quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
@beyoku Like already stated, "Afrocentrics" really aren't prepared for the modern landscape of bio-anthropology/genetics. Smdh.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
Like this is why Afrocentrism is never taken serious..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets be honest, I don't need to watch P7 video, but I doubt she goes into the actual complex history of population history of A. Egypt and Ancient North East/North Africa in general. Just from this thread Im seeing how complicated it is, and trying to put one group of people, be it Eurasians or SSAs as representative of the population is sloppy to say the least when the history of these people are all interconnected.
Just an example from this thread is the so called Eurasian found in Kerma Antalas brought up in our debate, these same people originated in the Rift Valley of East Africa and made it as far as Kerma. Why isn't this being talked about by folks, Phonecian7 will never touch that with a 10 foot pole, nor will Kings Monologue, it destroys both of their narriatives...IMO.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
I remember having a conversation with that Mr. Imhotep guy in which I brought up the diversity of biologically indigenous Africans, and he seemed intent on equating the AE phenotype with the West/Central African one which he saw as the true "Black African". I don't know his exact ethnic background, but I think he is a French citizen of West African origin, so I suspect he's looking for his own phenotype in the ancient Nile Valley.
That said, I have a personal grudge against that 7phoenician7 chick as well, since she once fat-shamed me in the comments panel of this video (not sure if her comments there are still visible). You know you're little better than a schoolyard bully when you start picking on people for being too chubby.
King's Monologue started in November 2022 and has has 20.4K subs (this is in only 5 months) 2,930,379 views views on youtube. On Tik Tok: 6951 Followers, 397.8K Likes
Mr Imhotep has 309K subs and started in April 2017 (6 years) 41,319,518 views
I did some math on this and it seems like KM is acquiring subscribers around 10X faster than Mr Imhotep Another advantage (I'm guessing) is that KM appears in the videos which makes them more relatable On the other hand most of his videos are about his reconstructions and people may start to get bored of that. With A.I. art people will find it increasingly easy to make them
HomeTeam History 770K subs Oct 30, 2013 52,492,563 views
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
I remember having a conversation with that Mr. Imhotep guy in which I brought up the diversity of biologically indigenous Africans, and he seemed intent on equating the AE phenotype with the West/Central African one which he saw as the true "Black African". I don't know his exact ethnic background, but I think he is a French citizen of West African origin, so I suspect he's looking for his own phenotype in the ancient Nile Valley.
Brandon that is beyond ridiculous, you are literally one of the most Afrocentric artists on the planet,
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
You right, i had a conversation with Mr. Imho Right before i hit the block button.
With that said I don't think these are the same individuals. How would i deal with her?.. I would address her comments point by point and pick out all the lies she inserted into the few layers of Truth. Ultimately she did Cook "Kings Monologue"....But in away she is fighting Pseudo with Pseudo cause she did the same thing he did. She used one type of DNA Analysis to debunk another type of DNA analysis without actually ADRESSING the DNA analysis. King's Monologue avoid the SNPs, Egyptologist7 avoids the STRs. Two sides, same shitty coin.
Her video contains comments that are FACTAULLY incorrect. I have made comments about Afrocentrics avoiding work so I dont want to say anything yet. I want to just let this shit simmer and see what others have to say.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Which direction do you believe was more pronounced? [/QB]
Without fore migration you wouldn't have people to back migrate.
Ok seriously Common sense would suggest that hunter gatherers stick to water and avoid transgressing on another hunter gatherer's range. But this all changes when they come back with chariots, guns and rockets.
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Both of those regions are special because they are impeded by a swamp and an Ocean. Even when people started to follow herds it would be problematic.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
You right, i had a conversation with Mr. Imho Right before i hit the block button.
With that said I don't think these are the same individuals. How would i deal with her?.. I would address her comments point by point and pick out all the lies she inserted into the few layers of Truth. Ultimately she did Cook "Kings Monologue"....But in away she is fighting Pseudo with Pseudo cause she did the same thing he did. She used one type of DNA Analysis to debunk another type of DNA analysis without actually ADRESSING the DNA analysis. King's Monologue avoid the SNPs, Egyptologist7 avoids the STRs. Two sides, same shitty coin.
Her video contains comments that are FACTAULLY incorrect. I have made comments about Afrocentrics avoiding work so I dont want to say anything yet. I want to just let this shit simmer and see what others have to say.
Didn't you imply that the STRs were useless in the case of those ancient remains and therefore should be avoided ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
It depends on the time period, I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out. When haplogroup E left Northeast Africa thats another indication of mixture going out.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
Without fore migration you wouldn't have people to back migrate.
Ok seriously Common sense would suggest that hunter gatherers stick to water and avoid transgressing on another hunter gatherer's range. But this all changes when they come back with chariots, guns and rockets.
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that? [/QB]
Well, the largest human population expansions happened before the chariot, so I don't see why we would discount it? The practice of land ownership is fairly recent as well and it's not as if ancient hunter gathers moving into new lands would know who "owns" it regardless. The 2 major reasons I've seen for Eurasian introgression into Africa are population explosions due to changes in subsidence strategies and rapid climate change (glacial periods), so if we're talking about bi-directional gene flow simple happenstance doesn't clear that hurdle, so what are the forces or events on the African side that were as strong, or stronger?
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out.
What dynasty was that as compared to the Hyksos occupation?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
It depends on the time period, I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out. When haplogroup E left Northeast Africa thats another indication of mixture going out.
Agreed, but the pertinent questions are "how much", did that geneflow result in effective population replacement, if that population was the only one that back migrated, and more importantly, whether the Egyptian population at the time owed much of their ancestry to a previous Eurasian back migrations themselves.
I think for example, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that conquering a region results in large scale population movements (let alone at a replacement level), when that typically didn't happen between sedentary populations, unless there was incentive. What was the incentive for the Egyptian population to move to Canaan and what are the implications of an early iron age/late bronze age conquest to the initial seeding of the Nile valley civilization?
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been no Old Kingdom DNA test results published yet Genetically it is unknown how African the foundational population of dynastic Egypt was the end
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
I agree but I think we both agree that an STR analysis is less reliable/extensive than an SNP analysis when it comes to establishing the biological affinities of ancient populations therefore she could have used the Abusir results to demonstrate that the reality of this population's genetic makeup was more complex than initially assumed. Also what kind of results would modern egyptians get with this ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
Is she not aware of Chadic speakers?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Could not the Sahara's various "humid" phrases have allowed peoples indigenous to North Africa (as well as further south in the continent) to spread across the region and into western Asia? I don't think it's a coincidence that the spread of Afroasiatic from wherever its homeland was throughout the Sahara and adjacent regions coincides with the last Green Sahara (or maybe the "Wild Nile" period before that). Though, admittedly, those same humid periods could theoretically have allowed movements in the other direction as well.
posted
@The Lioness - Please go away. You add nothing to the discussion.
@Askia the Great - Probably not. There is a whole lot she doesn't know but nobody seems they need to address it.
@Antalas - There WERE some Egyptian and Middle Eastern STR results in dna Tribes database IN FACT there are modern Egyptian Autosomal STR results from nearly every region in the country. All someone has to do is put some of them in Populaion affiliator and see what happens. Not saying I havent already done it and they also came up Sub Saharan African.....Nope, I am not saying that. I am also NOT saying Someone used Population Affiliator2 by substituting commonly found STRs from every place where data existed in the old world and those mummies still came up North African. Nope. That never happened.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Could not the Sahara's various "humid" phrases have allowed peoples indigenous to North Africa (as well as further south in the continent) to spread across the region and into western Asia? I don't think it's a coincidence that the spread of Afroasiatic from wherever its homeland was throughout the Sahara and adjacent regions coincides with the last Green Sahara (or maybe the "Wild Nile" period before that). Though, admittedly, those same humid periods could theoretically have allowed movements in the other direction as well.
