This is topic Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Paper is out

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Only 3 samples with nuclear DNA data though. 2 Y hg J, 1 Y hg E1b1b1a1b2-V22.

The non-blurry mitochondrial DNA image clearly says M1, not M5. OK, that makes way more sense.

Mod edit:
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

[excerpt methods and other sections, see link}

Verena J. Schuenemann1, 2 n1, Alexander Peltzer3, 4 n1, Beatrix Welte1, W. Paul van Pelt5, Martyna Molak6, Chuan-Chao Wang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9628-03074, Anja Furtwängler1, Christian Urban1, Ella Reiter1, Kay Nieselt ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1283-70653, Barbara Teßmann7, Michael Francken1, Katerina Harvati1, 2, 8, Wolfgang Haak4, 9, Stephan Schiffels ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1017-91504[…] & Johannes Krause1, 2, 4- Show fewer authors
Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 [2017}
doi:10.1038/ncomms15694


Abstract
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 present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners 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.


Introduction
Egypt provides a privileged setting for the study of population genetics as a result of its long and involved population history. Owing to its rich natural resources and strategic location on the crossroads of continents, the country had intense, historically documented interactions with important cultural areas in Africa, Asia and Europe ranging from international trade to foreign invasion and rule. Especially from the first millennium BCE onwards, Egypt saw a growing number of foreigners living and working within its borders and was subjected to an almost continuous sequence of foreign domination by Libyans, Assyrians, Kushites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks and Brits. The movement of people, goods and ideas throughout Egypt’s long history has given rise to an intricate cultural and genetic exchange and entanglement, involving themes that resonate strongly with contemporary discourse on integration and globalization1.

Until now the study of Egypt’s population history has been largely based on literary and archaeological sources and inferences drawn from genetic diversity in present-day Egyptians. Both approaches have made crucial contributions to the debate but are not without limitations. On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike2,3,4. On the other hand, results obtained by modern genetic studies are based on extrapolations from their modern data sets and make critical assumptions on population structure and time5. The analysis of ancient DNA provides a crucial piece in the puzzle of Egypt’s population history and can serve as an important corrective or supplement to inferences drawn from literary, archaeological and modern DNA data.

Despite their potential to address research questions relating to population migrations, genetic studies of ancient Egyptian mummies and skeletal material remain rare, although research on Egyptian mummies helped to pioneer the field of ancient DNA research with the first reported retrieval of ancient human DNA6. Since then progress has been challenged by issues surrounding the authentication of the retrieved DNA and potential contaminations inherent to the direct PCR method7. Furthermore, the potential DNA preservation in Egyptian mummies was met with general scepticism: The hot Egyptian climate, the high humidity levels in many tombs and some of the chemicals used in mummification techniques, in particular sodium carbonate, all contribute to DNA degradation and are thought to render the long-term survival of DNA in Egyptian mummies improbable8. Experimental DNA decay rates in papyri have also been used to question the validity and general reliability of reported ancient Egyptian DNA results9. The recent genetic analysis of King Tutankhamun’s family10 is one of the latest controversial studies that gave rise to this extensive scholarly debate11. New data obtained with high-throughput sequencing methods have the potential to overcome the methodological and contamination issues surrounding the PCR method and could help settle the debate surrounding ancient Egyptian DNA preservation8. However, the first high-throughput sequences obtained from ancient Egyptian mummies12 were not supported by rigorous authenticity and contamination tests.

Here, we provide the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods and assessing the authenticity of the retrieved ancient DNA via characteristic nucleotide misincorporation patterns13,14 and statistical contamination tests15 to ensure the ancient origin of our obtained data.

By directly studying ancient DNA from ancient Egyptians, we can test previous hypotheses drawn from analysing modern Egyptian DNA, such as recent admixture from populations with sub-Saharan16 and non-African ancestries17, attributed to trans-Saharan slave trade and the Islamic expansion, respectively. On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community [Fig. 1}, since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period [cal. 1388BCE–426CE, Supplementary Data 1}. In particular, we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination, especially during the Ptolemaic [332–30BCE} and Roman [30BCE–395CE} Periods.


 -


Results
Samples and anthropological analysis

All 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals [for details of the 90 individuals included in the later analysis, see Supplementary Data 1} used in this study were taken from two anthropological collections at the University of Tübingen and the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection, which is now kept at the Museum of Prehistory of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Stiftung preußischer Kulturbesitz [individuals: S3533, S3536, S3544, S3552, S3578, S3610}. According to the radiocarbon dates [Supplementary Data 1, see also ref. 18}, the samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic [New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period}, Ptolemaic and Roman Period. During their conservation in the Tübingen and Berlin collections the remains underwent different treatments: some were preserved in their original mummified state, while others were macerated for anthropological analysis or due to conservation problems19.

In most cases, non-macerated mummy heads still have much of their soft tissue preserved. Some of the remains [individuals analysed in our study: 1543, 1547, 1565, 1577, 1611} have traces of gold leaf near the mouth and the cheekbone, which is characteristic for mummies from the Ptolemaic Period onwards20. In most cases the brain was removed and the excerebration route was highly likely transnasal, resulting in visible defects on the cribriform plate [for the individuals analysed in our study, see Supplementary Data 1}. In summary, the excellent bone preservation and the more or less good soft tissue preservation made a wide-ranging analysis possible19.

Recently, various studies were conducted on these remains, including a study on ancient Egyptian embalming resins, two ancient DNA studies and an anthropological examination of the macerated crania12,18,19,21. While the possibilities of a demographic reconstruction based on anthropological finds are naturally limited—due to incompleteness of the assemblage, the following anthropological observations were made on the assemblage: For a first assessment, computer tomographic scans of 30 mummies with soft tissue preservation were produced to describe sex [Supplementary Data 1}, age at death [Supplementary Data 1} and the macroscopic health status; the six macerated mummies were examined directly. It is notable that most of the individuals are early and late adults, and that subadult individuals are underrepresented [Supplementary Data 1}. It is possible that the sample’s demographic profile is the result of different burial treatments for adults and subadults, but it seems more likely that it is due to collection bias, with collectors favouring intact adult skulls. Almost all of the teeth show significant dentine exposure up to a total loss of the crown. This abrasion pattern is likely due to the food and food preparation itself, in particular for a cereal-rich diet containing a high proportion of coarse sandy particles. These particles act to abrade the dental tissues, allowing bacteria to penetrate the interior of the teeth. As a result, carious lesions or periapical processes appear in the analysed individuals [Supplementary Data 1}19.

For the DNA analysis we sampled different tissues [bone, soft tissue, tooth}, macerated and non-macerated, to test for human DNA preservation.

Processing and sequencing of the samples

We extracted DNA from 151 mummified human remains and prepared double-stranded Illumina libraries with dual barcodes22,23. Then we used DNA capture techniques for human mitochondrial DNA24 and for 1.24 million genomic single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs}25 in combination with Illumina sequencing, through which we successfully obtained complete human mitochondrial genomes from 90 samples and genome-wide SNP data from three male individuals passing quality control.

Comparison of the DNA preservation in different tissues

We tested different tissues for DNA preservation and applied strict criteria for authenticity on the retrieved mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to establish authentic ancient Egyptian DNA. First, DNA extracts from several tissues [that is, bone, teeth, soft tissue and macerated teeth} from 151 individuals were screened for the presence of human mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA} resulting in a total of 2,157 to 982,165 quality filtered mitochondrial reads per sample, and 11- to 4,236-fold coverage. To estimate, identify and filter out potential contamination we applied the program schmutzi15 with strict criteria for contamination and kept only samples with less than 3% contamination for further analysis. For a comparison of different source material [soft tissue, bone and teeth} ten individuals [Supplementary Table 1} were sampled multiple times. Yields of preserved DNA were comparable in bone and teeth but up to ten times lower in soft tissues [Fig. 2a, Supplementary Table 1}. Nucleotide misincorporation patterns characteristic for damaged ancient human DNA allowed us to assess the authenticity of the retrieved DNA13,14. The observed DNA damage patterns differed for the source materials with on average 19% damage in soft tissues and around 10% damage in bone tissue and teeth [Fig. 2b,c, Supplementary Table 1}. Importantly, mtDNA haplotypes were identical for all samples from the same individuals. Our results thus suggest that DNA damage in Egyptian mummies correlates with tissue type. The protection of bone and teeth by the surrounding soft tissue or the embalmment of soft tissue may have contributed to the observed differences.

Generation of nuclear data

In order to analyse the nuclear DNA we selected 40 samples with high mtDNA coverage and low mtDNA contamination. Using in solution enrichment for 1.2 million genome-wide SNPs26, we obtained between 3,632 and 508,360 target SNPs per sample [Supplementary Data 2}. Overall, the nuclear DNA showed poor preservation compared to the mtDNA as depicted by a high mitochondrial/nuclear DNA ratio of on average around 18,000. In many samples, nuclear DNA damage was relatively low, indicating modern contamination. We sequenced two libraries per sample: one untreated library to assess DNA damage, and one library treated with enzymatic damage repair27, which was used for downstream analysis. We applied strict criteria for further analysis: we considered only male samples with at least 8% average cytosine deamination rates at the ends of the reads from the untreated library, and with at least 150 SNPs on the X chromosome covered at least twice, in order to estimate contamination levels reliably. Three out of 40 samples fulfilling these criteria had acceptable nuclear contamination rates: Two samples from the Pre-Ptolemaic Periods [New Kingdom to Late Period} had 5.3 and 0.5% nuclear contamination and yielded 132,084 and 508,360 SNPs, respectively, and one sample from the Ptolemaic Period had 7.3% contamination and yielded 201,967 SNPs. As shown below, to rule out any impact of potential contamination on our results, we analysed the three samples separately or replicated results using only the least contaminated sample.

Analysis of mitochondrial genomes

The 90 mitochondrial genomes fulfilling our criteria [>10-fold coverage and <3% contamination} were grouped into three temporal categories based on their radiocarbon dates [Supplementary Data 1}, corresponding to Pre-Ptolemaic Periods [n=44}, the Ptolemaic Period [n=27} and the Roman Period [n=19} [Supplementary Data 1}. To test for genetic differentiation and homogeneity we compared haplogroup composition, calculated FST-statistics28 and applied a test for population continuity29 [Supplementary Table 2, Supplementary Data 3,4} on mitochondrial genome data from the three ancient and two modern-day populations from Egypt and Ethiopia, published by Pagani and colleagues17, including 100 modern Egyptian and 125 modern Ethiopian samples [Fig. 3a}. We furthermore included data from the El-Hayez oasis published by Kujanová and colleagues30. We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups [Fig. 3a}, supported by low FST values [<0.05} and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% [consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17}. Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported [Supplementary Data 5}. To further test genetic affinities and shared ancestry with modern-day African and West Eurasian populations we performed a principal component analysis [PCA} based on haplogroup frequencies and Multidimensional Scaling of pairwise genetic distances. We find that all three ancient Egyptian groups cluster together [Fig. 3b}, supporting genetic continuity across our 1,300-year transect. Both analyses reveal higher affinities with modern populations from the Near East and the Levant compared to modern Egyptians [Fig. 3b,c}. The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa [Supplementary Table 3}. However, comparative data from a contemporary population under Roman rule in Asia Minor, from the Roman city Ağlasun today in Turkey31, did not reveal a closer relationship to the ancient Egyptians from the Roman period [Fig. 3b,c}.


 -
a} Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup frequencies of three ancient and two modern-day populations, [b} Principal Component Analysis based on haplogroup frequencies: [sub-Saharan Africa [green}, North Africa [light green}, Near East [orange}, Europe [yellow}, ancient [blue}, [c} MDS of HVR-I sequence data: colour scheme as above; note that ancient groups were pooled, [d} Skygrid plot depicting effective population size estimates over the last 5,000 years in Egypt. Vertical bars indicate the ages of the analysed 90 mitochondrial genomes [three samples with genome-wide data highlighted in red}. Note that the values on y axis are given in female effective population size times generation time and were rescaled by 1:14.5 for the estimation of the studied population size [assuming 29-year generation time and equal male and female effective population sizes} [images by Kerttu Majander}.


Population size estimation using BEAST

The finding of a continuous population through time allowed us to estimate the effective population size [Ne} from directly radiocarbon-dated mitochondrial genomes using BEAST32. Our results show similar values of effective population size in the different ancient time periods with an average value of between ca. 48,000 and 310,000 [average 95% CI} inhabitants in the region and period under investigation [Fig. 3d, Supplementary Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 4}. This is important as it is the first time that such estimates can be contrasted with reported historic Egyptian census numbers from the neighbouring Fayum in the early Ptolemaic Period, which had a reported total population size of 85,000–95,000 inhabitants33.

Population genetic analysis of nuclear DNA

On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples [Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5}. In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 [Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4} further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 [Fig. 4b}. In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples. In both PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses, we did not find significant differences between the three ancient samples, despite two of them having nuclear contamination estimates over 5%, which indicates no larger impact of modern DNA contamination. We used outgroup f3-statistics38 [Fig. 5a,b} for the ancient and modern Egyptians to measure shared genetic drift with other ancient and modern populations, using Mbuti as outgroup. We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations [Fig. 5a,b}. When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested [Fig. 5b}, likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above. By computing f3-statistics38, we determined whether modern Egyptians could be modelled as a mixture of ancient Egyptian and other populations. Our results point towards sub-Saharan African populations as the missing component [Fig. 5c}, confirming the results of the ADMIXTURE analysis. We replicated the results based on f3-statistics using only the least contaminated sample [with <1% contamination estimate} and find very similar results [Supplementary Fig. 5}, confirming that the moderate levels of modern DNA contamination in two of our samples did not affect our analyses. Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations [see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8}. We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago [700 years ago}, consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years.


 -
a} Principal Component Analysis-based genome-wide SNP data of three ancient Egyptians, 2,367 modern individuals and 294 previously published ancient genomes, [b} subset of the full ADMIXTURE analysis [Supplementary Fig. 4}.


 -
[a} Outgroup f3-statistics measuring shared drift of the three ancient Egyptian samples and other modern and ancient populations, [b} The data shown in a, compared with the same estimates for modern Egyptians, ordered by shared drift with modern Egyptians, [c} Admixture f3-statistics, testing whether modern Egyptians are mixed from ancient Egyptians and some other source. The most negative Z-scores indicate the most likely source populations.

Estimating phenotypes

Finally, we analysed several functionally relevant SNPs in sample JK2911, which had low contamination and relatively high coverage. This individual had a derived allele at the SLC24A5 locus, which contributes to lighter skin pigmentation and was shown to be at high frequency in Neolithic Anatolia41, consistent with the ancestral affinity shown above. Other relevant SNPs carry the ancestral allele, including HERC2 and LCT, which suggest dark-coloured eyes and lactose intolerance [Supplementary Table 9}.

Discussion
This study demonstrates that the challenges of ancient DNA work on Egyptian mummies can be overcome with enrichment strategies followed by high-throughput DNA sequencing. The use of ancient DNA can greatly contribute towards a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s population history. More specifically, it can supplement and serve as a corrective to archaeological and literary data that are often unevenly distributed across time, space and important constituents of social difference [such as gender and class} as well as modern genetic data from contemporary populations that may not be fully representative of past populations.

The archaeological site Abusir el-Meleq was inhabited from at least 3250BCE until about 700CE and was of great religious significance because of its active cult to Osiris, the god of the dead, which made it an attractive burial site for centuries2. Written sources indicate that by the third century BCE Abusir el-Meleq was at the centre of a wider region that comprised the northern part of the Herakleopolites province, and had close ties with the Fayum and the Memphite provinces, involving the transport of wheat, cattle-breeding, bee-keeping and quarrying42. In the early Roman Period, the site appears to have been the main centre in its own district42. Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44. Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices2,45. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains47. As is customary for the time, Rubensohn’s archaeological records are highly incomplete and many of the finds made by him were removed undocumented from their contexts. Furthermore, many of his excavation diaries and notes were destroyed during the Second World War19. This lack of context greatly diminishes the possibility of ‘thick description’ of the analysed individuals, at least in terms of their names, titles and materially expressed identity. However, the finds nevertheless hold much promise for a long-term study of population dynamics in ancient Egypt. Abusir el-Meleq is arguably one of the few sites in Egypt, for which such a vast number of individuals with such an extensive chronological spread are available for ancient DNA analysis. Although we only analysed mummified remains, there is little reason to believe that the burials Rubensohn excavated belonged exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants on the basis of the far published references to excavation diaries and Rubensohn’s preliminary reports that permit a basic reconstruction. Rather it seems arguable that the complete spectrum of society is represented, ranging from Late Period priests’ burials that stand out by virtue of their size and contents to simple inhumations that are buried with little to no grave goods2. The widespread mummification treatments in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods in particular, leading to a decline in standards and costs48 and the generally modest appearance of many burials further supports this assessment.

By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues16. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.

The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.

Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree55. Additional genetic studies on ancient human remains from Egypt are needed with extensive geographical, social and chronological spread in order to expand our current picture in variety, accuracy and detail.

However, our results revise previous scepticism towards the DNA preservation in ancient Egyptian mummies due to climate conditions or mummification procedures8. The methodology presented here opens up promising avenues for future genetic research and can greatly contribute towards a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s population history.

[ 04. June 2017, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: BlessedbyHorus ]
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here we go!!! Enjoy the ride. I will start off reading the peer reviewed section. Interesting that the YDNA J is in Africa BEFORE the the Levant. Haber et al
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Paper is out

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Only 3 samples with nuclear DNA data though. 2 Y hg J, 1 Y hg E1b1b.

The non-blurry mitochondrial DNA image clearly says M1, not M5. OK, that makes way more sense.

Good read. At the end they say they don't rule out earlier SSA admixture. But I'm gonna read again to get my complete opinion.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Capra ,

Thanks for posting.

For the members. Let's stay objective and critical.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Thanks for the update  -
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Estimated 6-15% African ancestry in the ancient samples, while modern Egyptians have 14-21%. And yes they used everyone's favourite True Negros the Yoruba for the sole SSA reference. [Big Grin]

3 samples with nuclear DNA are:

J2134 776-569 BC, mt hg J1d, Y hg J
J2911 769-560 BC, mt hg M1a1, Y hg J
J2888 97-2 BC, mt hg U6a2, Y hg E1b1b1a1b2-V22

So yes can be all Libyans, Hyksos, or Assyrians if that floats your boat. [Razz]

J2911 had the best coverage and least contamination. He had 2/2 + calls for derived rs1426654 in SLC24A5 and 0/7 + calls for derived s16891982 in SLC45A2. J2888 had 1 + call for rs1426654. So probably medium skin colour (sample is tiny and no data for other variants) - like modern Upper Egyptians maybe? Also brown eyes and lactose intolerant.
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Capra ,

Thanks for posting.

For the members. Let's stay objective and critical.

Naturally distant West African Yoruba are the designated "sub-Saharan"
comparison group. Of interest would be the breakdown of their
ancient samples- dating and locations- they all seem rather recent-
quote:
"According to the radiocarbon
dates (Supplementary Data 1, see also ref. 18), the
samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic
(New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period),
Ptolemaic and Roman Period."


The ancient data sample is also drawn from the north- Lower Egypt- where there
has long been more outside admixture. Hard to read more on tiny
phone screen but will check out later in more detail.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
This study is ****.

I retract all good I had to say about the authors and how "Smart" they were not to use Yoruba as the lone African SSA reference.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Sample data is all in supplementary table 1. There are 3-4 samples from the New Kingdom but mtDNA only.

Probably Dinka or something would be a better reference. Genomes are now publicly available so we will probably see some amateur analysis in the near future. There is a lot to look at that wasn't in this paper.
 
Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

- derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Sidonian samples. Like I always said, ancient Egyptians were light to medium brown in skin pigmentation, not dark brown ('black').
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I haven’t read the paper as yet but I speculated they would use a distant “SSA” like MButi but they used another distant SSA like YRI. They would not or could not possible use closer SSA, why, it will screw with their hypothesis. Understand the games. Of course M1 is African and found in SSA West and East and North of the Sahara.

Regardless 15% YRI is high!!


quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Capra ,

Thanks for posting.

For the members. Let's stay objective and critical.

Naturally distant West African Yoruba are the designated "sub-Saharan"
comparison group. Of interest would be the breakdown of their
ancient samples- dating and locations- they all seem rather recent-
quote:
"According to the radiocarbon
dates (Supplementary Data 1, see also ref. 18), the
samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic
(New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period),
Ptolemaic and Roman Period."


The ancient data sample is also drawn from the north- Lower Egypt- where there
has long been more outside admixture. Hard to read more on tiny
phone screen but will check out later in more detail.


 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

- derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Sidonian samples. Like I always said, ancient Egyptians were light to medium brown in skin pigmentation, not dark brown ('black').

Get lost you moronic idiot. The samples are Late Period and they
are drawn from the north, an area always known to have more foreign admixture.
The only thing "over" is the feces dripping over your head.
Now run along back to your BNP "rally"..
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Uh oh..... Uh oh! Lmaoooooo I'm not saying NOTHING but some philosophies are in danger!!! I'm about to drop some HEAT in a few days too. Beyoku, Tukuler, you know where to find me. I'm off this for now.

PS Zaharan LET CASS ROCK, he's fucking himself up. Look at what I've been saying for the past 3-4 months.
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
LOL.. true dat.. They admit limitations of study- quote:

It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made."
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
This study is ****.

I retract all good I had to say about the authors and how "Smart" they were not to use Yoruba as the lone African SSA reference.

They do have a couple of Northeast African populations (Somalis and Ethiopian Jews) in the PCA, though you're right about the admixture graphs. Speaking of which, I perceive a special similarity in ancestry proportions to the three sampled Egyptian genomes and the Levantine Bronze Age (even more so than the Natufians or Neolithic). Which convinces me personally that there's a notable Bronze Age Levantine ancestry in this sample.

 -
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

- derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Sidonian samples. Like I always said, ancient Egyptians were light to medium brown in skin pigmentation, not dark brown ('black').

 -

[Roll Eyes] I love how Nazis think they have really one upped people. Type 4 skin in Northern Egyptian samples isn't a suprise at all. Still not Southern or Northern European, and several African populations south of the Sahara are also type 4. These people wouldn't have been any lighter than many of the Khoisan. [Roll Eyes]

 -

So going from a roughly San-like pigment to darker as you go further south(with admixture also skewing the phenotypical appearances), guess it'd be most accurate to say the Aegyptians were "mostly brown and black with a skinny desiccated look". [Razz]
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

- derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Sidonian samples. Like I always said, ancient Egyptians were light to medium brown in skin pigmentation, not dark brown ('black').

 -

[Roll Eyes] I love how Nazis think they have really one upped people. Type 4 skin in Northern Egyptian samples isn't a suprise at all. Still not Southern or Northern European, and several African populations south of the Sahara are also type 4. These people wouldn't have been any lighter than many of the Khoisan. [Roll Eyes]

 -

So going from a roughly San-like pigment to darker as you go further south(with admixture also skewing the phenotypical appearances), guess it'd be most accurate to say the Aegyptians were "mostly brown and black with a skinny desiccated look". [Razz]

Dude, pay attention.

...cass is merely gum on the bottom of ones shoe at this point. Don't follow him off the rails
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
quote:
. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
A of that talk about Afro-loons is negated. Of course they used Yoruba when they admit themselves the SSA ancestry is from Nubia quite possibly and not a West African source.

The 3rd Intermediate Period already had an influx of foreign migration,, so the results are NOT surprising given the location and the time period.
 
Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
quote:
...cass is merely gum on the bottom of ones shoe at this point.
And yet, I made a prediction and was proven correct. I posted 2 months ago that ancient Egyptians would be carrying 1 of either derived SLC24A5 or SLC45A2. Afro-loons in that old thread said "no". [Roll Eyes] lol. Suddenly now they accept it, but down-play it as "recent foreign admixture".
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Idiot, I made the same prediction. But why would I make such a prediction cass???
In fact I hope these mummies are FIXED for slc24a5 like their mtDNA suggest they'll be. Like Stuttgart, like the ancient Greeks will be, like non Ethiopian Jews are, like the Sudanese Copts are, like EEF are. Just understand that you cannot be simultaneously indigenous and foreign. But I've been sitting alone ahead of the game for months now.


So now, like you were saying these abusir samples show continuity right? Was it to the Copts, you said?
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
Also, I see an increase in Iranian ancestry in both modern Egyptians and other Middle Easterners compared to the ancient samples.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Lol!! I couldn’t have said it better my-self.
Quote
“Just understand that you cannot be simultaneously indigenous and foreign.”. That goes to some of the brothas also.

Mind if I used that in the future? Plagiarism?

Also predict that Holocene North Africans(Mechta/Caspians) may carry derived forms of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 but double alleles like most Europeans.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Idiot, I made the same prediction. But why would I make such a prediction cass???
In fact I hope these mummies are FIXED for slc24a5 like their mtDNA suggest they'll be. Like Stuttgart, like the ancient Greeks will be, like non Ethiopian Jews are, like the Sudanese Copts are, like EEF are. Just understand that you cannot be simultaneously indigenous and foreign. But I've been sitting alone ahead of the game for months now.


So now, like you were saying these abusir samples show continuity right? Was it to the Copts, you said?


 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Notice they left Horners off that Admixture K Chart. Sneaky fvckers. LOL
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Quote from Reviewers



Nevertheless, the work could be further improved by providing more details on the investigated
mummies and a more detailed analysis of a possible foreign influence at the site.

I am particularly surprised that the authors have not cited the previous work on the material that
derives from the same collection. As far as I understand, Khairat et al. (J. Appl. Genet., 2013) and
Lalremruata et al. (Plos One, 2013), also used samples from the mummy collection at the University
of Tuebingen.. It should be explained
why the previous work was not mentioned.


Lines 55-57: “However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles… hampered direct
investigations…”. What exactly were these problems and obstacles??

How many of them have an “identity” (e.g. name inscription)? (see
also comment 4).

Lines 137-140. “The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome
haplogroups…” This is true, but the two haplogroups are believed to have different origins (J Western
Asia, E1b1b1 North Africa). Moreover, both individuals with haplogroup J are from the pre-ptolemaic
period and the individual with haplogroup E from the Ptolemaic period. Does this tell us something
about their origin or any differences? The authors should comment on this.”
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
EDIT: NM, I saw the peer review files.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Quote from Reviewers

--
Saharan admixture in more recent times” was shown in 2012 using genomewide
SNP array data from Egyptians (Henn et al., PLoS Genetics: Table 1). That is, the sub-Saharan
African ancestry is of recent origin in Egyptians dating to AD 1250 (~24 generations ago). Indeed
those authors argued that the source of this sub-Saharan ancestry is more likely to be Nilotic than
West African as modeled in the current analyses.

For example, Kujanova et al. (2009) analysis of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal data from an Egyptian
oasis isolate from middle Egypt is not cited. They found that sub-Saharan mtDNA L-lineages
constituted 30% of their dataset, indicating a strong sub-Saharan component on the maternal side,
which was largely absent on the Y (6% M2-derived lineages).

And in Pagani et al. (2015, AJHG) show that "the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the
Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER to around 750
years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.”

--
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Quote from Reviewers 3

--
Contrasting 3 individuals to 18 contemporary ones in order to indicate extrapolate evidence for a
pattern that" 6 and 7 million Sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1250 years”
seems a strong extrapolation on its own. As the authors admit..”


Line 180: "This individual had a derived allele at the SLC24A5 locus, which encodes for light skin
pigmentation…” SLC24A5 is among at least 20 skin pigmentation genes known to contribute to
melanin variability in contemporary human populations. It alone does not ‘encode’ for light skin
pigmentation. Indeed, many individuals in Cape Verde, Africa carry this allele (which does lighten
pigmentation, accounting for 7% of the variance in pigmentation) but their overall phenotype would
be still be twice as dark as an average European (Beleza et al. 2013, PLoS Genetics).

Note 8: Test of Population Continuity: the analysis here was not described. Other than collapsing
mtDNA lineages into haplogroup frequencies to compare ancient and contemporary groups, there is no
description of what the actual test was. Even if the method was described in Brandt et al. (2013) [not
even in the main text, only in their supplement], the authors should lay out the assumptions
--
 
Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Idiot, I made the same prediction. But why would I make such a prediction cass???
In fact I hope these mummies are FIXED for slc24a5 like their mtDNA suggest they'll be. Like Stuttgart, like the ancient Greeks will be, like non Ethiopian Jews are, like the Sudanese Copts are, like EEF are. Just understand that you cannot be simultaneously indigenous and foreign. But I've been sitting alone ahead of the game for months now.


So now, like you were saying these abusir samples show continuity right? Was it to the Copts, you said?

No Copts appear in the modern samples, but genome bloggers will run their own analyses soon though, probably including a Copt sample. People can already see the very close Coptic genetic ties to these Egyptian samples; some comments already made on this at Formbiodiversity.

Anyway, those Afrocentrists arguing the near-eastern ancestry is recent (late dynastic or Arab), are wrong-

quote:
Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation.
- Schuenemann et al. 2017
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I .....don't have to wait for the bloggers
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
We are back to Cape Verde!!!!! I am telling you guys deep analysis is require dof Cape Verdeans.
--

For those of you not getting what the reviewers are getting at.

Key points. Apparently MtDNA was found in other ancient Egyptians as much as 30%. I need to run that down. The current data is NOT consistent with that. Also they use only 3 YDNA to extrapolate , the reviewer is stating that would amount ot close to 7,000,000!!!! subsaharan slaves which is impossible. So the extrapolation is faulty.
SLC24A5 derived is at high frequency in Cape Verde and these people are very dark so the author cannot assume that these AEians were light brown. Furthermore there may be at least 20genes involved in pigmentation.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
PCA's leftmost AE circle
overlaps one Dinka
and touches another Dinka.

EDIT
those are neolithic Levant circles
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who read the paper. Are they saying that only three(3) autosomal DNA was tested out of the 91 mummies. But the 91 linage was revealed but NOT the autosomal data of all 91???!!

Quote reviewer 4:
“This technique resulted in high-coverage mitochondrial genomes for 91 samples and an
additional set of autosomal SNPs for 3 of those samples.. “
 
Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Xyyman

Derived SLC24A5 accounts for 25-38% of the skin colour variation between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans:

"Our results suggest that SLC24A5 explains between 25 and 38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index."
- Lamason et al. 2005
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Aw, wha hoppen all that cock strutting
and superior objectivity and faith agenda.

The air is foul with the smell of counter to
geno-hamitic expectation butthurt hypocrisy.

 -
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
I am days from being able to read it but the reference to SLC24A5 sounds like I'll be on some I told you sos. Yaruba as the true negro is funny too. By that standard I'm more Asian than these mummies.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
reviewer 5"It
is indeed questionable how accurate ancient admixture rates can be learned from either a single locus
(mtDNA) or just three samples in a case in which admixture is so recent that ancestry blocks are
necessarily large and the variation in admixture rates between individuals expected to be very high.
However, the authors are aware and transparent about these shortcomings in their data.

According to the peer review response the author is arguing for E1b1b1 as non-African. GTFOH!
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Aw, wha hoppen all that cock strutting
and superior objectivity and faith agenda.

The air is foul with the smell of counter to
geno-hamitic expectation butthurt hypocrisy.

 -

Yeah as several of the guys lined up with their muskets ready for "afrocentrist"/black person target practice, I wasn't worried, and this is far from over.

 -
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
 -

See Lurkers? Now how do people expect me to respond to the claim above that Dinka are close to the Abusir mummies and delusional chest thumping? What is stopping me from evoking words like cognitively challenged? Now, when I say that phrase it's going to be a problem again for using "insults". But what am I supposed to call that?

You just can't make this up.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Estimated 6-15% African ancestry in the ancient samples, while modern Egyptians have 14-21%. And yes they used everyone's favourite True Negros the Yoruba for the sole SSA reference. [Big Grin]

3 samples with nuclear DNA are:

J2134 776-569 BC, mt hg J1d, Y hg J
J2911 769-560 BC, mt hg M1a1, Y hg J
J2888 97-2 BC, mt hg U6a2, Y hg E1b1b1a1b2-V22

So yes can be all Libyans, Hyksos, or Assyrians if that floats your boat. [Razz]

J2911 had the best coverage and least contamination. He had 2/2 + calls for derived rs1426654 in SLC24A5 and 0/7 + calls for derived s16891982 in SLC45A2. J2888 had 1 + call for rs1426654. So probably medium skin colour (sample is tiny and no data for other variants) - like modern Upper Egyptians maybe? Also brown eyes and lactose intolerant.

What is the obsession with the Yoruba? I don't understand, it's weird.

By the way, the dates above make sense.
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Notice they left Horners off that Admixture K Chart. Sneaky fvckers. LOL

Do you know anything about Bahrriya Oasis?
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
@ Swenet I just gobbled that up. lol.
 
Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Another articl today (Nature News)
https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry


Genetic analysis reveals a close relationship with Middle Easterners, not central Africans.

The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Archaeological discoveries and historical documents suggest close ties between Egypt and the Middle East, but “it is very nice that this study has now provided empirical evidence for this at the genetic level”, says evolutionary anthropologist Omer Gokcumen of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.

The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.

The new data can’t explain why the ancient Egyptians were so tightly aligned with people from the Middle East. [Was it the result of migration, or were the Stone Age hunter-gatherers of northern Africa genetically similar to those of the Levant? It’s too early to tell, Krause says, but there’s a better chance now of getting answers. “This is the first glimpse of the genetic history of Egypt,” he says. “But it’s really just the start.”

Bold --- exactly. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Capra ,

Thanks for posting.

For the members. Let's stay objective and critical.

Naturally distant West African Yoruba are the designated "sub-Saharan"
comparison group. Of interest would be the breakdown of their
ancient samples- dating and locations- they all seem rather recent-
quote:
"According to the radiocarbon
dates (Supplementary Data 1, see also ref. 18), the
samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic
(New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period),
Ptolemaic and Roman Period."


The ancient data sample is also drawn from the north- Lower Egypt- where there
has long been more outside admixture. Hard to read more on tiny
phone screen but will check out later in more detail.

Nice observation, …


quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Notice they left Horners off that Admixture K Chart. Sneaky fvckers. LOL

Do you know anything about Bahrriya Oasis?
Repost:

Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%

 -


Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
We are back to Cape Verde!!!!! I am telling you guys deep analysis is require dof Cape Verdeans.
--

For those of you not getting what the reviewers are getting at.

Key points. Apparently MtDNA was found in other ancient Egyptians as much as 30%. I need to run that down. The current data is NOT consistent with that. Also they use only 3 YDNA to extrapolate , the reviewer is stating that would amount ot close to 7,000,000!!!! subsaharan slaves which is impossible. So the extrapolation is faulty.
SLC24A5 derived is at high frequency in Cape Verde and these people are very dark so the author cannot assume that these AEians were light brown. Furthermore there may be at least 20genes involved in pigmentation.

Not ancient DNA. Its DNA analysis of a modern Egyptian oases population.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
ADMIXTURE graph will all samples (incl East Africans) is Supp Fig 4.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
To those who read the paper. Are they saying that only three(3) autosomal DNA was tested out of the 91 mummies. But the 91 linage was revealed but NOT the autosomal data of all 91???!!

A cell typically contains hundreds of copies of the mitogenome, but it has only one nucleus. Hence it's generally much easier to recover mtDNA from ancient remains. These guys weren't buried in Siberia, don't expect too much.

Also I notice that all the samples were from a German museum collection - a large sample from one site over a considerable period of time. Explains why they chose this site. I'm guessing the Egyptian antiquities department isn't letting anyone get at their mummies.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

- derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Sidonian samples. Like I always said, ancient Egyptians were light to medium brown in skin pigmentation, not dark brown ('black').

How does this make a "game-over"? No-one claimed that ancient Egyptians were solely dark skinned.

It is all a bit more complicated.

quote:
The genotypic combination leading to a predicted phenotype of dark skin and non-brown eyes is unique and no longer present in contemporary European populations.


Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome. The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n5112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n5113). This pattern confirms that the La Bran ̃a 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.


— Lalueza-Fox

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
...cass is merely gum on the bottom of ones shoe at this point.
And yet, I made a prediction and was proven correct. I posted 2 months ago that ancient Egyptians would be carrying 1 of either derived SLC24A5 or SLC45A2. Afro-loons in that old thread said "no". [Roll Eyes] lol. Suddenly now they accept it, but down-play it as "recent foreign admixture".
Remember this one?

quote:
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm


And this one:

quote:
Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).

[...]

Phased haplotypes were retrieved from HapMap, Release 21. For phylogenetic analysis, graphs were drawn by the use of a simple nearest-neighbor approach and rooted by the use of ancestral alleles determined by comparison with other primate sequences.

[...]

"Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, eight clearly have their origins in Africa (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4). Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there."

--Victor A. Canfield et al.
Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection 2013


The above tells that this easily could have evolved within Africa, or at least nearby. Hence Bahariyya Egyptians.
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
We now have a saint in our midst--an anti-racist activist. lol
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Either Cass or Real Tawk (or both) under yet another pseudonym or one of their inbred kin.
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Either Cass or Real Tawk (or both) under yet another pseudonym or one of their inbred kin.

I believe it's Cass.
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
He got exposed; now he is trying to pull off a terrorist suicide attack by bringing the site down.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
This individual had a derived allele at the SLC24A5 locus, which contributes to lighter skin pigmentation and was shown to be at high frequency in Neolithic Anatolia41, consistent with the ancestral affinity shown above.
 -
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I just pulled and downloaded the paper. yes, it is modern samples.

quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
We are back to Cape Verde!!!!! I am telling you guys deep analysis is require dof Cape Verdeans.
--

For those of you not getting what the reviewers are getting at.

Key points. Apparently MtDNA was found in other ancient Egyptians as much as 30%. I need to run that down. The current data is NOT consistent with that. Also they use only 3 YDNA to extrapolate , the reviewer is stating that would amount ot close to 7,000,000!!!! subsaharan slaves which is impossible. So the extrapolation is faulty.
SLC24A5 derived is at high frequency in Cape Verde and these people are very dark so the author cannot assume that these AEians were light brown. Furthermore there may be at least 20genes involved in pigmentation.

Not ancient DNA. Its DNA analysis of a modern Egyptian oases population.

 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ex-cop (support our police):
SICKENING POSTS ON EGYPTSEARCH CALL FOR DEATH OF POLICEMAN!

PLEASE REPORT THESE TO abuse@hostgator.com AND SHUT DOWN THIS DISPICABLE FORUM

"Death To Police, Police locked Me up for 9 Months for trying to order pizza"
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012222

quote:
quote:
police tried to keep me in jail for a charge of yelling at a pizza person over the phone.

Police are devils and are not sanctioned to kill

Only Christians can kill every time police try and kill they are punished with loss of there spirit

even when police pull someone over they lose their soul.

Police are the devil governments tool of deception, false authority.

kill police at will


If I got locked up for ordering pizza Id be wanting to kill some piglets too.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ex-cop (support our police):
SICKENING POSTS ON EGYPTSEARCH CALL FOR DEATH OF POLICEMAN!

What has this post to do with this topic?

You have been posting crap about some individual called Joshua … and made multiple threads about that individual? An individual none of us knows and ever heard of.

Lastly, why would you care about police harassment and brutality, right?


Btw, did you see my post on the Bahariyya Egyptians.
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ex-cop (support our police):
SICKENING POSTS ON EGYPTSEARCH CALL FOR DEATH OF POLICEMAN!

What has this post to do with this topic?

You have been posting crap about some individual called Joshua … and made multiple threads about that individual? An individual none of us knows and ever heard of.

Lastly, why would you care about police harassment and brutality, right?

contact FBI CYBER CRIME COMPLAIN CENTER-
https://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx

SICKENING DEATH THREATS ABOUT KILLING COPS, PLEASE REPORT THESE TO THE FBI AND ALSO CONTACT abuse@hostgator.com

egyptsearch is a cyber-crime website!!

Example of thread below calling for killing of cops and other threats of violence
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012222

quote:
police tried to keep me in jail for a charge of yelling at a pizza person over the phone.

Police are devils and are not sanctioned to kill

Only Christians can kill every time police try and kill they are punished with loss of there spirit

even when police pull someone over they lose their soul.

Police are the devil governments tool of deception, false authority.

kill police at will

o: abuse@hostgator.com

date: Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:50 PM
subject: Egyptsearch website abuse of host

My complaint is about violence (such as posts calling to kill Muslims) and racist content on the web-forum Egyptsearch that is hosted you, hostgator. Clearly this content is an abuse of your host terms.

Examples of racist threads:

"White humans are the transvestite race. male whites actually women.sodom and ghommora."

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012176;p=1#000000

"white people are the most disgusting pile of pig filth you could know.

They actually are a devious race of transvestites."

violence and death threats-

false prophet muhammad raped a boy toddler hassan 4 years old. DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011943;p=1#000000
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
I'm dizzy. Cass is making my head spin with the name changes and fugery!
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Concerned member of public:

Examples of racist threads:

All of these have little to do with this topic. And most members do not even support that weird stuff.

Make a different thread for these complains. And / or approach KING about his.


Now let's not ruin this thread, see my post on the Bahariyya Egyptians. And continue this topic / thread in civil manner.
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
~ I guarantee this forum will be gone within a week. I contacted FBI and the web host. Looking for what else I can do.

All IPS traceable/recorded here. That idiot calling to kill cops will get arrested!
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Concerned member of public:
~ I guarantee this forum will be gone within a week. I contacted FBI and the web host. Looking for what else I can do.

All IPS traceable/recorded here. That idiot calling to kill cops will get arrested!

You are typing nonsense here. The actions of one individual do not count for all. You don't understand law, especially international law. What you suggest is not on par with international law.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
We are back to Cape Verde!!!!! I am telling you guys deep analysis is require dof Cape Verdeans.
--

For those of you not getting what the reviewers are getting at.

Key points. Apparently MtDNA was found in other ancient Egyptians as much as 30%. I need to run that down. The current data is NOT consistent with that. Also they use only 3 YDNA to extrapolate , the reviewer is stating that would amount ot close to 7,000,000!!!! subsaharan slaves which is impossible. So the extrapolation is faulty.
SLC24A5 derived is at high frequency in Cape Verde and these people are very dark so the author cannot assume that these AEians were light brown. Furthermore there may be at least 20genes involved in pigmentation.

Northern Cape Verdeans are usually light skinned, and those from the South usually dark skinned. But everything is relative, of course.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Concerned member of public:
~ I guarantee this forum will be gone within a week. I contacted FBI and the web host. Looking for what else I can do.

All IPS traceable/recorded here. That idiot calling to kill cops will get arrested!

Hey Cass I gotta gift for ya

..l.. [Mad] ..l..
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Yeah lurkers see you're all quick
about petty personal bullshit
and deaf dumb and blind
when it comes to anything
meaningful about a report
full of what you characterized
as egyptturd afroloonacy from
ES Monolithic madmen. Ain'tcha
got no shame you Grandstand Dan
buck dancing eye blinking b...


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
 -

See Lurkers? Now how do people expect me to respond to the claim above that Dinka are close to the Abusir mummies and delusional chest thumping? What is stopping me from evoking words like cognitively challenged? Now, when I say that phrase it's going to be a problem again for using "insults". But what am I supposed to call that?

You just can't make this up.


 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Does any supplement list mtDNA samples?
I'm looking for what's NK out of that pre-Ptolemaic set.
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
^ Guy is the mod here, yet he allows posters to harass, defame, dox, blackmail, post violent threats and call for killing of cops and Muslims etc.

My complaint sent to FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center

quote:
Complaint Referral Form
Internet Crime Complaint Center

Hi,

I separately filed a complaint to the web-host, abuse@hostgator.com - is it possible you also send a complaint to them.

A website called Egyptsearch (hosted by abuse@hostgator.com, based in the US) has forum threads/posts calling for killing of cops and other law enforcement officers. Clearly this is illegal, and the same website has extreme violent threat content against others, posted by users living in the US. Examples:

"Death To Police, Police locked Me up for 9 Months for trying to order pizza"
"Police are the devil governments tool of deception, false authority.
kill police at will"
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012222
Archive of the above URL: http://archive.is/Dkg1I

"false prophet muhammad raped a boy toddler hassan 4 years old. DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS"

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011943;p=1#000000
Archive of the above URL: http://archive.is/5FNwp

The above is only a very small fraction of the severe and malicious things posted there.


 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Samples and anthropological analysis


All 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals (for details of the 90 individuals included in the later analysis, see Supplementary Data 1) used in this study were taken from two anthropological collections at the University of Tübingen and the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection, which is now kept at the Museum of Prehistory of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Stiftung preußischer Kulturbesitz (individuals: S3533, S3536, S3544, S3552, S3578, S3610). According to the radiocarbon dates (Supplementary Data 1, see also ref. 18), the samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic (New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period), Ptolemaic and Roman Period.

During their conservation in the Tübingen and Berlin collections the remains underwent different treatments: some were preserved in their original mummified state, while others were macerated for anthropological analysis or due to conservation problems19.

Some of the remains (individuals analysed in our study: 1543, 1547, 1565, 1577, 1611) have traces of gold leaf near the mouth and the cheekbone, which is characteristic for mummies from the Ptolemaic Period onwards20.

—Verena J. Schuenemann

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
For the record, I've repeatedly said that the Abusir sample will resemble Dobon et al's Coptic Egyptian immigrant sample from Sudan. So far all analyses have confirmed my prediction (even down to the M1 and U6 carriers in the Abusir sample). Somehow, choosing to not beat a dead horse in this thread is being translated to me "running away from Dinka Egypt".

And no. You can't come back from creating fake news and misleading people that Dinka cluster away from West/Central Africans on the other side of the plot and with Abusir mummies and West Eurasians instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9muK2M36c

This proves, yet again, that people still secretly think the Abusir sample was SSA in ancestry, despite all denial that "no one ever said AE=SSA in ancestry".
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
I did and with balls in hand I'll say it again AE=SSA. Not in the absolute but in the majority.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I misread a black circle for a grey circle
and a schizophrenic makes a Dinka-du
over it. I misread the Czech cross for
the Levant bronze. Guess I'm a
slobbering Slav fanatic too.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I did and with balls in hand I'll say it again AE=SSA. Not in the absolute but in the majority.

That was a bit too graphic, not necessary. [Frown]
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
Yeah, I read through this study a second time like I said to get a clear view. And yeah... From what I'm seeing this study has SOME flaws especially from what I am reading from NOT ONLY here but on Forumbiodiversity...

Its like they PURPOSELY used only Yoruba as a representation for the AE SSA/African ancestry. And not Horners or even neighboring Sudanese(Nubians)!

It gets worse because this only gives fuel to those who claim there is some "conspiracy" in these studies. Now am I saying that this means the AE could have been SSA? NO... But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?
Like I said just a small one. Because I do remember that there were SOME who were questioning the location and samples. Not saying this changes anything in what we discussed. But still using Yoruba in 2017? [Confused]
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Can't say Schuenemann's study
only used Yoruba. TyranoHotep
already pointed to the genome wide
PCA with its 4 E Afrs, 6 N Afrs, and
5 W Afrs.

Yeah. Woulda liked to see a more
robust use of them.

Still, Yoruba can speak for western
originating Niger-Congo speaker
genetics supposedly absent in
AE according to some preaching.
Is it goodly plausible that if Yoruba
makes the showing it does, wouldn't
your favored NS & AA E Afrs show even
better? Or is that inapplicable?


TTBPMM the south of Sahara ethny
I placed directly in ancient Egypt is
the Oromo Galla. The Uahka clan.
Another member taught me more
than I knew about them before.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Can't say Schuenemann's study
only used Yoruba. TyranoHotep
already pointed to the genome wide
PCA with its 4 E Afrs, 6 N Afrs, and
5 W Afrs.

I didn't see that.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
But how does that reflect on me or the data if they used a Yoruba sample?

And it's not even true that it matters drastically that the Yoruba were used in some of the analyses. This is simply speculation. I have no evidence that exchanging the Yoruba sample for a Dinka sample would change much.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
But how does that reflects on me or the data if they used a Yoruba sample?

And it's not even true that it matters drastically that the Yoruba were used. This is simply speculation.

True. Again just my second read.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Dobon et al 2015 used different SSA samples as proxies for the SSA ancestry in Sudanese populations and the results weren't drastically different.

quote:
To confirm our results and the choice of Yoruba as the outgroup population, we also
estimated the mixing proportions with Luhya instead of Yoruba (Supplementary Table S4).
Then, the Yoruba population appears in all comparisons, giving a statistically significant
value of f3 and an α value within reasonable boundaries
. This is an “outgroup case”, where
the ancestral population of Yoruba split from the ancestral population of A,B before they
did. Despite of the outgroup population used, the comparisons giving the most negative
values are the same, confirming that the choice of outgroup is not that relevant for these
calculations

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09996

EDIT:
Found the quote.

Also see table S4.

What ever the estimated African proportion was using the Yoruba as a sample, another SSA sample wouldn't necessarily perform better.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Lol So..... are we concluding that AE was a Levantine transplant? Cuz I see a lot of discussion bout **** that barely matters TBH.

Low hanging fruit or someshit like that.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Can't say Schuenemann's study
only used Yoruba. TyranoHotep
already pointed to the genome wide
PCA with its 4 E Afrs, 6 N Afrs, and
5 W Afrs.

I didn't see that.
Tinypic wouldn't post my markup of
Figure 4 where I used colored lozenges
to capsule the three geographies.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What ever the estimated African proportion was using the Yoruba as a sample, another SSA sample wouldn't necessarily perform better. [/QB]

You don't think using Sudanese or atleast other Northeast Africans closer to Egypt as a sample would perform better than Yoruba?


Edit@ElMaestro: idk about everyone else but for me hell no
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
What ever the estimated African proportion was using the Yoruba as a sample, another SSA sample wouldn't necessarily perform better.

You don't think using Sudanese or atleast other Northeast Africans closer to Egypt as a sample would perform better than Yoruba?


Edit@ElMaestro: idk about everyone else but for me hell no [/QB]

See Figure S4. They did in fact include a number of Northeast African nationalities in their admixture test. But to be fair, Northeast Africans like the Somalis and Ethiopian Jews do have a sizable brown component ("Basal Eurasian"?) like the three AE samples in this analysis.

https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170530/ncomms15694/extref/ncomms15694-s6.pdf
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^Nodnarb yeah for the most part they got it ~3.5kya see just about every paper written about East African admixture and Lazaridis 2016. Also, check out the thread you started a few days ago, look at the last page where things actually got good. There's some of your brown component right there aswell.

So once again, thanks to punos for his honesty and fortitude for the past couple of months ...but for others who shy away from having a opinion or a perspective.... Are AEs a Levantine Transplant?

If not what can that say about modern north east populations?
If so what does that say about all that was studied before?
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So once again, thanks to punos for his honesty and fortitude for the past couple of months ...but for others who shy away from having a opinion or a perspective.... Are AEs a Levantine Transplant?

Like I said, the three AE genomes sampled in this new study do look very similar to those from the Bronze Age Levant (see the ADMIXTURE graphs). So much that I'm confident they have significant recent ancestry from the latter. And we already know from other research that late dynastic northern Egyptians' remains look physically different from earlier ones.

 -

So I would say this new study sheds little light on what the ancestral AE look like. At most it probably shows how the ancestry of late dynastic northern Egyptians, or certain enclaves of them, would have looked.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Late dynastic samples from the North will not in any way demonstrate that ancient Egypt was a Levantine transplant. You need the South for that... precisely because that's where the civilization sprang from. The authors of this study seem to caution against coming to any conclusions about ancient Egypt's biological affinities without the inclusion of the South.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^don't just stop there guys, bring it to the present. we have posters on here including I who have equated these Lower Egyptian inhabitants to a contemporary North East African population. We have evidence upon evidence and sources upon sources describing the complexity of lower Egypt and the Faiyum demographic. You guys are more versed in these histories than I am. Finish this.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
@Sudaniya I don't know why you keep throwing Lower Egyptians under the bus to the nazi cabal. From what I read(as I stated before) the Lower Egyptians were(or at least started out as) also indigenous despite having less tropical proportions than Upper Egyptians/Nubians. I don't see any reason to yield *any* ground.


Edit: also interesting that one of the aforementioned Nazis gloated that the results would also hold true for Upper Egyptians even into the predynastic which the authors of this study addressed wouldn't necessarily be true. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
So that data reflected 3 Third Intermediate mummies, THREE, ok, I'm done
 
Posted by R.Havoc (Member # 18722) on :
 
quote:


When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above. By computing f3-statistics38, we determined whether modern Egyptians could be modelled as a mixture of ancient Egyptian and other populations.

The sad irony is that most modern Egyptians think that they've become more European due to all the invasions, when in fact they've become more African??
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Game over Afrocentrists.

"Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details)."

The argument has been that they had skintones within "African" (as in throughout the continent not just the Sahara) or "black." Funny that when the subject is Igbo you ignore light skin for the average, but when the subject is AE you will take the tones that weren't average and make judgements about Egypt with it.


And...yea like I was saying about SSA..hm.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet

Good ****. And reading Gihanga_Rwanda posts from FBD I see where you are coming from. This post by GB caught my eye.

quote:
Kenyan Bantus owe an overwhelmingly majority of their ancestry (~60-80%) to Bantu-speaking ancestors with origins in West-Central Africa, particularly the Nigeria/Cameroon border. A more representative proxy for ancient North-East African ancestry are the majority ancestral components in the Dinka/South Sudanese and Mota who, despite oweing a third of their ancestry to West-Central Africans and a Mbuti-like population respectively, are substantially closer to Eurasians. Mota in particular.

If you actually read the study, you'll notice that these ancient samples also had detectable SSA ancestry (at comparable levels to modern Copts) just not of the Yoruba sort, which was to be expected.

Do you agree Swenet? To me it SEEMS parallel to what you were saying.


@Tukuler

Tinypic can be crap and I havent used it in years. I would recommend using Imgur. Totally free and you can upload UNLIMITED images.
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
-----
 
Posted by Real tawk (Member # 20324) on :
 
Game over, Afro-dickwards lfmao!
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
Game over, Afro-dickwards lfmao!

Did you forget your supposed to be some old disillusioned black guy? I don't recall any older black men ever using words like "dickward" or the N word with the -er at the end.

Why is he so shook? There were 90 samples right? Normally Cass would be laughing it up but he's suddenly after all these years a concerned citizen now. Can someone explain what's got him so upset? There were 90 samples, the haplogroup data on that's still the same so why?
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
So that data reflected 3 Third Intermediate mummies, THREE, ok, I'm done

No it seems like 90 samples were collected. How else would you explain this:

 -
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
So basically this study isnt revealing anything new...

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
gotta read the study before I post further...
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@BBH

I agree with the gist of what he's saying, but I think he's using the wrong examples. As I've said before, the best place to look for the African ancestry that is in the Abusir mummies, is the recently sequenced Natufians. And if that's accurate, we can simply defer to Lazaridis et al 2016 and see how Gihanga's examples (e.g. Mota) fared there. Mota did not outperform the other samples from SSA in terms of closeness to Natufians.

I'm still not clear on the source of the African ancestry that is in these mummies. How does Gihanga know it's (all) Sub-Saharan African? Fig 4 shows no SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies. Moreover, modern Egyptians are distant from the Abusir mummies precisely BECAUSE of their recent increase in SSA ancestry. If the source of African ancestry is the same in modern Egyptians and Abusir mummies, why aren't they closer autosomally?
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@BBH

I agree with the gist of what he's saying, but I think he's using the wrong examples. As I've said before, the best place to look for the African ancestry that is in the Abusir mummies, is the recently sequenced Natufians. And if that's accurate, we can simply defer to Lazaridis et al 2016 and see how Gihanga's examples (e.g. Mota) fared there. Mota did not outperform the other samples from SSA in terms of closeness to Natufians.

I'm still not clear on the source of the African ancestry that is in these mummies. How does Gihanga know it's (all) Sub-Saharan African? Fig 4 shows no SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies. Moreover, modern Egyptians are distant from the Abusir mummies precisely BECAUSE of their recent increase in SSA ancestry. If the source of African ancestry is the same in modern Egyptians and Abusir mummies, why aren't they closer autosomally?

I think Gihanga was referring to the finding of 6-14% "sub-Saharan" admixture in the three mummies with nuclear DNA data. If you look at the passage in the study which says this, they do seem to be using "African" interchangeably with "sub-Saharan" there.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I only recall reading African, not Sub-Saharan African. But I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
The passage in question :

quote:
Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations.

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
He seems to believe the hyksos were canaanites and is attributing the admixture date with foreigners somewhere around 2k point BC:

quote:
This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
He also doesn't rule out another possibility I'd considered: That this "Sub Saharan" DNA could be from Nubians and southern Egyptians.

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa

 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
I already know what is going on. [Big Grin] [Wink] [Cool]
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Thats the interesting part, and what we have been speculating on. The Pan-Africans are breathing a sigh of relief but it is still interesting that Modern Egyptians are more SSA than these Ancient samples, that the 3 ancient Samples cluster together AND cluster closer to the modern Levantine/Middle East samples.

quote:
We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples
and

quote:
n contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples
Though the study does make it clear this is just ONE section of Egypt and that the Southern Egyptians should/could have more ancient and continuous SSA Gene Flow from Nubians/Nilo-Saharans.

I suspect Southern Egyptians will resemble Ramses III and the Armarna Samples tbh. This is an interesting find

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
Note all these schizophrenic flip-floppers. lol.

Who remembers like 4-5 years ago, numerous threads were made on Herodotus' description of ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation. 90% (if not more) of the Afro-loons in those threads said Herodotus was an eyewitness of "black skinned" Egyptians (distorting the actual definition of μελάγχροος that as classicist Alan B. Lloyd notes does not strictly mean a dark brown pigmentation, but can be as light as a "bronze-complexion".)

We now know ancient Egyptians, from these 8th-1st century BCE samples, had light to intermediate brown skin, as opposed to dark brown ('black') since they carried derived SLC24A5. The latter accounts for 25-38% of the average skin colour variation between Europeans & Sub-Saharan Africans (Lamason et al. 2005).

Suddenly now these Afro-loons are saying these peoples were light[er] brown skinned and not black, directly contradicting all their postings on Herodotus. [Roll Eyes]

Also note, Herodotus' main eyewitness testimony was Lower Egypt, so it was northern Egyptians he was describing-

"It will be observed that the number of sites visited in Lower Egypt is greater than in Upper Egypt in the proportion 8: 5 and that general reference to Lower Egypt, if we include the Western Desert, and also more numerous. This suggests a longer stay in the north than the south, an indication which tends to be confirmed by the fact that the centre of gravity of Egyptian culture and political life had by Herodotus' time long lain in the north." (Lloyd, A. B. 1976 "Herodotus' Travels in Egypt". In: Herodotus Book II, Commentary 1-98. Leiden.)

Now what? Afrocentrics denying their old posts again.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?

Because they spent months talking **** due to fact that they themselves had no idea how to interperate the leak. So all of this is padding basically. I'd give it a few days before ES actually attempt to break down this study with a multidisciplinary approach. Hopefully the site won't disappear before then.
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
~ Watch these pathological liar Afrocentrists deny their posts again and now claim the argument Herodotus saw 'black' Egyptians is a straw man (Charlie Bass' favourite term), despite the fact its a text-book Afro-loon argument tracing back to Diop's The African Origin of Civilization; Diop repeatedly quoted from Herodotus to make the "black Egypt" argument as were 90% of the Afrocentrists here 4-5 years ago (including most in this thread).
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.

Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.

For what, if I may ask?

You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.

Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.

mtDNA of Egyptian Coptic immmigrant sample from Sudan:

n=29
L1c1a1 (6.9%)
R/U6a1 (27.6%)
M1 (10.3%)
M1a (3.4%)

N/J1 (10.3%)
N/J2 (10.3%)
preHVI (13.8%)
R/T1 (17.2)

(Hassan 2009)

Not a geographically SSA sample in the world (not even Horners) that becomes 'Eurasianized' like this, with their African ancestry split between predominantly North African mtDNAs and little SSA lineages. The Abusir sample, this Coptic sample, and to a lesser extent, Canary Islanders, did become Eurasianized like this. So if people want to fool themselves and deflect to Upper Egypt and expect AE=SSA in future samples because Abusir is mixed, that's their prerogative. But that don't mean I have to play along. Lol.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.

both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..

Not true actually, upon seeing the initial headlines I did advocate a "flux" hypothesis where the AE started off as African (with the first inhabitants migrating down from SSA), became more Eurasian overtime, and received a post-Roman infusion of SSA ancestry from events such as the Saharan/Arab slave trade.
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
By now, is it not obvious that the lack of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Ancient Egyptians and Natufians and other groups expected to be SSA is due to the extinction of the prehistoric groups that gave birth to these ancient people? These are prehistoric and ancient populations, who probably originated from the South of the Sahara, and made a home of the harsh desert. They were small, highly mobile and precarious populations. They probably died out and became dead-end populations. It would not be unique to Africa. In Europe, there is little no relationship between stone age Europeans and modern Europeans. What we need is more ancient DNA from historic and pre-historic African populations.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.

TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs. [Confused]
I already know what is going on. [Big Grin] [Wink] [Cool]
DAMN this conversation was useful. (Negan's voice Lol).

Sometimes a discussion forces you to look closer at the data. I thought I had stumbled on the answers yesterday in my last reply. But I'm getting more out of this paper every time I revisit this specific issue.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I still maintain that such a "clash" was heavily lopsided in favor of African contributions(Africa being the main source for the native population with influences from the Levant/Fertile Crescent). So yeah still waiting on Upper Egyptians and older aDna before reconsidering my opinion on that.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
To the chagrin of geno-hamiticists the
Natufians of the Levant 10000 yrs ago
show us 'SSA' features can accompany
non-'SSA' genomes. Black don't equal
your 'SSA' code word for West African
forest true negro.

Pan-African assessment of AE? Never
seen any. Pan-Africanism is about
politics and economics. I don't
know what these kids here mean
or their private definition of
Pan-Africanism/Pan-Africanist.

If Diop and Ch Wms are Afrocentrics
then the Afrocentric view is Egypt
was created and inhabited by African
blacks of the South. The north was
different. North African Libyan red
Africans and some Levantines were there.
Foreigners entered at the north attracted
to the world's only 1st World economy.
Eventually the northern types trickled
southward impacting the demographic.

These founding southerners were out
of Western Desert Nubia and adjacent
Lower Nile Sudan per archaeology and
cultural anthropology. These people
were Sudanese and offshoot Saharo-Sudanese.

Egypt was very cosmopolitan by the
New Kingdom. We see foreigner welcome
events like Akhenaten settling `Apiru
as far south as n the cities of Kush.
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
reviewer 5"It
is indeed questionable how accurate ancient admixture rates can be learned from either a single locus
(mtDNA) or just three samples in a case in which admixture is so recent that ancestry blocks are
necessarily large and the variation in admixture rates between individuals expected to be very high.
However, the authors are aware and transparent about these shortcomings in their data.

According to the peer review response the author is arguing for E1b1b1 as non-African. GTFOH!

Anything from the Max Plank Institute and written by David Reich is suspect. These researchers are firmly interested in maintaining the status quo and the Hamitic myth.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.

I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.

But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?

Little. Its one inner city. What it tells me is that these images from Abusir
 -

Were legit.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).

Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?

I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.

But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area.
Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).

I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.

I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?

As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.

I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.

But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago

That 'black' is not exclusive to to SSA is not a pill for me to swallow. You have people here alternating between "black is only skin pigmentation" to talking about "light skin, but with black features". These flip floppers trying to play both sides of the fence have to deal with their own cognitive dissonance. I stopped using the term a long time ago.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Why are eastbound Capsians indigenous
but the eastbound Saharo-Sudanese not?

You guys and your untenable assumptions
acting like they're proven facts. Lol.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet

Agreed.


@Tukuler

Elaborate?
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I said black

I have no idea what 'black' is.





How can I elaborate something
you wrote and I don't agree to?


"two major African ancestries accompanying one another
• (Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs
• Sudanese/East African SSA influence"
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
Whoever said that "black" people in Africa are exclusive to SSA?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What of these MtDNA results are people saying is North African specifically?

Little. Its one inner city. What it tells me is that these images from Abusir
 -

Were legit.

 -
they do quite resemble the Copts.


Lmao.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I haven't read the full paper or supps yet. Just a quick look over of the peer review pieces. But from the posts I am reading M1 linaeage is very high and others found in Kenyans of the Great Lakes. So was DNATribes right or what?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Tukuler

I said elaborate because you don't quote or @ who you are referring to.

Anyways what I mean by "Indigenous Egyptian North African influence" is ancestry in Egypt prior to the Green Sahara and migrations south to north on the Nile Valley. Basically "Natufian ancestry" which I believe Swenet has been referring.

It doesn't have to be non-African/black.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
All I have to say (to unbiased lurkers) is beware of unfounded accusations coming from people who can't read PCAs or even papers. We're talking about people who make threads about papers assuming some sort of pretentious teacher role, but can't even read them without help.

How can you make a whole thread about Angel 1972 and still throw a tantrum for weeks protesting backmigration when Angel is talking about farmer backmigration throughout the paper? Then they create some Dinka Egypt fake news and throw a tantrum about "hypocritical cock strutters".

quote:
Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) (Angel, 1967a; Caffey, 1937; Moseley, 1965) and hence also falciparum malaria (Carcassi, Cepellini & Pitzus, 1957) from Greece (perhaps also Italy (Gatto, 1960) and Anatolia (Angel, 1966) to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and Africa.
—Angel 1972

Clearly, there is a structural problem on this site with reporting information about Egypt accurately. Folks simply can't be trusted to do accurate reporting. Mind you, the recent thread about Angel was supposed to break with past misrepresentations of Angel on this site and represent Angel "the right way". The thread still managed to botch Angel. Lol.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Wasn't Angel assuming Sickle Cell and Thalsemia (sp) originate in Greece and North. Did he NOT realize this is a TROPICAL disease? So these diseases originated in Greece.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.

Once again, louder, for the people in the back.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
common sense says that this population you speak of would be either between Natufian and North African or closely shifted to one another. Both ofcourse whom probably spent some history developing OOA. Or in isolate away from SSA, as it was explained in the 2nd abusir mummy thread. A constant non SSA, or non conventional N.African settlement in the absence of detectable geneflow on the east before 4.5kya is at odds with probability.

...but who knows.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Yes lurkers beware of whining bitch know it
all strutting cock Grandstand Dan who'll
stop at nothing to convert disciples
to his faith based Ancient Egypt
settled and created by the 600
population Nea Nikomedeia
village in Greece not by
downriver bound Africans.


The boy's such a whiny bitch
always with the bitch clicking
claptrap about so and so is a
this and so and so is that just
like my teenage girl relatives.

Cut the bitch whining out his
post and you get what? Maybe
two misleading on-topic sentences
that aren't personal attacks or
Don Quixote windmill tilting at
imaginary bogeyman inka-Dinka-doo
and other substaneless willothewhisps
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
?? sarcasm. I am little slow today. But I thought Natufians were Africans(North) according Lazardis et al. He also stated they were not ancestral to modern Europeans/EEF but to population in Eurasia to the East like Eastern Farmers. They also carried E1b1b*. Are we all reading from the same paper?


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.

It is amazing how these papers promise so much but deliver very little…anti-climatic. These writers are good at playing EuroCentrics against Afro-Centrics. Until we realize that there is no race and never any isolation so “Eurasian” ancestry is meaningless since “Eurasian(SNP)is found from the Cape to the Straits and Suez. And it will be found in the Malawi LSA African.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.

[Roll Eyes]

Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol. Look at that pretentious title:

Topic: What Angel really said about AE and early farmers
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009652;p=1#000000

I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!

Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
You excluded the Sudanese founders of
Egyptian civilization from indigenous .

Please reread some of your books on
peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and
the flow of culture down river and the
formation of the ancient Egyptian
nation state.

Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
I don't care when you talking about.
We talking about the epipaleolithic
to predynastic Egypt and the people
who founded it.

You're saying Nabta transhumants and
the like are not indigenous but the
migrants into the Fayoum and the Delta
were indigenous .

Listen, the civilization belongs to the
indigenous northern Africans of
the Lower Nile Valley, period.


What really sucker punched me was
you trying to hide behind some
but they wuz both blak issue
that's got nothing to do
with the direction the
civ founders came from.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.

Ayo, speak up! What are you asking, what is your POV. Elaborate. What do YOU expect to be in north east Africa prior to south-North gene flow. Is it not a post bottleneck African population? To the east you have Natufians to the west Conventional North Africans and all the E3b lineages in between, no? Are you asking if this population is Basal Eurasian? I'll answer that for you right now, no. Do you wanna know how close to the aforementioned populations they are? Where are you right now, stop hiding, and show that you have a mind of your own.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.

Yes grandstanding to lurkers is just that.
quote:

rolleyes

Like a bitch.

quote:

Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol.

Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed
in the What Angel really said thread. No
need drag here what everybody read there.

quote:

I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!

Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.

Talk about self-importance? You reek it constantly.


What? More inka-Dinka-doo? Mistaking a grey
circle for a black circle and then alerting
the board of my bad is a full blown hypothesis?
Don Quixote schizophrenia, mmm mmm mmm.

All that to dodge your big egg face
Nea Nikomedeia ancient Egypt debacle.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Ok can someone tell me what the hell this "Nea Nikomedeia Ancient Egypt" mess is about???
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I done asked him that over 10 times
with no clarification expansion nor
precision ever forthcoming to date.

Hold on. I'll link you to him
pompously preposturing it

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=5#000207
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Anybody with a brain will see this for what it is. Keep looking until you find the data that suits your agenda. How many mummies from across ALL of Egypt are there in various European museums? So why did they pick these particular mummies from this particular time period? What about the previous DNA tests done on other mummies?

This study was supposedly to test the ability to extract full DNA profiles from ancient specimens. But of course they just had to throw some "forest Negroes" in there for comparison and to be the REAL purpose of the study. Seems to me if these folks really were serious they would try to do tests on ALL the mummies available, in and outside Egypt. Therefore, the fact that they try and use modern Yoruba as proxies for all Africans (not just Sub Saharan Africans) tells you everything. No populations close to Egypt in Africa were sampled. There is no definition of "indigenous North African" DNA. So for all this talk of "Sub Saharan" Africans, what DNA represents indigenous Nile Valley Africans? Or are we supposed to think that the Nile Valley never had an indigenous population except for "near Easterners".

Amazing.

quote:

We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

.....
On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

It also affirms what I said before, that "African" mtDNA lineages are limited to "L0-L4" lineages, while all other mtDNA lineages like M1 and U6 are considered non African. This means that the ONLY African lineages according to science are the mtDNA L lineages which just so happens to what folks call "sub saharan" Africa. Everything else, including the DNA in North Africa is supposedly "non African" as a result of ancient Eurasian back migration.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^^More Evil European Conspiracy theories from Doug...As usual [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed
in the What Angel really said thread.
No
need drag here what everybody read there.

I'll let unbiased lurkers make their mind up on their own. No need to waste time with the laughably incompetent self-styled "interpreter" of Angel's views on ancient Egypt. Here is the actual Angel quote:

quote:
Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid (beyond A2) early population (cf. Ferembach, 1962, Briggs, 1955), linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region (A2β) (Ewing, 1966; Anderson, 1968), as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend (B2β) in the gracile Badarians (Morant and Stoessiger quoted in Angel, 1951).
Angel, J. L. (1971). The people of Lerna. Washington: American School of Classical Studies and Smithsonian Institution Press. p101, 102

For the record, B stands for Mediterranean, while A stands for "Basic White" or what we'd today call early OOA:

quote:
A Basic White
A1 Atlanto-Mediterranran
A2 Upper Palaeolithic
A3 Basic, cf. Eurafrican
A4 Basic, Eastern
A5 Basic, Royal

B Classific Mediterranean
B1 Mediterranean
B2 Mediterranean Angular
B3 Desert, Classic
B4 Desert, Eastern

—Angel 1971

======================

Now look how Mr Egypt=Dinka deliberately botched the aforementioned quote, removed all references to Angel's phylogenetic information, but conveniently kept all references to negroid features:

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Trodding on down that path,
who got the full context of

quote:

Egypt includes

• an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region,

•as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians



J.L. Angel (1972)
Journal of Human Evolution

[Eek!]

And how do you make a pretentious "I gotz tha answers" thread about Angel's views on ancient Egypt and then call for help half way?

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
who got the full context of
[...]
Who can vet this or trash it?

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Oh and I forgot to mention again that this time period of the 3rd intermediate period was also the era of the 25th dynasty which came from Kush. So are we to think that the Kushites are also covered by these DNA profiles.....

Right.
 
Posted by Lawaya (Member # 22120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Anybody with a brain will see this for what it is. Keep looking until you find the data that suits your agenda. How many mummies from across ALL of Egypt are there in various European museums? So why did they pick these particular mummies from this particular time period? What about the previous DNA tests done on other mummies?

This study was supposedly to test the ability to extract full DNA profiles from ancient specimens. But of course they just had to throw some "forest Negroes" in there for comparison and to be the REAL purpose of the study. Seems to me if these folks really were serious they would try to do tests on ALL the mummies available, in and outside Egypt. Therefore, the fact that they try and use modern Yoruba as proxies for all Africans (not just Sub Saharan Africans) tells you everything. No populations close to Egypt in Africa were sampled. There is no definition of "indigenous North African" DNA. So for all this talk of "Sub Saharan" Africans, what DNA represents indigenous Nile Valley Africans? Or are we supposed to think that the Nile Valley never had an indigenous population except for "near Easterners".

Amazing.

quote:

We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

.....
On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

It also affirms what I said before, that "African" mtDNA lineages are limited to "L0-L4" lineages, while all other mtDNA lineages like M1 and U6 are considered non African. This means that the ONLY African lineages according to science are the mtDNA L lineages which just so happens to what folks call "sub saharan" Africa. Everything else, including the DNA in North Africa is supposedly "non African" as a result of ancient Eurasian back migration.

jackpot.... they love given half a** testing and they always will
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...

but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs.. [Roll Eyes]

smdh

Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period

Dont hold your breath
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.

I apologise since you feel I fouled you.

I asked you to clarify and expand on the
Egyptians of the south of any era not
being indigenous northern Africans
since Nabta is in Egypt north Africa and
even the Sudanese Libyan Western and Nubian
deserts are 'North Africa' the same latitude
as southernmost Algeria.


Please don't take personal offense.
It's the idea I'm critiquing.
I'm not being critical of you.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
That man Doug don't like to read shiatt... It's unbelievable. There's only 1 truth, 1 history if you confident in your studies and what you believe is true you shouldn't shy away & cover your eyes n ears. Evidence is evidence.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Tukuler

You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.

The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.

We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.

I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.

Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.

PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.

No need to apologize.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...

but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs.. [Roll Eyes]

smdh

Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period

Dont hold your breath

You are missing the point. SSA is irrelevant to fully understanding African DNA and Egypt is not in Sub Saharan Africa and therefore, one would expect the AE to be indigenous to the Nile and not SSA populations. Again, you are not paying attention and for all your ranting you refuse to accept the history behind how North Africa has been cut off from the rest of Africa in scholarship. And modern DNA studies ALL SAY that North Africans are typified by mtDNA lineages M1 and U6 which they claim represents Eurasian back migration. So if that is the case what are the indigenous DNA lineages of Egypt if L lineages are "Sub Saharan" and M and U lineages are "Eurasian" what lineages are left? Either M1 and U6 originate in Africa or North Africans are primarily non African. Period. That is what is at play here and nothing else.

Like I said before, I don't buy into SSA as a signifier for African, because the true agenda here is to make L0-L4 lineages as the ONLY truly African lineages and that corresponds to SSA. Which means that North Africa has always been more closely related to "Eurasians" because of back migrations starting thousands of years ago.

Ultimately the point is to sample all the dam DNA of existing mummies and stop playing games with little bits of data and trying extrapolate a conclusion from a limited data set. No much how you trying pretend otherwise, this study actually does just that. So it is worthless in understanding what everybody REALLY wants to know, which is what the DNA relationship was of the prime Ancient dynasties of Egypt not the late periods after they fell to foreign influence.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
That man Doug don't like to read shiatt... It's unbelievable. There's only 1 truth, 1 history if you confident in your studies and what you believe is true you shouldn't shy away & cover your eyes n ears. Evidence is evidence.

^^^^
Because no matter how they try to spin it Pan African Egypt, esp. those like Doug who advocate Diffusionist Pan Africanism gotta deal with what these results are saying, Abusir a territory in the Sacred Land of Kemet had a Eurasian population that became more SSA after the Roman period.

Now Doug et al realizes it Could have been a Eurasian Kemetian from Abusir Diffusing all that Afrikan knowledge to the Greeks...lol
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Tukuler

You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.

The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.

We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.

I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.

Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.

PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.

No need to apologize.

What do you mean by basal Eurasian but still African?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Because no matter how they try to spin it Pan African Egypt, esp. those like Doug who advocate Diffusionist Pan Africanism gotta deal with what these results are saying, Abusir a territory in the Sacred Land of Kemet had a Eurasian population that became more SSA after the Roman period. It

Now Doug et al realizes it Could have been a Eurasian Kemetian from Abusir Diffusing all that Afrikan knowledge to the Greeks...lol

Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European is Pan European. Because both are simply facts of history, biology and geography.

You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.

Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:

1) the Near East
2) Africa

Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian is pan Eurasian.

Like I said before, there should be a concept of 'indigenous' Nile Valley DNA that covers the tip of the Delta down to Aswan. The idea that they cannot find any "indigenous" lineages in this area are the problem as if to say that the entire Nile Valley is "foreign". We know that this is not the case but this is what is being put on the table. Either they were "Near Eastern" or they were "Sub Saharan", so what is "indigenous" then if not one of those two? So folks are setting up a situation where there cannot be an "indigenous" AE DNA lineage because they have already claimed most lineages that might be present in the Nile Valley as "foreign"....

Duh that can't be right.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt

quote:
However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...

but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs.. [Roll Eyes]

smdh

Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period

Dont hold your breath

Good **** Jari. I too kinda overlooked this. This is what happens when you have big studies like these. [Smile]
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Who cares. If you understand what is going on that is all that counts. Think with your own brain.

Most of these folks just want people to be blind followers not independent thinkers.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.

Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.

quote:
You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.

Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:

1) the Near East
2) Africa

Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.

The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.

Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.

quote:
You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.

Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:

1) the Near East
2) Africa

Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.

The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??

No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.

Please.

Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.

The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Elmaestro

There are strong arguments that "Basel Eurasian" can in fact be African. The did the Natufians not have mostly African E on their paternal side? To me Basel Eurasians are those who did not leave Africa yet but were just an ancestral population to Eurasians outside of Africa. I mean did E-M78 subclades not leave Africa through Egypt? Which is why according to certain studies Egyptians plot closer to Eurasians via genetic distance?

But more importantly what Beyoku posted to me(and I think here too) was some interesting **** that really forced me to entertain Basel Eurasian being African.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Tukuler

You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.

The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.

We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.

I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.

Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.

PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.

No need to apologize.

What actual evidence do you have for the assertion that "early Egyptians" were "Natufian-like" or "Basal Eurasian" and that they were only then replaced by "migrating Africans" from the South? How and why do you suppose that these "Basal Eurasian" Egyptians precede the "migrating Africans"?
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
C'mon son.

Even per Laz OOA happened over 45k.
Early OOA equals "Basic White" ???
More faith based phantasms.


When you get off your smart aleck high horse
and finish orgasming off your inka-Dinka-doo
fetish the Angel thread is waiting for you.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?

So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Doug..answer the following if you dont mind...

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.

Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.

quote:
You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.

Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:

1) the Near East
2) Africa

Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.

The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??

No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.

Please.

Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.

The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.


 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@sudaniya

Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.

Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Doug..answer the following if you dont mind...

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.

Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.

quote:
You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.

Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:

1) the Near East
2) Africa

Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.

The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.

I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??

How about the Ancient Persians??

No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.

Please.

Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.

The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.


What on earth do the Scythians have to do with Africa? Europe isn't a continent. Eurasia is. Across Eurasia there are different ethnic groups and phenotypes. Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.

The question is what are the representative of "indigenous" ancient Nile Valley DNA lineages. Because all I keep hearing is that they are either NON African: as in ancient Eurasian back migrants or they are "Sub Saharan" African, meaning not from the Nile Valley. This line of argument means there are no indigenous DNA lineages that evolved locally in the Nile Valley that would be rightly classified as African. Thats sort of impossible but that is what is being said.

So either this is a retarded way of characterizing Nile Valley ancient biological history or what we know about human evolution is wrong. Because if the first humans in Eurasia originated from a "northern route" through what is now Egypt then there HAS to be an "indigenous" DNA component ancestral to Eurasia which is indeed African. Otherwise, whatever ancient DNA left through the Northern route was totally replaced by later migrants from Eurasia or other parts of "sub saharan" Africa....
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?

No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.

By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.

quote:
So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?

No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.

By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.

quote:
So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.

The point is that all roads converge on Africa the further you go back in time. But somehow according to these studies the further you go back in time the less African populations get, especially in Africa. But whatever. You obviously DON'T WANT to see that contradiction and Basal Eurasian is a perfect example of that contradiction, but you seem to approve of that kind of nonsense. Yet you try and tell other folks that they need to be so precise and accurate while carrying around totally inaccurate and imprecise baggage of your own.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?

No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.

By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.

quote:
So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.

Dude I am going by the charts presented by those who claim that after humans left Africa they split into "non Africans". That is the "science" you claim is so objective.

So show me the lineages that the scientists claim were associated with the OOA migrations into Eurasia.... I will wait.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Who cares. If you understand what is going on that is all that counts. Think with your own brain.

Most of these folks just want people to be blind followers not independent thinkers.

Nice quote bub, did you patent this one?

@BBH
100 years ahead of you guys though I didn't hammer down the Hadza component being BE or actually representing shared drift between Neolithic populations, I knew since I started on here that something very similar or of that nature had to have been going on. And was welcomed with name calling, and nothing. But. Name. Calling at the time.... What Beyoku posted isn't revolutionary from my POV, I even gave him more sources to help solidify that position and even have more, which I will not go over on here for reasons stated in Nodnarbs thread.

So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related. Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??
 
Posted by Concerned member of public (Member # 22355) on :
 
quote:
If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?
~ its the same fallacious argument liberals/lefty types use: we're all African so there's no meaningful (and trivial) differences between us.

"Europeans are just depigmentated Africans"
- Xyman

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
What on earth do the Scythians have to do with Africa?

Where did I mention Africa Doug, try to stay on topic.

quote:
Europe isn't a continent. Eurasia is.
Yes it is
http://www.7continents5oceans.com/


Further you advocated for Europe a few posts back...

quote:
originally posted by Doug M: calling Greece European is Pan European.
You literally just made fun of me about this..

quote:
No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia
Now you seem to be changing your argument, how odd.


quote:
Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.
Yes it is, if your approach is a simplistic Africa=Africans, Europe=Europeans, Asia=Asians

You like to claim Africa was inhabited only by Africans, Yet Africans represent the most diverse in terms of Genetics of all of Humanity, more Diverse than the Sythian to the Han Chinese, or the Caledonian to the Persian.

Like I said your approach is very simplistic and shifty at that. Define your position and stop living in fear/paranoia of some imagined European coverup conspiracy. You have Folks like Keita and Ehret giving you a hand to pull you into 2017 level academia
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Very interested in how BBH will handle the Basal Eurasian=Hadza fairy tale. Also, we starting to see more and more people exposing themselves and coming to the front of the congregation admitting that they think Basal Eurasian-heavy populations were SSA in ancestry and geography. So much for the collective "no one ever said AE was SSA" coverup.

quote:
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.

 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Ive known Doug for years, I know what he advocates. He's a diffusionist not on the level of Mike but one none the less so spare me...

Second I used it because Doug literally argued a position against the Article that the said article itself upheld.

It was tongue in cheek, a mockery of his parania of European Coverup...

should I offer a trigger warning next time for you

Funny enough, you seem more triggered than Doug is.. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.

 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.

Like what we've seen with that farmers study.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??

When did I say they are less BE than Iranians?


@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus:
@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.

I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography.

quote:
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.

 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Whats interesting is how Pan Lavant these haplogroups are. I think it was Artu that said that those leaked Old and Middle Kingdom haplogroups were kumbaya Africa. These are kumbaya Lavant.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.

Like what we've seen with that farmers study.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??

When did I say they are less BE than Iranians?


@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.

Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.

Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus:
@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.

I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography.
OH. I was about to say... I was like, "didn't you read our past conversations?" [Big Grin]

Anyways like I said in my recent post that Natufian study last year hinted at North African ancestry. And like I said in another one of my posts is that the subclades of E-M78 migrated out of Africa through the area of Egypt and so to me personally that hints at BE being North African. And also why Egyptians in terms of genetic distance plot closer to Eurasians than any other Africans.

So far we have not seen any clues of BE being SSA(at least from what I know).
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Lmao.... Wow like a cub when he strays to far from home. Good night. I don't think I'm interested anymore.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ive known Doug for years, I know what he advocates. He's a diffusionist not on the level of Mike but one none the less so spare me...

Second I used it because Doug literally argued a position against the Article that the said article itself upheld.

It was tongue in cheek, a mockery of his parania of European Coverup...

should I offer a trigger warning next time for you

Funny enough, you seem more triggered than Doug is.. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.

I'm not at all "triggered". I'm just curious and amused.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus:
@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.

I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography. [/qb]
OH. I was about to say... I was like, "didn't you read our past conversations?" [Big Grin]

Anyways like I said in my recent post that Natufian study last year hinted at North African ancestry. And like I said in another one of my posts is that the subclades of E-M78 migrated out of Africa through the area of Egypt and so to me personally that hints at BE being North African. And also why Egyptians in terms of genetic distance plot closer to Eurasians than any other Africans.

So far we have not seen any clues of BE being SSA(at least from what I know).

Nope we haven't. All we've seen is a k-17 screenshot (with no k=1-16 attached) showing a component peaking in Hadza that also shows up in North Africans and Middle Eastern populations. They think that proves Basal Eurasian is Hadza and Sub-Saharan in origin and geography.

Too bad the turd is weaseling out of it now. Would have been an interesting excercise to see this turd post non-existent F3 and F4 statistics indicating an ancestral relationship between Hadza and farmers that explains Basal Eurasian.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude I am going by the charts presented by those who claim that after humans left Africa they split into "non Africans". That is the "science" you claim is so objective.

Who's making such claims? I honestly think you're confused and are interpreting such results in a simplistic manner...
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
I usually don't pay attention to your posts but I find it strange for a new poster that you lash out against random people. Especially thinking me and Swenet are apart of some gang. Whatever beef you have with Swenet keep that between you and him. Anyways...

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
\Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.

Where is it said that Iranians have more BE than Natufian? I'm asking this out of curiosity.


quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.

Lol. Now tell me how I was caught off guard? Like I said keep this between you and Swenet.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Nuff respect BBH

I wish I got you good enough to
see if I can paraphrase you right.

Admitting I'm not quite sure what
all you mean, one critique if I may.
Isn't 40k the cut off year for BE
or did I mistake Tianyuan's significance?

Not specifically addressing you but
a little clarity and a plea for
precision on this. Natufians aren't
straight up African. They're hybrid
from NE Afr and Levantine peoples
that happened in the Levant.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Nope we haven't. All we've seen is a k-17 screenshot (with no k=1-16 attached) showing a component peaking in Hadza that also shows up in North Africans and Middle Eastern populations. They think that proves Basal Eurasian is Hadza and Sub-Saharan in origin and geography.

Too bad the turd is weaseling out of it now. Would have been an interesting excercise to see this turd post non-existent F3 and F4 statistics indicating an ancestral relationship between Hadza and farmers. [/QB]

And thats why I(and I also think true for Beyoku) bought up the Hazda.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@sudaniya

Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.

Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.

Please cite the names of these studies so I may come to my own conclusions on the matter.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
-shouts to the wind-
"When 2 other studies show the same results for admixture on the runs with the best cross variation score aka the most statistically significant, why would one harken for other Ks"

Lmao ...huh, what's going on??
 -
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@sudaniya

Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.

Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.

Please cite the names of these studies so I may come to my own conclusions on the matter.
^^^Id like to see these studies as well, esp. the Canary Islander and Natufian ones if accessible..
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Nuff respect BBH

I wish I got you good enough to
see if I can paraphrase you right.

I admit I could have worded what I was sating better.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:

Admitting I'm not quite sure what
all you mean, one critique if I may.
Isn't 40k the cut off year for BE
or did I mistake Tianyuan's significance?

I was thinking early Neolithic with the spread of the subclades of E-M78 into the Near East.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGTqaEI/AAAAAAAAAKA/tx02k-dvLNs/s1600/E_Snp_Phylogeography.jpg

Correct me if I am wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:

Not specifically addressing you but
a little clarity and a plea for
precision on this. Natufians aren't
straight up African. They're hybrid
from NE Afr and Levantine peoples
that happened in the Levant. [/qb]

Why "hybrid?" Just asking because as far as I remember we did not get any in-depth admixture results for the Natufians showing their North African admixture. However, some hinted at it being mostly North African and also their paternal side was mostly E.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
2 other studies
quote:
why would one harken for other Ks"
So there we have it. They are fully aware of what they're doing and they know full well they can post only tiny shreds of data (k=17 and nothing more) and pass that off as gospel. Pure confirmation bias.

Very interesting how forthcoming he is with his own deceptions and quote-minded data. You just can't make this up. Lol.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I usually don't pay attention to your posts but I find it strange for a new poster that you lash out against random people. Especially thinking me and Swenet are apart of some gang. Whatever beef you have with Swenet keep that between you and him. Anyways...

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
\Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.

Where is it said that Iranians have more BE than Natufian? I'm asking this out of curiosity.


quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.

Lol. Now tell me how I was caught off guard? Like I said keep this between you and Swenet.

Not lashing out, I just want to know what you think, not what you think others think or what you feel is acceptable to say. I don't start off with name callings and personal attacks. as a new poster I was treated as if I knew someone or had history with someone or something when I was introduced to personal attacks and smug jabs...most of which hit air. So excuse me if I come off as blunt. I might not be the most knowledgable person when it comes to history but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to genetics or non physical anthropological biological subjects, there's probably 2 posters on here I can confidently nod at. With that being said you should take the time to read my posts...

When I ask you a question, it is a question for you. So as a respectful peer I want to know what you believe is going on with BE. Read the supp for laz 2016 when you have free time.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Watch as he swings at air desperately trying to discredit before even knowing the position of his opposition. It is pathetic and desperate... Does the fvck even understand the basis of replicability and cross validation.

Lmao

The usuals, you know how to reach me.

Btw BBH, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't I questioning your veiw of an African/SSA basal Eurasian? I don't know if that was clear.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Please cite the names of these studies so I may come to my own conclusions on the matter. [/QB]

Didn't you see the Lazaridis 2016 farmer study? They hint at the ancestry of the Natufians being North African(Egyptian) especially in terms of their almost exclusive African E paternal side.

Remember this?

Natufians (Epipaleolithic Levant):

I0861: E1b1b1b2(x E1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1069: E1b1(xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
I1072: E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
I1685: CT
I1690: CT

Levant_Neolithic:

I0867: H2 (PPNB)
I1414: E(xE2, E1a, E1b1a1a1c2c3b1, E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1b2b) (PPNB)
I1415: E1b1b1 (PPNB)
I1416: CT (PPNB)
I1707: T(xT1a1, T1a2a) (PPNB)
I1710: E1b1b1(x E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1a1b1, E1b1b1a1b2, E1b1b1b2a1c) (PPNB)
I1727: CT(xE, G, J, LT, R, Q1a, Q1b) (PPNB)
I1700: CT (PPNC)

http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2016/06/the-genetic-structure-of-worlds-first.html
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Elmaestro

Just saying your "poppa" lines seemed like you had a bone to pick with me when I never really debated you.

I answered your question. I don't quite necessarily think BE is SSA because as far as I can remember we don't see anything that points in that direction. And yes this is MY opinion. That does not mean it can't be African. I'm willing to admit that things can change.

Also I asked you why you think Iranians are more BE than the Natufians. I ask jusy in case I missed something.


PS: Yes, I believe you were asking me whether or not BE is descendant from SSA.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
For those who don't know (lurkers), the Hadza are a 'Khoisan' population mixed with Horner-type ancestry.

 -

Since Horners are mixed today, it is no surprise that some analyses wrongly show Hadza to be the source population of ancestry that we know North Africans and Middle Easterners have.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^^^^ LMAO

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Elmaestro

Just saying your "poppa" lines seemed like you had a bone to pick with me when I never really debated you.

I answered your question. I don't quite necessarily think BE is SSA because as far as I can remember we don't see anything that points in that direction. And yes this is MY opinion. That does not mean it can't be African. I'm willing to admit that things can change.

Also I asked you why you think Iranians are more BE than the Natufians. I ask jusy in case I missed something.

I don't "think" so, according to laz, the Iranian Neolithic population is more BE, HotuIII is the leading specimen for BE affinity. I'm giving you a heads up that BE might not be what we want or think it to be.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
^^^^ LMAO
Trolls always start giggling when they run out of tricks and deceptions. Those in the know KNOW Hadza were a recipient of large amounts of Horn-like ancestry

 -

quote:
Genetic signature of pastoralist
migration from East Africa into southern Africa that is associated with Cushitic/and or
East African hunter-gatherers (3) might have involved mtDNA L4 and L0f haplotypes,
and the Y chromosome E3b6 haplotype (Red arrows). Transfer of livestock and possible
admixture of East Africans with Khoisan speakers probably happened in Zambia (5).
There is signature of migration of Nilo-Saharan speakers from Sudan (3) into Kenya and
Tanzania (mtDNA L3h, L5 and Y chromosomes A3b2, B2a1 and E2a (Text and
Appendix 9)).

—Hirbo 2011

So much for his two quote-minded screenshots of k-17 while deliberately and shamelessly ignoring k=1-16.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
All the insults and potshots aside I am learning a lot from the graphs/commentary being posted
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
BBH

I don't accept unsourced references.
yes I accept the biographic history
of the E-M35 cousins of E-M2. Before
now I paid attention to E-M123 in the
Arabian Plate to the detriment of E-M78.
Thx.

Uhm hmm. Hybrid. Mushabian/G Kebaran
or some such. See most anything with
bar-Yosef's name on it.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Who cares. If you understand what is going on that is all that counts. Think with your own brain.

Most of these folks just want people to be blind followers not independent thinkers.

Nice quote bub, did you patent this one?

@BBH
100 years ahead of you guys though I didn't hammer down the Hadza component being BE or actually representing shared drift between Neolithic populations, I knew since I started on here that something very similar or of that nature had to have been going on. And was welcomed with name calling, and nothing. But. Name. Calling at the time.... What Beyoku posted isn't revolutionary from my POV, I even gave him more sources to help solidify that position and even have more, which I will not go over on here for reasons stated in Nodnarbs thread.

So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related. Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??

Dude. Stay away from me with your silly absurd nonsense. If you can't define for me the "African" non SSA lineages, then how come you keep speaking of "SSA"? What was SSA 100,000 years ago and what lineages represent that?

I don't understand why you don't see the contradiction yet persist in pretending to understand biology.

Let me help you some more:

 -

In this image, where are the North African DNA lineages and where did they come from? I know this is unreferenced, but it suits my point. Note that L0 is the basal mtDNA lineage of all humans. Note that L0-L4 is associated with "Sub Saharan" Africans according to most Scientists. OK. Fine. Where are the North African or Non Sub Saharan "African" lineages then and where did they come from.....

Get the point yet?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
mhm the hadza received sooo much horn ancestry that they became predominantly partly Horner, but just the OOA portion of the horners though, lmao yeah poppa is always right. Genetics totally work that way.
...no need to waste energy tbh. Boy's desperate af.

The kid needs to fix his own narrative and stop fighting ghosts

Meanwhile I'm looking at an ADMIXTURE run with the beloved Copt's and wondering how in the world will poppa explain this...
...the Yemenite Jews must be A.Egyptians.

Somebody should take it from here, I honestly am not interested in this exchange... Beyoku, Sage? Xyyman?...Nodnarb? would one of you do me a big one.

Doug, ...Doug, please hear me out, I do know what I mean and what researchers mean by SSA. I understand how basal lineages work. things are much simpler than your making out to be, you turn everything political when it isn't supposed to be. like I said "1 truth". Have you ever heard of the term bottleneck? I constantly preemptively describe Eurasian as the post bottleneck genome. I do not know for certain where this happened geographically, it could have happened within Africa (the bottleneck(s)), but all of that is clutter at this point. I use the conventional model because it's EASY to explain and relay. ALL HUMANS CAME FROM AFRICA, from that point how are we to go about describing who's who and who recently came from where?

EDIT: LOL "for the Lurkers".... I'm not gonna waste another post count on Big poppa, I really don't feel the need to engage with a person who can't take his feelings out of a simple conversation about people who have been dead for three thousand years, he can misquote and argue with himself from here on out. I offer perspective and info and I will share perspective and info with whoever's interested.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
mhm the hadza received sooo much horn ancestry that they became predominantly partly Horner, but just the OOA portion of the horners though, lmao yeah poppa is always right. Genetics totally work that way.
...no need to waste energy tbh. Boy's desperate af.

The kid needs to fix his own narrative and stop fighting ghosts

Meanwhile I'm looking at an ADMIXTURE run with the beloved Copt's and wondering how in the world will poppa explain this...
...the Yemenite Jews must be A.Egyptians.

Somebody should take it from here, I honestly am not interested in this exchange... Beyoku, Sage? Xyyman?...Nodnarb? would one of you do me a big one.

^That's what it looks like when people have run out of their 2 little k=17 sham tactics. Lol!

I post data hard data from knowledgable Phds, they come back with butthurt "I don't like what you say" comments and other bs.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
mhm the hadza received sooo much horn ancestry that they became predominantly partly Horner, but just the OOA portion of the horners though, lmao yeah poppa is always right. Genetics totally work that way.
...no need to waste energy tbh. Boy's desperate af.

The kid needs to fix his own narrative and stop fighting ghosts

Meanwhile I'm looking at an ADMIXTURE run with the beloved Copt's and wondering how in the world will poppa explain this...
...the Yemenite Jews must be A.Egyptians.

Somebody should take it from here, I honestly am not interested in this exchange... Beyoku, Sage? Xyyman?...Nodnarb? would one of you do me a big one.

Doug, ...Doug, please hear me out, I do know what I mean and what researchers mean by SSA. I understand how basal lineages work. things are much simpler than your making out to be, you turn everything political when it isn't supposed to be. like I said "1 truth". Have you ever heard of the term bottleneck? I constantly preemptively describe Eurasian as the post bottleneck genome. I do not know for certain where this happened geographically, it could have happened within Africa (the bottleneck(s)), but all of that is clutter at this point. I use the conventional model because it's EASY to explain and relay. ALL HUMANS CAME FROM AFRICA, from that point how are we to go about describing who's who and who recently came from where?

Come on man. You got me crying over here. Please this is so simple but you make it complex. If L0 is the root, then where is the basal North African/OOA branch then? Still waiting because at this point this is sounding like fairy tale unicorn nonsense aladdin flew into North Africa on a carpet. All human lineages have to tie to the root. So what lineages represent the "indigenous African" NON SSA OOA basal North African/Eurasian/Egyptian lineages......

Come on this is simple. Because logically this is what you are trying to say but haven't seen the big hole in the logic just like the big hole on that map.

This is where the issue of where the actual main branches of M, N and R initially arose come into play. The point being that if the original OOA folks were carrying L lineages before they split then guess what: they were genetically "SSA" if that is how SSA is defined by most scientists.... But then that makes a big hole in biological history because most Northern Africans today don't carry L lineages. So either they are not related to the original OOA populations who migrated via the Northern route OR the M and N lineages they carry are echoes of the basal M and N splits that took place in Africa but mostly migrated outward with OOA populations..... It has to be one or the other. There can be no gaps in the tree. All routes lead back to SSA anyway.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man. You got me crying over here. Please this is so simple but you make it complex. If L0 is the root, then where is the basal North African/OOA branch then? Still waiting because at this point this is sounding like fairy tale unicorn nonsense aladdin flew into North Africa on a carpet. All human lineages have to tie to the root. So what lineages represent the "indigenous African" NON SSA OOA basal North African/Eurasian/Egyptian lineages......

Come on this is simple. Because logically this is what you are trying to say but haven't seen the big hole in the logic just like the big hole on that map.

Do....
you even understand whats going on?

Look here..


"Doug, ...Doug, please hear me out, I do know what I mean and what researchers mean by SSA. I understand how basal lineages work. things are much simpler than your making out to be, you turn everything political when it isn't supposed to be. like I said "1 truth". Have you ever heard of the term bottleneck? I constantly preemptively describe Eurasian as the post bottleneck genome. I do not know for certain where this happened geographically, it could have happened within Africa (the bottleneck(s)), but all of that is clutter at this point. I use the conventional model because it's EASY to explain and relay. ALL HUMANS CAME FROM AFRICA, from that point how are we to go about describing who's who and who recently came from where?"

All. Humans. Came. from. Africa.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. Maestro turd has been debunked in regards to his two little k=17 screenshots (which is all he has; he's a one-trick pony) and to hide that fact he's weaseling out of the conversation. Hadza have 60-83% of 'northern' (i.e. north of Tanzania) L4g (L4b2). Now what?

 -

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/10/2180/1071196/History-of-Click-Speaking-Populations-of-Africa
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Come on man. You got me crying over here. Please this is so simple but you make it complex. If L0 is the root, then where is the basal North African/OOA branch then? Still waiting because at this point this is sounding like fairy tale unicorn nonsense aladdin flew into North Africa on a carpet. All human lineages have to tie to the root. So what lineages represent the "indigenous African" NON SSA OOA basal North African/Eurasian/Egyptian lineages......

Come on this is simple. Because logically this is what you are trying to say but haven't seen the big hole in the logic just like the big hole on that map.

Do....
you even understand whats going on?

Look here..


"Doug, ...Doug, please hear me out, I do know what I mean and what researchers mean by SSA. I understand how basal lineages work. things are much simpler than your making out to be, you turn everything political when it isn't supposed to be. like I said "1 truth". Have you ever heard of the term bottleneck? I constantly preemptively describe Eurasian as the post bottleneck genome. I do not know for certain where this happened geographically, it could have happened within Africa (the bottleneck(s)), but all of that is clutter at this point. I use the conventional model because it's EASY to explain and relay. ALL HUMANS CAME FROM AFRICA, from that point how are we to go about describing who's who and who recently came from where?"

All. Humans. Came. from. Africa.

No we are talking about genetic lineages and history of those lineages as they left Africa. So seeing as that is the topic and how those lineages relate to so-called SSA, lets stick to it. ALL human DNA ultimately originates with L0 in so-called "Sub Saharan" Africa. So where is the branch off of L0 that is "African" but not SSA that ultimately was the basal branch going out of Africa? Still waiting.....

If by bottleneck you mean that the Africans before they left Africa only carried L mtDNA lineages, then that means the only mtDNA lineages that are African are L lineages and all others arose outside of Africa, which means North Africans are ultimately back migrants from outside Africa sometime after OOA. Hence, all "indigenous" African lineages and the ONLY "indigenous" African mtDNA are SSA mtDNA lineages L0-L4. Otherwise, what are the "indigenous" Non L mtDNA lineages?

You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^Good question, but you are asking the wrong person... I don't subscribe to an African but not SSAn native/indigenous ghost theory Doug. For the simple fact that 4.5kya is the Earliest non SSA-like DNA re-introgressed with East Africans. That's precisely what me and BBH was discussing.

whether the N.African genome is actually a product of backmigration or trans intercontinental drift is a different discussion/debate. to which the usage of "Eurasian" is semantics. Where have you been for the past few months, or years even. Look at my posts in the African studies thread or even the North African thread started by Tukuler. Fvck it, look at what I was discussing w/ Beyoku at the end of the previous Abusir Mummy thread.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. "Elmaestro" thought he was slick posting his two little screenshots of k=17. Now that he's debunked he tries to be slick again and pretend he's "walking away" to "be the bigger, dignified, man".

quote:
Haplogroup L4g (previously designated L3g) is present in both Tanzanian click-speaking populations at high frequencies (60% Hadza, 48% Sandawe) but is absent in the SAK. The L4g haplogroup is most frequent in eastern and northeastern Africa and was previously dated to ∼40–45 kya (Salas et al. 2002; Kivisild et al. 2004).
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/10/2180/1071196/History-of-Click-Speaking-Populations-of-Africa

Lol. You just can't make this up. First he insisted on talking about his quote-mined k=17 screenshot, now he wants to change the subject.

quote:
Also, check out the thread you started a few days ago, look at the last page where things actually got good. There's some of your brown component right there aswell.
^What he really means with "where things got good" is "I was allowed to let my sham shine because no one pointed out it was only k=17".
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^Good question, but you are asking the wrong person... I don't subscribe to an African but not SSAn native/indigenous ghost theory Doug. For the simple fact that 4.5kya is the Earliest non SSA-like DNA re-introgressed with East Africans. That's precisely what me and BBH was discussing.

whether the N.African genome is actually a product of backmigration or trans intercontinental drift is a different discussion/debate. to which the usage of "Eurasian" is semantics. Where have you been for the past few months, or years even. Look at my posts in the African studies thread or even the North African thread started by Tukuler. Fvck it, look at what I was discussing w/ Beyoku at the end of the previous Abusir Mummy thread.

No, you see the contradiction. And that is the point. The scientists are sending you all on wild goose chases talking about SSA this and SSA that but none of you asked them what I just asked which is the CORE ISSUE if you are going to talk about OOA and "basal" anything. Otherwise you are following a diversion away from the key point: they don't know when or where major NON L mtdna lineages split and yes by definition they are limiting African DNA to SSA only. Otherwise, they should be able to list the non SSA "indigenous" African lineages that were part of OOA in and along the Northern Route if that is indeed the route that humans took and ancient Egyptians were part of. Otherwise they are creating ghost populations because their theoretical frameworks are flawed.

That is all I have been saying since last year but folks just don't accept that these approaches are flawed.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
he thinks I'm avoiding him outa fear when in reality I'm doing him a favor so he persists...

"A mixed population intermingled with a psuedo archaic population & made them more OOA than the former, a FIXED >70-80% of Hadzas genome is OOA because a mixed population donated all of their OOA ancestry to them"

 -

...and he's knowledgeable in genetics? Somebody please get this dumbass off my back. forreal.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Ask anyone with an understanding of population genetics what this means:

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
A mixed population intermingled with a psuedo archaic population & made them more OOA than the former, a FIXED >70-80% of Hadzas genome is OOA because a mixed population donated all of their OOA ancestry to them

This is pure jibberish.

"70% fixed genome"? [Confused]
"Psuedo archaic population"? [Confused]
"donated OOA ancestry"? [Confused]
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
LOL,, L4b2 is my mtDNA haplogroup lol
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
It. Is. gibberish.

cuz it's the point you're trying to make...

but anywho

 -
-Laz 2016

...Are we done?

NEXT, somebody get him help and way from me.

by the way BlessedByHorus, remember what we were talking about a few posts ago, do you see how it makes sense here.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol I see he's still intransigent. He hoodwinked the forum with his quote-minded cut and paste jobs. He never mentioned that his Hadza=Basal Eurasian screenshots were carefully quote-minded. But even though he tried to justify it with a dumb excuse, I'm glad he admitted that he deliberately, and carefully, picked one K level.

More on Hadza being primarily a mix of Khoisan-like and East African ancestry:

quote:
TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2140

As this paper indicates, Hadza cluster like a northeast/East African population when their Khoisan ancestry is taken into account/separated in treemix:

 -

When you factor in their Khoisan-like ancestry, their position on the Human tree is different and closer to Khoisan:

https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/images/m685/ncomms2140-f3.jpg

This is no doubt due to their large maternal contribution from north of their location. But leave it people like "Maestro" and all this context of L4 and E1b1b in Hadza is ignored and they become a mystical Basal Eurasian population.

[Confused]
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

 -

Was wondering when you were going to post something meaningful, lol. So why not Dinka?

What other ADMIXTURE analyses do this BTW? Don't recall any.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

 -

Was wondering when you were going to post something meaningful, lol. So why not Dinka?

What other ADMIXTURE analyses do this BTW? Don't recall any.

honestly, my cpu was running a taxing program and I didn't want to pause it just to post images. Not only that but c'mon, up until now he's still slinging insults and swinging at air, apparently he's arguing against someone who thinks Dinka/Hadza are laz's basal Eurasians. Like lets divert attention away from the fact that he tried to explain the shared component owned by the Hadza being a result of Cushitic admixture...not to mention I didn't even bring this **** up in any of these threads. Check your inbox, I'm done talking about this here.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Lol. He has no answers for why other K analyses don't show Hadza as a source of Basal Eurasian. When I ask questions he's evasive and pretends he has some "bigger reason" for being evasive and full of crap. When someone else asks him why no other K analyes show Hadza as the source of Basal Eurasian, he still doesn't provide answers and starts talking about me.

[Confused]

All of a sudden he wants to take things offline like a coward when he started this whole conversation, thinking he could hoodwink Blessedbyhorus:

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.

I know why he wants to take things to a private conversation where the public can't verify his information and scrutinize it. He's a one trick pony with a carefully quote-mined screenshot.

How do you start a discussion out of nowhere and then try to cower back to a private conversation?

[Confused] [Confused]

Like who actually does that? I've never seen this before. Completely bizarre.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Okay Swenet lets talk like men, civilized and formal. Why don't Hadza show this component in every structural analysis?

Because the Hadza whole genome profile is very different from populations referenced in most studies. Yes, they have a strong Khoisan component and yes they're east African obviously. but what we might be seeing is remnants of an archaic precursor to N/E populations within the Hadza. In that event their khoisan like profile can help explain such bizarre instances of shared ancestry in Admixture analysis in combination with their old East African and more recent East-African recombination.

You see that chart I posted by Lazaridis, that shows you that this signature isn't due to Admixture, no matter how you want to spin it.

You can say that this signature is just a repeated Anomaly, but there are things that it can explain, which I am willing to discuss. But you don't seem interested in that right about now. Like, I told everyone over and over what to read to understand or get a grasp of what I'm saying.

I'm not going back and forth with you if you're going to resort to acting like a female about everything someone says that might go head on with your views.

EDIT:
Examine everybody... look at what Swenet resorts to all the time.... I asked BBH about what he thinks of basal Eurasian and BBH brought up the HADZA situation... Look at how swenet takes peices of my posts and create his own narrative. this is why I encourage poeple to PM me, cuz this guy is sick forreal.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
It all started with chest thumping:

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm 100 years ahead of you guys

And ended with a rude awakening and desire to retreat to private conversations:

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Check your inbox, I'm done talking about this here.


 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Examine everybody... look at what Swenet resorts to all the time.... I asked BBH about what he thinks of basal Eurasian and BBH brought up the HADZA situation... Look at how swenet takes peices of my posts and create his own narrative. this is why I encourage poeple to PM me, cuz this guy is sick forreal.

I'm sick? Lol. You sound like an irrational teenager. You know you look stupid for saying out of nowhere that you're "100 years ahead" of Blessedbyhorus. That's why you're angry. No one cares.

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'm 100 years ahead of you guys

^You started out chest thumping and you thought Blessedbyhorus was an easy target to hoodwink. I then took you up on your offer and there was nothing behind all that self-important bragging of being "100 years ahead of you guys". All you have is two screenshots of k=17. Let's be absolutely clear about that.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Swenet look,
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=4#000158

BBH response

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=4#000166

I then responded
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=4#000177

It didn't come out of nowhere, I was talking to BBH about the improbability of Laz's BE as is being African. Now I think it would be wise if you stop splicing my quotes it makes you look bad.... I'm not responding to nothing else unless its civil, relevant to the data, or in regards to the OP... I'm honestly done with these childish games. If you want to believe I only have two screenshots more power to you lmao. **** it takes the burden of of me to explain this Anomaly.... go ahead swenet take a crack at publicly explaining whats going on here with the HADZA.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
So (and feel free to correct me) you are saying that Basal Eurasian is most likely NOT African AND that it's from SSA at the same time?

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.


 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Swenet
Yeah, Kinda...and no kinda. I'm saying that the HADZA could have retained a BE like precursor component. The combination of ancestral populations in Arabia could have been similar to that of the Hadza, a HG-Koi like signature and an archaic east African signature, dragged away by drift OOA. If there was indeed a population representative of BE it could have possibly been developed OOA in Isolate from other Eurasian groups, probably in Arabia/Iran which could simultaneously explain why Iran neolithic are closest to SSAs out of all Neolithic groups and have the most Basal Eurasian Ancestry. The Hadza in comparison to just about All Eurasians are extremely heterogeneous, which is why similarly to other San, and pygmy populations they form their own clusters early in ADMIXTURE.

This relationship also explains why even though the Hadza received recent East African admixture, they score an incredibly positive F3 score. Hadza holds a basal position to both Mota AND Eurasians, the closest sample Ironically being HotuIII 60% basal Eurasian.

Edit:
^Which is why I asked that question you quoted. Cuz if BE was still in Africa until relatively recent, Ancient populations with commensurate levels of BE admixture would be much closer to SSAs.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Okay. So how would such a precursor component develop in the Hadza? They seem primarily split between a Khoisan component (e.g. L0d and B2b in Tanzania) and 'northern' ancestry (e.g. E1b1b and L4).
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Just to sum up what should be obvious, science and the anthropology of human DNA states that the "basal" mtDNA of the human people leaving Africa would have been an L mtDNA lineage, most likely L3. If there was a Northern route through what is now Egypt, then those folks would have been L3 carriers and hence "sub Saharan". Any other lineages, according to these scientists" arose after OOA and if present in Africa represent back migration. Meaning that the only "indigenous" lineages in Africa going back to OOA are the L mtDNA lineages, which arose in so-called "sub saharan" Africa. There are no other "indigenous" African lineages going back to OOA in Africa, according to this model....

quote:

The modern human colonization of Eurasia and Australia is mostly explained by a single-out-of-Africa exit following a southern coastal route throughout Arabia and India. However, dispersal across the Levant would better explain the introgression with Neanderthals, and more than one exit would fit better with the different ancient genomic components discovered in indigenous Australians and in ancient Europeans. The existence of an additional Northern route used by modern humans to reach Australia was previously deduced from the phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup N. Here, we present new mtDNA data and new multidisciplinary information that add more support to this northern route.

...

Practically all humans out-of-Africa belong to mtDNA macrohaplogroups N or M, both sister branches of L3 African clade. N shows a global Eurasian distribution but most of its lineages everywhere are members of the R subclade. Only in Aboriginal Australians N(xR) lineages reach frequencies over 50% [5,79], and in some regions of East and Central Asia, haplogroups N9 and A can, respectively, exceed 10% [30,39,58,68,80]. In the rest of its geographic range, the presence of N(xR) lineages is residual and represent small younger expansions driven by the later spread of human groups, mainly harboring R derivatives in Western Asia and R and M derivatives in South and East Asia.

Our phylogenetic and phylogeographic analysis of macrohaplogroup N in Eurasia supports the existence of an additional northern route out of Africa, not involving the Arabian Peninsula or the Indian subcontinent as previously envisaged [17]. This long journey ended in Australia when it was still a part of the Sahul, most probably at the last glacial stage MIS-4 (Fig 1A). On the top of the common L3* trunk, macrohaplogroup N accumulated a stem of five mutations without any known bifurcation. From this fact, it can be deduced that, after the out-of-Africa, the bearers of this lineage seem to have had demographic difficulties and remained as a stagnate population for a long time. So, the first stages of the proposed haplogroup N northern route would be speculative and have to find indirect support on other genetic, archaeological and anthropologic evidences.

...

There is wide interdisciplinary agreement on the African origin of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) around 200 thousand years ago (kya), and also on the idea that they expanded out of that continent to colonize the rest of the world replacing, with only minor genetic exchanges, the indigenous hominids already present in Eurasia [1,2]. However, there is still inter and intra-disciplinary disagreement about the time and routes used by AMH in their dispersal out of Africa.

Based mainly on the coalescence age of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) L3 lineages, most geneticists propose a temporal window of 60–70 kya as the time for the exit, coinciding with the early Last Glacial stage (MIS 4). This hypothesis involves a southern route to Arabia across the Bab al Mandab strait, which, at that time, would have presented a very low sea level [3–6]. Some difficulties with this proposal are: the need of sea strait crossing, the inhospitable climatic conditions in Arabia at that time, the lack of pertinent fossil record along the trail, and the early colonization of Australia. Specially problematic is the date of the arrival of AMH to Australia, the last stage of the initial phase of the AMH colonization of the world, that occurred at least 45 kya [7] attending to the fossil record, but that could be as old as 62 to 75 kya based on genomic aboriginal Australian data [8]. However, all these problems have been overcome by appealing to navigation skills, coastal resource specialization, present-time submerged fossil record, and a very fast spread across coastal India, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia to reach Australasia in time. Recent archaeological studies of Middle Paleolithic stone assemblages in several sites of the Arabian Peninsula [9–11] have added archaeological support to the southern route although entering Arabia during the last interglacial, around 120 kya, much earlier than the dates estimated from mtDNA by the geneticists. It is worth mentioning that a wade ashore across the Bab al Mandeb strait in that period would be more difficult than during a glacial stage.

On the other hand, a northern route by land across the Sinai Peninsula, for the out of Africa migration, is strongly sustained by paleontological and archaeological evidence, as the presence of AMH remains and associated stone material in the Levant around 100 kya [12,13]. The temporal coincidence of this date with an interglacial period would improve the climatic conditions of this corridor facilitating this northern exit. However, in this case, the lack of AMH fossil continuity in the area prompted researchers to consider it as an unproductive exit. Against this idea, recent studies on ancient genomes have detected a basal Eurasian component in the Near East, which diverged prior to the separation of the ancestors of Europeans and Eastern Asians. This finding reinforces the idea that the early presence of modern humans in the Levant was not an unsuccessful episode.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460043/

Which states clearly that "basal Eurasian" represents early DNA splits that occurred almost as soon as humans left Africa and quite possibly involved mixture with neanderthals in the levant and/or mixture with Denisovans on the way through Asia. Hence why the root of the Eurasian DNA tree is called "Non African", because of these proposed splits and mixture.

And hence, because of that, the only mtDNA lineages that are "African" in origin going back to OOA are the L0 - L4 mtDNA lineages. All others are the result of back migration. This is what current science says. There is no "non sub saharan" indigenous mtDNA lineage going back to OOA that is not L0-L4. Which means any populations migrating through the Nile Valley out of Africa would have been carrying L lineages. Obviously this also means that any later populations in the Nile Valley must be back migrants if these theories are correct.

For example mtDNA lineage N from the same study:
 -
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
@Doug - Question

1 - IF you believe the L3N/L3M and M168 migrate out of Africa to Birth all Non-African diversity what issue do you have with mtdna lineages like JT, R0a1, HV, U8, etc being back migrants into the continent?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug - Question

1 - IF you believe the L3N/L3M and M168 migrate out of Africa to Birth all Non-African diversity what issue do you have with mtdna lineages like JT, R0a1, HV, U8, etc being back migrants into the continent?

That was not the point. The point was that there are no African non SSA mtDNA lineages in Africa according to most studies of DNA. Otherwise what are they? What lineages would you expect to find in the Nile Valley that are ancestral to OOA and not L lineages, which science claims are SSA?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
 -
Lol Doug
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Ok. I have read the paper and made my notes. Late to the party but this paper promises but do not deliver.

Supp Fig 3 would have solved this issue if they had included as much African populations (SSA East and West) as much as they included Levant and Europeans. But that was not their intention. But nevertheless. Clearly these ancient Egyptians are NOT Europeans and not East Asians But since Africans were NOT included one cannot tell which African population is the closest.

Supp Table 9 is also helpful. Derived for SLC24A5 for 2 of 3(why only 3?). I am beginning to think these Eurocentric researchers are getting desperate. Was it convenient that most pigmentation genes were inconclusive but the two derived gave some results. SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 are the two most important but since SSAfricans carry a relatively high frequency of SLC24A5(25%) and negligible amounts of SLC45A2(less2%). But West Asians carry a higher frequency of SL45A2(derived) . That means statistically/probably these AEians were black skinned. Why, only one ancient showed SLC45A2 and the gene was ANCESTRAL like most SSA and other blacks

Also they carried genes for black eyes and black hair and coarser hair (not the derived EDAR). Like Africans and Europeans.

The other interesting thing is they used haplogroup FREQUENCY to draw up their PCA charts and likelihood affiliation. The methodology is over 20 year old!!!!! Yes, back in the days of Achilli. May be they ran out of funds. Lol! The modern method in-lieu of admixture charts if haplotype comparison which they did not do. That is …weird.

But speaking about admixture charts. I would of like to see cluster charts from K2 – K20 instead of these snippets published. Which do NOT give the full picture and genetic connection and flow. Was this deliberate? I think it was.

This paper does not really work. They are making the assumptions that MtDNA L is the only African lineage. Interestingly though, NO European Haplogroup are present. H1 and H3. All the published haplogroups is quite possibly of Africans origin. They haven’t proved anything as I stated in that other thread. mtDNA M1 is clearly SSA African with an East African origin.

They cannot use haplogroup frequency to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.


BTW – I not sure where the Dinka discussion came about?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u7MvAJWkzQ
As I said in the comments: 1:52:21 Wudjau nailed it.
Its not the timeline as much as the location. Its not the Delta its the neck of the Delta. Abusir and Fayum are two miles away. Same city.
Abusir which brought you images of Ancient Egyptians like this in 2000BC  -


and the Fayum portraits in the Greece/Roman period. Strategically selected with a very old narrative.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
genetiker has put up his analysis of the Egyptian Y DNA https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-egypt/

JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.

JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.

JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).

IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug - Question

1 - IF you believe the L3N/L3M and M168 migrate out of Africa to Birth all Non-African diversity what issue do you have with mtdna lineages like JT, R0a1, HV, U8, etc being back migrants into the continent?

That was not the point. The point was that there are no African non SSA mtDNA lineages in Africa according to most studies of DNA. Otherwise what are they? What lineages would you expect to find in the Nile Valley that are ancestral to OOA and not L lineages, which science claims are SSA?
This is stupid and self defeatist. We already know about the arguments for and against North Africa being continually populated due to climate.

Here is your North Africa:
 -

The Closest thing to "African non SSA lineages" we have TODAY are going to be M1 and U6 derived lineages. There is no telling what has undergone extinction. Looking at that map...and knowing their diversity....where does it seem like those humans could have went to? You saying "Thats besides the point" is only a weak attempt of you to hide from reality. IF you dont want to answer questions and support your position, why are you on Egyptsearch? O hea, to bitch and moan about why-tee.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
 -
Oldest Earliest samples
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Ok. I have read the paper and made my notes. Late to the party but this paper promises but do not deliver.

But speaking about admixture charts. I would of like to see cluster charts from K2 – K20 instead of these snippets published............... Was this deliberate? I think it was.


Yep, they know what they are doing. The most salient part. Its going to be interesting to see these samples in their North African context. I am curious as to their Berber type component. Razib took the supp and has a more defined list of mtdna. As a mentioned to you before, they are probably not going to be as basal as you expect.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I stated before these are indigenous Africans. The haplogroups found in these AEians are exactly where they should be. Indigenous East Africans.

----
Quotes:
“In Africa, haplogroup T is primarily found among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations, including the basal T* clade.[1] Some non-basal T clades are also commonly found among the Niger-Congo-speaking Serer”
T in Africa
Sudan Sudan Undetermined 3/102 2.94%
Datoga Tanzania Nilo-Saharan 1/57 1.75%
Beja Sudan Afro-Asiatic > Cushitic 1/48 2.1%
mtDNA Basal haplogroup J* is found among the Soqotri (9.2%).[4]

J in Africa
In Africa, haplogroup J is concentrated in the northeast. It is found among Algerians (3.23%-14.52%),[10] as well as Copts (10.3% J1a; 10.3% J2),[11] Sudanese Fulani (10.7% J1b),[11] Meseria (6.7% J1b),[11] Arakien (5.9% J1b),[11] Egyptians (5.9%),[12] Mozabite Berbers (3.53%),[10] Sudanese Hausa (2.9% J1b),[11] Zenata Berbers (2.74%),[10] Beja (2.1% J1b),[11] and Reguibate Sahrawi (0.93%).[10]

X1 in Africa
Sub-group X1 is much less frequent, and is largely restricted to North Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Near East.

U in Africa
U9 -It is interesting that, in Pakistan, U9 occurs frequently only among the so-called Makrani population. In this particular population, lineages specific to parts of Eastern Africa occur as frequently as 39%, which suggests that U9 lineages in Pakistan may have an origin from this area (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004). Regardless of which coast of the Arabian Sea may have been the origin of U9, its Ethiopian–southern Arabian–Indus Basin distribution hints that the subclade's diversification from U4 may have occurred in regions far away from the current area of the highest diversity and frequency of haplogroup U4—East Europe and western Siberia.[96]
U6a: subclade is the most widespread, stretching from the Canary Islands and Iberian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa and Near East. The subhaplogroup has its highest diversity in Northeast Africa. Estimated age: 24-27,500 BP. It has one major subclade

W in Africa
Haplogroup W is also found in the Maghreb among Algerians (1.08%-3.23%).[5]

K1 in Africa
Haplogroup K1 has likewise been observed among specimens at the mainland cemetery in Kulubnarti, Sudan, which date from the Early Christian period (AD 550-800).[20]
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
By now, is it not obvious that the lack of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Ancient Egyptians and Natufians and other groups expected to be SSA is due to the extinction of the prehistoric groups that gave birth to these ancient people? These are prehistoric and ancient populations, who probably originated from the South of the Sahara, and made a home of the harsh desert. They were small, highly mobile and precarious populations. They probably died out and became dead-end populations. It would not be unique to Africa. In Europe, there is little no relationship between stone age Europeans and modern Europeans. What we need is more ancient DNA from historic and pre-historic African populations.

Makes sense:


quote:
Green Sahara: African Humid Periods Paced by Earth's Orbital Changes

Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.


[…]


 -

Figure 3: Distribution map of reconstructed lake levels across Africa, 9,000 years ago relative to today.
Data are from the Oxford Lake Level Database (COHMAP members, 1988, Street-Perrott et al., 1989) updated with lake-level reconstructions generated in the last twenty years (Tierney et al., 2011)



https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Okay. So how would such a precursor component develop in the Hadza? They seem primarily split between a Khoisan component (e.g. L0d and B2b in Tanzania) and 'northern' ancestry (e.g. E1b1b and L4).

The fine details for what exactly is going on with Hadza genome is beyond me. Whether their Tanzania-san like ancestry hides an earlier HG component more related to OOA populations or if their unique patterns in Structural analysis is due to added Heterogeneity from recent mixture with Afrosan's, I'm not 100% sure yet. But have we considered the possibility that their B-181/m60 is archaic? They're the only group within Africa I know of so far that carry Upstream clades, and as you should know B-181(x112) extends as far as Suadia Arabia. The Sandawe are primarily B-m150 & B-m112 (downstream). We cannot truly Model the Hadza as Sandawe x Horners, the chart by lazaridis that I posted above already shows that by itself. Sandawe & ALL Horners have a negative Z score between Mota & Eurasians, the hadza has the most positive for any East African population. recent Horner Admixture cannot explain the Anomalous clustering within the Hadza genome no matter what.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Okay. So how would such a precursor component develop in the Hadza? They seem primarily split between a Khoisan component (e.g. L0d and B2b in Tanzania) and 'northern' ancestry (e.g. E1b1b and L4).

The fine details for what exactly is going on with Hadza genome is beyond me. Whether their Tanzania-san like ancestry hides an earlier HG component more related to OOA populations or if their unique patterns in Structural analysis is due to added Heterogeneity from recent mixture with Afrosan's, I'm not 100% sure yet. But have we considered the possibility that their B-181/m60 is archaic? They're the only group within Africa I know of so far that carry Upstream clades, and as you should know B-181(x112) extends as far as Suadia Arabia. The Sandawe are primarily B-m150 & B-m112 (downstream). We cannot truly Model the Hadza as Sandawe x Horners, the chart by lazaridis that I posted above already shows that by itself. Sandawe & ALL Horners have a negative Z score between Mota & Eurasians, the hadza has the most positive for any East African population. recent Horner Admixture cannot explain the Anomalous clustering within the Hadza genome no matter what.
Both Sandawe and San have minor Eurasian. This can be seen clearly by their mtDNAs and Y DNAs and has also been demonstrated with their genomes.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/10/2180/1071196/History-of-Click-Speaking-Populations-of-Africa

How does archaic ancestry in Hadza (or any other ancestry they have, for that matter) develop into a Basal Eurasian precursor? This is why my question is important. Any notion that Hadza have a precursor of Basal Eurasian should be provable with some form of evidence that Hadza have an actual foundation from which that precursor can originate. Do you have evidence that Hadza's archaic ancestry (or any other ancestry they have) has the same genetic properties as Basal Eurasian?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
genetiker has put up his analysis of the Egyptian Y DNA https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-egypt/

JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.

JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.

JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).

IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.

I post in particular on E-V22 here. Do you think a group like the Fulani would have been a better representative than the Yoruba?


Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%

 -


Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Rule 1, one should not comprise the forum or thread (with exceedingly large images, on purpose). This leads to immediate ban, no excuses.

In a democracy people have the right to different opinions. But you don't have the right to obstruct and terrorize others.

Therefore I call for immediate and permanent termination of Cass his account (and his multiple accounts).
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Okay. So how would such a precursor component develop in the Hadza? They seem primarily split between a Khoisan component (e.g. L0d and B2b in Tanzania) and 'northern' ancestry (e.g. E1b1b and L4).

The fine details for what exactly is going on with Hadza genome is beyond me. Whether their Tanzania-san like ancestry hides an earlier HG component more related to OOA populations or if their unique patterns in Structural analysis is due to added Heterogeneity from recent mixture with Afrosan's, I'm not 100% sure yet. But have we considered the possibility that their B-181/m60 is archaic? They're the only group within Africa I know of so far that carry Upstream clades, and as you should know B-181(x112) extends as far as Suadia Arabia. The Sandawe are primarily B-m150 & B-m112 (downstream). We cannot truly Model the Hadza as Sandawe x Horners, the chart by lazaridis that I posted above already shows that by itself. Sandawe & ALL Horners have a negative Z score between Mota & Eurasians, the hadza has the most positive for any East African population. recent Horner Admixture cannot explain the Anomalous clustering within the Hadza genome no matter what.
Both Sandawe and San have minor Eurasian. This can be seen clearly by their mtDNAs and Y DNAs and has also been demonstrated with their genomes.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/10/2180/1071196/History-of-Click-Speaking-Populations-of-Africa

How does archaic ancestry in Hadza (or any other ancestry they have, for that matter) develop into a Basal Eurasian precursor? This is why my question is important. Any notion that Hadza have a precursor of Basal Eurasian should be provable with some form of evidence that Hadza have an actual foundation from which that precursor can originate. Do you have evidence that Hadza's archaic ancestry (or any other ancestry they have) has the same genetic properties as Basal Eurasian?

Well here's the thing, When ever we analyze a number of K's high enough to exceed usual geographic and far isolate clusters the Hadza will consistently form a clade that follows tit for tat the pattern that basal Eurasian does, as seen in kilinc 2016, as seen in Gurdasani 2014, as seen in Haber et al. 2017.

There's really only two ways we can look at this, it's either something or nothing. and though uniparentals don't say everything, Hadza are our sole African B-m181(x m112) carriers. But one thing's for certain, This clustering pattern at high K cannot possibly be of recent Admixture ~2.5kya from northerners.

 -
-gurdasani 2014

Thats like 80% of Hadzas genome in purps following Neolithic population/BE admixture.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
@ ELMaestro - CHeck out the huch chunk of B-M181 in the Laal and the small presense in the Sara.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487

See suppl.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Maestro

That 80 percent is the same amount as the 80 percent that was identified by Pickrell et al 2012 as most related to the Dinka (with the remaining 20% being related to Khoisa):

quote:
TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2140

However, on closer inspection it's not exactly 'Dinka'. It's closer to Eurasians than Dinka are to Eurasians, making it more similar to the position of Horners to Eurasians (but with little Eurasian):

 -

As far as Gurdasani et al, there are two purple components. They are not the same color. Use a color picker to see for yourself. I actually discussed this with Beyoku back in 2014 or early 2015. There is a possibility though that it was intended to be the same color, but came out lighter for some reason.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
When i get some time I am going to just go back and count the K's...........if there is an extra....
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Beyoku
Ahhh, thanks I take my statement back, Hadza are no longer the only m181 Carriers to my knowledge. But I do find it fishy that its the "hidden" Chadic populations who carry it... Any thoughts?

Swenet, IDK, it happens too often, I considered faulty graphics/ error in the previous studies, but when this one in 2017 (Haber) has a graph with the lowest CV showing the same pattern... I honestly can't continue to say that multiple researchers made the bone headed move of coloring Hadza similarly to "BE".

I'm going to upload something, but take it with a grain of salt, It's raw as hell... I might remove it in a few days..
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzi0D1lrmvbEMi1NVXo5VXVEMjg/view?usp=sharing
@K=6 There's an Orange component, might be saharan, might be East African that shows up in all east Africans, Saharans and North Africans but not in mota and West Africans(for the most part.) then there's a purple component represented by the Hotu which marks our true (as we realize now) Middle eastern/post Basal Eurasian component. Notice how the Hadza completely lacks the Hotu component but owes most of its genome to the orange.
looking at its distribution in Horners etc (and the Sandawe), That purple component should be in the Hadza, but it isn't. why?
I can think of one good explanation right now, being that this Middle eastern component was already accounted for between whatever ancient HG-like Ancestry the Hadza have AND that orange component which predates backmigration.

I have to look at patterns in LD to determine what can said about the potential recombination of NE lineages in the Hadza using probably globetrotter and finestructure etc. I really have a bunch of questions myself most revolving around pickrell 2014.
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
Someone needs to ban this damn troll
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug - Question

1 - IF you believe the L3N/L3M and M168 migrate out of Africa to Birth all Non-African diversity what issue do you have with mtdna lineages like JT, R0a1, HV, U8, etc being back migrants into the continent?

That was not the point. The point was that there are no African non SSA mtDNA lineages in Africa according to most studies of DNA. Otherwise what are they? What lineages would you expect to find in the Nile Valley that are ancestral to OOA and not L lineages, which science claims are SSA?
This is stupid and self defeatist. We already know about the arguments for and against North Africa being continually populated due to climate.

Here is your North Africa:
 -

The Closest thing to "African non SSA lineages" we have TODAY are going to be M1 and U6 derived lineages. There is no telling what has undergone extinction. Looking at that map...and knowing their diversity....where does it seem like those humans could have went to? You saying "Thats besides the point" is only a weak attempt of you to hide from reality. IF you dont want to answer questions and support your position, why are you on Egyptsearch? O hea, to bitch and moan about why-tee.

Oh please. You claimed that "science is objective" and that it is far better than so-called 'afrocentric loons'. But the science says clearly that the only indigenous OOA related African mtDNA lineages are the L0-L4 lineages. And according to most science studies those lineages are also identified as "sub saharan". Therefore, where are the OTHER mtDNA lineages in North Africa, that were present before OOA, that are not L lineages?

Answer: there are none, according to modern science. Because according to the papers I have seen and already posted most associate the L3 lineage, which is also identified as "sub saharan", with the Northern Route out of Africa.

So the idea that there is some "non sub saharan" indigenous and ancient branch of DNA in Africa that we "don't understand" is false. All other lineages according to modern science are the result of back migrations from Eurasia.

This implicitly means that the ONLY indigenous African lineages that any population in Africa can have that is tied to OOA is an L mtDNA lineage, including Egypt.

Which means that there is no OTHER mtDNA lineages other than so-called "sub saharan" L lineages that the AE could have and not be considered as the result of "back migration" at some point after OOA.

So either modern science is wrong and M and N mtDNA lineages arose in Africa or the only "African" pre-OOA mtDNA lineages are L0-L4. Which also means all other North African populations are back migrants at some point after OOA.

All of that is according to current scientific DNA findings, unless those findings are flawed in some way.

Oh and BTW if the Africans migrating out of Africa via the Northern (or Southern for that matter) route carried L mtDNA lineages then those are the lineages that would have led to "basal Eurasian".
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
I really think the Basal Eurasian Hadza stuff is just bad graphics. It makes no damn sense for ADMIXTURE to behave like that.

Haber et al 2017 K=17 - yes Hadza component is the exact same colour as the Bedouin component. But the Chipewyan component is also the exact same colour as the Sardinian component. And I see only 15 colours.

Gurdanasi et al 2014 K=16 - Hadza is a different colour than Horn/Middle East component. There's just a bunch of different purples.

Kilinc et al 2016 - Sardinian and Hadza are indistinguishable at K=20, but I see only 19 colours. At K=19 it is Onge and Papuan that are that same colour, but at K=20 and K<19 they are different.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Hadza are no longer the only m181 Carriers to my knowledge. But I do find it fishy that its the "hidden" Chadic populations who carry it...

Laal are isolate language speakers in poorly studied Central Africa, seem like pretty much exactly who would be carrying an odd branch of B.

It isn't B2 or B3 but it might be related to B1 as there's no B1 references in that paper. B1 is found rarely in Burkina Faso, Mali, Cameroon that I've heard of.

B3 is also B-M181(B2-M182), it's found in Gambia and Sierra Leone, also African-Americans. Plus there's your other rare B here and there.

Karmin et al sequenced 4 Hadza and 2 Sandawe B hg Y chromosomes, they are in B2b upper level subclades with San, Gumuz, and Pygmies (both western and eastern). Divergence times of only on order of 40 kyo using fossil calibrated rates (may not be appropriate for B though).
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Maestro

I have difficulty reading that graphic because the names of the populations aren't aligned to the bars that represent their ancestry.

As far as Basal Eurasian being associated with Hadzas' Khoisan-like ancestry, I can't reconcile the known properties of Basal Eurasian (see Lazaridis' comprehensive testing) with that explanation.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Iight gimme a week or two and I'll see how replicable it is using busbys worldwide population whole genome Analysis dataset(- FarEast Asians/Amerindians) and an updated repertoire of Ancient populations.

If there's anything, we'll take it from there.

regarding the link, like I said, the data is basically rawfootage, no post production editing. The names are shifted to the left by one space, use the search option in whatever pdf reader you're using to find your population. just about Every African population sequenced so far is included for the first time, ever. (600,000+ snps)
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ Keep the Nuba and the Darfurians split up like that. Shits about to get real. "Don't believe me just watch."
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
What on earth do the Scythians have to do with Africa?

Where did I mention Africa Doug, try to stay on topic.

quote:
Europe isn't a continent. Eurasia is.
Yes it is
http://www.7continents5oceans.com/


Further you advocated for Europe a few posts back...

quote:
originally posted by Doug M: calling Greece European is Pan European.
You literally just made fun of me about this..

quote:
No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia
Now you seem to be changing your argument, how odd.


quote:
Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.
Yes it is, if your approach is a simplistic Africa=Africans, Europe=Europeans, Asia=Asians

You like to claim Africa was inhabited only by Africans, Yet Africans represent the most diverse in terms of Genetics of all of Humanity, more Diverse than the Sythian to the Han Chinese, or the Caledonian to the Persian.

Like I said your approach is very simplistic and shifty at that. Define your position and stop living in fear/paranoia of some imagined European coverup conspiracy. You have Folks like Keita and Ehret giving you a hand to pull you into 2017 level academia

Man you are simply going all over the map to sound smart without addressing the point.

The point is what populations migrating through the Nile Valley during a Northern OOA scenario WOULD NOT have been "Sub Saharan" according to modern genetics?

The point is none.

So what part of that don't you understand?

Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?

See the point?

You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".

So your point is silly to begin with.

Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....

I will wait.

And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:

1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions.
2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA).
3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change
4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas.
And the last option is the middle ground option:
5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.

The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.

Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Doug M: "Woe is me"

 -
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Originally posted by Doug:
1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions.
2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA).
3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change
4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants.
And the last option is the middle ground option:
5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of populations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.

The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.

Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing


Your 5-point sketch does appear to recognize the
caveats Keita talks about - namely mystical use
of the "Eurasian" label..

"The historical linguistic data reported
earlier would apply in the case of
maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely
that the "northern" genetic profile is
simply due to "Eurasians" having
colonized supra-Saharan regions from
external African sources. It might be
likely that the greater percentage of
haplotypes called "Eurasian" are
predominantly, although not solely, of
indigenous African origin. As a term
"Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it
suggests a single locale of geographical
origins. This is because it can be
postulated that differentiation of the L3*
haplogroup began before the emigration
out of Africa, and that there would be
indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or
Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More
work and careful analysis of mtDNA and
the archeological data and likely
probabilities is needed. Early hunting
and gathering paleolithic populations can
be modeled as having roamed between
northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an
asymmetrical distribution of various
derivative variants over a wide region,
giving the appearance of Eurasian
incursion."

--Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics,
Egypt, and History... History in Africa,
32, 221-246
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Doug M: "Woe is me"

 -

Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?

If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?

Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....

But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?

Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.

Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Originally posted by Doug:
1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions.
2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA).
3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change
4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants.
And the last option is the middle ground option:
5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of populations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.

The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.

Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing


Your 5-point sketch does appear to recognize the
caveats Keita talks about - namely mystical use
of the "Eurasian" label..

"The historical linguistic data reported
earlier would apply in the case of
maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely
that the "northern" genetic profile is
simply due to "Eurasians" having
colonized supra-Saharan regions from
external African sources. It might be
likely that the greater percentage of
haplotypes called "Eurasian" are
predominantly, although not solely, of
indigenous African origin. As a term
"Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it
suggests a single locale of geographical
origins. This is because it can be
postulated that differentiation of the L3*
haplogroup began before the emigration
out of Africa, and that there would be
indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or
Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More
work and careful analysis of mtDNA and
the archeological data and likely
probabilities is needed. Early hunting
and gathering paleolithic populations can
be modeled as having roamed between
northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an
asymmetrical distribution of various
derivative variants over a wide region,
giving the appearance of Eurasian
incursion."

--Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics,
Egypt, and History... History in Africa,
32, 221-246

Of course. These people talking about 'superior DNA science' either don't accept the limitations of DNA and/or they don't realize that current scholarship on DNA(in terms of how DNA lineages are classified) has put them in a corner even as they tout it as "superior".

So they resort to name calling Africans who didn't come up with this classification scheme as if the African scholars are the root cause of the confusion.

Typical cop out tactics.

They don't see that the question I asked about what lineages should we expect to find in the Nile Valley are those that they should be asking the geneticists doing these studies. I mean if there is a big "gap" in knowledge about how OOA happened and what DNA splits arose where and when, wouldn't they want to try and find the answers to that question in places like the Nile Valley? You would think so. But of course instead of getting to that fundamental question they resort to calling out "SSA" relationships over time in the Nile Valley as being "more recent". OK. So what DNA would they expect ancient Nile Valley Africans to have if it wasn't SSA and not Eurasian going back 10KYA? Because that statement and conclusion of the study either implies that they expected all AE populations to descend from NON African migrants or they expect some "other" indigenous population of Africans to have inhabited the Nile but not carry so-called (as they classify it) SSA lineages.....

Those are the only choices you have if you go by the current classifications of mtDNA as defined by current scholarship. So the idea that this is an "afrocentric" theory is pure bull sh*t. Just like the African origin of all humans is a position of most modern scholarship. So is that "afrocentric" as well? And if you accept that, then you accept that if the AE were African they would have to be tied to the ancient lineages that arose in Africa. Otherwise they weren't African. Which means that according to modern science they would have to be "sub saharan" if they were truly African.

Not to mention that even in this paper they label "L0-L4" as the only African mtDNA lineages which they also associate with Sub Saharans. But they don't call out the fact that L3 was the mtDNA supposedly associated with the Northern OOA route through the Nile Valley, again according to modern science. So what "other" lineages could the AE have had if not mtDNA L0-L4 going back to OOA?

Duh.

quote:

Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100 to 130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world. The timing of the expansion of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ∼70 ka in Eastern and Central Africa rather than to symbolically mediated behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to Central Africa ∼60 to 35 ka and major migrations in the immediate postglacial again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in the L3 data is 3-4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and Southern Africa in the last 3-2 ka.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22096215

From the paper:
quote:

Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22096215
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?

Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.


I am pretty sure "We wuz Kings"is a racist meme promoted by the "Alt Right" in the US. It's like the Harambe meme comparing Blacks to apes.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
A reminder:


quote:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster

Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6692

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
A reminder:


quote:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster

Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6692

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html

Suffice to say there was no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago. And at that time there was no obvious distinction between the ancestors of the khoisan and the non khoisan. The distinction would have been trivial. And at that time they weren't in South Africa yet either. Humans have been hunter gatherers since humans arose and only adopted other survival strategies relatively late (within the last 10,000 years). So of course hunter gatherers were the largest type of human population for most of human history, even after OOA. As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.

Keep in mind the oldest human populations in South Africa are those of the blombos cave complex and nobody knows their relationship to the Khoisan. Most assume they represent another "dead" branch of the human family.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Doug M: "Woe is me"

 -

Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?

If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?

Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....

But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?

Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.

Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).

Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.

And this is the main problem. YOU DONT KNOW. You are asleep at the wheel only to momentary wake up, obsess with white people, then fall asleep again.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Doug M: "Woe is me"

 -

Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?

If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?

Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....

But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?

Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.

Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).

Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.

Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.

But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.

So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......

Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
 -

Oh Here it is, I found it:
 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460043/

So there, I "figured it out for you" based on modern DNA science.

And here is further clarification on the position of modern science:

 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

[Roll Eyes]

Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities.....
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ Why would OOA be Sub Saharan idiot?
We have already gone over this:
quote:
The 41,141 African haplotypes retrieved from 18,114 LD regions outside Africa were grouped according to the population of discovery (A). The haplotype composition of African and non-African (CHB + TSI) populations (B) showed more Egyptian′ (pink) and Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ (blue)-specific haplotypes in the OOA samples (relative increases from the general African population are provided for each colored section) than did the haplotype composition of the combined African populations. Non-significant (χ2i) comparisons are labeled “NS.” Of the haplotypes specific to a single African population, the Egyptian′ haplotypes (pink) showed the highest population frequency outside Africa (C), whereas the Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ haplotypes (blue) were the most frequent of those shared by two African populations (D). Bars not significantly different (tested with χ2i) from the Egyptian′ (C) or Ethiopian′|Egyptian′ (D) ones are labeled “NS.” The first bin in (C) and (D) shows the proportion of African haplotypes not present outside Africa.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4457944/figure/fig2/

See Also:
quote:
We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world

 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.

And this is the main problem. YOU DONT KNOW. You are asleep at the wheel only to momentary wake up, obsess with white people, then fall asleep again.
quote:

Agriculture appears to have arisen recently <10,000 years ago
.....
Although complex strategies for plant use
developed early in Africa c. 17,000
BP, plant domestication was late after 4000 BP, and occurred in many different environments.
.....
Cattle were the earliest domesticates in Africa. Recent studies suggest that they were probably domesticated from North African populations of wild Bos primigenius by hunter-gatherers of the eastern Sahara 10,000–8000 BP

Compared to the split between khoisan and non khoisan over 100-150KYA that is recent, like I said.

Likewise this paper also calls out the early steps toward plant domestication in Africa which I already mentioned in other threads on Basal Eurasian and Africans in the Levant during the development of farming there.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ Why would OOA be Sub Saharan idiot?

Dude stop with the gibberish. I already posted the data. Stop wasting my time.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=6#000268

And
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=5#000233
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:




Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?

See the point?

You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".

So your point is silly to begin with.

Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....

I will wait.

And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:

1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions.
2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA).
3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change
4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas.
And the last option is the middle ground option:
5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.

The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.

Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.

I think the core of this is interpretation (misunderstanding) lies within linages, which are interpreted as have risen outside of Africa, which perhaps could have had risen within Africa as bottleneck occurances.

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 compara- tive populations are different and fewer than in the mi- tochondrial 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 hap- logroup 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 haplo- types 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 haplo- types 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 hap- lotype 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 sug- gests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R hap- lotypes 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.

[…]

In comparison with datasets from neighboring regions, the Soqotri population shows evidence of long-term isolation and autochthonous evolution of several mitochondrial haplogroups.

—Viktor Cˇ erny ́
Out of Arabia—The Settlement of Island Soqotra as Revealed by Mitochondrial and Y Chromosome Genetic Diversity


quote:
African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).


 -


—Sarah A. Tishkoff,
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

As a side note.

I did not know this paper.

Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.


quote:
Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.

[…]

Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.

"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.

[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/16/spain.science
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
A reminder:


quote:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster

Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6692

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html

Suffice to say there was no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago. And at that time there was no obvious distinction between the ancestors of the khoisan and the non khoisan. The distinction would have been trivial. And at that time they weren't in South Africa yet either. Humans have been hunter gatherers since humans arose and only adopted other survival strategies relatively late (within the last 10,000 years). So of course hunter gatherers were the largest type of human population for most of human history, even after OOA. As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.

Keep in mind the oldest human populations in South Africa are those of the blombos cave complex and nobody knows their relationship to the Khoisan. Most assume they represent another "dead" branch of the human family.

You completely misinterpreted what I have posted.

There were no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago indeed, but this about the lineages found in these people and "after the split lost more than half of their genetic diversity."

This is the core of what I've posted:


"In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity."
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

As a side note.

I did not know this paper.

Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.


quote:
Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.

[…]

Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.

"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.

[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/16/spain.science

I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.


quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


There were no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago indeed, but this about the lineages found in these people.

This is the core of what I've posted:


"In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity."

I am just referring to the absurd title of the study. The content doesn't really match the title and is very misleading.

This is a big problem with a lot of these studies.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/bin/ebo-suppl.2-2015-057f1.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

As a side note.

I did not know this paper.

Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.


quote:
Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.

[…]

Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.

"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.

[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/16/spain.science

I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.



That is true, but it shows it sides more with what I have discovered in studies Elaborated here
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Doug M: Covfefe.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/bin/ebo-suppl.2-2015-057f1.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

As a side note.

I did not know this paper.

Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.


quote:
Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.

[…]

Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.

"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.

[…]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/16/spain.science

I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.



That is true, but it shows it sides more with what I have discovered in studies Elaborated here
I think we are saying the same thing. These people are speculating which means a lot of the "conclusions" they make in these studies are really theories and subject to scrutiny.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

It's from Asyut 200 miles south of Abusir

Thanks
Good catch for the vlog.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Dp
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Not tryin to be a smart@ss or anything, but idgi... on this thing are about 20 haplogroups. The L's are getting labeled "SSA" IIRC? So if ppl are going to attribute haplogroups to a given geographic or ecological location, which of these by this line of thought be argued to correspond to the idea of an indigenous North African? Not "back migrants" or "SSA" but indigenous North African?


 -
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Maestro

quote:
TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2140

However, on closer inspection it's not exactly 'Dinka'. It's closer to Eurasians than Dinka are to Eurasians, making it more similar to the position of Horners to Eurasians (but with little Eurasian):

.

 -


I put a red dot on the E Afr branch where
Hadza split from remaining E Afrs.

I put a blue dot where E and W Eurasians split.

I recolored the stretch in between them purple.


Comments?

Where along the purple bar would
you (anybody reading this) place
• the initial successful OoA migrants
• any projected 'Basal Eurasians'?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Its impossible to know. All we can do is triangulate frequency and look for similarities in populations.
Capra had the best answer so far.

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
genetiker has put up his analysis of the Egyptian Y DNA https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-egypt/

JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.

JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.

JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).

IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.

Bronze Age Jordanians.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:




Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?

See the point?

You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".

So your point is silly to begin with.

Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....

I will wait.

And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:

1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions.
2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA).
3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change
4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas.
And the last option is the middle ground option:
5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.

The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.

Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.

I think the core of this is interpretation (misunderstanding) lies within linages, which are interpreted as have risen outside of Africa, which perhaps could have had risen within Africa as bottleneck occurances.
I don't see a misunderstanding. Science has known for a while now that North East Africa was the most likely exit point for OOA. So, if they were REALLY serious about understanding what lineages arose where and what the relationship is between modern populations in North East Africa and ancient populations involved in OOA they would have to do more DNA testing in those areas. Yet to date, the amount of DNA sampling across Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and Libya is limited. Limited to specific "subjective" analyses of relatively isolated examples rather than a comprehensive analysis across the entire region. So you get a study on "Berber" DNA focusing on one or two Berber groups in specific areas. Or you get a sample of a few modern Egyptians in certain parts of Egypt. Or a few populations in certain parts of Sudan. Then they try and extrapolate that data into large "big ticket" observations going back 50-100KYA knowing full well it is bound ti be flawed. And they don't even call out the limited value of such isolated studies relative to deeper historical periods.

But they sure do a lot of DNA testing in Europe though. Which is not "sinister" but because most of the institutions doing the research are in Europe, it makes sense that they would have more data from Europe. Plus Europe is a bit more stable and not as prone to instability as some of these other areas are. So they try and base their theories on a lot of data from Europe and a little bit of data from isolated pockets of Africa then they try and put it into a complete picture. So of course it isn't going to make sense.

That said, there has been an a priori position in science for quite a long time that African DNA lineages are limited to things like mtDNA L0-L4. So this position limits what can be truly defined as "African" going back to OOA. That means that if an ancient population is "truly African" they almost have to be SSA. Not that I agree with that, but just pointing out this is the only logical outcome if you accept the position of modern science.

This paper falls into the category of folks postulating conclusions based on limited data which makes no sense, which makes it more of a reinforcement of the a-priori position of "African indigenous" DNA being limited to SSA with all others being Eurasian. That is implicitly what is being said in this study and yet folks some folks here are implying that this dichotomy of SSA vs Eurasian came from African scholarship. Obviously testing the DNA from more mummies across Egypt would be the best situation possible. So we should expect this to be forthcoming in the future. Otherwise, it shows they really aren't serious about understanding the DNA involved with the movements of humans out of Africa. And they aren't really trying to show how various cultures since OOA in that region relate to those ancient people.

This is where folks need to be asking scholars for better clarification on positions because truly it really doesn't make any sense to resort on spotty and incomplete data.
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?

If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?

Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....

But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?

Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.

Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).

Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.

Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.

But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.

So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......

Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
 -

Oh Here it is, I found it:
 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460043/

So there, I "figured it out for you" based on modern DNA science.

And here is further clarification on the position of modern science:

 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

[Roll Eyes]

Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities..... [/qb][/QUOTE]Great new references. But how do you account for the possibility
that so-called "Eurasian" lineages may have "seeped" into the
Nile Valley circa 10kya? Labeling as both Ish and Keita says is a problem.

It might be
likely that the greater percentage of
haplotypes called "Eurasian" are
predominantly, although not solely, of
indigenous African origin. As a term
"Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it
suggests a single locale of geographical
origins. This is because it can be
postulated that differentiation of the L3*
haplogroup began before the emigration
out of Africa, and that there would be
indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or
Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More
work and careful analysis of mtDNA and
the archeological data and likely
probabilities is needed. Early hunting
and gathering paleolithic populations can
be modeled as having roamed between
northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an
asymmetrical distribution of various
derivative variants over a wide region,
giving the appearance of Eurasian
incursion."

--Keita and Boyde

But aside from this, can you see a scenario of "purely" "Eurasian" seepage
into the valley? What's the definition of 'Eurasian" anyway?
If you are not L0-L4 then you are "Eurasian"? Isn;t this a recast
of the "true negro"?

A number of scholars argue that gene divergence
preceded population divergence (Mishmar 2003, Cordeaux 2003 etc),
so that variants, root types or prototypes of so-called
"Eurasian" lineages were already established WITHIN Africa
before OOA. Hence, can certain lineages be truly called
"Eurasian"? This gets back to the labeling issue.

But if this is the case, couldn't these proto-
variants have left Africa, undergone a bit of subsequent
differentiation, and then "backflowed" into the
Valley? Couldn't these then serve as a "Third
Force"- neither SSA or "Eurasian" but a "transitional"
type grouping that defeats your choice of either
SSA or Non-African?
[Smile]
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?

If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?

Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....

But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?

Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.

Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).

Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.

Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.

But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.

So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......

Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
 -

Oh Here it is, I found it:
 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460043/

So there, I "figured it out for you" based on modern DNA science.

And here is further clarification on the position of modern science:

 -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/

There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.

[Roll Eyes]

Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities.....

Great new references. But how do you account for the possibility
that so-called "Eurasian" lineages may have "seeped" into the
Nile Valley circa 10kya? Labeling as both Ish and Keita says is a problem.

It might be
likely that the greater percentage of
haplotypes called "Eurasian" are
predominantly, although not solely, of
indigenous African origin. As a term
"Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it
suggests a single locale of geographical
origins. This is because it can be
postulated that differentiation of the L3*
haplogroup began before the emigration
out of Africa, and that there would be
indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or
Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More
work and careful analysis of mtDNA and
the archeological data and likely
probabilities is needed. Early hunting
and gathering paleolithic populations can
be modeled as having roamed between
northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an
asymmetrical distribution of various
derivative variants over a wide region,
giving the appearance of Eurasian
incursion."

--Keita and Boyde

But aside from this, can you see a scenario of "purely" "Eurasian" seepage
into the valley? What's the definition of 'Eurasian" anyway?
If you are not L0-L4 then you are "Eurasian"? Isn;t this a recast
of the "true negro"?

A number of scholars argue that gene divergence
preceded population divergence (Mishmar 2003, Cordeaux 2003 etc),
so that variants, root types or prototypes of so-called
"Eurasian" lineages were already established WITHIN Africa
before OOA. Hence, can certain lineages be truly called
"Eurasian"? This gets back to the labeling issue.

But if this is the case, couldn't these proto-
variants have left Africa, undergone a bit of subsequent
differentiation, and then "backflowed" into the
Valley? Couldn't these then serve as a "Third
Force"- neither SSA or "Eurasian" but a "transitional"
type grouping that defeats your choice of either
SSA or Non-African?
[Smile]

If it were up to me that would be great but I am not the one who assigned these labels. So if folks believe that science is "objective and valid" then that is what you are stuck with. I am a layman and I don't write papers so I am just calling out the obvious. Pointing fingers at the Africans when Africans didn't create this false dichotomy is the issue.

Waaay back in the other thread talking about this paper before it was released I said that SSA has no place in African genetic history. But folks didn't hear me and so be it. It isn't like I haven't been saying the same thing multiple times for over a year or more.

But some folks are defending "modern science" vs "afrocentric loons" so they have to rock with whatever they believe in.

I really have nothing to do with it.

That said, just like we know there was migrations back and forth between Africa and Eurasia over time as a result of various environmental conditions, we also know that there were migrations from points South of the Sahara and through the Sahara as well. That is how OOA took place to begin with. So even with Eurasian back migrants, that still doesn't address what DNA profile the indigenous "non back migrants" would have had along the Nile between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Obviously the L0-L4 lineages are still the oldest lineages on earth and the "basal" lineages for all others and hence we know this is likely what dominated these regions like most of the rest of Africa. So the point is either you are going to have an AE population carrying a bunch of L lineages associated with folks further south (ignore SSA that is irrelevant) or you are going to have an AE population with a bunch of non L0-L4 lineages that arose somewhere else (or maybe even in North Africa). The point is what are those "other" lineages? Modern science has no answer to this. So at this point ruling out L0-L4 seeing as L0-L4 goes all the way back to the root of all human ancestry makes no sense, regardless of how it is labeled. And this is where this paper is just pushing a nonsensical untenable position as it doesn't answer what lineages they feel "should" have been in place along the Nile but instead just posits SSA as some "foreign" element along the Nile. Or to put it even better, doesn't put the L0-L4 lineages in context as the "dominant" lineages along the Nile South of Egypt (as one should expect). Of course later on they may do some more DNA samples and they MIGHT include some ancient Sudanese samples but we'll see. Either one, I am not the one who created this dichotomy.

And lot of this seems to be missing the forest for the trees....
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I really have nothing to do with it.

As shown by your repeated spamming of "L0-L4" (totally ignorant of L5 and L6) you don't have much to do with anything. Just misinformation and saying the same misinformation over and over is what you're good at.
 
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
@ Doug. Northeast Africans are a sub-set population from SSA that does not exist anymore, so by that logic, the OOA population wouldn't be SSA,, at least not by modern SSA standards. Ethiopians and Egyptians have those OOA alleles not found in modern SSA population, and diversity decreases as one leaves Africa, lol
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I really have nothing to do with it.

As shown by your repeated spamming of "L0-L4" (totally ignorant of L5 and L6) you don't have much to do with anything. Just misinformation and saying the same misinformation over and over is what you're good at.
Really? Did the paper that you claim is so earth shattering not make that statement? Somehow you are on a whole different planet if you believe "I personally" made up that label for those lineages. The paper we are talking about made that assessment.

But of course you will claim that I made up those papers assigning L3 to OOA.

Right.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Which paper assigned L3 OOA?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
@ Doug. Northeast Africans are a sub-set population from SSA that does not exist anymore, so by that logic, the OOA population wouldn't be SSA,, at least not by modern SSA standards. Ethiopians and Egyptians have those OOA alleles not found in modern SSA population, and diversity decreases as one leaves Africa, lol

Does it matter? The person who wrote this paper says that lineages L0 - L4 are sub saharan.

Whatever issues folks have with that need to be brought up with them.

I don't see why people keep missing this point.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Please address my post or not address it at all. Why are you summing up African L lineages as "L0-L4". What does that even mean?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
I am going to post this again for the last time.

No more responses to questions about who assigned L0 0 - L4 to Sub Saharan Africa or L3 to OOA. The references have been posted in the thread. Suffice to say I didn't write these papers. So folks trying to pretend that "Afrocentrics" made up this assignment are purposely playing dumb.

They know full well there is no "other" mtDNA as assigned by current scholarship that is indigenous to Africa and goes back to OOA. You can look at all the alleles you want to.

quote:

Abstract

Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100 to 130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world. The timing of the expansion of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ∼70 ka in Eastern and Central Africa rather than to symbolically mediated behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to Central Africa ∼60 to 35 ka and major migrations in the immediate postglacial again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in the L3 data is 3–4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and Southern Africa in the last 3–2 ka.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/3/915/1005941/The-Expansion-of-mtDNA-Haplogroup-L3-within-and


quote:

Previous studies based on hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) diversity have shown that haplogroup L2 played a major role in the Bantu migration17,18,24. MtDNA haplogroup L2 is the sister branch of the Eastern African L3′4′6 clade that contains all the OOA diversity within haplogroup L3. While L3′4′6 originated in Eastern Africa22, haplogroup L2 probably originated in Western Africa but is nowadays widespread across the continent; it is highly frequent in many regions, such as in Western/Central and Southeast Africa (probably associated with the Bantu expansion that occurred in the last few millennia) and in Northwest, most likely due to trans-Saharan slave trade18,25. Together with haplogroup L3, it represents ~70% of sub-Saharan mtDNA variation but despite its high frequency and wide distribution, L2 was not involved in the OOA26, since most likely it was not yet arrived in Eastern Africa by that time.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Please address my post or not address it at all. Why are you summing up African L lineages as "L0-L4". What does that even mean?

The point was this paper we are discussing assigns Lineages L0 - L4 as "Sub Saharan".

Those are the markers used to identify Sub Saharans in Egypt.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
You know you're not making sense repeating L0-L4 a thousand times. Nobody arbitrarily sums up L lineages as "L0-L4". That is a meaningless abbreviation of African mtDNA variation.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
You know you're not making sense repeating L0-L4 a thousand times. Nobody arbitrarily sums up L lineages as "L0-L4". That is a meaningless abbreviation of African mtDNA variation.

So whats this then?

quote:

Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526

Please stop replying to me.

Thanks.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
So whats this then?

They're probably just referring to an Egyptian sample with no L5 and L6. That doesn't mean that you can sum up African lineages as L0-L4. It's clear you don't know the difference between saying a specific Egyptian sample has L0-L4 and saying all African mtDNA variation consists of L0-L4. The latter is what you're doing and it makes no sense.

quote:

An infant skeleton was recovered from the 6G8 cemetery (Christian Period, 500-1400 C.E.) during excavation in what is present-day Wadi Halfa, located near the Second Cataract of the Nile in the Republic of the Sudan.
[...]
Haplogroup was assessed by analyzing SNPs from the mitochondrial chromosome with HaploGrep. The individual was assigned to L5a1a, a branch of the ancient L5 haplogroup with origins in East Africa.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275031788_Ancient_DNA_analysis_of_an_infant_from_Sudanese_Nubia_ca_500-1400_CE

How does this Nubian's mtDNA L5 fit in your "L0-L4" model?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Doug do you understand how broad and diverse mtHg L is?

Do you know Hgs are arbitrarily designed/labeled? your complaints are almost the equivalent of saying the Canadian/US border shouldn't exist because not everyone below it is a U.S. citizen.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug do you understand how broad and diverse mtHg L is?

Do you know Hgs are arbitrarily designed/labeled? your complaints are almost the equivalent of saying the Canadian/US border shouldn't exist because not everyone below it is a U.S. citizen.

Dude. This isn't about "me" understanding anything.

You guys are simply pathetic in trying to avoid the obvious that any issues with the assignments or classifications of these haplogroups go back to those making those assignments. "I" didn't write this paper. You know that but instead of addressing the flaws in the paper and the logical contradictions within, you fall back to pretending that the flaws are with "me" as if "I" have anything to do with it.

The point was if you guys are "so down" with science then you have to deal with the contradictions within the scientific community with the same energy and vigor that you presume to challenge "me" for calling out those contradictions.

But you won't do that.

This is the point.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
So whats this then?

They're probably just referring to an Egyptian sample with no L5 and L6. That doesn't mean that you can sum up African lineages as L0-L4. It's clear you don't know the difference between saying a specific Egyptian sample has L0-L4 and saying all African mtDNA variation consists of L0-L4. The latter is what you're doing and it makes no sense.

quote:

An infant skeleton was recovered from the 6G8 cemetery (Christian Period, 500-1400 C.E.) during excavation in what is present-day Wadi Halfa, located near the Second Cataract of the Nile in the Republic of the Sudan.
[...]
Haplogroup was assessed by analyzing SNPs from the mitochondrial chromosome with HaploGrep. The individual was assigned to L5a1a, a branch of the ancient L5 haplogroup with origins in East Africa.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275031788_Ancient_DNA_analysis_of_an_infant_from_Sudanese_Nubia_ca_500-1400_CE

How does this Nubian's mtDNA L5 fit in your "L0-L4" model?

So wait, I showed you where the paper uses the term "L0 - L4" and you proceed to talk about L5 and L6?

Really?

How do you go from one "L" to another?

Why do you presume to speak for the people that wrote this paper? You aren't the writer so any issues you have with it you need to bring it up with them. Stop playing the fence so dam much.

Bottom line take whatever "L" you want those folks classify it as "sub Saharan". There is no running away from it no matter how you try. Now you have a problem with that, you need to bring it up with them.

There are no "other" African mtDNA lineages going back to OOA that are "indigenous African" according to this classification based on current "science". Stop playing these silly games.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Either address my post or don't address it at all. The authors you're quoting are talking about an Egyptian sample's mtDNA L diversity. Nowhere do they condone reducing continental Africa's mtDNA L pool to "L0-L4".
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Either address my post or don't address it at all. The authors you're quoting are talking about an Egyptian sample's mtDNA L diversity. Nowhere do they condone reducing continental Africa's mtDNA L pool to "L0-L4".

I posted the wrong link earlier.

We are talking about the report that is the subject of this thread. They are saying that "L0 -L4" defines "sub Saharan" mtDNA lineages.


Point still stands. I didn't make this assignment.
quote:

We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4.

That is the point and title of the paper. And on top of that they refer to the Henn paper which they use to model the split between North Africa and "Sub Saharan" Africa based on back migration.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397

Therefore, I don't know how you can pretend not to understand what is being said.

After all you were the one of the folks promoting this paper.

What did you think they were classifying as "Sub Saharan"? Go ahead and accept the "L" for what it is.
 
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Doug says:
The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4. Quote:

"Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 "

For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are using that L range to say
"sub-Saharan". Sure. The increase in those lineages is what
allows them to say: "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest
an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods."

Without them there would be no "increased Sub-Saharans"
to compare against or report.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
Added to OP. Credit goes to Lioness.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
ATTENTION the thread topic article was finally published May 31 after this thread was made
I have copied a lot of the text and images from it and those have been added to the original post in page 1
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
commentary about Ancient Mummy Genomes article.
I find the title of the article to be dumb but there is some interesting commentary below

" But ultimately what’s great about this paper is that they have ancient autosomal DNA. That is, genome-wide results."
__________________________________________________

https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/30/ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/

excerpt:

Ancient Egyptians: Black Or White?

POSTED ON MAY 30, 2017 BY RAZIB KHAN

Gene Expression


 -

Because modern people care about the Afrocentrist question, the extent of Sub-Saharan African ancestry is highlighted in this paper. I do not think this is actually the most interesting aspect. But I’ll get to that. Since this post will be read by a fair number of people I’ll talk about the relationship of ancient and modern Egyptians to (Northern) Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.

The figure to the left is looking at 90 ancient Egyptian mitochondrial genomes (and some modern ones in the two rightmost columns). Since mtDNA is copious it was relatively easy to extract and analyze. Haplogroup L, the red to orange shades in the bar plots, are associated without dispute with Sub-Saharan Africa. Haplogroup U6, M1 and a few others may be “back to Africa” variants of different periods (they are generally found in Afro-Asiatic groups).

What you can see is that somewhat more than half of Ethiopia’s mtDNA lineages are L, in keeping with the whole genome estimate of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in most Cushitic populations. In Egypt there is a difference over time; haplogroup L goes from low frequencies to much higher frequencies in modern periods. The ~20% fraction in the modern samples is in line with the population wide admixture one sees in modern Egyptians of Sub-Saharan admixture.

I actually recomputed the haplogroups to a finer granularity from the supplements. A quick inspection of mtDNA haplogroup frequencies shows that ancient Egyptians are not typical of modern Europeans. Not that much H, and lots of T, J and K. What that does remind me of are Early European Farmers. These people, who brought agriculture to Europe from Anatolia contributed a large fraction of the ancestry of modern Southern Europeans, and a lesser component to Northern Europeans.


 -


But ultimately what’s great about this paper is that they have ancient autosomal DNA. That is, genome-wide results.

They got three samples of reasonably high quality. More precisely: “Two samples from the Pre-Ptolemaic Periods (New Kingdom to Late Period) had 5.3 and 0.5% nuclear contamination and yielded 132,084 and 508,360 SNPs, respectively, and one sample from the Ptolemaic Period had 7.3% contamination and yielded 201,967 SNPs.”

You can see the three samples on this bar plot. What is interesting is that they’re all pretty similar.

What you can see here is that to a great extent ancient Egyptians were descended from a population closely related to Natufians, or Natufians themselves. This easily explains the mtDNA affinity to Neolithic farmers: Natufians and Anatolian Neolithic populations were sister populations. The f3 statistic which looks at shared drift shows an affinity of ancient Egyptians with ancient farmer populations with Near Eastern provenance, but also with modern Sardinians. This is a common pattern, as ancient groups do not have later migration waves, with the Sardinians the modern population closest to this.

You see in the bar plot that northern Levantine populations are placed between Anatolian Neolithics and Natufians, as one might expect based on their geographical position and gene flow between these two regions. Additionally, the cyan color is associated with eastern farmers from the Zagros. I’ve already talked about gene flow from this area to the Levant recently. If you compare the Bronze Age Sidon samples I think you’ll see broad affinities with these Late Period Egyptians.


 -

The PCA gives us results consonant with the model-based clustering. If you plot the genetic variation of ancient Egyptians they’re closest to Neolithic eastern Mediterranean populations. No great surprise.

Not the modern Egyptians. Why? It’s pretty clearly because modern Egyptians are shifted toward Sub-Saharan Africans. But there is also another component: modern Egyptians have more of the cyan eastern farmer component. What could this be?

An immediate thought comes to mind. We focus a great deal on Sub-Saharan African slavery. One reason is that it is visible. Black Africans are physically distinct from most Middle Eastern populations. But Egypt was long the center of another slave trade: “white slaves” from the Caucasus. Circassians. For hundreds of years Mamluks were recruited from the Caucasus as military slaves. They eventually became the ruling class of Egypt, until their decimation in the 19th century under Muhammad Ali (who himself was an Albanian Ottoman who never learned to speak Arabic well).

As noted in the paper earlier work looking at patterns in ancestry tracts and LD decay had made it obvious that much of the admixture of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egypt, as in much of the Middle East, is relatively recent. In particular, it dates to the Islamic period, when trade and conquest took on new dimensions in Africa and north into Central Asia. One way ethnic minorities like Assyrians and Lebanese Christians differ from their Muslim neighbors is that they have much lower fractions of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, and no East Asian component. The latter might surprise, but remember that Central Asian Turkic slaves have been prominent in Muslim armies since at least the 9th century.

But some of the Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egyptians is old. The ancient Egyptian samples have it. To have none of it would seem strange, considering the history of contact between Nubia and Egypt, dating back to the Old Kingdom. Second, there is evidence of low levels of Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Southern Europeans. How did that happen? The highest fractions are in Spain, and can there be attributed to the Moorish period. But that explanation does not hold in much of Italy, where there are a few percent of haplogroup L. This probably is due to south-to-north gene flow across the Mediterranean during the Classical period. Some of the peoples on the south shore of the Mediterranean almost certainly already had some Sub-Saharan African admixture.

 -

Not getting into the details of it, there are ways to explicitly model gene flow into a target population from donors defined by a phylogeny. In this case the authors tested various models of gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians (non-Africans) to generate allele frequency patterns we see in modern Egyptians and ancient Egyptians.

What they consistently found is that modern Egyptians are about twice as much Sub-Saharan African as ancient Egyptians. The proportions for modern Egyptians ranged from ~10 to ~20 percent Sub-Saharan African against a Eurasian background, with a bias toward the higher values (depending on which populations you put into the phylogeny for non-Africans), and ~0 to ~10 percent for the ancient Egyptians, again with a bias toward the higher values. The pattern is consistent in these tests.

An issue here is that we’re going off three samples. That being said, the authors observe that despite differences in contamination/quality and time period they’re very concordant with each other. If I had to bet I think Old Kingdom samples would have somewhat less Sub-Saharan and eastern farmer ancestry. But the basic pattern persisted down to the Roman period, and was only shifted by admixture due to slavery.


 -

And not to belabor the point, but a paper from a few years ago which had some Copt samples looks familiar in its broad outlines. You see that the Copts have very little Sub-Saharan African ancestry, though it does seem to be evident (the marker set is in the hundreds of thousands of SNPs). Additionally, they are quite distinct from the Qatari Arab sample.

Unfortunately the data for this paper just published is not on the European Nucleotide Archive. I really want to dig a little deeper into it.

What are the takeaways here? Egypt has been the sink for a lot of migration and gene flow over the past several thousand years, and probably earlier. Not surprising considering that it was relatively wealthy in the aggregate. The Natufian population that the Late Period Egyptians resemble the most did not have Sub-Saharan African ancestry according to earlier research. These Late Period Egyptians do have some. This is reasonable in light of the long interaction with Nubia which is historically attested. Similarly, there was clearly gene flow from Southwest Asia. This is again historically attested, especially in the Nile Delta (though foreign garrisons of mercenaries are recorded in Upper Egypt as well).

The Roman period probably did introduce some gene flow from Southeast Europe and Southwest Asia. But these populations are not that distinct from Egyptians.

Similarly, the Islamic period also brought in different peoples from Arabia and the Caucasus. But the most salient dynamic during the Islamic period was a massive trans-Saharan slave trade (though the Caucasus impact may have been comparable, and I think these results support the proposition that it was).

It seems entirely likely that the Copts are descended from a mix of Roman era Egyptians. Not only do they resemble the people in the Fayum portraits, but the circumstantial genetic data is that they have fewer “exotic” components which increased in frequency during the Islamic era. This would be exactly parallel to ethno-religious minorities in the Levant and Iraq.

One curious element to me is the suggestion gene flow before ~5,000 BCE between Sub-Saharan Africa and the lower Nile valley was low. If it hadn’t been low, it seems unlikely that the fraction of Sub-Saharan ancestry (or shift in that direction in relation to other Eurasians) in Copts would be so small.

So what explains the lack of earlier gene flow? I think the answer is going to be the fact that the human demographic landscape is characterized by lots of local population extinctions. As ancient DNA sampling coverage gets better and better meta-population dynamics are coming into focus, and we see gene flow, and die offs, in several areas. It is fashionable to say that human population variation is characterized by clines. But much of this clinal aspect is an outcome of the period after massive admixture over the last ~10,000 years.

And yet it may not be that the period before the Holocene was not clinal. Rather, it may be that large depopulations of areas of human occupation fragmented clinal ranges, and resulted in new range expansions from “core” zones.

About ~8,000 years ago there was a major desertification period in the Sahara desert. Many trans-Saharan populations may have gone extinct during this time due to rapid climate change. Eventually repopulation may have occurred from outside of the Sahara, so that post-Natufian Levantines and Sub-Saharan Africans from what today call the Sahel pushed up and down the Nile drainage basic respectively, meeting in the zone of Nubia on the boundary of history and prehistory.

Unlike many other areas of the world we have a long attested record of Egyptian history. As we get more mummy samples it seems likely that we’re get a crisper, clearer, picture. And the time transects will not be narrative blind; we already know the general arc of Egyptian history. If, for example, we see a new ancestral component around ~1500 B.C., in Egypt it’s not mysterious what this might be: the Hyksos.

This is just the prologue to a fascinating book that will be written over the next decade.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://i.imgbox.com/EGW8bbDL.png

^ this is a screen shot of supplement figure 3 from the thread topic article Ancient Mummy Genomes..


Supplementary Data 3
Comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear Haplogroups. As the nuclear results do not have any specific enrichment applied for mitochondrial DNA retrieval, there are cases where the position was either not covered (yellow) or covered with less than 3 reads (red). Matching mutations were marked in green respectively between both captures.

*** I had a glitch so the headings are messed up. I couldn't post it properly
Maybe somebody else can post it

haplogroups listed:

J1d
U6a2
M1a1

_________________________________


also see

4.
Supplementary Data 4
Results of the genetic distance computation with Arlequin between 56 populations from Europe, Africa, the middle East, Asia and the Ancient Egyptian metapopulation investigated in this study.
5.
Supplementary Data 5
Results and details of a population continuity test between our investigated three ancient Egyptian populations and modern populations from Egypt and Ethiopia in the respective region.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Doug says:
The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4. Quote:

"Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 "

For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are using that L range to say
"sub-Saharan". Sure. The increase in those lineages is what
allows them to say: "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest
an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods."

Without them there would be no "increased Sub-Saharans"
to compare against or report.

For now. Who knows what may change down the road.

FWIW I haven't been able to find any studies of the mtDNA in Sudanese populations to compare against.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Another Nature article calling out the "Sub Saharan" mtDNA lineages specifically:

quote:

As mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is uniparentally inherited, it undergoes negligible recombination at the population level, and mutations acquired over time have subdivided the human population into several discrete haplogroups. The major haplogroups arose 40,000–150,000 years before present (YBP) and have defined different human populations as they migrated out of Africa and populated the globe. The African root was the source of four lineages specific for sub-Saharan Africa: L0, L1, L2 and L3 (130,000–200,000 YBP). Two more haplogroups, M and N, arose from the African haplogroup L3 65,000–70,000 YBP to populate the rest of the world.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n9/fig_tab/nrg3966_F5.html

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

Oh please. You claimed that "science is objective" and that it is far better than so-called 'afrocentric loons'. But the science says clearly that the only indigenous OOA related African mtDNA lineages are the L0-L4 lineages. And according to most science studies those lineages are also identified as "sub saharan". Therefore, where are the OTHER mtDNA lineages in North Africa, that were present before OOA, that are not L lineages?

Answer: there are none, according to modern science. Because according to the papers I have seen and already posted most associate the L3 lineage, which is also identified as "sub saharan", with the Northern Route out of Africa.

So the idea that there is some "non sub saharan" indigenous and ancient branch of DNA in Africa that we "don't understand" is false. All other lineages according to modern science are the result of back migrations from Eurasia.

This implicitly means that the ONLY indigenous African lineages that any population in Africa can have that is tied to OOA is an L mtDNA lineage, including Egypt.

Which means that there is no OTHER mtDNA lineages other than so-called "sub saharan" L lineages that the AE could have and not be considered as the result of "back migration" at some point after OOA.

So either modern science is wrong and M and N mtDNA lineages arose in Africa or the only "African" pre-OOA mtDNA lineages are L0-L4. Which also means all other North African populations are back migrants at some point after OOA.

All of that is according to current scientific DNA findings, unless those findings are flawed in some way.

Oh and BTW if the Africans migrating out of Africa via the Northern (or Southern for that matter) route carried L mtDNA lineages then those are the lineages that would have led to "basal Eurasian". [/QB]

I am surprised that Doug says this.
Ish Gebor, Clyde and xyyman take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.

If Doug is saying that Haplogroup L is the only original African mtDNA lineage what about on the YDNA side?
A similar position would be that only YDNA groups A and B and E are original to Africa. I don't know if he is saying this also
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
But some of the Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egyptians is old. The ancient Egyptian samples have it. To have none of it would seem strange, considering the history of contact between Nubia and Egypt, dating back to the Old Kingdom. Second, there is evidence of low levels of Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Southern Europeans. How did that happen? The highest fractions are in Spain, and can there be attributed to the Moorish period. But that explanation does not hold in much of Italy, where there are a few percent of haplogroup L. This probably is due to south-to-north gene flow across the Mediterranean during the Classical period. Some of the peoples on the south shore of the Mediterranean almost certainly already had some Sub-Saharan African admixture.
These people are delusional. I hope they get cocky and open the flood gates.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^ please list the source for that quote

Also several things were said there. If you say it's delusional you would have to break it down and say what particulars are delusional
and why
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Its from Khan above. I'll answer why they are delusional in an upcoming video. I say they because Khan is using the same code speech.

Khan the noted non-white white supremacist.
https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/

http://tktk.gawker.com/new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Actually they aren't delusional. They are playing stupid.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptian. Ancestral for SLC45A2. Tropical Africans carry a relatively ghigh frequency of derived SLC24A5
--

--
A Complex, Polygenic Architecture for Lightened Skin Pigmentation in the Southern African KhoeSan
ALICIA R. MARTIN1,2,3,

April 21, 2017 , Studio 7 Add to calendar

While >200 genes have been associated with pigmentation in animal models, fewer than 15 have been directly associated with skin pigmentation in humans. This has led to its characterization as a relatively simple quantitative trait. We show that skin color is more variable in admixed and[/b] equatorial populations [/b]by comparing phenotypes from ~5000 individuals in >30 populations, providing evidence of increased polygenicity closer to the equator. ***Strikingly***, no quantitative gene discovery efforts for pigmentation have yet been published in continental Africa, despite skin pigmentation varying more there than any other continent. Light skin pigmentation is observed in the southern latitudes of Africa among KhoeSan hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert. The KhoeSan are unique in their early divergence from other populations, dating back at least ~100,000 years. We demonstrate that skin pigmentation is highly heritable (h2>0.85), with similar estimates from pedigrees identified via ethnographic interviews, unrelated population-based samples, and haplotype sharing. Further, genes previously associated with skin pigmentation, rapidly evolving genes, and pigmentation genes discovered in animal models explain significantly more heritability than random genes. We show that some canonical pigmentation loci, including SLC24A5, are polymorphic in the KhoeSan and at higher frequency than explained by recent European admixture alone. We identify novel skin pigmentation loci, including near SMARCA2 and TYRP1, using a genome-wide association approach complemented by targeted resequencing in >440 individuals. Our results suggest that pigmentation loci can evolve rapidly in response to latitude and highlight the utility of studying geographically and genetically diverged populations for understanding human adaptation.

---

My point?
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Its from Khan above. I'll answer why they are delusional in an upcoming video. I say they because Khan is using the same code speech.

Khan the noted non-white white supremacist.
https://undark.org/article/race-science-razib-khan-racism/

http://tktk.gawker.com/new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849

Khan's continued dance with White Nationalism is absolutely hysterical considering they were skewering him for having a mixed race baby. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Really? Mixed with what?
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
White.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Funny. He is probably looking at the chocolaty coons with white women like Clarence Thomas wondering wtf. I'm on the fence but is does seem like he is pussyfootingly labeling these ancient Egyptians as Hyksos.

quote:
Unlike many other areas of the world we have a long attested record of Egyptian history. As we get more mummy samples it seems likely that we’re get a crisper, clearer, picture. And the time transects will not be narrative blind; we already know the general arc of Egyptian history. If, for example, we see a new ancestral component around ~1500 B.C., in Egypt it’s not mysterious what this might be: the Hyksos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt

Notice the wink wink nod nod ignoring of Jama and BMJ. Thats what I mean. Compared to those studies this is a new ancestral component.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
What are Jama and BMJ?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
A good poster from Forumbiodiversity posted this. Tests on the Ancient Samples have been done. Here are their K6 scores.

JK2134 776-569 cal BC
quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan

JK2911 769-560 cal BC
quote:
2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan

JK2888 97-2 cal BC

quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan

According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample

Thoughts?

@Capra glad to see you're still here. [Smile]
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Good post, Basal Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture, interesting to actually see the gradual increase I initially though we'd see. This whole thing makes too much sense to be true though, somethings up.

Glad we actually got some African aDNA though, even if they might be migrants.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
A good poster from Forumbiodiversity posted this. Tests on the Ancient Samples have been done. Here are their K6 scores.

JK2134 776-569 cal BC
quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan

JK2911 769-560 cal BC
quote:
2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan

JK2888 97-2 cal BC

quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan

According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample

Thoughts?

@Capra glad to see you're still here. [Smile]

One could interpret it as an echo of a wave of migration from North East Africa leading up to the Neolithic and reaching into Iran.

But it is odd how they use very specific groupings for Non Africans but for Africans you get "Sub Saharan". It would be more informative to have "Central Saharan pastoral, Khartoum Mesolithic, Eastern Desert Nomad, Fayum Neolithic, Nabta Playa, Old Kingdom Giza, Naqada predynastic,Predynastic A group, etc.


 -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse
(Note how this green blob magically stops at Africa.)

Seeing how the current DNA groupings are defined it will be hard to detect an African wave if the current labels of what DNA lineages came from where still stand. For example, what if populations went back and forth between NE Africa and Eurasia? Then what? Is it African or Eurasian?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
What are Jama and BMJ?

The samples that led to the Amarna and Ramses iii ancestry test. Its a weak conspiracy. The black unconscious community could correct wikipedia if they put half as much group effort to it as they put to pseudo science festivals and flagging rival channels on a white own platform.
quote:
What was removed was as I recall material that was original research/synthesis (ie combining two sources to make a point) and/or material not from scientific journals, eg DNA Tribes. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAncient_Egyptian_race_controversy%2FArchive_26

I have issues with the all or nothing nature of STR test but they arent making that argument and even if they did it would not be valid. The reason why they did not include Jama and BMJ is this...


 -
 -
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
Thanks Fourty2Tribes, I've never seen the full report before.

@BlessedByHorus

Hail the new overlords [Big Grin]
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:

@BlessedByHorus

Hail the new overlords [Big Grin]

 -

Thanks! Thoughts on the tests on the Ancient samples I posted?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Good post, Basal Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture, interesting to actually see the gradual increase I initially though we'd see. This whole thing makes too much sense to be true though, somethings up.

Glad we actually got some African aDNA though, even if they might be migrants.

Thanks.

But can you elaborate what you mean by when you say "Basel Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture."
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
There's an Idea that Natufian/Early farmer like components or basal Eurasian affinity will be directly affected by SSA admixture similar to how BE is to Neanderthal admixture. I forgot where I read that from but I figured it would be viable. however, it doesn't seem like that's so much the case as opposed to an EHG (seen as WHG here) vs. SSA negative correlation, even in contemporary populations. However we're only looking at 3 people. So there could be something there I ain't seeing yet.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.

You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.

What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.

Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.

You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.

What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.

Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.

To me it seem some folks are scared to openly and publicly challenge the status quo on this point. This paper in the OP blatantly lays out the position that Northern Africa in ancient history was associated with "Non African" peoples because of 'Non African' DNA lineages. And of course the only "African" DNA lineages are "Sub Saharan". And this is the current position of a great many geneticists in the scholarly community.

Of course it is hard to challenge something when you don't have any "independent" means of acquiring data and doing your own analysis. So even those who do their own analysis on published data aren't really able to change anything.

But we will see if they apply their newfound ability to extract DNA to more ancient specimens across a more representative sample from ancient populations or do they keep using carefully selected specimens.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.

The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?


I mean science revises theories and positions all the time. Why should this be no different? The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high. So this isn't necessarily a "conspiracy theory". I just don't get why folks come on a forum where folks are investigating the possibilities about past events then sit there and question why folks are investigating the possibilities about past events. If you think that science is correct then what is the point? I can read their papers myself and see what they believe. So what is the point of you being on the forum? Are you upholding the status quo or challenging it? Because lately a lot of folks have been sounding like they are defending the status quo.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
It's not about defending or challenging
some status quo. It's about being true
to what one makes of the data after one
approaches it w/o trying to enforce a
priori convictions.

Otherwise all one is doing is
first shooting your arrow and
then drawing a bullseye around
where it hit.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.

The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?


The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.

There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.

You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.

What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.

Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.

Observing your behavior you never acknowledge and haplogroup
as being non-African. Whenever the topic comes, any haplogroup being suggested to be non_African you never acknowledge it up you put up phylogenetic trees suggesting that it is African

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.

That's your other opinion. That back migration is impossible. Instead of saying outright what you do is whenever back migration is suggested you say it didn't happen.
You don't take responsibility for taking a stance. You just act on the stance.
In the past few years there are numerous articles suggesting back migration from Eurasia to Africa did occur sometimes.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's not about defending or challenging
some status quo. It's about being true
to what one makes of the data after one
approaches it w/o trying to enforce a
priori convictions.

Otherwise all one is doing is
first shooting your arrow and
then drawing a bullseye around
where it hit.

This. Except for one thing.

My argument for it goes back to curlycarly. She's a woman from Texas with a southern European phenotype. She took a region of origin genetic test and the top three countries of origin were Somalia, Sudan and Spain. Her human ancestors probably spent more time evolving in inner Africa than Somalia. When people draw haplogroups out of Africa they don't show how big the base is or how often lineages recoil except for the swoop back through Egypt.

The one thing: I don't know if Doug is talking about that model or a model where all or nearly all of the major haplogroups begin in Africa and we just don't see it this way because Africa is genetically segregated .

I'm interested in what people looked like so lineage frequencies/patterns matter in how they coincide with phenotype. I'm stumped. This could look like anything

JK2134 776-569 cal BC
quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan
JK2911 769-560 cal BC
quote:
2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan
JK2888 97-2 cal BC

quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.

The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?


The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.

There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in
Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?

I have always been an independent thinker defending what I believe here for over 10 years. So this notion about mebing scared to say what I want is hilarious.

I don't really have time for petty disagreements.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Observing your behavior you never acknowledge and haplogroup
as being non-African. Whenever the topic comes, any haplogroup being suggested to be non_African you never acknowledge it up you put up phylogenetic trees suggesting that it is African

You are making up stuff, as usually. A phylogenetic tree is meaningless when it doesn't show actual transitions. These folks write their papers, as if there is / was a border patroller. Which is PURE NONSENSE labeling. [Big Grin]

Keep running …

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

In the past few years there are numerous articles suggesting back migration from Eurasia to Africa did occur sometimes.

When you get the nitty gritty, you'll notice that these papers you talk about mostly are based on old Eurocentric historical doctrines.

Note, in particularly from the 37:00 minute onwards the question on DNA and historical narratives, which it's very interesting.

J. .P Mallory speaks on Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe at the Silk Road Symposium held at the Penn Museum held in March 2011.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
That's your other opinion. That back migration is impossible. Instead of saying outright what you do is whenever back migration is suggested you say it didn't happen.
You don't take responsibility for taking a stance. You just act on the stance.


Sure,…this is why they revamp the same sample sets over and over (take the Yoruba). Surly these trees are being altered (adapted / remodeled) when it doesn't suit the "program".


Meanwhile we have Sara Tishkoff, with the largest sample set on Africans who says the following:

quote:
African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans


Or:


quote:
To resume, our results clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes. Similarly, the causal association between STR-defined haplotypes and ethnic groups appear without any robust support, making its use inadequate for forensic or genealogical purposes. Instead, J1 variation provided the genetic background to correlate climatic changes to human demographic and socio-cultural events scarcely documented in the archaeological record – the dispersal of hunter gatherers after the termination of glacial conditions in the late Pleistocene and the desertification-driven retreat of tribes of Saharan and Arabian foragers in the transition to a food-producing economy.
—Sergio Tofanelli et al.

J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements

European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 1520 – 1524

Or:

quote:

Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.


--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al

Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)


I didn't make up the above, as you keep suggesting.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.

The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?


The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.

There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in
Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?

@Doug - YOU HAVE NO POSITION. You have an IDEA you want to play chess but you refuse to move any piece on the chess board. I challenge you because you are being an intellectually coward or simply being LAZY about the argument. You are not directly attacking the issue with real data and reasoning and instead are just writing booombastic 'complain' paragraphs over and over. Disagreeing with published authors is not real scholarship. If someone is going to sit and say derived N lineages are "African" and form an entire religion around it that helps them duck and dodge any idea of Non-African input or migration back onto the continent.........they are going to have to come hard with some EVIDENCE. At LEASE have the balls to put your idea on RECORD as far as SPECIFICS.

As to "MY Position" - Again you are not going to learn from me under the guise of an argument. Sorry.

@Tukuler - I understand EXACTLY what Doug M is saying but his comments basically suggest we sit back and do nothing, nor think nothing. Furthermore my mind is FAR from made up....You would actually be surprised. Right now I just work with what we have....IE: Its quite obvious that Haplogroup E and A are probably West African......why do we call them East African? Are we appealing to authority? ....Does the LABEL we put on the marker really matter when the population MOVEMENTS and what lineages wax/wane is really what we are discussing? Not really.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
A refreshment:

quote:
Introduction

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [H o m o sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"

[...]

The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.


—Hervella et al. 2016
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
A new taste for the tongue, ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies, and early evidence for dog breeding

http://www.sciencemag.org/podcast/new-taste-tongue-ancient-dna-egyptian-mummies-and-early-evidence-dog-breeding
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.

The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?


The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.

There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in
Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?

@Doug - YOU HAVE NO POSITION. You have an IDEA you want to play chess but you refuse to move any piece on the chess board. I challenge you because you are being an intellectually coward or simply being LAZY about the argument. You are not directly attacking the issue with real data and reasoning and instead are just writing booombastic 'complain' paragraphs over and over. Disagreeing with published authors is not real scholarship. If someone is going to sit and say derived N lineages are "African" and form an entire religion around it that helps them duck and dodge any idea of Non-African input or migration back onto the continent.........they are going to have to come hard with some EVIDENCE. At LEASE have the balls to put your idea on RECORD as far as SPECIFICS.

As to "MY Position" - Again you are not going to learn from me under the guise of an argument. Sorry.

@Tukuler - I understand EXACTLY what Doug M is saying but his comments basically suggest we sit back and do nothing, nor think nothing. Furthermore my mind is FAR from made up....You would actually be surprised. Right now I just work with what we have....IE: Its quite obvious that Haplogroup E and A are probably West African......why do we call them East African? Are we appealing to authority? ....Does the LABEL we put on the marker really matter when the population MOVEMENTS and what lineages wax/wane is really what we are discussing? Not really.

Dude stop clowning yourself. I wasn't asking you for help. And I wasn't asking for your approval to have an opinion.

So if you aren't replying with anything substantive why keep replying to me?

You come off as if you represent scholarly consensus as opposed to just being a layman with an opinion. The point being you aren't writing any papers or changing the minds of these who are.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Beyoku and forum

After apologizing for offering a counter view
Doc Ben taught me to disagree all I want to
as long as I had evidence in support.

We cannot imagine future evidence will come
along and vindicate our view. We can only go
on what we got right here and now.

No need to reject a report that didn't meet
expectations. There should be no expectation
when approaching new phenomena. We should be
ready to critically embrace as far as its
• sample set
• data
• methodology
• tools
• findings
• author(s) interpretation
• biases
to ferret, if any, factual errors or spin.
Then on to analysis and synthesis or misfit
to an accumulated multi-disciplinary database
partially at one's mental recall but physically
available for ready reference and proof of facts.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
Anthrogenica lowkey has the best discuession when it comes to this study.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10771-Ancient-Egyptian-mummy-genomes

No denialism and ignoring what the samples say but also no Eurocentrics hyping it up and saying this completely means the AE were not Africans along with ignoring past Egypologist studies.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper. The folks making this claim suddenly have become "pro defenders" of what science has to say about Genetics and Africa as if they are "insiders" or somehow part of the scholarly community. It is as if they want "special recognition" as if they are "part of the team" doing this work.

Come on give me a break.

But this is why certain folks seem to be so defensive about other folks comments on published papers.

If these folks really do want to pursue a career in science and anthropology then more power to them. But I am not into this idea of "professional" amateur forum posters trying to act like they are more important than they really are.

If that offends people then so be it but I wasn't the one running around calling folks "Afrocentric radicals" and all other such stuff behind this one paper. And now the paper is out and these same folks want to run off and pretend that they don't have a position on the data that THEY were telling everybody on the forum to be looking out for. And certainly current scholarship isn't asking input from anybody on this forum for the direction on or methodology they use in their work. I am a layman with my own observations and that is as far as it goes, but some folks like to pretend this is more than that.

Like I said before multiple times, if they were serious about understanding the genetic history of the Nile Valley during and after OOA along with populations in AE they would sample more ancient specimens. And the authors themselves point out that this paper is not enough to "prove" anything across all of Egypt's history. This paper simply shows that they are able to get complete DNA from SOME mummies and not from others. It remains to be seen whether that will work on all mummies and ancient remains or not. So even though we may HOPE to get definitive DNA data on these ancient populations, it may not be consistent. Meaning the speculation and theorizing will go on for years both within scholarship and among amateurs on these forums some of whom will be trying to pretend this paper means more than it really does.

I went to school at the height of the Afrocentric era and as far as Afrocentrism goes, scholarly Afrocentrism has failed to produce any graduates equipped in STEM to go into Anthropology to study African biological history across the board, not just in Egypt. Egyptsearch and posters on it just shows that there are some folks with the skill and ability to do their own research even if they are not professional anthropologists. But at the end of the day science and scholarship doesn't recognize ideas unless you write papers conforming to scholarly standards. Outside of that, ranting and raving on a forum, cheer leading certain scholars or rejecting others only has meaning mostly to other laymen. I wholeheartedly support taking their energy and passion and actually pursue the study of anthropology. But other than that this is just a forum full of folks having opinions and flaming each other like has been going on for many years.... Therefore if you REALLY want to make a change then you have to actually get into the field of anthropology and publish your own scientific observations. Otherwise, don't expect much to change any time soon.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Anthrogenica lowkey has the best discuession when it comes to this study.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10771-Ancient-Egyptian-mummy-genomes

No denialism and ignoring what the samples say but also no Eurocentrics hyping it up and saying this completely means the AE were not Africans along with ignoring past Egypologist studies.

This poster is saying what I was expecting.
[QUOTE]Would make good sense. The Sheikh has always expected Egyptians from around 500 BCE to the early Islamic period to basically be like Copts, especially north of Luxor and Aswan. These samples go back a bit farther than that but I'm still not tooooo surprised, I guess.[/QOUTE]
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10771-Ancient-Egyptian-mummy-genomes&p=240479&viewfull=1#post240479

Me thinks the genetic structure of Coptics originated around that time which is why these mummies are so similar to the Coptics. Again what I think.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Doug
I'm for analyzing synthesizing and independently
interpreting stuff, I don't care much for the
perzonalities and their rambunctious behavior
or Lord High Muckamuck look down the nose
attitude.

We're all amateurs here. Not a one has been
formally schooled in molecular biology with
anything like a degree. At least now we can
look forward to more students taking classes
contributing to our forum.


With internal admin we can go at these things
on merit now without name calling and grand
standing obscuring what one really said and
what readers really want to know about.


And yes the academic discipline of Afrocentricity
has failed to do anything but soft sociology. It's
not equipped for what we do here. For me it even
fails in simple textbook African history as
evinced in the encyclopedias they published.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Doug
I'm for analyzing synthesizing and independently
interpreting stuff, I don't care much for the
perzonalities and their rambunctious behavior
or Lord High Muckamuck look down the nose
attitude.

With internal admin we can go at these things
on merit now without name calling and grand
standing obscuring what one really said and
what readers really want to know about.

My only opinion on the issue is some folks really want to be on the "inside" for whatever its worth. But to me the point at the end of the day is not to be a professional forum poster. My intent has always been to show that if I as a layman can come up with convincing evidence and facts that challenges current scholarship then other folks can and should be able to take it further but that requires being a true professional scholar, which is as I said Afrocentrism failed. Too many so-called "conscious" folks are nothing more than professional debaters and not really doing anything to change anything. I can't imagine folks still debating Egypt 20 years from now... At some point it needs to be put to rest once and for all.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

[ 06. June 2017, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Ah ahn, no rehashed biblical Exodus in my science. Nope. Religion and science don't
mix, Religion already knows the answers
without a doubt no update possible.
Science doubts everything not put
to the test and corrects itself.

Your response belongs in Deshret afaic.
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
Children of Israel are more and mightier than the Egyptians themselves? They need Trump....build that wall!
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
[QB] Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly.

so what haplogroups would the Hyksos be carrying that the Egyptians were not carrying prior ?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^ opps disregard question I thought that was xyyman, sometimes I just look at the picture. Got to remember it's Einstein now
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

And in the following thread when the preview was given what did I say? That they probably had limited data and it wouldn't be that "groundbreaking". And of course I get challenged as if what I said didn't turn out to be correct.....

Not to mention the limitation of African DNA to "Sub Saharan" Africa....

I mean some folks want to pretend things have changed but they haven't. Not that much. Otherwise why do folks spend so much time reading these reports if everything is so correct and unbiased?

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
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".

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=3
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The point I m making is both Doug
and Beyoku already have their minds
made up and neither can hear the
other nor want to hear the other
(putting data and methodology
aside, Doug has an intelligent
analysis and is well grounded
from a sociological (i.e.,
university field Afrocentric)
stance.


AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup
is no guarantee of no individual's
phenotype.

Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper.
.

Wall of text. SMH.
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

 -

^ this is a screen shot of supplement figure 3 from the thread topic article Ancient Mummy Genomes..


*** I had a glitch so the headings are messed up. I couldn't post it properly
Maybe somebody else can post it

Supplementary Data 3
Comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear Haplogroups. As the nuclear results do not have any specific enrichment applied for mitochondrial DNA retrieval, there are cases where the position was either not covered (yellow) or covered with less than 3 reads (red). Matching mutations were marked in green respectively between both captures.


haplogroups listed:

J1d
U6a2
M1a1


I don't have the headings, not sure which are a attributed to a particular time period of a mummy.
More limited number of genomes, 3 , in the study as noted by beyoku


Note J1d is mtDNA not Y


quote:


Genetic Stratigraphy of Key Demographic Events in Arabia
2015


The migration of J1d1a lineages into eastern Africa in the Neolithic period is confirmed in the whole-mtDNA sequencing (S14 Fig.) and complemented by the frequency interpolation and founder analysis (S13 Fig.) performed here.

Haplogroup J also shows signs of having crossed into eastern Africa, particularly the sub-clade J1d1a1, necessarily after its emergence in Arabia at ∼7.1 ka (S14 Fig.).
_____________

S14

Phylogenetic tree of haplogroup J1d1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4349752/bin/pone.0118625.s014.tif

quote:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872530/

Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 25501.
Published online 2016 May 19. doi: 10.1038/srep25501
PMCID: PMC4872530

The mitogenome of a 35,000-year-old **** sapiens from Europe supports a Palaeolithic back-migration to Africa

After the dispersal of modern humans (**** sapiens) Out of Africa, hominins with a similar morphology to that of present-day humans initiated the gradual demographic expansion into Eurasia. The mitogenome (33-fold coverage) of the Peştera Muierii 1 individual (PM1) from Romania (35 ky cal BP) we present in this article corresponds fully to **** sapiens, whilst exhibiting a mosaic of morphological features related to both modern humans and Neandertals. We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage. Consequently, we propose that the PM1 lineage is an offshoot to South East Europe that can be traced to the Early Upper Paleolithic back migration from Western Asia to North Africa, during which the U6 lineage diversified, until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages.



someone please fill us in on which mummy of which time period corresponds to mtDNA J1d, U6a2 and M1a1
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

I'm no genetic expert, so what would 91 nuclear genomes have provided that 90 mitochondrial genomes do not?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Why is J1d1 in the Great Lakes region?? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
a female picture might be more appropriate being that J1d1 is mtDNA
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
The idea that this paper would be a "game changer" was based upon the teaser that would would have 91 autosomal genomes giving us a near 3000 year view of Egyptian history with the addition of modern samples. 91 nuclear genomes didn't come to fruition, we got 3........only three. There is not too much we can say based on three.

I can say that analysis iof what we do have in terms of Eurasian ancient DNA still leaves much to be desired in the community and my criticisms there still stand.

I'm no genetic expert, so what would 91 nuclear genomes have provided that 90 mitochondrial genomes do not?
YOu can take a look at the Samples here There are 3 "Ancient Egyptians". All 3 look to be a combination of the Brown component that peaks in Natufian. Followed by the Blue that peaks in Anatolia Neolithic....and lastly the light Blue of Iran Neolithic. Each one of those Bars is ONE sample. There are 3 Samples total. IF we had 90 mummies you would have 90 bars and in essence you could see what type of variability would be found. For instance of you look at the Supp file. Take a look at the Nama or the Hadza. They show a bit of diversity between individuals. With some being total "Hadza" while others sporting Yoruban and Natufian components. On the other hand there is virtually little variation in the Somali sample. 90 Mummies over a 2000-3000 year history could show a gradual change and the increase or decrease of certain components. We dont really get that becuase we only have 3 Autosomal components. Another thing that could have happened wiht 90+ Autosomes...or even 10 is that they would have created their own component. I doubt it with samples this late but its a possibility.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became [Wink] ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike2,3,4.
 -

Let it be known that the first ancestry test on ancient Egyptians were done on people with foreign names.You see what I mean about playing stupid?
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
They were saying that has been a frequent problem in archaeology, not that the samples this had came from a cemetery with this problem. Plus they're concluding that outside influences played a role BEFORE Greeks and Romans arrived there to be "trendy." The coalescence date for larger influx is around 2nd Millennium B.C. If you must think about foreigners, what was happening in Egypt around that time which would make the author discuss Canaan or the Hyksos?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
They were saying that has been a frequent problem in archaeology, not that the samples this had came from a cemetery with this problem. Plus they're concluding that outside influences played a role BEFORE Greeks and Romans arrived there to be "trendy." The coalescence date for larger influx is around 2nd Millennium B.C. If you must think about foreigners, what was happening in Egypt around that time which would make the author discuss Canaan or the Hyksos?

Exactly. Why mention it but not give us names? Otherwise they would just give us Egyptian names.
 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Because it's irrelevant? They're saying Greek or Latin names were adapted as status symbols to be "exotic" by both foreigners and natives. If thousands of years in the future, Afro English or Afro Americans were uncovered, if the tombs frequently had Indo European names, would that mean they weren't Afro English/American? If native Egyptians considered it cool to have Greek or Latin names (and took them), there'd be no way to definitively know if the remains were foreign just because they have a foreign name.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Yes its irrelevant if they are Egyptian names which is why the extra information is dubious. I since a freudian conversation.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
A good poster from Forumbiodiversity posted this. Tests on the Ancient Samples have been done. Here are their K6 scores.

JK2134 776-569 cal BC
quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan

JK2911 769-560 cal BC
quote:
2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan

JK2888 97-2 cal BC

quote:
0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan

According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample

Thoughts?

@Capra glad to see you're still here. [Smile]

The poster, on FBD, what other populations were in his/her structural analysis? I want to point out something in the future, regarding the Natufian Genomic Make up.... Something that the following image from the OP study makes kinda clear.

 -

Just read through the last 5 pages or so in FBD, with a big ass grin across my face, I tried to join the forum but I couldn't make it past the captcha, but damn ...I don't want to get all "A priori" and self righteous, but damn man...

quote:
Previous studies (Achilli et al. 2005; Ottoni et al. 2010; Pereira et al. 2010) provided evidences of mtDNA flow from Europe toward North Africa during the Holocene; thus, North Africa would represent the Southern African edge of post–Last Glacial Maximum
expansions spreading from European refugee. Here, we show, for the first time, genetic evidence signaling prehistorical movements
in the opposite direction, from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe. It is likely that most of the signals in the nuclear genome of this
ancestral gene admixture between African immigrants and local Europeans had been erased by historical recombination and genetic
drift. Therefore, as demonstrated in the present study, the mtDNA genome (and perhaps the Y chromosome) (Capelli et al.
2009) is the source to rescue the echoes of prehistorical sub-Saharan movements into Europe.

http://bit.ly/2s2gXiW
...and boy does it get better.

didn't find the quote yet though BBH.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ What you said. People too many times equate "affinity" with migration into Africa. Affinity is a two way street. What poeple are doing over there...........and here too actually is actually like North Africa (and the diversity that comes with it) does not exist.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I've been holding this in for a minute, but to ignite discussion I'ma bring this up. I might've been beaten to the punch on another blog, forum or site (I haven't been active or reading from anywhere else).

But a good portion that brown "Natufian" component from the OP study could actually be Indigenous African. And it's correlation with Basal Eurasian might be Overhyped as F*ck. The Abusir mummies might have somewhat "Indigenous African" Ancestry being overlooked due to large amounts of Non-African admixture and so might a lot of East Africans.

What beyoku says above is absolutely right about North African Diversity but more importantly, a lot of people here were right, What's happening was more complex than it was made out to be. To my fault I oversimplified SSAn Ancestry and overstated the Non-Indigenous component in the North African Genome. I also have to shout Tukuler for recently highlighting the *Heratin-indigenous North African phenomena* and how it might relate to Km.t. That explanation is probably closest to the truth in the most simplest way.

The talk about Basal-Eurasians for months on here was all hype.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I've been holding this in for a minute, but to ignite discussion I'ma bring this up. I might've been beaten to the punch on another blog, forum or site (I haven't been active or reading from anywhere else).

But a good portion that brown "Natufian" component from the OP study could actually be Indigenous African. And it's correlation with Basal Eurasian might be Overhyped as F*ck. The Abusir mummies might have somewhat "Indigenous African" Ancestry being overlooked due to large amounts of Non-African admixture and so might a lot of East Africans.

What beyoku says above is absolutely right about North African Diversity but more importantly, a lot of people here were right, What's happening was more complex than it was made out to be. To my fault I oversimplified SSAn Ancestry and overstated the Non-Indigenous component in the North African Genome. I also have to shout Tukuler for recently highlighting the *Heratin-indigenous North African phenomena* and how it might relate to Km.t. That explanation is probably closest to the truth in the most simplest way.

The talk about Basal-Eurasians for months on here was all hype.

@Beyoko and @Tukuler what are yall thoughts on this. I DO remember discussions on how Haratin like ancestry may relate to Ancient Egypt.
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
@ el Maestro
Thx 4/t shout.

@BBH
Dunno what yr asking me.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
As I predicted we're still at the same place we were before those results in term of determining the origin and ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians.

If Ancient Egyptians are mostly Eurasians or mostly Africans, so be it but we must have more aDNA results. Especially from mummies with confirmed native status like Ramses III, Amenhotep III, King Tut, etc. Ramses III and Pentawere (his son) are E1b1a while all the 18th Dynasty royal mummies genotyped have shown us strong affiliations with modern African populations. Those were low density DNA but it's more than enough mathematically speaking. The probability of having 8 random str showing us African affiliations by mistake is very low and we're talking about quite a few mummies. Do you know any other culture in the world where they have a tradition of using headrests like Ancient Egyptians and other Africans?

I've discussed many other studies (genetics, archaeology, history-ancient Egyptian writings, etc) and results (Kadruka , Pickrell, Pagani, Mota, etc) earlier here.

We know they share a common history with Kushites during the Tasian, Badarian and Pastoral era (Nabta Playa, Kadruka, Cave of Swimmers/Best, etc).

quote:
From Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a View from the Nile First Cataract Region (2014)

CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity is something connected to the rise of the Naqada culture in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE. During the previous millennium such a distinction would have not made sense. As previously stated, the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt have strong ties with rhe Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition, as can be inferred, for instance, by the very similar pottery, economy and settlement pattern and by the latest findings in the deserts [edit:Cave of Swimmers, Cave of the Beast, Nabta Playa, etc] surrounding the Egyptian Nile valley (Gatto 2011b, 2012a, b, 2013).

Kadruka/Kushite Ancient DNA results

The Abusir mummies show us West Asian/Levant affiliations but Amenhotep III, Ramses III, King Tut, other 18th Dynasty mummies, Kadruka, Mota have shown us African affiliations. Even the old Paabo study said the same thing for the 12th dynasty mummies (it was before aDNA studies were mature and more common).

The Ancient Egyptian culture itself is a southern transplant (Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, etc) at the time Narmer unified the country.

I would like to see high density analysis of the 18th Dynasty royal mummies, same for Ramses III and Pentawere. The technology is better now and it happens to be one of the most well known Dynasty. Same for the Middle Kingdom (which is before the Hyksos/Heka khasut/Aamu dynasties). IMO, those mummies will show admixtures with Aamu (as well as Libu, Kushite, Medjay) like any neighboring populations in the world but the African affiliations will be prevalent like the results we already have demontrated. I don't see the Ramses III, Pentawere and the 18th Dynasty royal mummies aDNA results to be a mistake or something.

quote:
"Especially from the second millennium BCE
onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically
documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of
Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt
,
whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant5""


 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
I bumped into this one unexpected.


 -

Picture Id: 526734
Rights Managed

Editorial
Description:
A skull, of unknown origin, on the desert floor at Abusir.

Keywords:
ABUSIR, DESERTS, SKULLS, HUMAN BONES AND SKELETONS

Location:
ABUSIR, EGYPT.

Photographer:
KENNETH GARRETT/National Geographic Creative
See More Images by this Photographer

Technical details:
Dimensions: 5076px x 3392px

https://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/526734
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^  -
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
a female picture might be more appropriate being that J1d1 is mtDNA

The dude in the picture neither represents a Great Lake reason inhabitant.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
someone please fill us in on which mummy of which time period corresponds to mtDNA J1d, U6a2 and M1a1

Perhaps this is helpful? [Cool]


quote:
Introduction

After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"

[...]

The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.


—Hervella et al. 2016


 -
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
On an unrelated note:

What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

Is this true?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

The issue is that according to most current studies the only "indigenous" mtdna lineages of Africa are the "L" lineages and these are not ironically also labeled "sub saharan". Which would mean that any other lineage becomes evidence of Eurasian back migration and mixture. But whether that is true or not depends on finding ancient remains that are 3, 4, 5, 10 and 20 thousand years old in North Africa and along the Nile Valley that supports this. Because otherwise, some of those non L mtdna lineages could be "indigenous" African lineages. Or many of the "indigenous" lineages in North Africa and the Egyptian Nile Valley are "L" lineages. But that would mean that "L" lineages are not restricted to "sub saharan" Africa and never were. This paper assumes that "L" lineages are "sub saharan". So they have created an a-priori set of parameters that automatically precludes any "indigenous" lineages in Egypt that could be both "indigenous" and "North African" but are not related to black flow from Europe or "Sub Saharan" L lineages. This is the game being played.

The real issue is determining when the splits to the L lineages and the branches M and N came about. But I doubt these people really want to dig too deeply into that and absolutely prove those arose in "Eurasia". And even if they did, the those 'back migrants' returning to Africa > 40kya would still for all intents and purposes be black African in phenotype and if they stayed in Africa would justly be called "indigenous" if their descendants were still there 30,000 years later. But they haven't proven any of this yet and it would require heavy filtering and analysis of a lot of data from across North African, both ancient and modern to begin to try and prove it.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

1/3 sounds excessive (more like 10-25%?), and not specifically Bantu but generically West-Central African/Niger-Congo. I think it's based mainly on ADMIXTURE results like here which I gather show up fairly consistently.

Awale would probably be the best one to ask.
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

The Abusir mummies prove that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes. The presence of so-Called Eurasian genes at Abusir show that these genes were native to the Egyptians and other Africans.

 -


.

The problem with most people who have read the Abusir article don’t understand how to critically analyze a research article and the data therein, and form a conclusion. As a result, when they read a paper they accept what is written at face value without looking critically at the data and making their own interpretation.

The idea that Eurasians dominated Lower Egypt is ludicrous. First of all, Afro-American scholars have accepted that the Egyptians were Black/African people for the past 200 years, i.e., Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois, and J.A. Rogers, and the Senegalese scholar Anta Diop ; but, Negro Apologist : Gates, Kittles and etc, spend their time parroting the status quo line that the Egyptians were a mixed race.

This same group attempt to make it appear that the Fulani, Somalis and Ethiopians are black skinned whites, because of their facial features. This is stupid, because man originated in Africa, so the physical features of these populations are African features.

The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.

The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.

In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:

The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.

In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of the so-called Eurasian mtDNA.

Reference:

Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694

.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I've been following discussions on various forums and people keep mentioning terms like "indigenous North African Egyptian ancestry" and "Eastern Saharan" ancestry, and this has left me perplexed.

What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning? Which ones can we firmly associate with the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians? Some people now suppose that the Eurasian mtdna profiles of the Abusir mummies are essentially representative of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians.

"What mtdna haplogroups are indigenous to Egypt from the beginning?"

That is the best question thus far, "EVUUUR" . [Cool]
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Maybe I am missing or over looking something here, but how does this timespan convey to a "Pre-Dynastic Egypt"?

"The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period."
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.

Lets lose the "albino" talk.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
I see how you leftist are with your Political correctness. I'm Forty2Tribes not Forty2ethnicgroups.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I see how you leftist are with your Political correctness. I'm Forty2Tribes not Forty2ethnicgroups.

And I'm BlessedbyHorus MOD of this section and I'm telling you to leave the pseudo-science out of this discussion. Its not needed.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
It might be offensive someone other than Doxie (don't know) but it is not Pseudo science.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The media is in full freckles first albino mutation supremacy mode. They are acting like this is the first and only test on ancient Egyptians. I'm doing a video comparing this buzz word political campaign to other test.

Lets lose the "albino" talk.
I propose an alternative: "edomites"?
 
Posted by JMT2 (Member # 16951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

There is no indication that Hyksos were not Africans. Africa did not end once one entered Western Asia. It is discussed repeatedly on this forum that Diop's assessment of Libyans - who were in Africa - and Western Asians were all about other African featured people. Heka Khasut/Hyksos were not white people.

Why do people continually perpetuate falsehoods on this forum knowing a particular subject matter has been covered repeatedly?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
Credit for this goes to the homies Elmaestro and beyoku... [Cool] [Cool]

 -

beyoku posted it on FBD where I saw it.
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JMT2:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Folks its not that complicated. Hyksos arrived due to a famine and quickly outnumbered the native populations. Once that happened and your choice is to only kill the boys, then genetic replacement happens quite quickly. Egyptians were replaced by the time period that this report is focused on. Yet I don't see this report actually address the Amarna mummies. That I find questionable.


[Admin Note: Absolutely not. Save the Biblical speculation for Deshret.

There is no indication that Hyksos were not Africans. Africa did not end once one entered Western Asia. It is discussed repeatedly on this forum that Diop's assessment of Libyans - who were in Africa - and Western Asians were all about other African featured people. Heka Khasut/Hyksos were not white people.

Why do people continually perpetuate falsehoods on this forum knowing a particular subject matter has been covered repeatedly?

Correct the Hyksos and other Asian groups were Kushites or Africans. That's why the Rulers of the Hyksos titled themselves in their inscriptions: Heqe Khas, or "King of the Kushites".
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
genetiker has put up his analysis of the Egyptian Y DNA https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-egypt/

JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.

JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.

JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).

IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.

If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?


 -

Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%

 -


Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
A homeland, but not the homeland

"It seems increasingly likely that ancient DNA has identified a massive expansion, or a series of expansions, from Mesopotamia and/or surrounds in basically all directions dating to the Chalcolithic (ChL) and Bronze Age (BA). This phenomenon is mainly characterized by the simultaneous spread of:"
- Iran_ChL-related genome-wide ancestry

- Y-haplogroup J

- South Caspian-specific mitochondrial haplogroups such as R2 and U7

At least two of these characteristics are shared by five groups that have appeared in the Near Eastern and African ancient DNA record as probable post-Neolithic newcomers, at least in part, at their respective sampling sites:

- Anatolia_BA, Western Turkey, 2836-1800 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2017)

- Egyptian mummies, Middle Egypt, 776-2 calBCE (Schuenemann et al. 2017)

- Iran_ChL, Western Iran, 4839-3796 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Levant_BA, Northwestern Jordan, 2489-1966 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Sidon_BA, Southern Lebanon, 1750-1600 BCE (Haber et al. 2017)

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-homeland-but-not-homeland.html
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?

A Y chromosome is only a small part of your genome, inherited from only one of your many ancestral lines. Sharing a Y haplogroup does not mean you share your whole autosome. East Indians don't cluster with Poles, nor Albanians with Somalis.

Just because they aren't close together autosomally doesn't mean they are completely unrelated - and obviously the Bahariya probably *are* highly related to the ancient Egyptians.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
If E1b1b1a1b2-V22, E-M78 is 7200-9800 years old and relates to some SSA's, how can it be that they don't cluster in this study?

A Y chromosome is only a small part of your genome, inherited from only one of your many ancestral lines. Sharing a Y haplogroup does not mean you share your whole autosome. East Indians don't cluster with Poles, nor Albanians with Somalis.

Just because they aren't close together autosomally doesn't mean they are completely unrelated - and obviously the Bahariya probably *are* highly related to the ancient Egyptians.

I know that, but the issue I am having here is that these SSA groups do show part of the parental ancestral genome. This is not mentioned in that paper. The Fulani carry the highest frequency of this specific lineage. And the Fulani are pastoralists who have roamed all over Africa.

Pulaar - Africa Fulani Peul Kemet Oral History


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHWGcUxNYC8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dVTTFYbY98


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3cOZK28CuQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iakEJ_ALBgU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1z_nLaAHo4


I will try to find more info on the Bahariya Egyptians when time suits.

 -
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
"More generally, it has often been suggested that there is an extant tropical belt of human populations that anatomically resemble sub-Saharan Africans (with 'racial' features such as very dark skin, curly hair and so on). They include some southern Indians, the Andamese, the so-called Negritos of the Phillipines (Aeta/Agta) and the Malay Penisula (Semang), Papuans and Aboriginal Australians. These people, it as suggested, might be the survivors of a 'southern coastal route' from the Horn of Africa along the tropical coastline through to SOutheast Asia and Australia (Nei and Roychoudhury 1992). The bulk of EUrasian populations were then suggested to be the survivors if a 'northern route': out of Egypt into the 'Levantine corridor', and thence into both Europe and Asia (Lahr 1996).'"
-- Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens. p. 234
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
On an unrelated note:

What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

Is this true?

Another irony is that they consider this SSA, instead of indigenous.

quote:
Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17).
However, there is genetic continuity, but not in the L lineages? [Embarrassed] [Confused]

quote:

Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).


 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What evidence is there that the Dinka are 1/3rd Bantu? This is repeated over and over again in some of the forums that I've recently frequented. Somalis apparently have a type of Dinka-like ancestry minus this apparent 1/3rd Bantu admixture.

1/3 sounds excessive (more like 10-25%?), and not specifically Bantu but generically West-Central African/Niger-Congo. I think it's based mainly on ADMIXTURE results like here which I gather show up fairly consistently.

Awale would probably be the best one to ask.

Thanks for this response, Capra.

Beyoku seems to think that the "West-African" component in the Dinka may actually be the precursor. Beyoku's argument draws on the fact that there are no E1b1a lineages in South Sudan.

Would I be right to state that the Nilotics are the third oldest existing African group after the Khoisan and Hadza people?
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
What about Niger-Congo speaking Mbo who have the oldest Y lineage?
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Isnt it Mbu? Who are Mbo?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
 -

Comparison:

Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans


I notice that these early european farmers carried clades like haplogroup G, that aren't found in these specimen.


See Klei10:

For remain data see: "Table S14: List with all genomes discussed in the text giving relevant information in chronological order."


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


I now understand why they only used 3 samples, so they can maintain the narrative to shift data when it suits.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
If the build of ancient Egyptians supposedly originated from Europeans and west-Asians, how come linguistically it doesn't reflect that?


 -
 
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
 
Fourty2tribes: "Isnt it Mbu? Who are Mbo?"

Mbo are 86,000 member tribe from East Cameroon that moved to west Cameroon, some of them have YDNA unusually ancient 250ka~. They are mainly hunter-gatherers, now bushmeat hunters. There's a photo in ES. I think they have West African Pygmy traits, but not certain.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
Fourty2tribes: "Isnt it Mbu? Who are Mbo?"

Mbo are 86,000 member tribe from East Cameroon that moved to west Cameroon, some of them have YDNA unusually ancient 250ka~. They are mainly hunter-gatherers, now bushmeat hunters. There's a photo in ES. I think they have West African Pygmy traits, but not certain.

Thanks. I looked up the Mbo people and mind blown.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
I think they have West African Pygmy traits, but not certain.

I am not sure what West African Pygmies are, can you elaborate?

quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
Fourty2tribes: "Isnt it Mbu? Who are Mbo?"

Mbo are 86,000 member tribe from East Cameroon that moved to west Cameroon, some of them have YDNA unusually ancient 250ka~. They are mainly hunter-gatherers, now bushmeat hunters. There's a photo in ES. I think they have West African Pygmy traits, but not certain.

Thanks. I looked up the Mbo people and mind blown.
Here is basically everything you like to know, and if not can ask:

TL Dixon on the A00 Cameroon Research Project and Albert Perry's Y.


 -


http://www.rootsandrecombinantdna.com/2017/01/a00-cameroon-research-project-and.html
 
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I am not sure what West African Pygmies are, can you elaborate? [/b]

Writing 'off the cuff' here:
While East-Central African Pygmies are Mbuti & Efe, Central African Pygmies are Baka & Aka/Akka, and South-Central Pygmies are Mbatwa, the West African Pygmies are harder to delineate due in part to migrations and part to genetic & cultural admixture. Bacola/Bakola is one West African Pygmy group.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I am not sure what West African Pygmies are, can you elaborate?

Writing 'off the cuff' here:
While East-Central African Pygmies are Mbuti & Efe, Central African Pygmies are Baka & Aka/Akka, and South-Central Pygmies are Mbatwa, the West African Pygmies are harder to delineate due in part to migrations and part to genetic & cultural admixture. Bacola/Bakola is one West African Pygmy group.

I am sorry but I have never heard of this. You're saying: "Bacola/Bakola is one West African Pygmy group"? From what part of West Africa did they migrate and when was this?
 
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
 
http://www.pygmies.org/bakola-bagyeli/

Migrate? Pygmies are (were) nomadic hunter - gatherer people, moving from camp to camp within the rainforest; they did not migrate from overpopulated/famine-struck villages to new areas along the periphery of the rainforest as did the Bantu agriculturalists.

I'm assuming that West Africa includes Cameroon, did you mean further west than that?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
http://www.pygmies.org/bakola-bagyeli/

Migrate? Pygmies are (were) nomadic hunter - gatherer people, moving from camp to camp within the rainforest; they did not migrate from overpopulated/famine-struck villages to new areas along the periphery of the rainforest as did the Bantu agriculturalists.

I'm assuming that West Africa includes Cameroon, did you mean further west than that?

Cameroon is West Africa? Okay.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
A homeland, but not the homeland

"It seems increasingly likely that ancient DNA has identified a massive expansion, or a series of expansions, from Mesopotamia and/or surrounds in basically all directions dating to the Chalcolithic (ChL) and Bronze Age (BA). This phenomenon is mainly characterized by the simultaneous spread of:"
- Iran_ChL-related genome-wide ancestry

- Y-haplogroup J

- South Caspian-specific mitochondrial haplogroups such as R2 and U7

At least two of these characteristics are shared by five groups that have appeared in the Near Eastern and African ancient DNA record as probable post-Neolithic newcomers, at least in part, at their respective sampling sites:

- Anatolia_BA, Western Turkey, 2836-1800 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2017)

- Egyptian mummies, Middle Egypt, 776-2 calBCE (Schuenemann et al. 2017)

- Iran_ChL, Western Iran, 4839-3796 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Levant_BA, Northwestern Jordan, 2489-1966 calBCE (Lazaridis et al. 2016)

- Sidon_BA, Southern Lebanon, 1750-1600 BCE (Haber et al. 2017)

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-homeland-but-not-homeland.html

Somehow I didn't see this post. Y-haplogroup J


quote:
To resume, our results clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes. Similarly, the causal association between STR-defined haplotypes and ethnic groups appear without any robust support, making its use inadequate for forensic or genealogical purposes. Instead, J1 variation provided the genetic background to correlate climatic changes to human demographic and socio-cultural events scarcely documented in the archaeological record – the dispersal of hunter gatherers after the termination of glacial conditions in the late Pleistocene and the desertification-driven retreat of tribes of Saharan and Arabian foragers in the transition to a food-producing economy.
—Sergio Tofanelli et al.

J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements

European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 1520 – 1524
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
Yup J is not native to the Levant, and J is Indo Iranian in origin. Pretty sure that is what David Reich proposes. So they could not have originally been Afro Asiatic speakers either. They would have been Indo European speakers, that is why Erhet is correct with the AA Urheimat in NE Africa and not the Levant.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
Yup J is not native to the Levant, and J is Indo Iranian in origin. Pretty sure that is what David Reich proposes. So they could not have originally been Afro Asiatic speakers either. They would have been Indo European speakers, that is why Erhet is correct with the AA Urheimat in NE Africa and not the Levant.

I don't think you really grasped it, you need to read it a few more times, let it simmer in slowly.


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai, Northeast Africa. And Iranians have a complex composition.


Instead, J1 variation provided the genetic background to correlate climatic changes to human demographic and socio-cultural events scarcely documented in the archaeological record – the dispersal of hunter gatherers after the termination of glacial conditions in the late Pleistocene and the desertification-driven retreat of tribes of Saharan and Arabian foragers in the transition to a food-producing economy.


This is on the: "Complete Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in Iranians"

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080673&type=printable


"Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians"

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
Look, I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong


The first J1 men lived in the Late Upper Paleolithic, shortly before the end of the last Ice Age. The oldest identified J1 sample to date comes from Satsurblia cave (c. 13200 BCE) in Georgia (Jones et al. (2015)), placing the origins of haplogroup J1 in all likelihood in the region around the Caucasus, Zagros, Taurus and eastern Anatolia during the Upper Paleolithic.

Like many other successful lineages from the Middle East, J1 is thought to have undergone a major population expansion during the Neolithic period. Chiaroni et al. (2010) found that the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan. Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains are the region where goats and sheep were first domesticated, some 11,000 years ago. Chiaroni et al. estimated that J1-P58 started expanding 9,000 to 10,000 years ago as pastoralists from the Fertile Crescent. Although they did not analyze the other branches, it is likely that all surviving J1a1b (L136) lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai

you made this up?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai

you made this up?
Nope I didn't. Ask your Africana teacher.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
Look, I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong


The first J1 men lived in the Late Upper Paleolithic, shortly before the end of the last Ice Age. The oldest identified J1 sample to date comes from Satsurblia cave (c. 13200 BCE) in Georgia (Jones et al. (2015)), placing the origins of haplogroup J1 in all likelihood in the region around the Caucasus, Zagros, Taurus and eastern Anatolia during the Upper Paleolithic.

Like many other successful lineages from the Middle East, J1 is thought to have undergone a major population expansion during the Neolithic period. Chiaroni et al. (2010) found that the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan. Eastern Anatolia and the Zagros mountains are the region where goats and sheep were first domesticated, some 11,000 years ago. Chiaroni et al. estimated that J1-P58 started expanding 9,000 to 10,000 years ago as pastoralists from the Fertile Crescent. Although they did not analyze the other branches, it is likely that all surviving J1a1b (L136) lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains.

I know about this, but the paper prior speaks of a genetic drift during the late Pleistocene. That's the thing here.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai

you made this up?
Nope I didn't. Ask your Africana teacher.
It's sounds fishy, what's your source?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai

you made this up?
Nope I didn't. Ask your Africana teacher.
It's sounds fishy, what's your source?
What is your source? lol

Why are you asking questions but never answering questions? It's just so bizarre and delusional.

Go ask your Africana teacher.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


J arose at the Southern part of the Sinai

you made this up?
Nope I didn't. Ask your Africana teacher.
It's sounds fishy, what's your source?
What is your source? lol

Why are you asking questions but never answering questions? It's just so bizarre and delusional.

Go ask your Africana teacher.

It's ok if you don't want to answer it
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
All 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals [for details of the 90 individuals included in the later analysis, see Supplementary Data 1} used in this study were taken from two anthropological collections at the University of Tübingen and the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection

These people where monsters, my god, smh....
 -

Imagine a foreign people entering your country and desecrating the graves of your ancestors. They then transport the body parts to their homeland for the purpose of ‘proving’ the inferiority and animal-like nature of your people. As appalling as it may sound, such a practice was common among scientists for many decades after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

In the early 1990s several articles drew attention to the murder and ‘bodysnatching’ of the Australian Aborigines that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.1,2,3

According to one researcher, “…the graves of between 5000 and 10,000 Australian Aborigines were desecrated, their bodies dismembered or parts stolen to support a scientific trade.”4 What many do not realize is this was not a geographically isolated phenomenon, but was occurring simultaneously in the German colonies in Africa, especially at the request of prominent racial scientists in Germany.

Felix von Luschan

If there were one German scientist most responsible for the trafficking of body parts in Africa it was Felix von Luschan. Though allegedly a monogenist (i.e. believing in a single origin for humans, as the Bible teaches) and often portrayed as an anti-racist, such views of Von Luschan’s, however, must have been only theoretical. He was a strong proponent of social Darwinism, especially in regard to the colonial institutions in Africa and the South Pacific to which he had strong connections.

The brotherhood of man is a good thing, but the struggle for life is a far better one—Felix von Luschan
“The brotherhood of man,” wrote von Luschan, “is a good thing, but the struggle for life is a far better one.”5

One of von Luschan’s close contacts in Namibia was an experienced grave robber—Lieutenant Ralph Zurn, who on one occasion before the German war against the Herero people, ordered his men to exhume skulls from Herero graves at Okahandja.6 At the request of von Luschan, Zurn (when he returned to Germany) donated a Herero skull to von Luschan’s massive skull collection and eagerly aided von Luschan in his pursuit to procure more skulls from those that died in the Herero war.7

Von Luschan was also instrumental in procuring skulls from German East Africa.8

The Germans often acquired these skulls with the aid of the natives—sometimes paying as little as a piece of soap, and in other regions, paying a full day’s wage.9 The Maji Maji War provided von Luschan with the best opportunity to acquire skulls. To the Governor of East Africa, von Luschan wrote:

I devotedly allow myself to inquire if there exists any possibility that the skulls might be dug up and sent to Berlin. If the opportunity to rescue for science a freshly severed head ever presents itself again, I would be most grateful if these heads would be treated with formaldehyde or in another appropriate way and sent to the Royal Museum. It would be of great scientific value if soft parts, especially the various tattoos, could be saved for posterity in a secure and unproblematic way.10
I have dissected thousands of corpses, but found no soul in any—Rudolf Virchow
Von Luschan had an intimate knowledge of what was occurring in the German colonies and let few opportunities slip through the cracks.

He wanted body parts from New Guinea (then a German colony), but that proved very difficult. However, some of the residents of New Guinea had been recruited to fight for Germany in East Africa. So he tried to get his specimens from the bodies of those killed in combat, though he only succeeded in obtaining two skeletons that way.11

Another means of acquiring the data for racial studies was through the colonial exhibitions. Each of the German colonies, in Africa and the South Pacific, recruited native people for ‘freak shows’ or ‘ethnological exhibitions’, at which the people in Germany were supposed to witness for themselves the ‘inferiority’ of blacks. Herero people arriving in Germany were made to discard their uniforms in the case of the men, and the Victorian dresses of the women. The Herero had adopted this European dress when they had converted to Christianity but were made to wear ‘primitive’ clothing for the exhibitions.12

Wikimedia commons/Matt Crypto
9591-skull-mkwawa
Rudolf Virchow had in his possession the skull of Mkwawa, the tribal leader of the Wahehe in East Africa. It is now on display at Mkwawa Memorial Museum in Tanzania.
These also provided racial scientists in Germany with living material to study. Every native performer was required to let anthropologists measure their skulls and almost every other body part. Many of the natives refused to be measured, and refused to be photographed in their native attire, much to the indignation of von Luschan.

One native who was uncooperative was Bismarck Bell, a Cameroonian from the Duala tribe, whom von Luschan called, “A delightful original and an incomparable mixture of idiot and ‘trouser-nigger’.”13

The colonial exhibitions also provided German scientists with the fresh corpses they so desired when native people died. On one occasion all the Inuit performers died of smallpox, and scientists kept their performance props and at least one skull.14 And at the exhibition of 1896 two natives from Africa died ( murdered?) and the plan was for von Luschan to obtain the whole skeleton and Wilhelm Waldeyer to obtain the brains and other soft parts. Whether they actually obtained the bodies, though, is uncertain.15

Rudolf Virchow

Courtesy of U.S. National Library of Medicine
9591-rudolf-virchow
Rudolf Virchow engaged numerous people to ship him freshly severed heads.
Another culprit in the trafficking of human skulls was Rudolf Virchow who, though he opposed Darwin’s mechanism of evolution (preferring Lamarck’s16), was a thorough-going materialist. He once said, “I have dissected thousands of corpses, but found no soul in any.”17
Virchow encouraged travellers to collect from prisons, battlefields, hospitals, and executions not only bones but salted skin and dried hands.18 He also encouraged travellers to ship to Berlin freshly severed heads. He preferred that the heads be shipped in zinc containers filled with alcohol, otherwise the removal of most of the flesh was necessary before shipping!19

In one of his lectures, Virchow expressed generous humanitarian feeling towards the natives, after which, without any sense of contradiction or impropriety, he told a story of how he acquired some of his skulls:

Thanks to the precious help of the government and of some travellers, I have been able to obtain until now some dozen skulls from our Eastern and Western African colonies…Dr. Stuhlmann investigated on a spot where a fight took place between two tribes. One of his assistants collected a certain number of heads on the scene, packed them in a bag and had them carried on the back of a boy to Zanzibar. As one could expect, they banged and bumped against each other during the trip, and their condition, when they arrived in Berlin, left a lot to be desired. Such are the conditions with which one has to reckon.20
Virchow possessed an enormous skull collection, which included the skull of Mkwawa—the tribal leader of the Wahehe in East Africa who committed suicide to avoid capture by the Germans.21 Shortly after his death his head was removed and shipped to Germany where it remained until its return in 1954. Today, the Berlin Museum of Natural History holds more than 6,000 human skulls, which includes Virchow’s collection as well as a portion of von Luschan’s.22
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
From The Czech Institute of Egyptology. Posted June 30, 2017

Abusir-south

the tomb of Hetepi (priest, beginning of Dynasty 3) 2686 to 2613 BC


 -

 -
 -


the tomb of Qar and his sons (vizier, Dynasty 6)2345-2181 BCE,

 -

 -

 -

 -

http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2011/09/digital-library-electronic-publications.html
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Nice posts, Andromeda2025. I saw this sources about a few weeks ago.

It is obvious something odd and fishy is going on, with these "Abusir mummies".


Cross post:


 -

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




quote:

3. IMPERIALIST ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE CANARY ISLANDS AND THE STUDIES ON PREHISTORIC COLONIZATION

The leading geostrategic role of the Archipelago itself in relation to the colonial partitioning of Africa by Europe, specially just after the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), is a factor that has to be taken into account when analysing the different approaches to the colonization of the islands developed at the time, since it was the motley framework of annexationist and imperialist interests that eventually made the islands an enclave coveted by certain European nations, specially by France and Germany, as we have already pointed out. The German and French presence in West Africa, next to the Canaries, turned the Archipelago into a geostrategic enclave, economically valuable (Farrujia 2005).

It was this set of circumstances that would, in fact, favour the development within the islands of an imperialist archaeology, with clear racist leanings, in which some foreign authors engaged in Canarian studies were involved. This was the case with the French authors Jean-Baptiste Bory de Saint-Vincent, Sabin Berthelot, Cesar Faidherbe and René Verneau and the German authors Franz von Löher, Hans Meyer and Felix von Luschan.


3.3. The Aryan hypothesis

Contrary to the French authors, German scholars argued for an Aryan presence in the Canary Islands, and therefore an ancient link between Germany and the Archipelago. Franz von Löher (1990 [1876]) insisted on the presence of Vandals in the islands (6th century) partly on the basis of archaeological evidence (stone huts), but mainly through philological arguments (considering the Guanche or indigenous language as a German dialect). The source he used as a basis for his description of the Germanic people and their comparison with the Guanches was De origine et situ Germanorum by Cornelius Tacitus, in which the Latin author explained the customs in the Germanic towns at the time of the Varian disaster. In relation to this text, it should be remembered that German academic tradition had in fact built its national identity around the Germanic tribes, on the basis of classic texts such as the one by this Latin author.

Other German authors, such as Hans Meyer (1896) and Felix von Luschan (1896) also argued for Aryan invasions, but from an anthropological point of view. According to them, the Armenian type, associated with Indo-Europeans (and therefore Aryans) was considered to be related to the indigenous Canarian people. In connection with the proposed relationship to the Armenian type, it is necessary to point out that the studies of Meyer and Luschan had in fact been developed at the same time as the rise of Germany in Egypt and Mesopotamia since, on the eve of the First World War, the Ottoman empire had become a political and economic arena of the first order. In fact, Luschan end up arguing, after developing his studies on the anthropological materials obtained from the campaigns in the Near East, that the first residents of Mesopotamia and Anatolia had been a brachycephalic Armenian type, with the Mediterranean dolichocephalics arriving after them. This justified the predominance of the Aryan presence in the territories of the Near East, and consequently legitimised the German right to occupy them3.

3 In the case of the Canary Islands, Luschan did not held this view explicitly. Nevertheless, do bear in mind that he was a firm patriot, nationalist and imperialist who supported the need for a German overseas empire and defended the utility of imperialist competition. This was why he adopted a pro-belligerent position when defending the imperialist interests of Germany in Africa (Zimmerman 2001: 46), and why he defended the Aryan presence in the Canary Islands. In the case of Franz von Löher the imperialist ambitions were held explicitly, because as he wrote in the foreword to his book (Löher 1876: 4), if the Guanches were German, they should be liberated sooner or later.


4.4. The German incidence


German imperialist archaeology had hardly any influence on the Canarian authors. Several factors influenced this situation: the language barrier, since hardly any Canarian intellectuals spoke German4, the absence lack of any links between German and Canarian academic circles, the contacts established between Canarian and French scholars and the early relationship established between the Guanches and the Cro-Magnon type and, consequently, with the French prehistoric environment. Therefore, the theoretical and methodological guidelines developed in German archaeology and anthropology did not have such a profound effect on the Canarian academic world, which was more open and receptive to the French scientific world. The works of authors like Franz von Löher, Hans Meyer or Felix von Luschan on the Canaries were therefore unknown to most Canarian academics. Only some authors from the Islands referred to them, but without developing a critical reading of their works, an aspect doubtless influenced by a lack of knowledge of the German language5.



—José Farrujia de la Rosa

Waiving the ancestors voices? Archaeology, politics and identity in the Canary Islands at the end of the 19th century

https://www.academia.edu/5708420/Waiving_the_ancestors_voices_Archaeology_politics_and_identity_in_the_Canary_Islands_at_the_end_of_the_19th_century
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Okay, I read the paper last month and what I found fishy about the study are actually only a couple things albeit very significant points.

One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.

By the way, recall how these Roman era Fayum mummies looked like when alive. Thus, the alleged Eurasian ancestry present including the SLC24A5 alleles are not at all surprising.

Second, why are the Yoruba people of Nigeria used as the model for modern Sub-Saharans when there are other SS Africans much closer to Egypt. I notice the PCA used a couple of Horn populations i.e. Ethiopian Jews and Somalis and I also see one Nilotic population- Dinka though I can't see how the Dinka figure into the graphs. What about ancient Sub-Saharans or other modern ethnic groups like Beja and modern Nubians??

For the record, unlike some here I don't deny that these mummies have any indigenous Egyptians ancestry I just question how their overall genome can be extrapolated to be the standard for all pharaonic Egyptians including those of Upper Egypt.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

From The Czech Institute of Egyptology. Posted June 30, 2017

Abusir-south

the tomb of Hetepi (priest, beginning of Dynasty 3) 2686 to 2613 BC


 -

 -
 -


the tomb of Qar and his sons (vizier, Dynasty 6)2345-2181 BCE,

 -

 -

 -

 -

http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2011/09/digital-library-electronic-publications.html

Yes, contrast the early dynastic Fayum folk above the Roman Era Fayum folk which the paper is based on below:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1021&bih=538&q=fayum+portraits&gbv=2&oq=Fayum+por&tbm=isch
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above.
—Verena J. Schuenemann et al?


So, what was the purpose to test on SSA-DNA, done by Verena J. Schuenemann et al?


Source 35 appears to be, which is odd considering that ancient Egyptians spoke Afrasan:

"Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

Source 39 appears to be:

"Ancient Admixture in Human History."

http://www.genetics.org/content/192/3/1065


So in conclusion, no accurate source for African populations was used to give a reasonable proximaty. This is on top of some unknown mummies, which came from the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection. Felix von Luschan a racist white man. And the claim is that these remains are from Abusir.


quote:

 -

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

The great human expansion
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Okay, I read the paper last month and what I found fishy about the study are actually only a couple things albeit very significant points.

One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.

By the way, recall how these Roman era Fayum mummies looked like when alive. Thus, the alleged Eurasian ancestry present including the SLC24A5 alleles are not at all surprising.

Second, why are the Yoruba people of Nigeria used as the model for modern Sub-Saharans when there are other SS Africans much closer to Egypt. I notice the PCA used a couple of Horn populations i.e. Ethiopian Jews and Somalis and I also see one Nilotic population- Dinka though I can't see how the Dinka figure into the graphs. What about ancient Sub-Saharans or other modern ethnic groups like Beja and modern Nubians??

For the record, unlike some here I don't deny that these mummies have any indigenous Egyptians ancestry I just question how their overall genome can be extrapolated to be the standard for all pharaonic Egyptians including those of Upper Egypt.

Indeed source material tells us that pre-Egyptian and proto-Egyptians originated from the South, Sahara-Sahel region. So logically one would use these populations as proximity. If you're going to add West Africans. Why not use pastoral groups like Fulani, Tuareg etc from Nigeria or Chadic groups?

And in order to know that these mummies are indigenous we need to know the mummies first. This is unknown.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Okay, I read the paper last month and what I found fishy about the study are actually only a couple things albeit very significant points.

One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.


quote:

Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period.



 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Okay, I read the paper last month and what I found fishy about the study are actually only a couple things albeit very significant points.

One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.


quote:

Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period.



So, how is JK2888 explained?


So, who are these two modern-day populations?
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I have one question, in regards to the "conspiracy"

...Do we classify these samples as "Random"?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I have one question, in regards to the "conspiracy"

...Do we classify these samples as "Random"?

It's difficult to say "conspiracy" and even "random". But do you know these mummies? The tomb number etc?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
"(a) Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup frequencies of three ancient and two modern-day populations"


To test for genetic differentiation and homogeneity we compared haplogroup composition, calculated FST-statistics28 and applied a test for population continuity29 (Supplementary Table 2, Supplementary Data 3,4) on mitochondrial genome data from the three ancient and two modern-day populations from Egypt and Ethiopia, published by Pagani and colleagues17, including 100 modern Egyptian and 125 modern Ethiopian samples (Fig. 3a).
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I have one question, in regards to the "conspiracy"

...Do we classify these samples as "Random"?

It's difficult to say "conspiracy" and even "random". But do you know these mummies? The tomb number etc?
The better question is, did the excavator know these mummies, their names, site numbers, ect. I ask that because, waving around the quantity isn't saying much about what/who these mummies represent.. All of that is dependent on us and what we can find out about the Site, the Excavators and the Mummies... but I'm sure if we look hard enough, regardless, we'll find some OG, A.Egyptian admixture in there. whether their representative or not.

PS: Ish, I don't think you should be going after the Authors for their methods and procedures. They released the raw data to the public...
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I have one question, in regards to the "conspiracy"

...Do we classify these samples as "Random"?

It's difficult to say "conspiracy" and even "random". But do you know these mummies? The tomb number etc?
The better question is, did the excavator know these mummies, their names, site numbers, ect. I ask that because, waving around the quantity isn't saying much about what/who these mummies represent.. All of that is dependent on us and what we can find out about the Site, the Excavators and the Mummies... but I'm sure if we look hard enough, regardless, we'll find some OG, A.Egyptian admixture in there. whether their representative or not.

PS: Ish, I don't think you should be going after the Authors for their methods and procedures. They released the raw data to the public...

Those answers are in the Felix von Luschan collection, but there is no data on the Felix von Luschan collect pertaining Abusir. I only have done quick search on this, not the deep search.


The authors did use samples from this Felix von Luschan collection, so it is somewhat dubious they didn't tell us more about the mummies.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
From the study:


The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa"

So only of the three had a Y-DNA haplogroup indigenous to Northeast Africa
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Those answers are in the Felix von Luschan collection, but there is no data on the Felix von Luschan collect pertaining Abusir. I only have done quick search on this, not the deep search.


The authors did use samples of this Felix von Luschan collection, so it is somewhat dubious. [/QB]

https://books.google.com/books?id=E45ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA151&focus=viewport&dq=%22F

Priestergräber und andere grabfunde vom ende des alten reiches bis zur griechischen zeit vom totentempel des Ne-user-rê
by Schäfer, Heinrich, 1868-; Grapow, Hermann, 1855-; Luschan, Felix von, 1854-; Schweinfurth, Georg August, 1836-1925

Priests and other grave finds from the end of the ancient empire to the Greek time from the dead temple of Ne-user-rê
By Schäfer, Heinrich, 1868-; Grapow, Hermann, 1855-; Luschan, Felix of, 1854-; Schweinfurth, Georg August, 1836-1925

Publication date 1908


In German

English translation below


ENGLISH VERSION

About four skulls from Abusir.
By Prof. Dr. F. of Luschan.


I have been reluctant to report four individual skulls from Abusir on this subject. The times in which one could learn from the study of individual skulls are long past, and all salvation for the further development of our science not only, but also the possibility of general interesting results is to be expected only from the study of large series.
There are, however, four skulls here, which belong to well-known persons of the middle empire, and are about four thousand years old. This may perhaps be an excuse for saying a few words about the skull itself, and thus a brief discussion of the aims and means of examining Egyptian skulls at all.
P. 831. From the coffin of the priest En-hotp (mR1).
Cranium of a man in maturer years, from predominantly dark yellow-brown coloration, to very small, completely insignificant defects perfectly preserved. The complete teeth are severely damaged, especially the first right molar in the upper jaw is so strongly abraded that the entire crown is missing. The adjacent two pre-molars are also abraded at an angle, so that on their inside there is hardly a small remainder of the crown. Since the corresponding teeth of the lower jaw are mended in a nearly horizontal plane, a very conspicuous gap results when the bite is closed; In any case, the severe ablation of the maxillary teeth is not due to that of the lower jaw, but perhaps by some individual custom of the priest who may have chewed hard and rough objects on the right side. Incidentally, both condyles of the lower jaw are diseased; They are highly atrophic and so porous that severe inflammatory phenomena are to be assumed.
Apart from these not very unimportant pathological changes, the skull of En-hotp, however, proves to be very beautiful, well-formed, and of an almost feminine form.
P. 834. From the coffin of the priest Hier-she-f-hotp (mR8).
Cranium of dark yellow color, almost brown in color. Large, long, with persistent brow and therefore with strikingly wide forehead.
The right temporal region is somewhat damaged, and all the front teeth are bruised; The two right incisors in the lower jaw have failed after death. The right lower wisdom tooth was already absent from intra vitam. The teeth obtained are uniformly sharpened. The seams are elapsed. This man also stood in mature years, but he was much larger and stronger than the priest En-hotp. Its lower jaw is slightly rocking and has a particularly high ascending branch. Particularly striking, however, is the very broad and very flat nasal root, which, with some certainty, suggests the admixture of negro blood. I will say a few words about the "negro1den" characteristics of ancient Egyptians at the end of this note.
P. 832. From the coffin of Frau Nechet (mR1).
Unusually beautiful, delicate and graciler skull of a woman in more mature years. The seams are all already closed or even completely elapsed. Behind the Bregma there is a flat furrow, which may be associated with premature synostosis of the anterior segment of the arrow seam. The unusually strong abrasion of the teeth is particularly striking in this skull; This has advanced much further than the priest En-hotp and at all as strong as is observed very rarely among civilized peoples. Among hundreds of ancient Egyptian skulls, I know only a few with similarly strong abrasion; In the case of several teeth, the pulp cavity is opened, which indicates the particular rapidity of the ablation, and the formation of large fistulae has also occurred in several cases. It is perhaps remarkable that there is no trace of any kind of dental treatment, although Madame Nechet, according to the noble form of her skull, had probably belonged to the higher classes of society. By the way, I have never seen anything on an ancient Egyptian skull, which would have suggested any dental interventions, although I have examined many hundreds of them.
P. 833. Sit down from the coffin of the woman (mR1).
Very heavy and rough skull of a woman in mature years. The great weight and the high-level congestion lines would almost have resulted in male sex. But the general form speaks rather for the determination than female, so there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the fundament. Moreover, the significant weight of the skull appears to be due to pathological conditions


1) The ancient races of the Thebaid, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1905.
2) H. Stahr, the racial questions in ancient Egypt, Berlin-Leipzig 1907, treats a very and has excellent pictures, but is otherwise an attempt with inadequate means.
Precious skull material
The most important problems of physical anthropology are linked to the ancient Egyptians at all; Nor do we know where they originally came from and where their nearest relatives are to be found. It is only clear that they belong to the Hamites in language, and that they can be connected somatically to other Hamitic tribes as well as to real Arabs, H. To pure Semitic people, to the right Semites, and not to the superficially semitized and Arabic-speaking Syrians, who are undoubtedly the descendants of a pre-Semitic, "Hittite," or "Armenian" primordial population, with extremely short, high heads and very large noses.
Furthermore, since the researches of Erman and Sethe, it seems clear that the two groups of languages, the Hamitic and the Semitic, are still more closely involved than had previously been assumed. The fact that the two circles are close to each other was already evident in Antiquity, to whom we have to thank the Genesis of Genesis, and Wilhelm Bleek, in his Bonn dissertation printed in 1851, showed that only these two groups of languages ​​and the Indo-Germanic were grammatical Gender, while all other languages ​​of our planet have remained at a lower stage of development.
In addition, we are still completely ignorant. We can assume that these three groups of languages ​​are so closely related to each other that they go back to a common origin, and that the development of the grammatical gender actually took place only once-but we do not know where this great achievement was really achieved- In Egypt or in Arabia, in Africa, in Western Asia or in Europe?
Likewise, we are still quite unclear as to how the Hamitic peoples of the African north-border are interrelated. Their linguistic relationship, of course, is impeccable, but we know that they are markedly brunette in the east, while in the west they include a very large percentage of blond and blue-eyed elements. We know further that the old Guanches were blond, and we suspect the same of the old Western Europeans of the Cromagnon race. That these have become the bearers of our Northern European culture is not unlikely, but how far has the influence of the blondes extended to the east of North Africa? Where in space and time are the borders of the blond North Africans? No one can answer these questions securely today.
In addition to linguistic work, the anthropological material, especially the skulls, will have to be appreciated more and more in order to bring light into these dark as interesting areas of human prehistory. From this point of view individual skulls are of value, not of course in themselves, but as individual building blocks, which, together with thousands of others, will provide us with a real and solid foundation for the investigation of the somatic relations of the North Europeans The ancient Egyptians.

Some skulls can be saved, and a small series can not in itself be valued, and therefore it is not a sacrificium intellectus to discuss a small series separately.
Of the four skulls present here, however, general conclusions are not easy to draw - they have in themselves only a kind of social interest. It is not the connection with blond Hamites in the West and with Semitic Arabs in the East, which can come into question, but only their relationship with the dark frizzy neighbors in the south.
I have already pointed out the Negro's flat and broad nostrils of the priest, Here-sche-f-hotp, but Frau Nechet is not entirely free from the suspicions of having had a negro blood. Of course, the soft parts, especially the cartilaginous nose, the lips, the color of the skin, and the more or less crimped texture of the hair, would be of great importance for such a consideration; But even when all the parts of the weel have disappeared, the bony skull may have "negroid" properties alone.Proposed dentition, small height of the face, great width of the zygomatic arch, small distance between the nose and throat, and the broad width of the pear-shaped opening The suspicion of negro blood, and the more of these individual qualities are found in one and the same skull, and the more they are pronounced, the more will such a suspicion become compelled to absolute certainty.
Thomson and Mac Iver, in their above-mentioned great book, have attempted to find a metrical expression for such constriction of negro blood. They place most of the weight on the ratio of the height of the upper face to the yoke width and the height of the nose to the width of the pear-shaped opening, that is, to the upper-face index (10xOgh: Jb) and the nasal index (100xNb: Nh). They divide all their material from over 1500 ancient Egyptian skulls into three groups:

I. Negroide.

II. Pure Egyptian.

III. Intermediate forms.


As negroid, they call each skull with a facial index below 54 and a nasal index over 50, free from negro blood, each skull with a facial index over 54, and a nasal index under 51. The intermediate forms include skulls with facial index 54 and Nose Index under 51, Skull with Facial Index over 54, and NoseIndex over 50, Skulls at Borders: So Facial Index of 54 with Nose Index 51, etc.
Certainly, such a schematic division is not perfect, and it is all the less so because the shape of the nasal root, the prognosis, the prenatal pits, the weight, the capacity, and many other important factors are often neglected But it is of great interest as a first attempt. If we examine how our four skulls should be included in this scheme, all four, with their indices of 562, 560, 593, and ± 556, would be still ample, if only by the slight relative width of their faces Of the pure Egyptians. If they were classed only by the relative width of the nose, only the priest En-hotp and Mrs. sit would be able to pass the test and be counted among the pure Egyptians. Both the skull of the priest Heresche-f-hotp, suspicious of us, as well as the delicate and beautiful skull of Frau Nechet, would fall into the group of Negroids, judged only by the relative width of the nose. In combining the two indices according to Thomson and Mac Iver, the two skulls would then be the "intermediate forms." We shall gladly sign this for Here-sche-f-hotp, there seems to be no doubt that even in his A woman who is a dark, curly-haired individual, has been found to be very close to Ascension.-In Madame Nechet, such a direct relationship is surely excluded, that she has not even had a trace of negro blood, I am not to represent, but it is certain that such an admixture, If present at all, is very far in the range of their ancestors, and it is certain that similar nasal indices are very frequently found in individuals, in whom even the traceable presence of negro blood is excluded in human discretion, That Thomson and Macdon's group of "intermediate forms" must be considered with the necessary caution when coarse Ir Be avoided. On the other hand, from the consideration of every great series of ancient Egyptian skulls (and in our case also from our small series of Abusir) it is clear that even the educated circles of the middle empire were not entirely free from negro blood.
It is not known to me that the Egyptologists have hitherto had occasion to deal with the social position of the negroes and their hybrids in Egypt. The curly hair and the beaded lips of the Taharko, of course, attest to the fact that the throne of the pharaohs was later attainable to a real African, but very little is known to me, as was the case at that time in Egypt.
I would be lucky if this short note would not be entirely unintended in this direction. In the first place, however, it is intended to express the gratitude which an anthropologist feels for the careful and conscientious salvage of somatic material in the Abusir excavations.
Annex 3.
About the plant residues from mR 29 and 30.
By Prof. Dr. G. Schweinfurth.
Mr. Professor Dr. G. Schweinfurth has had the goodness to provide the following records for this publication on the plant remnants found in the tombs mR 29 and mR 30. Section A has not yet appeared in print. Section B contains, with a few changes by the author, the essay which Professor Professor Schweinfurth published in the Vossische Zeitung of July 21, 1904, and which was published in the Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte Vol Is printed. It seemed expedient to make it accessible to the readers of the present publication.
A. The plant remnants contained in the old Emmerspreu.
1. Triticum dicoccum Very. The chief masses of the grapes, which were used for the filling of the trench-shaft, and for the protection of the coffins on the foundation of the coffins, were chaff or "kaff," ie, Decayed ears of the Emmers (Triticum dicoccum Very.), And indeed of the variety Tricoccum Schuebl. Which, by the consistently evenly veiled Veesen, is distinguished from Var. Farrum is different. The last-mentioned form has only weakly developed or even no grains on the lower branches of the spikelet. The presence of three grains in each spike, on the other hand, does not offer a penetrating feature for distinguishing the variety tricoccum. Usually, only two grains are included in each vee. This is also the case with Emmer, who came from the time of the Middle Kingdom. Where a third grain is found in a vein, it is stunted, shrunken, and probably not able to germinate in time. The two existing grains, however, are always well developed in this ancient Egyptian emmer, and are the same in shape and size.
Precisely the same culture form of the Emmers, which the recently deceased Prof. Br. Körnicke, known as the best recognizer of cereals, had already determined 18 years ago as such (Trico dicoccum var. Tricoccum), were found in the little Grasette, In the tomb of the Ani at Gebel of Maspero, which also came from the Middle Kingdom, in the winter of 1885-86. This bag, which is woven from grasstroh,. Some of which were found in the tomb, were filled with various fruits and cereals, and they had exactly the same appearance as those of the Henui grave, also from the Middle Kingdom, in the Berlin Museum exhibited are. Cf. Execution Delay 99 p. 103.
Large quantities of Emmerkorn have, by the way, been brought to light in the numerous grave finds of the New Kingdom, especially in Thebes, and it is scarcely doubtful that these primitive subspecies of the wheat, the wild-growing original form (Trico dicoccoides Kcke In Egypt, the most frequently cultivated breed of bread, besides the six-line barley. However, in the earliest epochs, cultivated cultivars (Triticum sativum tenax Aschers, Graeb.) Have been cultivated in the earliest epochs, the varieties durum and turgidum being confirmed by grains found from various graves. But also these two forms (the so-called hard wheat), which are widely distributed in the southern Mediterranean regions, can be regarded as particularly close to Emmer, and can be regarded as the most primitive of cultivated wheat molds.
The manner in which the Emmerials were gentled by the ancient Egyptians can not be proved from the findings of Abusir's chaff. Surprisingly, the intactness of the envelopes, the tops, and the pre-looms appears, which seems to exclude a very violent ginning method. But also today's Speltspreu2 shows completely preserved flaps and husks. The Speltbauern in southern Germany


 -
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^ wow, Idk if I should feel offended or impressed.
Good post though.

Some of the syntax seems funky though, Google translate?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
yes, a mechanical translation of the 1908 text
Maybe never published in English
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes, a mechanical translation of the 1908 text
Maybe never published in English

Thanks for looking it up.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.

Of the 3 genome-wide samples one is from Greco-Roman era, the other two are from the 3rd Intermediate-Late Period. The mtDNA samples are from the New Kingdom (4), 3rd Intermediate Period (22), Late Period (14), Ptolemaic Period (30), and Roman Period (20) - when radiocarbon date range overlapped a period boundary I've taken the midpoint. So that is like 40 mtDNAs from before the Greeks arrived (but after Hyksos etc).

This sample is representing ancient Egyptians because that's what they had. It is a large series from one site, so they can look at change over time, and from German collections, so they could get access. They don't claim that this necessarily *does* represent all Pharaonic ancient Egypt.

There *was* an increase in Sub-Saharan ancestry after this sample. Whether this will hold when samples from other times and places are the baseline is another question.

JK2911 had derived SLC24A5 and he is pre-Ptolemaic. Anyway you can have that allele and still be quite dark-skinned, if you have the ancestral variants at other pigmentation loci. He is homozygous ancestral for the light skin allele SLC45A2 variant, which would mean he was probably darker-skinned than the majority of modern North Egyptians at least.

It's kind of annoying that people keep using Yoruba for everything, but the genomes are available, so you can test them with Dinka or whatever if you think it'll make a big difference.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
From the study:


The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa"

So only of the three had a Y-DNA haplogroup indigenous to Northeast Africa

Why they left out that the Masalit and Fur from Southern Sudan who carry the main clade, E1b1b1 in highest frequency?


I think it's either one of these two ethnic groups who is parental to Natufians, considering the fact that earliest Natufian tool industry happens to have originated at Central Sudan as well.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.

Of the 3 genome-wide samples one is from Greco-Roman era, the other two are from the 3rd Intermediate-Late Period. The mtDNA samples are from the New Kingdom (4), 3rd Intermediate Period (22), Late Period (14), Ptolemaic Period (30), and Roman Period (20) - when radiocarbon date range overlapped a period boundary I've taken the midpoint. So that is like 40 mtDNAs from before the Greeks arrived (but after Hyksos etc).

This sample is representing ancient Egyptians because that's what they had. It is a large series from one site, so they can look at change over time, and from German collections, so they could get access. They don't claim that this necessarily *does* represent all Pharaonic ancient Egypt.

There *was* an increase in Sub-Saharan ancestry after this sample. Whether this will hold when samples from other times and places are the baseline is another question.

JK2911 had derived SLC24A5 and he is pre-Ptolemaic. Anyway you can have that allele and still be quite dark-skinned, if you have the ancestral variants at other pigmentation loci. He is homozygous ancestral for the light skin allele SLC45A2 variant, which would mean he was probably darker-skinned than the majority of modern North Egyptians at least.

It's kind of annoying that people keep using Yoruba for everything, but the genomes are available, so you can test them with Dinka or whatever if you think it'll make a big difference.

I don't understand, why the Dinka? Why not the pastoral groups from the Sahara-Sahel? The region from where scientific data shows ancient Egyptians arose (even according to their one wording).

The oldest mummy, JK2134 dates back to 776. Meaning these mummies date back to the 21st dynasty.

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/time/explore/main.html


Proto-Egypt goes back 16Kya and even older if we count in:

quote:

There is clear evidence of lithic technological variability in Middle Paleolithic (MP) assemblages along the Nile valley and in adjacent desert areas. One of the identified variants is the Khormusan, the type-site of which, Site 1017, is located north of the Nile's Second Cataract. The industry has two distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other MP industries within its vicinity. One is the use of a wide variety of raw materials; the second is an apparent correlation between raw material and technology used, suggesting a cultural aspect to raw material management. Stratigraphically, site 1017 is situated within the Dibeira-Jer formation which represents an aggradation stage of the Nile and contains sediments originating from the Ethiopian Highlands. While it has previously been suggested that the site dates to sometime before 42.5 ka, the Dibeira-Jer formation can plausibly be correlated with Nile alluvial sediments in northern Sudan recently dated to 83 ± 24 ka (MIS 5a). This stage coincides with the 81 ka age of sapropel S3, indicating higher Nile flow and stronger monsoon rainfall at these times.

Other sites which reflect similar raw material variability and technological traditions are the BNS and KHS sites in the Omo Kibish Formation (Ethiopia) dated to ∼100 ka and ∼190 ka respectively. Based on a lithic comparative study conducted, it is suggested that site 1017 can be seen as representing behavioral patterns which are indicative of East African Middle Stone Age (MSA) technology, adding support to the hypothesis that the Nile Valley was an important dispersal route used by modern humans prior to the long cooling and dry trend beginning with the onset of MIS 4. Techo-typological comparison of the assemblages from the Khormusan sites with other Middle Paleolithic sites from Nubia and East Africa is used to assess the possibility of tracing the dispersal of technological traits across the landscape and through time.

--Mae Goder-Goldberger

The Khormusan: Evidence for an MSA East African industry in Nubia

Quaternary International
25 June 2013, Vol.300:182–194, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.031
The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212033423


quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:


EDAR, rs3827760, Mongoloid teeth, hair, etc.

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/3
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/1
IRF4, rs12203592, light hair and eyes, freckling

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/1
KITLG, rs12821256, blond hair

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2134 Pre-Ptolemaic [b]776[/]–569 0/1
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/2
MC1R, rs1110400, red hair

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/3
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/6
MC1R, rs11547464, red hair

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/2
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/3
MC1R, rs1805005, blond hair, fair skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/1
MC1R, rs1805006, red hair, fair skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/4
MC1R, rs1805007, red hair, fair skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 1/4
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/5
MC1R, rs1805008, red hair, fair skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/3
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/1
MC1R, rs1805009, red hair, fair skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/3
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/1
MCM6, rs4988235, ability to digest milk

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/10
OCA2/HERC2, rs12913832, blue eyes

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/2
SLC24A5, rs1426654, Caucasoid light skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 2/2
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 1/1
SLC45A2, rs16891982, Caucasoid light skin

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/7
TYR, rs1042602, light skin, absence of freckles

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/4
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 1/1
TYR, rs1393350, blond hair, blue eyes

Sample Period Date BC D/T
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560 0/2
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2 0/2


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
One-- why are these Roman Era mummies used to represent all ancient Egyptians since presumably the founding of dynastic Egypt?? The authors then presume an "increase of Sub-Saharans" post-Roman times due the amount of said Sub-Saharan ancestry in modern Egyptians today.

Of the 3 genome-wide samples one is from Greco-Roman era, the other two are from the 3rd Intermediate-Late Period. The mtDNA samples are from the New Kingdom (4), 3rd Intermediate Period (22), Late Period (14), Ptolemaic Period (30), and Roman Period (20) - when radiocarbon date range overlapped a period boundary I've taken the midpoint. So that is like 40 mtDNAs from before the Greeks arrived (but after Hyksos etc).

This sample is representing ancient Egyptians because that's what they had. It is a large series from one site, so they can look at change over time, and from German collections, so they could get access. They don't claim that this necessarily *does* represent all Pharaonic ancient Egypt.

There *was* an increase in Sub-Saharan ancestry after this sample. Whether this will hold when samples from other times and places are the baseline is another question.

JK2911 had derived SLC24A5 and he is pre-Ptolemaic. Anyway you can have that allele and still be quite dark-skinned, if you have the ancestral variants at other pigmentation loci. He is homozygous ancestral for the light skin allele SLC45A2 variant, which would mean he was probably darker-skinned than the majority of modern North Egyptians at least.

It's kind of annoying that people keep using Yoruba for everything, but the genomes are available, so you can test them with Dinka or whatever if you think it'll make a big difference.

the abstract said

quote:

The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.

but given that

quote:

one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa"

and that Hawas had found in an earlier study Ramesses III was predicted E1b1a

is it fair that they say

quote:

The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant.


and leave out mention of the African affinities in some of their generalized statements?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Since everybody is afraid to touch mummy JK2888, I will do it.


— U6a2 is found in Africa, Sahara region.

— E-V22 is found in Africa, Sahara region.


"U6a2 comprises mainly of Ethiopian sequences with some outsiders"

"In the present study, the U6a2 branch shows an important radiation centered in Ethiopia (Table 2) at around 20 kya (see Additional file 2)."


E-V22 has already been covered, and is found throughout the Sahara-Sahel.


 -


 -
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
I want to know the mtDNAs that the four New Kingdom mummies carried.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
The 4 New Kingdom samples had R0, R2'JT, J2a1a1, and M1a1i.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
The 4 New Kingdom samples had R0, R2'JT, J2a1a1, and M1a1i.

Thanks.

Besides M1a1i those mtDNAs look foreign. Expected more M1, U6 or even L.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
I think one problem is that as Swenet has pointed out, there is a genetic distinction between indigenous North Africans and Sub-Saharans particularly in autosomal alleles which the Euronuts try to misconstrue as 'Eurasian' ancestry which may be easy to do if these North African populations and specifically northeast Africans (especially Egyptians) may possess pre-OOA ancestry.

That said, it's no surprise that even uniparental clades like E-M215 (E1b1b1) were labeled as 'North African' even though it's found among Sub-Saharan populations as well.

quote:
Originally posted by capra:

Of the 3 genome-wide samples one is from Greco-Roman era, the other two are from the 3rd Intermediate-Late Period. The mtDNA samples are from the New Kingdom (4), 3rd Intermediate Period (22), Late Period (14), Ptolemaic Period (30), and Roman Period (20) - when radiocarbon date range overlapped a period boundary I've taken the midpoint. So that is like 40 mtDNAs from before the Greeks arrived (but after Hyksos etc).

Excluding the Roman Period, do you have any idea how many demographic changes have occurred since the 3rd Intermediate Period?? Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta. The New Kingdom ended when the Ramesside dynasty ended bringing about the 3rd Intermediate Period (1069–653 BC) with the Libyan dynasties ruling with an alliance of various Asiatic Nations, followed by the short native 24th dynasty and then the Kushite 25th dynasty which ended with Assyrian invasion and rule. The Late Period (672–332 BC) began with Assyrians leaving and a number of wars in Asia taking place with the culmination of Egypt being annexed by the Persians. Then with the conquest of Alexander the Great came the Hellenistic Period (332–30 BC) and then with Roman annexation the Roman Period (30 BC–641 AD).

With all these invasions and movments of peoples, why would the authors even assume these mummies genetic profiles would represent 'pure' native Egyptians of pharaonic culture??

If experts want a genetic profile of indigenous Egyptians from middle Egypt, why not use mummies from Giza from say the pyramid building era??

I mean I don't want to assume a conspiracy per say, but I can't help but get the feeling this study was nothing more than a giant strawman to distract from the true origins of Egypt.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.

The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.

It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.

A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
^^^^Precisely. This is basically them trying to take the little bits of data obtained from one selection of unidentified, unknown, unlabeled and uncertain remains and trying to act as if this represents all of AE history. And that is what is wrong with the current state of genetics. Too much reliance on small amounts of data and a bunch of hypothetical mathematical models which fall apart with solid data, which in this case would be ancient DNA from various populations. There is no substitute for hard data. While you can extrapolate from a small set of available DNA samples, there is absolutely no way to verify or validate the proposed models without hard data to compare against.

So what they SHOULD have said in this study is that this one sample set gave promising results for the possibility of successfully extracting the full genomes of other "KNOWN IDENTIFIED" mummies in Egypt along with other collections of mummies in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, because of how these 'tomb raiders' collected these mummies in the past and how many of the mummies were destroyed as a result of making mummy powder medicine, it is hard to say whether any large number of intact mummies from the old, middle or new kingdom exist to provide reliable DNA samples.

Hence, it is not ironic that the focus is going to be on late period mummies because those seem to be the only large caches of mummies that are left for DNA sampling, aside from the "famous" mummies that are kept by the Egyptian authorities.

And the fact is that this study is for those people who really believe that the black folks of Upper Egypt are not the "real" Egyptians. So in their minds, those black and brown Egyptians that have been used on all these dig sites and look like all the ancient portraits of Egyptians aren't the same as the ancients. No see what happened wuz they was brought into Egypt as slaves by the ancient caucasian master race and that is the reason for the mixing you see today. This is exactly the same kind of Eugenics racist garbage that was discussed by Petrie and others over 100 years ago in their literature about the "races" of Egypt. Because what they really are saying is that white people need to exterminate all the "lesser races" of the earth in order to bring progress. And to prove why this is necessary, they need to make Egypt the prime example of what happens when a "superior" race conquers another and race mixing occurs. And it assumes of course that the white Eurasians are the "superior" race in ancient Egypt.

Hence:
quote:

Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilisation has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilisation, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual,
mixture, until they have a distinct type, which will start a new civilisation when transplanted. The future progress of man may , depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.

https://archive.org/details/revolutionsofciv00petruoft

Because European civilization came about through war, conquest and genocide. So in their minds this is the way civilization started. But it is not. Europe has no ancient civilization to speak of. Civilization started as the slow process of cultural evolution IN AFRICA and as it became more complex it spread and germinated in other populations and places around the world slowly. But every culture was distinct and unique and had its own practices and traditions. That is why they need to rewrite history in order to put themselves into the picture and make their presence required for the evolution of culture and progress. Because they need to justify their global quest to steal the cultures of the world, the resources of the world and use the populations of the world as a global 'petrie dish' for experimentation and subjugation for the benefit of a few.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?

Definitely interested in more information on this.
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study


A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete


Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871


The first advanced Bronze Age civilization of Europe was established by the Minoans about 5,000 years before present. Since Sir Arthur Evans exposed the Minoan civic centre of Knossos, archaeologists have speculated on the origin of the founders of the civilization. Evans proposed a North African origin; Cycladic, Balkan, Anatolian and Middle Eastern origins have also been proposed. Here we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by analysing mitochondrial DNA from Minoan osseous remains from a cave ossuary in the Lassithi plateau of Crete dated 4,400–3,700 years before present. Shared haplotypes, principal component and pairwise distance analyses refute the Evans North African hypothesis . Minoans show the strongest relationships with Neolithic and modern European populations and with the modern inhabitants of the Lassithi plateau. Our data are compatible with the hypothesis of an autochthonous development of the Minoan civilization by the descendants of the Neolithic settlers of the island.

The first Neolithic humans reached Crete about 9,000 years before present (YBP)1,2, coinciding with the development and adoption of the agricultural practices in the Near East and the extensive Neolithic population diffusion (8,000–9,500 YBP) that brought farming to Europe3. The most likely origins of these Neolithic settlers were the nearest coasts, either the Peloponnese or south-western Anatolia4,5,6. These humans established the first major European civilization on the island of Crete at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age7. Sir Arthur Evans, named the people who built this civilization ‘Minoans’ after the legendary Minos, the King of Knossos. Evans also suggested that the founders of the Minoan civilization were refugees from the Delta region of Egypt when North Egypt was conquered by the Southern king Narmer (Menes of ancient historians) at about 5,000 YBP7,8; his evidence were the similarities between Minoan and Egyptian art and elements he was considering Libyan in origin, such as the cod piece worn by Bronze Age Cretans and the circular tombs of the early inhabitants of Southern Crete that were similar to tombs built by the Libyans7,8. Based on a variety of archaeological finds, other archaeologists have argued for Cycladic9, Anatolian9,10, Syrian or Palestinian11,12 migrations or for an autochthonous development of the Minoan civilization from the initial inhabitants of Crete13. Attempts to infer ancient ancestry of the Bronze Age Cretans using Y-chromosomal or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies of the modern Cretan populations have yielded conflicting results, supporting Balkan14, Anatolian15, or Middle Eastern and Balkan16 origins.

In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP. We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete.
Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations
A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange.

Genetic affinity with Neolithic and modern European populations
The Minoan mtDNA haplotypes resembled those of the European populations (Figs 2b, 3a and 4; Supplementary Figs S1–S3). The majority of Minoans were classified in haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). Haplogroups U5A, W, J2, U, X and J were each identified in a single individual. The greatest percentage of shared Minoan haplotypes was observed with European populations, particularly with individuals from Northern and Western Europe (26.98% and 29.28%, respectively) (Figs 2, 3, 4; Supplementary Table S7). Notably, in Fig. 4, a gradient can be observed, with the lowest affinity for Minoans found with Northern African populations and the percentage of haplotype sharing increasing as we move through the Middle East, Caucasus and the Mediterranean islands, southern Europe and mainland Europe (Fig. 4a). Of notice also is the high percentage of haplotype sharing with Bronze Age (Fig. 4c) and Neolithic (Fig. 4d) European populations.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Lioness posted an excellent source.

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes, Abusir" Peer Review File and author replies

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009764;p=1#000000
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.

The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.

It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.

A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?

Cosigned.

The authors are even biased in their response.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
^^^^Precisely. This is basically them trying to take the little bits of data obtained from one selection of unidentified, unknown, unlabeled and uncertain remains and trying to act as if this represents all of AE history. And that is what is wrong with the current state of genetics. Too much reliance on small amounts of data and a bunch of hypothetical mathematical models which fall apart with solid data, which in this case would be ancient DNA from various populations. There is no substitute for hard data. While you can extrapolate from a small set of available DNA samples, there is absolutely no way to verify or validate the proposed models without hard data to compare against.

So what they SHOULD have said in this study is that this one sample set gave promising results for the possibility of successfully extracting the full genomes of other "KNOWN IDENTIFIED" mummies in Egypt along with other collections of mummies in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, because of how these 'tomb raiders' collected these mummies in the past and how many of the mummies were destroyed as a result of making mummy powder medicine, it is hard to say whether any large number of intact mummies from the old, middle or new kingdom exist to provide reliable DNA samples.

Hence, it is not ironic that the focus is going to be on late period mummies because those seem to be the only large caches of mummies that are left for DNA sampling, aside from the "famous" mummies that are kept by the Egyptian authorities.

And the fact is that this study is for those people who really believe that the black folks of Upper Egypt are not the "real" Egyptians. So in their minds, those black and brown Egyptians that have been used on all these dig sites and look like all the ancient portraits of Egyptians aren't the same as the ancients. No see what happened wuz they was brought into Egypt as slaves by the ancient caucasian master race and that is the reason for the mixing you see today. This is exactly the same kind of Eugenics racist garbage that was discussed by Petrie and others over 100 years ago in their literature about the "races" of Egypt. Because what they really are saying is that white people need to exterminate all the "lesser races" of the earth in order to bring progress. And to prove why this is necessary, they need to make Egypt the prime example of what happens when a "superior" race conquers another and race mixing occurs. And it assumes of course that the white Eurasians are the "superior" race in ancient Egypt.

Hence:
quote:

Yet if the view becomes really grasped, that the source of every civilisation has lain in race mixture, it may be that eugenics will, in some future civilisation, carefully segregate fine races, and prohibit continual,
mixture, until they have a distinct type, which will start a new civilisation when transplanted. The future progress of man may , depend as much on isolation to establish a type, as on fusion of types when established.

https://archive.org/details/revolutionsofciv00petruoft

Because European civilization came about through war, conquest and genocide. So in their minds this is the way civilization started. But it is not. Europe has no ancient civilization to speak of. Civilization started as the slow process of cultural evolution IN AFRICA and as it became more complex it spread and germinated in other populations and places around the world slowly. But every culture was distinct and unique and had its own practices and traditions. That is why they need to rewrite history in order to put themselves into the picture and make their presence required for the evolution of culture and progress. Because they need to justify their global quest to steal the cultures of the world, the resources of the world and use the populations of the world as a global 'petrie dish' for experimentation and subjugation for the benefit of a few.

See my post on Felix von Luschan.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009694;p=9#000429
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
In a 1909 speech to the Society for German Scientists and Physicians, the anthropologist and eugenicist Felix von Luschan made the dichotomy between the valuable and the inconsequential clear in his response to the question, ”Who is inferior? “ ” e sick, the weak, the dumb, the stupid, the alcoholic, the bum, the criminal; all these are inferior,’“ von Luschan main- tained, ”compared with the healthy, the strong, the in- telligent, the clever, the sober, the pure’“ (p. 95). Gen- erally, two overlapping categories were expendable: the disabled (especially the mentally ill) and those who were economically unproductive. Non-European ”races,“ too, were consigned to moral oblivion as a result of the contribution of evolutionary theory to racial science.

—Richard Weikart.

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. (2004)

Reviewed by Jonathan Judaken (Department of History, University of Memphis) Published on H-Ideas (June, 2005)

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=10699
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
With all this documented history of racism in Anthropology and genetics in Europeans own writings, it is laughably absurd that these folks claim that things today have changed and are otherwise "objective". Almost ALL anthropology books from the 1800s right up to the 1960s were openly and blatantly racist. And of course who are the ones responsible for changing that at least on a superficial level: The African Scholars and Civil Rights movement. But to hear them tell it, it is the Africans who invented racism and put it into science.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Would the Egyptian State even allow genetic testing on any mummies in its keep? I seriously doubt they would permit early dynastic mummies to be tested. I do not know how much effort [if at all] those responsible for this 'study' were committed to finding indigenous Saharo-Sudanese ancestry in these mummies.

Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.

quote:
The 'study' seems explicitely geared towards disproving the multi-disciplinary annealed position that Egypt became less African as time went on. Northern Sudanese and Nubians of Aswan -not Yoruba- should have been used in the study. I'm still in disbelief that they tried to associate E1b1b with Levantines instead of Northeast Africans.
Yes, I can't help but to assume they are falling back to the old hypothesis that Egypt was inundated by Sub-Saharan immigrants [read: slaves] to explain the black appearance of many Baladi Egyptians especially in the south. As far as model population samples for PCR analysis, ironically Western academics from the beginning of Egyptology in the 18th century to the 19th century have stated the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled modern Lower Nubians and Beja with the latter said to have a striking resemblance to late predynastic Egyptians. Although for the record these black peoples were not considered "true negroes" but rather "Hamitic Caucasoids". As for E1b1b, the authors displayed uncertainty to its provenance and said it was either Levantine or North African. I find their conjecture to be somewhat incredulous considering that E1b1b has a significant presence in sub-Sahara, specifically Eastern Sub-Sahara with greater diversity, to the point that it is almost consensus in the genetics community that it originated in Sub-Sahara rather than North Africa let alone outside the African continent.

quote:
It's clear that they did not want any of these mummies to have any association with Africa.
Ya think?! LOL

quote:
A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?
I too am interested in what this contact has found (Beyoku??).
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study


A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete



Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871

...In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) **exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP.** We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete.
Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations
A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange....

Very interesting indeed, Andromeda! The findings of the DNA study on the Abusir mummies very much contradicts the findings of the study of the Minoans you cited even though both were published by the [i]same journal!! So which is correct? How could the ancient Egyptians show nil Sub-Saharan ancestry but rather share close ties to Neolithic forebears of the Levant, Anatolia, and Europe but then the Minoans share the same ties to the Neolithic forebears but show no ties to Egypt??! LOL [Big Grin]

Excellent deductive work Andromeda! I had completely forgotten about that Minoan study which was presented here.
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

Crete MTDNA study is interesting in light of the Egyptian Mummy study


A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete



Jeffery R. Hughey, Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, Donald Mastropaolo, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos & George Stamatoyannopoulos
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2871

...In this study, we address the question of the origin of the Minoans by comparing Minoan mtDNA polymorphisms with those of 135 modern and ancient populations. We study skeletal remains from two Minoan populations, one in central Crete, the other in southern Crete. Following the application of a series of strict authentication criteria, we use for our comparisons the DNAs of only 37 Minoans whose remains were well preserved in a cave ossuary located in the Lassithi plateau of east-central Crete. We determine mtDNA polymorphisms using two different methods applied in two different laboratories. Our calculations of genetic distances, haplotype sharing and principal component analysis (PCA) **exclude a North African origin of the Minoans. Instead, we find that the highest genetic affinity of the Minoans is with Neolithic and modern European populations. We conclude that the most likely origin of the Minoans is the Neolithic population that migrated to Europe about 9,000 YBP.** We propose that the Minoan civilization most likely was developed by the autochthonous population of the Bronze Age Crete.
Comparisons of Minoans with North African populations
A data set containing HVS-1 sequences of 135 modern and ancient populations was used for comparisons with the sequences of the Minoans (Supplementary Table S4). For several statistical analyses, the modern populations were grouped to 71 geographic or ethnic groups (Supplementary Table S4). Twenty-one distinct Minoan mtDNA haplotypes were observed, six were unique to the Minoans and fifteen were shared with modern and ancient populations (Fig. 2). None of the Minoans carried the characteristic African mtDNA haplotypes of the L haplogroup (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, calculations of the average pairwise genetic distances (Supplementary Table S5) illustrate the great genetic distance between the Minoans and the Egyptian, the Libyan and the other North African population s (Table 1). Figure 3a shows graphically in the form of geographic density maps the shared mtDNA lineages between the Minoans and 71 extant population groups. Notice that the Minoans displayed the least sharing of haplotypes with North Africans. Figures 2b and 4 present the percentages of sharing between the Minoan mtDNA haplotypes with various population groups; notice again that the least frequencies of sharing are with North African populations. PCA also demonstrates that the Minoans are clearly distanced from the Egyptian, Libyan and North African populations (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table S6). These data strongly argue against the Evans hypothesis of Egyptian or Libyan origin of the founders of the Minoan civilization. The North African influence on the Minoan civilization was most likely accomplished through cultural exchange....

Very interesting indeed, Andromeda! The findings of the DNA study on the Abusir mummies very much contradicts the findings of the study of the Minoans you cited even though both were published by the [i]same journal!! So which is correct? How could the ancient Egyptians show nil Sub-Saharan ancestry but rather share close ties to Neolithic forebears of the Levant, Anatolia, and Europe but then the Minoans share the same ties to the Neolithic forebears but show no ties to Egypt??! LOL [Big Grin]

Excellent deductive work Andromeda! I had completely forgotten about that Minoan study which was presented here.

So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?

The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?

Cointelpro in action
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.

Early 2000 there was a study done on mummies. However the paper is unknown to me. There is mention of this in a PBS documentary: "The Secrets of the Pharaohs: Lost City of the Pyramids".

February 21, 2001 by Mark Rose First aired February 20, 2001 (Part 1)

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/reviews/secrets/

I never saw the actual paper, stating that ancient Egyptians (work force) are the same as modern Egyptians "living in the Nile Valley". The video linked here below, shows a snipped of the PBS documentary:

"PROOF Modern Egyptians descend from Ancient Egyptians"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz50_nx8UDg


I always assumed video / article above was about the following paper by A. Stevanovitch et al., 29 January 2004. But that can't be, since this paper is younger than the 2001 article.

quote:
Summary
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.

This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.

Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt

A. Stevanovitch1,*, A. Gilles2, E. Bouzaid1, R. Kefi1, F. Paris3, R. P. Gayraud4, J. L. Spadoni1, F. El-Chenawi5 andE. Béraud-Colomb1,*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract;jsessionid=1247DDF04906013DCDA56F767C3E7997.f01t02


I did notice, or at least from my understanding they started to take M1 out of Africa.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Part 2

quote:
Are inbreeding and disease the explanations for the bizarre depictions of Akhenaten--showing him with an elongated head, broad hips, pot-belly, and spindly limbs--and the demise of Egypt's 18th Dynasty (1550-1307 B.C.)? Tut's Family Curse uses a number of lines of evidence--archaeology, bioanthropology, and DNA analysis--to examine this and other questions.

After an obligatory opening shot of the Giza Pyramids, Tut's Family Curse turns to its real subject, the 18th Dynasty, particularly Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. Carter's discovery of the finding of Tut's tomb is re-enacted and the video then takes us to the Cairo Museum where Nasry Iskander and Brigham Young University microbiologist Scott R. Woodward and archaeologist C. Wilfred Griggs are examining the royal mummies. As the mummies are shifted from old display cases to new ones, Woodward judiciously snips off a tissue sample here or there for analysis.

Testing of Tut's DNA, however, was not permitted when this show was being made and a recent agreement to do so was abruptly terminated. Without access to Tut, who is in his coffin back in the Valley of the Kings, the researchers track down two mummified fetuses that Carter found in a box in Tut's tomb. The fetuses--both female, one about five months, the other seven months--had been placed in miniature coffins. The video devotes some time to this search, which is equal parts comical and depressing. There is, astonishingly, no record of the fetuses in the Cairo Museum, though in the conservation lab Woodward and Griggs find their mini-coffins. Eventually they locate the mummies at the Cairo Medical School, where they are under the care of anatomy professor Fawzi Gaballah. The mummies have deteriorated over the years since Carter found and photographed them but no bone pathologies are evident (how thorough this examination was is not clear from the video) and samples are taken for DNA analysis.

The extraction and amplification of the DNA--the processes are shown in lab shots filmed at BYU--can take months or more the video informs us. While that's going on, the video takes up the other line of evidence. (Re-creations of Howard Carter at work, Tutankhamun eating grapes, etc., serve as somewhat campy interludes between segments featuring current research, usually shot in the Cairo Museum or at Brigham Young University, with a few location shots in the Valley of the Kings, where the pharaohs were buried, and at el-Amarna, Akhenaten's capital city.)

Why depictions of Akhenaten are so bizarre has long been debated. Some opt for a biological explanation, a congenital disease known as Marfan's syndrome is often suggested. In the video, Egyptologist Joann Fletcher cautions against a genetic explanation and Nicholas Reeves, of the Amarna Royal Tombs Project, makes the point that viewed from below the exagerrated features are less bizarre, though very striking. For him, the depictions are an artistic way of portraying Akhenaten's power and separation from his subjects. James E. Harris of the University of Michigan, however, notes that the skull of Amenhotep III, father of Akhenaten, was both very large for the pharaoh's body size and that his chin is rather pointy. Both of these characteristics are accentuated in portrayals of his son, Akhenaten.

The sequences about the identity of the skeleton found in Valley of the Kings Tomb 55 are particularly effective. There is no doubt that the ancient Egyptians who defaced the coffin in the tomb--ripping out the cartouches and breaking the face--thought the remains were Akhenaten's. Nicholas Reeves, filmed in the tomb, presents the archaeological evidence for it being Akhenaten: the epithets that appear on the coffin (not defaced like the cartouches) are those used by Akhenaten and two of the four clay bricks found in the tomb bear his prenomen. The archaeology, Reeves concludes, points squarely at Akhenaten. Reeves, it should be noted, believes that Smenkhare, who briefly reigned between Akhenaten and Tut, was none other than Nefertiti ruling after Akhenaten's death. Little is known about Smenkhare and others have suggested he might have been a brother of Tut or even of Akhenaten. Harris says that the skull from Tomb 55 is morphologically almost identical to Tut's, indicating a "first-order" relation between the two individuals, father-son or brother-brother. The Tomb 55 individual was either Tut's father (most scholars accept that Akhenaten was Tut's father) or Tut's brother, the elusive Smenkhare.

There's always been a problem with equating the skeleton and Akhenaten, however, and it has to do with the age of the deceased. Akhenaten was about 35 years old when he died, but earlier examinations of the Tomb 55 remains have suggested they are of a younger man. Here, bioanthropologist Joyce Filer is called in to examine the skeleton, now in the Cairo Museum. Filer's study is well shown. She first looks at the pelvis, confirming that it is a male, and skull, noting no evidence for Marfan's syndrome or other pathology. Filer then turns to the question of age, examining the teeth first. The third molars (wisdom teeth) she notes are recently erupted and show little wear: score one for early twenties. Visual inspection of the fusion of the distal femur suggests 20-25. X-ray images of the pelvis and long bones, again to assess fusion of the bones, points to early to mid-twenties (for example, she places the state of fusion of the proximal humerus between 18 and 25). Interestingly, in his forthcoming book Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet, Reeves disucsses another study of this same skeleton, conducted by Harris and Fawzia Hussein. According to Reeves, they concluded the remains were of a man in his mid-thirties (dentition) or in excess of 35 years (X-ray assessment of fusion, especially of long bones). These results, presented at a conference in 1988 but never published, are spot on for Akhenaten.

On the basis of Filer's examination, it seems that the occupant of Tomb 55 is not Akhenaten. There will undoubtedly be more debate on this point, but the video moves forward with an identification of the individual as Smenkhare. Neither Tut's skull nor that from Tomb 55 reveals evidence of Marfan's syndrome. No mention is made in the video of whether or not sampling of the bones or teeth from the Tomb 55 skeleton for DNA analysis was permitted. Presumably not.

Meanwhile, the results of the DNA analysis have come back! While the smaller fetus yielded only a partial sequence, the mitochondrial (mtDNA) sequence of the larger fetus, a female aged eight to nine months, was recovered. Transmitted through the maternal line, it should be identical to that Ankhesenamun (Ankhesenpaaten), if she was indeed their mother, and to that of her mother, Nefertiti. (And no, this doesn't mean anybody is going to clone Nefertiti!). As Tut had no other recorded wife, this seems likely. No sign of Marfan's syndrome. Furthermore, according to Woodward, the mtDNA shows that although the 18th Dynasty was marked by brother-sister marriage initially, there was a break in the maternal line introducing new genetic material. The inbreeding bogie (Tut's family curse), he concludes, was just that. It apparently cannot be blamed for Akhenaten's freaky appearance, Tut's dying early, or the stillbirth of the two fetuses buried with him. So much for the "curse."

Secrets of the Pharaohs is enjoyable and informative. It is also successful in pulling together a complex set of issues and evidence, but is it the final word on who is who at the end of the 18th Dynasty? Probably not. How old was the gentleman in Tomb 55? Beyond that question, perhaps one day DNA analysis of Tut (and the man in Tomb 55?) will be permitted. Until then, the debate will continue.

Mark Rose is Managing Editor of ARCHAEOLOGY.

Secrets of the Pharaohs: Tut's Family Curse February 13, 2001
by Mark Rose

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/reviews/secrets/
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Part 3

quote:

Disease, drugs, sex, and death are the topics on offer in this last episode of Nova's three-part series, Secrets of the Pharaohs, which features the detailed examination of the 3,000-year-old mummy of Asru, who was a chantress at the temple of Amun at Karnak ca. 1000 B.C. There is, however, no unwrapping as the episode's title suggests. Asru had been stripped of her bandages in the early nineteenth century, shortly before she was donated to the Manchester Museum in 1825. That she lacks the layers of linen makes the extracting of tissue far easier.

While Asru may have lived the good life by ancient Egyptian standards, it was a painful one, according to the team of pathologists, led by Egyptologist Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum. The first half of the episode is devoted to the analysis of X-ray images and tissues extracted from the mummy and the identification and description of the many ailments that plagued her.

Disease

Evidence of guinea worm is detected in her intestines. The disease would have caused severe diarrhea and intestinal bleeding, resulting in anemia. The chantress likely had difficulty breathing; her lungs scarred by the inhalation of sand. Thought to be well over 50 at the time of her death, Asru suffered painful septic arthritis in her hands and osteoarthritis in her back. The latter was complicated by a fractured vertebra and a herniated disk. And if that were not enough, say our pathologists, she also suffered from shistosomiasis, aka Bilharzia, evident the X-ray images which show clear calcification of her bladder wall. Diagnosis of Bilharzia, which is caused by a flatworm that breeds in freshwater snails, is confirmed by the analysis of bladder tissue and the presence of antibodies for the disease that were isolated and identified by a team of pathologists in Cairo.

Drugs

What, if anything, did Asru do to alleviate her pain? Did she take drugs for it or simply bear it in silence? If narcotics were used, traces of them should be found in her hair. There is a slight problem, however. As a chantress, Asru was shaved to maintain ritual purity, making it difficult for researchers to find enough hair to conduct toxicological analyses. Several hairs were recovered from her scalp, which revealed only henna, used to give her head and remaining hair a red color; other body hair revealed only traces of plant remains. Could plants have been ingested, sniffed, or otherwise used to relieve pain?

The question sends researchers Vic Garner and Dave Counsell on a quest to analyze the plants most widely used by the ancient Egyptians, including the blue lotus, which is shown in many tomb paintings being added to wine. Our team consults botanists at the British botanical garden at Kew, where they collect blue lotus samples both ancient, from the tomb of Rameses II and from the Greco-Roman cemetery at Hawara, and modern, growing in the garden's waterlily pond. After much analysis, it is determined that the blue lotus possesses the same properties as Ginkgo biloba, being an antioxidant and bloodflow stimulant. While the plant would have offered a certain overall sense of wellbeing, it did not necessarily eliminate pain. So why was it so popular, and so often depicted on tomb paintings? The answer--taken over time, it seems, the flower would have acted as a natural viagra, a sexual stimulant.


Sex

According to Danish Egyptologist Lise Manniche, the sexual-stimulating properties of the blue lotus are documented in a papyrus found at Deir el-Medina, the village of where the builders and artisans responsible for the tombs in the Valley of the Kings lived. Depicted in the document are two women--one confronted by a man with a large phallus, the other sitting on a phallic stool--each with a blue lotus painted above her head. But what role did the flower play in the funerary rites depicted in the tombs?

Death

The connection, says Manniche, maybe that sex was the key not only to earthly rebirth, but rebirth in the afterlife.

Like the other two episodes in this triptych, Unwrapping the Mummy, is concise and well thought out. It explains in detail the manner in which each analysis is undertaken and why. Discussions such as that of Bilharzia are accompanied by scenes by modern scientists attempting to control such diseases in modern populations. That one mummy, Asru, could yield so much evidence on ancient disease is simply remarkable.

Anglea M.H. Schuster is Senior Editor of ARCHAEOLOGY.

Secrets of the Pharaohs: Unwrapping the Mummy February 26, 2001 by Anglea M.H. Schuster

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/reviews/secrets/index3.html
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Funny you should mention that. The first attempts at DNA testing were made in the late 90s on the Giza royal mummies. The results were not revealed and were declared "inconclusive" though the SCA head Hawass claimed that if the results were released it could give Jews/Israelis for claiming Egypt. I was always puzzled by this claim. Perhaps they've identified the SNP elements (E-M215) also found in Jews(?) Another study was done in the early 2000-ones with the same sample of Giza royals and their conclusions were that they differed little from local Baladi (native) Giza workers today (many of whom are 'black' in appearance). The problem was that the details of these analysese were never disclosed to the public. It was only years later that other studies were done for the purpose of ascertaining familial relations, though as we all know certain clues such as STRs were taken and used to ascertain population relations.

Early 2000 there was a study done on mummies. However the paper is unknown to me. There is mention of this in: "The Secrets of the Pharaohs: Lost City of the Pyramids"

February 21, 2001 by Mark Rose First aired February 20, 2001

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/reviews/secrets/index2.html

I never saw the actual paper, stating that ancient Egyptians (work force) are the same as modern Egyptians "living in the Nile Valley". The video linked here below, shows a snipped of the PBS documentary:

"PROOF Modern Egyptians descend from Ancient Egyptians"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz50_nx8UDg


I always assumed video / article above was about the following paper by A. Stevanovitch et al., 29 January 2004. But that can't be, since this paper is younger than the early 2000 there was a study.

quote:
Summary
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.

This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.

Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt

A. Stevanovitch1,*, A. Gilles2, E. Bouzaid1, R. Kefi1, F. Paris3, R. P. Gayraud4, J. L. Spadoni1, F. El-Chenawi5 andE. Béraud-Colomb1,*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract;jsessionid=1247DDF04906013DCDA56F767C3E7997.f01t02


I did notice, or at least from my understanding they started to take M1 out of Africa.

High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?

From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


A person (in contact with beyoku) processed the sample data through admixture and the results were completely different; the K= 8 graph showed that these Abusir mummies had significantly more African ancestry than modern Egyptians... Has that person responded?

Definitely interested in more information on this.
BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.

K=4
http://imgur.com/IVrenhH

K=6
http://imgur.com/RLBP1PS

K=8
http://imgur.com/aAUBLRk

K=10
http://imgur.com/zT8vJAj

K=12
http://imgur.com/kH8xwlI
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?

From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well. [

L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.

Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?

From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
Interesting, Yes I see it now, L3 lol, THEY never stop... Subclades are X & R

L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.

Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]

Yes, that is true. In other to understand what has been going on we have the revised a lot of old papers. (the authors of this Abusir paper referred to old papers as well 1998-1999) They have twisted their way into a certain outcome. Thus claiming that E1b1b is uncertain to be African, because Hammer said so in 1998-1999. Of course they didn't show the Masalit and Fur:

quote:
Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.

--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History


quote:

In order to conform to the cladistic notation proposed by Richards et al. (1998), we will modify the preliminary subdivision of the Afro-Eurasian super-haplogroup L3 (defined by -3592 HpaI) into L3a, L3b, L3c as performed by Watson et al. (1997). In particular, the range of L3a and L3b is now narrowed: here L3a designates only the subcluster of L3 defined by k10394 DdeI ; L3b is now defined by j10084 TaqI, whereas the sister group to this (sharing the transition at np 16124) with the characteristic site loss k8616 MboI is now denoted by L3d. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U. Another basal subcluster of L3 seen in the data of Chen et al. (1995) will be referred to as L3e: it is characterized within L3 by the site gain j2349 MboI. In order to clarify the cluster status of the sequences under study we apply partial RFLP typing, especially in thoses cases where the HVSI status alone did not allow unambiguous cluster assignment.

We use network methods based on parsimony to display the variation within specific mtDNA clusters, compiled from the world-wide mtDNA database, which are relevant for the study of Northwest African populations.

—Rando JC1, Pinto F, González AM, Hernández M, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Bandelt HJ.

Ann. Hum. Genet. (1998), 62, 531–550

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1469-1809.1998.6260531.x/asset/j.1469-1809.1998.6260531.x.pdf?v=1&t=j52do5fd&s=bb6f678a615af17a7bef28029677cc32699bc308


Side note:


quote:

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners


Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
High rates of M1 without ancestor L3? Interesting. X & R misclassified L3?

From what I can remember L3 was classified as non-African as well.
Interesting, Yes I see it now, L3 lol, THEY never stop... Subclades are X & R

L3 is common in Northeast Africa, in contrast to others parts of Africa where the haplogroups L1 and L2 represent two thirds of mtDNAs.[6][7] L3 sublineages are also frequent in the Arabian peninsula.

Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE.[17]

Yes, that is true. In other to understand what has been going on we have the revised a lot of old papers. (the authors of this Abusir paper referred to old papers as well 1998-1999) They have twisted their way into a certain outcome. Thus claiming that E1b1b is uncertain to be African, because Hammer said so in 1998-1999. Of course they didn't show the Masalit and Fur:

quote:
Haplogroup E (four different haplotypes) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.

--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History


quote:

In order to conform to the cladistic notation proposed by Richards et al. (1998), we will modify the preliminary subdivision of the Afro-Eurasian super-haplogroup L3 (defined by -3592 HpaI) into L3a, L3b, L3c as performed by Watson et al. (1997). In particular, the range of L3a and L3b is now narrowed: here L3a designates only the subcluster of L3 defined by k10394 DdeI ; L3b is now defined by j10084 TaqI, whereas the sister group to this (sharing the transition at np 16124) with the characteristic site loss k8616 MboI is now denoted by L3d. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U. Another basal subcluster of L3 seen in the data of Chen et al. (1995) will be referred to as L3e: it is characterized within L3 by the site gain j2349 MboI. In order to clarify the cluster status of the sequences under study we apply partial RFLP typing, especially in thoses cases where the HVSI status alone did not allow unambiguous cluster assignment.

We use network methods based on parsimony to display the variation within specific mtDNA clusters, compiled from the world-wide mtDNA database, which are relevant for the study of Northwest African populations.

—Rando JC1, Pinto F, González AM, Hernández M, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Bandelt HJ.

Ann. Hum. Genet. (1998), 62, 531–550

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1469-1809.1998.6260531.x/asset/j.1469-1809.1998.6260531.x.pdf?v=1&t=j52do5fd&s=bb6f678a615af17a7bef28029677cc32699bc308


Side note:


quote:

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners


Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Thank you! I see it now, Thanks
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.

K=4
http://imgur.com/IVrenhH

K=6
http://imgur.com/RLBP1PS

K=8
http://imgur.com/aAUBLRk

K=10
http://imgur.com/zT8vJAj

K=12
http://imgur.com/kH8xwlI [/QB]

WOW! You actually posted up to K=12. Nice!

Please correct me. But in terms of the K=10 image the Abusir mummies are STILL showing significant Mota like admixture via the purple.

BUT... When we look at the Natufians they are showing SIGNIFICANT repeat SIGNIFICANT pink which I remember you saying was "Saharo-Sudanese Nilotic/ Ancient Egyptian" [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

Finally as for the K=12 image things are a bit different. Natufians are still showing pink but not as much as before. But THIS time they show a lot more green which is found a lot in Nilotic/Nubia/Sudanese populations! They also show much more purple than K=10! If my observations are correct... As for the Abusir mummies they still show a lot of purple but they are not similar to the Natufians. Not only that but they have more African like admixture(purple) than modern Egyptians. So if what I am saying is correct along with this data then these Abusir mummies having less African admixture than modern Egyptians would be incorrect.

I am curious to know what the k=10 color represents.

Anyways, Djehuti what are your thoughts!?
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?

There are a number of factors.

The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.
 
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?

There are a number of factors.

The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.

Thanks for the explanation.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?

Haplogroup T (approx. 25,000 years old) is found in both Africa and Eurasia, though basal T* seems to occur more often in Africa. Haplogroup X (approx. 30,000 years old) is also spread out between Africa and Eurasia as far east as North Africa, though there are two subgrouops- X1 and X2 with the former being largely restricted to North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia. Haplogroup R is a much larger and far older clade (approx. 66,000 years old) dating back to the initial Out-of-Africa expansion. As far as I'm aware the highest frequency of basal R* is found in Northeast Africa, while it's daughter R0 is most frequent in Arabia though some occuring in the Horn. A sister clade of R0 is Pre-JT which gave rise to hg J and hg T. The spread of J and T seem to be heavily correlated with the spread of the Neolithic revolution. Hg U is another daughter of R. Haplogroup R itself is a daughter of Hg N and interestingly enough there was a study published over a decaded ago presented here showing the mtDNA profile of the earliest European farmers.

[quot]The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?

Cointelpro in action
[/QUOTE]
Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups are uniparental genetic signatures, with the former found in the Y-chromosome and the other found in mitochondria. Because these signatures are passed directly to offspring with no recombination they are used to determine lineages. Principal Component Analysis or PCA uses frequency of alleles from RNA or autosomal DNA to determine population affinity rather than lineages. Obviously the closer in geographic proximity a population is the more affinities are likely to be shared which is why I find it nonsensical that their Sub-Saharan model would be Yoruba and not some other population much closer to Egypt.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
Thanks for the response.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".

1. At K=10, if the purple is not Mota/HG then what is it?


2. At K=12. the yellow-like K=9 is East African? So according to this unofficial run the Abusir mummies are significantly East African? And I've seen your Hadza theory before in that thread on FBD.

3. Was I on point about the Natufians?
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

So glad some one caught on! Just wanted confirmation that I am not crazy. Yes, and notice that many of the MTDNA haplogroups in the Egyptian mummy study are the same as the Minoans with lot's of MTDNA T With some differences. MTDNA X & R are South Arabian ( aka SE AFRICAN) in Origin and have high frequencies in Ethiopians. and MTDNA U is But could be Caananite/Judean origin?

Haplogroup T (approx. 25,000 years old) is found in both Africa and Eurasia, though basal T* seems to occur more often in Africa. Haplogroup X (approx. 30,000 years old) is also spread out between Africa and Eurasia as far east as North Africa, though there are two subgrouops- X1 and X2 with the former being largely restricted to North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia. Haplogroup R is a much larger and far older clade (approx. 66,000 years old) dating back to the initial Out-of-Africa expansion. As far as I'm aware the highest frequency of basal R* is found in Northeast Africa, while it's daughter R0 is most frequent in Arabia though some occuring in the Horn. A sister clade of R0 is Pre-JT which gave rise to hg J and hg T. The spread of J and T seem to be heavily correlated with the spread of the Neolithic revolution. Hg U is another daughter of R. Haplogroup R itself is a daughter of Hg N and interestingly enough there was a study published over a decaded ago presented here showing the mtDNA profile of the earliest European farmers.

[quot]The Yoruban question, some one help me. Basically these geneticists have isolated Yoruban West Africans from the rest of the continent dating splits from the rest of the world population to 70k prior to OOA. But then Yorubans carry a young YDNA E1B1A that is only 10K? How can both be be true. Someone again help me I am not a geneticist. Additionally the recently hypothesized 30% archaic of West Africans is also more recent than 70k? And additionally "Aframs" are of majority Yoruban decent according to some studies yes?

Cointelpro in action

Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups are uniparental genetic signatures, with the former found in the Y-chromosome and the other found in mitochondria. Because these signatures are passed directly to offspring with no recombination they are used to determine lineages. Principal Component Analysis or PCA uses frequency of alleles from RNA or autosomal DNA to determine population affinity rather than lineages. Obviously the closer in geographic proximity a population is the more affinities are likely to be shared which is why I find it nonsensical that their Sub-Saharan model would be Yoruba and not some other population much closer to Egypt. [/QUOTE]


Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?

There are a number of factors.

The official data may be a bit different and somewhat "Cleaned up" as to not display incorrect Artifacts. The cleaned up data may have less damaged data, again which would create less artifacts. The official data also uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run. This unofficial data may have better resolution as genetic clusters are not "taken up" by South East Asians, Amerindians, South Asians, North Eastern Eurasians and other global populations who's ancestors or descendants presumably have little to do with Abusir mummies. For instance all of those populations I listed would take up their own cluster....if you only have 8,10, or 12 to work with and 4/5 of them are eaten up by global groups it leaves you with less clusters to be split among MENA and SSA who are seemingly more important to what you want to investigate.

If the official data uses worldwide populations in its ADMIXTURE run, how come they didn't run "U6a2 and E-V22" in Africa? Or at least from my understanding they didn't.


"U6a2 comprises mainly of Ethiopian sequences with some outsiders"

"In the present study, the U6a2 branch shows an important radiation centered in Ethiopia (Table 2) at around 20 kya (see Additional file 2)."

—B Secher et al.( 2014)


Bahariyya Egyptian E-V22 score = 21,95%

Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

—Hisham Y. Hassan et al. (2008)
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".

What software was used?
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".

What software was used?
ADMIXTURE

Also E-V22 peaks in Eritrea. See Trombetta et al.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Thanks for the response.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".

1. At K=10, if the purple is not Mota/HG then what is it?


2. At K=12. the yellow-like K=9 is East African? So according to this unofficial run the Abusir mummies are significantly East African? And I've seen your Hadza theory before in that thread on FBD.

3. Was I on point about the Natufians?

It looks to be a West Asian component that spread with European Farmers. NOt "European Famers" bu the Near Eastern/Anatolian folks that spread Farming into Europe.

Also at K=10 Natufian have large chunk of North East African Pink. Kep in mind somtimes that clusters are just the computer doing its thing and are not based on REAL demographic events.
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
PIC OF Abusir Mummy


 -


 -
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta.

You have a good memory. In my mind I had always subscribed to the view that slow demographic change happened over time from the 1st dynasty onward, so I didn't know what post of mine you were referring to, here. But now that I think about it, I do remember that we had a conversation years ago about increased heterogeneity specifically in post-NK Egypt.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
It looks to be a West Asian component that spread with European Farmers. NOt "European Famers" bu the Near Eastern/Anatolian folks that spread Farming into Europe.

I see.

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also at K=10 Natufian have large chunk of North East African Pink. Kep in mind somtimes that clusters are just the computer doing its thing and are not based on REAL demographic events.

So what you are telling me is that at K=10 the Natufians do not carry large chunks of Northeast African? I apologize if I am not reading you right.
 
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?

Beyoku is a troll. He's known for posting fake results.

Here's past aDNA "results" posted by Beyoku:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28925-Egyptian-Ancient-Dna-from-the-Old-and-Middle-Kingdoms


MOD:

This thread is NOT for personal beefs. Take it somewhere else.


[ 13. July 2017, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: BlessedbyHorus ]
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:
So what on earth accounts for the difference in results between what Beyoku posted and what this Abusir mummy results displayed?

Beyoku is a troll. He's known for posting fake results.

Here's past aDNA "results" posted by Beyoku:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28925-Egyptian-Ancient-Dna-from-the-Old-and-Middle-Kingdoms

Warning. Knock it off.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@BlessedbyHorus - The colors may change at each K - SO In K=6/8 the widespread Mota/Hunter Gatherer component (Purple K group 2) is very small in Abusir.

At K=8 Instead the have a very strong East African / Sudanese signature (Pink K group 5) at little under 40%

At K=10 The purple is no longer diagnostic of Mota/HG, nor the pink of Sudanese. Instead the Mota/East Africa is grouped in an orange component (K Group 3) (about 13-15% in Abusir) Hunter gatherers differentiate into K component 10, totally absent Abusir.

At K=12. These mummies show a strong East African / Hunter Gatherer signature that I have been describing as the "Hadza Effect".

What software was used?
ADMIXTURE

Also E-V22 peaks in Eritrea. See Trombetta et al.

Okay, thanks.


Also, I didn't lookup all sources for close references, what I previously found was by skimming. Indeed Trombetta et al. skipped on me.

Saho, Eritrea (N=94) E-V22: score = 88.3% [Eek!]
Turkana, Kenya (N=6) E-V22: score = 33.3%
Gurage, Ethiopia (N=7) E-V22: score = 28.6%
--Trombetta et al.

Ethiohelix has a nice summary, on East Africa:

http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2015/06/improved-resolution-of-e-m215-aka-e3b.html


If any other poster sees close references of U6a2 and E-V22, please make it known.

These two characterize Sahara-Sahel ethnic groups.


quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
[...]

Can you make a dedicated frontpage or thread for dedicated software, such as ADMIXTURE (and alike). Then lock it down to keep it clean, since it's not a commenting page / thread, but merely a reference page for members to look up specialized software.

Thanks in advance.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
^ I was actually thinking about asking for the same thing.
Also k10 & 12 appears a bit noisey, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

BBH what do you think about what ish just posted? Lol
(feel free to take it to pm)

Also...
quote:

So what you are telling me is that at K=10 the Natufians do not carry large chunks of Northeast African? I apologize if I am not reading you right.-

^this is a good question, what do you (BBH, Beyoku & others) feel about Natifians & "North East African"?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.

I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.

As S.O.Y. Keita put it:
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose. In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.

If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!

By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
PIC OF Abusir Mummy


 -


https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19420490_10213410655610438_6582844957107967194_n.jpg?oh=1172bbee5c6520f060775c0e3404811a&oe=59FEBC15

Interesting,


 -

Egypt - : Egypt, archeological excavation by German archeologists in Abusir - - undatedVintage property of ullstein bild
(GERMANY OUT) Egypt - : Egypt, archeological excavation by German archeologists in Abusir - - undatedVintage property of ullstein bild (Photo by ullstein bild/ullstein bild via Getty Images)


Details
Credits: ullstein bild / Contributor
nr.: 541561171
Collection: Ullstein Bild
Made : 01 januari 1906


http://www.gettyimages.nl/license/541561171


The guy says the granite came from Aswan, 500 miles away. (When I was in Egypt they told me the same thing, how the materials came from the South, and were taken up north by the Nile stream)


Lost Ancient Technology Of Egypt: Abusir 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRH-Yrt7Leg
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.

K=4
http://imgur.com/IVrenhH

K=6
http://imgur.com/RLBP1PS

K=8
http://imgur.com/aAUBLRk

K=10
http://imgur.com/zT8vJAj

K=12
http://imgur.com/kH8xwlI

WOW! You actually posted up to K=12. Nice!

Please correct me. But in terms of the K=10 image the Abusir mummies are STILL showing significant Mota like admixture via the purple.

BUT... When we look at the Natufians they are showing SIGNIFICANT repeat SIGNIFICANT pink which I remember you saying was "Saharo-Sudanese Nilotic/ Ancient Egyptian" [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

Finally as for the K=12 image things are a bit different. Natufians are still showing pink but not as much as before. But THIS time they show a lot more green which is found a lot in Nilotic/Nubia/Sudanese populations! They also show much more purple than K=10! If my observations are correct... As for the Abusir mummies they still show a lot of purple but they are not similar to the Natufians. Not only that but they have more African like admixture(purple) than modern Egyptians. So if what I am saying is correct along with this data then these Abusir mummies having less African admixture than modern Egyptians would be incorrect.

I am curious to know what the k=10 color represents.

Anyways, Djehuti what are your thoughts!? [/QB]

The results do look rather interesting. Beyoku, if I may as which ES poster generated these results??

Again, I think a lot of this depends on what the authors consider 'African' or rather 'Sub-Saharan'. I am very much curious about this affinity to Mota or even the Sandawe/Hadza. I see Mahas Nubians and Halfawein Nubians but not Kenuzi Nubians. I also would like to know how a sample from the Beja would come into play assuming there is a correlation between various populations along the Red Sea coast of Africa.

Also, I think there may be an ancient Lower Egyptian component in the mix which may be connnected to the Levant i.e. Keita's "Coastal North African" type
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.

I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.

As S.O.Y. Keita put it:
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose. In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.

If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!

By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.

So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Even Swenet has pointed out in several occasions that he suspects this demographic change to have begun from at least the New Kingdom when there were thriving Asiatic communities in the Delta.

You have a good memory. In my mind I had always subscribed to the view that slow demographic change happened over time from the 1st dynasty onward, so I didn't know what post of mine you were referring to, here. But now that I think about it, I do remember that we had a conversation years ago about increased heterogeneity specifically in post-NK Egypt.
I think you will like this:
quote:

Paleopathological find of a sacral neurilemmoma from ancient Egypt

Abstract

A large, smooth-walled cavity molded from the pressure of a relatively hard, globular, and lobulated tissue mass was found inside the sacrum of the mature female, Imakhetkherresnet. She was the sister of the lector-priest Iufaa, whose unmolested tomb dates to the late 26th Dynasty (prior to 625 BC). The origin of the lesion could be determined unambiguously by macroscopic, radiographic, and histological analysis. It was caused by a neurilemmoma (schwannoma, neurinoma), a benign tumor originating in a nerve sheath. This is the first description in the paleopathological literature of this kind of tumor occurring in the sacrum.

—Eugen Strouhal, Alena Němečková

Volume 125,
Issue 4,
December 2004,
Pages 320–328
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10404

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10404/abstract


quote:
Skeletal remains of Iufaa found inside his intact Shaft-tomb at Abusir in 1998 by the Czech Institute of Egyptology have been compared with two adult skeletons unearthed in a corridor adjoining the Shaft-tomb, discovered in 2001. Craniometrics show a striking proximity of an old male Nekawer and a mature female Imakhetkherresnet. At the same time, the young adult male Iufaa, due to the very broad and low neurocranium and broad face, reveals a two and half bigger distance from both of them. If only splanchnocranic dimensions (except bizygomatic breadth) were compared, the three persons appear very close, Iufaa resembling more Nekawer (both males) than Imakhetkherresnet (female). Similarities between the three individuals can also be detected in cranial indices, cranial profile angles, cranioscopic features and postcranial skeleton (cranial variation of the spine and foramen arcuale atlantis). Craniometric comparison was not possible in a fourth person, male Padihor, found in another tomb 25 m east of Iufaa's tomb, because of the fragmentary state of his skull. However, on the skeleton as well as in his body build and stature no features similar to any of the other three persons were revealed, making thus his blood relationship with them improbable. The anthropological results are discussed in light of the archaeological and textual evidence.
—Eugen Strouhal

RELATION OF IUFAA TO PERSONS FOUND BESIDE HIS SHAFT-TOMB AT ABUSIR (EGYPT) (2002)

http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2002/Strouhal_2002_p37-50.pdf


quote:

Lady Imakhetkherresnet was buried at the age of 35-45 years in the southern corridorof a well preserved shaft tomb of priest Iufaa at Abusir (end 26th Dynasty, 625 BC).The tomb was excavated by the Czech Institute of Egyptology from 1994 to 2004.Morphometric, genetic and epigenetic features linked her by blood to Iufaa; epigraphicevidence concluded that she was his sister.Her pathography includes the usual tooth diseases, and early stage vertebral osteophytosis and degenerative osteoarthritis. She also suffered a spiral fracture of both right lowerleg bones. A large smooth-walled cavity was found in her sacrum, moulded by the pressure of arelatively hard tissue mass. Its extent and lobulated form were first assessed macroscopically and then by standard radiography. CT sections revealed wide cavities extendingfrom the spinal canal to both 2nd sacral foramina and to the left 3rd sacral body. Abenign neurilemmoma was diagnosed by macroscopy and radiography, and confirmedby histology. This benign tumour is the first of its kind and localization to be identifiedin palaeopathology and in the history of medicine.

[…]


—Eugen Strouhal1, Alena Němečková2, Fady Khattar3

PATHOGRAPHY OF LADY IMAKHETKHERRESNET, SISTER OF PRIEST IUFAA (2007)

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/149839
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

Because all the other populations have European Admixture? Even Upper Guineans have trace M1 & U6. However, that is not what bugs me it is the narrative that is scary.

I don't understand your question. In my previous response the point I was making is that the R clade likely originated in Africa or in the very least among African emmigrants of the first OOA in Arabia. After that it's hard to say where the daughter clades of R arose exactly. If they did arise in Eurasia they likely did so in Southwest Asia if not in Africa.

As S.O.Y. Keita put it:
The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose. In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. John Benjamins. (2008)

Haplogroup U is a daughter of R which in turn derives from N so U6 may be of Eurasian extraction. M1 is different though because the M clade is a daughter of L3 just like N except M1 has a different motif from all other Eurasian M clades (most of which is found in and around South Asia i.e. Indian subcontinent). The M1 signature seems to be exclusively found in Africa with its highest frequency being in the Horn.

If you think what they're doing with M1 is "scary" look at what they're trying to do with L3 here!!

By the way, PCA is a lot better at measuring admixture than SNPs like Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups. While SNPs may give you clues about admixture by the presence of certain haplogroups, a PCA will give specific admixture levels. What's interesting is that the study on Gulf Saudi Arabs I just cited showing a presence of L3 but showing no recent African admixture reminds me an awful lot about the findings of Natufians also showing little to no African admixture yet possessing a high percentage of hg E1b1b lineages.

So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?
I think the proto-Natufians was a group similar to the Fur and Masalit (which split from Central Sudan) who happen to carry the main linage E1b1b.

This also evident in the tool industry carried by Natufians, which shows a pattern from Central Sudan going into the Levant. Even when you put Brace's finding into it, is makes sense.

And it is not that Max Plank is completely ignorant about these people's existence:

 -

Young people from various villages in Dar Masalit.


https://www.eth.mpg.de/3578595/project


And whenever we speak of this region we have to keep in mind:

quote:
African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans


Yeah, I emphasize on this Sarah A. Tishkoff because it is very important in understanding the drift.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Can you make a dedicated frontpage or thread for dedicated software, such as ADMIXTURE (and alike). Then lock it down to keep it clean, since it's not a commenting page / thread, but merely a reference page for members to look up specialized software.

Thanks in advance. [/QB]

You want me to make a stickied and closed thread based on dedicated software? I'll see as there are MANY stickied threads at the moment and I may have to unsticky one.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] ^ I was actually thinking about asking for the same thing.
Also k10 & 12 appears a bit noisey, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

So what you're telling us they shouldn't be trusted?

quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

BBH what do you think about what ish just posted? Lol
(feel free to take it to pm)

First please respond to my PM on FBD. [Smile]

And what I think about his post is that we should expect the OG Egyptians to carry these type of lineages.


quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

this is a good question, what do you (BBH, Beyoku & others) feel about Natifians & "North East African"?

It should make sense for the Natufians to carry some significant NE African admixture which is why I think the pink is not unrealistic.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?

Natufians are a culture in the Levant. Some of them carried high amounts of E1b1b which suggests African origins since E1b1b like all E1 clades have their highest occurance and diversity in Africa, yet the Natufians autosomal DNA says they are Eurasian. The study I cited on modern day Gulf Saudi Arabs which was first shown to me by Swenet interestingly shows they carry maternal L3 derived clades yet autosomally they show not African admixture. The authors claim this as 'proof' that L3 originated in Southwest Asia (not South Asia) even though the vast majority and diversity of L3 is again found in Africa. There has to be an explanation for this. I believe it may have to do with the fact that there is a genetic split between most modern day Sub-Saharans and ancient or prehistoric Africans who genetically were the ancestors of OOAs hence pre-OOAs.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

I think the proto-Natufians was a group similar to the Fur and Masalit (which split from Central Sudan) who happen to carry the main linage E1b1b.

This also evident in the tool industry carried by Natufians, which shows a pattern from Central Sudan going into the Levant. Even when you put Brace's finding into it, is makes sense.

And it is not that Max Plank is completely ignorant about these people's existence:

 -

Young people from various villages in Dar Masalit.


https://www.eth.mpg.de/3578595/project


And whenever we speak of this region we have to keep in mind:

quote:
African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans


Yeah, I emphasize on this Sarah A. Tishkoff because it is very important in understanding the drift.

By tool industry, I assume you are referring to the Halfan Culture of the Nile Valley which some claim to be ancestral to the Kebaran Culture of the Levant which in turn is the antecedant of the Natufian. Even Mathilda has made the claim, and uses E-M78 and M1 to make her case.

While I do see a resemblance in certain features of tool assemblage, for me the affinity between Halfan and Kebaran is not that great for it to be totally conclusive. I still say a large piece of the puzzle is to be found in the Egyptian Delta.

Also, how wise is it for you to hold up modern populations like Fur or Masalit as "ancestral" E-M78. I used to subscribe to such a simplistic and static way of thinking but in the past several years of research as well as reading material presented here, I've changed. So many demographic changes can happen in just a short time span let alone before the Holocene to use any modern population as a model for the forebears of a clade.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
We have therefore enriched the databases of mtDNA L3 diversity in Eastern Africa by firstly characterizing at low-resolution 327 samples from Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia and then selecting from these 70 L3 lineages for complete mtDNA genome sequencing. The application of several methods and mutation rates for the evaluation of TMRCAs allowed us to narrow the time span for the emergence of L3 and establish an upper bound for the out-of-Africa migration. In addition, Bayesian skyline analysis of 328 complete L3 sequences and founder analysis of 2,359 L3 hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences enabled us to infer both local demographic expansions and migrations within Africa.

[...]

We have therefore enriched the databases of mtDNA L3 diversity in Eastern Africa by firstly characterizing at low-resolution 327 samples from Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia and then selecting from these 70 L3 lineages for complete mtDNA genome sequencing. The application of several methods and mutation rates for the evaluation of TMRCAs allowed us to narrow the time span for the emergence of L3 and establish an upper bound for the out-of-Africa migration. In addition, Bayesian skyline analysis of 328 complete L3 sequences and founder analysis of 2,359 L3 hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences enabled us to infer both local demographic expansions and migrations within Africa.

[...]

Samples, mtDNA Sequencing, and Haplogroup Affiliation

We collected a total of 102 Sudanese, 77 Ethiopian (both emigrants in Dubai), and 148 Somali (refugees in Yemen) samples, belonging to unrelated individuals, who gave appropriate informed consent for their biological samples to be used for mtDNA characterization. The work complied with the Helsinki Declaration of Ethical Principles (59th World Medical Association General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Porto (11/CEUP/2011). We sequenced hypervariable segments I and II (HVS-I and HVS-II) of all Sudanese and Ethiopian samples and HVS-I in the Somali population, using a procedure described previously (Pereira et al. 2000). This information was used to assign samples to haplogroups, following the most recent phylogenetic evidence, reported in Phylotree website (van Oven and Kayser 2009). The sequences obtained are reported in supplementary table S1 and supplementary material 2, Supplementary Material online.


--Pedro Soares et al.

The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/3/915/1005941/The-Expansion-of-mtDNA-Haplogroup-L3-within-and
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:
PIC OF Abusir Mummy


 -


 -

Would be curious to know if this mummy was actually sampled and was one of the ones with a full genome capture. Not to mention given all the studies of these mummies, I would also be curious about the craniofacial and skeletal metrics of the mummies in the study and a description of the conditions of said remains....


Of course this could just be a photo op.
 
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


I mean I don't want to assume a conspiracy per say, but I can't help but get the feeling this study was nothing more than a giant strawman to distract from the true origins of Egypt. [/QB]

It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.

But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.

quote:
Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.

So... what was this in the 80s?
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/16/science/intact-genetic-material-extracted-from-an-ancient-egyptian-mummy.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=2
 
Posted by Andromeda2025 (Member # 22772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda2025:

So Natufians & L3 & E1B1B are South Asian in origin? Or isolated in Arabia/Levant for long periods of time?

Natufians are a culture in the Levant. Some of them carried high amounts of E1b1b which suggests African origins since E1b1b like all E1 clades have their highest occurance and diversity in Africa, yet the Natufians autosomal DNA says they are Eurasian. The study I cited on modern day Gulf Saudi Arabs which was first shown to me by Swenet interestingly shows they carry maternal L3 derived clades yet autosomally they show not African admixture. The authors claim this as 'proof' that L3 originated in Southwest Asia (not South Asia) even though the vast majority and diversity of L3 is again found in Africa. There has to be an explanation for this. I believe it may have to do with the fact that there is a genetic split between most modern day Sub-Saharans and ancient or prehistoric Africans who genetically were the ancestors of OOAs hence pre-OOAs.
T
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ What does that mean?

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
BlessedbyHorus posted the initial data a little less than a month ago. The data was processed by an ES forum member. I would have continued postinf the different K's but Egyptsearch (as usual) was as quiet as a church mouse when it came to looking at data that actually mattered. Here you are. Take it away.

K=4
http://imgur.com/IVrenhH

K=6
http://imgur.com/RLBP1PS

K=8
http://imgur.com/aAUBLRk

K=10
http://imgur.com/zT8vJAj

K=12
http://imgur.com/kH8xwlI

Anyway, in regard to the Ks, it just occurred to me what about Siwa Berbers?? Also what number of SNPs wer used??
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042

As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:

' '
 -

.
 
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


I mean I don't want to assume a conspiracy per say, but I can't help but get the feeling this study was nothing more than a giant strawman to distract from the true origins of Egypt.

It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.

But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.

quote:
Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.

So... what was this in the 80s?
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/16/science/intact-genetic-material-extracted-from-an-ancient-egyptian-mummy.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=2 [/QB]

Would def like to know mow about this and any other studies that have disappeared down a rabbit hole.

Btw anyone know of any other studies on the AE aDna in the pipeline?
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
There is one thing that has been bugging me about the Abusir el-Meleq mtDNA results for a while.

Presumably, the mtDNA lineages that would be indigenous to Northeastern Africa would still be non-MN, or sorted into L since that's where all the non-MN lineages go. So why don't we see more L's in this sample? I agree that this sample probably has a large degree of foreign ("Asiatic") admixture, but even then you'd expect plenty of L lineages to creep in from further up the Nile (i.e. Upper Egypt and Nubia) as well. After all, Lower Egypt stands between Upper Egypt and the Levant geographically---it would have received gene flow from both these regions throughout Pharaonic history.

So would northern Middle Egypt have been more or less completely Eurasianized during the time frame of the study's sample, or are we dealing with a foreign enclave completely shut off from the rest of the country?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
^I believe a foreign enclave. It was said to be so if I remember correctly.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
There is one thing that has been bugging me about the Abusir el-Meleq mtDNA results for a while.

Presumably, the mtDNA lineages that would be indigenous to Northeastern Africa would still be non-MN, or sorted into L since that's where all the non-MN lineages go. So why don't we see more L's in this sample? I agree that this sample probably has a large degree of foreign ("Asiatic") admixture, but even then you'd expect plenty of L lineages to creep in from further up the Nile (i.e. Upper Egypt and Nubia) as well. After all, Lower Egypt stands between Upper Egypt and the Levant geographically---it would have received gene flow from both these regions throughout Pharaonic history.

So would northern Middle Egypt have been more or less completely Eurasianized during the time frame of the study's sample, or are we dealing with a foreign enclave completely shut off from the rest of the country?

What they claimed in this Abusir paper is simply impossible. And of course nowhere Hassan was cited by Schuenemann et al.


Ancient DNA results from Kush and the Tasian site of Kadruka (precusor to Badarian/Naqada):


 -


From Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan (Hassan 2009)
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042

As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:

' '
 -

.

Yes, it can go both ways. But their "conclusions" are based off on BAM, the European Nucleotide Archive. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena


quote:
Data availability
The mapped BAM files for the 90 mitochondrial samples and three nuclear samples are deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) with the study ID ERP017224.

—Schuenemann et al.


Ps, you need to use a "compressor" on your mic line.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


I mean I don't want to assume a conspiracy per say, but I can't help but get the feeling this study was nothing more than a giant strawman to distract from the true origins of Egypt.

It's not a conspiracy it's common sense. There have been about 10 reported genetic test on ancient Egyptians and the only two that were released by the people who took them was BMJ in 2012 with Ramses iii's haplogroup and Khairat et al in 2013 which reported the I2 haplogroup from a mummy dated that was dated around 500 BC. Ramses iii and the Armana ancestry tests were picked off of supplementary data. The media completely ignored those results.

But this Abu Sir test came with a media slogan.

quote:
Ancient Egyptian mummies were genetically the most similar to people from the Middle East (especially modern people from the Levant) and had less Sub-Saharan African ancestry than the average modern Egyptian.
And was billed as the first genetic study on ancient Egyptians. So they tested a heavy foreign burial/era to release 'the first' genetic study.

So... what was this in the 80s?
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/16/science/intact-genetic-material-extracted-from-an-ancient-egyptian-mummy.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=2

The problem I am having here is that this Max Planck institute has a history associated with the NAZI's. And Felix von Luschan has been criticized for being a racist (during his days). These are very important factors. With that being said this "The Make America Great Again" rise of white nationalism era.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:


Would def like to know mow about this and any other studies that have disappeared down a rabbit hole.

Btw anyone know of any other studies on the AE aDna in the pipeline?

quote:

Artificial mummification was practised in Egypt from approximately 2600 BC until the fourth century AD. Because of the dry Egyptian climate, however, there are also many natural mummies preserved from earlier as well as later times. To elucidate whether this unique source of ancient human remains can be used for molecular genetic analyses, 23 mummies were investigated for DNA content. One 2,400-yr-old mummy of a child was found to contain DNA that could be molecularly cloned in a plasmid vector. I report here that one such clone contains two members of the Alu family of human repetitive DNA sequences, as detected by DNA hybridizations and nucleotide sequencing. These analyses show that substantial pieces of mummy DNA (3.4 kilobases) can be cloned and that the DNA fragments seem to contain little or no modifications introduced postmortem.

—Pääbo S.

Nature. 1985 Apr 18-24;314(6012):644-5.
Molecular cloning of Ancient Egyptian mummy DNA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3990798?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg


quote:



Several chemical and enzymatic properties were examined in the DNA extracted from dry remains of soft tissues that vary in age from 4 to 13,000 years and represent four species, including two extinct animals (the marsupial wolf and giant ground sloth). The DNA obtained was invariably of a low average molecular size and damaged by oxidative processes, which primarily manifest themselves as modifications of pyrimidines and sugar residues as well as baseless sites and intermolecular cross-links. This renders molecular cloning difficult. However, the polymerase chain reaction can be used to amplify and study short mitochondrial DNA sequences that are of anthropological and evolutionary significance. This opens up the prospect of performing diachronical studies of molecular evolutionary genetics.

—Pääbo S.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Mar;86(6):1939-43.
Ancient DNA: extraction, characterization, molecular cloning, and enzymatic amplification.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2928314?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
This is somewhat off, but still interesting in comparable.


Didier Stainier (MPI) 3: Genetic Compensation

Part 1: Vertebrate Organ Development: The Zebrafish Heart: Zebrafish heart development requires the orchestration of cell proliferation, differentiation, and movement. How is this complex process regulated?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkMWdXzMvtE&t=395s
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

Sue me...
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
They will, I'm primarily concerned about how it will be perceived or explained. I feel like enough of the peices have been tossed on the board, but people are having a hard time putting shit together.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

It's not about our personal beliefs. It's about what we can make a case for. And based on familiarity with the data I know you will have a hard time proving there was substantial "added SSA" ancestry in Egypt in between the Natufian period and the formative period of Pharaonic Egyptians. There is certainly no evidence for more added SSA ancestry than added Eurasian ancestry in any period after that (except the Post-Ptolemaic increase of ~20% SSA announced in the 2017 paper).

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Sue me... [/QB]

You're just doubling down behind beliefs and wishful thinking, not actual data. Posters like you are M.I.A. when actual data is posted, and when the coast is clear you start making bold predictions again that are not supported by the evidence.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
@Swenet

You already seem my arguments MANY times and so I am not sure why you are saying all of this and saying that I am denying the data when you KNOW I accepted it. Not only that but you SEEN my arguments on Forumbiodiversity and not only that but I even said on FBD that I STILL believe that Upper Egyptians would have some SSA admixture. You yourself seen that same exact post.

So again I am confused? When I mean by "added", I mean SSA admixture on top of the ALREADY EXISTENT indigenous Egyptian admixture. I made it clear this would be the only case for Upper Egypt.

So again I am confused why you think I have some agenda when you seen first hand what I meant.
 
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

Sue me...

It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.

I'm aware of that which is why I said added. I wasn't saying the Upper Egyptians or even Nubians themselves would have been of SSA origins. But due to proxity they could have had some SSA genetic influence. Like how Northwest Africans have some SSA genetic influence due to proximity. Not that they WERE SSA. We know they are mainly North African.

But is the Green Sahara migration still relevant? More importantly what about L2 in the Levant during the Bronze age? Correct me but that seems to hint at a SSA migration. That is where I am mostly basing my argument at.
 
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
From previous conversations I know you subscribe to the view that Pharaonic AE was a melting pot with ethnic groups from different parts of Africa living side by side and being equally Egyptian.

Are you saying something like that wasn't what you were hinting at in your comment about Upper Egypt?
 
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
From previous conversations I know you subscribe to the view that Pharaonic AE was a melting pot with ethnic groups from different parts of Africa living side by side and being equally Egyptian.

Are you saying something like that wasn't what you were hinting at in your comment about Upper Egypt?

I threw that theory in the bushes a long time ago especially after these results. Come on now... More importantly see the PM I sent you.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

Sue me...

It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
A3b2 were carried by complete Eurasians and north Africans?
also.. what North African clade do the Egyptians belong too? You discovered a NE African clade?
you aren't superimposing the Natufian/Near eastern levant component on North Africa right?
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

Sue me...

It would depend on what kind of ancestry the people of Nubia, the region immediately south of Upper Egypt, had. And from everything I've read, I wouldn't be too sure they were radically more "SSA" than any of the Egyptians. By and large they would probably sort into the same "North African" clade as the AE.
A3b2 were carried by complete Eurasians and north Africans?
also.. what North African clade do the Egyptians belong too? You discovered a NE African clade?
you aren't superimposing the Natufian/Near eastern levant component on North Africa right?

That's exactly what needs to be resolved. These Abusir genomes are Eurasian, so I suppose they can demonstrate that this is precisely the same ancestry that is to be found in the Badarians, Naqadans and early dynastic Egyptians.

The Badarians and Naqadans were representative of dynastic Egyptians, so were they transplants from the Levant? When did this happen?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
These Abusir genomes are Eurasian,

unless their Y-DNA is haplogroup E.

Then they might be only half Eurasian
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
These Abusir genomes are Eurasian,

unless their Y-DNA is haplogroup E.

Then they might be only half Eurasian

Only one of the three samples had Haplogroup E.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
These Abusir genomes are Eurasian,

unless their Y-DNA is haplogroup E.

Then they might be only half Eurasian

So, what happened to this theory of genetic drifts? Or is it only for "euwrasiun" and not for Africa? I mean the African continent is founder effect of many subsets, after all.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
represent a focal rather than a clinal phenomenon resulting most likely from genetic drift.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009768;p=4#000164
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
This is somewhat crazy and funny at the same time, on multiple levels.

quote:


Introduction

Two main routes out of Africa are still widely discussed: the Sinai, linking Egypt to the Levant, and the Bab el-Mandab strait, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula (Derricourt 2005). Early dates for the settlement of Southeast Asia by ∼50 ka (Barker et al. 2007) and Australia by 48 ka (Turney et al. 2001) combined with the distribution and ages of mtDNA lineages (Kivisild et al. 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005; Thangaraj et al. 2005; Atkinson et al. 2008; Soares et al. 2009) have suggested a “southern coastal route” via Arabia (Field and Lahr 2005) as the sole major exit from Africa in the Late Pleistocene (Beyin 2006; Mellars 2006; Richards et al. 2006; Bulbeck 2007). Nevertheless, controversy about the timing in particular remains.

[…]


Eastern African Origins

Furthermore, L3c is extremely rare: Only two samples have been detected so far, one in Eastern Africa and the other in the Near East.

[…]


North Africa

We performed a founder analysis stipulating three migration times, including a third one of 35.0 ka, based on the ages of U6, L3k and the population increase in the BSP (supplementary fig. S7, Supplementary Material online) with results presented in table 1

[…]

The other major lineages contributing to the 6.6 ka partition (Central African L3b, L3e1, and L3e2 lineages: founders F17, F28, and F41 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online), suggest the postglacial period was characterized by gene flow across the Sahel belt (Cerný et al. 2007); these founder clades are mainly restricted to Northwest Africa and absent from Egypt.


—Pedro Soares et al.

The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa


quote:
The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U.
—Rando JC1, Pinto F, González AM, Hernández M, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Bandelt HJ.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
These Abusir genomes are Eurasian,

unless their Y-DNA is haplogroup E.

Then they might be only half Eurasian

Only one of the three samples had Haplogroup E.
quote:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694#s1



The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa (Supplementary Table 3).



Supplementary Data 3

https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2017/170530/ncomms15694/extref/ncomms15694-s3.xlsx

^^ where is it shown in the chart? Is the YDNA on one of the tables?

There was an mitochondrial analysis of 90 mummies
You can't assume the ratio of YDNA J 2/3 and E 1/3 to be the same proportion for all the mummies.

If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there
But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot


 -
^^ save this chart for your records

Somebody said that it is JK2888 with the E1b1b1.
As we see on the chart that person carries mtDNA U6

Notice how very diverse is the mtDNA of these mummies
There are only 3 U6 carriers out of 91 and all 3 different versions of U6

The 2 YDNA J mummies (notice on the chart the J is mtDNA not Y)
The 2 YDNA mummies that somebody said were YDNA J, one of them is J1d (mtDNA) and the other is M1a1


How many mtDNA J1d's are there in the sample? One only!

How about M1a1 ? three of them

All of this looks to me like Egypt was far from homogeneous or at least in Abusir el-Meleq


similarly diverse:

 -
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Men of Punt

http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/080104/08010421.jpg

quote:


At a recent meeting in Oakland of the American Research Center in Egypt three scientists announced with confidence they had ruled out all of those five locations, and there was no disagreement from the 300 archaeologists there.

The Land of Punt, the scientist said, must have existed in eastern North Africa - either in the region where Ethiopia and Eritrea confront each other, or east of the Upper Nile in a lowland area of eastern Sudan.

 -


--Scientists zero in on ancient Land of Punt

David Perlman Chronicle Science Editor
The San Francisco Chronicle
May 08, 2010

http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=2762


Furanosesquiterpenoids of Commiphora erythraea and C. myrrh


--Asafu Maradufu
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031942282831646



quote:

Baboon mummy analysis reveals Eritrea and Ethiopia as location of land of Punt


Analysis of mummified baboons in the British Museum has revealed the location of the land of Punt as the area between Ethiopia and Eritrea. To the Egyptians, Punt was a place of fragrances, giraffes, electrum and other exotic goods, and was sometimes referred to as Ta-netjer, or 'God’s land'.

There are several ancient Egyptian texts that record trade voyages to the Land of Punt, dating up until the end of the New Kingdom, 3,000 years ago. But until now scholars did not know where Punt was. Ancient texts offer only vague allusions to its location and no 'Puntite' civilization has been discovered. Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen and even Mozambique have all been offered as possible locations.

However, it appears that the search for Punt may have come to an end according to new research which claims to prove that it was located in Eritrea/East Ethiopia. Live baboons were among the goods that we know the Egyptians got from Punt. The research team included Professor Salima Ikram from the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and Professor Nathaniel Dominy and graduate student Gillian Leigh Moritz, both from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

The team studied two baboon mummies in the British Museum. By analysing hairs from these baboons using oxygen isotope analysis, they were able to work out where they originated. Oxygen isotopes act as a 'signal' that can let scientists know where they came from. Depending on the environment an animal lived in, the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen will be different. “Oxygen tends to vary as a function of rainfall and the water composition of plants and seed,” said Professor Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz.

Only one of the two baboons was suitable for the research – the other had spent time in Thebes as an exotic pet, and so its isotopic data had been distorted. Working on the baboon discovered in the Valley of the Kings, the researchers compared the oxygen isotope values in the ancient baboons to those found in their modern day brethren. Although isotope values in baboons in Somalia, Yemen and Mozambique did not match, those in Eritrea and Eastern Ethiopia were closely matched.

“All of our specimens in Eritrea and a certain number of our specimens from Ethiopia – that are basically due west from Eritrea – those are good matches,” said Professor Dominy.

The team were unable to compare the mummies with baboons in Yemen. However, Professor Dominy reasoned that “We can tell, based on the isotopic maps of the region, that a baboon from Yemen would look an awful lot like a baboon from Somalia isotopically.” As Somalia is definitely not the place of origin for the baboon, this suggests that Yemen is not the place of origin either.

He concluded that “We think Punt is a sort of circumscribed region that includes eastern Ethiopia and all of Eritrea.”

The team also think that they may have discovered the location of the harbour that the Egyptians would have used to export the baboons and other goods back to Egypt. Dominy points to an area just outside the modern city of Massawa: “We have a specimen from that same harbour and that specimen is a very good match to the mummy.”

Next, the team hopes to get the British Museum’s permission to take a pea-sized sample of bone from the baboon mummy and use it strontium isotope testing. This would hopefully confirm Eritrea/Eastern Ethiopia as the baboon’s origin and narrow down its location more specifically.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/baboon-mummy-analysis-reveals-eritrea-and-ethiopia-as-location-of-land-of-punt-1954547.html


Men of Punt

 -


Men of Punt

 -


Relief of Hatshepsut's expedition to the Land of Punt


 -


King and Queen of Punt

 -
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there
But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot

Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.

quote:


Q8: Note 8: Test of Population Continuity: the analysis here was not described. Other than collapsing mtDNA lineages into haplogroup frequencies to compare ancient and contemporary groups, there is no description of what the actual test was. Even if the method was described in Brandt et al. (2013) [not even in the main text, only in their supplement], the authors should lay out the assumptions, parameter choices and models invoked in using this method. Why for example, is TPC preferable over Approximate Bayesian Computation models typically used to test the relative liklihood of two different population demographies (in this case continuity w/ minimal drift vs. migration).

Answer: We have extended the description of our analysis both in the methods part of the manuscript and our supplementary information for clarification and to explain our main findings. Our intention to use the TPC as applied in Brandt et al. 2013 was to evaluate with a simple method whether we can assume genetic continuity (null hypothesis) between our ancient groups and modern-day populations. We agree that complex ABC models would have been the ideal choice to explore alternative scenarios that could explain discontinuity under varying parameters (drift, migration, time, etc.), but were not deemed necessary given that we can more reliably estimate the origin and timing of admixture with nuclear data.

—Verena J. Schuenemann et al


quote:
The results of the TPC show that the transition from hunter-gatherers to the LBK farmers cannot be explained by genetic drift alone (p=0.000001) (Fig. 2D), consistent with previous findings (10–11).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4039305_nihms584043f2.jpg

—Brandt et al. 2013 [Big Grin]


This thing is rigged and that is exactly what Sudaniya is referring at.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]
If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there
But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot

Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.




the article reports mtDNA for 91 mummies

So couldn't they have YDNA for 91 mummies instead of three?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:


All of this looks to me like Egypt was far from homogeneous or at least in Abusir el-Meleq


similarly diverse:

 -

The riddle here is, was it truly due to back migration or was it all indigenous? Physical anthropology is critical here to determine the cranial and post-cranial metrical data.


According to Luca Pagan et al. early people left Africa from Northeast Africa (Egypt) correct?

quote:

"Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt."

[…]

Sequence data avoid the effect of ascertainment bias that one encounters when dealing with SNP arrays from the same populations (Figure S1). If the northern route was the predominant path followed by the ancestors of the OOA populations, and modern African populations are representative of those at the time of the exit, Egyptians should be genetically more similar to modern non-Africans. Conversely, if the southern route was the main way out of Africa, Ethiopians should be closest to the OOA populations. However, extensive historical and genetic data show that recent gene flow has drastically influenced the genomes of present-day Egyptians and Ethiopians.

To minimize the confounding effect of this gene flow back to Africa while testing this hypothesis, we first identified and then masked the recent non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes.

—Luca Pagani et al.

Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians


So what are these Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes?

That is exactly what Sudaniya is referring at.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]
If there was a bag of 30 fruits comprised of apples and oranges and you blindly put your hand in the bag and pulled out two apples and one orange that does not mean the whole bag is of that proportion, based on 3 you can't assume there is more apples in there
But suppose 30 out of 90 are E, that is still a lot

Great analogy, because that is exactly how their "predictive models" work in this paper by Verena J. Schuenemann et al. But for some odd reason these rules changes when it comes to Africa in a positive light.




the article reports mtDNA for 91 mummies

So couldn't they have YDNA for 91 mummies instead of three?

I asked you before,

Are these SNP's of single individuals? And why are they so low in frequency. And how come it is so diverse, because they seem to be all over place in subclades?


Lastly you say "91 mummies", but I can't verify this. Can you? I mean I deal with an institute with a Nazi history, so I am cautious if you don't mind. Even the "skull collector" himself had an "ambiguous" history.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


Are these SNP's of single individuals?

yes

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

And why are they so low in frequency.

why are you saying they are low in frequency?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes

So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you saying they are low in frequency?

Because it is, hence my previous statement.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I said many times it is a good idea to go back and revisit past studies. Going back to Schuenemann et al and the Abusir mummies. I missed a few things first time around.

1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.
2. Based upon SNP they cluster first with Neolithic Lavant/Natufians. We know the Natufians are SSA from East Africa. Also included are the BedoiunA(not B), Tunisians and Yemenis. Schuenemann et al did NOT include SSA from the Great Lakes
3. They do NOT cluster with Druze!!! It is a myth. Western Europeans are not even in the discussion. And should get out.
4. We know Bedouins, Tunisians and Yemenis are heavily Africanized groups. We also know that Lazaridis postulated that the Natufians originated IN Africa.
5. The Abusir mummies are closest to modern Egyptians. At last count, modern Egyptians are 80% African and 20% “foreign”.

I am waiting on that STR result from ElMaestro. Wink! Wink! Anyone has the STR profile of MODERN Egyptians. Lol! We are waiting….. for the impossible

 -
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I am trying to load this "doctored" chart to explain why
I am confident elMaestro will fail also.

supplemental Fig3.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2lxf0h4.jpg


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why?

 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The BAM files for the Abusir mummies

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB15464
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
http://software.broadinstitute.org/software/igv/bam

IGV viewer for BAM files
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why?
The riddle here is, was it truly due to back migration or was it all indigenous? Physical anthropology is critical here to determine the cranial and post-cranial metrical data, along with other "evidence".
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
I asked you to wait, and you continue to type my name over and over again accompanied with useless information. If you cant wait a few days, genotype the STRs yourself... I'll even pm you a tutorial if you want.

Sir, you may feel free to pad all day, but try to show some restraint when referring to me, you fooled me like 3 times already into believing you had something remotely important to say to or about me. Chill out fam.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I am chilling out. I am posting for the more intelligent readers who want to get in on this.

They now have access to the BAM files and can do their own analysis. Maybe one day I will get the time and that to really get into this. The information is out there.


My bad! I will not use your name again. I wasn't posting to you. Some of you know I target a bigger audience. But if you look at Suppl FIG3 you will see why your effort is futile. The Abusir mummies are Africans. Modern Tunisians and Modern Egyptians are the closest of the populations they used ....based upon autosomal SNP. As you know Tunisians has the least amount of "European" ancestry of North Africans but carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" mtDNA. The four closest to Abusir are Tunisans, Modern Egyptians, Yemenis and Bedoiun!!! All heavily Africanized. Great Lakes weren't included.

Keep in mind Lazardis(2014) could not disentangle YRI from "Basal Eurasians" and therefore used Bedouins as a proxy. In 2017 he came back and admitted Basal Eurasian/Natufians had a "recent" African origin.

Nah! Abusir are Africans.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Hope this helps.


Genome Workbench: Import BAMs and Export Alignments
NCBI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGPJQ_p9W8
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

modern Egyptians are 80% African and 20% “foreign”.


How or where do you get these percentages?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes

So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you saying they are low in frequency?

Because it is, hence my previous statement.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
@ the lioness, how do you feel about the nazi history these institutes have? I am referring to University of Tuebingen and Max Planck.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] I said many times it is a good idea to go back and revisit past studies. Going back to Schuenemann et al and the Abusir mummies. I missed a few things first time around.

1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.
2. Based upon SNP they cluster first with Neolithic Lavant/Natufians. We know the Natufians are SSA from East Africa. Also included are the BedoiunA(not B), Tunisians and Yemenis. Schuenemann et al did NOT include SSA from the Great Lakes
3. They do NOT cluster with Druze!!! It is a myth. Western Europeans are not even in the discussion. And should get out.
4. We know Bedouins, Tunisians and Yemenis are heavily Africanized groups. We also know that Lazaridis postulated that the Natufians originated IN Africa.
5. The Abusir mummies are closest to modern Egyptians. At last count, modern Egyptians are 80% African and 20% “foreign”.

I am waiting on that STR result from ElMaestro. Wink! Wink! Anyone has the STR profile of MODERN Egyptians. Lol! We are waiting….. for the impossible

[IMG]  - [/IMG]
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:


1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes

So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you saying they are low in frequency?

Because it is, hence my previous statement.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@ the lioness, how do you feel about the nazi history these institutes have? I am referring to University of Tuebingen and Max Planck.


 
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
quote:
 -
I'm not really sure how to read this. Which numbers/columns are we suppose to be reading to figure out which group they belonged to.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who can follow. Here is what I think how we can process the Abusir mummies.

1. Download the free BAM files of the 92 Abusir mummies.
2. Use IGV tools to process each individual. Convert BAM(binary) to SAM(text delimited)
3. Download or upload files to use ALFRED to ID the SNPs strings or STRs. Eg TPOX is “TPOX (AATG) n tetranucleotide repeat,”

Thoughts anyone?

Also we can download TreeMix and process in this software. Lot of work? I understand TreeMIx only runs on Mac or Ubuntu? Anyone?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I want to add. Anyone has the address for the pop STRs eg for TPOX? rsXXXXXX?


quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
To those who can follow. Here is what I think how we can process the Abusir mummies.

1. Download the free BAM files of the 92 Abusir mummies.
2. Use IGV tools to process each individual. Convert BAM(binary) to SAM(text delimited)
3. Download or upload files to use ALFRED to ID the SNPs strings or STRs. Eg TPOX is “TPOX (AATG) n tetranucleotide repeat,”

Thoughts anyone?

Also we can download TreeMix and process in this software. Lot of work? I understand TreeMIx only runs on Mac or Ubuntu? Anyone?


 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Anyone can jump in any time....(wink). Capra, TheMaster, AstenB

We do not have Lucas Martin and DNATribes to show us how it is done any more. But we have more freeware and more sophisticated tools today. What about this?

Download Abusir mummies genome which are BAM Files. Convert the BAM file to FASTQ. I believe IGV tool can do that. Run this FASTQ file in STRait Razor. Problem is I do not have a Linux OS machine. I understand IBM clones can run either a Windows OS or Linux OS. With dual booth up. I just started playing around with MAC OS Lion. I am new to these systems outside of Windows. Thoughts?


Oh! The other problem is only THREE complete genome of the Abusir was provided. Therefore only 3 datasets needs to be processed. The remaining mummies only their uniparental markers were released. Am I correct?

Am I talking to the wall? He! He! HE!

===

STRait Razor: A length-based forensic STR allele-calling tool for use with second generation sequencing data

Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated the capability of second generation sequencing (SGS) to provide coverage of short tandem repeats (STRs) found within the human genome. However, there are relatively few bioinformatic software packages capable of detecting these markers in the raw sequence data. The extant STR-calling tools are sophisticated, but are not always applicable to the analysis of the STR loci commonly used in forensic analyses. STRait Razor is a newly developed Perl-based software tool that runs on the Linux/Unix operating system and is designed to detect forensically-relevant STR alleles in FASTQ sequence data, based on allelic length. It is capable of analyzing STR loci with repeat motifs ranging from simple to complex without the need for extensive allelic sequence data. STRait Razor is designed to interpret both single-end and paired-end data and relies on intelligent parallel processing to reduce analysis time. Users are presented with a number of customization options, including variable mismatch detection parameters, as well as the ability to easily allow for the detection of alleles at new loci. In its current state, the software detects alleles for 44 autosomal and Y-chromosome STR loci. The study described herein demonstrates that STRait Razor is capable of detecting STR alleles in data generated by multiple library preparation methods and two Illumina® sequencing instruments, with 100% concordance. The data also reveal noteworthy concepts related to the effect of different preparation chemistries and sequencing parameters on the bioinformatic detection of STR alleles.

https://www.unthsc.edu/graduate-school-of-biomedical-sciences/molecular-and-medical-genetics/laboratory-faculty-and-staff/strait-razor/
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
From the STRait Razor paper:

Quote:
".
A separate program is currently in development that reads the colon-delimited text file(s) output by STRait Razor and detects the two allele calls with the highest count values (if any), comparing them based on a user-defined ‘‘abundance ratio’’ to
make homozygous and heterozygous allelotype calls with confidence. Presently, STRait Razor does not filter reads based on FASTQ quality information. However, the flanking region detection and small-repeat match verification performed by
STRait Razor can be considered inherent filtering steps. Quality based filtering may be incorporated into future versions of the program. In its current format, STRait Razor is designed to detect all the known alleles at each of the tested loci, according to the
allelic information listed in STRBase and the Y-Chromosome Haplotype Reference Database (YHRD) [27,28]. These alleles are defined in the modules used by the software and may be modified by the user to include other rare or undocumented
variants
. In the future, the software may be altered to allow for the intuitive calling of alleles based on repeat length alone, without the need for allelic definitions.

Conclusion
In its current state of development, STRait Razor offers forensic DNA analysts a simple and effective means of detecting STR alleles in SGS data. I


"
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Get to work people.......


OH! I believe they are talking SAM Files " reads the colon-delimited text file(s"

Oh no! It works on Win also version 3.0
Quote:
The short tandem repeat allele identification tool (STRait Razor), a program used to characterize the haplotypes of short tandem repeats (STRs) in massively parallel sequencing (MPS) data, was redesigned.

Written in a portable compiled language, C++, STRait Razor v3.0 functions on all major operating systems including Microsoft Windows, and it has cross-platform multithreading support.

Note that STRait Razor was designed initially for capturing short tandem repeats (STRs), but it can now detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertions/deletions (indels). The presence of these anchors in the correct orientation

STRait Razor v3.0 provides a marked improvement of the allele identification strategy employed by its previous versions. STRait Razor v3.0 is fast, in part owing to its development in a compiled programming language (C++) and in part to an indexing strategy that is tailored for fast approximate search of anchor sequences. STRait Razor v3.0 is multithreaded, allowing it to exploit multicore CPUs. Further, it no longer requires regular files and instead can use the standard input stream, allowing it to process compressed File formats and generally function in analysis pipelines. STRait Razor v3.0 also has the ability to selectively filter loci by type (e.g., one can attempt to find [b]only autosomal loci or any other user-defined type). The tool can optionally place haplotypes onto the positive strand, and low-frequency haplotypes can be excluded from the output, thus simplifying the reporting process. STRait Razor v3.0 also uses a conservative set of requirements used to resolve ambiguous haplotype identities, and it has the ability to compute the length-based nomenclature of STRs without prior expectations on haplotype lengths.

STRait Razor v3.0 is open source and freely available at https://github.com/Ahhgust/STRaitRazor and


at https://www.unthsc.edu/graduate-school-of-biomedical-sciences/molecular-and-medical- genetics/laboratory-faculty-and-staff/strait-razor,

along with standard configuration files that will enable it to be used on a variety of MPS systems. Comments and findings that could
improve the performance of STRait Razor v3.0 are welcome and encouraged.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
I don't think this program is saying you can pull STRs from SNP data. If this was possible there would be no need for separate STR and SNP companies. Particularly when dealing with the Y-Chromosome.

Think of it as you trying to query specific letters (SNP) and numbers (STR) from a 10 paragraph output of text relating to the analysis of some object (Blood). The issue is the tool you used to generate those 10 paragraphs ONLY produces differing sequences of alphabetical letters. Therefore there are no Numbers in the text to query.

You would then use a SECONDARY program to produce and query any numerical data. In DNA some folks only want the letters, other folks only want the numbers. Some need both. The numbers change faster than the letters so they can tell you more information about recent events.

What is clear is when you run that program and it's says it's going to "test 100,000 to 500,000 SNPs". That is ALL ITS GOINT TO DO: Get you the values for those specific number of SNPs and NOTHING more. Or those specific STRs.

Also think of it as a sex working going to the clinic to get tested for HIV. The test is ONLY look for the HIV virus (or however it works) its not going to tell her if she has Sisyphus, or Herpes or anything else, its only designed to look for that specific things and it she wants more she will have to take additional tests to look for those other specific diseases. [Smile]

Under a Y-Chromosome perspective there could be recent events that makes an STR profile look like a certain haplogroup be it the Atlantic modal halotype of European R1b, the Bantu modal STR pattern of E1b1a8 or the Cohen modal Haplotype of Jews.

In the case of Jews and the CMH, it is highly split between 2 lineages, both J1 AND J2. Its is over 80% of their CHM when you test 6-12 STRs. What about the rest? Well that STR haployype is split between the various other haplogroups including E/G/H/Q/R.

E/G/H/Q/R. Are SNPs, CHM is a 6 value STR profile. It exists within all the haplogroups listed above but mostly in J1/J2. If you test positive for CHM you would need a SNP test to know if you are Hap J or something else. Alternatively, If you test positive for J1/j2 you would need an STR test to know if you are positive for CHM because when you tested for J you ONLY tested for the presence of M172 and M267. NOTHING MORE. You dont know if you are Cohen Modal or the Arab Model.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@ AstenB. Appreciate your input but ...man, your analogies stink. No dis-respect intended.

I am not sure I agree. First off, the data produce are ONLY "letters" not "numbers". If it is repeated 5 times then that is 5 repeats. (eg ATTTAATTTAATTTAATTTAATTA here ATTTA is reoated 5 times. The software should be able to count the five) And keeping in mind STRs are really organized or linked SNPs that are repeated. So we are talking apples vs apples in this context. YDNA or autosomal DNA should NOT natter. The problem to overcome will be the "address/location" where the specific or STR of interest starts. That is why I asked the question above about RsXXXXX?. I assume there is a software to do that.


The question is where does the first ATTTA start on a genome that have over several million bases/alleles/SNPs?

Here is a quote from another website with people working on the project using TreeMix when it just came out. We can do our own analysis. Things are much more improved compared to when the Amarna data was released. I challenged Davidski to run TreeMix on some data to prove my point I was making. He accepted the challenged then came back a day a later and said he would not. And deleted prior comments leading up to it.



He are some excerpts from a dialogue using TreeMix(this is Dienekes)

Quote:
"Zack said:
1. I ran TreeMix on the Reich et al Indian Cline dataset (alongwith CEU, Yoruba and Onge). And I found a 57% migration edge from the Onge to Yoruba. [sarcasm]Obviously, there was back-migration from India to Africa.[/sarcasm]
2. Further evidence for continent-wide Eurasian admixture in Africa that had been previously undetected due to ascertainment bias that neglected African variation
3. Using the HGDP San as outgroup there is a 63% migration edge from (Basque, Sardinian) to San

4. All joking aside, I would love to see you actually attempt this TreeMix run if you haven't already done so. Why, because sub-Saharan African cattle are by-and-large African maternally and Zebu paternally, so some group introduced Zebu cattle to Africa.
5. When you have Shorthorn cattle found in South West Ireland, North Africa and down the coast to Senegal and inland to the Central Sahel.
6. My analysis cited by Razib in this post was based on 166,770 SNPs. Following Joe Pickrell's proposal of using -k 1000 for 650K data, I have repeated the experiment with -k 250. The first migration edge added was again: (Basque,Sardinian)-to-Yoruba (64%)
7. The slight greater affinity of West Eurasians and Africans is caused by geographic proximity and some admixture events
8. So, I have hypothesized that modern humans were evolving in parts of Africa pre-100ka, especially in a "Green Sahara", slowly achieving anatomical modernity. The de-greening of the Sahara would have pushed some of them into other parts of Africa, as well as into the Near East, were we first find them c. 100ka.
9. Dienekes • 5 years ago - It does seem that Yoruba, Mandenka, and Bantu are shifted relative to San in a West Eurasian direction:"
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The point? We can do our own analysis. TreeMix software uses SNPs (and STRs)to determine migration edges. We have the raw data of the Abusir mummies. Tic! Toc!. We can download datasets for other populations from HGDP, HAPMAP, 1000genomes etc. We can plug in other Africans and run TreeMix against the Abusir and these other Africans. The Authors refused to do that in their study. We do not need "lying Europeans".....now. We can do supervised and unsupervised runs. I expect DNAConsultants are being pressured NOT to release any comparison review as they did with the Amarnas.

BTW - Keep in mind STR's are really repetitions(repeats) of a series of base pairs or alleles. SO I would think it is an easy conversion from SNP to STRs. The problem is where the first repeats starts. I have information on which of the 23chrosomes these popSTR resides. The information is out there.

Maybe when I retire this will be my serious hobby. But I am a long way off.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Here is the thing though - As I know it, SNP data is not testing repeats. Its doesn't retrieve that information. For Example if I go into my raw data. RIGHT NOW.....this is the exact data extracted by the Illumina sequencer Chip (Version 2 at 23andme). Back then it was 300-400k SNP's. Right now 23andme probably gives you 1 Million or more.

Lets take a look 5 random SNP's from my Chromosome 5:


Genes/Marker (SNP)/Genomic Position/Variants/Your Genotype

1 - intergenic rs10036054 2352730 C or T C / C
2 - intergenic rs10039326 2513346 A or G A / G
3 - intergenic rs1002647 2560537 A or G A / A
4 - intergenic rs10038374 2823353 A or G A / G
5 - ADAMTS16 rs10037656 5183783 A or G A / A

You dont get the repeats. Looking at SNP number 2 I get the name of the SNP "rs10039326" and my Genotype "A/G".
And you basically get this Hundreds of Thousands of times all at SPECIFIC SNP's that are known to be somewhat different when looking at world wide populations.

If you could use a program to get STR information from SNP's then companies would not need you to sumbit new cheek swabs. You could just send your 23andme Raw data over to DNA Tribes. NO instead, if you want tribes STR analysis (or ANY STR analysis) you have to swab the cheek. If you send them your 23andme Raw data they can ONLY do a SNP analysis of that data....SNP imput = SNP output.

Y-dna and Autosmal dna DO matter because If you are looking for autosomal SNPs you will not test for SNP's on the Y-chromosome because the Y nor the mtDNA contain Autosomal data.

IN THE FUTURE...yeah if there was a test that just sequenced "every damn thing" you could potentially have all the data but there are issues with this:
1 - TIME - You are going to need a super computer to crunch all that data, I hope you got a snickers cause you aint going anywhere.
2 - COSTS - It will not be cheap, it will not be 100.
3 - SIZE - You are going to end up with a Exabyte of data.
4 - We Dont even really know how large the genome IS. Nearly ever year there are resolving and "discovering" new SNP's, particularly on the Y-chromosome. IN actuality they are not "discovering" anything because those SNP's were already there, the number of positions in the human genome could reach into the quadrillions or something.

Now if you can give an alternative example using evidence that shows you can get STRs from SNPs (when we already know you cannot get SNPs from STRs) The floor is yours.
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
You can get repeats from BAM files, I'm just salty that Xyyman took all this time to look shit up and post "tic-toc" instead of actually trying to genotype STRs on his own... I even offered to give him a tutorial. I'm guessing the private companies like 23andMe call variants for you before allowing you to download the raw Data... what is the file format for 23andME??

And to hell with reconverting BAM to SAM files ...hell no... The abusir 3 are already sorted, indexed and ready to go, though I'm not gonna lie I am having trouble getting calls but I only started yesterday.

Btw Xyyman
"The question is where does the first ATTTA start on a genome that have over several million bases/alleles/SNPs?"
The term you're looking for is "base pairs" and that is one hell of a question from a "science guy"

If I didn't already have 23 gigabytes worth of Genetic data, I wouldn't even be doing this for you... and you're up here spamming the board with misleading info. God forbid anyone wanted to start up from here.

Edit
Actually..I'm lying above, I have 23 Gigs on my internal HDD, 7x's that amount or so on an external Harddrive ...smh


Btw, the FastQ files are also up for download [Wink] ...no conversion needed... tic-toc
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
lol! Ok theMaster. I was trying to grasp the indexing thing. But now that you mention it. If it is indexed then determining where the repeats start should be easy. Duh! I should have picked that up. yeah. I missed that one.

One point for you!

"The question is where does the first ATTTA start on a genome that have over several million bases/alleles/SNPs?"
The term you're looking for is "base pairs" and that is one hell of a question from a "science guy"
"
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] You can get repeats from BAM files,

Do those BAM files have the 13 universal Codis markers?
 -
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Ok. I wasn't aware the FASTQ files were available(another point for you). Me being lazy and spamming. ...the board. But I will give you your props. But I am now getting into this level of details. I left it up to the experts/researchers to process the raw data. I guess I will have to start processing the data myself.

@AstenB - as you heard STRs can be obtained from these files. Keep in mind BAM files are binary SAM files are text delimited. The computer does not care or know if it is processing autosomal or uniparental markers. It is "one's and zero's". SAM tools give you the text and that is where "indexing" comes in. Essentially IDing the position of the bases/nucleotides. Again uniparental markers vs autosomal does not matter. But , You may have to "tell" the computer software what it is looking at before you do the "run and call". I am not there yet. Now getting into it. But that is the only way I can see the computer will know the difference before a run by the operator telling it it is data for uniparental markers.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
B. No relevance Bro. See above. BAM files are 1's and 0's ie binary there is no text. SAM tools get the text from binary. That is why you need both. It only took me a few days to grasp this. I can do runs if I have the time. You have a lot to learn. But don't be mad. We are depending on you since you have the time. I don't.

@elMaestro. "basepairs" damwn! you are right. missed it again. basepair=alignment.- kicking myself!.

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] You can get repeats from BAM files,

Do those BAM files have the 13 universal Codis markers?
 -


 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] You can get repeats from BAM files,

Do those BAM files have the 13 universal Codis markers?

Well, the Markers have to be Identified by the program you're using to Genotype. Xyyman is partially right about what the BAM files actually are. I'm about to switch over to LobSTR and see if I can get further, The Markers I found so far were weak and aren't of the popular CODIS 13... HipSTR for example tries to ID hundreds of thousands of repeats... Considering the Size of the Bam files I feel like I can get something
 
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Bad news, after multiple attempts and methods I failed to get any useful STR data... Even from the fastq files. All the STR calls I got were generic. I couldn't Identify them with any program so I even checked what was going on manually (by literally looking at the loci), and it turns out their's no bps at all in the regions where we'd find these markers... so to answer Beyokus Question above no, neither do the Fastq files have em, they probably weren't even sequenced.

If anyone want a copy of the generic STR calls for whatever reason pm me, though I might warn you, you're on your own from there... I haven't bothered classifying them or researching the nomenclature.

my b Xyyman
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
.

Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes

So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you saying they are low in frequency?

Because it is, hence my previous statement.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
.

Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@ the lioness, how do you feel about the nazi history these institutes have? I am referring to University of Tuebingen and Max Planck.


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
.

Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@ the lioness, how do you feel about the nazi history these institutes have? I am referring to University of Tuebingen and Max Planck.


cautious
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^Okay.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Those European researchers are slippery as a snake. What did I tell you?

They are not going to make the same mistake twice. But I am sure with what they sequenced and released information can be obtained. This is where DNATribes and other companies with the capabilities can come in useful. Lucas Martin is dead (RIP) so...someone needs to step in and step up. I don't know enough to do a deep dive.

What About EDAR, Duffy gene, sickle cell, hypertension gene and other genes with high frequency in Africans?


"they probably weren't even sequenced"


quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] Bad news, ........, they probably weren't even sequenced.

...

my b Xyyman [/QB]


 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
So it seems like the FULL genomes(3) were not really sequenced and released?! May be not released but sequenced. I thought about that last weekend. If they made the STR data available that would be a major screw up on their part.

I thought they would REMOVE that sequence(STR) data before they released the rest of the genome.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Looks like they were removed from the BAM file before being released or they weren't sequenced. My money is they were removed.

As I said it is impossible for the Amarnas who were SSA to be any different from the Abusir which is a few hundred miles away ...and before the age of intercontinental travel.


trust me...it was removed. That is how these "lying Europeans" operate.

either "data not shown", "through private communication". or "selective sampling".


I know all their games and tactics. It is getting like a broken record

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] You can get repeats from BAM files,

Do those BAM files have the 13 universal Codis markers?
 -


 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I just had an idea. Anyone has the BAM files for the Amarnas? were they released as the Abusir mummies?

----

BAM is the compressed binary version of the Sequence Alignment/Map (SAM) format, a compact and index-able representation of nucleotide sequence alignments. Many next-generation sequencing and analysis tools work with SAM/BAM. For custom track display, the main advantage of indexed BAM over PSL and other human-readable alignment formats is that only the portions of the files needed to display a particular region are transferred to UCSC. This makes it possible to display alignments from files that are so large that the connection to UCSC would time out when attempting to upload the whole file to UCSC. Both the BAM file and its associated index file remain on your web-accessible server (http, https, or ftp), not on the UCSC server. UCSC temporarily caches the accessed portions of the files to speed up interactive display.


https://genome.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/help/bam.html
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who are interested. Binary files are essentially 1's and 0's. Remember elementary or High School Math depending on your educational background? Computers process in 1's and 0's but human's read or process through alpha/numeric characters. That is why SAM Tools is needed to convert BAM files which are in binary. ie 1's and 0's to ATTTC etc The nucleotide code or bases. The problem is you end up with a large string of AAATTC etc. Comes like a long street in NY City. They need to be index or numbered to make sense and to help with location. Where do city blocks begin and end. That is why indexing/numbering is so important.

After indexing the genes or SNP or STR can be located. Eg if you have a city clock with 1000 houses and all are only four colors the numbering the houses will help in "location or addressing"
 
Posted by d-intellect (Member # 8103) on :
 
Stop.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
5 posts in a row, xyyman loves talking to himself.

He may beat Ish Gebor for the 2017
Egyptsearch Most Posts in a Row Award

, just sayin
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
9 post in 12years!! Last post was in 2005. You waited 12years to write.."stop" wtf you wierdos come from? Suck puppet account by the owner?

@Lioness - you don't have to read my post. And i do read Ish's. Very good researcher.

So how about it d intellect. Any thing to contribute to my suggestion. Can you identify African genes based upon the released BAM files?


quote:
Originally posted by d-intellect:
Stop.


 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
For the newbies. From The JAMA Report. These were SSA Africans from the New Kingdom?

----
An up to 30-fold testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci via the combined use of the Identifiler and AmpF\STR Minifiler kits (Applied Biosystems) yielded complete data sets for all 8 markers in 7 mummies (Thuya, Yuya, Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, KV55, and both female mummies from KV35) but only partial data for both KV62 fetuses and the KV21A and KV21B mummies (Figure 1). Repeated attempts to complete the profiles in the 4 latter mummies were not successful; however, we were able to replicate some of the results for the previous mummies more than 4 times in the second, independent laboratory (Figure 1). Moreover, because these profiles differed from those of the laboratory staff and were not identical to the ones established for the control group, the data were considered authentic.

Conclusion Using a multidisciplinary scientific approach, we showed the feasibility of gathering data on Pharaonic kinship and diseases and speculated about individual causes of death.

The 18th dynasty (circa 1550-1295 BC) of the New Kingdom (circa 1550-1070 BC) was one of the most powerful royal houses of ancient Egypt. The pharaoh Akhenaten, who ruled from circa 1351 to 1334 BC, is considered one of the most controversial of the Egyptian pharaohs, because his attempt to radically transform traditional religion affected all facets of society and caused great turmoil.


 -

Author Contributions: Drs Hawass, Gad, Zink, and Pusch had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Hawass, Gad, Zink, Pusch.

Acquisition of data: Hawass, Gad, Ismail, Khairat, Fathalla, Hasan, Ahmed, Elleithy, Gaballah, Wasef, Fateen, Amer, Gostner, Selim, Zink.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Hawass, Gad, Ismail, Khairat, Fathalla, Hasan, Ball, Wasef, Fateen, Amer, Gostner, Selim, Zink, Pusch.

Drafting of the manuscript: Hawass, Gad, Zink, Pusch.
----

And now from The Abusir mummies -
QUOTE"
ll sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period [cal. 1388BCE–426CE, Supplementary Data 1}. In particular, we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination, especially during the Ptolemaic [332–30BCE} and Roman [30BCE–395CE} Periods
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
5 posts in a row, xyyman loves talking to himself.

He may beat Ish Gebor for the 2017
Egyptsearch Most Posts in a Row Award

, just sayin

That's amazing you can count till 5.

So tell, what it the likelihood in a bayesian statistic to be posted more, in referencing to the subject.

Beat your head against the wall on this one.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
At this point in time a report like this should be multi-disciplinary and have multiple forms of supporting data. On the genetics side all the DNA haplogroups should be listed, make and female. On the physical anthropology side, all the mummies identified, even if only by reference number, since they came from a museum collection. That would allow for other folks to cross check and do further analysis. Otherwise, it is just another half baked study that can be used to bolster a Eurocentric agenda.
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
They used targeted SNP probes to enhance recovery of the Egyptian aDNA, I doubt this included STRs (maybe small ones?).

aDNA is in small fragments (typically 50-60 bp), this is obviously not great for STRs.
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Repost,

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
yes

So, did these "single individuals" had admixture, or was "purely" these SNPs found in these "single individuals"? Considering that most seem to carry subclades of some sort.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why are you saying they are low in frequency?

Because it is, hence my previous statement.
 
Posted by d-intellect (Member # 8103) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
9 post in 12years!! Last post was in 2005. You waited 12years to write.."stop" wtf you wierdos come from? Suck puppet account by the owner?

@Lioness - you don't have to read my post. And i do read Ish's. Very good researcher.

So how about it d intellect. Any thing to contribute to my suggestion. Can you identify African genes based upon the released BAM files?


quote:
Originally posted by d-intellect:
Stop.


I was trying to help you as someone who doesn't feel this study is the end all/be all that the mainstream is making it out to be. As a casual observer to this board, your posts to yourself have become counterproductive from an outsider's perspective. It actually makes you look like the "weirdo" having a difficult time countering the findings of the project outside of the friendly confines of this board. I won't pretend to be a geneticist so I will remain in observation mode. Carry on this way if you must.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder

Eurasians migrated 700AD

AEians cannot but be anything else but indigenous Africans. I am 110% sure. There is no doubt. I said this from the git go.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[Q]
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:


1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why? [/Q]
Reading the summary Elmaestro. It is not what you think. I myself got caught in the sensationalism title without reading.
1. It is supporting the fact the Ancient Egyptians are Sudanese sand they occupied regions along the Nile BEFORE the Arab conquest about 700AD.


Is this a rebuttal to Abusir paper? Lol!

Man you people are like whores. SMH

-----
Authors summary
This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the
White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day
Nilotes likely inhabited a larger area of northeast Africa prior to the migration from the Middle East as their ancestry component can still be found in a large area. Our findings
reveal the genetic history of Sudanese and South Sudanese people, broaden our knowledge on demographic history of humans, and quantify the impact of large-scale historic
migration events in northeast Africa.

t disputes Abusir.

also
Quote:
The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan. They are traditionally
strongly endogamic which could account for low levels of admixture. In terms of specific Nilotic populations, the f3 test showed no significant signal of gene flow with external
populations for the Nuer and Baria (Fig 3A), however, we detected indications of external
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder

Eurasians migrated 700AD

AEians cannot but be anything else but indigenous Africans. I am 110% sure. There is no doubt. I said this from the git go.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[Q]
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:


1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why? [/Q]
Reading the summary Elmaestro. It is not what you think. I myself got caught in the sensationalism title without reading.
1. It is supporting the fact the Ancient Egyptians are Sudanese sand they occupied regions along the Nile BEFORE the Arab conquest about 700AD.



yeah but you said there was no Arab conquest
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
xyyman, where did haplogroup J2 originate?

and where is the greatest diversity of J1?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
xyyman, where did haplogroup J2 originate?

and where is the greatest diversity of J1?

What is the genetic coding difference of the gene expresion markup between these Haplo types? And what has led to this "possible" genetic coding differences?
 
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder

Eurasians migrated 700AD

AEians cannot but be anything else but indigenous Africans. I am 110% sure. There is no doubt. I said this from the git go.


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[Q]
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:


1. It is impossible for the Abusir mummies to be anything but Africans.

why? [/Q]
Reading the summary Elmaestro. It is not what you think. I myself got caught in the sensationalism title without reading.
1. It is supporting the fact the Ancient Egyptians are Sudanese sand they occupied regions along the Nile BEFORE the Arab conquest about 700AD.



yeah but you said there was no Arab conquest
[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

quote:
African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
 
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
 
I wouldn't bet on accuracy of ancient African mummies decayed DNA results, because a comprehensive, functional analysis of decaying mRNA transcripts has not been performed until now. Beside,I am suspicious of DNA results from European and American labs, because of different tests conclusions from the same subjects done in their labs.

I have no doubts that many DNA tests results done by them are influenced by their colonial racial, territorial and economic ambitions. Oh...one of their most ridiculous deduction I saw so far, was a facial painting of a pre-historic blue eyes European male, which was done based on one found tooth's DNA. If they are capable of such corruption, image what they may do to ancient African DNA results.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I understand that the paternal genetic profile of the Natufians was African, so would that not make the Abusir mummies more than just 6-15% African?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I understand that the paternal genetic profile of the Natufians was African, so would that not make the Abusir mummies more than just 6-15% African?

quote:


http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml

Lazaridis et al. (2016) tested the first ancient DNA samples from the Mesolithic Natufian culture in Israel, possibly the world's oldest sedentary community, and found that the male individuals belonged either to haplogroups CT or E1b1 (including two E1b1b1b2 samples). These are to date the oldest known E1b1b individuals.



--------------------
a sense of National sovereignty is the heart of imperialism
 
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
 
I have a question. Were any crania/limb proportion works done on these mummies?
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
Abusir el-Meleq study reflects sample bias.


let's look at only the oldest specimens


 -


Y DNA could be E
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
I have a question. Were any crania/limb proportion works done on these mummies?

i googled a bit and couldn't find anything. could try emailing the University of Tubingen i guess.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
So the Maasai carry the same frequency of Sub-Saharan ..eh! Yoruban ancestry such “Eurasians” like Bedoiuns, Yemenis and Jordanians etc. Even the Pima Native American carry Yoruban ancestry but the Abusir doesn’t. Wait! The Abusir are closest to…Bedoiuns and Natufians.. lol! Yeah! Keep on dream. SMH

 -
 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
the Abusir mummies DID have Yoruba you unbearably stupid dishonest clown
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^ EVERYONE!! Globally has YRI ancestry see above

Dataog Africa
The Datooga, known as the Mang'ati in Swahili, are a pastoralist Nilotic people of Manyara Region, Arusha Region, Mara Region, and Singida Region of Tanzania. In 2000 the Datooga population was estimated to number 87,978.[1] There are at least seven Datooga tribes:


Supplemental Figure 7. Population structure. ADMIXTURE (Alexander 2009) analysis of population structure was run using a range of K from 3 to 18, with K=12 having the lowest cross-validation error (* in figure). Shown is the ancestry proportion for all runs. A. All populations in the combined the 104 Qatari genomes, 1000 Genomes (excluding Human Origins duplicates), and Human Origins dataset, labeled by study and region. B. Detail of populations from panel A having detectable ancestry in a “Bedouin” component that represents the majority of ancestry in Q1 (Bedouin), Bedouin B, and Saudi populations. C. Detail from panels A and B for K=12
 -


quote:
Originally posted by capra:
the Abusir mummies DID have Yoruba you unbearably stupid dishonest clown


 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
why are you lying about Abusir mummies then, dipshit?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Genetics and science will make liars of you people. Squashed like a bug……..

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
the Abusir mummies DID have Yoruba you unbearably stupid dishonest clown

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
why are you lying about Abusir mummies then, dipshit?


 
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 
of course you got nothing, you never have a fucking thing. really, who do you think you are fooling?
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
squashed like a lying bug...
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
of course you got nothing, you never have a fucking thing. really, who do you think you are fooling?


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 51b2 was found to be unusual in several respects.
The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 51b2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Möllers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).

--Early Dynastic Egypt
By Toby A.H. Wilkinson

https://books.google.com/books?id=lGGFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
^^^^wonder if the Nubian immigrant was tested as well??
One has to wonder if these so called non SSA populations in Abusir were just tropical Africans related to populations who settled outside Africa
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.

Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.

But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".

No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".

Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 51b2 was found to be unusual in several respects.
The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 51b2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Möllers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).

--Early Dynastic Egypt
By Toby A.H. Wilkinson

https://books.google.com/books?id=lGGFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149 [/QB]

.


.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.

Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.

But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".

No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".

Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.

Egypt was a nation with boundaries. "Nubian" is a term like "European." In relation to Egypt it means the people who lived south of the Egyptian nation.

Maybe you think they thought a grave was Nubian because of the nature of the of human remains.
However if we look at more of the quote, it is reveled that it was due to artifacts found therein:

quote:

Direct contact between the peoples of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period may be indicated by a burial from Abusir el-Meleq in northern Upper Egypt. Grave 5 lb2 was found to be unusual in several respects. It was the only circular grave in the entire cemetery, a shape more characteristic of burials in southern Upper Egypt and Nubia. The grave goods included two black-mouthed jars of Nubian type (Mollers and Scharff 1926: pi. 16.96-7) and a palette of unusual shape (Mollers and Scharff 1926: pi. 33.330), more commonly found in Nubian burials. The excavator concluded that the individual buried in grave 5 lb2 may have been a Nubian immigrant (Mollers and Scharff 1926:29; cf. Needier 1984:224).

--Early Dynastic Egypt
By Toby A.H. Wilkinson


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.

Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.

But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".

No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".

Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.


 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.

Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.

But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".

No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".

Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.


Agreed and welcome back.

Just pointing out the obvious that this new round of DNA studies hasn't really changed the status quo as far as the status quo is concerned. To "mainstream" science AE was a transplant from somewhere outside of Africa. Everything they have done since Napoleon has been to reinforce that view in one way or another. Using selective DNA and arbitrary non-historical terms like "Nubian" is part of that.

This is why they have not sampled or published any actual DNA from remains in ancient Upper Egypt and Sudan. It would go against the narrative they are trying to tell that this region was the boundary between "black Africans" as represented by so-called "nubia" and "other" as represented by the AE.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1


A trump card for what?
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Jari

What Nubians (from what periods) were subject to genetic studies that showed them to carry J1 lineages? I've looked into this and it seems that Sudanese Arabs (Nubians mixed with Arabs) have substantial J1 lineages but this does not seem to be the case for the other Nubian groups - Nubians that are not Arab.

You would have a strong case if these J1 lineages were found in the predynastic and dynastic remains of Nubians. That Sudanese Arabs (a recent group) have J1 lineages cannot be used to assert that ancient Nubians in Egypt and Sudan had J1 lineages -- at least not in the frequency observed in Sudanese Arabs.

People here are talking about Eurasian Soqotri type people being present (and possibly dominating) Upper Egypt and only then mixing with "incoming" Sudanese populations - as though we have evidence of any Eurasian populations being there first.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Jari

What Nubians (from what periods) were subject to genetic studies that showed them to carry J1 lineages? I've looked into this and it seems that Sudanese Arabs (Nubians mixed with Arabs) have substantial J1 lineages but this does not seem to be the case for the other Nubian groups - Nubians that are not Arab.

You would have a strong case if these J1 lineages were found in the predynastic and dynastic remains of Nubians. That Sudanese Arabs (a recent group) have J1 lineages cannot be used to assert that ancient Nubians in Egypt and Sudan had J1 lineages -- at least not in the frequency observed in Sudanese Arabs.

People here are talking about Eurasian Soqotri type people being present (and possibly dominating) Upper Egypt and only then mixing with "incoming" Sudanese populations - as though we have evidence of any Eurasian populations being there first.

Your ancestors were from Sudan right? and maybe your were born there?
So what do you think of the idea that "Nubian' is a term that shouldn't be used?

Also:

quote:


wikipedia:

Nubians

In 2015, Sirak et al. also analysed the ancient DNA of a Christian-period inhabitant of Kulubnarti in Nubia. The scientists found that the medieval specimen was most closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Further excavations of two Early Christian period (AD 550-800) cemeteries at Kulubnarti, one located on the mainland and the other on an island, revealed the existence of two ancestrally and socioeconomically distinct local populations. Ancient DNA analysis of specimens from these burial sites found that the mainland samples predominantly carried European and Near Eastern mtDNA clades, such as the K1, H, I5, and U1 lineages; only 36.4% of the mainland individuals belonged to African-based maternal haplogroups. By contrast, 70% of the specimens at the island burial site bore African-based clades, among which were the L2, L1 and L5 mtDNA haplogroups



 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Lioness

Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
yes, that is the key, modern day Nubians calling themselves Nubian
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
As a last hope for Ancient Egyptians having SSA DNA

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1


A trump card for what?

 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Nubia is not in 'SSA'.

Ethiopia and Somalia are in 'SSA' at the
exact same latitude as Gabon & Cameroon.

STRs show living Somalis matching Amarna's.
So there's your 'SSA' DNA in Ancient Egypt.

The fact is, Sudanis and 'SSAs' followed fertile
landscapes into the Sahara region ~10,000 yrs ago.

They created the Sudani-Saharo Neolithic.

~6000 years ago these Sudani & some of the others
moved into the Nile Valley sparking the civilization
we call Ancient Egypt.

North Africans were conquered and forced to join
the Ancient Egyptian state founded by Nile Valley
Sudanis. North Africans had jack shit to do with it
except a small part in what was to become Middle Egypt.

Relying on North Africa is
"a roundabout way to establish a white, Mediterranean origin for Egyptian civilization."
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
You see I dont think this is necessarily the case most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians. At the same time I can see where you are coming from as Mainstream Egyptology and Anthropology seems to blatantly ignore the Green Sahara civilizations and origins/connections to Egypt. If they did they'd have to admit that at least some if not all of Egypt's culture started in Africa and that so called Nubians(Nilites) and Lybians(Berbers)were responsible for the creation of Egypt as much as Tawny/Leukoderm North African types.

Here is a good though low budget documentary that sums it up

https://youtu.be/awZy9KUzZ4Y?t=6

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I think it is misleading to use a collective term like Nubia to describe the many various tribes who inhabited Egypt’s southern borders and sphere of influence. Given the fact that many cultures labeled Nubian could easily be seen as a continuation of Afro-asiatic people and culture like Egypt this is evident from predynastic to even the Christian Era when king Ezana of Axum identified “red” Kasu along with black cushions etc. I think we should be careful using Nubia/Nahesu as a trump card esp given the fact that some DNA studies show so them to carry so called Eurasian lineages like J1

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Considering "Nubia" didn't exist as a nation sttate, let alone a collection of "all blacks" in Africa to the South of Egypt, this is meaningless.

Whenever you hear the term "Nubia" referring to ancient populations on the Nile, it means segregating "blacks" vs Egyptians.

But you got some folks pretending that the ancient Egyptians were settled by "back migrants" and therefore "different" from the locals and hence "locals" or "true Africans" are only represented by "Nubians".

No matter whether they ever sample more DNA from ancient mummies, they will still be trying to spin that the AE were a different population than local Africans and hence "different". And even if they don't quantify what that means, it still justifies the distinction between "AE" as "back migrants" or "mixed" and other Africans to the South. And of course that dividing line will always conveniently be on the boundary of AE and so called "nubia".

Even though all the archaeological and anthropological data contradicts this they will still spin it as much as possible.


Agreed and welcome back.

Just pointing out the obvious that this new round of DNA studies hasn't really changed the status quo as far as the status quo is concerned. To "mainstream" science AE was a transplant from somewhere outside of Africa. Everything they have done since Napoleon has been to reinforce that view in one way or another. Using selective DNA and arbitrary non-historical terms like "Nubian" is part of that.

This is why they have not sampled or published any actual DNA from remains in ancient Upper Egypt and Sudan. It would go against the narrative they are trying to tell that this region was the boundary between "black Africans" as represented by so-called "nubia" and "other" as represented by the AE.


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Lioness

Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.

.


,


 -
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies

As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom)
they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam
The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC.
There are four more J2 carriers

**note this is mtDNA J2 not the more familiar Y DNA J

quote:


Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).

---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa



 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Please list the Libyan contributions to the formation of Ancient Egyptian civilization.

Ancient Egypt is Sudani Nile Valley civilization.
Ancient Egypt is not 'Berber' North African civilization.

AEs shunned North Africa as desert chaos ghostland
never including it in Kemet. Nubia was considered
Kemet.

Libyans play little if any part in AE until after
the New Kingdom after beaten into submission by
Ramses and other pharaohs. And still no civilizing
influence from them. They adopted AE culture 2000
years after it's Sudani creation. So how is AE a
North African civilization?


Nile Valley culture runs south to north. Do I have to list them
or one can pick up Baines & Màlek's book for those details and read:

Naqada II forms the turning point in the development of pre-dynastic Egypt. It is the first culture to have contacts with other countries, while it spread over the entire Nile Valley north of Gebel el-Silsila and into the delta. There is also social stratification and a development of significant population centers, notably Hierakonpolis, Koptos, Naqada and Abydos. It is, on the other hand, the last period during which there was some cultural uniformity extending south of the first cataract. The Nubian cultures of this period, which are found as far south as Khartum , are not sharply distinct from those of Egypt. There was probably exchange over the whole area and no central political authority. The cultural demarcation with the Nubian A group [TaSeti], which becomes notable south of Gebel el-Silsila in Naqada II probably accompanies the beginning of state organization in Egypt and the definition of a political frontier. This process leads into the early dynastic period, in which Egypt is united, within boundaries comprable to those of later periods, under a single ruler. There is no sharp cultural break between Naqada II and the Early Dynastic Period, even though the transformation over the centuries is almost total.


Where is anything written like
The North African cultures of this period, which are found as far west as Casablanca, are not sharply distinct from those of Egypt. There was probably exchange over the whole area and no central political authority. The cultural demarcation with the Libyan, which becomes notable west of the delta in Naqada II probably accompanies the beginning of state organization in Egypt.



Sorry to bog quick lipped posts down by taking time
to actually research and quote from a real book. I know
that's not where ES is at now but I'm a 20th century
2nd millennium fossil into Africana 21 centuries 3 millennia Anno Domini.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Can we really ascribe the formation of AE to Berbers? It was started in the South by people whose ultimate origin is in central Sudan. Virtually every material feature of AE was a product of the South. Every other group came later. It's absurd to now pretend that it's been demonstrated that "tawny" North African types created AE and that all that is left now is to parcel Southern peoples with equal credit.

That's inverted and perverse. What other civilization is treated this way? Look at how quickly the demographics are changing in the US and that should help people contextualise what happened in certain regions of Egypt over a 5k year period.
 
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Lioness

Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.

.


,


 -
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies

As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom)
they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam
The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC.
There are four more J2 carriers but of later periods and no J1s

quote:


Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).

---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa



We've gone over this before, lioness

These samples were from Northern Egypt and are samples following a long period of foreign domination (political & perhaps demographic) in the North by the Canaanites and then the Hyksos. The Upper Egyptians of that time had to grapple with Eurasian invasions, *settlements* and domination from the 12th Dynasty until the 18th Dynasty.

The Abusir mummies could be the descendants of Levantine invaders and some coastal Berbers. Copts are probably descended from this mixture.

If they can get early Dynasty Southern Egyptian samples (as large as the Abusir study) and they show the same profile as the Abusir mummies... then I'll be convinced.

I don't trust Europeans when it comes to African history, because they still have a strong anti-African bias in their studies. Westerners are trying to find, insert and glorify themselves in African history.

Swenet has done a tremendous job exposing their bias and deception; they do this by ignoring certain things, play dumb or fail to contextualise.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
I think you got me wrong, I dont think Tawny types created A/E Im saying this is what Egyptology believes which goes against Dougs comment that they consider A/E as coming from non Africans. Like I said the mainstream Egyptology view is A/E=Modern Egypt.

Also when I say Berbers I mean Native Lybians or Green Saharan people, not necessarily modern day Berbers.

A/E was a product of the South....Ok but Where in the South? I think it was various sites in the south that contributed to A.Egyptian culture

Heres a map of Nabta Playa

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Nabta-Egypt_NL.jpg

Gilf Kebir

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/24/13/3B9D551600000578-4063638-image-a-26_1482585265361.jpg

Heres another

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KSx22nh6orc/U-9kvmcXOhI/AAAAAAAACJA/iWiAnB_T9hE/s1600/mapGilf%2BDjedefre%2B7.jpg

I think A.Egypt was a product of Northern, Western, Southern, and Nile Valley Dwelling Africans.

I get what you are saying though, what got me about this whole Abusir study was the various sensational titles that suggested that A/E was somehow a transplant out of Africa that Even Modern Egyptians were not the true creators of A.Egypt. I read articles claiming that Egyptology was going to have to "Redefine" everything etc. As if the DNA of some late dynastic mummies from one site in Egypt will overturn the mountain of evidence that proves A.Egypt was a native product of Africa.

quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Can we really ascribe the formation of AE to Berbers? It was started in the South by people whose ultimate origin is in central Sudan. Virtually every material feature of AE was a product of the South. Every other group came later. It's absurd to now pretend that it's been demonstrated that "tawny" North African types created AE and that all that is left now is to parcel Southern peoples with equal credit.

That's inverted and perverse. What other civilization is treated this way? Look at how quickly the demographics are changing in the US and that should help people contextualise what happened in certain regions of Egypt over a 5k year period.


 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
What about the Green Saharans? Wan Muhuggiag, Gilf Kebbir, etc.

Do you guys not consider these places as significant to the formation of Kemet?

What else should we call these Africans who resided in Egypts western frontiers if not Lybians?

Dont get me wrong I dont think North Africans created A/E, I only brought up North Africans because this is what Egyptology believes and teaches.

I mean we have the Qutsul Incense Burner in A Group Nubian rulers grave. A/E was created both Old, New( and even Late Dynasty by 25th Kushites) by Africans from Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan... No amount of sensationalist Late Dynasty mummies will over turn that..
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Please list the Libyan contributions to the formation of Ancient Egyptian civilization.

Ancient Egypt is Sudani Nile Valley civilization.
Ancient Egypt is not 'Berber' North African civilization.

AEs shunned North Africa as desert chaos ghostland
never including it in Kemet. Nubia was considered
Kemet.

Libyans play little if any part in AE until after
the New Kingdom after beaten into submission by
Ramses and other pharaohs. And still no civilizing
influence from them. They adopted AE culture 2000
years after it's Sudani creation. So how is AE a
North African civilization?


Nile Valley culture runs south to north. Do I have
to list them or one can pick up Baines & Màlek's book for those details and read:

narcotic two forms the turning point in the development of pre-dynastic Egypt. It is the first culture to have contacts with other countries, while it's spread over the entire Nile Valley North of Gible El silsila and into the delta. There is also social stratification and a development of significant population centers notably here accomplice copters Nakata and are reduced. It is on the other hand the last. During which there was some cultural uniformity extending south of the first cataract. The Nubian cultures of this. With your found as far south as cartoon, are not shopping distinct from those of Egypt. There was probably exchange over the whole area and no Central political Authority. The cultural demarcation with the Nubian a group, which becomes notable south of Gamal El silsila in the Carter 2, probably a company's the beginning of State organization in Egypt and the definition of a political Frontier. This process leads into the early dynastic period, and which Egypt is United, within boundaries comprable to those of later periods, under a single ruler. There is no sharp cultural break between the Carter 2 and the early dynastic period, even though the transformation over the centuries is almost total.


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You see I dont think this is necessarily the case most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians.

Do you have a quote of the past 10 years of an Egyptologists saying this?
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period
fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn
Saharan pump.

quote:
What about the Green Saharans? Wan Muhuggiag, Gilf Kebbir, etc.

Sudani not Libyan. From the old Cambridge. From the Maroc/W Sahara border to Libya's
Awbari and onto Al Jawf, everything south of that line is Sudani culture not Libyan.
 -

Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic
culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic
culture. This is not about colour and facial features.
It's about culture, and Amazigh culture of any time
period bears not even the slightest resemblance to
Nile Valley cultures of any time period.


The Nile Valley is not North Africa.
It is East African and not desert.
The Nile is East Africa's desert oasis.

A Great Lake is one Nile source. The
Great Lakes begin in Malawi East Africa.
The White Nile issues from Lake 'Albert',
Uganda and the DRCongo.

Ethiopia is home to two of the remaining
major sources of the Nile, Lake Tana's Blue
Nile
and the all important silt bearing
Black Nile or Atbara river.
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Lioness

Yes, I'm from Sudan, and I have almost always put "Nubian" in quotation marks but people actually identify as "Nubian" and it's clear that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

As for that Christian-era sample, I'll have to look into it. The Eurasian dominant Christian-era samples could be of people that emigrated to Sudan prior to the collapse of Makuria. It's not ancient enough to have implications for Dynastic times.

.


,


 -
Earliest Abusir El-Melaq mummies

As for dynastic period Egypt the the oldest mummy they analyzed dated 1388-1311 (New Kingdom)
they said carried J2a1a1 far earlier than Christianity or Islam
The Hyksos were expelled a couple hundred years earlier in 1550 BC.
There are four more J2 carriers but of later periods and no J1s

quote:


Because all samples within J2a1a1 lacking the transitions at nps 319 and 489 were not sequenced at these sites, it is highly probable that they form a large central node for J2a1a1 shared by all Puerto Rican samples that is likely the founder haplotype of J2a1a1. This haplotype is common among non-Ashkenazi Jewish populations: of the 11 non-Puerto Rican samples, 7 are known Jewish samples, including four Spanish exilers, two Libyan Jews and one Moroccan Jew (Behar et al. 2008).

---A Mainly Circum-Mediterranean Origin for West Eurasian and North African mtDNAs in Puerto Rico with Strong Contributions from the Canary Islands and West Africa



We've gone over this before, lioness

These samples were from Northern Egypt and are samples following a long period of foreign domination (political & perhaps demographic) in the North by the Canaanites and then the Hyksos. The Upper Egyptians of that time had to grapple with Eurasian invasions, *settlements* and domination from the 12th Dynasty until the 18th Dynasty.

The Abusir mummies could be the descendants of Levantine invaders and some coastal Berbers. Copts are probably descended from this mixture.

If they can get early Dynasty Southern Egyptian samples (as large as the Abusir study) and they show the same profile as the Abusir mummies... then I'll be convinced.

I don't trust Europeans when it comes to African history, because they still have a strong anti-African bias in their studies. Westerners are trying to find, insert and glorify themselves in African history.

Swenet has done a tremendous job exposing their bias and deception; they do this by ignoring certain things, play dumb or fail to contextualise.

I went back to my post and deleted the remark I made about J1 because that was mtDNA J2 not the more familiar Y DNA J2


Now as regarding YDNA they did analyze three of the mummies


 -

So we have the uniparental :

sample

JK2134
Y DNA J
mtDNA J1d


JK2888
YDNA E1b1b1a1a2
mtDNA U6a2


JK2911
YDNA J
mtDNA M1a1

__________________________

This article is not enough to make generalizations about the ancient Egyptians but the authors did anyway

I'm just just showing the raw data again with the Y DNA
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Lioness Im not playing your game...

you can easily find the Egyptologist view on the race of the Egyptians. They believe Ancient Egypt=Modern Egypt in terms of race, if you dont know that then I dont know what to say,

Here is what head-hancho Egyptologist has to say....

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa,"


If you're gonna play dense lioness Im just going to ignore you.
 
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Again what do you want me to call these people...??

I chose Lybians because its the name of African people who came from the Western Fringes of Egypt

has nothing to do with Amingza people, I f-ked up by using "Berber" in that comment, but other than indigenous North-western Africans I dont know of any other label to use to refer to them.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period
fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn
Saharan pump.

Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic
culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic
culture. This is not about colour it's about
culture and Amazigh culture of any time period
bears not the slightest resemblance to Nile
Valley culture of any time period.


 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
most Egyptologists consider Egypt to be a North African I.E Tawny Creation i.e the Modern Egyptians=Ancient Egyptians.

I don't think so. You found a Hawass quote from 2007. I said past 10 years

I don't think recent Egyptologists are all saying things like this. Most try to avoid getting into the socio-polictal constructs "white" and "black".
If you look at recent books by professional Egyptologist many of them do consider southern influence, stop straw manning

** exception, this Abusir study where they try to use it to make too broad generalizations

And remember it was the Hawass team that predicted Ramses III E1b1a in 2012
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Again what do you want me to call these people...??

I chose Lybians because its the name of African people who came from the Western Fringes of Egypt

has nothing to do with Amingza people, I f-ked up by using "Berber" in that comment, but other than indigenous North-western Africans I dont know of any other label to use to refer to them.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Green Sahara is really the African Humid Period
fueled by the West African Monsoon not any damn
Saharan pump.

Everything mentioned is Sudani-Saharo Neolithic
culture not Amazigh Gafsian (Capsian) Neolithic
culture. This is not about colour it's about
culture and Amazigh culture of any time period
bears not the slightest resemblance to Nile
Valley culture of any time period.


Unlike North Africa Egypt was following a river
 
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Call them what they are, Sudanis.

Or call em whatever you wanna.
 
Posted by Before Chrisna (Member # 22932) on :
 
I read some of the postings. Kind of sad that some people are more interested in putting people down than actually seeking truth. Further more, I wonder if such persons have ever really worked on a science research team. (Primary research)


I will try to set some facts straight concerning current DNA studies lead by German scientist Johannes Straus. He is a Professor at the University of Tubingen and the Director of Paleogenetics at the Max Planck Institute.
Max Planck Association(Genetics ,Human Evolution and Eugenics), has a long history of science fraud, including the falsification of data, statistical manipulations to support preconceived conclusions and just out right lying. The Max Plank/Keiser Wilhelm Association was founded on Scientific Racism. (See Eugene Fischer and Ernest Rudin) This falsification of Science formed the basis of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Regime. As a result of Psychotic Psychologist, and deranged geneticist, Hitler's Nazi government was able to justify the murder of millions of people, including women and children.
It is interesting to note here, that the University of Tubingen created some of the most murderous medical doctors the world has ever seen. Tubingen doctors and professors were responsible for the murders of hundreds of innocent children, in Nazi Germany (in the name of Racial Hygiene).
Right now Max Planck Association in Germany is in the middle of "Damage Control", trying to apologies for all the "dirty science" and Nazi Associations that have come to light. Not to mention the brains of Auschwitz victims that were found in their lab refrigerators in 2017. (Can't make this sh-- up!)
Max Planck Associations have recruited former Nazi presidents during the periods of 1945 to 1972. A great many of their presidents were directly associated with the murder of thousands of people during the Nazi era of Racial Hygiene. (Scientific Murder)
In conclusion, Max Planck DNA studies are suspect. Mormon controlled DNA science is suspect.
The Mormons entertain racist, white supremacy doctrines and philosophies. The Nazis entertain racist, white supremacy ideologies. I simply cant trust their brand of science. Nor will I trust the KKK or even the Arch Bishop of California! Oops!
Hotep!
 
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*

It's not about our personal beliefs. It's about what we can make a case for. And based on familiarity with the data I know you will have a hard time proving there was substantial "added SSA" ancestry in Egypt in between the Natufian period and the formative period of Pharaonic Egyptians. There is certainly no evidence for more added SSA ancestry than added Eurasian ancestry in any period after that (except the Post-Ptolemaic increase of ~20% SSA announced in the 2017 paper).

quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Sue me...

You're just doubling down behind beliefs and wishful thinking, not actual data. Posters like you are M.I.A. when actual data is posted, and when the coast is clear you start making bold predictions again that are not supported by the evidence. [/QB]
surely there was some SSA ancestry mediated through nubian pastoral culture/nabta playa?
 
Posted by eritrea_cushite (Member # 23043) on :
 
Originally it was 91 samples
Then became 90.

Originally had L3* and L3f1b

Then only L3* was included
Ofcourse results will change

https://www.yfull.com/samples-from-paper/418/
 
Posted by eritrea_cushite (Member # 23043) on :
 
Where is L3F1B in the study.. why wasn't it included.ya deleted
 
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by eritrea_cushite:
Originally it was 91 samples
Then became 90.

Originally had L3* and L3f1b

Then only L3* was included
Ofcourse results will change

https://www.yfull.com/samples-from-paper/418/

You have a link to an 87 count

If you go there and click at the top
"Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods"

it goes to the original 2017 article:

Abstract
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 present 90 mitochondrial genomes....

___________________

Now scroll down near the end:

__________________
Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data 1:
Sample Name

Click here to view.
___________________

click that and you can see the samples

take note, the first place on the chart #1 is not one of the mummies
It says:
1. Sample Name/Haplgroup/Date

So the count of 91 is reduced by that heading which occupies the top spot.
This corresponds exactly to the chart I posted based on this

I don't know why the L3f1b one is not on that Y-full site but they only list 87
and I have shown that they originally published a 90 sample, not 91
just disregard the numbers. The numbers are irrelevant to why that L3f1b is in the Y-full but not in the 2017 study

If you want to pursue it further I can give you some email address on the pm
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3