<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 


^alTakruri, not a genetics expert but the sideline notations below Table 1 do seem to suggest their MLI method is constructed solely by looking @ STR profile frequencies (likelihood of occurrence).
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My thoughts:

Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.

We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.

This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.

This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).

---

---

In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:



The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:



The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.

Thoughts?
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

[*]popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.

To simulate DNAtribes regions I used 5 population sets</font>

1. Kenya (Bantu NE)
2. Namibia (San) + South Africa (Bantu)
3. Senegal (Mandenka)
4. Yoruba (Nigeria)
5. Algeria (Mzabi)

popSTR Db is nowhere near as robust as DNAtribes DB but will suit the purpose of example.


* -- not complete yet more to come -- *

---

Nice. Looking forward to the results nonetheless.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My thoughts:

Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.

We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.

This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.

This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).

---

---

In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:



The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:



The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.

Thoughts?

---

• Careful!
  
  DNAtribes' Digest Jan 2012 01 01 Table 1 doesn't give frequencies.
  
  It lists proprietary average MLI (MatchLikelihoodIndex) scores
  
  Freq and MLI must bear some relationship but that info is withheld.

1. select any mummy
2. note its 8 loci's pair values
3. match them to popSTRs results

Using Tut for example we find the pooled Southern African set as perfect a match as our tool allows.
And since the haplotypes match for all given alleles we don't need to check frequencies for the most
likely match. If we want to complete the ranking for all five sets we'd have to take highest frequencies
of matching alleles into consideration.



And no, the science is NOT this crude.

PS this board's nested listing sucks!
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Pop Set 2 belongs to what royal mummy?
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My thoughts:

Markers such as Haplotype IV, M60, HbS, and the above STR's are not associated with Elongated Northeast Africans, yet, they are/were found in Egypt in abundance. Those markers were likely brought to Egypt by people who underwent a similar arid/hyperarid evolution process as the ancestors of the Afrasan speakers that now sport an elongated appearance (eg, Borano, Afar, Somali's etc). Why? Because all Nile Valley populations tend to cluster together[/i], phenotypically speaking, with contemporary material (eg, Mesolithic Sudan clusters with Mesolithic Egypt, Neolithic Sudan clusters with Neolithic Egypt), even though we KNOW that some of those exact same similar looking Nile-Valley populations had very different ethnic/linguistic (and thus genetic) backgrounds.

We know this because Ehret and other linguistic scholars are correlating Nilo Saharan languages with some of those complexes.

This is all discernable because such groups are extant today, allowing for such extrapolation, but what about other other potential groups that could have and would have assimulated? The diversity of ethno-lingistic groups coupled with Nile Valley populational homogeneity agrees with the earlier mentioned possibility that other, genetically way more Southern, groups could have slipped past our limited skeletal radar as well.

This is the only explanation I can come up with, that can explain the above markers in conjunction with the seemingly incongruent skeletal evidence. The ancestors of the present day (genetically) closely related elongated Somali/Ethiopian/Sudanic/Egyptian populations lost their still somewhat generalized, late-Paleolithic broadly African features (seen in Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Halfans, Late Paleolithic Esnans, Mushabeans, Late Paleolithic Wadi Kubbaniyans) alongside some other, by then genetically differentiated (but not so much physically) Sub Saharan Africans (ie, they would have been rich in E-V38, M60 and other typically Sub Saharan markers that can be seen in Egypt today, but not so much in the aforementioned Horn populations).

---

[/qb][/QUOTE]In support of the above I present the following Pinhasi et al (2000) data:



The location of Springbok flats and the other African specimen that were particularly close to the Upper Paleolithic Egyptian Nazlet Khater, are highlighted in green:



The type of analysis was metric, and the bones that were studied are the Mandible. Notice that the specimen roughly correspond with Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.

Thoughts? [/QB][/QUOTE]

^^Quite possibly. The mix of peoples in and out of
the Nile Valley, over several millenia, as the Saharan
climate fluctuated would more than account for differing
genetic variations in the reshuffled groups. Lingustic
analysis shows that the greater Sudanic area, Greenberg's
"core area" or the "Sudanic Belt" is one of the
most linguistically dense in Africa, stretching into
the highlands of Ethiopia. It did and does contain
"Bantu" speakers. It is thus no big thing to find Bantu speakers in the Horn
of Africa.

With millennia to play around with, finding traces
of their passage found in the Nile Valley is no big surprise.



And again, Godde 2009 does note that Egyptlogists
have long observed resemblances between the ancient Egyptian
Badari and South African groups. These are observations
of old-line, conservative researchers, not something dreamed
up by so-called "Afrocentrists".

"On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990)."
--Godde 2009
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
If the DNATribes digest issue is dated to the coming Sunday, why is it already out? And how come its information hasn't already gone viral?
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
Excellent work alTakuri! Again, not surprised by the "South African" hits simply due to the dynamic nature of migrations and language phyla.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
And how come its information hasn't already gone viral?

---

Just take a wild guess.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
@ Sundjata
Thank you

@ Centric
Oh, once our friend Carport X aka VideoLedWall aka
SoccerShoes aka ad infinitum gets ahold of it it will be.

And, like comic books, some periodicals are released pre-date.

Also it is just an article in an online digest.
It is not a journal published scientific report or study.
Thankfully DNAtribes was sensible to not go to the media with it.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
BUMP
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
What else would they be, other than indigenous people from that part of Africa?

To claim anything otherwise is ridiculous. And shows a lack of understanding of demic diffusion and how man lived prior to the age of intercontinental travel. The “highways” of pre-history were the river and lakes of the land man lived in.

It is lunacy of anyone to suggest Tut and his family is anything else but people from that part of the world/Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR
profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4

Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.

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).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
326 vs 14

That's a huge difference.

---

Why are you looking for the presence of "Horners" when the data tells you they are not there in this case? Afters seeing the results of 7 seperate mummies you have to change YOUR idea because the results from these mummies is NOT about to change this instant.

326 vs 14 is not what the argument should be.
323 vs 326 is, and its not statistically different.

Discuss THE RESULTS not what you want, or what you thought the results were going to be. That is DENIAL!


Truthcentric - We are not discussing the alleged change of Horn Africans. You are going about it the wrong way. The genetic continuity of Horners is not what is under question because we dont have ancient genetic data from Horners. We DO have genetic date from Egypt to discuss THEIR continuity. You cannot use this data to hypothesize the continuity of Ethiopians....JUST BECAUSE WE THOUGHT ancient Egyptian would be similar. You and Manu are basically trying to refute results that countered your assumptions with more assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I agree

The genetic composition in the Horn may very well have differed in past. Actually, I'm pretty sure of it, looking at the dominant Somali y chromosomes, but IMO, the sampled African variants in DNA tribes' ''Horn'' cluster were not affected by Eurasian immigration to the degree that those STR profiles would decrease from Great Lakes/South African frequencies to DNA Tribes' present day ''Horn of Africa'' frequencies.

8 STR profiles however, are far from enough. More STR profiles are needed.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I get the sense that some here had doubts about the indigenousness and Africaness of AEians. What else can they be?

The really intriguing question is how far SSAians migrated. Is greater Africa a fact or fiction? As cited in the middle East/falasheen thread. African female lineage(L*) extended into the Arabian Peninsula going as far back to the end of the LGM. And in that University of Barcelona study 50% of the ancient lineage were MtDNA (L*).
Maelstrom et al concluded that modern Europeans are genetically different to ancient remains. He discovered they were primarily mtDNA – HG-U* with origins again, in the Great Lakes region.
And I always go back to craniometric studies, ie Sergi, where he stated it all started around the Grate Lakes region. And these people reached as far is Iberia, Stonehenge, ancient Persia etc
I have to admit I was a skeptic when I first started reading, now, to me, the real question is how far these African peoples extend into Eurasia.

Of course, the present population of Eurasia is far different. Which lends credence to what Mike and Clyde have been saying from day one

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What else would they be, other than indigenous people from that part of Africa?

To claim anything otherwise is ridiculous. And shows a lack of understanding of demic diffusion and how man lived prior to the age of intercontinental travel. The “highways” of pre-history were the river and lakes of the land man lived in.

It is lunacy of anyone to suggest Tut and his family is anything else but people from that part of the world/Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR
profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4

Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.

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).

---

---

quote:

---

8 STR profiles however, are far from enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If you're looking for the substantiative basis for my position, look to the very DNA tribes' quote you've posted on the previous page, in response to Manu. The parts of the quote you didn't emphasize.

---

quote:

---

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

---

^This?? The part that I emphasized from the same quote was to demonstrate its utility. There's no incongruence between this and what I emphasized. How do you go about scrutinizing similar results obtained by alTakuri's data run?

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry

As Astenb stated, I don't believe more STRs would reveal anything differently. This quote seemed to allude to Yuya's anomalous matches with New World samples and "The Younger Lady" who had minor matches in the Near East and Mediterranean.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
Even when all is said and done....Ethiopians STILL have an affinity to Southern Africans. 23andme another genetics company pretty much does the same kind of match. Of course myself being mostly of West African descent match with west Africa first.

ETHIOPIANS on the other hand match with both East AND SOUTH. I have seen the Southern African link with maybe Half of Ethiopians sampled.

Some Ethiopians get this:



While others get this:



East and South Africans also share the deepest clades of the Paternal AND Maternal uniperntal lineages. Haplogroups A and B as well as Mtdna L0.

To add to that, There is a southern Cushitic presence that about some 5500 years ago pushed as far south as South Africa and has left a considerable Y-Chromosome presence in South African click speakers in one E1b1b subclade of (E-M293) :

 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Originally posted by astenb:
To add to that, There is a southern Cushitic presence that about some 5500 years ago pushed as far south as South Africa and has left a considerable Y-Chromosome presence in South African click speakers in one E1b1b subclade of (E-M293) :

What's the reference or citation for this astenb?
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
lol.. whether Great Lakes, Horn of Africa, or further south, the link data is STILL "sub-Saharan"

---

Indeed, though regrettably "certain academics" have perpetuated the habit of using "sub-Saharan" as a euphemism for "Negroid", which makes these results all the more damaging to Eurocentrists (as we know which populations the term has been historically applied to and they include those from the Great Lakes region). Of course we know better than to fall into the trap but leaving Eurocentrists with no leeway like this is always refreshing.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
It would be nice to use a 15, 21, or 27 marker kit.

The fact is the Amarna mummies were typed by
Hawass et al 2010 using an 8 STR nuclear DNA
kit.

The 8 STR MiniFiler kit results can and do
give accurate and valid population database
hits when its alleles are checked. Of course
the more robust the Db the more precise the
population hits.

We can't expect DNAtribes to use their 15, 21,
or 27 loci matching system when all that exists
for the Amarna mummies nDNA are the reported
8 loci in Hawass2010's scientific peer reviewed
study.

DNAtribes set out to match the alleles in the
Hawass2010 report against their database of
World Region Populations. They wrote up what
they found in their digest. The results are what
they are.

DNAtribes can be criticized for hiding exactly
which populations comprise what world region.
DNAtribes cannot be criticized for using 8 loci.

What can be even more criticised is mistaking
an article in an online digest from a proprietary
DNA identity service company for a scientific
study or report when it is no more than filler
for their customers to read and has not been
presented for technical perusal of scientists
in the field of population genetics.

Unlike another unscrupulous private company who
did no more than resurrect internet rumours on a
NW Euro Tut based on no more than unverified
Y-STR screenshots and present it to the media
as a scientifically valid report, at least this
DNAtribes had the integrity to employ documented
nuclear DNA and not run to the media with their
findings (which do not boost Euro self-esteem
and presumptious lies of a genetically Euro Tut).


I commend DNAtribes for having the courage to even
web publish their findings. They could easily have
just kept it to themselves and put out another topic
in their January 2012 digest.

May 2012 usher in such bravery and honesty in the
entire fields of population and personal genetics.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Originally posted by astenb:
To add to that, There is a southern Cushitic presence that about some 5500 years ago pushed as far south as South Africa and has left a considerable Y-Chromosome presence in South African click speakers in one E1b1b subclade of (E-M293) :

What's the reference or citation for this astenb?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
lol.. whether Great Lakes, Horn of Africa, or further south, the link data is STILL "sub-Saharan"

---

Indeed, though regrettably "certain academics" have perpetuated the habit of using "sub-Saharan" as a euphemism for "Negroid", which makes these results all the more damaging to Eurocentrists (as we know which populations the term has been historically applied to and they include those from the Great Lakes region). Of course we know better than to fall into the trap but leaving Eurocentrists with no leeway like this is always refreshing.

---

I cannot wait to see the Euronuts flip out when these results go public and are replicated by other scientists. What sort of excuses will they contrive to explain the data?
 

---

Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
 
Good points takruri.

I'm wondering though when dnatribes says certain loci are south african or whatever are they even saying that region is the origin or just an area of prevalence? If you look at their breakdown for the "southern african region" in the link below it says said region is 66.7% west african and 29% east african. Then when you go to their "west african region" the breakdown is 50.3% east african and 44.6% southern african. Wth, huh?!

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-02-28.pdf
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
What they seem to be doing is removing the main sample from the possible results. For instance, instead of saying "West African are well...100% West African" - They treat is as an unknown group removing the main component. To get a feel you have to go through ALL their journals having anything to do with Africa and read them.
 

---

Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
 
Yea, I figured they're treating each region as an unknown group but when you say removing the "main component" what do you mean?
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ Well they are removing the "West Africa" from West Africa...removing the Horn of Africa from the Horn of Africa etc.

The Southern African region is then 66 West African and 34% East African. You have to read all of their publications on it to notice the trend.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


well, so much for the Beja/Medjay theory

The ancient Egytpians were closer to Zulu
.
 

---

Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
 
Right, Astenb, so the interpretation would be that the region defined by southern africa would be comprised of 66.7% W AF and 29% E AF. But they say that W Af itself is 44.6% southern african so, huh? It seems very circular reasoning. That's why I was wondering if these %s just meant x% of genes in y region are typically found in z region, instead of saying x% originate in any region. You see what i mean?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If you're looking for the substantiative basis for my position, look to the very DNA tribes' quote you've posted on the previous page, in response to Manu. The parts of the quote you didn't emphasize.

---

quote:

---

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

---

^This?? The part that I emphasized from the same quote was to demonstrate its utility. There's no incongruence between this and what I emphasized. How do you go about scrutinizing similar results obtained by alTakuri's data run?

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry

As Astenb stated, I don't believe more STRs would reveal anything differently. This quote seemed to allude to Yuya's anomalous matches with New World samples and "The Younger Lady" who had minor matches in the Near East and Mediterranean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:


well, so much for the Beja/Medjay theory

The ancient Egytpians were closer to Zulu
.

---

quote:

---

Of course there is no incongruence between what you emphasized and what preceeded it; there is a incongruence between what it says and your notion that more STRs are not needed. The bit you posted is clearly a disclaimer to those who might potentially blow up the result beyond that which can be drawn from it (not saying you're doing that).

It's not in support of the notion that 8 STRs are enough; it clearly says the 8 tested STR's comprise a preliminary analysis.

---

quote:

---

Short tandem repeat (STR) loci are among the most informative polymorphic markers in the human genome. Studies have shown that a minimum of eight STR markers are required to positively identify human cell lines. Use of 8 core STR loci enables a 1 in 10^8 discrimination rate for unrelated individuals.

---

http://www.atcc.org/CulturesandProducts/CellBiology/STRProfileDatabase/tabid/174/Default.aspx

^Even more so for population sets. Of course this was already demonstrated. Are you just more concerned with the accuracy of the sub-regional matches (e.g., Southern Africa vs. the Horn)?
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 


All this is just one family would be interesting to see how the Ukha family of the 12th Dyn matches up since they are reportedly sprang form the Horn..Omoro I beleive.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^DNAtribe's "Horner" data includes basically everything from Northern Sudan to Somalia. Probably wouldn't tell us much again other than they were local Africans.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily
in ‘‘eastern,’’ ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest
frequency of the ‘‘Broad’’ trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies
in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by
the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte
and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for
equivalences of markers), which is affiliated
with it. The distribution of these markers
in other parts of Africa has usually been
explained by the ‘‘Bantu migrations,’’ but
their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this
way. Their existence is better explained by
their being present in populations of the
early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on
to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene,
according to Hassan (1988); this occurred long
before the ‘‘Bantu migrations,’’ which also do
not explain the high frequency of M2 in
Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers
there either.

---

quote:

---

Do you really believe that after all the time the ancestors of Yuya, Tjuya and Amenhotep III spent in Northern Africa, they would not yield ancestry that is more characeristic of Northeastern Africa? I find that hard to believe, hence, my initial statement.

---

quote:

---

I've noticed that you didn't answer my question:

Do you really believe that after all the time the ancestors of Yuya, Tjuya and Amenhotep III spent in Northern Africa, they would not yield ancestry that is more characeristic of Northeastern Africa? I find that hard to believe, hence, my initial statement.

---

quote:

---

Why speculate when I don't even know what the genetic composition of northeast Africa was during that time period? See Charlie's citation above you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] [QUOTE]It was a criticism of the notion that additional STR's wouldn't yield other ancestries.

---

quote:

---

My question doesn't require anyone to speculate about anything. There would have been more than enough indigenous genetic variation in-built in Ancient Egypt (let alone Northeast Africa) that would not conform to the matches reported by DNA tribes. This variation is what you're missing out on when you say things like ''more than 8 STR's are not needed'' and ''additional STR's would not yield different results''.

---

quote:

---

We are not discussing bult-in variation in Egypt, we are discussing the built-in variation of these 18th-dynasty royals and their relationship to other Africans. Indeed, they are a sub-set of whatever variation existed at that moment in time in northeast Africa.

---

quote:

---

You're saying 18th dynasty royals would not have in them some of the built in variation of Ancient Egypt? Let me rephrase that. Are you saying 18th dynasty royals would not have in them some of the built in genetic variation that would have been present in AE, but that does not link as heavily with South/Central Africans as Hawass' 2010 STR data?

---

quote:

---

What does this have to do with inferring "ancestry" as opposed to population relationships?

---

quote:

---

^I'm saying that population relationships don't equate "ancestry" (see Somali vs Arabian example), a point driven home most often by Dr. Keita.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Do you have evidence for your earlier claims that more than 8 STR's wouldn't yield ancestry that would be different from those original 8 matches or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

^I'm saying that population relationships don't equate "ancestry" (see Somali vs Arabian example), a point driven home most often by Dr. Keita.

---

^A point that he relates to cranio-metric similarities, not genetic matches, and if DNA tribes' Somali/Arabian match can be confirmed and reproduced, such matches would have indeed been caused by ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Do you have evidence for your earlier claims that more than 8 STR's wouldn't yield ancestry that would be different from those original 8 matches or not?

---

I made no claims pertaining to the "yielding of ancestry", you'd have to respond to a quote unfortunately to get a useful reply.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ Sundjata is right on that one. In order to see these results for what they are you have to be familiar with for-profit ancestry testing and everything that is going on in the World wide web right now. There are peer reviewed studied....and then their are for profit genetic tests. In these last few years individuals have been using the same tools used in peer reviewed studies to analyze the results of for profit genetic tests.

There have been multiple different "Projects" be it the "Swedish DNA project" "Harrapa South Asian project" "Eurogenes Ancestry Project" "African Ancestry Project" "Dodecad Project" etc etc etc. They are using "Admixture" and "Structure" the same why Rosenberg, Tishkoff et al are using these programs....in fact they are using the professional geneticists DATA in their own projects.

The point is, unless a person has been paying attention to this there is a lot they are left in the dark about seeing these results from DNA Tribes popout. You see the screenshots from 23andme on East Africans. Well 23andme splits the humans into 3 groups so Horn Africans come out 80% European....of COURSE this affinity is not "Admixutre" nor "Ancestry"....it just supports OOA.

The are MORE than a few ways to interpret what Great Lakes and South Africa really mean....and I am sure they mean multiple things.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
I'm confused here. Earlier in this thread, Swenet had no problem with AEs tending more towards South and Central Africans than with Horners; Manu was the one who disputed those results. Now Swenet is agreeing with Manu all of a sudden?

Speaking of Horners, I noticed that the DNATribes database doesn't have anyone from Ethiopia or South Sudan even though both certain Ethiopian groups and South Sudanese share a Nilotic linguistic and cultural heritage with Great Lakes people. If these Ethiopians and South Sudanese were included in DNATribes' Horn region, maybe the connection between the Horn and AE would appear stronger.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
No, I don't agree with Manu, and I haven't abandoned anything I've posted in this thread.

I just don't understand why else they would present their results tentatively and be saying things like:

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family.

Why else would they be saying this?

How else would this potentially other ancestry be uncovered if not through more STR's?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Do you have evidence for your earlier claims that more than 8 STR's wouldn't yield ancestry that would be different from those original 8 matches or not?

---

I would think that adding more markers would merely specify exactly which groups within Southern and Central Africa were closest to the Egyptians, not change which region of Africa they would affiliate with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
No, I don't agree with Manu, and I haven't abandoned anything I've posted in this thread.

I just don't understand why else they would present their results tentatively and be saying things like:

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry for the
Amarna pharaonic family.

Why else would they be saying this?

How else would this potentially other ancestry be uncovered if not through more STR's?

---

Maybe they're trying to say that while the Egyptians' overall genetic affinity is greater to Africans, they can't preclude the possibility of very minor and distant non-African ancestry. Alternatively, they could be acknowledging that few people from any part of the world has ancestry from only one continent or "race".
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I don't know, if more STR's would only further exclude other relationships, it means those 8 STR's would be more than enough, as Sundiata has said along.

What you're saying to explain DNA tribes' comment would pertain to ALL populations, and is a common sense. Maybe it's just their way of submitting results they didn't feel comfortable about, either because of their own pre-conceived notions or because of fearing some sort of backlash, as has been so often the case when it comes to proclaiming Egypts African ties (eg, Diop, Bernal etc).

Either way, you were right Sundiata.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Thanks. It isn't about being "right" though as much as getting to the bottom of all of this. There's a lot to untangle.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
If this helps:
My DNA Tribes results.








 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
[QUOTE]Additionally, ties to African populations presently distant from Egypt should not puzzle anyone in the know, since the core ancient Egyptian population would have ultimately drawn from a shared ancestral gene pool that crosscuts the different living African populations, aside from more recent common origins in the Saharan belt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
No surprise that one AE family clustered close to West Africans. AE's were diverse Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
No surprise that one AE family clustered close to West Africans. AE's were diverse Africans.

---

Which makes me wonder what kind of results a test on a larger number of mummies would yield. There's no evidence I know of that the Amarna family was ethnically distinct from the rest of the Egyptian population, so I'm guessing more of the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Dienekes has caught wind of this, and to his credit he seems to have revised his opinion on the AEs' affinities:

Forensic analysis of King Tut and his relatives

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ To be fair, no one has extracted DNA from ancient Greek remains yet. All we have is genetic data on modern Greeks, and if our Egyptian experience has taught us anything, it's that modern populations don't always mirror the ancient ones genetically.

---

Evergreen Writes:

Not sure why you would say that. There is no evidence that the Amarna results mirror the Ancient Egyptians as a whole.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Dienekes doesn't know what he's talking about concerning the Greco-Roman [Fayum] portraits anyways (which don't even depict ancient Egyptians for the most part). This also places doubt on some cranio-metric interpretations/assumptions seeing as how Tut would have fit the mold of his "intermediate continuum" yet we aren't seeing intermediate results, of which he admits are accurate. Probably why he painfully admits at the end that these kind of "qualitative" [and subjective] observations are no substitute for hard data.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Now this thread is what ES old E/S was all about,learned alot here personally.

Remember all the hoopla,premature celebrations of the Aryanist Euro centrist types about Tut's R1b
now come to find out that his R1b may have came from Cameroon the home of the dreaded Bantu I look forward to them tripping over themselves trying to explain away this or claiming a Caca origin for Bantus and other "West Africans" the hated region..special shot out goes to Al-Takruri here for keeping a cool head and did some fine detective work exposing the leaked screen shot for exactly what it was.... a leaked screen shot I am not vindictive by nature but i'll smile watching them eat crow..
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Now this thread is what ES old E/S was all about,learned alot here personally.

Remember all the hoopla,premature celebrations of the Aryanist Euro centrist types about Tut's R1b
now come to find out that his R1b may have came from Cameroon the home of the dreaded Bantu I look forward to them tripping over themselves trying to explain away this or claiming a Caca origin for Bantus and other "West Africans" the hated region..special shot out goes to Al-Takruri here for keeping a cool head and did some fine detective work exposing the leaked screen shot for exactly what it was.... a leaked screen shot I am not vindictive by nature but i'll smile watching them eat crow..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR
profiles based on 8 tested loci.
4

Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be
most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.

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).

---

Even Dienekes is claiming a "African" origin of the Amarna mummies.

They seem to indicate that there is something definitely "African" about this collection of mummies. - Dienekes
 

---

Posted by Omo Baba (Member # 18816) on :
 
Someone had already correctly pointed out above that those 8 STRs plus about 5 more are used in forensic analysis and paternity test and such, which was the reason why Hawaas et.al had amplified them in the first place. This means that more STRs will definitely NOT show those mummies to be non-Africans it will merely narrow them to a specific group in Africa.

FBI CODIS Core STR Loci:

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
that weird website called hamitic union has a comment on tis DNATribes info:

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ Basically more bitching about 8 STRs not being enough.

quote:

---

This is an important specification because research has demonstrated that studies using only 10 autosomal loci have a huge statistical margin of error of over 30%. And that margin of error steadily decreases as one increases the number of markers analysed.

quote:

---

"Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."

---

http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

---

The error rate the Witherspoon paper is talking about refers NOT to identifying individuals' ancestry but whether or not two individuals from one population will be found to be more dissimilar from each other than two individuals from two different populations. The Witherspoon quote says nothing about the utility of STRs in determining individuals' ancestry which is what DNATribes is trying to measure.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Yup there they go with the phenotype, conveniently side stepping Bantus and Nilo-Saharan who have narrow features and posting the broadest features they can find.




Bantu and a Nilo Saharan respectively sorry your Union is busted!!lol
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
@Truthcentric

So if use of 100 loci turns in an error rate of 20% then why is he relying on a study directly above that uses 15 [as you've shown, because the kid has his wires crossed and can't discern what the different studies are trying to measure]? There's no use even responding to that loon and his convoluted garbage (it WOULD be lioness who posted that).

You asked earlier: "What sort of excuses will they contrive to explain the data?"

^Well, there's a good example.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Sundjata that is the rouse they are going to take,when in doubt and can't refute..make sh!!t up,and I am glad Lioness posted this because we now know the approach they are going to take.hehehe

Hamitic union no!!
African union yes!!
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:

Why dont you stop being a retard and read the full study. Notice they they dont just match south African Bantu. Look at the numbers.....MOST of the mummies match "Great Lakes Region" First. Great lakes region are Nilo-Saharan folks:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
LOL! Clyde Winters wasn't the first to say this. Not by a long shot. The only thing Clyde does is try to tie everything to Mande peoples and Mande languages which is absolutely not the same as say what Diop or Obenga were doing.

As for the Mountains of the Moon and ties to Southern Africa, people are missing the clues in Egyptian cosmology. The ancient Egyptians called inner Africa "Gods land"? Why? Because they themselves acknowledged and understood that humanity was born inside Africa. That is the core of their cosmology. When you see the diety Min depicted as jet black it is a symbol of God's seed in man originating in Africa.

The Egyptians knew that humanity originated in Africa and that they themselves along with many of their traditions and gods originated there as well.

They knew what modern biology just found out with DNA studies thousands of years ago. But then again, people don't realize the symbolism of Isis as the basis of biological understanding in ancient Egypt. As mother nature Isis or Hathor symbolizes the female chromosome, the incubator and the gene pool and Osiris represents the X chromosome, the male principle and the seed for the male gene pool.

---

Old reference to the same point.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000009;p=5#000275

Note the colors on the dress in the upper right corner(I wish I could find a better shot) it looks just like the helix of modern genetics:

Female principle(nurturing, gene bank/repository;incubator):



http://www.flickr.com/photos/24205667@N03/4463793845/in/photostream/

quote:

---

he ancient Egyptian name for Medinet Habu, in Arabic the "City of Habu" was Djamet, meaning "males and mothers." Its holy ground was believed to be where the Ogdoad, the four pairs of first primeval gods, were buried.

---

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/habu.htm


Male X principle(seed, ejaculating force, active principle):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/manna4u/431865519/in/set-72157600018826993


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DNA_simple2.svg

And of course the connections culturally between Egypt and the rest of Africa are quite numerous.




Bassari ritual Senegal

http://www.righttosightandhealth.org/?page_id=467
Also similar to Bedik rituals as well.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:

The most reasonable explanation to reconcile these affinity results is a way too low resolution. I am sure that higher resolution analyses on these mummies will show significantly different results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I don't know, if more STR's would only further exclude other relationships, it means those 8 STR's would be more than enough, as Sundiata has said along.

What you're saying to explain DNA tribes' comment would pertain to ALL populations, and is a common sense. Maybe it's just their way of submitting results they didn't feel comfortable about, either because of their own pre-conceived notions or because of fearing some sort of backlash, as has been so often the case when it comes to proclaiming Egypts African ties (eg, Diop, Bernal etc).

Either way, you were right Sundiata.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Thanks. It isn't about being "right" though as much as getting to the bottom of all of this. There's a lot to untangle.

---

The above exchange is how we should behave on this thread. We can disagree without being disagreeable (provided the intent of the parties is genuine constructive debate). And if it turns out the other person is right, then so be it no biggie.

This was an excellent thread
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 


I donno but I'd say this is a pretty good similarity certainly deserving of further investigation, good find Doug.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
popSTR is compatible w/MiniFiler.

Let's use 3 major geographic population sets

1. Africa (including Mzab)
2. Europe
3. South West Asia

1. select a mummy
2. note its 8 loci's pair values
3. match them to popSTRs results

Using Tut for example we find the pooled African set as perfect a match as our tool allows.
And since the haplotypes match for all given alleles we don't need to check frequencies for
the most likely match. If we want complete ranking for all three sets we'd have to take the
highest frequencies of matching alleles into consideration noting where gaps are insignificant.
But here we can see by simple matching that Europe is likelier than SW Asia though the latter
has more of the highest frequencies for some loci's alleles. And no, the science is NOT that crude.





As with our earlier comparison of DNAtribes' MLIs
against popSTR's results we find the allele pairs
of two loci to be decisive in a one to one match
of Tut's mummy to a specific population. They are

1. D21S11 = 29,34
2. CSF1PO = 06,12

This should quell internet "yelps" that Applied Biosystems' 8 loci
AmpFℓSTR® MiniFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit (link) cannot accurately
distinguish an individual's major geographic population affinity just
as the earlier check showed it can filter intra-continental regional probability.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
Yuya and Thuya






Yuya Mummy










The photo shows the mask that is being variously described as showing Yuya, Ay and even Amenhotep son of Hapu.

______________________________________________________


Queen Tiye


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Just blogged about the OP finding here.
 

---

Posted by Omo Baba (Member # 18816) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


do you assume Yuya had afro hair originally? ^^^ His hair is not that short



If Yuya's hair was originally an afro would it be worn natural like the man above and it got straightened out by the mummification process or was it artificially straightened as a style when he was alive? What would his hairstyle most likely have been?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Get your silly ass out of this thread, troll, and take your off-topic questions with you.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Get your silly ass out of this thread, troll, and take your off-topic questions with you.

---

quote:

---

Babutidi in “Bantu Migration and Settlement,” in Laman’s Kongo Cultural Collection, (20,000 pp. microfilm, Lidingo, Sweden, 1914. Film No. 1, Cahier XVIII/13),

A long time ago in antiquity, people did not exist in this Lower-Congo; they come from the north of the country. There also, in the north, people came from far off north, the very north of Kayinga. Kayinga is the name of the country [region] where lived our ancestors in antiquity…There they already knew how to weave the cloths they wore, forge hoes and knives that they used. The main reason for their coming in this country [area] was the famine that hit Kayinga. For many years the drought reigned; crops and fruit trees they planted dried up. They suffered a lot for this. Unable to support the suffering they said to each other: “Let’s go to Banda-Mputu [Let’s pass through the dense forest, the unbreakable wall] and organize chieftaincies, because we have a lot of hunger up here.” So they agreed: “Let’s go.”

In the past, two chieftaincies ruled this part of the world [region]. When people escaped from the north of Kayinga, they separated on their way; some crossed the Nzadi [Congo river], these are people who live in the Nsundi area [the left shore of Nzadi] and others are those who live on the Simu-Kongo [the right shore of the Nzadi].”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna
mummies and that their STRs were all present in the
Lower Nile Valley at that time.

Also keep in mind the Southern Africa of the DNAtribes
article extends from Angola & Namibia to South
Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana, Zimbabwe,
& Mozambique. We don't know the precision since
they withold it.

That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and
San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.

Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and
very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying
Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to
the south and east.

Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.

So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies
could well have come from people migrating east from
the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime
before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.

So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples
from the southern third of the continent making moves
northwards.

The below maps are all we have to go on for precision
of the sampled populations of the given regions' STRs

---

quote:

---

I had a look at global frequency tables for alleles D18S51=19 and D21S11=34. These were used in the article as examples of alleles found in the mummies that are more frequent in Africa than in other parts of the world, so presumably these alleles contributed significantly to the high MLI scores with certain African regions.

The D21S11=34 allele is rare in West Eurasians (it is found in 0.4% of modern Egyptians). The highest frequency among Africans and West Eurasians is found among the Mbenzele, who are Central African Pygmies. The D21S11=34 allele was found in 5.5% of the Mbenzele Pygmies. The second highest frequency of this allele among Africans and West Eurasians is found in the Venda, a Bantu-speaking group from Southern Africa who have absorbed significant Khoisan admixture according to Tishkoff's study on Africa from 2009. But the highest frequency of this allele around the world is actually found in the Southeast Asian Balinese, where it is found in 8.2% of the population! This allele is also relatively common in South Asia. However, South Asians and Southeast Asians were not included in the DNA Tribes analysis. Only Africans and West Eurasians.

The D18S51=19 allele (found in 1.1% of modern Egyptians) has a similar pattern. This allele also peaks in the Mbenzele Pygmies, where its frequency is 16.7%. The second highest frequency among Africans (13.8%) is found among the Xhosa. The Xhosa are Southern African Bantus who possess significant Khoisan admixture, just like the Venda. The second highest global frequency (13.8%) is found in the Balti, a group of Tibetan descent.

So what does all this mean? What is clear is that these alleles, which were used as examples of particularly "African" alleles, are highest among people who descend from African hunter-gatherers. The Khoisan are not included in the frequency tables I linked, as far as I can see, which is why these alleles peak in the Mbenzele Pygmies, and then South African Bantus with significant Khoisan admixture.

When you think about it, this is not at all strange. The Khoisan and Pygmy are the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically. This is based on Y-DNA, mtDNA, as well as genetic distances based on full genome sequencing. So, in general, you would expect alleles that distinguish Africans from Eurasians to peak in the Khoisan and/or Pygmies.

I am pretty confident that this explains the affinities of these Ancient Egyptian mummies in that analysis performed by DNA Tribes. There is nothing particularly Southern African about the alleles they tested. Some of the alleles are just very African, which, in a low resultion test like this that is based on the "likelihood of occurrence of an STR profile in that region versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole" can lead to results that seem illogical. Keep in mind that San samples are included in the population database used by DNA Tribes, as well as samples from many other hunter-gatherer groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You known full well asking such questions (hair morphology) can only lead to page after page of debate, which will end up nowhere. Let's keep this thread about DNA tribes' STR analysis and related matters.

It's been a long time we aint had a gamechanging thread like this, can we keep this spam free for once? Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You known full well asking such questions (hair morphology) can only lead to page after page of debate, which will end up nowhere. Let's keep this thread about DNA tribes' STR analysis and related matters.

It's been a long time we aint had a gamechanging thread like this, can we keep this spam free for once? Thank you.

---

O.k. we'll stick to DNA here, I'll start a new thread.

---

Thanks Lioness.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
I mentioned this study on yet another forum and someone tried to discredit it with this article.
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
@ Swenet, Altakruri et al. can I get you guys to give me your take on the results so I can publish it to my blog, thanks.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@ Truth

Well, he tested two allelles at two STR's, Altakruri tested all of those available that pertain to Tut:



Kinda hard to be claiming the inner African peaks are caused by just two allelles when you've never tested more than two.

Like you said yourself yesterday Truthcentric; more STR's (and thus more allelles) would only further narrow down possible contenders. Why would you then be impressed by analysis which comprises of two allelles, when it is already surpassed in allelle amount by DNA tribes' and alTakruri's analysis?

If only two allelles were at work for those peaks in inner African regions, the weight of the other allelles not associated with Africans would've dropped the inner African MLI score, and increase the MLI scores of the other tested regions.

Notice that Mesopotamia is the DNA tribes' region directly adjacent to South Asia (the region he seems to be implicating as a contender), but Mesopotamia's MLI score is the lowest of all other regions.

There is clearly an inner African ''epi-center'', discernable when looking at the MLI scores. With a few exceptions (eg, Northern Africa), regions closer to inner Africa score the highest, and regions further away score lower, the further they are away from inner Africa:




I find it hard to believe that MLI scores would go ''the other route'' regarding this trend, and increase to inner African scores, conveniently where DNA tibes decided to stop giving data (ie, east from the Mesopotamian cluster). DNA Tribes obviously have Tibetan and South Asian data in their database.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
I agree and we have oral history to prove it.

quote:

---

Babutidi in “Bantu Migration and Settlement,” in Laman’s Kongo Cultural Collection, (20,000 pp. microfilm, Lidingo, Sweden, 1914. Film No. 1, Cahier XVIII/13),

A long time ago in antiquity, people did not exist in this Lower-Congo; they come from the north of the country. There also, in the north, people came from far off north, the very north of Kayinga. Kayinga is the name of the country [region] where lived our ancestors in antiquity…There they already knew how to weave the cloths they wore, forge hoes and knives that they used. The main reason for their coming in this country [area] was the famine that hit Kayinga. For many years the drought reigned; crops and fruit trees they planted dried up. They suffered a lot for this. Unable to support the suffering they said to each other: “Let’s go to Banda-Mputu [Let’s pass through the dense forest, the unbreakable wall] and organize chieftaincies, because we have a lot of hunger up here.” So they agreed: “Let’s go.”

In the past, two chieftaincies ruled this part of the world [region]. When people escaped from the north of Kayinga, they separated on their way; some crossed the Nzadi [Congo river], these are people who live in the Nsundi area [the left shore of Nzadi] and others are those who live on the Simu-Kongo [the right shore of the Nzadi].”

---

Kayinga is the word for the Sahara desert. The So-called Bantu migrations never made sense to me because they could never explain why this ONE group of people would move so rapidly without any indication of wars or for any reason at all. People don't migrate for no reason. Usually wars and natural disasters force movement and the Sahara drying would have been a legit reason for this group to move.

As I've demonstrated time and time again, Bantu speakers were in Egypt and it is detectable in the language. They called themselves BANTU (untu, Kiswahili Wantu), just under a different form: rmT = Luntu, Rumtu, Lomi, Romi (in Coptic and Bantu). This should be a big clue. In my upcoming book I will show definitively that Bantu people were in Egypt and left a mark on the cosmology and language. There are features in Egyptian culture that can ONLY be explained as Bantu. This article, if it pans out to be legit, only adds more evidence to an already growing pile of evidence: part of which I hope to reveal soon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes we must keep in mind the timeframe of the Amarna
mummies and that their STRs were all present in the
Lower Nile Valley at that time.

Also keep in mind the Southern Africa of the DNAtribes
article extends from Angola & Namibia to South
Africa/Lesotho/Swaziland to Botswana, Zimbabwe,
& Mozambique. We don't know the precision since
they withold it.

That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and
San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.

Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and
very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying
Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to
the south and east.

Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.

So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies
could well have come from people migrating east from
the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime
before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.

So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples
from the southern third of the continent making moves
northwards.

The below maps are all we have to go on for precision
of the sampled populations of the given regions' STRs

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@ Truth

Well, he tested two allelles at two STR's, Altakruri tested all of those available that pertain to Tut:



Kinda hard to be claiming the inner African peaks are caused by just two allelles when you've never tested more than two.

Like you said yourself yesterday Truthcentric; more STR's (and thus more allelles) would only further down possible contenders. Why would you then be impressed by analysis which comprises of two allelles, when it is already surpassed in amount by DNA tribes' and alTakruri's analysis?

If only two allelles were at work for those peaks in inner African regions, the weight of the other allelles not associated with Africans would've dropped the inner African MLI score, and increase the MLI scores of the other tested regions.

Notice that Mesopotamia is the DNA tribes' region directly adjacent to South Asia (the region he seems to be implicating as a contender), but Mesopotamia's MLI score is the lowest of all other regions.

There is clearly an inner African ''epi-center'', discernable when looking at the MLI scores. With a few exceptions, regions closer to inner Africa score the highest, and regions further away score lower, the further they are away from inner Africa:




I find it hard to believe that MLI scores would go ''the other route'' regarding this trend, and increase to inner African scores, conveniently where DNA tibes decided to stop giving data (ie, east from their Mesopotamian cluster).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
that weird website called hamitic union has a comment on tis DNATribes info:

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I had a look at global frequency tables for alleles D18S51=19 and D21S11=34. These were used in the article as examples of alleles found in the mummies that are more frequent in Africa than in other parts of the world, so presumably these alleles contributed significantly to the high MLI scores with certain African regions.

The D21S11=34 allele is rare in West Eurasians (it is found in 0.4% of modern Egyptians). The highest frequency among Africans and West Eurasians is found among the Mbenzele, who are Central African Pygmies. The D21S11=34 allele was found in 5.5% of the Mbenzele Pygmies. The second highest frequency of this allele among Africans and West Eurasians is found in the Venda, a Bantu-speaking group from Southern Africa who have absorbed significant Khoisan admixture according to Tishkoff's study on Africa from 2009. But the highest frequency of this allele around the world is actually found in the Southeast Asian Balinese, where it is found in 8.2% of the population! This allele is also relatively common in South Asia. However, South Asians and Southeast Asians were not included in the DNA Tribes analysis. Only Africans and West Eurasians.

The D18S51=19 allele (found in 1.1% of modern Egyptians) has a similar pattern. This allele also peaks in the Mbenzele Pygmies, where its frequency is 16.7%. The second highest frequency among Africans (13.8%) is found among the Xhosa. The Xhosa are Southern African Bantus who possess significant Khoisan admixture, just like the Venda. The second highest global frequency (13.8%) is found in the Balti, a group of Tibetan descent.

So what does all this mean? What is clear is that these alleles, which were used as examples of particularly "African" alleles, are highest among people who descend from African hunter-gatherers. The Khoisan are not included in the frequency tables I linked, as far as I can see, which is why these alleles peak in the Mbenzele Pygmies, and then South African Bantus with significant Khoisan admixture.

When you think about it, this is not at all strange. The Khoisan and Pygmy are the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically. This is based on Y-DNA, mtDNA, as well as genetic distances based on full genome sequencing. So, in general, you would expect alleles that distinguish Africans from Eurasians to peak in the Khoisan and/or Pygmies.

I am pretty confident that this explains the affinities of these Ancient Egyptian mummies in that analysis performed by DNA Tribes. There is nothing particularly Southern African about the alleles they tested. Some of the alleles are just very African, which, in a low resultion test like this that is based on the "likelihood of occurrence of an STR profile in that region versus the likelihood of occurrence in the world as a whole" can lead to results that seem illogical. Keep in mind that San samples are included in the population database used by DNA Tribes, as well as samples from many other hunter-gatherer groups.

---

---

I keep hearing stuff here about more STR alleles narrowing down to specific populations; I'm not sure how more generic STR alleles can achieve that, and radically change what is already posted in the DNA tribes list, but maybe someone will clue me in.

To the stuff specifically posted above:

As far as the "exclusion of the San and the pygmies" go, I'm not sure how the author of the above piece knows this, since after all, "Southern African" was mentioned, as was "tropical Western Africa" and the "Great Lakes". I'd like to think that the San are part of "Southern Africa", while the pygmies reside on the inner fringes of Western Africa and near the Great Lakes region, don't they.

It makes sense to leave South Asia out of the equation, because geographically speaking, the mentioned territories have the highest probability of exchanging genes with inhabitants of Africa.

It is also not out of the ordinary to find sharing of alleles between continental Africans and Southeast Asians; after all, a good segment of Southeast Asian populations have common recent ancestry with YAP+ lineage Africans, whereas no other non-African geographical entity have their own YAP+ branch. Certain similarities can be attributed to roots in such interesting shared ancestry between continental Africans and Southeast Asians.

Some similarities could very well also be attributed to convergent evolution, since tandem repeats can be prone to homoplasy. However, given the heavy structuring pattern listed in the list, it is more likely that common recent ancestry is the dominating contributor.


And what's this deal about the "Khoisan and Pygmy" being "the African populations that are furthest removed from the rest of humanity genetically"?

There is no KhoiSan and Pygmy and the rest of humanity dichotomy; there is however, manifestations of African and OOA dichotomy. KhoiSAn and pygmies are not far removed from African populations, since they share common recent ancestry with other African populations that are otherwise rare outside of the continent. Naturally, African populations who have received considerable levels of Eurasian gene flow are going to be relatively distant from hunter-gatherer societies, due to their relative isolation.

Even segments of south African KhoiSan, not the desert San, have not been spared European gene flow, and possibly some from southern Asia (like India). Moroever, both the pygmies and the KhoiSan have had noticeable genetic exchanges with Bantu-speaking groups.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Stealing my thunder . But, we are on the same page.

Originally posted :


That is to say it is known that the Bantu, Khoe, and
San are not strictly autochthonous to their present lands.

Bantu people perhaps originated in Cameroon/Gabon and
very well may have been a southern dispersal of the drying
Sahara to Cameroon/Gabon before the Great Bantu Drift to
the south and east.

Khoe and/or San once inhabited what's now Ethiopia and Kenya.

So the Southern African STRs of the Amarna mummies
could well have come from people migrating east from
the Sahara and down Nile from East Africa at anytime
before the 18th Dynasty back to before statehood.

So it's not in terms of thinking present day peoples
from the southern third of the continent making moves
northwards.
 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Yup there they go with the phenotype, conveniently side stepping Bantus and Nilo-Saharan who have narrow features and posting the broadest features they can find. ]

http://www.freetraveltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Masaitribeaprimitivetribeisnolongermysterious1.jpg

Bantu and a Nilo Saharan respectively sorry your Union is busted!!lol

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Sorry for repeating myself, but again, has anyone seen this argument against ancestry-tracing organizations like DNATribes?

---

quote:

---

* Most tests trace only a few of your ancestors and a small portion of your DNA,
* Tests are unlikely to identify all of the groups or locations around the world where a test-taker's relatives are found,
* Tests may report false negatives or false positives,
* Limited sample databases mean test results are subject to misinterpretation,
* There is no clear connection between DNA and racial/ethnic identity,
* Tests cannot determine exactly where ancestors lived or what ethnic identity they held.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Sorry for repeating myself, but again, has anyone seen this argument against ancestry-tracing organizations like DNATribes?

---

quote:

---

A third option, known as AncestryByDNA, or admixture testing, is more promising in that it examines non-sex chromosomes inherited from both parents, chromosomes that contain DNA segments from all ancestors. To a limited extent, this test can track the geographical movements of ancestors by examining single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), some of which influence such traits as skin color and resistance to regional diseases. That said, the same SNPs may be found among several populations around the world, and thus can produce false leads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Wart:
Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
I don't recommend that you preoccupy yourself anyways since the only reason that he posted it was to obfuscate things.

***

You seem to be too worried about subjective criticism from people who half the time don't even understand/know what they're talking about.

---

I'm worried about winning debates on the Internet, but you have a valid point, it probably isn't worth continuing to argue with him or anyone else. Debates on issues like this are seldom productive anyway.

But yes, the guy didn't know what he was talking about either. His two other major arguments were 1) incredulity at the idea of Southern Africans being close to Egyptians and 2) the same misinterpretation of Witherspoon et al as seen on the Hamitic Union post.

I won't link to the thread in question and cause a forum war, but here's a screencap of the entire post:

 

---

Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
 
Another thing we have to keep in mind is that the results are of a particular family in Ancient Egypt: not ALL Egyptians. If Someone was to take a DNA test of Baraka Obama's family (father, wife and kids), it would be determined that the primary clusters are in East and West Africa. That wouldn't mean ALL Americans are from East and West Africa. Some people are already using this to argue the whole Egyptian population derived from West and Central Africa and that would be incorrect. As I have always stated, there was definitely a "West" African and BaNtu presence there, but I wouldn't argue for the whole population being Bantu. So we have to always keep this fact in mind as opponents will rightly criticize and state that we are misrepresenting the scope of the data.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^
In addition:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
That those STR profiles would've been prevalent in AE times is indicated by the fact that Yuya, Tjuya and Amenhotep III, who were all unrelated, and hailed from different cities, all carried STR profiles that peak the highest in inner Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
[qb]I don't recommend that you preoccupy yourself anyways since the only reason that he posted it was to obfuscate things.

***

You seem to be too worried about subjective criticism from people who half the time don't even understand/know what they're talking about.

---

I'm worried about winning debates on the Internet, but you have a valid point, it probably isn't worth continuing to argue with him or anyone else. Debates on issues like this are seldom productive anyway.

---

I see. Don't mean to discourage you from asking questions as in a way it IS productive if it also helps you get a better handle of what's going on. As Asar Imhotep just pointed out, you'll have no need to "worry" if you see these results for what they are and not take it to the extreme like what Clyde Winters is doing right now.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
Another thing we have to keep in mind is that the results are of a particular family in Ancient Egypt: not ALL Egyptians. If Someone was to take a DNA test of Baraka Obama's family (father, wife and kids), it would be determined that the primary clusters are in East and West Africa. That wouldn't mean ALL Americans are from East and West Africa. Some people are already using this to argue the whole Egyptian population derived from West and Central Africa and that would be incorrect. As I have always stated, there was definitely a "West" African and BaNtu presence there, but I wouldn't argue for the whole population being Bantu. So we have to always keep this fact in mind as opponents will rightly criticize and state that we are misrepresenting the scope of the data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype and of their cultural affinity to East Africans because this unpeer reviewed study represents the ancient Egyptians as southern Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Notice how they have all abruptly abandoned their previous assertions (based on their own selected data) that the ancient Egyptians were primarily "elongated" in phenotype and of their cultural affinity to East Africans because this unpeer reviewed study represents the ancient Egyptians as southern Africans. They had the nerves to bitch about the Western European tut findings and how some white people "desperately" ran towards that finding against all previous evidence, yet they do the same **** when it's in their favor. Their is no crania analysis that will group southern Africans having a phenotype clustering closely towards the ancient Egyptians. The hair of the ancient Egyptians was not tightly curled like southern Africans are today. In fact one of Zaharans own spammed graphics states that the hair of the ancient Egyptians was like that of Somalis and distinct from true Negroid hair. It then bitches on and on about how we shouldn't limit African diversity to true negroids, basically confirming that the ancient Egyptians were not True Negroids like southern and west Africans. Now they want to abandon all of that, because one genetic company publishes a study finding the ancient Egyptians be close to southern Africans. More reasons why Afronuts cannot be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by claus3600:
@lioness

This lay man asks;

Regarding these recent genetic revelations, what is your point?

---

Yuya and Thuya

I have no counter argument on the genetic level. Thuya looks like she could pass for African.
But Yuya looks very un-African to me, call me crazy. More so when the emphasis is now on Southern and Western Africans. Look at the below, huge nose, not prognostic, long strands of wavy straight hair. I could be wrong, but I just can't picture him as South or West African. Who are you going to trust me or some people messing with test tubes?


Yuya


 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ know quite a few Black folks that look like that especially in my family. Besides your racial concepts are subjective - genetics is definitive.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The Egyptians hated these Amarna folk,
stricken off the king's list and used the bricks to build other temples. They got treated like the Hyksos, I'm just saying

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The Egyptians hated these Amarna folk,
stricken off the king's list and used the bricks to build other temples. They got treated like the Hyksos, I'm just saying

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[QB]
I have no counter argument on the genetic level. Thuya looks like she could pass for African.
But Yuya looks very un-African to me, call me crazy. More so when the emphasis is now on Southern and Western Africans. Look at the below, huge nose, not prognostic, long strands of wavy straight hair. I could be wrong, but I just can't picture him as South or West African. Who are you going to trust me or some people messing with test tubes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The Egyptians hated these Amarna folk,
stricken off the king's list and used the bricks to build other temples. They got treated like the Hyksos, I'm just saying

---

Lioness: you are trying to make them not Egyptian? So now that we know they have actual Bantu heritage your position is to regulate them to a non-Egyptian dynasty.

That sounds very racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

All this is just one family would be interesting to see how the Ukha family of the 12th Dyn matches up since they are reportedly sprang form the Horn..Omoro I beleive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clausvon3600:
@lioness

'Yuya looks very un-African to me'...

Have you been to Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by claus3600:

Is provocative obfuscation on the internet a hobby of yours?

---

yeah, so what

I get paid by reply by Egyptsearch.
I'm in it for the money.
I attract viewers, don't hate

can we get back to the DNA? I don't want this thread turning into an about me thread
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^you think that dark black color is the original color of the Thuya mummiy's skin? don't be dumb


European Bog Mummy
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^ stupid, you don't have basic knowledge on the skin color of cadavers and processing chemicals used on different types of mummies. Example: look up "black putrefrecation"
If you don't have particular information published about the skin coloration specifically on the Thuya mummy then it is wiser to be quiet than to spam pictures and apply bullshitting techniques.
Nobody is fooled by the amateur science.

thank you,

lioness productions
 

---

Posted by Omo Baba (Member # 18816) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^you think that dark black color is the original color of the Thuya mummiy's skin? don't be dumb


European Bog Mummy

---

Dummy, are you saying that Egyptian mummies were covered in peat bog?
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Can we please ignore lyingass and continue talking about the findings which almost completely refute the Eurocentric paradigm on Egypt?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt - Google Books Result
Margaret Bunson - 2002 - 462 pages




YUYA AND TJUYU TOMB GALLERY
THE FINDING OF THE TOMB OF YUYA AND TJUYU
BY THEODORE M. DAVIS

From The Tomb of Yuya and Tjuyu (London, 1907)
We held up our candles, but they gave so little light and so dazzled our eyes that we could see nothing except the glitter of gold. In a moment or two, however, I made out a very large wooden coffin, known as a funeral sled, which was used to contain all the coffins of the dead person and his mummy and to convey them to his tomb. It was about six feet high and eight feet long, made of wood covered with bitumen, which was as bright as the day it was put on. Around the upper part of the coffin was a stripe of gold-foil, about six inches wide, covered with hieroglyphs. On calling Monsieur Maspero's attention to it, he immediately handed me his candle, which, together with my own, I held before my eyes, close to the inscriptions so that he could read them. In an instant he said, "Yuya." Naturally excited by the announcement, and blinded by the glare of the candles, I involuntarily advanced them very near the coffin; whereupon Monsieur Maspero cried out, "Be careful!" and pulled my hands back. In a moment we realized that, had my candles touched the bitumen, which I came dangerously near doing, the coffin would have been in a blaze.

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trutheccentric:
Can we please ignore lyingass and continue talking about the findings which almost completely refute the Eurocentric paradigm on Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I also find it hard to believe the South Africans are more related.

Some of us a really too sensitive.

1. Geographically.

Based upon information about the AEians one would expect that modern Egyptians, albeit the peasants, to be closest to AEians.

One will also expect that next in line will be peoples from the Sahara and Upper Nile, Then peoples from the Sudan and Great Lakes.

2. Phenotypically `(if I am to believe in the stereotypically true Negro - we know that does not exist). But based on what I see on TV/Media

Then AEians are closest to Saharans and Horners. Few resemble the stereotypical Negro. None resemble nordic Europeans.

---

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Ancient Syrians??..

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt - Google Books Result
Margaret Bunson - 2002 - 462 pages




YUYA AND TJUYU TOMB GALLERY
THE FINDING OF THE TOMB OF YUYA AND TJUYU
BY THEODORE M. DAVIS

From The Tomb of Yuya and Tjuyu (London, 1907)
We held up our candles, but they gave so little light and so dazzled our eyes that we could see nothing except the glitter of gold. In a moment or two, however, I made out a very large wooden coffin, known as a funeral sled, which was used to contain all the coffins of the dead person and his mummy and to convey them to his tomb. It was about six feet high and eight feet long, made of wood covered with bitumen, which was as bright as the day it was put on. Around the upper part of the coffin was a stripe of gold-foil, about six inches wide, covered with hieroglyphs. On calling Monsieur Maspero's attention to it, he immediately handed me his candle, which, together with my own, I held before my eyes, close to the inscriptions so that he could read them. In an instant he said, "Yuya." Naturally excited by the announcement, and blinded by the glare of the candles, I involuntarily advanced them very near the coffin; whereupon Monsieur Maspero cried out, "Be careful!" and pulled my hands back. In a moment we realized that, had my candles touched the bitumen, which I came dangerously near doing, the coffin would have been in a blaze.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
funny how the previous post was about Yuya and Thuya and you put up Queen Tiye, lay off the herb
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ancient Syrians??..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ancient Syrians??..

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You forgot to include the bust of Queen Tiye...

---

I never said she was Syrian
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


Look Akenhatan and Queen Tiye, happy now?

 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
The Egyptians hated these Amarna folk,
stricken off the king's list and used the bricks to build other temples. They got treated like the Hyksos, I'm just saying

---

Lioness: you are trying to make them not Egyptian? So now that we know they have actual Bantu heritage your position is to regulate them to a non-Egyptian dynasty.

That sounds very racist.

---

.
As I said earlier the Thuya mummy looks like an African to me while I think many would agree the Yuya mummy does not look that African.It looks odd to me, like "how could this be". But the genetic evidence on Yuya may trump this impression. However many people here don't think this study conclusive yet and I don't think anybody on this thread but you would say the Egyptians were Bantu at this stage. A short while ago many people were saying they were closest to Nilotic or Hamitic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

All this is just one family would be interesting to see how the Ukha family of the 12th Dyn matches up since they are reportedly sprang form the Horn..Omoro I beleive.

---

---

quote:

---

hi·jack also high·jack (hjk) Informal
tr.v. hi·jacked also high·jacked, hi·jack·ing also high·jack·ing, hi·jacks also high·jacks
1.
a. To stop and rob (a vehicle in transit).
b. To steal (goods) from a vehicle in transit.
c. To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination.
2.
a. To steal from as if by hijacking.
b. To swindle or subject to extortion.
n.
The act or an instance of hijacking.

---

 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
Genetic analysis of autosomal and Y-specific STRs
in the Karimojong population from Uganda


 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ What's the significance of that data?
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Phenotype is irrelevant as these STR markers come from non-coding regions of the genome. Your "Bisharin" argument doesn't apply until you have hard data that can refute what you're responding to, especially regarding those specific [Amarna] mummies.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ Someone fails to comprehend the concept of convergent evolution.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^The Armarna mummies clearly were not related to Horners as shown by the latest STR analysis. Obviously they weren't "Bantus" per se either because Bantu languages were just beginning to differentiate in west-central Africa at the time so the genetic affinity warrants another, more thoughtful explanation. What is important to know for now is that phenotype and genotype are two different things.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


Now would you look at that.

Horners totally lag behind in closeness to mid 18th dy pharaoh's when it comes to these STR profiles. Not just behind Western, Central and Southern Africans; they're totally dwarfed by Bantu Speakers when it comes to closeness to 18th dy pharaoh's, in frequencies of these particular STR profiles.

At the end of the day, genetics have the last word when stacked up against craniofacial analysis (which typically favors Horners as among the closest to AE).

What African peoples are the closest to Ancient Egyptians? One things for sure though, plenty of ammunition for Clyde's ''inner African Egypt''.

I'm not poking fun of him anymore; perhaps its time to review, or at least add nuance what seems to have become the consensus. The severe cases sickle cell in predynastic AE mummies, AE bacteria associated with inner Africa, high levels Sub-Saharan Nry markers (M60) in modern Egyptians that only reach modest levels in the Horn, and now this. The plot thickens..

---

PUH-LEASE!
I wanna see those Horner looking bantus!

The closest people to the Amarna mummies were and will always be the Bisharin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: Bu nafret su em bu bon, "a state of good has become a state of evil"
WOLOF : Bu rafet mel ni bu bon, "a state of good has become a state of evil"

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: mer on ef, "he loved"
WOLOF : maar on ef, "he loved passionately"

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: mer on es, "she loved"
WOLOF : maar on es, "she loved passionately"

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: mer on sen, "they loved"
WOLOF : maar on sen, "they loved passionately"

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: bu huru - badness, wickedness
YORUBA: bu buru - badness, wickedness

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: en en - not, no!
COPTIC: Anon - not, no!
YORUBA: en en - not, no!

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: bu - place, condition
WOLOF: bu - place, condition

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN: mer - love
COPTIC: me, mere, merit - love, beloved





...

---

• Nuer Fulani
  Kao ka
  Bari Bari
  Jallogh Jallo
  
  ''''' Tukulor
  Kan Kan
  Ci Sy
  Wan Wan

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^The Armarna mummies clearly were not related to Horners as shown by the latest STR analysis. Obviously they weren't "Bantus" because Bantu wasn't being spoken and they wrote in an Egyptian script so the affinity warrants another, more thoughtful explanation. What is important to know for now is that phenotype and genotype are two different things.

---

Ancient Egyptian was an afroasiatic language


Afro-asiatic languages are related to Y-E1B1B and Y-J.
Dont tell me that a bunch of jungle bunnies came from inner africa and already talked Ancient Egyptian fluently!

Im dying laughing!

To-Bedawie is close to Ancient Egyptian..really close.
Lingala? i dont think so..

---

If Egyptian is closely related to Beja please provide examples. Egyptian on the otherhand is genetically related to West African languages.

]

The Linguistic Methods of Chiekh Anta Diop

By
Clyde Winters


Chiekh Anta Diop has contributed much to the Afrocentric social sciences. Here we discuss many of Diop's views on using the linguistic sciences to rediscover the ancient history of Blacks.



Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).


Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people.


C. Anta Diop is the founder of modern Afrocentricism . Diop (1974,1991) laid the foundations for the Afrocentric idea in education. He laid these foundations using both the historical and anthropological/linguistic methods of research to explain the role of the Blacks in World History.



There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common Physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization. (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991)


The opposition of many Eurocentric scholars to Afrocentric -ism results from white hostility to Diop's idea of a Black Egypt, and the view that Egyptians spoke an African ,rather than Afro-Asiatic language.

Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered.(Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991)

For example Lefkowitz (1992) in The New Republic, summarizes

Diop (1974) but never presents any evidence to dispute the findings of Diop. The most popular "review" of Diop (1991) was done by Baines (1991) review in the New York Times Book Review. In this "review" Baines (1991) claims that "...the evidence and reasoning used to support the arguments are often unsound".

Instead of addressing the evidence Diop (1991) presents of the African role in the rise of civilization that he alleges is "unsound", he is asking the reader to reject Diop's thesis without refutation of specific evidence presented by Diop of the

African contributions to Science and Philosophy. Baines (l991)

claims that Diop's Civilization or Barbarism, is not a work of originality, he fails to dispute any factual evidence presented by Diop.

Baines (1991) wants the public to accept his general negative comments about Civilization or Barbarism ,based on the fact that he is an Egyptologist. This is not enough, in academia

to refute a thesis one must present counter evidence that proves the falseness of a thesis not unsubstantiated rhetoric. We can not accept the negative views of Baines on faith alone.

In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop 1978, 67).

Onomastics is the science of names. Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. Diop (1981, 86) observed that:

"An undisputed linguistic relationship between two geographically remote groups of languages can be relevant for the study of migrations. A grammatical (or genetic) relationship if clear enough is never an accident".

As a result, Diop has used toponyms (place-names), anthroponyms (personal names) and ehthnonyms (names of ethnic groups/tribes) to explain the evidence of analogous ethnic (clan) names in West Africa and the Upper Nile (Diop 1991).

In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used analyses acculturaliste or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).

LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY

This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences.

There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, typological, and areal. A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A typological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.

COMPARATIVE METHOD

Diop has used comparative and historical linguistics to illuminate the Unity of African civilization. Diop (1977, xxv) has noted that

"The process for the evolution of African languages is clearly apparent; from a far we (have) the idea that Wolof is descendant by direct filiation to ancient Egyptian, but the Wolof, Egyptian and other African languages (are) derived from a common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common African or the Negro- African of L. Homburger or of Th. Obenga."

The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.

Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African:

(1) vowels and consonants

(2) specific Paleo-African words

(3) common grammatical elements; and

(4) common syntactic elements.

The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages or Diop's Paleo-African. To reconstruct a proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since uniformity of terms leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.

HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS

A person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about a group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.

Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.

LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY

The rate at which languages change is variable. It appears that linguistic change is culture specific. Consequently, the social organization and political culture of a particular speech community can influence the speed at which languages change.

Based on the history of language change in Europe most linguists believe that the rate of change for all languages is both rapid and constant.(Diagne, 1981,p.238) The idea that all languages change rapidly is not valid for all the World's languages.

African languages change much slower than European languages. (Armstrong, 1962) For example, African vocabulary items collected by Arab explorers over a thousand years ago are analogous to contemporary lexical items.(Diagne,1981, p.239) In addition there are striking resemblances between the ancient Egyptian language and Coptic, and Pharonic Egyptian and African languages.(Diagne, 1981; Diop, 1977; Obenga, 1993)

The political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa. Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language.

African oral traditions and the eye witness accounts of travelers to Africa, make it clear that African empires although made up of diverse nationalities illustrated continuity. To accomodate the plural nature of African empires Africans developed a Federal system of government. (Niane , 1984) In fact we can not really describe ancient African state systems as empires, since this implies absolute rule or authority in a single individual. This political state of affairs rarely existed in ancient Africa, because in each African speech community local leadership was elected by the people within the community. (Diop, 1987) For example the Egyptians often appointed administrators over the conquered territories from among the conquered people. (Diop ,1991)

The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times. (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985) This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.

In Africa due to the relative stability of socio-political structures and settled life, there has not been enough pressure exerted on African societies as a whole and African speech communities in particular, to cause radical internal linguistic changes within most African languages. Permanent settlements led to a clearly defined system of inheritance and royal succession. These traits led to stability on both the social and political levels.

This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and

Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:

First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time.(pp.153-154)

There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms. He concluded that:

I would have said that on this evidence African languages are changing with glacial slowness, but it seems to me that in a century a glacier would have changed a lot more than that. Perhaps it would be more in order to say that these languages are changing with geological slowness. (Armstrong, 1962, p.285).

Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:

Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.

THE BLACK AFRICAN ORIGIN OF EGYPT

Diop has contributed much to African linguistics. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root.

Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop'smajor area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection.

In Parènte Génétique de l'Egyptien pharraonique et des Langues Négro Africaines (PGEPLNA), Diop explains in some detail

his linguistic views in the introduction of this book. In PGEPLNA , Diop demonstrates the genetic relationship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Black Africa. Diop provides thousands of cognate Wolof and Egyptian terms in support of his Black African-Egyptian linguistic relationship.

PALEO-AFRICAN

African languages are divided into Supersets (i.e., a family of genetically related languages, e.g., Niger-Congo) sets, and subsets. In the sets of African languages there are many parallels between phonological terms, eventhough there may be an arbitrary use of consonants which may have a similar sound. The reason for these changes is that when the speakers of Paleo-African languages separated, the various sets of languages underwent separate developments. As a result a /b/ sound in one language may be /p/ or /f/ in a sister language. For example, in African languages the word for father may be baba , pa or fa, while in the Dravidian languages we have appan to denote father.

Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements.

BLACKS IN WEST ASIA

In PGEPLNA Diop makes clear his views on the role of African languages in the rise of other languages. Using archaeological evidence Diop makes it clear that the original West Asians: Elamites and Sumerians were of Black origin (1974, 1977, xxix-xxxvii).

Diop (1974, 1991) advocates the unity of Black Africans

and Blacks in West Asia. Winters (1985,1989,1994) has elaborated on the linguistic affinity of African and West Asian languages.

This view is supported by linguistic evidence. For example these languages share demonstrative bases:

Proximate Distant Finite

Dravidian i a u

Manding i a u

Sumerian bi a

Wolof i a u

The speakers of West Asian and Black African languages also share basic culture items:

Chief city,village black,burnt

Dravidian cira, ca uru kam

Elamite Salu

Sumerian Sar ur

Manding Sa furu kami,"charcoal'

Nubia sirgi mar

Egyptian Sr mer kemit

Paleo-African *sar *uru *kam

OBENGA

Obenga (1978) gives a phonetic analysis of Black African and Egyptian. He illustrates the genetic affinity of consonants within the Black African (BA) and Egyptian languages especially the occlusive bilateral sonorous, the occlusive nasal apico-dental /n/ and /m/ , the apico-alveolar /r/ and the radical

proto-form sa: 'man, female, posterity' in Black Africa.

Language

Agaw asau, aso 'masculine

Sidama asu 'man'

Oromo asa id.

Caffino aso id.

Yoruba so 'produce'

Meroitic s' man

Fonge sunu id.

Bini eso 'someone'

Kikongo sa,se,si 'father'

Swahili (m)zee 'old person'

Egyptian sa 'man'

Manding si,se 'descendant,posterity,family'

Azer se 'individual, person'

Obenga (1978) also illustrated the unity between the verbs 'to come, to be, to arrive':

Language

Egyptian ii, ey Samo, Loma dye

Mbosi yaa Bisa gye

Sidama/Omo wa Wolof nyeu

Caffino wa Peul yah, yade

Yoruba wa Fonge wa

Bini ya Mpongwe bya

Manding ya,dya Swahili (Ku)ya

between t =/= d, highlight the alternation patterns of many Paleo-African consonants including b =/= p, l =/= r ,and

g =/= k.

The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:

Galla senyi

Malinke se , si

Sumerian se

Egyptian sen 'granary'

Kannanda cigur

Bozo sii

Bambara sii

Daba sisin

Somali sinni

Loma sii

Susu sansi

Oromo sanyi

Dime siimu

Egyptian ssr 'corn'

id. ssn 'lotus plant'

id. sm 'herb, plant'

id. isw 'weeds'



In conclusion, Diop has done much to encourage the African recovery of their history. His theories on linguistics has inspired many African scholars to explain and elaborate the African role in the history of Africa and the world. This has made his work important to our understanding of the role of Black people in History.



REFERENCES

Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.

Baines, J. (1991, August 11). Was civilization made in Africa? The New York Times Review of Books, 12-13.

Bynon,T. (1978). Historical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.

Crawley,T. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Delafosse,M. (1901). La Langue Mandigue. Paris.

Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.

Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.

Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.

Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.

Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:

Lawrence Hill Books.

Dweyer, D.J. (1989). 2. Mande. In John Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), The Niger-Congo Languages (47-65). New York: University Press of America.

Ehret,C. (1988). Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift. Antiquity, 62, 564-574.

Ehret,C. & Posnansky (Eds.). (1982). The Archaeological and linguistic reconstruction of African history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hock,H.H. (1988). Principles of historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Labov,W.(1965). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.

Labov.,W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stokwell,R.P. and Macaulay, R.K.S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory (101-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lefkowitz, M. (1992, February 10). Not out of Africa. The New Republic, 29-36.

Mbiti, J. S. 1970. African religions and Philosophy. Garden City: Anchor Press.

Meillet, A. 1926. Introduction à l'etude comparatif des languages Indo-Europeennes. Paris.

Moitt,B. (1989) Chiekh Anta Diop and the African diaspora: Historical continuity and socio-cultural symbolism. Presence Africaine, 149/150, 347-360.

Pawley,A. & Ross,M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425-459.

McIntosh, S. K. & McIntosh, R. (1983). Forgotten Tells of Mali. Expedition, 35-47.

Niane,D.T.(Ed.). (1984). Introduction. General History of Africa IV (1-14). London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Obenga,T. (1978). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In

UNESCO (Ed.), The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script (65-72). Paris: UNESCO.

Obenga, T. (1993). Origine commune de l'Egyptien Ancien du Copte et des langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.

Lord,R. (1966). Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul's House.

Olderogge, L. (1981). Migrations and ethnic and linguistic differentiations. In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.),General History of Africa I: Methodology and African History (271-278). Paris: UNESCO.

Robins, R.H. (1974). General Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana State University Press.

Ruhlen, M. 1994. The origin of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Welmers, W. (1968). Niger Congo-Mande. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 7,113-140.

Williams, B. (1987). The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul:Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.

Winters,C.A. (1985). The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians.Tamil Civilization,3(1), 1-9.

Winters,C.A. (1986). The Migration routes of the Proto-Mande. The Mankind Quarterly,27(1), 77-96.

Winters, C.A. 1989. Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the genetic model. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18 (1), 98-127.

Winters, C.A. (1994). Afrocentrism:A valid frame of reference. Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.

Yurco,F. 1989. Were the ancient Egyptians Black? Biblical Archaeology.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I respect the Baja people but they were not part of the Egyptian Confederation. Historically the Baja people are an independent people who respect their freedom.

If they represent the Blymme people the earliest mention of the Beja people was in Buddhist text.


Egyptian documents make it clear that the Blymmes entered the area after the founding of Napatan and Meroitic civilization, so even if some people claim that the Beja=Blymmes this is conjecture. Consequently, even if Beja= Blymmes, they donot represent the Kushite people who founded the Napata and Meroe civilizations, because both the Noba and Blymmes entered Kush after its founding.

There is increasing evidence that the Beja may provide a key to fully understanding the Meroitic language. Some years ago I deciphered the Kharamadoye inscription.


http://olmec98.net/KALABSHA.htm


Today Beja repeat this message from their ancestors with pride as an indication to the long history of the Beja people. At Buzzle.com
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/freedom-for-dirar-ahmed-dirar-independence-for-sudans-beja-blemmyes.html

They note:

quote:

---

…… Hrmdoye ne qor ene ariteñ lne mdes ne mni-t kene
mk lebne ye re qe-ne q yi-t hl-ne y es bo he-ne q r lebne tro.
S-ne ariteñ net er ek li s-ne d-b li lh ne q r kene qor ene mnpte.

This was heard already before 1670 years at a moment the Blemmyan King Kharamadoye drove his compatriots to a point of national statehood at the northern area of the then ailing Meroitic kingdom in what is today's Sudanese North and Egyptian South. Using Meroitic scripture, the scribes of Kharamadoye immortalized down to our times an inscription on walls of the Mandulis temple at Talmis (modern Kalabsha). The beginning of the inscription reads in a plausible English translation as follows:

Kharamadoye the monarch and chief of the living Ariteñ, the great son and patron of Amani, you (who) revitalizes (man). The lord's voyage of discovery indeed gives the creation of Good. Act (now Amani) he travels to support good. Make a good welfare swell (for) the offering of the Chief, (he) desires indeed the restoration of eminence. The patron of good Ariteñ bows in reverence (before Amani) to evoke exalted nourishment (for) the patrons to leave a grand and exalted legacy to behold good. Oh Amani make indeed (a) revitalization (of) the monarch (and) commander of Great Napata…..”

---

When I first saw this claim that the Beja, represented the Blemmyan people of the Meroitic and Egyptian inscriptions I thought it might be hollow indeed. But after comparing Meroitic to Beja, the claim has considerable merit.

To test the hypothesis that the Beja language was related to meroitic, I compared Meroitic and Beja. The Beja material comes from Klaus and Charlotte Wedekind and Abuzeinab Musa, Beja Pedagogical Grammar (
http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2008/1283/beja_pedagogical_grammar_final_links_numbered.pdf

) ,

What I found from this cursory examination was most interesting. I will need to gather more vocabulary items from Beja, but I did find a number of matches:


Meroitic ……English……….. Beja
i ‘arrive at this point’ ………… bi ‘went’
t ‘he, she’ ……………………..ta ‘she’
ya ‘go’………………………….yak ‘start’
rit ‘look’……………………….rhitaa ‘you saw’
an(a) plural suffix……………..aan ‘these’
d(d) ‘say’………………………di(y) ‘say’
lb ‘energy, dynamic…………liwa ‘burn’
ken ‘to realize’……………….kana ‘to know’
bk ‘ripen’……………………..bishakwa ‘to be ripe’

The vocabulary items are interesting, but since they come from a grammar book there was not enough to provide an extensive comparison.

Meroitic and Beja share many grammatical features. For example, the pronouns are usually can be placed in front or at the end verbs e.g., Beja ti bi ‘she went’, Meroitic t-i ‘he goes’. In Beja, adi is used to indicate complete action Taman adi ‘I ate it completely’, Meroitic –a, serves the same purpose akin ne a ‘he has become completely learned’. In both languages the adverb is placed behind the noun Beja takii-da ‘small man’, Meroitic pt ‘praise’: pt es ‘manifest praise’. In Beja the future tense is form by ndi, Tami a ndi “I will eat’, Meroitic –n, s-ne yo-n Aman ‘The patron will bow in reverence to Aman’.

This makes it clear to me that the Beja language may be related to Meroitic and that the Beja represent the Blemmy nation of Old. It also indicate that the Beja were not part of the Egyptian Confederation.

.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
Edit: Oops, didn't realize KoKaKoLa was a typical troll. Disengaging...
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
History also makes it clear that Horners like the Beja were not part of ancient Egypt.

The Beja have nothing to do with ancient Egyptians except as thieves raiding Egyptian outpost.

Lipinksi:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58915097/Lipinski-Semitic-Languages-Outline-of-a-Comparative-Grammar


Notes that Beja are first mentioned in Roman documents as theives . He shows that they lived West of the Nile (see pg.31). How could Beja have been Egyptians when they are mentioned as raiding Egypt--not native Egyptians.

It also points out that Beja has lost many elements associated with Afro-Asiatic ( see: Lipinksi, pg.31).

The Egyptian evidence makes it clear that:

1) The Beja are mentioned in Roman sources as entering Egypt during the Roman period--not earlier.

2)How can Beja be related to Egyptian pharoahs when they are not mentioned in Egyptian sources until Roman times?

3)Beja in Egypt speak Arabic. Provide linguistic evidence linking the Beja and Egyptian.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:
Ancient Egyptian HEAD


BEJA HEAD


Afro-American head..........Egyptian head


You really thought you were part of the "egyptian confederation"?
Please stop it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Afro-American head..........Egyptian head



Yea

---

Your face says NO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ If only we could get the people from DNATribes to speak to us about their findings. Maybe they could clarify.

---

From the conclusion:

"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.

^I believe they've done and "clarified" all they can with what they were given already.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Someone should sticky this thread; I'd hate something as revolutionary as this from disappearing from the front page.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Anyone tried this. an earlier poster posted it. . . I got the lineage thing down. Now getting my head around the STR/Loci thing.


As Sage(and verified on DNA Tribes website) said two of the Loci are definitely unique to Africa and African Americans. And since most disporans came from West Africa then there is deep African ancestry in the Amarna mumumies.

Goes to show simple minded some of us are. We are focused on the hair and nose while there are thousand of phenotypic features West Africans and East Africans share.


http://www.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/infocalc.html
===

infocalc
infocalc is a small script for calculating statistics that measure the ancestry information content of genetic markers. A description of these statistics can be found in "Informativeness of genetic markers for inference of ancestry" American Journal of Human Genetics 73: 1402-1422 (2003), with extensions in "Algorithms for selecting informative marker panels for population assignment" Journal of Computational Biology 12: 1183-1201 (2005).
The program is a perl script.

[Download script] (you will be directed first to a registration page and we would very much appreciate if you register)

Instructions for using the program are inside the script.

Please send comments or problems with infocalc to Noah Rosenberg.

Software history
December 23, 2006 - creation of website and upload of software version 1.1
June 15, 2004 - beginning of email distribution of software version 1.0
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
It may now be possible to determine ancestry from a few revealed STR loci published by some of these researchers.

eg the recent study on Ancient Scandanavians. A few of the Loci were disclosed. Bottom -line most were not of modern Europeans.

Next, let us see if competing DNA Co.'s come up with the same result. This type of analysis using only 8 STR should not be unique to DNATribes.
 

---

Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 

Kokakola why did you use her as your Representative of a Bantu? How do you even know she is of bantu extraction? she is from Kansas city according to the image profile, is it just to ridicule this report

About a first family of Kemet who share ancestry with Bantus?

What happens when a Bantu looks like this?^

or this^ Winnie Mandela Now what??
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
Good evening,

Thank you for contacting us the recent Digest issue. For this analysis, regional analysis was performed. This regional analysis provides the most robust comparison of each ancient individuals DNA to modern world populations, incorporating data from multiple populations rather than single samples.

Best regards,
Lucas @ DNAtribes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Astenb
To: "'digest@dnatribes.com'" <digest@dnatribes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: King tut and family


Is there a way to know the closest population matches and are they Karamoja (Great Lakes) and Ovambo Bantu (South Africa)?
Have you received many inquiries on this?
Thanks.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Maybe someone can help me out with this. . . .


From the DNA tribes Amarna mummy/JAMA Study these are the STRs they looked at and concluded that the mummies ancestry was from the Great Lakes and South Africa region. What about These Sudanese represented in the referenced study. Are they from the Great Lakes and South Africa also? Same Loci!!


D13S317
D7S820
D2S1338
D21S11
D16S539
D18S51
CSF1PO
FGA


From the Genetic variation and population structure of
Sudanese populations as indicated by 15
Identifiler sequence-tagged repeat (STR) loci

Hiba MA Babiker1,2, Carina M Schlebusch1, Hisham Y Hassan3 and Mattias Jakobsson1*

CSF1PO
D13S317
D16S539
D18S51
D19S433
D21S11
D2S1338
D3S1358
D5S818
D7S820
D8S1179
FGA
TH01
TPOX
vWA
 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 
@Brada-Anansi,

Stop using the Tutsi as an example of the Bantu phenotype, you know this is highly unrepresentative. The Tutsi even have been persecuted by other Bantus for their deviant looks.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Xyyman

The STR profiles are matched, not the STRs themseles.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Seems like this is a computer generated or catch all type response. You ask him(Lucas) specifics and his response is not specific enough to your question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
Good evening,

Thank you for contacting us the recent Digest issue. For this analysis, regional analysis was performed. This regional analysis provides the most robust comparison of each ancient individuals DNA to modern world populations, incorporating data from multiple populations rather than single samples.

Best regards,
Lucas @ DNAtribes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Astenb
To: "'digest@dnatribes.com'" <digest@dnatribes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: King tut and family


Is there a way to know the closest population matches and are they Karamoja (Great Lakes) and Ovambo Bantu (South Africa)?
Have you received many inquiries on this?
Thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
@Brada-Anansi,

Stop using the Tutsi as an example of the Bantu phenotype, you know this is highly unrepresentative. The Tutsi even have been persecuted by other Bantus for their deviant looks.

---

Winnie Mandela is not a Tutsi. She's Xhosa like her former husband, Nelson Mandela. Xhosa is a Bantu ethnic group.

If you're paying attention you can see that Southern Africans are already exhibiting phenotypic difference from their West African forebears. Isolation + Environment + Diet at play.


 

---

Posted by Omo Baba (Member # 18816) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What I also getting at is. .

If DNATribes can take published data (JAMA) and come to that conclusion why couldn’t or wouldn’t other genetic testing companies do the same thing.

In fact why can’t the layman? I am coming across a few sites that can process this type of data. I know DNA Tribes says that they have sometype of “proprietary” type software algorithm but that should not be too difficult for other experts in the field to duplicate or simulate.

---

You can also try PopAffiliator. It only take a minimum of 9 STR loci though but adding a 9th STR data as dummy won't be difficult if you know what you're doing.

http://cracs.fc.up.pt/~nf/popaffiliator2/
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Someone should sticky this thread; I'd hate something as revolutionary as this from disappearing from the front page.

Nothing really "revolutionary" in the context of the data
well known on ES. We already have skeletal and X-Ray
evidence as to several AE pharaohs. DNA corroboration
of a number of others should not be surprising.


 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
And Here comes the King of the Clowns!



Yawn.. BRace 2005? Already covered...


--------------------------------------------------------------------




Kemp's dendrograms? Pooled or unpooled, makes no difference..


 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Manu

quote:

---

@Brada-Anansi, Stop using the Tutsi as an example of the Bantu phenotype, you know this is highly unrepresentative. The Tutsi even have been persecuted by other Bantus for their deviant looks

---

I'll do no such thing, why should I make life easier for you and others like you to play with stereotypes based off nothing but eyeballing,you people do the same thing with folks like the Fulani,Kokakola used an image from Kansas city to represent a Bantu woman without knowing what her ancestry is just because the image is unflattering ,she looks high and maybe part of a mug shot.

The woman above is a Bantu the woman below questionable but in your need to shoe horn Bantus into unflattering stereotypes you will always go for the woman below.
Omo Baba is right a language group does not a phenotype make.

quote:

---

Winnie Mandela is not a Tutsi. She's Xhosa like her former husband, Nelson Mandela. Xhosa is a Bantu ethnic group. If you're paying attention you can see that Southern Africans are already exhibiting phenotypic difference from their West African forebears. Isolation + Environment + Diet at play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omo Baba:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What I also getting at is. .

If DNATribes can take published data (JAMA) and come to that conclusion why couldn’t or wouldn’t other genetic testing companies do the same thing.

In fact why can’t the layman? I am coming across a few sites that can process this type of data. I know DNA Tribes says that they have sometype of “proprietary” type software algorithm but that should not be too difficult for other experts in the field to duplicate or simulate.

---

You can also try PopAffiliator. It only take a minimum of 9 STR loci though but adding a 9th STR data as dummy won't be difficult if you know what you're doing.

http://cracs.fc.up.pt/~nf/popaffiliator2/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omo Baba:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
@Brada-Anansi,

Stop using the Tutsi as an example of the Bantu phenotype, you know this is highly unrepresentative. The Tutsi even have been persecuted by other Bantus for their deviant looks.

---

Winnie Mandela is not a Tutsi. She's Xhosa like her former husband, Nelson Mandela. Xhosa is a Bantu ethnic group.

If you're paying attention you can see that Southern Africans are already exhibiting phenotypic difference from their West African forebears. Isolation + Environment + Diet at play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Maybe someone can help me out with this. . . .


From the DNA tribes Amarna mummy/JAMA Study these are the STRs they looked at and concluded that the mummies ancestry was from the Great Lakes and South Africa region. What about These Sudanese represented in the referenced study. Are they from the Great Lakes and South Africa also? Same Loci!!


D13S317
D7S820
D2S1338
D21S11
D16S539
D18S51
CSF1PO
FGA


From the Genetic variation and population structure of
Sudanese populations as indicated by 15
Identifiler sequence-tagged repeat (STR) loci

Hiba MA Babiker1,2, Carina M Schlebusch1, Hisham Y Hassan3 and Mattias Jakobsson1*

CSF1PO
D13S317
D16S539
D18S51
D19S433
D21S11
D2S1338
D3S1358
D5S818
D7S820
D8S1179
FGA
TH01
TPOX
vWA

---

What you are seeing is the NAMES of the standard Core 13-15 "Loci" that are used in forensic identification by the FBI and Geneticists.


You can read more about that here SInce some DNA blocks are long there is a reduced set of markers they can use. This reduced set is called the "MiniFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit" - It uses only 8 markers and is mostly used on OLD or damaged dna.

"AmpFℓSTR® MiniFiler™ PCR Amplification Kit increases your ability to obtain DNA results from compromised samples that previously would have yielded limited or no genetic data."

http://marketing.appliedbiosystems.com/mk/get/MINIFILER_LANDING?isource=fr_E_Alias_Minifiler_ProdRegMinifiler_20061114

SO, now lets look at a specific markers from the set :



Marker called "FGA" has value 23/23 - for King tut, he inherited value 23 from both parents. Marker "CSF1PO" on tut and a bunch of other mummies is 12. Tut is 6/12 - He got value 6 from one parent and value 12 from another. The colors in the chart tell you where he inherited the value from.

NOW moving into populations genetics - marker "FGA" can have a value of 17-31 in any giving population. Value 23 is found in populations around the globe. Within Africa FGA=23 is found in 22% of the Karamojong. FGA=23 is found at 16% of a pooled Sudanese sample...and 21% of that pooled south African sample. IN this case FGA=23 is closest to the Karamonjong than other populations.

AFter this is done for ALL 8 Markers you get a likely hood of how frequent the specific PROFILE (not just frequencies but also the COMBINATION) is found within any given population. Great lakes and South African are very close. SO close that its like 1000's of times more likely than other places.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Goddamn you guys! Posting all the good topics when I'm away on vacation!!

Charlie, BIG UPS for this!!

I'm still reeling with joy over this new info! While I still have my reservations about DNA Tribes, after reading the data carefully I do accept the results of the info! (Didn't take long to read since the last several pages consisted of some trolling).

My God! No wonder all the Euronuts are speechless or have only very little of their stupid sh|t to say!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by africurious:

Hahaaa!! Some people are just too hung up on lang families as if they're immutable for an individual like chromosomes are. I guess many of us on this board are indo-europeans since we speak english as our native tongue.

---

quote:

---

Aside from the "nubians", aren't the Teita (bantus) the next people found to have cranio-facial measurements strikingly similar to the pre-dynastic badarians?
Don't some S.African groups practice the age-grade system which comes from Nilotes and males hold hands closely together while walking and conversing, a practice found among Nilotes and afro-asiatics?
Hmmm... no, couldn't be cuz bantus are soooo diff from nilotes, afro-asiatics, horners and whoever else. Man, the bantus not only get crap from euro nuts but also from those who would be labelled "afro-centric" by the mainstream. What a world!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Goddamn you guys! Posting all the good topics when I'm away on vacation!!

Charlie, BIG UPS for this!!

I'm still reeling with joy over this new info! While I still have my reservations about DNA Tribes, after reading the data carefully I do accept the results of the info!

My God! No wonder all the Euronuts are speechless or have only very little of their stupid sh|t to say!

---

^LOL, welcome to the club.
But why did it take you THIS LONG to find this thread? Others pointed you to this info days ago.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Well other than the fact that I was busy with other things, it took time to read stuff from this thread and other threads I missed out on.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:


From Dna Tribes analysis of Sahelians:

The largest contributions were identified from the Tropical West African (56.5%) and Southern
African (18.7%) regions, for a total of 75.2%. This might reflect contacts with westerly Mande and Fula-Wolof cultures as well as with southerly forest zone cultures such as Yoruba and Akan peoples. Similarly, genetic contributions from the African Great Lakes region (10.1%) might reflect contacts with Nilo- Saharan cultures such as the Songhai, Zaghawa, and Kanuri.

The great lakes region sample has one NiloSaharan Group call karamojong. The last genetic article on Sudan posted by that Lion whore says this :

The patterns of population structure we found in northeast Africa, in particular the similarity of Nubian (a northern Sudanese group that speak Nilo-Saharan languages) and the Egyptian population. is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia, probably resulting in genetic flow between the two regions. However, the Nubian group and the Karamoja group from Uganda share a relatively large number of private alleles (Figure 4), potentially reflecting the shared ancestry of the Nubians with populations from southern Sudan and Uganda. Our results, in addition to mtDNA [7] and Y-chromosome [6,34,35] data, suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile between Egypt and Nubia.

The Hassan article that you even reference says THIS about Egyptians and Nilotics:

The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.

These results make no sense to you because you know absolutely nothing about Sub Saharan DNA outside of "Horners" and you are trying to study one portion of the continent in a bubble.
Why are you questioning the Results when the Results ARE THE RESULTS - You have to change your preconceived notions to fit these results. Still dont think it makes sense Look at DNA Tribes OTHER results from different African and see whats going on....Have you dont that? NOPE!

---

quote:

---

You know what makes sense? THIS MAKES SENSE:





How you like them apples ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

The South and Central African ties surprised me too. Then again, the Nile does flow from one of the Great Lakes, so perhaps this indicates ancient Egyptians having ancestry from further upriver?

---

But it shouldn't surprise you. Populations retreating from the desiccating Sahara had found their way southward, not only to the coastal areas of the north.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

Here's another alternative: Horners once had a markedly different gene pool than they do today. The Egyptians could have still come from the Horn but the population from which they branched off was for some reason different from modern Horners.

---

Considering your alternative, there must have been some changes through the ages, since the Benin haplotype HbS persists in Egyptian population today, whereas it is all but absent in the African Horn.

Additionally, ties to African populations presently distant from Egypt should not puzzle anyone in the know, since the core ancient Egyptian population would have ultimately drawn from a shared ancestral gene pool that crosscuts the different living African populations, aside from more recent common origins in the Saharan belt.

---

Damn! It all makes sense now! Why didn't I see it all before!!



Because the great dessication of North Africa caused much population upheaval and migratory dispersions, this created a chain reaction of migrations like a domino affect! For so long I've only been focusing on West African connections to Egypt via the Central Sahara, but I forgot that there were various pre-Bantu even pre-Benue groups and peoples living in the Central Sahara during the Holocene Wetness as well as early Nilotic groups. Some of these groups migrated further south before the dessication perhaps due to population expansions since North Africa at that time was rich in food supply and resources. When the dessication happened they were pushed further south and/or mixed with groups escaping desertification. Of course the Bantu language expansion took place well after these events which is why many Bantu-speaking people in South Africa today carry indigenous lineages to the region instead of West-Central African lineages associated with Bantu which again shows the difference between bio-genesis and ethnogenesis. And let's not forget the various Nilotic peoples who inhabited much of central and eastern Africa before Bantus as well.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


I'm still reeling with joy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass:

Djehuti I was wondering something. Truthcentric has 60 posts on ESR you have 11. Why don't you post more there? Is it because of al~Takruri?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:



Now would you look at that.

Horners totally lag behind in closeness to mid 18th dy pharaoh's when it comes to these STR profiles. Not just behind Western, Central and Southern Africans; they're totally dwarfed by Bantu Speakers when it comes to closeness to 18th dy pharaoh's, in frequencies of these particular STR profiles.

---

quote:

---

At the end of the day, genetics have the last word when stacked up against craniofacial analysis (which typically favors Horners as among the closest to AE).

What African peoples are the closest to Ancient Egyptians? One things for sure though, plenty of ammunition for Clyde's ''inner African Egypt''.

I'm not poking fun of him anymore; perhaps its time to review, or at least add nuance what seems to have become the consensus. The severe cases sickle cell in predynastic AE mummies, AE bacteria associated with inner Africa, high levels Sub-Saharan Nry markers (M60) in modern Egyptians that only reach modest levels in the Horn, and now this. The plot thickens..

---

I've never poked fun of Clyde's African theories save his mandigo ones. What I mainly chastise him for his his ridiculous African origins of Dravidian to Japanese while disassociating Berber from Africa!

When Clyde proves recent African origins of Dravidian and Japanese genetically will I stop my fun.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

They didn't study anything.
They took the data Zahi Hawass wished was not suited for populational comparison (he knows whatsup, which is why he always hides affinity revealing data), from the study he led in 2010, and compared it with pre-existing global STR data they had in their databases.

---

LOL I bet old Zahi is pissed at this! He probably planning for a press conference or something where he can denounce these findings. Though that is something he would definitely do if these findings got out huge to the public via the press in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

Dienekes has caught wind of this, and to his credit he seems to have revised his opinion on the AEs' affinities:

Forensic analysis of King Tut and his relatives

---

LMAO @ that charlatan!

He didn't revise his opinion before despite all the other evidence via skeletal and genetic via PN2 and Benin HBS but now he revises based on 8 STR loci. How noble of him.

quote:

---

Evergreen Writes:

Hell will freeze over before he admits:

Pictorial evidence in Greek art, as well as the statements of classical Greek authors strongly suggest that the ancient Greeks occupied an intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Northern Europeans and "Ethiopian" people. It is also clear that there was variation within ancient Greece itself: geographic, temporal, and even perhaps social aspects of this variation may have existed. But these qualitative observations are no substitute for the harder type of evidence that can be provided by authentic ancient DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

Dienekes has caught wind of this, and to his credit he seems to have revised his opinion on the AEs' affinities:

Forensic analysis of King Tut and his relatives

---

LMAO @ that charlatan!

He didn't revise his opinion before despite all the other evidence via skeletal and genetic via PN2 and Benin HBS but now he revises based on 8 STR loci. How noble of him.

quote:

---

Evergreen Writes:

Hell will freeze over before he admits:

Pictorial evidence in Greek art, as well as the statements of classical Greek authors strongly suggest that the ancient Greeks occupied an intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Northern Europeans and "Ethiopian" people. It is also clear that there was variation within ancient Greece itself: geographic, temporal, and even perhaps social aspects of this variation may have existed. But these qualitative observations are no substitute for the harder type of evidence that can be provided by authentic ancient DNA.

---

Of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] :: Goddamn . . While I still have my reservations about DNA Tribes, /QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
^ Why are you acting retarded?
Why dont you address the genetic analysis of the ANCIENT mummy remains?

---

Please..
i doubt about the validity of this study since the phenotype and the ostelogic studies (aswell as HISTORY) are supporting an Upper Egyptian/North Sudan origin of the amarna mummies.
Bejas shares a tight closeness with them.

I dont think that they're is a group of Beja looking bantus in inner Africa...
lets talk about "convergent evolution" then...

---

But that is RETARDED given the evidence we have at hand. There is similar evidence that tells us Jews in Southern African that LOOK JUST LIKE THEIR BANTU SPEAKING NEIGHBORS carry significant Frequencies of Haplogroup J? There is evidence the tells us some Central Africans (LOOKING JUST LIKE THEIR Central African NEIGHBORS) Carry very high levels of presumable "Eurasian" Male lineages...sometimes encompassing nearly the ENTIRE male line.

It doensnt matter what your feeble mind "thinks" is possible, This is what has be demonstrated by Genetics.

You have people that LOOK LIKE THIS and have "Asian DNA"



If this is possible OUTSIDE of Africa then you best believe that someone INSIDE the African continent can have that same phenotype and have any combination of autosomal ancestry that exists nearly anywhere on the continent. And Please, you speak of "ostelogic studies" - Do you actually know what those studies state? LOL YOU, (Like Manu who has long disappeared) need to go back and read all the studies and ever bit of information that has been posted in this thread. Look at what the markers are used for and you can check them YOURSELF even among Sudanese STR markers WHICH INCLUDE 2 Beja groups!

ALso in that study, Why do the 2 Beja groups sit close to Nilotics?
While your at it research how Eastern Sudanic speakers were absorbed by the Beja and Eastern Sudanic (Nilo-Saharan) Loan words into Proto-Egyptian......See you in a month from now.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Huh?

A
Put in the 8STR and plug ANY combination of number to the other unknown STRs and you end up with Sub-saharan African. Funny thing is Levantine is so low down on the list.

Next . . .the early Europeans. LOL!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] :: Goddamn . . While I still have my reservations about DNA Tribes, /QB]

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

• Hb S can be informative of either African or Indian
  ancestry. Hb S can pinpoint a particular African
  region, either greater SW Nigeria region (Benin
  haplotype), greater Sene-Gambian W.Africa region
  (Senegal haplotype), greater central Africa (Bantu
  haplotype) or the Cameroon locality (Cameroon haplotype).
  See the thread African, or Near Eastern and Southern European connections via HbS.
  
  
  Adapted from Ragusa et al 1990
  
  Which haplotype did the pre-dynastic mummies have and
  did Tut have sickle cell or did he succumb to malaria?

---

LMAO!

i thought TUT had the Benin sickle cell which seems to be inexistant in Southern Africa?

---

Hb S and miniSTRs are different types of informative
DNA. Modern Egyptians mainly have Benin Hb S and that
fact is extrapolated to ancient Egyptians and hence Tut.

One must know how to read DNAtribes Table 1 MLIs
if one wishes to comment on or apply its information.
It tells us Tut most likely matches Southern Africa
and the African Great Lakes but it does not exclude
Tropical West Africa the 3rd likeliest match.



Tut's Tropical West Africa MLI score is 314.
That's higher than both the SA and AGL scores for Amenhotep III.
It exceeds all mummies' Southern Africa scores except Thuya's.
It exceeds all mummies' African Great Lakes scores except Akhenaton's.

popSTR shows actual population frequencies with Tut's miniSTR alleles
* D13S317=12 is of high frequency in TWA
* D2S1338=16,26 of high frequency in TWA
* D18S51=19 is of high frequency in TWA

Tut has 4 TWA high freq alleles including two
allele pairs. Tut having Benin Hb S only agrees
with miniSTR. They both are mutually supportive.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
KoKaKoLa reposted the below which needs tweeking.
So I re-present it after striking the question on the
STRs being maternal which they are not since they
are nuclear DNA autosomes (maternal + paternal)
and also rephrasing STR haplotype to STR profile
in keeping with the majority of the literature.

• As when looking into DNAtribes last month it still
  holds their arriving at group assignments is not
  a statistical mystery. Once a good size number
  of global samples exist it's simple interpolation.
  
  Each sample has it's own profile of alleles.
  Certain regions will have a higher number of
  the same or very near the same profilee over
  samples in a limited geography. Unlike not for
  profit peer reviewed scientific reports, DNAtribes
  is not publishing the allele data associated with
  the geographies.
  
  For customer paid reports DNAtribes uses either
  15, 21 or 27 STR autosomes to assign a profile
  which is then checked against so many individual
  populations in their database.
  
  For the Amarna mummy article DNAtribes used
  a stripped down 8 loci profie which in this
  case we know includes D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338,
  D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA. We know
  the values of these polymorphic microsatellites and
  anybody can compare and match these to a pop db
  (eg., DNAtribes lets on that both D18S51=19 and
  D21S11=34 are African specific markers by frequency).
  
  a Identified as Tiye
  b Identified as Akhenaten
  
  
  I am confident of the basic validity of DNAtribes'
  findings on the nDNA STR lineages of the Amarna
  mummies but I do note their Table 1 indices for
  Yuya do not list the Americas populations circled
  on Yuya's regional analysis map Appendix Figure 3.
  Perhaps it is just a glitch.
  
  
  
  
  
  I see no reason to distrust DNAtribes' science behind
  the region matching in their January 1, 2012 article.
  
  I commend DNAtribes for not making a press release
  touting their find the way less reputable companies
  have done even though DNAtribes' analysis is without
  doubt based on the actual raw data (not screen shots)
  of Hawass and the Egyptian laboratories report as in
  JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
  
  .