The AHP definitely facilitated increase gene flow to Eurasia from inner-Africa but (in addition to also facilitating Eurasian gene flow into Africa like you said) the ultimate impact of all of that depends on the native population size and density relative to the incoming migrants. Another caveat is that similar to how the southern populations expanded to fill the Sahara during that period, so did the coastal North African populations, so their prior genetic affinities also throw a wrench in a (presumptive) linear uni-directional gene flow model.
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, there is no mystery about the place of origin of the culture of the Nile Valley. It originated in the South going back over 20,000 years. In order for the ancient culture of the Nile Valley to originate in Eurasia, the culture would have to originate in the North. And it does not. So the idea that somehow someway Eurasian migrants repopulated the Nile Valley and made it all the way down into Sudan is just silly. The facts are abundantly clear that it is the opposite case.
Researchers know this yet they still keep promoting misinformation such as using "Egpypt vs Nubia" even going back 20,000 years ago when no such thing existed.
The Main Nile Valley at the End of the Pleistocene (28–15 ka): Dispersal Corridor or Environmental Refugium?
quote: This article focuses on the northern end of the Nile Valley and particularly on southern Egypt, northern (= Lower) and southern (= Upper) Nubia during MIS 2. This geographical focus is mainly guided by the availability of archaeological data for this period. The definition and geographical extent of Nubia has varied through time, in particular regarding its southern boundary. In a broad sense, Nubia is located between the First Cataract near Aswan with a southern boundary fluctuating between the Fourth and the Sixth Cataract north of Khartoum (Figure 1). Northern Nubia corresponds to the area between the First and Second Cataract, whereas southern Nubia corresponds to the area upstream from the Second cataract (Adams, 1977, 13–17; Hassan, 2007; Auenmüller, 2019).
....
During MIS 2, the lowering of the sea level led to an incision of the Nile starting around Qena (nick point, Sandford, 1936; Wendorf and Schild, 1989). No archaeological evidence dated to MIS 2 is available from the northern part of Egypt (north of Dishna). Geological deposits from this period and associated archaeological remains are thus either absent or buried under several meters of sediments accumulated by the Nile in parallel with the rise of the sea level. One main issue when discussing whether the Nile Valley acted as a corridor during MIS 2 is whether the Nile Delta was habitable. However, it is important to consider that the sea shore during most of MIS 2 was several kilometres northwards, and up to 50 km to the north during the LGM and maximum sea low stand (Stanley and Warne, 1993). Late Pleistocene deposits dated to MIS 2 documented in what is today the Nile Delta, was thus located well upstream from the sea shore. They show evidence for Nile floods and the presence of seasonal ponds, but the evidence is limited for the LGM in particular (Chen and Stanley, 1993; Stanley and Warne, 1993). Based on the characteristics of the mud deposits and their distribution in the Nile Delta, Chen and Stanley (1993) and Stanley and Warne (1993) suggest that the region during the Late Pleistocene was mostly a minimally-vegetated plain with seasonally active braided channels and ephemeral ponds in a generally arid environment. In addition, the composition of the Late Pleistocene Nile deposits in the Delta are consistent with the hypothesis that the Delta constituted the primary source of sand for the Negev-Sinai erg (Muhs et al., 2013). Punctuated human occupation of what is now the Nile Delta in the Late Pleistocene may therefore have been possible but it remains to be confirmed, particularly during the LGM.
From their own research it is clear the Nile Delta going back over 20,000 years ago was lightly populated while the Upper Nile between Egypt and Sudan was highly populated. Therefore, just by common sense and logic it is improbable that there was a lot of gene flow from Eurasia in the Upper Nile at this time. And it is also from the Upper Nile that the ancient kingdoms of the Nile originate. There is no mystery here and the facts are clear. But that wont stop people from trying to push alternative facts to suit their own purposes.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Doug M - What is the name of the material "Culture" that originated in "The South" 20 thousand years ago that is responsible for pharaonic Egypt?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wadi Kubbaniya is the name of one of the sites but it is not assigned to any specific "tool industry", which is part of the problem. Just like Nabta Playa is not associated with any specific tool industry. Keeping in mind there is no absolute chronology for stone tool industries because many of them are based on European sites are younger than those in Africa. And many of the "cultures" that have been proposed for the region have not been universally agreed upon, mostly due to whether it includes or excludes certain areas to the South or North (obviously reflecting apriori attitudes on the origin of such cultures). And this is why some have started using a more absolute chronology based on Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) because of the absence of an absolute chronology of these tool cultures. that doesn't change the point though.
quote: It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
In the scientific literature of the last decades, much attention was paid to movements of modern Homo sapiens from East Africa to the rest of the world (Carto et al., 2009, Stewart and Stringer, 2012). It is obvious that the Nile Valley and probably also Arabia (Petraglia and Rose, 2009, Armitage et al., 2011), thereby may have played a prominent role. The Nile Valley is indeed, within an often extremely dry North Africa, an oasis right through the Sahara (Wendorf et al., 1989; Phillips, 1994, Camps and Szmidt, 2009, Garcea, 2010, Drake et al., 2011). It should therefore come as no surprise that the population of the Nile Valley may have played a prominent role during the Late Pleistocene. DNA analyses have produced numerous conjectures how the Late Pleistocene population of the Nile Valley was subject to movements from north to south and vice versa (Manni et al., 2002, Lucotte and Mercier, 2003, Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2011). The understanding of the changing climate and its influence on the Nile regime and on human population densities, has made great progress. Field research in the Nile Valley has collected data that allow us to understand how the Nile Valley reacted to the changing climate and could create a favourable environment for Late Pleistocene humans.
....
2.1. Late Pleistocene Nile Valley population
Research during the last decades regarding the Palaeolithic occupation of the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley (Vermeersch et al., 2000, Vermeersch et al., 2006, Vermeersch, 2006, Vermeersch, 2009, Vermeersch, 2010, Schild and Wendorf, 2010, Van Peer et al., 2010) has made it clear that an expanded population was present during the Middle Stone Age (MSA, Middle Palaeolithic). Whereas very large chert extraction sites of the MSA have been recorded (Vermeersch, 2002), suggesting an important need for chert blanks, very few such sites of the Upper Palaeolithic have been found. The best explanation of this observation is that, during the Late MSA and the Upper Palaeolithic there was a low demand for raw materials because during MIS 4 and MIS 3 the population density in Upper Egypt declined sharply. Traces of humans dated later than 60,000 years ago became rare (Fig. 1). However, from about 24 ka calBP an important population increase is registered by the presence of numerous Late Palaeolithic sites. During the LGM there is indeed an abundant presence of humans along the Nile Valley in Upper Egypt. Numerous Late Palaeolithic sites are known (Vignard, 1923, Butzer, 1967, Smith, 1967, Smith, 1968, Wendorf, 1968, Wendorf and Schild, 1976, Kabacinski and Usai, 1999, Paulissen and Vermeersch, 2000) with Nilotic silts and clays deposited well above the present flood plain (See Supplementary Data 1). They are situated some metres above the present floodplain, most often where Nilotic clays meet local deposits (Fig. 2). Several human groups can be identified such as the Fakhurian, the Kubbaniyan, the Idfuan, the Sebekian, the Silsilian, the Afian and the Isnan, all of them characterised by fishing–hunting camps located in the present lower desert along the Upper Egyptian Nile (Smith, 1967; Wendorf et al., 1989; Vermeersch, 2010). Several sites have been excavated and, as the faunal remains are mainly of fish, attest the presence of intensive fishing activities. Mammalian fauna is very restricted and consists of aurochs (Bos primigenius), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas), hare (Lepus capensis) and hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius).
quote: During the Nubia Salvage Campaign and the subsequent expeditions from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, numerous sites attributed to the Late Palaeolithic (~25–15 ka) were found in the Nile Valley, particularly in Nubia and Upper Egypt. This region is one of the few to have allowed human occupations during the dry Marine Isotope Stage 2 and is therefore key to understanding how human populations adapted to environmental changes at this time. This paper focuses on two sites located in Upper Egypt, excavated by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition: E71K18, attributed to the Afian industry and E71K20, attributed to the Silsilian industry. It aims to review the geomorphological and chronological evidence of the sites, present a technological analysis of the lithic assemblages in order to provide data that can be used in detailed comparative studies, which will allow discussion of technological variability in the Late Palaeolithic of the Nile Valley and its place within the regional context. The lithic analysis relies on the chaîne opératoire concept combined with an attribute analysis to allow quantification. This study (1) casts doubts on the chronology of E71K18 and related Afian industry, which could be older or younger than previously suggested, highlights (2) distinct technological characteristics for the Afian and the Silsilian, as well as (3) similar technological characteristics which allow to group them under a same broad techno-cultural complex, distinct from those north or south of the area.
Again, the point here that all these sites between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan 20 thousand years ago speak against Eurasian back migration for the settlement of the Nile. And the people doing these papers acknowledge that this is indeed one of the theories they are trying to validate, even though the facts themselves make it unlikely.
Another key point is a lot of these sites came to light during the Nubia Salvage campaign, when archaeologists rushed to excavate these areas before the region was flooded. This only supports the idea that these areas in so called Nubia are the key to the prehistory of the Nile but are now all submerged...... And there is nothing equivalent that can be found in the delta to suggest a large scale cultural or population movement into the Nile in prehistory as the basis for the people or culture there in this time period.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Bottom line, there is no mystery about the place of origin of the culture of the Nile Valley. It originated in the South going back over 20,000 years. In order for the ancient culture of the Nile Valley to originate in Eurasia, the culture would have to originate in the North. And it does not.
This study is inconclusive by the author's admission due to the lack of excavation though. The argument is furthermore only logically sound, if we assume that Eurasian geneflow was restricted to Northern Nile valley as a corridor (to the exclusion of the red sea, and Mediterranean coast), could've only occurred during that specific period, and that this snapshot can be extrapolated to be the genetic landscape from the LGM up until the early dynastic period (a period of ~11,000 years). Those are a lot of assumptions, which the wider pool of evidence doesn't support.
This lists ancient samples and South Africans from 12,000 and 2000BP Are either of these referring to San and Khoi people? what samples is this derived from? I have not heard of aDNA recovered from South Africa 12,000 BP
You're asking me when YOU created a thread on the paper on genetic samples of ancient African foragers here.
quote: L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about, even Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it, posting it year after year for polemical reasons
Wrong again. Beyoku warned about simplistic racial models on what counts as 'African'. As for Tukuler, you don't need to put words in his mouth as he made himself clear here.
His issue was the nature of the division of Europeans as 1/3 African 2/3s Asian. That doesn't mean Europeans don't have African admixture. Which is something Europeans like yourself seem to dread.
So back into the snake pit you go! And while you're there you can bite Antalas. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why modern North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans.
You are posting a chart with no article title or author given, so nobody is required to assume it has credibility although it might and it has circles added to it
The above chart is of ancient samples so any statement you make about it should include the word "ancient" since the above chart is referring B2 carriers rather than SA since it has become predominantly populated by Bantu speakers. Some of them are of A and B but most are E1b1a 54.7% (Wood 2005) compared to E1b1b 4.4% (Wood 2005) which predominates in the Maghreb. South Africa’s total population is estimated at around 50 million people, and Indigenous groups make up approximately 1% of this figure.
That is why West Africans are genetically closer to South Africans than they are to Africans of the Maghreb but are relatively closer to Sahelians
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
I think you should get out of the habit of using "the former" and "the latter" because it makes things harder to follow
Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")
West Asia, comprises of 13 countries including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Iran in addition to the Gulf countries including Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. (basically "Middle East") .
.
To paraphrase to a statement that can be reasonably addressed>
quote:Some Southern Europeans and people of the Middle East ("West Eurasians") cluster close to Africans of the Maghreb due to migrations of them into Africa ("back migration) but paternally many of them are of the African haplogroup E to begin with, originating in Africa and migrated into Southern Europe and into the Middle East.
yes, Haplogroup E is thought to have emerged in prehistoric North Africa or East Africa, and would have later dispersed into West Asia. The major subclades of haplogroup E found amongst Berbers belong to E-Z827, which is believed to have emerged in North Africa.
Note the resemblance between the distribution of E-M81 and the African admixture from the Dodecad project.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how when you suddenly grab a snake by its head to prevent from biting, it squirms.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
What is the purpose of this picture?
quote:
You are posting a chart with no article title or author given, so nobody is required to assume it has credibility although it might and it has circles added to it.
That chart was originally posted by Tukuler who made it clear to YOU and everyone else in this forum that it is a modified from of Rosa Fregel's 2019 PCA.
quote:The above chart is of ancient samples so any statement you make about it should include the word "ancient" since the above chart is referring B2 carriers rather than SA since it has become predominantly populated by Bantu speakers. Some of them are of A and B but most are E1b1a 54.7% (Wood 2005) compared to E1b1b 4.4% (Wood 2005) which predominates in the Maghreb. South Africa’s total population is estimated at around 50 million people, and Indigenous groups make up approximately 1% of this figure.
And here I thought anyone with functional eyes and is literate can simply read the chart and see that the samples therein are ancient. The topic of this thread is ancient samples, namely Amarna. Why are you bringing up Y haplogroups, when the chart is based on autosomal data?
quote:That is why West Africans are genetically closer to South Africans than they are to Africans of the Maghreb but are relatively closer to Sahelians
Wrong. The Fregel data is based on ancient samples not modern. While the Loosdrecht PCA as shown below is based on modern samples, the samples come from populations seen as indigenous or aboriginal to their respective regions.
In both South African = Khoisan NOT Bantu hence the great distance between West Africans and South Africans. West Africans are closest to East Africans, followed by North Africans.
quote:I think you should get out of the habit of using "the former" and "the latter" because it makes things harder to follow.[/qb]
It's not hard for someone who can properly read and is not dislexic.
quote:Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")
LMAO No. You are confusing Southwest Asia with South Asia, or as some call it Southcentral Asia.
quote: West Asia, comprises of 13 countries including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Iran in addition to the Gulf countries including Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. (basically "Middle East")
The Middle East is more accurately Southwest Asia to avoid the Eurocentric bias that is "Middle East". Technically the subcontinent of Europe is Northwest Asia and BOTH Southwest Asia and Northwest Asia (Europe) together is *Western Eurasia* whose populations have African admixture.
quote:To paraphrase to a statement that can be reasonably addressed>
quote:Some Southern Europeans and people of the Middle East ("West Eurasians") cluster close to Africans of the Maghreb due to migrations of them into Africa ("back migration) but paternally many of them are of the African haplogroup E to begin with, originating in Africa and migrated into Southern Europe and into the Middle East.
Actually most of the admixture in Europe doesn't come from the Maghreb but from northeast Africa.
Ironically most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
quote:yes, Haplogroup E is thought to have emerged in prehistoric North Africa or East Africa, and would have later dispersed into West Asia. The major subclades of haplogroup E found amongst Berbers belong to E-Z827, which is believed to have emerged in North Africa.
Note the resemblance between the distribution of E-M81 and the African admixture from the Dodecad project.
I don't know about the entire E clade but E1b1b does show it's highest frequency and diversity together in Sub-Saharan East Africa, which is a wonder why you and others equate it with North Africa only.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That chart was originally posted by Tukuler who made it clear to YOU and everyone else in this forum that it is a modified from of Rosa Fregel's 2019 PCA.
For the sake of readers you should always list sources of charts unless you propose that the readers of this forum assume it's legitimate just by being a chart
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The topic of this thread is ancient samples, namely Amarna. Why are you bringing up Y haplogroups, when the chart is based on autosomal data?
Because you brought up a chart that has no ancient Egyptians on it, instead has ancient Maghrebians and you made a comment about their admixture and this is more easily explained by the differences in their maternal and paternal ancestry, and this is not covered in a PCA chart
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")[/qb]
LMAO No. You are confusing Southwest Asia with South Asia, or as some call it Southcentral Asia.
why would I be confusing something?
you didn't say "South Central Asia." and that is three words not two. And even with that people don't usually use that term, they just say "Central Asia"
But you didn't use this word "central"
you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
and Southwest Asians consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
so instead of continuing to dig in you should be saying "o.k. you got me on that one I meant Southern Central Asians. "
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't know about the entire E clade but E1b1b does show it's highest frequency and diversity together in Sub-Saharan East Africa, which is a wonder why you and others equate it with North Africa only.
I already posted this in another thread you commented in
It shows how the frequency of E1b1b extends into sub-Saharan Africa, into the horn but you were talking about West Africans
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For the sake of readers you should always list sources of charts unless you propose that the readers of this forum assume it's legitimate just by being a chart
This coming from the person who likes to post cryptic images and charts with no accompanying text.
quote:Because you brought up a chart that has no ancient Egyptians on it, instead has ancient Maghrebians and you made a comment about their admixture and this is more easily explained by the differences in their maternal and paternal ancestry, and this is not covered in a PCA chart.
The topic of this thread is pop affiliator which uses STRs which come from autosomal DNA. Autosomes are better at assessing admixture than uniparental lineages simply because these lineages only cover a very tiny fraction of the genome. This is why you have an Englishman who looks no different from other Englishmen but still carry African paternal A-M13! (That issue was discussed before in this forum but I couldn't find the thread) You need autosomal analysis to see how much African admixture he has because him having and African lineage won't say how much.
quote:you didn't say "South Central Asia." and that is three words not two. And even with that people don't usually use that term, they just say "Central Asia"
But you didn't use this word "central"
you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
and Southwest Asians consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
so instead of continuing to dig in you should be saying "o.k. you got me on that one I meant Southern Central Asians. "
The Indian subcontinent has always been referred to as SOUTH Asia which is different from Southwest Asia. Only seldom does it get called Southcentral Asia but very seldom since the terms Southwest, Southeast, and South between them.
I don't know how you confused Southwest Asia for the Indian subcontinent as I've never come across someone to make that mistake.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I already posted this in another thread you commented in
It shows how the frequency of E1b1b extends into sub-Saharan Africa, into the horn but you were talking about West Africans.
Yes and West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to South African indigenes.
quote:[most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.] I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
I thought this was explained to you before in multiple threads per the Fernandez study. Funny how you love to bring up European maternal H1 in Africans but ignore the converse in Europe.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes and West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to South African indigenes.
Now you've added the right word West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to 1% of South Africans, the indigenes.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought this was explained to you before in multiple threads per the Fernandez study.
I notice you use this tactic a lot on me and other people, somebody asks you a question and instead of answering it you say stuff like:
"we have discussed this many times, like in this thread____LINK"
So then you expect people to read some multi-page thread and hope they will not invest the time and then wonder if maybe your argument was proven somewhere in it and then just give up, realizing that they have been put on a time wasting goose chase, taking hours
Or in this thread you are linking now, they are not even discussing your claim "most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2."
the thread starts off with what looks like an article in Spanish
later we find out it's dissertation they are talking about, in Spanish
So it's like here, read this 300 page dissertation, my point is proven in there somewhere. It's not even clear if you can even still download it and where
That don't cut it, you are supposed to be able to answer the question and then support it with a a quote, article title and page number if it's long, something that can still be viewed stop dancing around and trying to use other threads to prove something
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both 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 uniparental 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).
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both 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 uniparental 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).
So what's the significance of these mummies matching with these African populations? I think I have a rough idea why, but in you guys' words why isn't it indicative of population affinities or admixture percentages?
Posts: 44 | From: West Bumble... | Registered: Apr 2017
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't know his exact ethnic background, but I think he is a French citizen of West African origin, so I suspect he's looking for his own phenotype in the ancient Nile Valley.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic