribe's MLI score tries to track origin so it favors exclusivity with San and Batwa. The Tribes score favors inclusiveness. It questions what group of people are the least divergent from Ramses III. Horners are especially diverse so it favors the Horn.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I find that R1b Tut update article misleading.
African R-V88 is older than Europe's. M18 dates to the fossil of the update. It's not found in Africa per D'Atanasio, Trombetta, and Cruciani (2018).
12.34k V7920 is the original V88 with two offspring. * 8.67k V2197 (father of African V88 and ex-pat V35) * 6.25k M18 (basal/outlier southern Europe variety)
8.67k R-V2197 in turn has two sons * 7.85k year old V4963 is the elder African son * 4.5k baby brother V35 is the other S Eur basal/outlier branch.
7.85k V4963, the great grand pappy of all remaining African V88 sub-HGs, repeats the 'one and younger Euro' downstream pattern * 5.73 V1589 * 1.24 V4453 yet another European local V88 * 0.60 V5776 in northern Egyptians
Compare these dates with the article's timeframes and a quite different tale emerges out of the beast. Tying Africa's R-V88 to 'Asian' wandering cowhands is futile. Some say such inferences are a form of imaginary genomic colonization of African cultures. A 21st century Hamitic Hypothesis/caucasian Africa slice of continuous racism in geographic population (what a dragged out way to say race) studies.
Market patter has changed continent men and pharaohs. 23&ME assures the western African Diaspora males they share Ramses' nrY HG. Howzabout dat?
Egyptian V88 can itself be as old as 5,730 years. That's post-neolithic bronze pre-dynastic Egypt. V88 in live Egypt is no younger than 5,610 years.
With the caveat, age of a sample of a living person is no proof that person's location has always had men of that person's haplogroup since it coalesced.
quote:"Nevertheless, Cruciani et al argue that the discovery of V88 now demonstrates a strong Y chromosomal link between Chadic speakers and speakers of other Afro-Asiatic languages to the north of the Sahara. Their key evidence for this is their new data for Siwa in Western Egypt, a Berber-speaking area having approximately 27% R-V88 (93 people tested).
These data are surprising and should be seen as one of the major discoveries of the article, and requiring an explanation such as the one given by the authors.
The article contains a striking contour map, which shows a coloured band of R-V88 passing from Siwa down to the Chadic speaking area, which would match Ehret's proposed migration route. However, analysis of the article shows that this coloured band simply joins two areas with high frequency, Siwa and the Chadic area. There are of course no data for populations along this band, which runs through the Sahara. One single population is therefore very important in their account. The potential importance of gaps in the data should be considered in several other directions also.
The study also contains no data for Sudan, which lies between the Chadic speakers in the west, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers in the horn of Africa and near the Red Sea. There are also no data for eastern Egypt. These areas are critical in determining whether Blench is likely to be correct, because they represent the path along which he believes pastoralism spread. Data for Sudan are limited but, as the authors note, the 2008 paper of Hassan et al does seem to indicate a potential presence of R-V88 there."
~Andrew Lancaster, 23 June 2010, Chadic languages and Y haplogroups
European Journal of Human Genetics volume 18, page1185(2010)
Issues in the Historical Phonology Issues in the Historical Phonology of Chadic Languages of Chadic Languages H. Ekkehard Wolff Chair: African Languages & Linguistics Leipzig University
Sardinian is a Romance language with about 1.2 million speakers in Sardinia, part of Italy. It is considered the most conservative of the Romance languages and the closest to Latin. It contains words borrowed from Punic, Byzantine Greek, Catalan, Spanish and Italian.
A Brief History of Sardinian
Sardinian is a descendant of the ancient form of Latin brought to Sardinia by the Romans in 238 BC. Between the 14th and 17th centuries, Catalan and Spanish were the languages of administration in Sardinia. In 1714 Italian became the official and literary language in Sardinia, and the Italian authorities looked down on the Sardinian language.
Sardinian first started to appear in writing in 1080 AD. A standard written version of Sardinian, Limba Sarda Comuna (LSC) was published by the Ufitziu de sa Limba Sarda (Office of the Sardinian Language), in 2001. This was adopted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in 2006 as the co-official institutional language for the Region.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I find that R1b Tut update article misleading.
African R-V88 is older than Europe's. M18 dates to the fossil of the update. It's not found in Africa per D'Atanasio, Trombetta, and Cruciani (2018).
12.34k V7920 is the original V88 with two offspring. * 8.67k V2197 (father of African V88 and ex-pat V35) * 6.25k M18 (basal/outlier southern Europe variety)
8.67k R-V2197 in turn has two sons * 7.85k year old V4963 is the elder African son * 4.5k baby brother V35 is the other S Eur basal/outlier branch.
7.85k V4963, the great grand pappy of all remaining African V88 sub-HGs, repeats the 'one and younger Euro' downstream pattern * 5.73 V1589 * 1.24 V4453 yet another European local V88 * 0.60 V5776 in northern Egyptians
Compare these dates with the article's timeframes and a quite different tale emerges out of the beast. Tying Africa's R-V88 to 'Asian' wandering cowhands is futile. Some say such inferences are a form of imaginary genomic colonization of African cultures. A 21st century Hamitic Hypothesis/caucasian Africa slice of continuous racism in geographic population (what a dragged out way to say race) studies.
Market patter has changed continent men and pharaohs. 23&ME assures the western African Diaspora males they share Ramses' nrY HG. Howzabout dat?
Egyptian V88 can itself be as old as 5,730 years. That's post-neolithic bronze pre-dynastic Egypt. V88 in live Egypt is no younger than 5,610 years.
With the caveat, age of a sample of a living person is no proof that person's location has always had men of that person's haplogroup since it coalesced.
I have to bring it back to Villabruna.
quote:
The Villabruna cluster: From about 14,000 years ago, the gene pools of Europe and the Middle East draw closer together - perhaps reflecting an expansion of people from the south-east. This genetic cluster is named after a male hunter from Villabruna, Italy, who had dark skin and blue eyes.
quote: Villabruna 1 is significant in terms of the history of population genetics: the remains were found to carry Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a-L754* (xL389,V88). This is the oldest documented example of haplogroup R1b in Western Europe."
R1b1a (R-L754)
R-L754 contains the vast majority of R1b. The only known example of R-L754*(xL389,V88) is also the earliest known individual to carry R1b: "Villabruna 1", who lived circa 14,000 years BP (north east Italy). Villabruna 1 belonged to the Epigravettian culture.
quote: Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group.
quote:R-V88 has been observed at high frequencies in the central Sahel (northern Cameroon, northern Nigeria, Chad and Niger) and it has also been reported at low frequencies in northwestern Africa [37]. Outside the African continent, two rare R-V88 sub-lineages (R-M18 and R-V35) have been observed in Near East and southern Europe (particularly in Sardinia) [30, 37,38,39]. Because of its ethno-geographic distribution in the central Sahel, R-V88 has been linked to the spread of the Chadic branch of the Afroasiatic linguistic family [37, 40].
These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).
Conclusion Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE. Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.
Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat, Somaia Ismail Human Molecular Genetics, ddaa223, https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223 Published: 15 October 2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
" 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 "
_____________________________ .
.
The DNA Tribes did their analysis based on the the STRs Hawass published in 2010
February 17, 2010 Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family Zahi Hawass, PhD; Yehia Z. Gad, MD; Somaia Ismail, PhD
Sixteen Y-chromosomal short tandem repeats (DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y-GATA-H4, DYS437, DYS438, DYS448) were amplified according to the manufacturer's protocol using the AmpF\STR Yfiler PCR amplification kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California). The Identifiler kit and the AmpF\STR Minifiler kit (Applied Biosystems) were used for amplification of 8 polymorphic microsatellites of the nuclear genome (D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA).
quote:Of these R1b1 samples, nine are defined by the V88 marker, which was recently discovered in Africa. As high microsatellite variance was found inside this haplogroup in Central-West Africa and a decrease in this variance was observed towards Northeast Africa, our findings do not support the previously hypothesised movement of Chadic-speaking people from the North across the Sahara as the explanation for these R1b1 lineages in Central-West Africa. The present findings are also compatible with an origin of the V88-derived allele in the Central-West Africa, and its presence in North Africa may be better explained as the result of a migration from the south during the mid-Holocene.
~Miguel González et al.,
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88
Hum Genet. 2013 Mar;21(3):324-31. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167. Epub 2012 Aug 15.
Credit goes to Beyoku who got from Anthrogenica. Anyhow, I'm surprised there is no thread on this yet but now there is...
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Authors: Yehia Z. Gad*1,2, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan1,3, Dalia M. Mousa 1,Fayrouz A. Fouad1 , Safaa G. El-Sayed4 , Marwa A. Abdelazeem5 , Samah M. Mahdy6 , Hend Y. Othman1 , Dina W. Ibrahim1 , Rabab Khairat2,5, Somaia Ismail2,5
quote: The genetic relatedness of individuals from archaeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38, 55-57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uni-parental markers were utilized. An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 B.C.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4- generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).
For this claim they cite a yet to be published piece:
Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., Fathalla, D., Khairat, R., Fares, S., Gad, A.Z., Saad, R., Moustafa, A., ElShahat, E., Abu Mandil, N.H. et al. (2020) Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun’s family. In Kamrin, J., Bárta, M., Ikram, S., Lehner, M., Megahed, M., (eds.) Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of Zahi Hawass, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague (in press).
I am not going to lie... I'm quite surprised by the results especially haplogroup K. I am now seeing some argue that the 18th dynasty was a Levantine transplant. However, I personally believe that the R1b is V88. I'm placing bets on that.
But what are the rest of you guy's thoughts? Were the 18th dynasty Levantine transplants? Or do we need actual autosomal results.
The idea that the 18th dynasty is of Levantine extraction is rather contradictory to the historical and archaeological evidence that shows that the family originated in the 'Thebald' i.e. Upper Egypt.
A genealogical family tree of the 18th dynasty can be seen here. Of course there are some questions pertaining to the relations of some members but the main line of the Amarna family is more or less confirmed.
Thutmose II (Amenhotep III's great, great grandfather) Father: Thutmose I, Mother: Queen Mutnofret Rounded glabella and forehead; high vault with sagittal plateau. Rounded occiput. Strongly proclined upper and lower incisors; receding, vertical chin; highly angular mandible. Vertical zygomatic arches and maxillary prognathism. Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
"The Elder Lady", First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding
So what I gather is that the study used STRs and didn't get the actual SNPs. But even IF the study is accurate about the haplogroups found, it could mean that these haplogroups could have very well been derived from the south if R-V88 had a long time residence in Africa. As for maternal lineage K, such is also found in Africa including the Horn region so who knows. The point is there is no evidence that the Amarna family or 18th dynasty is northern in origin let alone Levantine.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
If these same Amarna mummies are haplogroup R1b and mtDNA K how come the DNA Tribes analysis seems to have no hint at this in their MLI scores?
It does have a hint but even if it didn't it doesn't need to. K was found in Neolithic Kenyans and R1b is found in people who cluster heavier with Africans than the STR markers that the MLI scores are based on.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
If these same Amarna mummies are haplogroup R1b and mtDNA K how come the DNA Tribes analysis seems to have no hint at this in their MLI scores?
It does have a hint but even if it didn't it doesn't need to. K was found in Neolithic Kenyans and R1b is found in people who cluster heavier with Africans than the STR markers that the MLI scores are based on.
You're right there is a hint so I removed that question. If the analysis turns out to be R-V88 I'm not sure how they classify that. The oldest remains they have found bearing V88 are outside of Africa but at the same time it's very rare outside Africa now and as high in frequency as 95% in some North Cameroon population.
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
K was found in Neolithic Kenyans
No, K was not found in Neolithic Kenyans
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
and R1b is found in people who cluster heavier with Africans
No, except for R-V88, R1b does not "cluster heavier" with Africans. Also a high frequency of R-V88 does not necessarily mean origin.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.
Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.
DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.
The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.
So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".
But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:
Amenhotep III:
Plus
Tiye:
Equals:
Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.
And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?
quote: Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.
The paper does not discuss the fact that Tutankhamun was the result of incest between Akhenaton and his sister. This means there is no chance of Tut being the result of some chance encounter between a Eurasian concubine (Levantine Weaver) and the Pharaoh. Which means all of this is predicated on the presence of one DNA lineage on the Maternal side and nothing else.
Also there is another paper from Sudan showing the lineages of some "X-Group" Sudanese where H1 and H2 is present. Of course that means that these lineages could have been present in the Nile Valley from far earlier times.
quote: Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
But that doesn't matter. As far as some people are concerned, just one Haplogroup is enough to simply ignore anything else to reinforce their own pre-existing assumptions. The way the people of the Nile depicted themselves isn't relevant because they didn't know DNA studies....
The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.
Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.
DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.
The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.
So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".
But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:
Amenhotep III:
Plus
Tiye:
Equals:
Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.
And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?
quote: Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.
The paper does not discuss the fact that Tutankhamun was the result of incest between Akhenaton and his sister. This means there is no chance of Tut being the result of some chance encounter between a Eurasian concubine (Levantine Weaver) and the Pharaoh. Which means all of this is predicated on the presence of one DNA lineage on the Maternal side and nothing else.
Also there is another paper from Sudan showing the lineages of some "X-Group" Sudanese where H1 and H2 is present. Of course that means that these lineages could have been present in the Nile Valley from far earlier times.
quote: Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
But that doesn't matter. As far as some people are concerned, just one Haplogroup is enough to simply ignore anything else to reinforce their own pre-existing assumptions. The way the people of the Nile depicted themselves isn't relevant because they didn't know DNA studies....
quote:MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy
posted
Is it at all possible that R1b is African or possibly Middle Eastern in origin? I used to visit a blog that was convinced it made its way into Europe via North Africa.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest all the information about African R1b to be found on the web can probably be located on this site. Use the search feature and enter V88. R1b has been covered extensively on ES.
To answer your question: yes it is possible. But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.
quote:But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.
Yea, I had the same assumption to.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.
Yea, I had the same assumption to.
Elmaestro is saying that it's likely the African R-V88 marker.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.
Yea, I had the same assumption to.
Elmaestro is saying that it's likely the African R-V88 marker.
Yeah African V88 is 90+% linked to Europe. Of the oldest V88 carriers, there are two of them that carry the a haplotype ancestral to the African variation. one of them is in Sardinia and the other in southern Iberia (modern day Spain.)
From a temporal view, there's little space for it to be of near east or middle eastern origin.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Dang. I missed out on that Spain data
Where's the latest published on V2197,
--EDIT Nevermind I found the Posth on an ancient Serbian sample's mutations' with V88 in lemon yellow, SF 9. There, V88 shows up ancestral & derived alleles and V35 like V2197 is only ancestral.--
the African R1b-V88 Great grand daddy who also fathered Sardinian/south Europe V35?
Not to take away from the fact V2197 is the elder son of ol' man R1b-V88 V7920 and thus big bruh to M18 the baby boy.
In turn, south European V35 is the younger brother of African V4963 who is African V2197's firstborn.
Anyway only 'in-denial' mode takes custody of African R1b-V2197 away from his European poppi although the R1b-V88 family basically abandoned or didn't prosper too well in Europe while very much flourishing in Central-West Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: African V88 is 90+% linked to Europe. Of the oldest V88 carriers, there are two of them that carry the a haplotype ancestral to the African variation. one of them is in Sardinia and the other in southern Iberia (modern day Spain.)
(red text added, above) (lineage chart is not from DNA article)
tracing back the probable R1b bearing male ancestors of Tutankhamun from Amenhotep III (the earliest mummy tested thus far in the 18th dynasty) back to an unknown of the 17th dynasty. So one might assume if Amenhotep III was R1b then his ancestors were It has been speculated that Thutmose's father was Amenhotep I. If that is the case the dead point with the question mark in the box would connect to the linage to the left of it on the chart and plug into the Amenhotep/Ahmose etc line
Amenhotep I
If this line does go back to Amenhotep I
following back
Amenhotep I (18th dyn) Ahmose I (18th) Seqenenre Tao (17th) Senakhtenre Ahmose (17TH) (probable father of Tao) Nubkheperre Intef (17th) (possible father of Senakhtenre Ahmose) Sobekemsaf II (probably father) Sobekemsaf I (probably father)
Not sure who Sobekemsaf's father was or if it's known. Possibly it was his predecessor Rahotep, the first or second king of the 17th dynasty His full name was Sekhemra-wahkhau Rahotep, not to be confused with prince Rahotep of the 4th (famous statue with wife) As we can see going back there are further uncertainties aboout who's who
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just putting this out here since nobody has said it.
The M2 vs V22 discrepancy exists in the other lineages of this publication regarding the other mummies. Publication says one thing. Different STR Predictors agree or Disagree with the published data and assigned the Haplotype to totally different DE+ or M89+ Haplogroups.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Haha!
The days I would check microsatellites across haplogroups to see if haplotype indicated only one or rather several haplogroup possibilities are long gone, but yes, that's what it takes, whether assaying raw data independently or vetting published interpretations.
quote:But it isn't probable... And when I say unlikely I mean highly unlikely that its middle eastern and even more unlikely that it's African. Reasons why have been posted here on ES some even referred to on page one of this thread iirc.
Are you suggesting it's straight from Europe instead? I thought it would have been brought into Europe from western Asia via the early Indo-European pastoralists. Though I suppose it could have been some sort of EEF population instead.
quote:Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East
Andrew Kitchen 1,*, Christopher Ehret 2, Shiferaw Assefa 2 and Connie J. Mulligan1
A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ~14 ky.
And then we have this genetic study on the Jordanian population near the Dead Sea where Sodom was located.
Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations. --Carlos Flores et al 2005
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ain't this funny?
quote: it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population.
.
Uh ahn. Fucking. It takes fucking. Y chromosome only comes from fucking. All the misleading scientific jabberwocky in the world notwithstanding. Genes do not "flow" in water or through the air. Genes flow from sperm to egg. The only way they get from place to place is via populationA and populationB f u c k i n g .
strong drift = these guys nearly all holed up in one or few spots and the others there largely split isolation = they tended to stay put not letting outsider males in (or score) founder effect = Mac Daddies were very successful w/t local ladies
So why did Flores try to smooth over the obvious ties and connections the raw data evinces? Yeah, that's rhetorical. After 300 years of anthropology it's still all around the world same song.
=-=-=
Anyway, real question is when did them R1*-M173 men wind up there and who were they fucking, ie. mtDNA HGs?
How does Flores tie in with Price and with Moorjani (the names are lynx), their full genome reports indicating (iirc) W Afr genetics in the Levant after 1300 and before 600 BCE?
Does it fit better by Jordanian Beduin custom of kidnabbing wayfarers who in this particular became patrilocal?
2005 reconstruction, French artist Elisabeth Daynès
The skin tone was not determined genetically. So Elisabeth Daynès speculated he had the skin tone of an average Western European. He looks a little darker on the Nat Geo cover due to moodier "mysterious" lighting
Just ignore all the artifacts for a hint of what his skin tone might have been. Just ignore the skin tone of the average Egyptian even
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
2005 reconstruction, French artist Elisabeth Daynès
The skin tone was not determined genetically. So Elisabeth Daynès speculated he had the skin tone of an average Western European. He looks a little darker on the Nat Geo cover due to moodier "mysterious" lighting
Just ignore all the artifacts for a hint of what his skin tone might have been. Just ignore the skin tone of the average Egyptian even [/QB]
The skin tone match perfectly the reconstruction but even if you wanted them to be darker it won't change anything and you shouldn't base your opinion on artistic conventions. Also do not underestimate the power of tanning.
If these upper egyptians spent more time indoor they would have surely be lighter :
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: The skin tone match perfectly the reconstruction
. [/QB]
don't be ridiculous this is not a match, stop playing yourself
-and no, those men dont have that light complexion under their clothes
even if they did a reconstruction should reflect the color of the skin the way it was where they lived, melanin is a natural color not some kind of skin paint
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Nile Valley and Africa is severely under sampled in DNA studies and especially ADNA.
Most DNA used in the Nile Valley and Africa is from modern populations.
DNA Haplogroups do not define phenotype.
The purpose of such DNA studies is to define relationships between populations. This means any population is going to have a collection of various DNA lineages. So even if we did have ALL the over 5KYA ADNA from Northern Africa and the Mediterranean that is just the start.
So for any group of populations, each will have a unique distribution of DNA markers unique to that population. Of course this all depends on sample size relative to the actual population. The assumption in all of this is that each unique haplogroup in that distribution represents a unique line of ancestry from some segment of the population that is a distinct "ancestry".
But OK. Beyond all of that, what this paper is saying is:
Amenhotep III:
Plus
Tiye:
Equals:
Eurasian Akhenaton and King Tut.
And this is solely based on the presence of Haplogroups K in Tiyes lineage. This is where the key point above about Haplogroup not determining phenotype comes into play. How many Afro Americans in the USA have "Eurasian" haplogroups? Does that make them Eurasian? How many Europeans in America have African Haplogroups? Does that make them African?
quote: Tutankhamun family group were characterized as haplogroup K, while one was characterized with haplogroup H2b. For the two KV60 reference mummies, a small PCR product encompassing 16118 to 16232 was amplified and sequenced but it did not show the 16224 diagnostic mutation associated with haplogroup K.
The paper does not discuss the fact that Tutankhamun was the result of incest between Akhenaton and his sister. This means there is no chance of Tut being the result of some chance encounter between a Eurasian concubine (Levantine Weaver) and the Pharaoh. Which means all of this is predicated on the presence of one DNA lineage on the Maternal side and nothing else.
Also there is another paper from Sudan showing the lineages of some "X-Group" Sudanese where H1 and H2 is present. Of course that means that these lineages could have been present in the Nile Valley from far earlier times.
quote: Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: African: L1, L2 and L3, Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current East African, North African, Arab, and Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
But that doesn't matter. As far as some people are concerned, just one Haplogroup is enough to simply ignore anything else to reinforce their own pre-existing assumptions. The way the people of the Nile depicted themselves isn't relevant because they didn't know DNA studies....
quote:MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy
So we are going to change the subject to talk about memory loss? You must have forgotten that King Tuts Father was the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and his mother was the daughter of Amenhotep and Queen Tiye. Where does light skin even come into this family tree? His mother was not Nefertiti.
Why don't you explain that instead of worrying about my memory capacity?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So we are going to change the subject to talk about memory loss? You must have forgotten that King Tuts Father was the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and his mother was the daughter of Amenhotep and Queen Tiye. Where does light skin even come into this family tree? His mother was not Nefertiti.
Why don't you explain that instead of worrying about my memory capacity?
And so ? Since when were amenhotep III or queen tiye dark skinned ? Because you saw a wooden statue of her and a 2d photoshopped paint of him ?
Queen tiye :
If the reconstructions of king tut and akhenaton look like what I posted it clearly means something about their parents.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Right, they're repeating the same talking points which have been debunked too many times before
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
You also forget that the face of akhenaton and tutankhamon have been reconstructed by forensic anthropologists:
The problem with reconstructions is that they are based mainly on bone structure. Soft tissue parts like the nose tip and lips are the result complete guessing much less skin color.
We have various portraits of Tut including his painted mannequin made during his life.
And the same is true with his father Akhenaten.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness,: What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?
So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?
I thought we made it clear to your dishonest self that it hasn't been verified that those Amarna royals carry R-V88 or U5 since it is only a guess based on STRs?! Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the hgs in Europe!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness,: What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?
So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?
I thought we made it clear to your dishonest self that it hasn't been verified that those Amarna royals carry R-V88 or U5 since it is only a guess based on STRs?! Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the hgs in Europe!
You just said if the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign.
R1b-V88 is clade whose parent originated outside Africa
before R1b existed there was only R1 and R2
before R1 and R2 there was only R
and in addition the mtDNA of Tutankhamun, Akenhaten and other males and females was determined by this analysis as being of mtDNA haplogroup K. That is considered by geneticists to be West Asian
Haplogroup K, found in the remains of three individuals from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site of Tell Ramad, Syria, dating from c. 6000 BC.[16] The clade was also discovered in skeletons of early farmers in Central Europe dated to around 5500-5300 BC, at percentages that were nearly double the percentage present in modern Europe. Analysis of the mtDNA of Ötzi, the frozen mummy from 3300 BC found on the Austrian-Italian border, has shown that Ötzi belongs to the K1 subclade. ___________________
please don't get wise about this the logic you propose is very clear and when we follow through on it one could come to the conclusion that the Amarana were a foreign dynasty
You just don't want to be the one that would propose that as a possibility,
but keyword, possibility
and keep in mind that the only reason that we know about the Amarna is that their tombs were discovered The Egyptians afterward rejected them and did not include them on the king's list nor wrote about them. We just know about them from writing (glyphs) in their own tombs
So what is the probability that the Amarna were foreign?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You still can't get past the point that it is a guess (and wishful thinking on your part) based on STRs. Until we have the full SNPs we can't be certain. Now how about you answer my question. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 in Europe as foreign??
Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You still can't get past the point that it is a guess (and wishful thinking on your part) based on STRs. Until we have the full SNPs we can't be certain. Now how about you answer my question. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 in Europe as foreign??
The only person in King Tut's family Egyptologists consider as having a possible foreign origin, is Yuya. They pointed out, that his features are not classically Egyptian.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
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).
I understand what you are saying but the issue is we all know there was immigration or population movements from the Levant into Africa. The question is how much, when and how big an impact. These specifics is where we need the DNA data to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately the data is not available to understand this dynamic. And because the hard data is not available, you only get one off assumptions based on limited information. Keep in mind that academics have been pushing the idea that the Nile Valley was overrun with Levantine DNA since before the predynastic. So in their minds, there was never any African DNA in the Nile Valley. There is nothing objective about that and of course these papers are basically feeding into that assessment.
I'm observing a certain trend among some modern Egyptologists. They basically deny that Ancient Egyptians were a coherent genetic group. According to them, Egyptians would range from Libyan to Canaanite and Nubian- like. In contrast, the several recent genetic studies on the Ancient Canaanites from all over the Levant suggest, that the Canaanites were overall a pretty homogenous population.
quote:
One major finding from the analysis was that while the communities were spread far apart, they formed a genetically “homogeneous” or distinct population that was different from other groups in the world.
“The Canaanites, albeit living in different city-states, were culturally and genetically similar,” says Liran Carmel of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as reported in EurekAlert. “Individuals from all sites are highly genetically similar, albeit with subtle differences, showing that the archaeologically and historically defined ‘Canaanites’ corresponds to a demographically coherent group.”
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: The only person in King Tut's family Egyptologists consider as having a possible foreign origin, is Yuya. They pointed out, that his features are not classically Egyptian.
Yes, we are very much aware of that. However even if assuming that Yuya was the biological maternal grandfather of Tut, he still does not account for the conjectured Y-DNA which is inherited patrilineally from father to son or the mtDNA which is inherited matrilineally from mother to child.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26289 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic