quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

---

Source

---

quote:

---

Abstract


Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis.




Due to the presence of the lake Quarun and to the particular nature of its irrigation system, it has been speculated that the Fayum, a large depression 80 kilometers south- west of modern Cairo, was exposed to the hazards of malaria in historic times. Similarly, it has been speculated that, in the same area, also human tuberculosis might have been far more widespread in the antiquity than in its recent past. If these hypotheses were confirmed, it would imply that frequent cases of co-infection between the two pathogens might have occurred in ancient populations.


To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD).


Soft tissue biopsies were used for DNA extractions and PCR amplifications using well-suited protocols. A partial 196-bp fragment of Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 gene and a 123-bp fragment of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex insertion sequence IS6110 were amplified and sequenced in six and five of the sixteen specimens, respectively. A 100% concordance rates between our sequences and those of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex ones were obtained. Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis. Here we extend back-wards to ca. 800 BC new evidence for malaria tropica and human tuberculosis co-occurrence in ancient Lower Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
Lets try this again and use this thread as a placeholder when the data is release.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

---

Source

---

---

I have been reading from a distance for some time now. The abstract itself makes reference to "foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population." Can this not be interpreted as the authors admitting that these are not purely natives?
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
I didn't know Abusair was Fayum. Don't tell me they are testing the Fayum mummies. Lurkers, Google image Fayum portraits. White people aint about nothing.

At least they are honest about this being a Hyksos spot. Still sad. The first released genetic study on a population and they choose a white neighborhood. That is so janky.

I'm going to venture and say that these are going to be some white ass Egyptians, albino mutations and all.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I didn't know Abusair was Fayum. Don't tell me they are testing the Fayum mummies. Lurkers, Google image Fayum portraits. White people aint about nothing.
\
At least they are honest about this being a Hyksos spot. Still sad. The first released genetic study on a population and they choose a white neighborhood. That is so janky.

I'm going to venture and say that these are going to be some white ass Egyptians, albino mutations and all.

---

I think you are on to something. Looks pretty white to me.


 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Abusir el Meleq was founded
in the Naqada II archaic period.
-- Baines & Màlek (1984) p.31.

The sampled mummies only go
back to the 3rd Intermediate
that began around 1070 BCE.

Schuenann's abstract tries to
locate Egypt in some imaginary
"isthmus of Africa" but she then
gets on track.

Discounting Libyans, her dominating
foreigners -- more and more living
within Egypt's borders possibly mixing
with the local population -- are the
* 27th Persian Dynasty 525-404 BCE
* 2nd Persian Period 343-332 BCE
* Greco-Roman Period 332 BCE - 395 CE

I think nearby Levantines were always
in Egypt as evidenced by trade culture
as transhumants, merchants, migrant
labor, and slaves. Some worked their
way up society's ladder. Some women
bore local children.

Also can't forget resettled 13th century
Sea Peoples were families. In time they
disappeared into the general population
of Egypt.


All of these foreigners were more likely
in the Delta and Fayum regions. Abusir
sits between the southern Fayum and
the Nile. Its in the 21st Nome of Upper
Egypt. The 1st Nome of Lower Egypt
borders it.


 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Two of these samples predate the Greco-Roman era.
They fit Dyn 23 when there was a 5 way power split.
Without materials and methods we don't know how
many of Schuenemann's 90 samples are pre-Ptolemaic
(i.e., Persian, Nubian, and Libyan rule).



 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Gets boring with Afroloons trying to blame the genetic data that conflict with their politics on large scale foreign mixture, which if you notice they keep changing the dates for.

Later when DNA samples dating to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, these Afoloons will say that also was time of mass foreign mixture, then for the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, and so on.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I didn't know Abusair was Fayum. Don't tell me they are testing the Fayum mummies. Lurkers, Google image Fayum portraits. White people aint about nothing.
\
At least they are honest about this being a Hyksos spot. Still sad. The first released genetic study on a population and they choose a white neighborhood. That is so janky.

I'm going to venture and say that these are going to be some white ass Egyptians, albino mutations and all.

---

I think you are on to something. Looks pretty white to me.

---

Id hedge on art face over decay face. If you wanted ancient Egyptians with albino mutations where else do you go but to the Fayum mummies?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Gets boring with Afroloons trying to blame the genetic data that conflict with their politics on large scale foreign mixture, which if you notice they keep changing the dates for.

Later when DNA samples dating to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, these Afoloons will say that also was time of mass foreign mixture, then for the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, and so on.

---

It is obvious you have nothing valuable to contribute, all you have is nothing but euroloon babbles.



0411464


ARCHAEOLOGY. Relief with hieroglyphs at the entrance to the tomb of Amon Pen (Dynasty XIX), Abusir Necropolis, Egypt. Egyptian civilisation, New Kingdom, Dynasty XIX. Full credit: De Agostini / S. Vannini / Granger, NYC


https://www.granger.com/results.asp?search=1&screenwidth=1600&tnresize=200&pixperpage=40&searchtxtkeys=abusir&lastsearchtxtkeys=Abusir&lstorients=132


LOL @ Euronut logic.



 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
I'm adopting a policy of ignoring Cass after that Mansa Musa fiasco, that really took the cake.

Anyways as I mentioned in the previous thread isn't Abusir actually in *Lower* Egypt? It's basically right at the neck of the Delta. Considering this and the imperial nature of the New Kingdom I still don't really find the abstract surprising but eh *shrugs*
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The Armarna was cosmopolitan,
foreigners depicted in various
occupations. The royals proved
closest to modern Upper Egyptians,
modern Sudanese, and Somalis.

Though not absent in royals, non
royals are naturally going to have
more bloodlines out their stock
than royals logically due to class.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:


Anyways as I mentioned in the previous thread isn't Abusir actually in *Lower* Egypt? It's basically right at the neck of the Delta. Considering this and the imperial nature of the New Kingdom I still don't really find the abstract surprising but eh *shrugs*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Abusir el Meleq was founded
in the Naqada II archaic period.
-- Baines & Màlek (1984) p.31.

Abusir
sits between the southern Fayum and
the Nile. Its in the 21st Nome of Upper
Egypt. The 1st Nome of Lower Egypt
borders it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I didn't know Abusair was Fayum. Don't tell me they are testing the Fayum mummies. Lurkers, Google image Fayum portraits. White people aint about nothing.
\
At least they are honest about this being a Hyksos spot. Still sad. The first released genetic study on a population and they choose a white neighborhood. That is so janky.

I'm going to venture and say that these are going to be some white ass Egyptians, albino mutations and all.

---

I think you are on to something. Looks pretty white to me.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8RhjMQVwAAKyZg.jpg:large

---

Id hedge on art face over decay face. If you wanted ancient Egyptians with albino mutations where else do you go but to the Fayum mummies?

---

quote:

---

“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. “

---

quote:

---

"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


@ Ish
I don't understand how a Greco-
Roman settlement could've been
founded ~3000 BCE and have at
least two mummies dating to 800
BCE when Greco-Roman Egypt isn't
until 332 BCE?

---

quote:

---

Abusir el-Malek


The ancient settlement of Abusir el-Malek sat on a small rise in the fertile floodplain between the Faiyum and the Nile. By 1500 B.C., it was a prosperous settlement with many temples and a vast burial ground and buildings stretching across a large area. Excavations in the early twentieth century revealed burials centered on a cult honoring Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife. The earliest evidence of occupation at the site dates from around 3000 B.C., with the majority of burials beginning 1,500 years later. The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use.

Archaeological exploration of Abusir el-Malek in the early twentieth century resulted in many artifacts being placed in museums around the world, bringing attention to the importance of the site and its history. Site work continued in the 1970s, emphasizing again the valuable information being gained from documenting Abusir el-Malek. Following the Arab Spring in 2011, when policing archaeological sites became more difficult, there was a tremendous surge in looting of heritage sites in the region. Abusir el-Malek is one of the archaeological sites that has been particularly heavily looted. The continuing destruction of sites in search of saleable antiquities has resulted in the loss of scientific evidence, artifacts, and understanding of the stratigraphy of archaeological ruins at thousands of ancient sites like Abusir el-Malek. Sadly this situation is not unique in Egypt, or elsewhere in the world. Times of crisis—poverty, conflict, or political turmoil—stretch the protection of our past, often to breaking point.

Placing Abusir el-Malek on the 2016 World Monuments Watch cannot repair the damage to the site, but it can potentially raise awareness about looting and highlight efforts worldwide to stem the tide of illicit trafficking of archaeological objects. Developing alternative sources of income for local communities and incentives for protecting heritage sites, coupled with enforcement of local, national, and international cultural property laws, is a vital challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I'm adopting a policy of ignoring Cass after that Mansa Musa fiasco, that really took the cake.

Anyways as I mentioned in the previous thread isn't Abusir actually in *Lower* Egypt? It's basically right at the neck of the Delta. Considering this and the imperial nature of the New Kingdom I still don't really find the abstract surprising but eh *shrugs*

---

quote:

---

The corpus of material from Roman Egypt is one of the most fascinating in studying ancient Egypt’s funerary remains. However, with the exception of painted panel portraits on mummies of the period, much of this material has received little attention from academia and public alike.

The value of this publication, which condenses the author’s doctoral thesis, lies in its thorough analysis of often poorly-recorded material dispersed in museums throughout the world.

Riggs concentrates on the series of mummy cases, masks, shrouds, coffins and tomb paintings incorporating aspects of Greek and Roman art into traditional Egyptian burial forms. She analyses stylistic development in conjunction with other contemporary art forms, texts and funerary inscriptions in order to gain insight into the ethnicity, social status and religious beliefs of the populace.

Chapter One presents an overview of art and religion in Roman Egypt and an account of previous studies in the field. Riggs suggests that the amalgam of styles and motifs, formerly categorised as of mixed style and even considered degenerate by many, is due to a deliberate choice rather than any misunderstanding of Egyptian funerary art forms. She proposes that the use of more naturalistic portraiture and the depiction of contemporary clothing and hairstyles indicates a desire to perpetuate status and gender in the afterlife.

Chapter Two examines the concept of gender in funerary art and texts and relates the evidence from the Rhind Papyri, in which the deceased are associated with the funerary deities Osiris and Hathor, to groups of coffins from Kharga Oasis and Akhmim. These, too, portray the image of the deceased either idealised in Osiride form or naturalistically in contemporary dress, according to Hellenistic conventions. Despite the Hellenised mode of dress, the names of the deceased are Egyptian and derived from those of local divinities. Riggs therefore suggests that the purpose of the contemporary knotted garment worn by females of the Akhmim Group is to ‘tie’ the image to Hathor, and that the dual styles emphasise the importance of perpetuating social status in death, as well as gender.

Chapter Three investigates this concept further in narrative scenes on a series of masks from Meir and in Funerary House 21 in the cemetery of Tuna el-Gebel, in which the deceased is similarly attired. Riggs equates the narrative to stages in the deceased’s journey through death to transfiguration.

Her analysis of the accompanying inscriptions reveals a predominance of now Greek versions of Egyptian names, implying a bilingual society. The question of cultural identity is further investigated in relation to images of the deceased in the style of orator-type portraits on the lids of wooden coffins from Abusir el-Meleq, and on the ‘Psychopomp’ shrouds from Saqqara. Riggs compares the image to contemporary commemorative sculpture and suggests that the intention may be to represent the deceased as a cult image. The Psychopomp shrouds portray the deceased within a portal, which Riggs interprets as representing the threshold between life and transfiguration.

She develops this theory in a discussion of images on tombs of the period at Akhmim and in the Dakhla Oasis where the orator-style image of the deceased alludes both to his cult status and his transition to the afterlife.

Chapter Four is dedicated to the funerary material from the Theban area, which retained its importance as a religious centre into the Roman Period. Although more conservative than art forms from other areas, the material does incorporate some new features. The traditional image of the goddess Nut is present on coffins of the Soter Group, but she is now clothed in contemporary costume and jewellery, and naturalistic portraiture is combined with traditional native imagery on mummy masks from Deir el- Bahri. Riggs’ detailed study of accompanying inscriptions and texts reveals that the deceased were members of local élites, were probably bilingual and devotees of local cults.

She concludes that in the Roman Period the concept of maintaining one’s status and gender into the afterlife became as important as the preservation of the corpse and transfiguration of the deceased. Far from being ‘degenerate’, the material manifests that patrons exercised choice as to how they wished to be depicted in death, being able to draw upon the characteristics of three artistic traditions.

The text is supplemented by numerous photographs, drawings and plates, together with an invaluable Appendix and Register of Museums. This study succeeds in placing the material in its rightful place as a fine example of what happens when three great artistic traditions meet and interact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
but aren't those dates before the Greco-Roman period?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Didn't many of the samples predate Greek/Roman occupation? The dates however don't predate Canaan and Hyksos entry, and by about 1k BC there was Eastern genetic influences that extended all the way into Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.

---

---

quote:

---

Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit
relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent.
Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical
mean MMD values of 0.126.

---

quote:

---

Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more
closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and
especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait
concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table
4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so sam-
ples (Fig. 2).

---

quote:

---

The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

—Brace et al 2005

This Abusir population has lost (most of) this predynastic Egyptian African ancestry and wasn't any more African than EEF-like samples are. Whatever you want to argue the main affinity of this lost African ancestry was, it wasn't anything like DNA Tribes Great Lakes or South African region.

Game over.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I still think that areas around Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo, Edfu and Aswan will turn up very different results from these Northern sites if they are sampled. The North and South may have been distinct from early dynastic times. When will this paper be released?
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Swenet

When did the aforementioned areas in Upper Egypt lose their predynastic African ancestry? They still look like North Sudanese.
 

---

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

What is the skin color and general look of Copts from Sudan (if there is such a thing)? Years ago someone posted a movie featuring Copts from Sudan and the actors looked like this:



If that's accurate it shows that affinity to EEF samples doesn't have to mean a complete break in continuity. The Sudanese Copt sample clusters with early farmer groups but the individuals presumably still look like the individual in the pic above. I think the same applies to the Abusir sample. See the picture Beyoku posted.

It is therefore no surprise that living Upper Egyptians can look even more in the direction of northern Sudanese.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Swenet

I have never personally come across a Sudanese Copt, but there are quite a few Egyptians in Khartoum and Omdurman -- more so when the economy was good. I have posted pages upon pages of pictures of modern Upper Egyptians and they look just like us.

I don't wish to come across as stubborn, Swenet, but I'll defer judgement until they get samples from the early dynastic South. I have learned a great deal from you, but your criticism of those that base their learning around threads is very much legitimate and so I will buckle down and try to understand this field a little more. Thank you.

Ps: The paper will come out this month, no?
 

---

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

Noted. Just out of curiosity, though, how do you interpret the position of the dynastic Upper Egyptian samples on this dendrogram away from the predynastic samples and even the modern Elephantine sample (which clusters loosely with the Ugandan and Tanzanian samples). Note that the dynastic Upper Egyptian samples are from some of the areas you asked about, but they mostly cluster with samples from the north (both ancient and modern). If you don't have an explanation and want to wait in regards to this as well, let me know.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/7.png
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/6.png
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya

Noted. Just out of curiosity, though, how do you interpret the position of the dynastic Upper Egyptian samples on this dendrogram away from the predynastic samples and even the modern Elephantine sample (which clusters loosely with the Ugandan and Tanzanian samples). Note that the dynastic Upper Egyptian samples are from some of the areas you asked about, but they mostly cluster with dynastic samples from the north (both ancient and modern). If you don't have an explanation and want to wait in regards to this as well, let me know.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/7.png
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/6.png

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.

---

---

Game over.

quote:

---

Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit
relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent.
Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical
mean MMD values of 0.126.

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

quote:

---

Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more
closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and
especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait
concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table
4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so sam-
ples (Fig. 2).

---

Game over.

In short, AE changed over time to an EEF-like population. This is not specific to the Abusir sample, but part of a wider gradual phenomenon all over dynastic Egypt. Trying to blame this squarely on immigrants fails also, because predynastic Egyptians were already fundamentally akin to such EEF-like populations, albeit much more shifted towards Africans. This was already known since 2005 and even before that, but people just want to play dumb and have selective memory:

quote:

---

The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

—Brace et al 2005

This Abusir population has lost (most of) this predynastic Egyptian African ancestry and wasn't any more African than EEF-like samples are. Whatever you want to argue the main affinity of this lost African ancestry was, it wasn't anything like DNA Tribes Great Lakes or South African region.

Game over.

---

quote:

---

On first study the mummy portraits of the Roman period give us a series of likenesses that appear to be carefully worked representations of particular people, but closer analysis has shown that the 'individual' traits are generally simply the quirks of a workshop or painter, emphasised by the repetitive and formulaic use of proportion but often concealed by fashions in hairstyles and beards. What is lacking is the detailed observation of the underlying proportions of the individual skull which gives each face its own personality.

However, a few portraits stand out by their sheer quality: the acid test of their fidelity would be a reconstruction based on the skull, a test which was carried out in Manchester on two portraits from Hawara now in the British Museum (EA 74713, EA 74718) in the wake of the "Ancient Faces" exhibition. The one proved to be a reasonable likeness as far as detail is concerned but failed in representing the overall proportions of the face, showing that the painter had merely adapted a standard workshop type; the other, although superficially also a standard type, comes much nearer the truth because the artist has rendered the proportions of his subject's face correctly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
When you get behind a PC, you'll see that all of Kemp's dendrograms show a distinction between most Nubian samples and predynastic Egyptians on the one hand, and between most dynastic Egyptians on the other hand. This doesn't mean that there was a huge change everywhere at the same time. In PCA we would probably see a smoother transition with dynastic Upper Egyptians generally in between predynastic Egyptians and dynastic Lower Egyptians. However, it's obvious that dynastic Egyptian samples that are assigned to branches with Levantines (Lachish) and northern Egyptians (E Series, Sedment), rather than with predynastic Egyptians, share an admixture event(s).

You're correct that Lower Nubians also changed. Some of the Lower Nubians cluster with dynastic Egyptians. If that result has been replicated elsewhere, I would interpret that the same way (i.e. as involving that admixture event or something similar).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya

What is the skin color and general look of Copts from Sudan (if there is such a thing)? Years ago someone posted a movie featuring Copts from Sudan and the actors looked like this:

https://traveltoeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Photo-20151212110137712.jpg

If that's accurate it shows that affinity to EEF samples doesn't have to mean a complete break in continuity. The Sudanese Copt sample clusters with early farmer groups but the individuals presumably still look like the individual in the pic above. I think the same applies to the Abusir sample. See the picture Beyoku posted.

It is therefore no surprise that living Upper Egyptians can look even more in the direction of northern Sudanese.

---

I did meet a Sudanese Copt many many years ago. He looked much like Mostafa Hefny.





The complexion is basically the same, or at least close.

Most people in Upper Egypt go from this color complexion to darker than that. And occasionally you'll see people lighter complexioned (yellowish).
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I can't remember who posted it, but I remember citations asserting that dynastic Egyptians were a continuum of the Badarian and Naqadan predynastic cultures. I really do want full spectrum DNA analysis of samples from early dynastic Southern Egypt to settle this. I just can't fathom how anthropologists, archaeologists and historians have never found evidence of mass migration into the Nile valley by "Eurasians" if this is to be believed. We are essentially entertaining the possibility of a gradual but substantial population replacement scenario. This would have engendered widespread conflict -and I assume- would have ample archaeological evidence on its side.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I can't remember who posted it, but I remember citations asserting that dynastic Egyptians were a continuum of the Badarian and Naqadan predynastic cultures. I really do want full spectrum DNA analysis of samples from early dynastic Southern Egypt to settle this. I just can't fathom how anthropologists, archaeologists and historians have never found evidence of mass migration into the Nile valley by "Eurasians" if this is to be believed.

---

quote:

---

"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."

---

quote:

---

These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley.

This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK.

A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I can't remember who posted it, but I remember citations asserting that dynastic Egyptians were a continuum of the Badarian and Naqadan predynastic cultures. I really do want full spectrum DNA analysis of samples from early dynastic Southern Egypt to settle this. I just can't fathom how anthropologists, archaeologists and historians have never found evidence of mass migration into the Nile valley by "Eurasians" if this is to be believed. We are essentially entertaining the possibility of a gradual but substantial population replacement scenario. This would have engendered widespread conflict -and I assume- would have ample archaeological evidence on its side.

---

quote:

---

It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

---

1% can affect a population in several thousand years. A few extra percentage points and you can imagine how Egypt might've changed. I'm not saying I'm an all-knowing guru or anything, it just wouldn't strike me as especially difficult to conclude. I would even go further and imagine that by 1k BC, whatever occurred in Egypt spread throughout eastern Africa. Note: Apparently this study has been amended so that the scope of admixture only includes eastern Africa. It originally said it affected the whole continent.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The claim is not that a small percentage of ancient Egypt's population was affected by these movements into the Nile valley by "Eurasians" from the Levant in just one region of Egypt at the latter stages of Egypt's history, but that it was substantial enough to completely alter the demographic nature of the entire country immediately after the predynastic period -- something that doesn't sound all that gradual. This is the dynastic race theory all over again, except this time it doesn't merely assert that a small group of wandering Caucasians established themselves as the ruling elite of Egypt at the start of the predynastic period, but that they quickly became the majority of Egypt's population at every corner of Egypt.

The archaeological and anthropoligical evidence for this should have been immediately apparent to experts in the relevant disciplines. It should have been as bright as the sun. You would still expect some indigenous Northeast African genes - if these people were ethnic Egyptians.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
But this is probably why the author of the paper mentions the impact of foreigners. All I can say is that I don't think this happened as as a major displacement event, or even a few. I imagine there were several periods of relatively heavier inflow: the Islamic expansion, Canaan and Hyksos settlement/expansions, etc. Still, I agree with the general idea that mixing started in northern Egypt during the predynastic and became more noticeable over thousands of years. By 1k BC we see the inflow reaches all the way to Ethiopia. So even Upper Egypt and Nubia should've experienced changes.

Anyway the link I posted, the author cites these studies for the ~3kya backflow event (which might offer a more specific time):

3) A.X. Sun, G. R. Crabtree, A. S. Yoo, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 25, 215–221 (2013).

4) S. Thomsen, G. Azzam, R. Kaschula, L. S. Williams, C. R. Alonso,Development 137, 2951–2960 (2010).


Does anyone know how to read this?? What are the names of these studies?
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
That's an annoying citation format. You can google the journal title and look through the contents of the back issues to find the titles.

Those are the references to a paper about microRNAs in fruit flies though - the references you want are at the bottom of the article.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Orginally posted by Swenet:
This doesn't mean that there was a huge change everywhere at the same time. In PCA we would probably see a smoother transition with dynastic Upper Egyptians generally in between predynastic Egyptians and dynastic Lower Egyptians.

---

Something like this:



http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1370585/1/HADDOW_PHD_THESIS.pdf
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
@Swenet what did you think of my earlier post as far as a "flux" in SSA ancestry? Basically the Predynastic AE having more African ancestry which decreased over time though with there still being minor genetic contributions from SSA (and vice versa). Then after the post-Roman era with events like the Saharan Slave Trade, an increase in SSA in Modern Egyptians. I know Beyoku didnt really agree with it but you seem to basically describe something similar.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Oshun, the studies cited are:

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

and

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ In the meanwhile I hope for Tukuler to update us on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
but aren't those dates before the Greco-Roman period?

---

These are radiocarbon dates. These have a margin off.
centuries BC[/i]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.

---

Ramses III


Ramses III



Pentaweret

quote:

---

The same study determined that the mummy of an unknown man buried with him was a good candidate for Ramesses's son Pentaweret although it could not determine his cause of death. Both mummies shared Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a and 50% of their genetic material, which Zink stated "is typical of a father-son relationship."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.

---

Tukuler demonstrated that the Tribes test was pulling on Dwarves and San. DnaConsultants confirmed that they had African derived genes. Where do you think people are delusional? Is it the Horn vs the rest of Africa? What did the STR test miss?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ In the meanwhile I hope for Tukuler to update us on this.

---

Not sure what I sshould update? But I'll be as helpful as I can.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
but aren't those dates before the Greco-Roman period?

---

These are radiocarbon dates. These have a margin off.
centuries BC[/i]

---

BP
Based on the radiocarbon level of 1950.
These dates never correspond to the calendar
because the half-life age originally used was
inaccurate and atmospheric radiocarbon
concentration is not a constant.

C14 years BP
Raw uncalibrated radiocarbon date never to be
confused for an actual calendar year. Not much
useful to others not professionally educated in
research science.

calBP
Tree rings are used to calibrate radiocarbon
years for regular calendar year dates (still in
regards to 1950).

calBC & calAD
These are our calendar year expressions of calBP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Somebody asked about this a while
but i can't find the post to reply. Don't
laugh too hard at my %age guesses
for pre-Ptolemaic.

http://i65.tinypic.com/2h51jle.jpg

Slide by Schuenemann from report in press.
Can't wait? Go to her AAPA presentation on
April 20.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Hassan et al (2008) tested 445 Sudanese men (back before South Sudan split off).

E1b1a1-M2 was found only in the Hausa sample (who of course come from far to the west); 17% E-M2, n=32.

None of the Nilo-Saharans or Afro-Asiatic speaking groups had any M2, and even the Fulani and Kordofanians lacked it as well.

M2 is not at all common in Northeast Africa.

---

 

---

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

I agree.

@Lioness

There is E1b1a in Sudan:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VXvE_FobHfI/ULP1DPtkcyI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/ub5tMTa92L8/s1600/NRY_Language.PNG

Just not a lot.

EDIT:
The Nilo Saharan Anuak sample that is responsible for most of that E1b1a is from western Ethiopia:



http://ethiohelix.blogspot.nl/2012/11/extensive-doctoral-thesis-on-ethiopian.html
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ish Gebor
I should have been more clear, but if you notice, I was addressing the source you posted. It wasn't directed at you, just at people who try to pretend like you can sample Upper Egyptian samples and get fest of South African and Great Lakes aDNA. Maybe you can find that in some immigrant sample, but as far as ethnic Egyptians, that is completely ruled out by the source you posted and all the other data. One can either say they're more African versions of the recently sampled Natufians and ENF groups, who are partly African themselves, or (playing devil's advocate) one can try to argue that they're tropically adapted, dark skinned Eurasian immigrants a la Raxter and Irish. The latter camp are delusional also, but not more delusional than the DNA Tribes camp. At least they can cite data with a faint semblance to what they're saying. Keita's work doesn't even support the DNA Tribes camp. So who credible represents them in academia? No one. They are going out on a limb and selectively posting pictures of ancient statues, not actual physical anthropologists or geneticists who agree with them.

Whoever adheres to a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes, it's game over for them. They are just suspending disbelief at this point.

@Sudaniya

Noted.

---

Ramses III


Ramses III



Pentaweret

quote:

---

The same study determined that the mummy of an unknown man buried with him was a good candidate for Ramesses's son Pentaweret although it could not determine his cause of death. Both mummies shared Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a and 50% of their genetic material, which Zink stated "is typical of a father-son relationship."

---

E1b1a

Nilo-Saharan 29.7% (Wood 2005)

Oromo, Ethiopia 62% (Hassan 2008)

Ethiopia 48.8

South Sudan (Nilotic) 0% (Hassan 2008)

West Sudan (Darfur) 0% (Hassan 2008)
______________________________________

Is this correct that Sudan is 0% E1b1a ??

---

Here I propose a group that comes closer in phenotype, genotype and geographically. Even culturally.





http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/images/mali/timbuktu/timbuktu-0007.jpg
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You do know -_M2 is OLDER in and probably more diverse in EAST Africa compared to WEST Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
No one is talking about the Horn, except as a useful proxy in a global context. But when you zoom in and look at the region, the Horn lags behind also when compared to ancient Nubians.

---

quote:

---

The pharaonic STRs have a global distribution unlike SSA-specific STR alleles. DNA consultants' "rare genes" from SSA are confined to single regions. In this regard they differ from the pharaonic alleles. The global distribution of the pharaonic alleles obviously means that they were once abundant in North Africa. Instead, people exploit the fact that North Africa is admixed today.

---

quote:

---

Note also that Mota was said to have Pygmy ancestry. Closer inspection reveals that it isn't even Pygmy ancestry. It's simply 'shared' with Pygmies. How do you know the same thing doesn't apply here? DNA Tribes never accounted for these effects.

In the end, this doesn't really matter, because you'd still have to explain why the skeletal remains point in the other direction. We're supposed to reconcile all the data. A literal interpretation of DNA Tribes requires one to ignore >90% of all the available data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ In the meanwhile I hope for Tukuler to update us on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
but aren't those dates before the Greco-Roman period?

---

These are radiocarbon dates. These have a margin off.
centuries BC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Tukuler demonstrated that the Tribes test was pulling on Dwarves and San. DnaConsultants confirmed that they had African derived genes. Where do you think people are delusional? Is it the Horn vs the rest of Africa? What did the STR test miss?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You do know -_M2 is OLDER in and probably more diverse in EAST Africa compared to WEST Africa.

---

I don't know that. As far as I know the opposite is true. Surprise me with some actual evidence.

(And I don't mean evidence that the distant ancestor of M2 split from M329 40 000 years ago in East Africa.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Oshun, the studies cited are:

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

and

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool

---

quote:

---

Back to Africa

Before considering questions related to ancient demographic events, we needed to separate the probable ancient African components from that which might have originated from more recent

code:

---

  ( < 60 kya ) 

---

gene flow back to Africa (light blue in Figure 1C).

---

quote:

---

Notably, most of the major branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (L0-L3, M and N (van Oven and Kayser 2009)) were observed in Ethiopia at substantial frequencies. Haplogroups of the L series are mainly restricted to Africa, whereas the clades M and N (which are haplogroups within the L3 clade) are generally found outside sub-Saharan Africa, and are thought to only occur inside Africa due to back migration from Eurasia (Salas et al. 2002; Olivieri et al. 2006; Behar et al. 2008).

Ethiopia however has previously been shown to have substantial frequencies of haplotypes of the M and N clades (Kivisild et al. 2004; Poloni et al. 2009), and the results in this thesis are consistent with previous studies. Of the M clade, only the M1 sub-clade was observed in the five Ethiopian Ascertainment groups, with highest frequency in the Amhara (17%) and lowest in the Anuak (3%). The N clade was not observed in the Anuak, but was observed in all other groups, with the highest frequency in the Amhara (34%). Of the N clades present in the other ethnic groups, interestingly, haplogroup R0* was observed at 11% in the Amhara and 4% in the Oromo, but not observed in the Afar or Maale. The varied distribution of R0* (previously known as preHV (van Oven and Kayser 2009), which is observed at relatively high frequencies across West and Central Asia (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004)), as well as other haplogroups of the N clade, may be evidence of a more recent introgression of N haplogroups into Ethiopia (Kivisild et al. 2004).

---

quote:

---

Population comparisons

Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt). Finally, the cluster on the right part of the graph is composed by the Indian populations on the top, the Near and Middle Eastern groups in the middle and the populations of the Arabian peninsula at the bottom; Yemeni Jews being slightly different. The only outlier within the region of southwestern Asia is the Kalash sample that is situated on the extreme right part of the graph (see also Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). There is a general cline among all populations in the MDS plot from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub-Saharan and Indian populations.

Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the comparative populations are different and fewer than in the mitochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.


Phylogenetic affiliations


Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably haplogroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub-Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro- haplogroup N is represented by three different haplotypes of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).

The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplotypes can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a haplotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that suggests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R haplotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.

The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Tribes's test focuses most heavily on what the ancestry mostly is.

---

quote:

---

"Although not detected in the royal mummies whose DNA has been examined so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin. Today it enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. About 1 in 10 Africans or African Americans have it, but a sharp spike occurs in Copts, today’s successor population in the Land of the Nile, where up to 27% possess it. About 7% of European Americans have it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
After data courteously supplied via the Swenet
Beyoku camp l revised my findings which were
erroneously in line with DNAtribes conclusions.
See my updated conclusions @


I didn't post all my calcs after updating for
missing reliable Upper Egypt and Sudan
data.

3 MOST LIKELY
Amenhotep III - Somali UpEgypt Sudan
Ramses - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Tut - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Yuya - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Thuya - UpEgypt Sudan Somali

3 LEAST LIKELY
Amenhotep - Mandenka Palestinian San
Ramses - Palestine Druze BedouinIsr
Tut - Palestine Druze BedouinIsr
Yuya - Palestinian Druze BedouinIsr
Thuya - San Druze BedouinIsr

Conclusions drawn from 8 STR miniFiler
results applied against Africa &/t Levant. [/QB]

---

What reliable missing data? Wasnt the connection to the Sudan or what made the based on a combination of miniSTR alleles found in Twa, San, the Sudan and Upper Egypt?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Sage. Are you sharing? Link?

See my updated conclusions @

---
After data courteously supplied via the Swenet
Beyoku camp l revised my findings which were
erroneously in line with DNAtribes conclusions.
See my updated conclusions @


I didn't post all my calcs after updating for
missing reliable Upper Egypt and Sudan
data.

3 MOST LIKELY
Amenhotep III - Somali UpEgypt Sudan
Ramses - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Tut - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Yuya - UpEgypt Sudan Mandenka
Thuya - UpEgypt Sudan Somali

3 LEAST LIKELY
Amenhotep - Mandenka Palestinian San
Ramses - Palestine Druze BedouinIsr
Tut - Palestine Druze BedouinIsr
Yuya - Palestinian Druze BedouinIsr
Thuya - San Druze BedouinIsr

Conclusions drawn from 8 STR miniFiler
results applied against Africa &/t Levant.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The link is in a post above on this page


Here's my Old World data check for Ramses via popSTR

* = highest freq
~ = no statistical difference from *
blank = 000


This global scale matching may show what
I think Swenet is calling EEF component (?)
though Lazaridis is clear its a different strain
than went to Europe and Laz ties it to the 3k
ago (1000 BCE) Yemen to Eritrea/Ethiopia
migration not a Mediterranean and/or
Levant to Lower Egypt movement.

Swenet is tying a lot of information into
a worthy paradigm related in terms
popularized but not owned by Law.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I'll wait until the paper is released in addition to a similar series of DNA samples from areas where the predynastic Badarian and Naqadan cultures developed. I'm finding it difficult to believe that the current population of Upper Egypt are not the best representatives of the Pharaohs in light of all that we know about the sucession of conquests of Egypt, and where the foreign settlements were concentrated. How can modern Lower Egyptians be more in line with early dynastic Egyptians than modern Upper Egyptians? In what dynasty did dynastic Upper Egyptians supposedly lose their predynastic African ancestry if they are so divergent from the predynastic populations? It cannot have transpired as early as has been insinuated.

Are we to believe that people with Narmer's profile and ancestry were replaced by Asiatics from the Levant as far as Upper Egypt in the early dynastic period? So people like Tiye became a minority?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Xyyman 42tribes

This is my current finding re Ramses vs
Africa and Levant once hipped to missing
Nile Valley data that should've been also
used in the first place.



 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Oshun, the studies cited are:

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

and

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool

---

quote:

---

A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ∼2,700–3,300 y ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Oshun, the studies cited are:

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

and

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool

---

Thank you and interestingly, if we were to accept the dates from these, 1,300 BC is around the time we see an event throughout eastern Africa:

quote:

---

A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ∼2,700–3,300 y ago.

---

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632.long


The other link is... idk. It lists the date of mixture to be 1.2k AD IIRC, while places south got an earlier date. Or am I reading that improperly???

---

This 1300 BC Asiatic migration into Northeast Africa is certainly feasible for ancient Egypt. I'm happy with anything after Imhotep, for obvious reasons.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Well, it's possible Asiatic migration had been present in lower Egypt since predynastic times (and his birthplace was in Memphis right?). It's possible there was some mixture, but I don't presently think it became a major thing for Egypt until sometime later (and he was early dynastic or very very early old kingdom Egyptian).
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Well, it's possible Asiatic migration had been present in lower Egypt since predynastic times (and his birthplace was in Memphis right?). It's possible there was some mixture, but I don't presently think it became a major thing for Egypt until sometime later (and he was early dynastic or very very early old kingdom Egyptian).

---

Imhotep's father was also a famed architect from Upper Egypt.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 



151 individuals from Abusir from New Kingdom to Roman period
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
90 Radiocarbon dates cal BC 1388-1311 to cal AD 386-426
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison




So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10... Okay naw. We had better NOT have ran through >20 pages of discussion that fast on 10 Ancient Northern Egyptians...


 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Xyyman 42tribes

This is my current finding re Ramses vs
Africa and Levant once hipped to missing
Nile Valley data that should've been also
used in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them.

---

The afrocentrics will either try to pass off these DNA results as non-natives to Egypt, or try to find faults with the samples or analysis. Having failed that, some of these vermin are now running to twitter to attack and accuse the scientists who conducted this DNA study as being some sort of "racists".

Observe the tweet below -
https://twitter.com/TS_Africology/status/851184803474939905


 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Until they present similar results from DNA Samples from Southern Egypt -> the source of Egyptian civilization, I will not be convinced. The South is everything. That primitive marshland (dynastic Northern Egypt) cannot even begin to approach the South in importance. Start at the beginning and I will concede.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them.

---

The afrocentrics will either try to pass off these DNA results as non-natives to Egypt, or try to find faults with the samples or analysis. Having failed that, some of these vermin are now running to twitter to attack and accuse the scientists who conducted this DNA study as being some sort of "racists".

Observe the tweet below -
https://twitter.com/TS_Africology/status/851184803474939905

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them.

---

Cool, as long as I didn't waste my time.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Start some place other than the Fayum Mummies. Id rather they test the coastline than the Fayum Mummies first. That is super janky. The first major genetic test on ancient Egypt is the Fayum mummies.

I don't trust white people at all and I still expected better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Until they present similar results from DNA Samples from Southern Egypt -> the source of Egyptian civilization, I will not be convinced. The South is everything. That primitive marshland (dynastic Northern Egypt) cannot even begin to approach the South in importance. Start at the beginning and I will concede.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Start some place other than the Fayum Mummies. Id rather they test the coastline than the Fayum Mummies first. That is super janky. The first major genetic test on ancient Egypt is the Fayum mummies.

I don't trust white people at all and I still expected better.

---

The Fayuim mummies are from ethnic Egyptians that mixed with ancient Greeks, so you really can't just dismiss them that easily. Have you seen what happens when Northeast Africans mix with non-Africans? Yonis created a thread with pictures showing the results, and they look no different to the Fayuim portraits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Tribes's test focuses most heavily on what the ancestry mostly is.

---

Then what is it? And remember, your answer has to be consistent with the global distribution of the pharaonic alleles. They are distributed from Sub Saharan Africa to all over West Eurasia. What SSA ancestry consistently has that type of affinity?

The only "rare gene" from DNAconsultant that matches this affinity is the "rare gene" that peaks in Copts. Lol. See where this is going?

quote:

---

"Although not detected in the royal mummies whose DNA has been examined so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin. Today it enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. About 1 in 10 Africans or African Americans have it, but a sharp spike occurs in Copts, today’s successor population in the Land of the Nile, where up to 27% possess it. About 7% of European Americans have it."

---

https://dnaconsultants.com/egyptian-gene/

---

It says its not detected in the royal mummies. If you look at the genes that are it is consistent with the STR test.

One of the autosomal ancestry markers prominent in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forebears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a forensic study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. Today, its highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians. On average, 1 in 3 Africans or African Americans carries it. It crops up in high concentrations in many places around the world such as the Basque region (41%) and in Melungeons (31%, similar to Middle Easterners), but is present at only low levels in East and South Asia, as well as Native America. Its lowest frequency is in the Chukchi of Siberia (3%)


1: Central African in origin. Found in half of Somalis, almost half of modern Egyptians, a third of African Americans Basque and Melungeons


Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans.
2: Central African in origin. In 10% of Africans.


Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. Today, it is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and in Jews as well as parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain, but it is reduced to low levels in Asia and the Americas (except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry). About 2 in 5 Africans or African Americans has it. Among Melungeons, the figure is 1 in 3.

3: African in origin. 50% of Copts in Adaima, common in west Asia, 2 in 5 African Americans.

STR test do not cover admixture. The Tribes score is consistent with those relatively high European MLI scores and the populations that share European genes. The African MLI scores are consistent with Consultant's analysis.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Fourty2Tribes

Can you give an example of a Sub-Saharan African population whose STR alleles are generally found in Sub Saharan Africa, on both sides of the Red Sea, on all sides of the Mediterranean, with many also showing peaks in modern Egypt (e.g. AKhenaten's and Thuya's "rare genes")?

Modern Egyptians still have "rare genes" with the exact same distribution pattern as some of the "pharaonic" alleles:


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
166 samples analyzed (bone, teeth, soft tisue)
...
10 individuals multiple tissues for comparison

So..of the 150 samples, only 90 handful were able to be dated and 10...

---

They only tested bones/teeth *and* soft tissue from *the same mummy* for 10 of them - to compare how well DNA was preserved in different parts. They sampled only one tissue type (they said bones or teeth worked best) for the rest. 166 samples from 151 individuals = 15 *extra* samples from 10 of them.

---

The afrocentrics will either try to pass off these DNA results as non-natives to Egypt, or try to find faults with the samples or analysis. Having failed that, some of these vermin are now running to twitter to attack and accuse the scientists who conducted this DNA study as being some sort of "racists".

Observe the tweet below -
https://twitter.com/TS_Africology/status/851184803474939905

---

Yawn.

Another irrelevant post by eurocentricloontart.





Likely people wonder how such relatively small sample set is used for proximity of entire ancient Egypt.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Proxy
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Fourty2Tribes

Can you give an example of a Sub-Saharan African population whose STR alleles are generally found in Sub Saharan Africa, on both sides of the Red Sea, on all sides of the Mediterranean, with many also showing peaks in modern Egypt (e.g. AKhenaten's and Thuya's "rare genes")?

Modern Egyptians still have "rare genes" with the exact same distribution pattern as some of the "pharaonic" alleles:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
My top MLI score was New Providence Bahamas at over 2 million. My highest ethnic group was Ovambo in Namibia at 700K. My highest score in Europe was Portugal at 24. And get this. Yoruba was 0. I have seen African Americans score in the millions with Yoruba and I was 0. San was 0.01 and Yoruba was ass zilch. I had a problem with Yoruba's use as the defacto Sub-Saharan before...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.

---

---

Game over.

quote:

---

Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit
relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent.
Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical
mean MMD values of 0.126.

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

quote:

---

Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more
closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and
especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait
concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table
4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so sam-
ples (Fig. 2).

---

Game over.

In short, AE changed over time to an EEF-like population. This is not specific to the Abusir sample, but part of a wider gradual phenomenon all over dynastic Egypt. Trying to blame this squarely on immigrants fails also, because predynastic Egyptians were already fundamentally akin to such EEF-like populations, albeit much more shifted towards Africans. This was already known since 2005 and even before that, but people just want to play dumb and have selective memory:

quote:

---

The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

—Brace et al 2005

This Abusir population has lost (most of) this predynastic Egyptian African ancestry and wasn't any more African than EEF-like samples are. Whatever you want to argue the main affinity of this lost African ancestry was, it wasn't anything like DNA Tribes Great Lakes or South African region.

Game over.

---

Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

I would say that Early Farmers entering the Levant included populations from between the Nile Valley and the Horn and there were similarities between some of these mixed Levantine populations and populations in the Nile Valley region because of the shared ancestry. No EEF needed.

The key point being that the proto-farming populations came from Africa and some of these proto-farming populations also existed in the region of the Nile Valley. Wadi Kubbaniya is a good example of the early survival strategies that would identify the proto-farmers in Africa. Populations like these migrated into the Levant carrying this toolkit and helped kick start the neolithic. Meanwhile other similar populations stayed in Africa and moved into the Nile Valley as well and eventually adopted their subsistence strategy to include crops introduced by the Levantine Neolithic farming communities. This is where the influence of the early Fayum communities come into play.

Again, EEF simply masks all this.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-BYUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=wadi+kubbaniya+sickle&source=bl&ots=jBZoYaBT8Z&sig=yN9m_5MYfATwnZ5vej5sRPy6fRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOlpfQlKHT AhVEeSYKHYp2A5oQ6AEISDAJ#v=onepage&q=wadi%20kubbaniya%20sickle&f=false
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
What is this purple component in the African samples, Doug?


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Oshun, the studies cited are:

Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa

and

Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool

---

Thank you and interestingly, if we were to accept the dates from these, 1,300 BC is around the time we see an event throughout eastern Africa:

quote:

---

A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ∼2,700–3,300 y ago.

---

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632.long


The other link is... idk. It lists the date of mixture to be 1.2k AD IIRC, while places south got an earlier date. Or am I reading that improperly???

---

quote:

---

Population comparisons

Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

---

quote:

---

Wadi Kubbaniya is a good example of the early survival strategies that would identify the proto-farmers in Africa. Populations like these migrated into the Levant carrying this toolkit and helped kick start the neolithic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also, all of these North African samples are admixed and so of course they're going to perform poorly as a pooled region compared to other African regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

---

EEF is not theoretical; Early Neolithic European farmers are all genetically similar and come from the same roots in Turkey, having spread into the Balkans and up the Danube and along the Mediterranean coast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also, all of these North African samples are admixed and so of course they're going to perform poorly as a pooled region compared to other African regions.

---

This is my interpretation too. As an aside, we know Egyptian royals across dynasties tended to be inbred. So their ancestry might have been less "mixed" than those of other ancient Egyptians. Has anyone ever looked into how phenotypically representative Egyptian royals would have been of the population they ruled?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


This is the 2nd time you dodged the challenge to give an example of the aforementioned hypothetical SSA population. Why, if such a SSA population supposedly exists?

---

quote:

---

What you did post yesterday proves my point and bears little resemblance to DNA Tribes analyses of the pharaonic alleles (if one takes the analyses literally):

---

quote:

---

Today, ["Thuya's gene"] highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians.

Today, ["Akhenaten's gene"] is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt.

DNA Tribes analysis is popular in some circles because it's an unfair analysis where North African samples with good MLI scores are obscured and pooled with North African (and Levantine) samples with lower MLI scores. Also, all of these North African samples are admixed and so of course they're going to perform poorly as a pooled region compared to other African regions. The lower MLI scores of North Africa's pooled regions could be mostly be a function of dramatic population change in North Africa, not a lack of relatedness.

And DNA Tribes never intended for their analysis to be taken literally. They never said that these alleles are transplants from their Great Lakes and South Africa regions. So, again, who is supporting this narrative other than those here who want it to be true? Who are your views represented by in the academic world in terms of reputable names? We're not supposed to be putting our own stamp of approval on things.

---

quote:

---

I know this. I have discussed this in the 'black' thread you also participated in. Beyoku has also made this point countless times. So why take such blatantly crude (meaning, that it may need a lot of analysis and explanation before it can make sense) results at face value in the case of the pharaonic alleles? [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

---

EEF is not theoretical; Early Neolithic European farmers are all genetically similar and come from the same roots in Turkey, having spread into the Balkans and up the Danube and along the Mediterranean coast. Some of the latter pioneers even settled in Morocco. Of course it is formed from a mixture of populations; so is everyone on the planet.

quote:

---

Wadi Kubbaniya is a good example of the early survival strategies that would identify the proto-farmers in Africa. Populations like these migrated into the Levant carrying this toolkit and helped kick start the neolithic.

---

What were Wadi Kubbaniya people, or other Northeast Africans, doing that makes them 'proto-farmers', that other Upper Palaeolithic populations weren't doing?

Obviously movement from Egypt to Levant or vice versa is plausible on geographical grounds, but what's the archaeological evidence? Not something Bar-Yosef said 30 years ago, is there anything up to date?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I answered the question. Almost a million African Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
It does not change the fact that the majority of the people who have all of the genes Consultant's analyzed are scattered around the world with highest frequencies of people who share in all of them located in the areas with the highest MLI.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
If you have a problem with it then start with this missing data that Tukuler is talking about.

---

quote:

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

---

quote:

---

Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians are widely separated along the y-axis, and are somewhat distinct from 11 or so other samples forming a cluster near the diagram’s center; Badari, Thebes, and Hawara are at the heart of this cluster. Lisht and El Hesa are removed from the lat- ter grouping along the x- and z-axes, respectively. Lastly, Abydos, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis are located next to one another.

---

quote:

---

Were predynastic Badarian peoples descendants of Western Desert Neolithic groups?

If the answer to this question is yes, as suggested by many workers based on cultural affinities between groups (e.g., Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a), the Western Desert Gebel Ram- lah and Nile Valley Badari samples might be expected to share a close affinity. Gebel Ramlah is, in fact, significantly different from Badari based on the 22-trait MMD (Table 4). For that matter, the Neolithic Western Desert sample is significantly different from all others. Does this divergence then support a non-Egyptian origin for the Badarians, as suggested by some (Brunton and Caton- Thompson, 1928; Arkell, 1975; Krzyz ´ aniak, 1977)? Not necessarily. Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah is clos- est to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Aby- dos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). The lack of a closer affinity may be a result of purported supplementary influence on the Badarians from the Levant (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000) or Eastern Desert (Holmes, 1989). Moreover, Gebel Ramlah is in the south- ernmost part of the Western Desert. The primary source of the Badarian culture is thought to have been the oases farther north (Caton-Thompson, 1926; Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989). Final Neolithic artifacts from the south and north are known to be quite different (Wendorf and Schild, 2001). In the end, although the present dental findings do not provide definitive proof, the fact that Gebel Ramlah is closest to early Upper Egyptians, including Badari, suggests that a Western Desert origin remains a viable hypothesis.

---

quote:

---

Was there biological continuity between predynastic Naqada and Badarian peoples?


Most researchers believe there is a direct relationship between these groups, based on material culture similarities (Brunton, 1932; Mond and Meyers, 1937; Massoulard, 1949; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Fairservis, 1972; Midant- Reynes, 2000a,b). A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples is supportive of this hypothesis, and contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970). Badari is concordant with both Naqada samples for most traits (Table 2). This correspondence is reflected by Badari’s 22-trait MMDs with Naqada (0.000) and Hierakonpolis (0.012). The former affinity indicates no difference between samples, and the latter is insignificant (Table 4). These relationships are also evidenced by the nearness of all three samples in the MDS diagrams (Figs. 2, 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these results are at odds with those of workers who reported significant cranial nonmetric (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) and metric (Keita, 1996) differences between the same Badari and Naqada (NAQ) sam- ples studied here. The reason for this disparity is unknown, but may be related to different sample sizes or types of data employed. Dental evidence for Badarian continuity does not simply end with the Naqada period. Of all samples, Badari exhibits the closest affinity to the 14 others based on its low mean MMD of 0.028 and central location in all diagrams (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). In fact, in the 22-trait MDS (Fig. 2), Badari is at the centroid of all 15 Egyptian samples, as shown in Figure 6. These results seemingly run contrary to evidence suggesting that Badarian cultural influence was mostly limited to the vicinity of the type site (Hassan, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). If the present affinities are indicators of genetic variation, then the Badari sample is a good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like.

---

quote:

---

Was the dynastic period an indigenous outgrowth from the Naqada culture?

Before addressing this question, it is of interest to mention the close Naqada-Hierakonpolis affinity based on trait concordance, the low MMD (0.006), and the proximity of the samples to one another (Figs. 2, 3, 5). At first thought, a close relationship might be expected. After all, the culture is known to have expanded from its center at Naqada to influence north and south by the Naqada II phase (Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). However, beginning at this time and intensifying in Naqada III, Hierakonpolis became a major competing political/cultural center (Has- san, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). There are indications (Holmes, 1989) that the inhabitants of these two centers engaged in warfare (for an opposing view, see Wildung, 1984); the result may have been the subjugation of Naqada by Hierakonpolis (Baumgartel, 1955; Bard, 1987), perhaps in alliance with a third major center at Abydos (Bard, 2000). Although the impetus for this conflict is unknown, it probably did not involve major biological differences between the peoples of these two cities, based on the dental findings. Concerning the hypothesized Naqada/dynastic link (Childe, 1952; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Holmes, 1989; Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Rey- nes, 2000a), the homogeneity among most samples provides positive support. Naqada and Hierakonpolis share low, insignificant MMD values (Table 4) with many dynastic samples, as illustrated by their membership in the cluster of 10–11 samples in the MDS of MMD (Fig. 2) and D 2 distances (Fig. 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos (MMDs ¼ 0.013 and 0.000, respectively). Abydos, in turn, is not significantly different from First Dynasty Tarkhan (0.044), and both share low MMDs with most later dynastic and postdynastic samples (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’ (Petrie, 1939)

---

quote:

---

Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first?

Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11– 12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.

---

quote:

---

Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?

Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five- cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS

The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehen- sive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions. Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of: 1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada, 3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods. Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

What is the big deal though? Why should people be so desperate for EEF to be linked directly to Sub Saharan Africa? The indirect morphological affinities of EEF to "Subsaharan Africa" are stil there. Its just that their mixed African ancestry would have been North African-like. I think this is what I get from reading about Basal Eurasian and Natufians and their role in the neolithic for the Levant and Europe.

---

I agree. They can choose to accept the data as it is or be in denial about it. That's their right. But trying to lecture people on facts they don't like because it doesn't sit well with them?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB]

quote:

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

---

So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

But does the E1b1a of Rameses III make him paternally SSA?
Short of that it would be DNA that is in common with SSA, the predominant clade thereof.

(assuming there was no chance the misinterpreted E1b1b as being E1b1ba in the analysis, I think I saw in a forum somewhere suggesting this possibility - don't know what the chances would be)

---

quote:

---

HVS-I analysis of four Fulani populations revealed the different proportions of the mtDNA gene pool. A major role is played by West African mtDNA haplogroups, such as L1b, L3d, L3b, L2b, L2c, and L2d, which together make up 79.6% of the whole. The far from negligible presence of some haplogroups from western Eurasia (8.1%), such as U5, U6, and J1, is not particularly surprising in a sub-Saharan context because these haplogroups currently appear in North Africa. This may suggest an ancient origin of the nomads in the more northerly mountain massifs of the Central Sahara (Dupuy 1999). According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by “West Eurasian-like” individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common “Fulani type” peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Exactly what do you estimate EEF average in Europeans? According to Pinhasi (2012) the estimates wildly vary from 20-70%. Furthermore I got access to a paper not even yet published [I got the draft] on the genomes of Neolithic Baltics - they are 0% EEF. Some now argue that the Baltic was some sort of special "refuge" area and wasn't affected by incoming agriculturalists, like the rest. However it seems more likely EEF has been over-estimated for the whole Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB]

quote:

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

---

So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.

---

Reread the part of my post you quoted. It says the Gebel Ramlah sample has substantial SSA ancestry, not that it is identical to the 'Greek' sample. The 'identical' part only refers to how distant they both are to the Egyptian centroid. The 'Greek' Egyptian and Gebel Ramlah samples are equidistant to this centroid. However, the Gebel Ramlah gravitates more to SSA samples (and early Upper Egyptian samples), while the 'Greek' sample gravitates more to Europeans.

---

Note that grm (Gebel Ramlah) and geg ('Greek' Egyptians) are equidistant to the Egyptian center, but both plot on opposing sides.



Same thing is shown here with grm and geg.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB]

quote:

---

Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]).

---

So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable.

---

Reread the part of my post you quoted. It says the Gebel Ramlah sample has substantial SSA ancestry, not that it is identical to the 'Greek' sample. The 'identical' part only refers to how distant they both are to the Egyptian centroid. The 'Greek' Egyptian and Gebel Ramlah samples are equidistant to this centroid. However, the Gebel Ramlah gravitates more to SSA samples (and early Upper Egyptian samples), while the 'Greek' sample gravitates more to Europeans.

---

Note that grm (Gebel Ramlah) and geg ('Greek' Egyptians) are equidistant to the Egyptian center, but both plot on opposing sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


So, let me get this right. You're saying that the African STR alleles of Aframs is consistently scattered over SSA and West Eurasia and often peaks in Egyptians and Somalis? Do you have evidence for this?

---

quote:

---

Let's look at the facts. The only information you have thanks to DNA Tribes is that the pooled South African, West African and Great Lakes regions outperform the two pooled North African regions (one of which is problematically pooled with the Levant). Your next step is proving that these regions outperform the Adaima Coptic sample from Coudray et al. Then, your next step is proving that admixture in North Africa doesn't limit the North African regions' capacity to compete in terms of posting high MLI scores. Before you do that DNA Tribes can be dismissed as an unfair analysis. And this is not a criticism of DNA Tribes, because they never intended it to be taken literally.

---

quote:

---

I manually counted the frequencies of the pharaonic alleles in African populations. I posted by results and challenged nay sayers to falsify them. My results look nothing like DNA Tribes. Two Egyptian sample are among the best scoring samples, while other Egyptian samples score poorly. The fact that Egyptian samples rank among samples with the best and the mediocre results clearly shows that DNA Tribes pooled regions makes the analysis unfair and that admixture in North Africa plays a huge role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?

---

If you can find a term that reflects genetic realities better than 'SSA' I'll be on your team. For now, I see usefulness in the term as it is used in global contexts (e.g. conversations involving Basal Eurasian, Eurasian, EEF, etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
A nice piece on the Ovambo

http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/03/ovambo-owambo-people-agricultural-and.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
A nice piece on the Ovambo

http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/03/ovambo-owambo-people-agricultural-and.html

---

I was all over that site years ago. Its one of the reasons I started getting ancestry test. The real irony is the Fang. SNP time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
That is exactly what Dnaconsultants is saying about 1% of African American alleles. They even said the same for a gene that was found in modern Egyptians and not found in the royals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What is this purple component in the African samples, Doug?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
And let's be real, too. The real reason these people are salty is because EEF samples don't have that much SSA ancestry. EEF samples mentioned by Angel used to be posted repeatedly because they were presumed to have SSA ancestry.

When Angel described EEF samples as having Nubian/ancestral Badarian ancestry, they were useful. Now that EEF samples turn out to have little SSA ancestry, people try to disown them and say they're "hypothetical" and "theoretical". What does that even mean?

It's only after Lazaridis et al's recent papers that Doug et al became outraged at the thought of likening Angel's EEF samples to ancient Egyptians. They try to silently change the 'rules' based on convenience and then get mad when you don't comply with their partisan politics.

---

But the question is, what exactly do they consider SSA?

---

Actually the question is what do they consider African. Sounds like what they are trying to do is limit "African" to being South of the Sahara. Otherwise, why is it relevant to ancient populations along the Nile, the Sahara or near the Red Sea?

How on earth do we jump from SSA straight into Europe? Seriously how is that even making sense?

That is why I don't buy into this false narrative of relationship to SSA as if that defines what is "African".
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 


Keep running Doug. When you ready to face what you're running from, let me know.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 


I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao

I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?

But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.

---

Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.

... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


Keep running Doug. When you ready to face what you're running from, let me know.

---

quote:

---

It is striking that the highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East, given the hypothesis that it was there that most admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans occurred19,23. This could be explained if Basal Eurasians thoroughly admixed into the Near East before the time of the samples we analyzed but after the Neanderthal admixture. Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.

A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia26,27.) The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.

---

quote:

---

But the ancient Iranian DNA was dramatically different from that of the western Anatolian farmers. The two groups of farmers, who lived about 2000 kilometers and 2000 years apart, must have descended from completely different groups of hunter-gatherers who separated 46,000 to 77,000 years ago, Burger says.

A similar genetic disjunction appears in a study led by Harvard University’s David Reich and posted on bioRxiv. This study analyzed ancient DNA from 44 Middle Easterners who lived 14,000 to 3400 years ago, including Natufian hunter-gatherers in Israel, Zagros farmers, and Bronze Age pastoralists in the Eurasian steppe, and compared it with that of 2864 living and ancient people from around the world. By sequencing 1.2 million nucleotides from across each genome, the team found that early farmers of Israel and Jordan (known as the Levant) were genetically distinct from those in the Zagros Mountains, and that both populations were distinct from the western Anatolians who later spread their genes throughout Europe.

The third study, also published on bioRxiv, reported the same stark differences. That study analyzed the complete genome of a 10,000-year-old woman from Ganj Dareh, a site in the Zagros Mountains with the world’s oldest evidence of goat herding.

Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.

---

Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.

Not only that, they claim there is TREMENDOUS diversity among all these populations which means that EEF is a composite term referring to many different DNA lineages, including some African DNA lineages. Again, a good example of how they aggregate actual DNA data into these aggregate clumps in order to hide the actual relationships between populations and in his case the ancestral relationship of Africa to Europe. Not to mention none of these Early farmers were even Europeans! (HINT: The Levenat and Anatolia aren't considered "Europe"). Yet some folks keep clinging to EEF as some "holy grail" of knowledge. Please.

Then this:

There is an image showing a direct path from Africa into the "Near East" which could coincide with ancient migration patterns of OOA populations going back 60,000 years or more and also later migrations of "proto farming" populations out of Africa. Yet strangely, their map stops Africa. And of course they keep claiming "no relationship to SSA". But what about relationship to Africa period? Are you seriously claiming no African DNA was around in the Levant 15,000 - 9,000 years ago?

Come on man,give it up. These folks are up to their normal antics. No longer do these studies simply list the DNA markers any more, now all the tables are full of Acronyms representing place names and population groups. Which is what I meant by EEF being used to MASK African lineages. So now they are using alternate facts to keep from pointing out the actual lineages involved because at the end of the day they should be able to trace all of these lineages back to the Africans OOA populations they descended from and these populations would rightly be labelled as Africans.... But according to them Eurasian genes are super genes and go everywhere but African genes die as soon as they leave Africa.... duh.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Elmaestro

I'm not sure what you think my position is and exactly just what it is you're trying to say. Please explain your position.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Elmaestro

I'm not sure what you think my position is and exactly just what it is you're trying to say. Please explain your position.

---

It wasn't completely directed at you but most those who trade ideas with you. No one (but beyoku probably, I think?) tapped you on the shoulder and said "Nah man, There's no pre OOA admixed distinct North East African genetic cluster."

I believe I tried to tell you even before the leaks came out for this paper, I don't think you digested it then, Idk what you believe now though. But noone came out and said it yet.
 

---

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

Still running away from explaining what the purple component in Africans is. All you do is post walls of text to compensate for the fact that you're running from the matter at hand.


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug

Still running away from explaining what the purple component in Africans is. All you do is post walls of text to compensate for the fact that you're running from the matter at hand.

---

quote:

---

The consumption of wild cereals among prehistoric hunters and gatherers appears to be far more ancient than previously thought, according to a University of Calgary archaeologist who has found the oldest example of extensive reliance on cereal and root staples in the diet of early Homo sapiens more than 100,000 years ago.

Julio Mercader, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Tropical Archaeology in the U of C's Department of Archaeology, recovered dozens of stone tools from a deep cave in Mozambique showing that wild sorghum, the ancestor of the chief cereal consumed today in sub-Saharan Africa for flours, breads, porridges and alcoholic beverages, was in Homo sapiens' pantry along with the African wine palm, the false banana, pigeon peas, wild oranges and the African "potato." This is the earliest direct evidence of humans using pre-domesticated cereals anywhere in the world. Mercader's findings are published in the December 18 issue of the research journal Science.

"This broadens the timeline for the use of grass seeds by our species, and is proof of an expanded and sophisticated diet much earlier than we believed," Mercader said. "This happened during the Middle Stone Age, a time when the collecting of wild grains has conventionally been perceived as an irrelevant activity and not as important as that of roots, fruits and nuts."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug, I know you want to talk about your 22ky old "farmers" that don't exist. But (pre)dynastic Egyptians had this purple component you keep running away from. Care to explain what it is without running away?

---

quote:

---

The findings from Raghavan et al. (43) discussed above suggested the existence of an ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population, with affinities to both Native Americans and Europeans. In a related study, Lazaridis et al. (51) obtained high-coverage genomes from an ancient Western European hunter-gatherer (found near Loschbour, Luxembourg) and an ancient Central European farmer (found near Stuttgart, Germany), and proposed a three-way mixture model of European origins. According to this model, the Loschbour individual belonged to the original modern human occupants of Europe, called Western hunter-gatherers (WHG). The ancestors of this population mixed with a basal Eurasian population coming from the Near East during the Neolithic to produce a population called Early European farmers (EEF), which likely brought agriculture into the region. This is the population to which the Stuttgart and Ötzi individuals belonged. Afterward, a third wave of migration from the Pontic steppe introduced the ANE ancestry component into the region.

In the past year, the number of Eurasian aDNA genomes has exploded from less than a dozen to over a hundred (4, 5, 52). Insights from whole-genome shotgun sequence data (5) as well as SNP capture data (4) have helped refine previous theories. For example, Haak et al. (4) showed that the Yamnaya—an Early Bronze Age population from the Pontic Steppe—contained ∼50% ANE ancestry. Haak et al. argued that a population stemming from this source may have been the one responsible for bringing ANE ancestry into Eastern and Central Europe via a massive westward migration 4,500 y ago (the “Corded Ware” culture), and might therefore have been responsible for importing horses and Indo-European languages. Moreover, Allentoft et al. (5) found that people living in the Altai Mountains in Russia until 4,500 y ago (the Afanasievo culture) shared close genetic affinities with the Yamnaya, which could explain why Indo-European languages are also spoken in central Asia.

Haak et al. (4) also detected a resurgence of WHG ancestry immediately before the Yamnaya immigration into Europe (6,000–5,000 y ago) and placed a date on the first Near-Eastern migration of early farmers in the early Neolithic at 8,000–9,000 y ago. Additionally, Jones et al. (53) showed that the other half of the Yamnaya ancestry came from a fourth source population: the “Caucasus hunter-gatherers” (CHG), who split from the WHG ∼45,000 y ago and from the EEF ∼25,000 y ago. At present, it appears that western Eurasian populations are mixtures of four ancestral sources (ANE, EEF, WHG, CHG). Nevertheless, given the changes in our understanding of European history that come with each new group of fossils sequenced, it seems likely that the current models will soon be superseded.

---

quote:

---

Admixture proportions for Stuttgart in the absence of a Near Eastern ancient
genome. We used Loschbour and BedouinB as surrogates for ‘unknown
hunter-gatherer’ and Near Eastern (NE) farmer populations that contributed to
Stuttgart (Supplementary Information section 13). Ancient Near Eastern
ancestry in Stuttgart is estimated by the f4 ratio 8,15 f4 (Outgroup,
X;Loschbour,Stuttgart) /f4 (Outgroup, X ;Loschbour, NE). A complication is
that BedouinB is a mixture of NE and African ancestry. We therefore subtracted
the effects of African ancestry using estimates of the BedouinB African
admixture proportion from ADMIXTURE (Supplemen-tary Information section 9) or
ALDER 68.

Admixture graph modelling. We used ADMIXTUREGRAPH (version 3110) to model
population relationships between Loschbour, Stuttgart, Onge, and Karitiana
using Mbuti as an African outgroup. We assessed model fit using a block
jackknife of differences between estimated and fitted f statistics for the set
of included populations (we expressed the fit as a Z score). We determined
that a model failed if j Z j . 3 for at least one f statistic. A basic tree
model failed and we manually amended the model to test all possible models
with a single admixture event, which also failed. Further manual amendment to
include 2 admixture events resulted in 8 successful models, only one of which
could be amended to also fit MA1 as an additional constraint. We successfully
fit both the Iceman and LaBrana into this model as simple clades and Motala12
as a two-way mixture. We also fit present-day west Eurasians as clades,
two-way mixtures, or three-way mixtures in this basic model, achieving a
successful fit for a larger number of European populations ( n = 26) as
three-way mixtures.We estimated the individualadmixture proportionsfromthe
fittedmodel parameters. To test if fitted parameters for different populations
are consistent with each other, we jointly fit all pairs of populations A and
B by modifying ADMIXTUREGRAPH to add a large constant (10,000) to the variance
term f3 (A0, A, B). By doing this, we can safely ignore recent gene flow
within Europe that affects statistics that include both A and B . Ancestry
estimates from f4 ratios. We estimate EEF ancestry using the f4 ratio 8,15
f4 (Mbuti, Onge; Loschbour, European)/ f 4 (Mbuti, Onge; Loschbour, Stuttgart)
, which produces consistent results with ADMIXTUREGRAPH (Supplementary
Informa- tion section 14). We use f4 (Stuttgart,Loschbour; Onge MA1)/ f 4
(Mbuti, MA1; Onge, Loschbour) to estimate Basal Eurasian admixture into
Stuttgart. We use f4 (Stuttgart, Loschbour; Onge Karitiana) / f 4 (Stuttgart,
Loschbour; Onge MA1) to estimate ANE mixture in Karitiana (Fig. 4). We use f 4
( Test ,Stuttgart;Karitiana,Onge)/f 4 (MA1, Stutt- gart; Karitiana, Onge) to
lower bound ANE m ixture into north Caucasian populations. MixMapper
analysis. We carried out MixMapper 2.0 (ref. 7) analysis, a semi-supervised
admixture graph fitting technique. First, we infer a scaffold tree of
populations without strong evidence of mixture relative to each other (Mbuti,
Onge, Loschbour and MA1). We do not include European populations in the
scaffold as all had significantly negative f3 statistics indicating
admixture. We then ran MixMapper to infer the relatedness of the other
ancient and present day samples, fitting them onto the scaffold as two- or
three-way mixtures. The uncertainty in all parameter estimates is measured by
block bootstrap resampling of the SNP set (100 replicates with 50 blocks).
TreeMix analysis. We applied TreeMix 21 to Loschbour, Stuttgart, Motala12,
and MA1 (ref. 3), LaBrana and the Iceman1 , along with the present-day samples
of Karitiana, Onge and Mbuti. We restricted the analysis to 265,521 Human
Origins array sites after excluding any SNPs where there were no-calls in any
of the studied individuals. The tree was rooted with Mbuti and standard errors
were estimated using blocks of 500 SNPs. We repeated the analysis on
whole-genome sequence data, rooting with chimp and replacing Onge with Dai as
we did not have Onge whole genome. sequence data 55 .Wevariedthenumberofmigrationevents( m)between0and5. Inferring admixture proportions with minimal modelling assumptions. We devised a method to infer ancestry proportions from three ancestral populations (EEF, WHG, and ANE) without strong phylogenetic assumptions (Supplementary Information section 17). We rely on 15 ‘non-west Eurasian’ outgroups and study f 4 ( European, Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2) which is expectedtoequal ab f 4 (Loschbour, Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2) 1 a ( 1 2 b) f 4 (MA1,Stuttgart; O 1 ,O 2)if European has1 2 a ancestry from EEF and b ,1 2 b ancestry from WHG and ANE respectively. This defines a system of 15 2  ~ 105 equationswithunknowns ab , a (1 2 b), which we solve with least squares implemented in the function lsfit in R to obtain estimates of a and b . We repeated this computation 22 times dropping one chromosome at a time 20 to obtain block jackknife 67 estimates of the ancestry proportions and standard errors, with block size equal to the number of SNPs per chromosome. We assessed consistency of the inferred admixture proportions with those derived from the ADMIXTUREGRAPH model based on the number of standard errors between the two (Extended Data Table 1). Haplotype-based analyses. We used RefinedIBD from BEAGLE 4 27 with the set- tings ibdtrim 5 20 and ibdwindow 5 25 to identify identity-by-descent (IBD) tracts: genomic segments or recently shared ancestry between Loschbour and Stuttgart and populations from the POPRES data set 69 . We kept all IBD tracts spanning at least 0.5 centimorgans (cM) and with a LOD score . 3 (Supplementary Informa- tionsection18).We alsousedChromoPainter 29 tostudy haplotype sharingbetween Loschbour and Stuttgart and present-day West Eurasian populations (SI19). We identified 495,357 SNPs that were complete in all individuals and phased the data using Beagle 4 (ref. 27) with parameters phase-its 5 50 and impute-its 5 10. We did not keep sites with missing data to avoid imputing modern alleles into the ancient individuals. We used both unlinked (-k 1000) and linked modes (estimating -n and -Mby sampling 10% of individuals). We combined ChromoPainter output for chro- mosomes 1–22 using ChromoCombine 29 . We carried out a PCA of the co-ancestry matrix using fineSTRUCTURE 29 . 31. Delsate, D., Guinet, J.-M. & Saverwyns, S. De l’ocr[/b]

---

quote:

---

Abstract

Use-wear analysis of five glossed flint blades found at Ohalo II, a 23,000-years-old fisher-hunter-gatherers’ camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Northern Israel, provides the earliest evidence for the use of composite cereal harvesting tools. The wear traces indicate that tools were used for harvesting near-ripe semi-green wild cereals, shortly before grains are ripe and disperse naturally. The studied tools were not used intensively, and they reflect two harvesting modes: flint knives held by hand and inserts hafted in a handle. The finds shed new light on cereal harvesting techniques some 8,000 years before the Natufian and 12,000 years before the establishment of sedentary farming communities in the Near East. Furthermore, the new finds accord well with evidence for the earliest ever cereal cultivation at the site and the use of stone-made grinding implements.

---

quote:

---

Ohalo II is located 5.5 miles (9 km) south of the modern city of Tiberias, and was discovered in 1989 when the level of the lake plummeted.

Excavations at the site exposed six brush hut dwellings, a human grave, copious and well-preserved remains of both animal and plant foods, beads from the Mediterranean Sea, as well as evidence of flint tool manufacture and use.

“The plant remains from the site were unusually well-preserved because of being charred and then covered by sediment and water which sealed them in low-oxygen conditions,” said Prof Ehud Weiss of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel, team leader and senior author of a paper published in the journal PLoS ONE.

“Due to this, it was possible to recover an extensive amount of information on the site and its inhabitants – which made this a uniquely preserved site, and therefore one of the best archaeological examples worldwide of hunter-gatherers’ way of life. Here we see evidence of repeated sowing and harvesting of later domesticated cereals.”

In the Ohalo II dwellings was a particularly rich assemblage of some 150,000 plant remains, showing that the residents gathered over 140 different plant species from the surrounding environment.

Among these, the archaeologists identified edible cereals – such as wild emmer, wild barley, and wild oats.

These cereals were mixed with 13 species of so-called proto-weeds – ancestors of the modern-day weeds known to flourish in cultivated, single-crop fields – indicating that they grew and were subsequently unintentionally gathered together.

“Because weeds thrive in cultivated fields and disturbed soils, a significant presence of weeds in archaeobotanical assemblages retrieved from Neolithic sites and settlements of later age is widely considered an indicator of systematic cultivation,” said co-author Prof Marcelo Sternberg of Tel Aviv University.

The archaeologists also found a grinding slab – a stone tool with which cereal starch granules were extracted – as well as a distribution of seeds around this tool, reflecting that the cereal grains were processed into flour. This flour was probably used to make dough, maybe by baking it on an installation of flat stones, found just outside one of the shelters.

Until now, scientists believed farming was invented 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization – Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran – an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. The researchers’ discovery offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier – some 23,000 years ago.

“While full-scale agriculture did not develop until much later, our study shows that trial cultivation began far earlier than previously believed, and gives us reason to rethink our ancestors’ capabilities. Those early ancestors were more clever and more skilled than we knew,” Prof Sternberg said.

---

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-farming-ohalo-ii-israel-03052.html

And of course Wadi Kubbaniyah also follows the same pattern.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mtOhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=wadi+kubbaniya&source=bl&ots=0Hh3f0mpPF&sig=jjKgjLFDQUMtBwi6IJIm0o3cwQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZhsXu66PTAhXIQCY KHdRdBuAQ6AEIczAQ#v=onepage&q=wadi%20kubbaniya&f=false

Not to mention other sites also found in Europe:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28139-stone-age-people-were-making-porridge-32000-years-ago/

So the idea of Africans grinding wild grains 100,000 years ago is not far fetched and neither is the idea that this "survival toolkit" migrated out of Africa along with modern humans.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pilon.jpg
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
I will at some point do a thread on Multiregionalism in Africa; that will apply to its two peripheries: the extreme south and north. In the inhabited north (the Maghreb coast/Morocco, and to a lesser extent the northern Sahara), e.g.

"Nonetheless, the clear association between the Holocene and Middle/Late Pleistocene specimens in Northwest Africa is thought provoking. Over 200,000 years separate the Late. H. erectus from Morocco and the Ibermaruusians from Taforalt. Yet, the statistical results demonstrate that these specimens are closely associated." (Pinhasi, 2002)

What I also see in the Upper Palaeolithic Egyptians (as north Saharans) is regional morphological continuity, e.g. Brauer & Rimbach (1991) in their craniofacial analysis of Nazlet Khater, but using 8 measurements, have it "within the 90% ellipse of the North Africa [Sahara] group", not European, or Sub-Saharan African, although closer to the latter than the former (the reverse for its inner ear structure: "the similarities between NK 2 and the Upper Paleolithic [European] sample, suggested by the discriminant analysis, may indicate a close relationship between this Nile Valley specimen and European Upper Paleolithic modern humans." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724840800242X This mosaic pattern is consistent with living North Africans plotting intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan African populations.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
^ would you mind sharing your DNA Tribes Info?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
But according to them Eurasian genes are super genes and go everywhere but African genes die as soon as they leave Africa.... duh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
^ would you mind sharing your DNA Tribes Info?

---

Sure. I'll post it this weekend. It just dawned on me that the Guinea was Guinea Bissau so Balanta just jumped to number one. An SNP test or a company with a larger African database might stir change that though I'm betting Balanta will remain numero uno.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao

I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?

But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.

---

Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.

... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.

---

I find it ironic they emphasize on something NOT being of SSA extraction.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 




Modern Day Coptic Northern Sudanese Priest Rev Farag, who also serve in the ruling party in Northern Sudan. There are 3 million people in Northern Sudan that follow the Orthodox faith. These people are primarily Egyptians and NOrthern Sudanese of varies backgrounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

I have never personally come across a Sudanese Copt,

---

Ethiopian and Sudan orthodox Christians side by side


 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Please listen carefully bro. This is not difficult. In my analysis the Amarna alleles have a good showing in Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims and Omran et al's Upper Egyptians. The papers where these samples were genotyped are listed below:

Coudray et al's Adaima Muslims (I said Adaima Copts earlier, but the Adaima sample with the most affinity was the Adaima Muslim sample, not the Coptic sample from the same site)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073806001678

Omran et al's Upper Egyptians
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497308000859

The Amarna alleles are not as common in the Ovambo sample, which was genotyped here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344622307001502

As you correctly point out, the Amarna alleles also show up in African Americans. Because of this, you and I may carry these Amarna alleles. However, the fact that the Amarna alleles peak in the aforementioned Upper Egyptian samples, while your STR alleles peak in the Ovambo (as you just admitted), shows that you are not primarily like the Amarna family. There is overlap but, obviously, merely carrying an allele doesn't mean that your predominant ancestry has the same affinity as some of Amarna alleles you may carry.


Do you at least follow me so far? Just give me a yes or no.

---

quote:

---

Below are the most relevant results I got back then:

Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above
^Also, as you can see, it doesn't matter that the Amarna alleles occur in a population. They occur in a lot of populations. In a Chinese sample (Yunnan) they occur at a rate of 7.11 per person (on average). What matters is, do the Amarna alleles match the predominant ancestry that is in that comparative sample or not. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
If more than 0.5% of African Americans have the genes found in three royals and one in modern Egyptians then we are talking about 500K people in a portion of the west African region which would strongly suggest that Central and Southern Africa have much more and that and these genes are old enough to predate most ethnic groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
How do you determine predominant ancestry and how many alleles are those matches based on?

---

quote:

---

One in 9 Hutus have [the Kilimanjaro "rare gene"], whereas on the opposite end of the range it is found in only 1 in 3333 Greek Cypriots. It is practically absent in Central Asia, the Mediterranean, Middle East and Far East. Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in Africa and dominates the Great Rift Valley, the volcanic fault line believed to mark humanity’s earliest home. The Kilimanjaro gene has a frequency of about 6% in Africans (slightly less in African Americans).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Relationships of various global samples to the Amarna 8 STR sets in descending order.

Somali sample:
On average 9.01 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Muslim sample (1):
On average 8.34 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Upper Egyptian sample (2):
On average 8.19 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Namibian sample (3):
On average 8.17 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Tanzanian sample
On average 8.07 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Adaima Egyptian Coptic sample (1):
On average 7.99 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Moroccan sample
On average 7.92 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

Greek sample
On average 7.59 matches with the pharaonic 8 STR set per person.

1) see Coudray et al paper above
2) see Omran et al paper above
3) see Muro et al paper listed above
^Also, as you can see, it doesn't matter that the Amarna alleles occur in a population. They occur in a lot of populations. In a Chinese sample (Yunnan) they occur at a rate of 7.11 per person (on average). What matters is, do the Amarna alleles match the predominant ancestry that is in that comparative sample or not.

---

Red, blue and green colors correspond with the colors Hawass et al used for the inherited alleles of Yuya, Thuya and Amenhotep III (the three genetic founders of the Amarna family).
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark. [/qb]

---

Yes I have a problem with it. You just can't seem to accept these people are just using composite labels to hide the African genetic input into Eurasia over the last 100,000 years and more. Sure there was some Eurasian inflow into ancient Africa but that is trivial compared to the ORIGIN of all human DNA in Africa and subsequent African migrations into Eurasia over time. This is the part they are trying to conceal using these new labels and their own methodologies show this clearly.

It is fine if one is trying to model population movements within Europe but such labels become disingenuous when one uses them as absolute references for overall population movements between Africa and Eurasia over time.

The Kubbaniya example and the other examples are support for the point that PATTERNS of subsistence behavior involving harvesting wild grains laid the foundation of modern farming in the Levant at least partly as a result of African influence on Levantine populations. But you are trying to pigeonhole this into one group of traits or another at a biological level which is the problem. If you are going to categorize things and label things as a way to show relationships the categories and labels should be relevant to what is being discussed. And what i am saying simply is that African genetic signatures have ALWAYS been in the Levant and masking it out simply promotes false history. And migrations of Africans with adaptive strategies such as harvesting wild grains could and would have been a significant influence on the Levant STARTING with OOA and continuing all the way through the Neolithic....

---

So you admit you wasted everyone's time spamming information about subsistence strategies 22ky ago. And these subsistence strategies are supposed to undermine a genetic concept associated with a population that lived 16ky after Wadi Kubbaniya? You have no idea what you're doing, do you?

In the meantime, you have yet to address the matter at hand; the purple component in Africans.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Question to ES-members:

If one has a bag skittles.

And the question is being asked: "get 10 skittles out of the bag" and put them on the table. The person in the testpanel picks 10 skittles of the same color.

Is that bias sampling or accurate sampling, or perhaps both?



 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You first started out saying I was "trying" to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa, then you started dodging the fact that the common denominator in all living Afroasiatic speaking groups INCLUDES an EEF-like component. Now all of a sudden you "only have a problem with the term EEF".

Doug and his usual wobbliness.

And Wadi Kubbaniya looks broadly similar to southern Asians (i.e. Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) and UP OOA groups. Since I know for a fact there are no clear-cut morphological links between Wadi Kubbaniya and (pre)dynastic Egyptians, nor morphological links between these two that trump links between (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Angel's EEF samples, I don't think you know what you're doing Doug. Just groping in the dark.

---

Yes I have a problem with it. You just can't seem to accept these people are just using composite labels to hide the African genetic input into Eurasia over the last 100,000 years and more. Sure there was some Eurasian inflow into ancient Africa but that is trivial compared to the ORIGIN of all human DNA in Africa and subsequent African migrations into Eurasia over time. This is the part they are trying to conceal using these new labels and their own methodologies show this clearly.

It is fine if one is trying to model population movements within Europe but such labels become disingenuous when one uses them as absolute references for overall population movements between Africa and Eurasia over time.

The Kubbaniya example and the other examples are support for the point that PATTERNS of subsistence behavior involving harvesting wild grains laid the foundation of modern farming in the Levant at least partly as a result of African influence on Levantine populations. But you are trying to pigeonhole this into one group of traits or another at a biological level which is the problem. If you are going to categorize things and label things as a way to show relationships the categories and labels should be relevant to what is being discussed. And what i am saying simply is that African genetic signatures have ALWAYS been in the Levant and masking it out simply promotes false history. And migrations of Africans with adaptive strategies such as harvesting wild grains could and would have been a significant influence on the Levant STARTING with OOA and continuing all the way through the Neolithic....

---

So you admit you wasted everyone's time spamming information about subsistence strategies 22ky ago. And these subsistence strategies are supposed to undermine a genetic concept associated with a population that lived 16ky after Wadi Kubbaniya? You have no idea what you're doing, do you?

In the meantime, you have yet to address the matter at hand; the purple component in Africans. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.

---

quote:

---

Doug says
Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.

---

You're already changing your position... Now the earliest OOA peoples are "primarily", but not fully African? So how much "primarily" % African ancestry does someone have to be to labelled African?

Afrikaners descend from recent (17-19th century Dutch colonists), but they call themselves Afrikaners, not Dutch. According to you though, they should be Dutch?
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:




Modern Day Coptic Northern Sudanese Priest Rev Farag, who also serve in the ruling party in Northern Sudan. There are 3 million people in Northern Sudan that follow the Orthodox faith. These people are primarily Egyptians and NOrthern Sudanese of varies backgrounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

I have never personally come across a Sudanese Copt,

---

Ethiopian and Sudan orthodox Christians side by side

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.

---

So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.

If you're not saying that they tampered with the chart, your post is just a big red herring intended shift the conversation away from the purple component you have yet to describe in terms of affinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.

---

So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.

If you're not saying that they tampered with the chart, your post is just a big red herring intended shift the conversation away from the purple component you have yet to describe in terms of affinity. [/qb]

---

I didn't say that and you can read. You keep trying to change the discussion going all the way back to the other thread where this started. Like I said, whatever charts or graphs you produce don't contradict what I said which is that Africans and African DNA has been in the Levant and Eurasia since the birth of humans in Africa and their migrations out of Africa. No charts or graphs you can show are going to contradict that. And again, this isn't YOU it is those producing these works, you simply want to pretend that these folks aren't promoting an agenda in removing or downplaying African input into Eurasia and the Levant throughout history.

So lets move on. You aren't really addressing anything I am saying as opposed to dodging. I have been saying this since day one but of course you are going to claim that is "too political". [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

"Albino apocalypse"? Do you mean to say that you want these "albinos" dead? That's crazy talk. Europeans are not albinos... their skin colour is just a derivative of their adaptation to their environment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Doug says
Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.

---

You're already changing your position... Now the earliest OOA peoples are "primarily", but not fully African? So how much "primarily" % African ancestry does someone have to be to labelled African?

Afrikaners descend from recent (17-19th century Dutch colonists), but they call themselves Afrikaners, not Dutch. According to you though, they should be Dutch?

---

quote:

---

http://youtu.be/Pjf0qKdzmrc



Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.

---

--Brenna M. Henna,
L. L. Cavalli-Sforzaa,1, and
Marcus W. Feldmanb,2
Edited by C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, and approved September 25, 2012 (received for review July 19, 2012)
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
He's Using "Albino Apocalypse" in a way interchangeable with "White supremacy" ..It isn't the Albinos that are target of genocide, it's everyone else... insert, "zombie Apocalypse" The zombies aren't the ones in danger, etc, etc.

And we only belong to a single sex related Halpogroup. on a chromosome in question you can have multiple snps indicative of many Hgs. Because Y and mtdna mutates linearly, a binary assignment can be given to snps in a perceived order of mutation. However a previous mutation at an assigned snp in a late descendant can mutate again and hide or mis-categorize a hg. So you have to use probability to determine a most likely haplogroup based on all detectable markers, including STRs and snps.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
In addition to the above by Elmaestro.

If one has a bag skittles.

And the question is being asked: "get 10 skittles out of the bag" and put them on the table. The person in the testpanel picks 10 skittles of the same color.

Is that bias sampling or accurate sampling, or perhaps both?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.

---

So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.

If you're not saying that they tampered with the chart, your post is just a big red herring intended shift the conversation away from the purple component you have yet to describe in terms of affinity.

---

I didn't say that and you can read. You keep trying to change the discussion going all the way back to the other thread where this started. Like I said, whatever charts or graphs you produce don't contradict what I said which is that Africans and African DNA has been in the Levant and Eurasia since the birth of humans in Africa and their migrations out of Africa. No charts or graphs you can show are going to contradict that. And again, this isn't YOU it is those producing these works, you simply want to pretend that these folks aren't promoting an agenda in removing or downplaying African input into Eurasia and the Levant throughout history.

So lets move on. You aren't really addressing anything I am saying as opposed to dodging. I have been saying this since day one but of course you are going to claim that is "too political". [/qb]

---

So, if nothing contradicts what you're saying, and if there is no tampering, then what is stopping you from giving a description of the purple component in Africans? Is it EEF-like or not? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

PCA of modern reference populations (18, 19) and projected ancient individuals. The Greek and Anatolian samples reported here cluster tightly with other European farmers close to modern-day Sardinians; however, they are clearly distinct from previously published Caucasian hunter-gatherers (20). This excludes the latter as a potential ancestral source population for early European farmers and suggests a strong genetic structure in hunter-gatherers of Southwest Asia. Central and East European (C./E. European), South European (South Eur.). Ancient DNA data: Pleistocene hunter-gatherer (Plei. HG) (20, 21, 22), Holocene hunter-gatherer (Holocene HG) (2, 4, 13, 20, 23), Neolithic (2, 4, 12, 13, 24), Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Copper Age (LN/Chalc./CA) (13, 25), and Bronze Age (13). Ancient samples are abbreviated consistently using the nomenclature “site-country code-culture”; see SI Appendix, Table S14 and Dataset S1 for more information. A 3D PCA plot can be viewed as a 3D figure (https://figshare.com/articles/Hofmanova_et_al_3D_figure_S4/3188767).

---

quote:

---

For each allele-matching analysis (A) and (B), we performed the following four mixture model analyses (though here “modern” groups exclude ALT,DEN, who are not used as surrogates for reasons described above):

(I) “all moderns” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern groups as surrogates

(II) “all moderns + ancients” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern+ancient
groups as surrogates

(III) “ancients + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern genome using all other ancient genomes,
plus the modern Yoruba, as surrogates

(IV) “ancients (excluding BR) + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern group using the modern Yoruba and all other ancient genomes except
BR2 as surrogates

In each case, a group cannot use itself as a surrogate or else it would match itself exactly. Under allele-matching analysis (B), the same groups we disallow as donors are also disallowed as surrogates for mixture model analyses (I) and (II). For analyses (III) and (IV), we were interested in how modern and ancient groups relate ancestrally to different sets of ancient genomes. We also included the Yoruba as a surrogate in (III) and (IV), since our ancient samples contain no proxies for sub-Saharan Africa and e.g. several West Eurasian groups we use here have been shown to have recent
African admixture [121].

---

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/06/02/1523951113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523951113.sapp.pdf

The bolded part is key. They are not modeling Africa as a source of any significance in any of these models. And using the Yoruba is the same tired old tactic of pretending that Africa starts somewhere south of the Sahara. This allows them to model all these populations as MINUS African ancestry..... Which makes sense on one hand but on the other hand it is dishonest. Also note in all these supplements, it is very hard to find where they clearly list the actual MDNA or YDNA. So they are using all these other mixture analyses based on specific allelles to hide the actual DNA relationships which themselves would indicate the African components especially in the ancient populations.... But whatever, if you don't see that by now, it is because you don't want to see it. This is theoretical framework meant to provide a way of identifying specific population relationships within Eurasia by masking out all others, especially Africans. But the problem with that is we know that IN REALITY you cannot model ancient population movements around the Levant and Eurasia without including Africa. Yet this is precisely what they have done here.

In other words they took this picture and removed everything on the left side:


Which kind of contradicts the following:

quote:

---

The increasing abundance of human genetic data has shown that the geographical patterns of worldwide genetic diversity are best explained by human expansion out of Africa. This expansion is modelled well by prolonged migration from a single origin in Africa with multiple subsequent serial founding events. We discuss a new simulation model for the serial founder effect out of Africa and compare it with results from previous studies. Unlike previous models, we distinguish colonization events from the continued exchange of people between occupied territories as a result of mating. We conduct a search through parameter space to estimate the range of parameter values that best explain key statistics from published data on worldwide variation in microsatellites. The range of parameters we use is chosen to be compatible with an out-of-Africa migration at 50-60Kyr ago and archaeo-ethno-demographic information. In addition to a colonization rate of 0.09-0.18, for an acceptable fit to the published microsatellite data, incorporation into existing models of exchange between neighbouring populations is essential, but at a very low rate. A linear decay of genetic diversity with geographical distance from the origin of expansion could apply to any species, especially if it moved recently into new geographical niches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?

---

Thanks for correcting the caption to the Copt pic.
But is the ID wrong too? Is the guy a Sudani Copt
of Sudanese background? He's not Egyptian is he?


What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz.
It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners.
* Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN
* Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N

I don't have my hands on the 2016 supplement.
I'm guessing Anatolia_N is the Near Eastern
precursor to EEF proper (Anatolian farmers
spread west into Europe) and Europe_EN is
a bit later in time. Dinka are Laz's only Nilo
Saharan samples.


This is based on f3-statistics where
allele frequencies for SNPs are equated
to show if a Test population is an admixture
of two Reference populations, yes no or maybe.

If the f3-stat is negative and
its error score, Z, is less than -3
then there was mixture between
Ref_1 and Ref_2 in the Test population.

 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?

---

Thanks for correcting the caption to the Copt pic.
But is the ID wrong too? Is the guy a Sudani Copt
of Sudanese background? He's not Egyptian is he?


What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz.
It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners.
* Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN
* Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N

---

quote:

---

Dataset preparation for population genetic analyses
Genotypes were called in GD13a at sites which overlapped those in the Human Origins dataset (Lazaridis et al.17, filtered as described in Jones et al.24) using GATK Pileup44.

---

quote:

---

The site has been directly dated to 9650)9950 calBP (11), showing intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population has been shown to be that of pastoralists, focusing on goats (11). Archaeobotanical evidence is limited (16) but the evidence present is for two)row barley, probably wild, and no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. In other words the overall economy is divergent from the classic agricultural mode of cereal agriculture found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.

[…]

We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations (6, 17–29), using principal component analysis (PCA) (30), ADMIXTURE (31) and outgroup f3 statistics (32) (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 identified Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B&C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) (17, 23), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers (26).

[...]

Figure Legends:

Fig. 1. GD13a appears to be related to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and to modern South Asian populations.

A) PCA loaded on modern populations (represented by open symbols). Ancient individuals (solid symbols) are projected onto these axes.


B) Outgroup f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) share the most drift with GD13a. Ancient samples have filled circles whereas modern populations are represented by empty symbols.


C) ADMIXTURE using K=17, where GD13a appears very similar to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, and to a lesser extent to modern south Asian populations.

http://oi63.tinypic.com/e8r4nk.jpg

http://oi65.tinypic.com/24zap2b.jpg

[...]

S4. Mitochondrial Haplogroup Determination

The mitochondria of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2. Haplogroup X2 is present in modern populations from Europe, the Near East, Western and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Siberia, and North America (7). Haplogroup X2 has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East (7, 8) and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia (9), Hungary (10) and Germany (11).

---

quote:

---

S5. Principal component analysis shows that Southern Asian populations are the closest contemporary populations to the Iranian herder GD13a was placed close to the Southern Asian samples, specifically between the Balochi, Makrani and Brahui populations of South Asia. (Fig. S4). Of the ancient samples, GD13a falls closest to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Fig. S4).

---

quote:

---

S7. Outgroup f3 statistics show that GD13a shares the most genetic drift with Caucasus Hunter-gatherers

We used outgroup f3-statistics to estimate the amount of shared drift between GD13a and contemporary populations. This was performed on the dataset described in section S6 using the qp3Pop program in the ADMIXTOOLS package (13). We computed f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where X represents a modern population and Dinka, an African population equally related to Eurasians, acts as an outgroup (Fig. S7). We also repeated this analysis where X represents ancient individuals/populations. Among the ancient populations, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) have the closest affinity to GD13a (Table S3), followed by other ancient individuals from Steppe populations from the Bronze age and modern populations from the Caucasus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?

---

What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz.
It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners.
* Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN
* Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N

---

The dinka displayed a purported non-african component... Sudaniya was referring to that. It isn't necessarily EEF, but since EEF shares drift with other neolithic groups from whereverdafuq it would seem like a "related" group was integrated into the dinka genome.

---

.

OK, did I take a wrong turn?
Help me out.I can't find any
in Laz (2013) Ext Data Fig 3.
What's the nonAfrican component
Who reports on it in detail?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



Copts in Sudan

Copts in Sudan may refer to people born in or residing in Sudan of full or partial Coptic origin.

Sudan has a native Coptic minority, although many Copts in Sudan are descended from more recent Coptic immigrants from Egypt.Copts in Sudan live mostly in northern cities, including Al Obeid, Atbara, Dongola, Khartoum, Omdurman, Port Sudan, and Wad Medani. They number up to 500,000, or slightly over 1% of the Sudanese population. Due to their advanced education, their role in the life of the country has been more significant than their numbers suggest.They have occasionally faced forced conversion to Islam, resulting in their emigration and decrease in number.

Modern immigration of Copts to Sudan peaked in the early 19th century, and they generally received a tolerant welcome there. However, this was interrupted by a decade of persecution under Mahdist rule at the end of the 19th century. As a result of this persecution, many were forced to relinquish their faith, adopt Islam, and intermarry with the native Sudanese. The Anglo-Egyptian invasion in 1898 allowed Copts greater religious and economic freedom, and they extended their original roles as artisans and merchants into trading, banking, engineering, medicine, and the civil service. Proficiency in business and administration made them a privileged minority. However, the return of militant Islam in the mid-1960s and subsequent demands by radicals for an Islamic constitution prompted Copts to join in public opposition to religious rule.

Dozens Killed As 2 Attacks Target Coptic Christians In Egypt
April 9, 2017




At least 44 people were killed and more than 100 injured after suspected suicide bombings in two different Egyptian cities at Coptic Christian churches Sunday.

The interior ministry said one of the explosions was a bombing in Mar Gerges church in Tanta, a city in the north of Egypt in the Nile Delta, located between Cairo and Alexandria. The church was full at the time with worshippers observing Coptic Christian Palm Sunday.

Health ministry spokesman Khaled Mujahed told Egyptian state television that at least 27 people were killed and 78 injured.

Just hours later and about 80 miles away in Alexandria, a second explosion outside the Mar Markas church killed 16 people and injured 41 others, Mujahed confirmed to state television.

NPR's Jane Arraf adds that the Coptic Pope was in the building, but unharmed by the attack.

Reporter Bel Trew, Egypt correspondent for the Times of London, told NPR that the pope was leading prayers when the suspected bomber attempted to enter the church. Security forces managed to keep the attacker outside, but at least three officers were killed.

The Islamic State claimed responsibility for both explosions through its semi-official Amaq news agency.



 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Either that purple component reflects African ancestry in Europe or it reflects Eurasian ancestry in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
What on earth is "EEF Like"? EEF is a broad category of various populations across Europe, the Levant and Anatolia. Can you define what makes something "EEF Like"?

---

In the analysis below, which of the non African samples fits best into the pred Egyptian sample?



Source

When you answer that, you will have the answer to your question.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
OK, did I take a wrong turn?
Help me out.I can't find any
in Laz (2013) Ext Data Fig 3.
What's the nonAfrican component
Who reports on it in detail?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ This still makes me wonder, what is this non-African component?

---

Are you open to the Idea that the Natufians could have been an early African genetic Isolate until mixing with late levant Neolithic people?
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Admixture chart including the mandenka (a poor Sahelian representative but one nonetheless).

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I went and looked again and I still
don't see any Basal Eurasian there.
Just 5 ancient Eurasians. ADMIXTURE
doesn't distinguish common origins
from a mixture event. There's no
corroboration for Han - Dinka or
Indian - Dinka admixture events.

That type of inference fell apart at
K= 16 where with the
* "Masai-maximized East African component",
* "a component maximized in the East African Hadza", and
* "an African farmer component maximized in the Yoruba"
there's no room for anybody else in Dinka ancestry.

Laz's f3-stats about Dinka show his
* Syrians,
* Saudis, and
* Polish Jews
are admixed with Dinka.

Cases of outside bloodlines in Africans
remain showing through to the max K,
like the bars for the Black Americans
and the Ethiopian Jews for instance.

Thanks for the Stora reference.
Seems promising. Will study it soon.


For the Sahel, Laz has Gambians to
go along with Senegal's Mandenka
and Stuttgart is the ancient Neolithic
in Ext Data Fig 3.

I need the Laz (2016) supplement.
I have Laz (2013) and (2014) and I
commented on how his Peers soft
shoed what he said about African
culture and morphology re Basal
Eurasian and re the Natufians.

In my book based on anthropology
and archaeology, the Natufians
descend from the cohabitation
of local Levantines and some
incoming Africans over about
2000 years of time.


Oh, one important caveat about K=2
that I will keep bringing up is, in global
runs the split is not African vs Eurasian
nor so-called subSaharan vs all else,
but Stay at Home African vs got Out of African.


 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
"Albino apocalypse"? Do you mean to say that you want these "albinos" dead? That's crazy talk. Europeans are not albinos... their skin colour is just a derivative of their adaptation to their environment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:


I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao

I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?

But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.

---

Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.

... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Either that purple component reflects African ancestry in Europe or it reflects Eurasian ancestry in Africa.

---

And this is why I asked the question. It gets right to the heart of things. Your answer exposes why you don't get it. The purple component in living Africans isn't either African or Eurasian.

For someone who insists that my terms don't work, you're the one who keeps bumping into problems, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Whatever pitfalls there may be with my terminology, at least I can accurately predict things and I can explain things. You cannot even explain what that purple component is. So why lecture people on whether or not to use it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
What on earth is "EEF Like"? EEF is a broad category of various populations across Europe, the Levant and Anatolia. Can you define what makes something "EEF Like"?

---

In the analysis below, which of the non African samples fits best into the pred Egyptian sample?



Source

When you answer that, you will have the answer to your question.

---

quote:

---

An “Early European Farmer” (EEF) cluster includes Stuttgart, the ~5,300 year old Tyrolean Iceman1 and a ~5,000 year old Swedish farmer4.

Patterns observed in PCA may be affected by sample composition (SI10) and their interpretation in terms of admixture events is not straightforward, so we rely on formal analysis of f-statistics8 to document mixture of at least three source populations in the ancestry of present Europeans. We began by computing all possible statistics of the form f3(Test; Ref1, Ref2) (SI11), which if significantly negative show unambiguously8 that Test is admixed between populations anciently related to Ref1 and Ref2 (we choose Ref1 and Ref2 from 5 ancient and 192 present populations). The lowest f3-statistics for Europeans are negative (93% are >4 standard errors below 0), with most showing strong support for at least one ancient individual being one of the references (SI11). Europeans almost always have their lowest f3 with either (EEF, ANE) or (WHG, Near East) (SI11, Table 1, Extended Data Table 1), which would not be expected if there were just two ancient sources of ancestry (in which case the best references for all Europeans would be similar). The lowest f3-statistic for Near Easterners always takes Stuttgart as one of the reference populations, consistent with a Near Eastern origin for Stuttgart’s ancestors (Table 1). We also computed the statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp), which measures whether MA1 shares more alleles with a Test population or with Stuttgart. This statistic is significantly positive (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1) if Test is nearly any present-day West Eurasian population, showing that MA1-related ancestry has increased since the time of early farmers like Stuttgart (the analogous statistic using Native Americans instead of MA1 is correlated but smaller in magnitude (Extended Data Fig. 5), indicating that MA1 is a better surrogate than the Native Americans who were first used to document ANE ancestry in Europe7,8). The analogous statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; Loschbour, Chimp) is nearly always positive in Europeans and negative in Near Easterners, indicating that Europeans have more ancestry from populations related to Loschbour than do Near Easterners (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1). Extended Data Table 2 documents the robustness of key f4-statistics by recomputing them using transversion polymorphisms not affected by ancient DNA damage, and also using whole-genome sequencing data not affected by SNP ascertainment bias. Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the geographic gradients in the degree of allele sharing of present-day West Eurasians (as measured by f4-statistics) with Stuttgart (EEF), Loschbour (WHG) and MA1 (ANE).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If the purple component represents a DNA lineage of some ancient African population that migrated into Europe or in other words a DNA lineage of African extraction, then it represents African ancestry in Europe. On the other hand if it represents ancient Eurasian migrations into Africa with a DNA lineage of Eurasian origin it is a Eurasian lineage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Another long wall of text filled with confused conjecture. Aint nobody got time for that.

Bottom line, all relevant northeast Africans need an EEF-like component to model them. Sign up to a conspiracy theorist forum with all that paranoid "Lazaridis et al are out to get us" gibberish.

Your terminology doesn't work, hence why you keep repeating unsupported gibberish, like:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If the purple component represents a DNA lineage of some ancient African population that migrated into Europe or in other words a DNA lineage of African extraction, then it represents African ancestry in Europe. On the other hand if it represents ancient Eurasian migrations into Africa with a DNA lineage of Eurasian origin it is a Eurasian lineage.

---

You made that either/or scenario up. The populations who have that purple today have both African and non African uniparentals. Game over for you.

Meanwhile, in the real world, northeast Africans need to be modeled with something EEF-like and you're still salty about it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the averaged Germany Neolithic fits well in predynastic Egyptian sample, while your precious >10ky old so-called farmers along the Nile don't fit well in predynastic Egyptian samples. And yes, you're salty about that, too.

Anyone with three brain cells can deduce from this that you can model AE genomes using varying proportions of EEF + different types of African ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

---

quote:

---

We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000 year old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analyzed these and other ancient genomes1–4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farmers (EEF), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that EEF had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages.

---

quote:

---

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for ancient Nile Valley Africans

---

quote:

---

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for ancient Africans in the Sahara and Northern Africa

---

Somehow featuring "Basal Eurasian" as a key component. But of course no such paper exists. Nobody is saying this except you, trying to fit square pegs into round holes semantically. EEF and Basal Eurasian are by definition EUROPEAN META POPULATIONS focusing specifically on Eurasian ancestry among a wide range of Europasian populations BY FILTERING THE AFRICAN ANCESTRY OUT. But that doesn't matter to you because it must also still apply to African populations even though those populations are explicitly excluded. So you make up your own imitation of Lazirdis' study and try to apply it to Africans... Come on man.

You are simply lost trying to turn this into some relevant model for African biological ancestry. Those labels don't even make any sense in an African context. The reference populations would be different and the labels used would be different reflecting the African context.

And here is the hypocritical part, you see a study which specifically focuses on excluding Africans from Eurasian biological history and you have no problem with that, then turn right around and claim that somehow studies of African biological history HAVE TO INCLUDE Eurasian ancestry.... How come you don't apply the same standards to Africa, as in using only African based populations for your reference of African biological history and exclude Eurasian ancestry? If it is OK for one why isn't it OK for the other?

Sounds backwards to me.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
The funny part is that Doug has no idea how damning any of this is.



Doug still thinks he can come back from this. He just keeps talking.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The funny part is that Doug has no idea how damning any of this is.



Doug still thinks he can come back from this. SMH.

---

quote:

---

Prof Thomas said it could be seen as a "federal" origin of farming: "Different and genetically distinct populations were all engaged in this same general project, albeit exchanging ideas with each or other or sometimes coming up with the same idea independently."

Interestingly, what the early farmer populations do share is ancestry from an enigmatic group of humans known as Basal Eurasians. After humans left Africa, this population split away from other non-Africans and somehow interbred less with Neanderthals. But it's unclear where exactly these ancient people resided until they mixed with the ancestors of the farmers.

"Maybe they were hiding somewhere in North Africa, maybe they were hiding in the Middle East - somewhere with fewer Neanderthals. We just don't know," said Prof Thomas.

Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug, you're confused. No one needs Lazaridis. People have been making links between North Africans and early European farmers since the skeletal samples were excavated in the 20th century. You have no idea what you're doing or what you're talking about. Look at table 5's affinities of your precious "farmer" populations. Then look at table 5's affinities of predynastic Egyptians and the German Neolithic sample.

You're living in your own teletubbyland. You don't see that?

---

quote:

---

Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

You keep trying to defend usage of the term to describe this relationship. I do not agree with it because of all the times I have shown you it is explicitly designed to REMOVE AFRICA from the equation

quote:

---

Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.

---

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36788165 [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, what the early farmer populations do share is ancestry from an enigmatic group of humans known as Basal Eurasians. After humans left Africa, this population split away from other non-Africans and somehow interbred less with Neanderthals. But it's unclear where exactly these ancient people resided until they mixed with the ancestors of the farmers.

---

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/889/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of



A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa
Mark Lipson David Reich
Mol Biol Evol (2017)

More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation of 40–45 kya (adjusted for a mutation rate of 0.5×10−90.5109 per year; Scally 2016). Interestingly, two early modern Eurasians (Ust’-Ishim (Fu et al. 2014), from ∼45 kya in western Siberia, and Oase 1 (Fu et al. 2015), from ∼40 kya in Romania) have been found that share little or no ancestry with either clade, unlike any known present-day population.


After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.) This split is soon followed on the western Eurasian branch by the split between K14 and Ust’-Ishim (i.e., their respective modern-human ancestry components). The original Ust’-Ishim analysis (Fu et al. 2014) inferred a near-trifurcation at this point, and we wished to test whether K14 (and other western Eurasians) and Ust’-Ishim form a statistically supported clade. In fact, while the best-fitting position for Ust’-Ishim is on the western lineage (0.6 shared drift), the inferred 95% confidence interval for this point overlaps the eastern/western split (standard error 0.4 for the Ust’-Ishim split position), so that we cannot confidently resolve the branching order. We therefore continue to regard this cluster as approximately a trifurcation; while we show Ust’-Ishim at its best-fitting split point in figure 1, we color-code it as a basal non-African rather than a member of the western clade.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Neolithic Germans & Egyptian affinities. ???


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Notice that even when table 5 is posted, and there is no reference to Lazaridis' terminology in the post he's supposedly addressing, Doug still keeps raving on about Lazaridis like a confused turd.

Is Doug cognitively challenged?

quote:

---

Actually, the fact that
so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dy-
nastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Euro-
peans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the
people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal sug-
gests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in
the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal,
1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; Sokal et al. 1991)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/889/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of



A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa
Mark Lipson David Reich
Mol Biol Evol (2017)

More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation of 40–45 kya (adjusted for a mutation rate of 0.5×10−90.5109 per year; Scally 2016). Interestingly, two early modern Eurasians (Ust’-Ishim (Fu et al. 2014), from ∼45 kya in western Siberia, and Oase 1 (Fu et al. 2015), from ∼40 kya in Romania) have been found that share little or no ancestry with either clade, unlike any known present-day population.


After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.) This split is soon followed on the western Eurasian branch by the split between K14 and Ust’-Ishim (i.e., their respective modern-human ancestry components). The original Ust’-Ishim analysis (Fu et al. 2014) inferred a near-trifurcation at this point, and we wished to test whether K14 (and other western Eurasians) and Ust’-Ishim form a statistically supported clade. In fact, while the best-fitting position for Ust’-Ishim is on the western lineage (0.6 shared drift), the inferred 95% confidence interval for this point overlaps the eastern/western split (standard error 0.4 for the Ust’-Ishim split position), so that we cannot confidently resolve the branching order. We therefore continue to regard this cluster as approximately a trifurcation; while we show Ust’-Ishim at its best-fitting split point in figure 1, we color-code it as a basal non-African rather than a member of the western clade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/889/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa
Mark Lipson David Reich
Mol Biol Evol (2017)

More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.

[....]

After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)

---

"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean?
?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torodbe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/889/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa
Mark Lipson David Reich
Mol Biol Evol (2017)

More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.

[....]

After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)

---

"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean?
?

---

Lipson's using Dinka as his
unmixed African reference.
Lazaridis uses Mbuti most
of the time and Mota once.
A lot of studies use Yoruba.

---

quote:

---

The qpAdm method gives us ... an estimate of
the proportion of ancestry that is a clade with
Mota (that is, proportion of Basal Eurasian ancestry)

Table S4.8 summarizes our results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torodbe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/4/889/2838774/A-Working-Model-of-the-Deep-Relationships-of A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa
Mark Lipson David Reich
Mol Biol Evol (2017)

More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.

[....]

After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)

---

"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean?
?

---

Lipson's using Dinka as his
unmixed African reference.
Lazaridis uses Mbuti most
of the time and Mota once.
A lot of studies use Yoruba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also, some SSA populations today might have this component to a degree. But as you can see in the study in question (Pagani et al 2012) and others, this ancestry is not common in SSA. It still exists in the Sahara, though, although it's nowadays mixed with the same ancestry from descendants of EEF from Europe. So, not all 'Basal Eurasian' in Africa is pure and it's not always easy to identify how much of it is African (meaning: never left Africa) and how much of is due to back migration by descendants of EEF and related Middle Eastern groups.

---

quote:

---

It brought to Africa a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) whose closest relatives are widespread in present-day Eurasia; we estimate from sequence data that the Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago. This migration could thus have originated among Near Eastern farmers during the African Humid Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
We're going in circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
As I've already pointed out, your own source (DNAconsultants) has the frequency of the Thuya and Akhenaten "genes" higher in Egypt and Somalia than anywhere else. So why even still bring up what DNAconsultant says about African Americans' frequency at this point? Why does it make sense to you to still bring up a lower frequency as evidence of what you're saying when your source says the peaks are in northeast Africa? There are southern and Central Africans in DNAconsultants' database and they are mentioned in your own quotes from DNAconsultants as having lower frequencies. So why speculate about southern and Central Africans having "much more of these genes"? This is wishful thinking.

Look at the list. Living Egyptians and Somalis have ancestry in common and the Somali, Adaima Muslims and Upper Egyptians are at the top of the list. What more is there to say? By contrast, The Ovambo and Tanzanian samples are outscored by highly admixed Egyptian Muslims from Adaima. Even though there is no non African ancestry hampering their ability to score well (as is the case in the North African samples), Ovambo and Tanzanians barely outscore the Coptic, Greek and Moroccan samples. The Somali sample outscores samples with such mediocre scores with more than a full point. Very suspect if the pharaonic alleles are supposed to match DNA that is in DNA Tribes Great Lakes and South Africa regions. There is obviously a trend in that list, which is also reflected in the fact that Thuya's and Akhenaten's "rare genes" have a completely different distribution than the "rare genes" from SSA:

---

quote:

---

Genetic signatures of both historic and prehistoric migration events are also observed in other regions of Africa [18,42,57,60–62]. For example, an analysis of microsatellite, INDEL and SNP polymorphisms in the nuclear genome showed that populations from central/southern Sudan, such as the Nuer and Dinka, have the highest proportion of Nilo-Saharan ancestry, with decreasing frequency observed in populations from northern Kenya to northern Tanzania in East Africa. These data suggest a Sudanese origin of Nilo-Saharan-speaking populations, with subsequent migration(s) southeastward to East Africa [18]. In addition, Nilo-Saharan-speakers from Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya and Chad also clustered closely with Afroasiatic Chadic- speaking populations from the southern Lake Chad Basin in genetic structure analyses, suggesting that these Chadic-speakers of Nilo-Saharan ancestry likely migrated westward from a Sudanese homeland to Lake Chad and adopted an Afroasiatic language at some point in their history without significant genetic exchange [18]. This shift in language may have occurred through interactions with proto-Chadic Afroasiatic-speakers who migrated from the central Sahara to the Lake Chad Basin around 8 kya [6,56,58,63]. These genetic data are in general agreement with archaeological and linguistic studies that advocate a common origin of Nilo- Saharan populations in eastern Sudan, with subsequent migration events northward to the eastern Sahara, westward to the Chad Basin, and southeastward into Kenya and Tanzania [6, 64].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Notice that even when table 5 is posted, and there is no reference to Lazaridis' terminology in the post he's supposedly addressing, Doug still keeps raving on about Lazaridis like a confused turd.

Is Doug cognitively challenged?

quote:

---

Actually, the fact that
so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dy-
nastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Euro-
peans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the
people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal sug-
gests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in
the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal,
1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; Sokal et al. 1991)

---

—Brace et al 1993

^No one needs Lazaridis et al to know their conclusions in regards to the affinities of the components stand. Nor does anyone need Lazaridis to know that Doug is a complete delusional turd when he says that his fictitious "Nile Valley farmers" from Wadi Kubbaniya 22ky ago were responsible for the Neolithic Revolution. The old Nile Valley populations before the Holocene bear no special relationships to (pre)dynastic Egyptians, as shown by the distinctiveness of Wadi Halfa in table 5.

---

quote:

---

We used the ADMIXTUREGRAPH software8,15 to fit a model (a tree structure augmented by admixture events) to the data, exploring models relating the three ancient populations (Stuttgart, Loschbour, and MA1) to two eastern non-Africans (Onge and Karitiana) and sub-Saharan Africans (Mbuti). We found no models that fit the data with 0 or 1 admixture events, but did find a model that fit with 2 admixture events (SI14). The successful model (Fig. 2A) confirms the existence of MA1-related admixture in Native Americans3, but includes the novel inference that Stuttgart is partially (44 ± 10%) derived from a lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE. The existence of such “Basal Eurasian” admixture into Stuttgart provides a simple explanation for our finding that diverse eastern non-African populations share significantly more alleles with ancient European and Upper Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers than with Stuttgart (that is, f4(Eastern non-African, Chimp; Hunter-gatherer, Stuttgart) is significantly positive), but that hunter-gatherers appear to be equally related to most eastern groups (SI14). We verified the robustness of the model by reanalyzing the data using the unsupervised MixMapper7 (SI15) and TreeMix21 software (SI16), which both identified the same admixture events. The ANE/WHG split must have occurred >24,000 years ago (as it must predate the age of MA13), and the WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 or Arabia24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).

---

quote:

---

E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

Does being part albino affect your thought process?
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
EEF in Middle/Late Neolithic Germans is low to negligible, yet we're expected to believe Early Neolithic Germans were overwhelmingly EEF. So these loony-tunes now are proposing some sort of "massive migration" [from yet somewhere else] between Early and Middle/Late Neolithic to explain the huge reduction of EEF (orange):



A far more reasonable explanation is Stuttgart (the genome of a single individual) is not at all representative of typical Early Neolithic Germans (for whatever reason, its an outlier); perhaps EEF was always very low in northern Europe - which makes sense in light of ancient DNA from the Baltic which shows Early Neolithic Baltics were 0% EEF.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

Does being part albino affect your thought process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
EEF in Middle/Late Neolithic Germans is low to negligible, yet we're expected to believe Early Neolithic Germans were overwhelmingly EEF. So these loony-tunes now are proposing some sort of "massive migration" [from yet somewhere else] between Early and Middle/Late Neolithic to explain the huge reduction of EEF (orange):



A far more reasonable explanation is Stuttgart (the genome of a single individual) is not at all representative of typical Early Neolithic Germans (for whatever reason, its an outlier); perhaps EEF was always very low in northern Europe - which makes sense in light of ancient DNA from the Baltic which shows Early Neolithic Baltics were 0% EEF.

---

quote:

---

Was it a massive migration? Or was it rather a slow and persistent seeping of people, items and ideas that laid the foundation for the demographic map of Europe and Central Asia that we see today? The Bronze Age (about 5,000 – 3,000 years ago) was a period with large cultural upheavals. But just how these upheavals came to be have remained shrouded in mystery.

Assistant Professor Morten Allentoft from the Centre for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen is a geneticist and is first author on the paper in Nature. He says:

- Both archaeologists and linguists have had theories about how cultures and languages have spread in our part of the world. We geneticists have now collaborated with them to publish an explanation based on a record amount of DNA-analyses of skeletons from the Bronze Age.

So far the archaeologists have been divided into two different camps. Professor Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg, who initiated the project together with Lundbeck Foundation Professor Eske Willerslev says:

- The driving force in our study was to understand the big economical and social changes that happened at the beginning of the third millennium BC, spanning the Urals to Scandinavia. The old Neolithic farming cultures were replaced by a completely new perception of family, property and personhood. I and other archaeologists share the opinion that these changes came about as a result of massive migrations.

[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
We're going in circles.

---

Nah Swenet, we are making progress because you are explaining yourself. But you still aren't defining literal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
As I've already pointed out, your own source (DNAconsultants) has the frequency of the Thuya and Akhenaten "genes" higher in Egypt and Somalia than anywhere else. So why even still bring up what DNAconsultant says about African Americans' frequency at this point? Why does it make sense to you to still bring up a lower frequency as evidence of what you're saying when your source says the peaks are in northeast Africa? There are southern and Central Africans in DNAconsultants' database and they are mentioned in your own quotes from DNAconsultants as having lower frequencies. So why speculate about southern and Central Africans having "much more of these genes"? This is wishful thinking.

Look at the list. Living Egyptians and Somalis have ancestry in common and the Somali, Adaima Muslims and Upper Egyptians are at the top of the list. What more is there to say? By contrast, The Ovambo and Tanzanian samples are outscored by highly admixed Egyptian Muslims from Adaima. Even though there is no non African ancestry hampering their ability to score well (as is the case in the North African samples), Ovambo and Tanzanians barely outscore the Coptic, Greek and Moroccan samples. The Somali sample outscores samples with such mediocre scores with more than a full point. Very suspect if the pharaonic alleles are supposed to match DNA that is in DNA Tribes Great Lakes and South Africa regions. There is obviously a trend in that list, which is also reflected in the fact that Thuya's and Akhenaten's "rare genes" have a completely different distribution than the "rare genes" from SSA:

---

Somalia is located in SSA and every mummy had a high MLI score in the horn. There are reasons why other regions have higher MLI ratings. The allele that is shared by 50% of Somalis is shared by 1/3 of African Americans. The MLI score is based not just on frequency but also on rarity, exclusivity and probably frequency of combinations. That is why I brought up African Americans. This is the same system, that with the same STRs would tell us that Keanu Reeves is east Asian and European despite being poor at discerning admixtures.

The rarest allele in Consultant’s analysis (D18S51=19) is also the most exclusive to Africa in their analysis. Then you have SSA exclusive alleles like CSF1PO=6 D7S820=6, D18S51=8, FGA=31 that are almost nonexistent in your chart or exclusively SSA.

---

What I mean with "literal" is that some are taking DNA Tribes as conclusive and dismiss the fact that ancient samples from North Africa will inevitably dwarf all the MLI scores. Some are also taking this as more than a comparison of pooled regions of which some are admixed beyond recognition today.

I can reproduce DNA Tribes' results to some extent. Meaning, i can totally obscure the decently scoring Upper Egyptians by pooling them with the Syrians in a 'Levantine' region. That is what DNA Tribes did. If I do that, the pooled SSA regions will rise to the top of my list, too. But would that mean my analysis accurately portrays what's going on? No. The SSA regions would simply be at the top of my list because of subjective choices I made.

As far as those alleles you're talking about. Keep researching them and post your results here when you learn more . I've also been researching them and I have my own ideas regarding how they fit.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
How do you reconcile such low scores though? Your highest score with the Bahamas is 2 Million. The highest average of these mummies is 326.

Your Indus valley score is 14.7, your Arabian score is 23. This is lower than the Average Horn of Africa and Sahelian score of ALL these mummies. Take a look at the low scores for the Elder lady KV35El. Her highest score is 20.87 - Your genome is more likely in Arabia than this mummy is anywhere in Africa. Your Highest European score of South Portugal is 24.72...compare that score to these mummies scores.

---

MLI scores are based on the individuals vs the individuals. Her 20.87 is high because its weighed against other low scores. I don't know enough about the rate of mutations and whatever people mean by genetic drift to say why these scores are so low but I suspect it has more to do with their age North Africa's lack of continuity than the that the lack of STRs. Dwarves and Khoisan are not trekking North African anymore and the Levant is not what it use to be too. If they were, North Africa and the Levant would have a higher score.

DNATribes reported in the Ramses iii results that D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7 are infrequent outside of Africa. The Amarna have those two too. That is at least 5 genes that are exclusive or infrequent outside of SSA. Just one of those and chances are you are at least a halfrican mulatto. These are definitely discriminating markers.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Jones, E. R., Zarina, G., Moiseyev, V., Lightfoot, E., Nigst, P. R., Manica, A., ... & Bradley, D. G. (2017). The neolithic transition in the baltic was not driven by admixture with early European farmers. Current Biology, 27(4), 576-582.

"No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples." 0%

So why would EEF be high in Early Neolithic Germany, a geographical neighbour to the Baltic region, if its 0% in the Early Neolithic Baltic? What are the Early Neolithic genome samples from Germany? It appears to consist of only Stuttgart [a single individual]. http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/06/02/1523951113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523951113.sapp.pdf see pp. 44-45. Hofmanova et al. 2016 What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... "To cope with issues such as unequal sample sizes, we then used a linear model (28) to fit the allele-matching profile of the target group as a mixture of that of other sampled groups." looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out).

---

Even if I dropped terms like EEF and Basal Eurasian, you'd still be salty. If I dropped these terms today and said that ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples, you'd still chimp out. You're just using Lazaridis' labels as a pretext to complain.

There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what? Still going to do a butthurt conspiracy speech about Lazaridis' terminology even though I'm not even using it in the posts you're supposedly addressing?

Everyone knows that the real reason you're salty is because the data doesn't support your version of events: the supposed colonization of the Levant by fictitious farmers from Wadi Kubbaniya whose affinities you're more comfortable with.


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out).

---

Even if dropped terms like EEF and Basal Eurasian, you'd still be salty. If I dropped these terms today and said that ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples, you'd still chimp out. You're just using Lazaridis' labels as a pretext to complain.

There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what? Still going to do a butthurt conspiracy speech about Lazaridis' terminology even though I'm not even using it in the posts you're supposedly addressing?

Everyone knows that the real reason you're salty is because the data doesn't support your version of events: the supposed colonization of the Levant by fictitious 22ky old Nile Valley farmers whose affinities you're more comfortable with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If that is what you wanted to say then just say it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

---

OK, this is off topic so please take it to Eupedia or Anthrogenica or something, where they will disabuse you of your near-xyyman level of ignorance on this topic. And read "Massive migrations from the steppe" for heaven's sake, catch up to 2014.

---

They're trying to revive old/discredited Aryan theories that Indo-European had a big genetic impact. No thanks.

"Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

The main people pushing this nonsense are eastern Europeans for their own self-interests, can just tell with author names on even the study you referenced.... Vayacheslav, Khartanovich, Kuznetsov, Mochalov,
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
You could read it with due skepticism, in the same way you should read everything else. Then you would notice that there are a bunch of Neolithic German samples already and your prediction was falsified 3 years ago, dumbass.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

---

OK, this is off topic so please take it to Eupedia or Anthrogenica or something, where they will disabuse you of your near-xyyman level of ignorance on this topic. And read "Massive migrations from the steppe" for heaven's sake, catch up to 2014.

---

They're trying to revive old/discredited Aryan theories that Indo-European had a big genetic impact. No thanks.

"Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

The main people pushing this nonsense are eastern Europeans for their own self-interests, can just tell with author names on even the study you referenced.... Vayacheslav, Khartanovich, Kuznetsov, Mochalov,

---

Hmmm, I was in a YouTube thread. And the OP said that a lot of Bulgarians are very angry. The thread was about ancient Egypt. This was about one year ago.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Besides using Mota as the Basal Eurasian
genome for qpAdm, Lazaridis gives the
nrY haplogroup of each ancient Near
East DNA sample.
Some of their take on Natufian nrY


We all need to study and analyze these
reports thoroughly before commenting
and drawing conclusions based on a
priora convictions and only reading
what's found via a myopic self
serving word search.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
You could read it with due skepticism, in the same way you should read everything else. Then you would notice that there are a bunch of Neolithic German samples already and your prediction was falsified 3 years ago, dumbass.

---

LOL.

Turns out the Late Neolithic German sample with negligible EEF isn't even Late Neolithic -- no radiocarbon date (!) and could be Early.

"We also included a sample from an unusual burial at the Karsdorf site in Germany
KAR22/I0550 (feature 00191, date unknown)"

So how you going to explain that? This study supports exactly what I said, if not better.


 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans

A. Hajjeja,

Abstract
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th–8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

They label a specimen an age without even radiocarbon dating it. This is the sort of thing I look for, yes. Its pseudo-science. They already have pre-conceived ideas before writing the paper, then select an age to fit their theory (a different age of course could contradict/falsify their theory, so of course they don't choose it).

Anyway, to see how silly this paper was-

"The fact that the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry occurred in several European countries raises the question of its source. It is possible that pockets of hunter-gatherers
existed in Europe long after the arrival of first farmers; their later admixture with farmer communities would account for the observed phenomenon... at present we cannot identify the source of WHG-related resurgence in any of the available genomes of WHG individuals."

That's the ridiculous dilemma they've created: "resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry" that they cannot even trace or find. lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

---

They label a specimen an age without even radiocarbon dating it. This is the sort of thing I look for, yes. Its pseudo-science. They already have pre-conceived ideas before writing the paper, then select an age to fit their theory (a different age of course could contradict/falsify their theory, so of course they don't choose it).

Anyway, to see how silly this paper was-

"The fact that the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry occurred in several European countries raises the question of its source. It is possible that pockets of hunter-gatherers
existed in Europe long after the arrival of first farmers; their later admixture with farmer communities would account for the observed phenomenon... at present we cannot identify the source of WHG-related resurgence in any of the available genomes of WHG individuals."

That's the ridiculous dilemma they've created: "resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry" that they cannot even trace or find. lol.

---

Stupid Euronut. The dating of Haplogroups is not based on radiocarbon dating. The estimates for the age of haplogroups is determined by statistical modeling--not radiocarbon dates.

As a result, if we accepted your ridiculous conclusions on how to lable the age of a speciment or haplogroup, population genetics dating of haplogroups is a "pseudo-science".

LOL. Racist Euroloon you're really dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

---

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

---

Does being part albino affect your thought process?

---

Yes, but then we are all part albino.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html

I would love them to update the genetic section in response to the ancient DNA in last 5 years and they can better review/critique it than me. Unfortunately the genetic section on that website is outdated. Although, this is a good quote-

"The Neolithic farmers have certainly been important; but they have only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It is the hunters of the Paleolithic that have created the main body of modern European gene pool." (Sykes, 2001)

Also, the genetic data must be compatible with archaeology, hence there's no point in trying to revive old Aryan theories of large-scale admixture events, mass migrations, warlike invasions etc. [read the above link]
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Quote:

"The southern Tunisians from Ghannouch, Northerns from Tunis, Algerians and Moroccans
(Eljadida) are all related to Moroccan Berbers from Souss area (Table 3) and Tunisians
Berbers (our own unpublished results). Therefore, the present-day North African populations
are not genetically different from Berbers. In addition, Lebanese (Table 3) and Arabs
from the Arabian Peninsula [23] show bigger distances to North Africans. This suggests
that the 7th century A.D. Arab invasion (and even the 11th century A.D. massive Bedouin
immigration) of North Africa does not deeply modify the North African genetic pool, in
contrary, they relatively kept their Berber genetic profile. It may be due to that the number
of newcomers from the Middle East was probably very low in comparison with the number
of established Berbers. Therefore, southern Tunisians have kept their Berber substratum in
spite of the successive invasions of the area by: Phoenicians (814–146 B.C.), Romans
(146 B.C.–439 A.D.), Vandals (439–534 A.D.), Byzantines (534–647 A.D.), Arabs (since
644 A.D.), Turks (1574–1957 A.D.) and French settlement (1881–1956) [34]. Also, the
contribution of Negroid to the southern Tunisian genetic pool was low in spite of their high
number in the South of Tunisia. This may be due to cultural barriers. Indeed, The most part
of the Negroid live in small communities as those in Gabes (Mdou,Arram),Kebili, Tataouine
and Mednine; however, Arab invasions (in 7th and 11th centuries A.D.) had clearly strong
social and cultural effects. Indeed, Arabic and Islam are respectively the official language"
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Even though they got prehistoric outside
of Africa genetics Tunisians rate unmixed
Afican stock status due to their older than
South of Sahara nry E. Maybe Mauritanians
wear the same glove.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Continuity > Epipaleolithic Egyptians > Mesolithic Egyptians > Neolithic Egyptians > Ancient Egyptians

Continuity > Epipaleolithic Nubians > Mesolithic Nubians > Neolithic Nubians > Ancient Nubians

The old idea there was biological discontinuity between Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic Neolithic Nubians/Ancient Nubians is shown to be false by Irish (2016) for non-metric dental. Take a look at al Khiday:



"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)

Unfortunately there's very few Upper Palaeolithic skeletons from the Sahara, but one can make an argument for even longer regional continuity in Morocco, with the Iberomaurusian sites of Taforalt and Afalou (20,000 BP). Irish (2000) shows "a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples." ("The Iberomaurusian Enigma: North African Progenitor or Dead End?" - the PDF is free to read on ResearchGate). Anthropologists like Denise Ferembach showed continuity from Jebel Irhoud (150,000 BP) > Dar es-Soltan (80,000 BP) > Iberomaurusians (20,000 BP). Multiregionalism in Africa...
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
This remains ironic..

quote:

---

We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations6,15–27, using principal component analysis (PCA)28, ADMIXTURE29 and outgroup f3 statistics30 (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 statistics identi ed Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B,C), whilst PCA also revealed some a nity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware)16,21, in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers24.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If that is what you wanted to say then just say it.

---

Doug, you're a flip flopping shape shifter. You've been ping ponging between different nonsensical pretexts and goalposts since the beginning. The first time you let me know you were salty you weren't complaining about Lazaridis' terminology per se, but geography:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence

---

So how am I now supposedly "off the hook" now that I reprhase my wording and say the exact same thing (all I did was stop saying early European farmer [EEF] and now I'm still saying early European farmer unabbreviated)? Isn't this the point where you spam your silly geographic pretext that you supposedly had a problem with, since you're always ping ponging between pretexts?

---

quote:

---

The name Balochistan is generally believed to derive from that of the Baloch people,[5] but this is not certain. The term "Baloch" does not appear in pre-Islamic sources. It is likely that the Balochs were known by some other name at their place of origin and acquired the name "Baloch" after arriving in Balochistan sometime in the 10th century.[7] The Suffix "-stān" is a Persian word meaning "place".

Johan Hansman relates the term "Baloch" to Meluḫḫa, the name by which the Indus Valley Civilisation is believed to have been known to the Sumerians (2900–2350 BC) and Akkadians (2334–2154 BC) in Mesopatamia.[8] Meluḫḫa disappears from the Mesopotamian records at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.[9] However, Hansman states that a trace of it in a modified form, as Baluḫḫu, was retained in the names of products imported by the Assyrians (911–605 BC).[10] Al-Muqaddasī (985 AD), who visited the capital of Makran Bannajbur, states that it was populated by people called Balūṣī (Baluchi), leading Hansman to postulate "Baluch" as a modification of Meluḫḫa and Baluḫḫu.[11]

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To the newbies who are trying to glue the pieces together. This chart tells the story I have trying to tell over 5 years now. I thought I was alone on this. I knew Sergi, Coon, DNATribes, etc got my back. But I did not know about this guy, Arnaiz-Villen until recently. He was vilified because of his stance. Now we know that he and I are correct. Along with Sergi and others.

1. Sub-Saharan Africans is responsible for the inception of Western Civilization. Incredible as it may seem.
2. The chart shows SSA travelling along the Nile creating ancient Egypt and then unto Greece.
3. It proves the Nile was indeed a barrier as many genetic reports has shown. Populations to the West and East of the Nile being distinct yet similar. (bifurcation).
4. That explains why Rameses III and Man E are E1b1a.
5. It also shows that West Africans are NEW to West Africa. That also explains why West Africans are 3rd closest to AEians. West Africans only RECENTLY migrated from East Africa to West Africa.
6. I wouldn't be surprised to find high frequency of West African genomes in ancient Greeks when they finally starting releasing the data....if they ever do
7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.
8. Some of you may remember my thread on aDNA on Armenians(see ESR) titled "There goes the neighborhood-Armenoids....". The Author suggesting that the migration of SSA in Armenia resulted in civilization. Seriously!!! I did not make that up. The appearance of SSA genomes coincided with civilization in Armenia and also of course Greece. Go figure.

Remember modern Europeans are as much as 80% Sub-Saharan Africans at K2. Rosenberg et al and Lazaridis et al. So under the skin...and hair. Modern Europeans are more African than non-African.

So the question is what happened ? Did these SSA people got absorbed or did they "morph". Plasticity?! What happened to these Africans. I always said the only explanation is plasticity. Humans adapting RAPIDLY to their new environment.

All this tells us is there is no such thing as ....."race" . Africans morphing and adapting. I read one recent study where they show the rate of adaptation/morping has increased tremendously over the last 1000years.



 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Xyman

Arnaiz-Villena et al only used a handful of genetic markers and analysed them individually.

Apparently you didn't look at his work, which has Japanese very close to certain Sub-Saharan African populations. This shows why single-locus genetic markers are useless to determine overall genetic relatedness:

"Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans." (Risch N, Piazza A, Cavalli-Sforza LL [2002]. "Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit". Nature. 415 (6868): 115)


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.

---

But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
4. That explains why Rameses III and Man E are E1b1a.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
As many DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are.....you guessed it...San. Come on man! Think!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.

---

But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
As many DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are.....you guessed it...San. Come on man! Think!!!!

---

^ he made that up, there are no such charts

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What did I say????!!!!!!!

http://www.cairoscene.com/Buzz/National-Geographic-s-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Egyptians-Are-Only-17-Arab
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

"According to the project's calculations, the majority of Egyptian DNA is comprised of 68% North African genes."

Who missed this? Its in the news in Jan. 2017.

"National Geographic's DNA Analysis Concludes that Egyptians are Only 17% Arab"

---

 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
We don't yet have Mycenaean autosomal DNA. However, we have some forensic facial reconstructions from Mycenae Grave Circle B. This is what they looked like-



As a crude analysis, none of these people look "Negroid", but "Caucasoid", although there appears quite a lot of facial diversity in them.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You still don't get it do you? I have no idea what a Kakazoid is. There is no race. I don't believe in race because all "features" found IN Africa originated IN Africa. ALL OF THEM. Even the White skin is African. Shriver et al and Mathieson et al. So why Are you telling me about Kakazoid and negroids? Take that someplace else. I don't argue pictures and respond to spams.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Btw - you know facial "reconstruction" is very subjective. Why? Look at the NUMEROUS facial reconstruction of TUt that is floating around. It is all in the artist head and political and historical perception. Show me what is under the skin....the DNA ....then we can have a discussion.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What did I say????!!!!!!!

http://www.cairoscene.com/Buzz/National-Geographic-s-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Egyptians-Are-Only-17-Arab
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

"According to the project's calculations, the majority of Egyptian DNA is comprised of 68% North African genes."

Who missed this? Its in the news in Jan. 2017.

"National Geographic's DNA Analysis Concludes that Egyptians are Only 17% Arab"

---

I can't recall you saying any if this.





But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^ Reference Populations – Geno 2.0 Next Generation

quote:

---

This reference population is based on native Egyptians. As ancient populations first migrated from Africa, they passed first through northeast Africa to southwest Asia. The Northern Africa and Arabian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent back into Africa with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the seventh century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula. The East African component likely reflects localized movement up the navigable Nile River, while the Southern Europe and Asia Minor components reflect the geographic and historical role of Egypt as a historical player in the economic and cultural growth across the Mediterranean region.

---

quote:

---

Higher Genetic Variation in Africa

The rapid development of DNA markers since the 1980s has led to the discovery that there is more genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions of the world (Relethford, 2001, 2008; Jobling et al., 2004; Tishkoff and Gonder, 2007). This observation was not seen in earlier genetic studies that relied on red blood cell polymorphisms, most likely because of ascertainment bias where most genetic variants were looked for, and detected, in European samples. The consistent higher levels of DNA diversity in African samples suggest that it is a function of the primarily African origin of our species. Again, multiple demographic histories can affect differences in genetic diversity, which is a function (for neutral markers) of mutation, population size, and elapsed time. Higher levels of African diversity are expected under a model where modern humans existed for many millennia before dispersing out of Africa. The longer a population exists, the more mutations are accumulated, and the higher the level of genetic diversity. Under a model of an out-of-Africa bottleneck, diversity would be initially reduced (because of founder effect) in the non- African populations. A bottleneck also fits the observation that the DNA diversity outside of Africa is most often a subset of the diversity found within Africa (Tishkoff and Gonder, 2007), showing that a number of alleles were lost due to genetic drift during a bottleneck.

Another possibility is that Africa has had a larger effective population size for most of the time span of modern humans, and as such has experienced less genetic drift than smaller populations outside of Africa (Relethford and Harpending, 1994; Relethford and Jorde, 1999). A larger effective population size could simply reflect greater population density and  numbers of populations, consistent with ecological and archaeological inference (Eller et al., 2004).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser. [/QB]

---

Except the 68% is calculated for the whole of Egypt since they're using samples from all over the country. Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%). Afrocentrists were never arguing for as high as 60% genetic continuity in Lower Egypt. Just go read Zaharan, Amun Ra's etc posts. They were spamming a study at one point arguing modern Egyptians are only 20% North African (based on a limited sample) and they made dozens of posts on "cosmopolitan Lower Egypt" arguing for virtually no to minimal continuity there, but a massive influx of foreigners, population-replacement or large-scale mixing.

The reason Afrocentrists are/were (since they've now been falsified) saying modern Egyptians, mostly Lower Egyptians are non-native, is because many Lower Egyptians don't look "black" - these lighter skinned predominant "Caucasoid"-looking peoples pose a problem to their political "Black Egypt" theory, hence they tried to exclude them.

Middle/Lower Egyptian Copts -


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Young man! Cass. I am starting to sound like a broken record but this is not too difficult to understand. Just put aside your racialist beliefs for a minute. Based upon the CURRENT genetic evidence ALL modern Humans originated in Africa. The regional Theory is Dead. There were essentially TWO major migration events. First, the initial OOA and second the Neolithic Migration. The time period of the initial OOA can be contested. I speculate it is about 40-50000years ago. Some say 100,000ya. The second migratory evident was about 6-10000years ago. I also believe between the Bronze and medieval age there was tremendous political upheaval and NOT migratory events which led to the dominance of R1b-M269. There was NO migration from the Steppes of Asia. R1b-M269 is indigenous to Western Africa and Western Europe. The question is why the sudden dominance. Within 500years. If you know genetics you know that not even the Vikings carried typical European DNA.....At least the few that were tested.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
LOL.

No doubt these Afroloons will come back denying their posts, but here's log from May 2015-

quote:

---

You do remember that the average non-African ancestry of the 100 was 80%, don't you?

---

quote:

---

The DNA shows that many MODERN Egyptians
with their Arabized background, are not heavily related to the ancients.

---

quote:

---

And the DNA is backed by cranial
data as well showing that late period samples are
not typically Egyptian (Zakrewski)

---

quote:

---

it is quite clear from the SNP findings that modern Egyptians are by and large NOT of African ancestry which only affirms Zakrewski's cranial findings

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009222


http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Young man! Cass. I am starting to sound like a broken record but this is not too difficult to understand. Just put aside your racialist beliefs for a minute. Based upon the CURRENT genetic evidence ALL modern Humans originated in Africa. The regional Theory is Dead. There were essentially TWO major migration events. First, the initial OOA and second the Neolithic Migration. The time period of the initial OOA can be contested. I speculate it is about 40-50000years ago. Some say 100,000ya. The second migratory evident was about 6-10000years ago. I also believe between the Bronze and medieval age there was tremendous political upheaval and NOT migratory events which led to the dominance of R1b-M269. There was NO migration from the Steppes of Asia. R1b-M269 is indigenous to Western Africa and Western Europe. The question is why the sudden dominance. Within 500years. If you know genetics you know that not even the Vikings carried typical European DNA.....At least the few that were tested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
I haven't seen the full Study but according to Davidski when I challenged him on this he stated that the authors based the LABEL "Near East" on SNP and NOT mtDNA Haplogroups. I have to see full report to confirm. The reason Davidski backed-off using haplogroups because these"leaked" mtDNA Haplgroups are African(primarily of the Great lakes). So as I said. These haplgroups are exactly where they should be. M1, T, etc are all African. No "European" haplogroup was found. Nein! You do know how haplogoroups are transmitted?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.

---

But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes

---

---

So when you said that leaked shots the symposium show Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in, you were lying.





So when you said
"San has a large proportion of "Mongoloid" ancestry .... DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are. you guessed it...San"
you were lying

When we look at the actual DNA Tribes digest you referred to we Khosian are not close to Asians, not at all, their percentage is under 1% and is lower than, West Africans, Nilotic, Omotic-Ari Ethiopia, Banstu and Horn, ( Omotic being the highest, 3.5% (and that being low)

This is why you don't show the data because you grossly misrepresent it all the time
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Speaking about the TWO migratory events and the time line. Maybe brothas in the know can give some insight on this. Offer an reasonable explanation on why L3-N subclades like mtDNA-X is found in Native Americans while at the same time Native Americans are the most distant from Africans. Is this a pattern of TWO or ONE migratory event? Why would mtDNA-X be found in Native Americans unless recent Africans travelled to the Americas as Dr Winters have speculated . And After the initial OOA.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser.

---

Except the 68% is calculated for the whole of Egypt since they're using samples from all over the country. Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%). Afrocentrists were never arguing for as high as 60% genetic continuity in Lower Egypt. Just go read Zaharan, Amun Ra's etc posts. They were spamming a study at one point arguing modern Egyptians are only 20% North African (based on a limited sample) and they made dozens of posts on "cosmopolitan Lower Egypt" arguing for virtually no to minimal continuity there, but a massive influx of foreigners, population-replacement or large-scale mixing.

The reason Afrocentrists are/were (since they've now been falsified) saying modern Egyptians, mostly Lower Egyptians are non-native, is because many Lower Egyptians don't look "black" - these lighter skinned predominant "Caucasoid"-looking peoples pose a problem to their political "Black Egypt" theory, hence they tried to exclude them.

Middle/Lower Egyptian Copts -

[/QB]

---

I can't speak for others, but I can tell hat most posters have predicated what is out now. Copts are most mixed of all. This is historically a fact. But I am not surprised by your arbitrary nitpicking.

I never really agreed with AMRTU. But Sarahan was on point.


"Lower Egyptians don't look "black"


Have you been to Egypt? lol Can you answer this simple question?


This is what Egyptian women look like on average in Cairo, DESPITE THE ADMIXTURE being so prevalent, 27% non-African.












"these lighter skinned predominant "Caucasoid" lol smh @ your euroloon rubbish.


You are delusional.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%)

---

You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.


So, show us the SNP's. lol


Members of Egyptsearch were right after all and euroloons not. LOL



 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@lioness. That was not the chart I was referring too. It was a pie chart but this one illustrate my point. Native American ancestry is highest in Khoi-San. Native American are related to East Asians. Native Americans did not back-migrate to the Kalahari. West Africans carry the least amount of Native American Ancestry. Notice also the OLDER African populations(like Ari) carry MORE Native-American Ancestry. I am not sure what is "South China" and who they represent. We know through Tree-Mix Cambodians seem to have a migratory event from recent Africans. In this chart Native Americans may be better a representative of "mongoloids". The chart I was referring to has a better illustration.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
SMH. You don't understand what you are posting. Citing a 2001 study is NOT a good idea. In addition understand the context of the EEF in Baltic . Basal Eurasian or EEF was borne in Africa . First you need to understand that. And also understand Modern Europeans are as much as 80% Basal Eurasian or EEF. Also understand as stated in my other thread. ANE and Basal Eurasian split occured "IN" Africa not in Asia. Making ANE also African. The multi-regional theory is dead. Sorry.

---

Archaeology? There's no evidence farming/domestication originated in Africa, it spread there from south-west Asia, like it did into Europe:



The question is whether farming/domestication into Europe & Africa from south-west Asia was demic (large scale genetic mixture) or cultural (small scale genetic mixture) diffusionism. Those are competing models in the literature since the 1980s, if not earlier.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
SMH. You don't understand what you are posting. Citing a 2001 study is NOT a good idea. In addition understand the context of the EEF in Baltic . Basal Eurasian or EEF was borne in Africa . First you need to understand that. And also understand Modern Europeans are as much as 80% Basal Eurasian or EEF. Also understand as stated in my other thread. ANE and Basal Eurasian split occured "IN" Africa not in Asia. Making ANE also African. The multi-regional theory is dead. Sorry.

---

Archaeology? There's no evidence farming/domestication originated in Africa, it spread there from south-west Asia, like it did into Europe:




The question is whether farming/domestication into Europe & Africa from south-west Asia was demic (large scale genetic mixture) or cultural (small scale genetic mixture) diffusionism. Those are competing models in the literature since the 1980s, if not earlier.

---

quote:

---

vidence found at desert sites in Egypt suggests that rudimentary agriculture began there some 18,000 years ago. Some archeologists remain skeptical.

---

quote:

---

From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.

---

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3240156&fileId=S002185370001700X


How do you explain this?



 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009222

Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol

Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...

quote:

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:

Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED.
They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients.
Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.

---

quote:

---

zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 11:03 PM:

Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered
the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial
evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions

---

quote:

---

You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.

---

It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.

Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.

---

You're being absurd. Lower Egyptians undoubtedly have more non-indigenous ancestry than Upper Egyptians based on their geographic position and the fact that the series of "Eurasian" conquests and subsequent settlements were concentrated in the North.

..And considering that Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin in the Nile valley, any "admixture" that took place transpired between very closely related populations that developed almost concurrently within Egypt and the Nile Valley and were indistinguishable in the predynastic period.

Lower Egyptians received admixture from non related populations from outside the Nile Valley, whereas Upper Egyptians mingled with closely related populations from within Egypt itself and the Nile Valley. It's not the same thing.

Upper Egyptians were the overwhelming demographic majority for the bulk of the predynastic and dynastic period until the Ptolemaic dynasty. Their phenotyphic profile was the norm.

This was the ancient norm:

Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."




[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/2427222727_2b968b30a72.jpg.html]


[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/268_Egypt_Tiye.jpg.html]


[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/amen8.jpg.html]




[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/444765601_c377bff65f_b_zpskidfgr1m.jpg.html]

It was the significantly more sophisticated, wealthier South that conquered the North [Narmer] and united the two lands - creating Dynastic Egypt; it was the South that determined the political and cultural norms; it was the South that created the written language; the powerful priestly class was centred in Waset ("Thebes"); the population of ancient Egypt was concentrated in the South; invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern leaders; the swampy Delta was nothing but a sparsely populated, fragmented backwater until the Southerners conquered it and built magnificent structures that have stood the test of time.

The famous Narmer palette shows him on one side wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and the other shows him wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt. It also shows the hawk emblem of Horus, the Upper Egyptian god of Nekhem, dominating the Lower Egypt personified papyrus marsh. From this, Narmer is believed to have unified Egypt."

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

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
These people are the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians from the predynastic to the Dynastic period:














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/0305_03_zpsrtcwzodd.jpg.html]

[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/Egyptian_child_zpsn7cordzx.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Assuming that this study is correct and that Lower Egyptians really do have as much as 60% African ancestry -- that would make them biracial people that are a little more than half African, and considering what happens when Northeast Africans mix with non-Africans... the predominant phenotype in Lower Egypt is not all that surprising.

These people below are biracial Western celebrities:

Slash



Jennifer Beals



Soledad O'Brien:



Rashida Jones:




Maya Rudolph:




And Hoda Kotb - Egyptian host on NBC:




Let's be honest here, Europeans emphasise cosmopolitan modern Lower Egyptians for no reason other than the fact that their "Eurasian" appearance provides them with a great deal of comfort in its relation to their image of ancient Egypt.

You people act as though Lower Egyptians were the majority in Dynastic Egypt and that they are the best representatives of the Pharaohs when in fact Upper Egyptians are far better representatives of the Pharaohs -- but they look like other Northeast Africans and so there is no comfort to be derived, is there?

quote:

---

Afrocentric critic Froment also notes:
"Black populations" of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain,
Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte
ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie,
Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)

---

quote:

---

The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food."

(Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


How do you explain this?

---

Ancient North Africa is not the same as modern.
This is evident by the fact that even the rulers that did not have SSA exclusive alleles were still predominantly SSA or a SSA/Mediterranean hybrid.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Interesting whole-genome data on African
admixtures in Chiang et al (2016) Sardine
preprint.

Chiang's a little out the loop but well vetted.
None of the biggies in population genetics
are on his team. So the text is straight up,
at least until referees get ahold of it.

I sorted Table S4 for split and then by regions
* southwest to east to north to west, for Africans
* south to north to west to south to east, for Afroasians and Europeans
then by admix date within population regions.


 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Not trying to say Nat Geo's findings are impossible, but what study did they reference or conduct that produced these results. How do they define "North African" genetically?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
No study per se. They're just commenting
on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity
samples they gathered. Whoever did the
NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't
as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009222

Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol

Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...

quote:

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:

Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED.
They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients.
Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.

---

quote:

---

zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 11:03 PM:

Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered
the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial
evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions

---

Take your meds. You're now saying this is a "Eurocentric" positon when it is/was an Afronut one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.

---

It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.

Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009222

Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol

Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...

quote:

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:

Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED.
They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients.
Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.

---

quote:

---

zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 11:03 PM:

Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered
the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial
evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions

---

Take your meds. You're now saying this is a "Eurocentric" positon when it is/was an Afronut one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.

---

It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.

Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
MODERN EGYPTIANS on an average for the whole country are mostly (51% +)
of FOREIGN ANCESTRY ??? prove it with genetics

---

What makes it partially difficult is that Northeast Africa obviously had outgoing populations. So SNP's found in the region can be due to outgoing as it expanded outside of Africa.

Therefore are being claimed as "so called" Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/: posted 17 April, 2017 17:18

quote:

---

There is no genetic evidence of modern Europeans/Greeks occupying ancient Egypt

---

Finally we agree on something, but I would say their genetic impact was miminal, rather than absolutely nothing. As Brace et al. 1993 says, the ancient Egyptians "absorbed its various Assyrian, Persian, and Greek rulers with barely detectable effects on its basically Egyptian identity."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
No study per se. They're just commenting
on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity
samples they gathered. Whoever did the
NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't
as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.

---

It was probably done so, due to migrations to the South by west Africans. It's a weird accumulation, but that is how they see things.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Cass is like :




 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Ish

You mistakenly think what you call "Eurocentrism" argues for biological discontinuity between early Dynastic and late Dynastic Egypt. This is an Afrocentrist position that argues there was mass influx and mixture of Hyksos, Persians and Greeks (and later post-Dynastic Romans, Byzantines and Arabs) into Lower/Middle Egypt. This has never been my position. If we go back to 2011, what I wrote is this (on one of those links you posted):

quote:

---

The bulk or mass egyptian population [...] who descended from the Mouillian and Capsians through [to] the Badarian and Naqada cultures.

---

quote:

---

Early Dynastic Egypt (c. 3100 BCE) was "not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts." While Egypt was invaded during later dynastic periods, these had small to minimal genetic impact; Brace et al. (1993) describe ancient Egypt as having "absorbed its various Assyrian, Persian, and Greek rulers with barely detectable effects on its basically Egyptian identity".

---

quote:

---

The "E series" c. 664–343 BCE predates Ptolemaic Egypt. Usefully, Froment has split the 26th dynasty from the 27th-30th. The 26th predates the Achaemenids, and look where it plots. The Afrocentric argument the "E series" represents mass foreign settlement doesn't really make any sense.

---

- Cass (aka Ligurian) March, 2016
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ancient-egyptian-population-biology-race-debate.449448/#post-1066003673

Suddenly now you're denying the Afrocentrist position in light of DNA.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
No study per se. They're just commenting
on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity
samples they gathered. Whoever did the
NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't
as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.

---

It was probably done so, due to migrations to the South by west Africans. It's a weird accumulation, but that is how they see things.

---