Ancient Soqotri genomes over 1,000 years document a small, consanguineous, and genetically homogenous population with deep connections to the Arabian Peninsula
Speaker: Kendra Sirak Harvard University, USA Co-authors: Julian Jansen van Rensburg1, Iosif Lazaridis2, Bowen Chen2, David Reich2
1 PaleoWest, USA 2 Harvard University, USA
Abstract: The island of Soqotra, situated at the mouth of the Gulf of Aden in the northwest Indian Ocean, is home to ~60,000 people subsisting through fishing and semi-nomadic pastoralism and speaking a unique Modern South Arabian language within the Semitic language family. Most of what is known about Soqotri history derives from writings of foreign traders who provided little detail about the local population. Here, we report ancient DNA data from 39 individuals who lived between ~650-1750 CE at six locations across the island. Genomic data attest to strong connections between Soqotra and the Arabian Peninsula, especially to the Hadramawt region of coastal South Arabia. Modeling the Soqotri gene pool requires a ~55% contribution from a Natufian-like source, while models with a Neolithic Levantine-related source do not fit. This Natufian-related source is also required to model the ancestry of present-day people from the Hadramawt, while other groups living in Arabia and the Levant often are mostly better modeled with a Neolithic Levantine-related proxy. These data suggest that Natufian-like ancestry was also present in the Arabian Peninsula and that later Levantine-related ancestry may not have permeated throughout the entirety of this region. Soqotra was home to a small and consanguineous population during the Medieval Period: long ROH at the level typical of offspring for second cousins in six out of 10 individuals of sufficient coverage likely reflects cultural preference for cross-cousin marriage. A longstanding question has been whether the Soqotri segregated burial tafoni by sex. We provide genetic evidence supporting the co-burial of males and females and document both matrilineal and patrilineal relationships evident in burial practices.
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE) Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy; Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany Co-authors: Christina Wurst1,2, Alice Paladin1, Valentina Coia1, Frank Maixner1, Albert Zink1
1 Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy 2 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
Abstract: Due to high-throughput sequencing and targeted enrichment methods, ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis is emerging as a valuable tool for the investigation of ancient Egypt’s demographic history. However, the recovery of aDNA from Egyptian human remains is challenging due to poor DNA preservation and a high contamination risk. Thus, so far, less than five ancient Egyptian genome-wide datasets have been published. In addition, mitochondrial genomes are almost exclusively limited to a timespan ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period (1550 BCE - 395 CE) as well as to a single archaeological site (Abusir el-Meleq). To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom. Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale. Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past.
ABSTRACT HG2-005
Genomes from Pastoral Neolithic Sahara reveal ancestral north African lineage Speaker: Nada Salem Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany Co-authors: Marieke van de Loosdrecht1,2, Arev Pelin Sümer1, Stefania Vai3, Alexander Hübner1, Kay Prüfer1, Raffaela Bianco1, Marta Burri4, Mary Anne Tafuri5, Giorgio Manzi5, Harald Ringbauer1, David Caramelli3, Savino di Lernia5,6, Johannes Krause1
1 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany 2 Wageningen University, the Netherlands 3 University of Florence, Italy 4 Swiss Ornithological Institute, Switzerland 5 Sapienza University of Rome, Italy 6 University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Abstract: Known as one of the most arid areas on the planet today, the Sahara Desert was, in fact, a green savannah in the Holocene, dotted by forests and water bodies that promoted human occupation and fostered pastoralism. Due to the present-day climatic conditions, ancient DNA does not preserve well in the region, resulting in limited knowledge of the Sahara’s demographic past. Here, we report the first ancient human genome-wide data from the Saharan Pastoral Neolithic. We obtained genomic data from two ca. 7000-year old female pastoralists buried in the Takarkori rock shelter at the heart of the Tadrart Acacus massif in southwestern Libya, which was used as a burial ground by pastoral communities. We find that the majority of the Takarkori individuals’ ancestry stems from a previously unknown lineage that appears to have remained isolated for most of its existence. Both individuals are most closely related to the preceding 15,000-year-old foragers from Morocco associated with the Iberomaurusian techno-complex, whereas both Takarkori and Iberomaurusian individuals are distantly related to sub-Saharan African lineages. The quality of one of the genomes from Takarkori is sufficient to detect prospective Neandertal ancestry and we find evidence for few segments of ancestry that sum to a total comparable to that detected in the genomes of sub-Saharan Africans. Our results therefore support a model of cultural diffusion, rather than human migration, for the emergence of pastoralist subsistence in the Sahara region.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Which publication do these abstracts come from?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:originally posted by mightywolf
To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom.
Shall be interesting to see if and when they publish a comprehensive article in a journal about these results. Maybe it will revive the debate about the affinity of the Ancient Egyptians.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Cant find any of these anywhere, but I did find this:
quote: Four thousand years of maternal ancestry in ancient Egypt illuminated by mitochondrial genome sequencing Mussauer, Alexandra (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Wurst, Christina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Paladin, Alice (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Coia, Valentina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Maixner, Frank (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Helmbold- Doyé, Jana (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany); Del Vesco, Paolo (Museo Egizio, Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino, Turin, Italy); Rosendahl, Wilfried (Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany); Zink, Albert (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); During the last decade, the population genetic history of ancient Egypt has been illuminated by an increasing number of genetic studies on ancient Egyptian human remains from different time periods utilizing high-throughput sequencing methods. Nonetheless, mitochondrial genomes representative of the Egyptian population prior to the New Kingdom (1550 - 1069 BC) are still scarce. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. These individuals have been recovered from different archaeological sites in Egypt and encompass a timeframe ranging from about 4000 BC to AD 800. All samples were analyzed using next- generation sequencing methods, including mitochondrial DNA enrichments. Following the application of criteria for authenticity and quality control, we were able to reconstruct 34 mitochondrial genomes of ancient Egyptian individuals, predominantly from southern Egypt, that have been dated from the Predynastic to the Byzantine Period (3600 BC - AD 650). Our data supports the presence of western Eurasian and northeastern African mitochondrial haplogroups in Egypt throughout antiquity. Furthermore, the mitochondrial genomes extend the pool of available datasets, adding novel information for the older periods of Egypt’s past as well as for a broader geographical context. Thereby, this study constitutes another important step for the reconstruction of Egypt’s genetic history, which in the future could be further investigated by genome-wide studies.
From an organization I haven't heard of before, the Eurac Instute of Mummy Studies:
quote: Snapshots of the past times that help us to gain unique insights into our present. By studying skeletons and mummies from all over the world and from different historical periods, we gain knowledge on population history, the development of pathogens and the preservation of archaeological finds.
quote: Abstract #: 3703 INSIGHTS INTO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN GENOMES IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC Nada Salem1,2, Guido Alberto Gnecchi Ruscone2, Angela Mötsch1, Barbara Teßmann3,4, Hannah Frenzel5, Maria Spyrou6, Michael Francken7, Katerina Harvati6,8, Philipp Stockhammer1,9, Johannes Krause1,2 1 Department of Archaeogenetic, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany 2 Department of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany 3 Museum for Prehistory and Early History, SMPK Berlin, Germany 4 Berlin Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory, Berlin, Germany 5 Institute of Anatomy, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 6 Institute for Archaeological Sciences (INA), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 7 Cultural Heritage Management, Government office of Stuttgart, Baden Württemberg, Germany 8 Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 9 Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology and Archaeology of the Roman Provinces, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany Egypt provides a privileged location to study historical population dynamics as it is at the crossroads between the ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. In the first millennium BC, ancient Egypt witnessed foreign domination by the neighboring populations including Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and others, whose roles vary from trade exchange to invasion and rule. Despite being potential to addressing questions on the population’s demographic, retrieval of ancient DNA from the Egyptian mummies has greatly been challenged by the presence of contamination. Here we report a preliminary, rigorously tested genome-wide dataset from mummies using high-throughput DNA sequencing and targeted capture techniques. The individuals in our study are recovered from Upper and Lower Egypt sites and spanning around 900 years of ancient Egyptian history, from the Third Intermediate to the Roman period. Our study aims to characterize the major ancestry components for ancient Egyptians and to explore the genetic continuation and admixture through times and regions.
From the, 9th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology held in Toulouse, France in the summer of 2021 there is also this abstract:
quote: Urban, Christian; Neukamm, Judith; Eppenberger, Patrick; Brändle, Martin; Rühli, Frank and Schuenemann Verena, 2021: Human mitochondrial haplogroups and ancient DNA preservation across Egyptian history
quote: Egypt represents an ideal location for genetic studies on population migration and admixture due to its geographic location and rich history. However, there are only a few reliable genetic studies on ancient Egyptian samples. In a previous study, we assessed the genetic history of a single site: Abusir el-Meleq from 1388 BCE to 426 CE. We now focus on widening the geographic scope to give a general overview of the population genetic background, focusing on mitochondrial haplogroups present among the whole Egyptian Nile River Valley. We collected 81 tooth, hair, bone, and soft tissue samples from 14 mummies and 17 skeletal remains. The samples span approximately 4000 years of Egyptian history and originate from six different excavation sites covering the whole length of the Egyptian Nile River Valley. NGS based ancient DNA 8 were applied to reconstruct 18 high-quality mitochondrial genomes from 10 different individuals. The determined mitochondrial haplogroups match the results from our Abusir el-Meleq study. Our results indicate very low rates of modern DNA contamination independent of the tissue type. Although authentic ancient DNA was recovered from different tissues, a reliable recovery was best achieved using teeth or petrous bone material. Moreover, the rate for successful ancient DNA retrieval between Egyptian mummies and skeletal remains did not differ significantly. Our study provides preliminary insights into population history across different regions and compares tissue-specific DNA preservation for mummies and skeletal remains from the Egyptian Nile River Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Cant find any of these anywhere, but I did find this:
quote: Four thousand years of maternal ancestry in ancient Egypt illuminated by mitochondrial genome sequencing Mussauer, Alexandra (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Wurst, Christina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Paladin, Alice (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Coia, Valentina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Maixner, Frank (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Helmbold- Doyé, Jana (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany); Del Vesco, Paolo (Museo Egizio, Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino, Turin, Italy); Rosendahl, Wilfried (Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany); Zink, Albert (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); During the last decade, the population genetic history of ancient Egypt has been illuminated by an increasing number of genetic studies on ancient Egyptian human remains from different time periods utilizing high-throughput sequencing methods. Nonetheless, mitochondrial genomes representative of the Egyptian population prior to the New Kingdom (1550 - 1069 BC) are still scarce. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. These individuals have been recovered from different archaeological sites in Egypt and encompass a timeframe ranging from about 4000 BC to AD 800. All samples were analyzed using next- generation sequencing methods, including mitochondrial DNA enrichments. Following the application of criteria for authenticity and quality control, we were able to reconstruct 34 mitochondrial genomes of ancient Egyptian individuals, predominantly from southern Egypt, that have been dated from the Predynastic to the Byzantine Period (3600 BC - AD 650). Our data supports the presence of western Eurasian and northeastern African mitochondrial haplogroups in Egypt throughout antiquity. Furthermore, the mitochondrial genomes extend the pool of available datasets, adding novel information for the older periods of Egypt’s past as well as for a broader geographical context. Thereby, this study constitutes another important step for the reconstruction of Egypt’s genetic history, which in the future could be further investigated by genome-wide studies.
I think this may be the same study as the one the OP cites. Same speaker and all that. The main difference is that, in the abstract you quote above, they mention Northeast African mtDNA lineages as well as West Eurasian ones.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I hope we'll see the light of day of the actual Takortori study.
"Both individuals are most closely related to the preceding 15,000-year-old foragers from Morocco associated with the Iberomaurusian techno-complex, whereas both Takarkori and Iberomaurusian individuals are distantly related to sub-Saharan African lineages. The quality of one of the genomes from Takarkori is sufficient to detect prospective Neanderthal ancestry and we find evidence for few segments of ancestry that sum to a total comparable to that detected in the genomes of sub-Saharan Africans. Our results therefore support a model of cultural diffusion, rather than human migration, for the emergence of pastoralist subsistence in the Sahara region."
So as the title suggests they are likely biologically Ancestral North Africans. And the Neanderthal comment and the sentence which follows seems to imply that their not attributing their ancestry to recent isolated Eurasian migrations.
With the comparison to the Iberomaurasian, we have to consider a key aspect in their potential ethnogenesis. That revolving around m78 which could have been a recent acquisition for that region (Taforalt). This ANA ancestry that we'll find as far East as Southern Libya should be more important in piecing the puzzle of basal Eurasian and ANA substructure. Couple this with the basal maternal haplogroup N* found in the same region (maybe same samples) and we can see a clear picture of African substructure going back from the end of the humid phase.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I think this may be the same study as the one the OP cites. Same speaker and all that. The main difference is that, in the abstract you quote above, they mention Northeast African mtDNA lineages as well as West Eurasian ones.
Yes, that was interesting but couldn't find that other extract anywhere. I think like El Maestro said the key is finding ancient population structure of North Africa away from the coast and in the Sahara or Upper Nile, to identify novel lineages not previously identified and putting them in their proper context from 10 - 15KYA. This is still a vast untapped region of DNA prehistory and they have only been dabbling around the edges for the most part.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] I hope we'll see the light of day of the actual Takortori study.
We find that the majority of the Takarkori individuals’ ancestry stems from a previously unknown lineage that appears to have remained isolated for most of its existence.
Sorry I'm a little confused by this are they saying they don't know what this "unknown" lineage is or are they saying they previously didn't know and now they do..?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] So as the title suggests they are likely biologically Ancestral North Africans
I'm not seeing this from the abstract personally. It looks like to me they're saying the two Takortori individuals are most related to the earlier 15kya Moroccans tested.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] I hope we'll see the light of day of the actual Takortori study.
We find that the majority of the Takarkori individuals’ ancestry stems from a previously unknown lineage that appears to have remained isolated for most of its existence.
Sorry I'm a little confused by this are they saying they don't know what this "unknown" lineage is or are they saying they previously didn't know and now they do..?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] So as the title suggests they are likely biologically Ancestral North Africans
I'm not seeing this from the abstract personally. It looks like to me they're saying the two Takortori individuals are most related to the earlier 15kya Moroccans tested.
The two samples are of a lineage previously undiscovered and unique to them. Similar to the Mitochondrial haplogroup assignment from the same region and time (likely the same two individuals). By proxy if they are related to Ancestral North African they should be related to Taforalt, as the bulk of Taforalt's ancestry is likely from an Ancestral North African population. If you're trying to say that they'll just be similar to Taforalt with no insight on African substructure then you'd be contradicted by your initial concern as they state that Takorkori's lineage is newly discovered. Lastly, notice how they compared they Neanderthal ancestry to that of SSA and not that of Taforalt. What do you beleive that'll suggest in the long run?
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If you're trying to say that they'll just be similar to Taforalt with no insight on African substructure then you'd be contradicted by your initial concern as they state that Takorkori's lineage is newly discovered
Yes they've said that this lineage is newly discovered but they are still saying it is more similar to Moroccan Foragers 15kya than Sub-Saharan Africans.
"Both individuals are most closely related to the preceding 15,000-year-old foragers from Morocco associated with the Iberomaurusian techno-complex, whereas both Takarkori and Iberomaurusian individuals are distantly related to sub-Saharan African lineages."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lastly, notice how they compared they Neanderthal ancestry to that of SSA and not that of Taforalt. What do you beleive that'll sugge didn't catchst in the long run?
You're absolutely right about this I don't know why I didn't catch that part. My apologies.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If you're trying to say that they'll just be similar to Taforalt with no insight on African substructure then you'd be contradicted by your initial concern as they state that Takorkori's lineage is newly discovered
Yes they've said that this lineage is newly discovered but they are still saying it is more similar to Moroccan Foragers 15kya than Sub-Saharan Africans.
"Both individuals are most closely related to the preceding 15,000-year-old foragers from Morocco associated with the Iberomaurusian techno-complex, whereas both Takarkori and Iberomaurusian individuals are distantly related to sub-Saharan African lineages."
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lastly, notice how they compared they Neanderthal ancestry to that of SSA and not that of Taforalt. What do you beleive that'll sugge didn't catchst in the long run?
You're absolutely right about this I don't know why I didn't catch that part. My apologies.
It can seem confusing especially if your familiar with how modern Casual enthusiasts analyze samples and how modern professionals present information. But it is impossible for a lineage to be new and lack insight on related sample despite how close or similar they are to others. Such logic only persists in our imaginations where we use programs like Vahaduo to model individuals. Novel ancestry that is just previously discovered ancestry is an oxymoron.
If what the authors are saying is true it means that Takarkori are different from Iberomaurasians but are close by proxy like how the Natufian individuals were said to be closely related to the latter. Ancestral North African should occupy a space genetically distinct but likely sharing deep ancestry with modern "Subsaharan Africans." Taforalt has this ancestry.
Then again, I might be preemptively applying previous knowledge from an overall viewpoint. For instance, what sense does the physical, cultural, morphological affinities of these samples make when relating them to Taforalt and does it make sense that their descended from them? I'm also questioning the ancestry of Taforalt specimen themselves and asking which populations converged to spawn their genomic profile. We know that they likely have had some recent ancestry from the east given their paternal haplogroups. Should Takarkori pastoralists be related to those predecessors. And then there's the Neanderthal component. Note, it would be even more insightful to African substructure if the Takarkori two were more distant from SSA and carried less Neanderthal than Taforalt. Yet if the opposite is true the implications there wont even need to be stated.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If you're trying to say that they'll just be similar to Taforalt with no insight on African substructure then you'd be contradicted by your initial concern as they state that Takorkori's lineage is newly discovered
Yes they've said that this lineage is newly discovered but they are still saying it is more similar to Moroccan Foragers 15kya than Sub-Saharan Africans.
"Both individuals are most closely related to the preceding 15,000-year-old foragers from Morocco associated with the Iberomaurusian techno-complex, whereas both Takarkori and Iberomaurusian individuals are distantly related to sub-Saharan African lineages."
It means that these Takarkori populations have a unique African lineage that is both ancestral to the Iberomaurisan populations and related to other African lineages, likely descendant. The issue is determining when this 'unique' lineage arose in the region and how to model the ancient populations that carried it and their relationships to other more ancient populations in the region.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
They'll just say these people are SSA mixed slave descendants and clutch pearls and whine about Afrocentrism..if you suggest these people are authentic Yemeni Arabs.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: They'll just say these people are SSA mixed slave descendants and clutch pearls and whine about Afrocentrism..if you suggest these people are authentic Yemeni Arabs.
Yeah, it's hard to take a lot of comments regarding genetic affinity serious now knowing the implicit nature of many poster's sentiments. Just as you and Bandon called out before. Some people try to use these studies to assert or reinstate characteristics outside of it's bounds. The biggest characteristic resides within lookership. Other ones include cultural implications such as the diffusion of subsistent strategies and anachronistic and spatially infeasible ancestry modeling. Examples are agro-pastoralism in Africa, and Anatolian farmers being a better fit than ancient Sardinians and southern iberians for North African proximate EEF ancestry respectively. We have modern day research, professional and casual, casting a shadow of confusion on decades if not a century of archaeology and multidisciplinary attempts.
Now watch how the morphologically Negroid Takarkori samples who seems to not have Eurasian ancestry (at least not shared with other Sub-Saharan Africans) will be spun post autosomal sequencing. Somehow someway they'll be Eurasianized because of the implications of Mt.DNA M and N and contemporaneous and later pocket populations particularly those of the Nile valley.
But the Soqotra study might go crazy, cuz if modern Soqotri can be better modeled with Post Natufian Levantine ancestry than those samples at Hadramawt then I honesty can't predict how people will spin that.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: They'll just say these people are SSA mixed slave descendants and clutch pearls and whine about Afrocentrism..if you suggest these people are authentic Yemeni Arabs.
Hadramawt and the entire southern coast of Arabia have played a significant role in the East African slave trade, which, inevitably, has had a notable impact on their genetic heritage :
quote:We have analyzed and compared mitochondrial DNA variation of populations from the Near East and Africa and found a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried ∼10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations. Several lines of evidence suggest that most of this gene flow probably occurred within the past ∼2,500 years. In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Ychromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission.
To the best of my knowledge,none of the Africans brought to Arabia were Ethiopian or Somali type east Africans but Nilote and I think some Bantu speakers.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
BTW, the event featuring the abstracts of these three upcoming studies is currently ongoing.
Another extract echoing the other posted by the OP:
HGP-030 Echoes from the last Green Sahara: a ghost population of cattle herders unveiled from joint whole modern genome analysis of Sahelian Fulani and ancient African individuals.
quote: The Sahelian Fulani are the largest nomadic pastoral ethnic group. Their origins are still largely unknown and their Eurasian genetic component is usually explained by recent admixture events with northern African groups. However, it has also been proposed that Fulani may be the descendants of ancient groups settled in the Sahara during its last Green phase (12000-5000 BP), as also suggested by Y chromosome results.We produced 23 high-coverage (30 ×) whole genome sequences from Fulani individuals from 8 Sahelian countries, plus 17 samples from other African groups and 3 Europeans as controls, for a total of 44 new whole genome sequences. These data have been compared with published whole genomes from relevant populations, for a total of 814 samples. This modern dataset has been then analyzed together with relevant published ancient individuals (for a total of > 1800 ancient and modern samples). These analyses showed that the non-sub-Saharan genetic ancestry component of Fulani cannot be only explained by recent admixture events, but it is more ancient than previously reported and probably traces its origin to the last Green Sahara. According to our results, Fulani may be the descendants of Saharan cattle herders settled in that area during the last Green Sahara. The exact ancestry composition of such ghost Saharan population(s) cannot be completely unveiled from modern genomes only, but the joint analysis with the available African ancient samples suggested a similarity between ancient Saharans and Late Neolithic Moroccans.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: BTW, the event featuring the abstracts of these three upcoming studies is currently ongoing.
ElMeastro, how long you reckon until they fully release these, like if you had to take a guess? (especially the Takarkori study)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Another extract echoing the other posted by the OP:
HGP-030 Echoes from the last Green Sahara: a ghost population of cattle herders unveiled from joint whole modern genome analysis of Sahelian Fulani and ancient African individuals.
quote: The Sahelian Fulani are the largest nomadic pastoral ethnic group. Their origins are still largely unknown and their Eurasian genetic component is usually explained by recent admixture events with northern African groups. However, it has also been proposed that Fulani may be the descendants of ancient groups settled in the Sahara during its last Green phase (12000-5000 BP), as also suggested by Y chromosome results.We produced 23 high-coverage (30 ×) whole genome sequences from Fulani individuals from 8 Sahelian countries, plus 17 samples from other African groups and 3 Europeans as controls, for a total of 44 new whole genome sequences. These data have been compared with published whole genomes from relevant populations, for a total of 814 samples. This modern dataset has been then analyzed together with relevant published ancient individuals (for a total of > 1800 ancient and modern samples). These analyses showed that the non-sub-Saharan genetic ancestry component of Fulani cannot be only explained by recent admixture events, but it is more ancient than previously reported and probably traces its origin to the last Green Sahara. According to our results, Fulani may be the descendants of Saharan cattle herders settled in that area during the last Green Sahara. The exact ancestry composition of such ghost Saharan population(s) cannot be completely unveiled from modern genomes only, but the joint analysis with the available African ancient samples suggested a similarity between ancient Saharans and Late Neolithic Moroccans.
This study will either be kept behind a pay wall or barely even be discussed. The Soqotri are already an enigma to the Eurasianist Biodiversity scholar considering they have the highest percent of J1 or all Arabs. As long as its not trying to Eurasianize A. Egyptians or North Africans no one will care outside a few independent researchers like you and Beyoku.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: They'll just say these people are SSA mixed slave descendants and clutch pearls and whine about Afrocentrism..if you suggest these people are authentic Yemeni Arabs.
Yeah, it's hard to take a lot of comments regarding genetic affinity serious now knowing the implicit nature of many poster's sentiments. Just as you and Bandon called out before. Some people try to use these studies to assert or reinstate characteristics outside of it's bounds. The biggest characteristic resides within lookership. Other ones include cultural implications such as the diffusion of subsistent strategies and anachronistic and spatially infeasible ancestry modeling. Examples are agro-pastoralism in Africa, and Anatolian farmers being a better fit than ancient Sardinians and southern iberians for North African proximate EEF ancestry respectively. We have modern day research, professional and casual, casting a shadow of confusion on decades if not a century of archaeology and multidisciplinary attempts.
Now watch how the morphologically Negroid Takarkori samples who seems to not have Eurasian ancestry (at least not shared with other Sub-Saharan Africans) will be spun post autosomal sequencing. Somehow someway they'll be Eurasianized because of the implications of Mt.DNA M and N and contemporaneous and later pocket populations particularly those of the Nile valley.
But the Soqotra study might go crazy, cuz if modern Soqotri can be better modeled with Post Natufian Levantine ancestry than those samples at Hadramawt then I honesty can't predict how people will spin that.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Im not sure about Arabia but Ethiopians were def. targets of the Eastern Slave trade, as discussed before with folks like Malik Ambar and other Hebeshi Slave descendants who became Elites in India..
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: To the best of my knowledge,none of the Africans brought to Arabia were Ethiopian or Somali type east Africans but Nilote and I think some Bantu speakers.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
Thanks for the info.👍👍👍
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Wonder if there will be any debate about the Egyptian studies when they finally are published? I remember that the Abusir paper from 2017 caused quite a stir.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
How long do you guys reckon until the 3 studies release?
A few weeks, a few months, a few years, next year? What's usually the timeframe between the abstract leaking/coming out and the full paper releasing?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Depends on the study. I don't want to make the claim that certain studies with certain implications get stuck in prerelease or preprint, but I'll say there have been some papers with interesting abstracts that just remain abstract.
The Socotri study might see the light of day if not a fully published APA paper there will be leaks, extended abstracts or a single page report soon. The lead scientist is quite forward when in comes to data availability and if anything she might send a report privately upon request.
It should already be in peer review. The writing is on the wall.
The Takarkori paper... I really don't know. I just hope it actually get's released in my lifetime.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The Takarkori paper... I really don't know. I just hope it actually get's released in my lifetime.
Yeah this is actually the one I'm mostly interested in...even more than the Ancient Egyptian one believe it or not.
Funny how there were no issues in releasing the previous Takarkori study. (The one that showed them possessing Basal N*)
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
The results of the Ancient Egyptian samples have been revealed, and unsurprisingly, it's not good news for Afrocentrists and other proponents of a "black Egypt" :
Their SSA is even lower than modern egyptians and the irony is that they're very similar to modern arabs. I wonder what kind of new excuse will members here bring.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The results of the Ancient Egyptian samples have been revealed, and unsurprisingly, it's not good news for Afrocentrists and other proponents of a "black Egypt" :
Their SSA is even lower than modern egyptians and the irony is that they're very similar to modern arabs. I wonder what kind of new excuse will members here bring.
Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology. I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology. I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
I'm not even sure the samples in that chart (which is very obviously someone's amateur run rather than from an actual paper, BTW) are from the upcoming study mentioned in the OP, honestly.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology. I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
I'm not even sure the samples in that chart (which is very obviously someone's amateur run rather than from an actual paper, BTW) are from the upcoming study mentioned in the OP, honestly.
I'm in the server and they claim its legit, I've spoken to the user who initially leaked them and I doubt he'd purposefully spread misinformation but he could have easily been fed bad info so who knows.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I'm in the server and they claim its legit, I've spoken to the user who initially leaked them and I doubt he'd purposefully spread misinformation but he could have easily been fed bad info so who knows.
I didn't mean to claim that those results were necessarily fake, but they look to me like they could be different samples from the one used in the OP study.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The results of the Ancient Egyptian samples have been revealed, and unsurprisingly, it's not good news for Afrocentrists and other proponents of a "black Egypt" :
Their SSA is even lower than modern egyptians and the irony is that they're very similar to modern arabs...
It seems indeed ironic.
In my opinion, the leak suggests that the ancestors of both Egyptians and Arabs originated from similar prehistoric populations. Due to their shared prehistoric ancient ancestors and because they both have a high proportion of Natufian or Natufian like-ancestry these ancient Egyptian samples appear to be genetically closest to Arabs. That does not, however, imply that Arabs are the offspring or direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or that they share their culture or have any connection to their civilization.
In fact, the Ancient Egyptians, who spoke a Hamitic language, distinguished themselves from the Semites and Asiatics, to whom Arabs belong.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I'm in the server and they claim its legit, I've spoken to the user who initially leaked them and I doubt he'd purposefully spread misinformation but he could have easily been fed bad info so who knows.
I didn't mean to claim that those results were necessarily fake, but they look to me like they could be different samples from the one used in the OP study.
Ahh, well he claims they are the ones in the study. I have no way of verifying his claims so theres not really much I can say on that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Interesting that (in this analysis) Iberomaurusian ancestry does not show variation (does not really seem to go up to >5%) as more Egyptian samples are posted. This shows the great modularity/compartmentalization of African ancestry components as late as the Bronze Age, where even 'nearby' N. African samples can share one component (Natufian-like), but not much else to the point where Egyptians are connected to Iberomaurusians with Natufian-like and disconnected from Iberomaurusians in terms of the rest of their ancestry. Takarkori genomes seem to say the same thing ("a previously unknown lineage" that has "remained isolated for most of its existence" yet the population was "most closely related to Taforalt").
I also alluded to this (ie modularity linking otherwise very different populations), here and here .
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
If hes banned invite him to ES...? Post them here
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology. I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
I'm not even sure the samples in that chart (which is very obviously someone's amateur run rather than from an actual paper, BTW) are from the upcoming study mentioned in the OP, honestly.
I'm in the server and they claim its legit, I've spoken to the user who initially leaked them and I doubt he'd purposefully spread misinformation but he could have easily been fed bad info so who knows.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If hes banned invite him to ES...? Post them here
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology. I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
I'm not even sure the samples in that chart (which is very obviously someone's amateur run rather than from an actual paper, BTW) are from the upcoming study mentioned in the OP, honestly.
I'm in the server and they claim its legit, I've spoken to the user who initially leaked them and I doubt he'd purposefully spread misinformation but he could have easily been fed bad info so who knows.
He isn't banned and he probably wouldn't join this forum either way, Egyptsearch doesn't have the best reputation in the anthrosphere, its viewed as a hotep hotspot, nothing more.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that (in this analysis) Iberomaurusian ancestry does not show variation (does not really seem to go up to >5%) as more Egyptian samples are posted. This shows the great modularity/compartmentalization of African ancestry components as late as the Bronze Age, where even 'nearby' N. African samples can share one component (Natufian-like), but not much else to the point where Egyptians are connected to Iberomaurusians with Natufian-like and disconnected from Iberomaurusians in terms of the rest of their ancestry. Takarkori genomes seem to say the same thing ("a previously unknown lineage" that has "remained isolated for most of its existence" yet the population was "most closely related to Taforalt").
I also alluded to this (ie modularity linking otherwise very different populations), here.
Modularity simply the result of recombination. The more ubiquitous nature of NEA ancestry in downstream samples. Simply, the natural result of when the control groups carry partial or related ancestry. I think about the closeness between Yoruba and Natufians when compared to Taforalt for example. (fst)
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Aint no one posting here to be a hotspot for anything, hell the most active user is a Swede who posts right wing Anti-Hotep stuff anyway. But I got you, I see what you are saying..
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.
Also how will these results be reconciled with the Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist DNA in which there MENA DNA was essentially purely Natufian-like, probably reflecting a local Egyptian + Neolithic Levantine/Anatolian profile but based on these results Old Kingdom Upper Egyptians had 20%+ Iranian/CHG ancestry which somehow completely missed Lower Nubia given the lack of such ancestry in the East African pastoralists aswell as modern Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.
Also how will these results be reconciled with the Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist DNA in which there MENA DNA was essentially purely Natufian-like, probably reflecting a local Egyptian + Neolithic Levantine/Anatolian profile but based on these results Old Kingdom Upper Egyptians had 20%+ Iranian/CHG ancestry which somehow completely missed Lower Nubia given the lack of such ancestry in the East African pastoralists aswell as modern Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn.
I do find that rather weird, honestly. Especially if it's higher than what was in the Levant at the time.
^^^Yeah did'nt we disguss this earlier where Beyoku posted a chart and wanted posters to explain it, where CHG was virtually absent in a Eurasian NA sample...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Those samples are very likely not representative of OK upper Egyptians its simply not congruent with currently available anthropology and archaeology.
I don't see much contradiction with the bioanthro papers I've read and can you be more precise about archaeology ? Seems like those samples are never enough nor representative...Smh
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I'm in that discord server and there was talks of some samples being 90%+ Natufian with the rest being ANF, a profile like that is a lot more realistic IMO than OK Upper Egyptians being on average more Iranian/CHG than BA Levantines.
Which BA levantines ? The samples I run have more than those OK egyptians.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: It seems indeed ironic.
In my opinion, the leak suggests that the ancestors of both Egyptians and Arabs originated from similar prehistoric populations. Due to their shared prehistoric ancient ancestors and because they both have a high proportion of Natufian or Natufian like-ancestry these ancient Egyptian samples appear to be genetically closest to Arabs. That does not, however, imply that Arabs are the offspring or direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or that they share their culture or have any connection to their civilization.
In fact, the Ancient Egyptians, who spoke a Hamitic language, distinguished themselves from the Semites and Asiatics, to whom Arabs belong.
I didn't imply anything about Arabs. I simply highlighted the irony, as some individuals with Afrocentric views often assert that Egyptians are "Arab invaders". Regrettably, I've also observed some tension on social media between Egyptians and Saudis. The latter were mocking the former because the Abusir samples were more genetically similar to Arabs. So the situation may escalate further with these new samples lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Interesting that (in this analysis) Iberomaurusian ancestry does not show variation (does not really seem to go up to >5%) as more Egyptian samples are posted. This shows the great modularity/compartmentalization of African ancestry components as late as the Bronze Age, where even 'nearby' N. African samples can share one component (Natufian-like), but not much else to the point where Egyptians are connected to Iberomaurusians with Natufian-like and disconnected from Iberomaurusians in terms of the rest of their ancestry. Takarkori genomes seem to say the same thing ("a previously unknown lineage" that has "remained isolated for most of its existence" yet the population was "most closely related to Taforalt").
I also alluded to this (ie modularity linking otherwise very different populations), here.
Modularity simply the result of recombination. The more ubiquitous nature of NEA ancestry in downstream samples. Simply, the natural result of when the control groups carry partial or related ancestry. I think about the closeness between Yoruba and Natufians when compared to Taforalt for example. (fst)
Modularity as I used it here, was to point out this situation where samples are pulled together based on one component, while being pulled apart by other components that have huge genetic distance, and which are found in their own respective regions. So you get an impression of a lot of local and highly differentiated ghost populations all over the landscape and in close proximity, being pulled together by the spread of one component (in this case, Natufian-like). Although modularity in general means a system (like lego) where components can be arranged and put together in different ways to make something larger.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.
The Dynastic Race Theory that is today dismissed by Egyptologists suggests that the presence of many Mesopotamian influences in Egypt during the late predynastic period and the apparently foreign graves in the Naqada II burials indicated an invasion of Mesopotamians into Upper Egypt. It was further argued that the Mesopotamians then conquered both Upper and Lower Egypt and founded the First Dynasty. However, that Egyptian civilization was indigenous is a consensus, and the first pharaohs of the dynastic period in Egypt appear to have hailed from upper Egypt. With that being said, although Dynastic Race Theory is probably flawed, Petrie's archeological and anthropological evidence does support a foreign invasion. We should also keep in mind not to throw the baby in the bathwater and completely disregard the works of scholars and historians from the past. Even if some scholars were biased or had a racist tendency that clouded their suggestions, that doesn't mean that their entire work and discovery are by default wrong and useless and don't contain some valuable information. You just have to critically examine their works and be aware of bias and ideological influences of the authors.
From Wiki:
quote:
The dynastic race theory was the earliest thesis to attempt to explain how predynastic Egypt developed into the sophisticated monarchy of Dynastic Egypt. The theory holds that the earliest roots of the ancient Egyptian dynastic civilisation were imported by invaders from Mesopotamia who then founded the First Dynasty and brought culture to the indigenous population. This theory had strong supporters in the Egyptological community in the first half of the 20th century, but has since lost mainstream support.
Origins In the early 20th century, Egyptologist Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie deduced that skeletal remains found at pre-dynastic sites at Naqada (Upper Egypt) indicated the presence of two different races, with the Dynastic Race, also referred to as the "Followers of Horus",[6] differentiated physically by a noticeably larger skeletal structure and cranial capacity.[7] Petrie concluded that the physical differences of the remains[/B] in conjunction with the previously unknown burial styles, uncharacteristic tomb architecture, and abundance of foreign artifacts, implied this race must have been an invading ruling elite that was responsible for the seemingly sudden rise of Egyptian civilization. Based on plentiful cultural evidence, Petrie determined that the invader race had come from Mesopotamia, and imposed themselves on the native Badarian culture to become their rulers. Petrie adduced new architectural styles—the distinctly Mesopotamian "niched-facade" architecture—pottery styles, cylinder seals and a few artworks, as well as numerous Predynastic rock and tomb paintings depicting Mesopotamian style boats, symbols, and figures.
This came to be called the "dynastic race theory"[8][9] The theory further argued that the Mesopotamians then conquered both Upper and Lower Egypt and founded the First Dynasty. Predynastic and First Dynasty burial sites similar to Naqada were also found at Abydos, Sakkara, and Hieraconpolis.[6]
Versions of the Dynastic race model were adopted by scholars as L. A. Waddell,[10] and Walter Bryan Emery, a former Chair of Egyptology at University College London. In the early 20th century, Egyptologist Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie deduced that skeletal remains found at pre-dynastic sites at Naqada (Upper Egypt) indicated the presence of two different races, with the Dynastic Race, also referred to as the "Followers of Horus",[6] differentiated physically by a noticeably larger skeletal structure and cranial capacity.[7] Petrie concluded that the physical differences of the remains in conjunction with the previously unknown burial styles, uncharacteristic tomb architecture, and abundance of foreign artifacts, implied this race must have been an invading ruling elite that was responsible for the seemingly sudden rise of Egyptian civilization. Based on plentiful cultural evidence, Petrie determined that the invader race had come from Mesopotamia, and imposed themselves on the native Badarian culture to become their rulers. Petrie adduced new architectural styles—the distinctly Mesopotamian "niched-facade" architecture—pottery styles, cylinder seals and a few artworks, as well as numerous Predynastic rock and tomb paintings depicting Mesopotamian style boats, symbols, and figures.
This came to be called the "dynastic race theory"The theory further argued that the Mesopotamians then conquered both Upper and Lower Egypt and founded the First Dynasty. Predynastic and First Dynasty burial sites similar to Naqada were also found at Abydos, Sakkara, and Hieraconpolis.[6]
Versions of the Dynastic race model were adopted by scholars as L. A. Waddell,[10] and Walter Bryan Emery, a former Chair of Egyptology at University College London....
[/B] Decline The dynastic race theory is no longer an accepted thesis in the field of predynastic archaeology. While there is clear evidence the Naqada II culture borrowed abundantly from Mesopotamia, the most commonly held view today is that the achievements of the First Dynasty were the result of a long period of cultural and political development. Such borrowings are much older than the Naqada II period, the Naqada II period had a large degree of continuity with the Naqada I period,and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time.
[B]Modern Egyptology largely maintains the view that "state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process", although significant differences in morphology indicated migration along the Nile Valley also took place. The Dynastic Race theory has been largely replaced by the theory Egypt was a hydraulic empire. Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: It seems indeed ironic.
In my opinion, the leak suggests that the ancestors of both Egyptians and Arabs originated from similar prehistoric populations. Due to their shared prehistoric ancient ancestors and because they both have a high proportion of Natufian or Natufian like-ancestry these ancient Egyptian samples appear to be genetically closest to Arabs. That does not, however, imply that Arabs are the offspring or direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or that they share their culture or have any connection to their civilization.
In fact, the Ancient Egyptians, who spoke a Hamitic language, distinguished themselves from the Semites and Asiatics, to whom Arabs belong.
I didn't imply anything about Arabs. I simply highlighted the irony, as some individuals with Afrocentric views often assert that Egyptians are "Arab invaders". Regrettably, I've also observed some tension on social media between Egyptians and Saudis. The latter were mocking the former because the Abusir samples were more genetically similar to Arabs. So the situation may escalate further with these new samples lol
I know. That's why I wanted to make it clear that Arabs cannot claim ancient Egypt as such. Long before DNA, not only Afrocentrists, but some Arab supremacists claimed that Arabs founded and created the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Aside from that, another insane internet war is raging between J1 and E1b1b1-obsessed Arabs. Both fight for the ultimate Arab hg. LOL
J1 Arabs used to look down on E1b1b Arabs and to consider them the lesser Arab, but E1b1b1 Arabs are becoming more confident.
Anway, I can't wait for the Egyptian papers to be published since the comments, topics and rebuttals in the anthrofora will be fire. It got a bit boring the last few years; there were too many papers on Indo-European and Neo-European farmers and not many on other ancient people.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
Several anthropologists have warned us about taking one or two samples and creating broad narratives and conclusions.
I personally would like to see a genomic study of at least 20-30 samples specifically spanning Pre-Dynastic to Early-Dynastic. Before any firm conclusions are made.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
double post.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The predynastic influence from Mesopotamia is discussed in a Wikipedia article about Egypt-Mesopotamia relations.
quote:Mesopotamian influences can be seen in the visual arts of Egypt, in architecture, in technology, weaponry, in imported products, religious imagery, in agriculture and livestock, in genetic input, and also in the likely transfer of writing from Mesopotamia to Egypt and generated "deep-seated" parallels in the early stages of both cultures.
But back to the Egypt abstract, it seems that it already caused a debate, before being published.
Also one can wonder where the other study, the one from 2021, is, the one by Urban et al?
Urban, Christian; Neukamm, Judith; Eppenberger, Patrick; Brändle, Martin; Rühli, Frank and Schuenemann Verena, 2021: Human mitochondrial haplogroups and ancient DNA preservation across Egyptian history Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.
Also how will these results be reconciled with the Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist DNA in which there MENA DNA was essentially purely Natufian-like, probably reflecting a local Egyptian + Neolithic Levantine/Anatolian profile but based on these results Old Kingdom Upper Egyptians had 20%+ Iranian/CHG ancestry which somehow completely missed Lower Nubia given the lack of such ancestry in the East African pastoralists aswell as modern Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn.
We do see that happen in the Bronze Age where ancestry can appear more in a more distant region than in a nearby region, e.g. Egyptian colonies in Palestine before the unification, that were Upper Egyptian, not Lower Egyptian. Not saying that happened in the way these admixture results imply (I would not take a blogger's word for it), but we've seen that happen.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: We do see that happen in the Bronze Age where ancestry can appear more in a more distant region than in a nearby region, e.g. Egyptian colonies in Palestine before the unification that were Upper Egyptian, not Lower Egyptian. Not saying that happened in the way these admixture results imply (I would not take a blogger's word for it), but we've seen that happen.
I do think it's a bit strange that someone apparently did an amateur admixture run of these new samples before their publication. Either that individual is privy to the researchers' work and went ahead and ran the samples through amateur-accessible admixture software, or someone's bullshitting out there.
Is it even ethical to be posting that leaked data ahead of publication schedule? Michael did seem distraught about the leak.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Meh, I wish somebody would leak the Takarkori study
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
Is it even ethical to be posting that leaked data ahead of publication schedule? Michael did seem distraught about the leak.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Here's the quote that Beyoku posted..
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
It clearly says that sample was OK, but lacked the CHG now the leak has samples that have a high amount of it, again from the OK...
So what is the conclusion?
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.
Also how will these results be reconciled with the Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist DNA in which there MENA DNA was essentially purely Natufian-like, probably reflecting a local Egyptian + Neolithic Levantine/Anatolian profile but based on these results Old Kingdom Upper Egyptians had 20%+ Iranian/CHG ancestry which somehow completely missed Lower Nubia given the lack of such ancestry in the East African pastoralists aswell as modern Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn.
I do find that rather weird, honestly. Especially if it's higher than what was in the Levant at the time.
I don't doubt that the genomes are out there, but I know there are ways to cheat with these programs (e.g. Natufians with no African ancestry, or light skin genes 'found' in Taforalt by a blogger). And there have been papers that were taken back or updated (e.g. the Mota blunder, or the recently 'updated' Otzi genome).
As you mentioned, there was an abstract that observed a later increase of CHG in Egypt. So there could be a discrepancy somewhere with this blogger's results.
EDIT: Thanks to Jari for reposting
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Brandon
I don't doubt that the genomes are out there, but I know there are ways to cheat with these programs (e.g. Natufians with no African ancestry, or light skin genes 'found' in Taforalt by a blogger). And there have been papers that were taken back or updated (e.g. the Mota blunder, or the recently 'updated' Otzi genome).
As you mentioned, there was an abstract that observed a later increase of CHG in Egypt. So there could be a discrepancy somewhere with this blogger's results......
I get what you mean but the Oetzi paper update was a nothingburger.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The update made all the sense in the world, to me... Given the opinionated commentary online about ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation, I'd say it's more than reasonable that the alleged sources of light skin in West Eurasia should have light skin themselves before they can bring it to Egypt, Taforalt, etc.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The primary issue with any of these studies is that the reference populations they use in plotting relationships. And almost always they are skewed towards Eurasian population groups because of the large amounts of Eurasian ADNA in various databases. This is where Takarkori becomes significant as an ancient Saharan population cluster that would have been relevant in the time frame from 10 to 5kya. And you would also need DNA for populations in the Eastern Deserts closer to the Nile, Western Deserts closer to the Red Sea and populations between the 1st and Second cataracts along with populations around Nabta Playa. All of those are the ancient populations that would have been relevant to the formation of the Nile Valley in prehistoric to predynastic times. Then following that, populations from various locations on the Nile from the Lower to Upper Nile in the same time frame would have to be referenced. That would be the "base" set of populations of the ancient Nile to be compared against with any DNA from subsequent periods if they really wanted an honest and accurate genetic and population history of the Nile. But as it stands they don't have that and simply use the same "standardized" reference population clusters based on recent studies such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers from the papers on the spread of farming in Europe. That does not make those populations more relevant to the settlement of the Nile, but that is what they are going to use for comparisons sake. And the other bigger issue is this ideology of trying to portray the ancient population of the Sahara as some kind of "ghost" population when we all know that the Sahara was an important source of populations along the Nile since the last wet phase. And excluding them in these population studies as opposed to ancient Eurasian backmigrants is more about ideology than reality.
Anyway, it would be most important to see how many samples they have from the various time periods because they say hey have 94 from across the OK to Historic era which cannot provide enough coverage to actually be meaningful.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The primary issue with any of these studies is that the reference populations they use in plotting relationships. And almost always they are skewed towards Eurasian population groups because of the large amounts of Eurasian ADNA in various databases. This is where Takarkori becomes significant as an ancient Saharan population cluster that would have been relevant in the time frame from 10 to 5kya. And you would also need DNA for populations in the Eastern Deserts closer to the Nile, Western Deserts closer to the Red Sea and populations between the 1st and Second cataracts along with populations around Nabta Playa. All of those are the ancient populations that would have been relevant to the formation of the Nile Valley in prehistoric to predynastic times. Then following that, populations from various locations on the Nile from the Lower to Upper Nile in the same time frame would have to be referenced. That would be the "base" set of populations of the ancient Nile to be compared against with any DNA from subsequent periods if they really wanted an honest and accurate genetic and population history of the Nile. But as it stands they don't have that and simply use the same "standardized" reference population clusters based on recent studies such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers from the papers on the spread of farming in Europe. That does not make those populations more relevant to the settlement of the Nile, but that is what they are going to use for comparisons sake. And the other bigger issue is this ideology of trying to portray the ancient population of the Sahara as some kind of "ghost" population when we all know that the Sahara was an important source of populations along the Nile since the last wet phase. And excluding them in these population studies as opposed to ancient Eurasian backmigrants is more about ideology than reality.
Anyway, it would be most important to see how many samples they have from the various time periods because they say hey have 94 from across the OK to Historic era which cannot provide enough coverage to actually be meaningful.
The funny thing is. The Egyptian study will be contextualized by the other two studies referenced in the OP more so than it can contextualize itself. I read somewhere people dismissing the relevancy of Takartori all together solely because of it's abstract and the preemptive non-African assignment of the OK mummies courtesy of leaks. 2016 pt2, with the genetics of the first farmers/ Natufian study... The orders in which these papers get released have huge social impacts.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The funny thing is. The Egyptian study will be contextualized by the other two studies referenced in the OP more so than it can contextualize itself. I read somewhere people dismissing the relevancy of Takartori all together solely because of it's abstract and the preemptive non-African assignment of the OK mummies courtesy of leaks. 2016 pt2, with the genetics of the first farmers/ Natufian study... The orders in which these papers get released have huge social impacts.
At least, once all these new genomes get published, someone out there could do an admixture run of their own to see how much affinity the AE samples have to Takarkori.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
BTW,
Anyone notice that the "NUB" sample in this supposed leak barely has any Dinka? Because, if it's a Nubian sample, that's totally unlike any published Nubian aDNA we have.
EDIT: It could alternatively be mislabeled.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If the CHG by OK times is accurate, it would not bode well for Antalas as it would show that Egyptians have been impacted by CHG migrations already since OK times, and that it's only the homogenization of MENA that hides these constant migrations (if the migrations involved 'pure' CHG ancestry, ie if CHG were not mediated by Bronze Age people, modern Egyptians would be very far removed from ancient samples like Nuerat).
Likewise, if Egyptians' HG component were identified (similar to Taforalt who have ANA, and Takarkori and Moroccan cave dwellers who seem to have something else), bloggers would not be able to get away with making specious claims, as we'd have a way of establishing a baseline of native Egyptian ancestry (which we lack right now).
So, claims that modern Egyptians are similar to Abusir, may be true, technically speaking, but that would not mean countless foreign migrations did not happen.
Looks like Nuerat could be to Egyptian aDNA what updated Otzi is to Middle Neolithic Europe in terms of reminding people that genetic similarity in the context of homogenized West Eurasia, hides ongoing admixture (e.g. spread of skin pigmentation genes, CHG, assimilation of WHG, and so on).
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] If the CHG by OK times is accurate, it would not bode well for Antalas as it would show that Egyptians have been impacted by CHG migrations already since OK times, and that it's only the homogenization of MENA that hides these constant migrations (if the migrations involved 'pure' CHG ancestry, ie if CHG were not mediated by Bronze Age people, modern Egyptians would be very far removed from ancient samples like Nuerat).
Likewise, if Egyptians' HG component were identified (similar to Taforalt who have ANA, and Takarkori and Moroccan cave dwellers who seem to have something else), bloggers would not be able to get away with making specious claims, as we'd have a way of establishing a baseline of native Egyptian ancestry (which we lack right now).
So, claims that modern Egyptians are similar to Abusir, may be true, technically speaking, but that would not mean countless foreign migrations did not happen.
Looks like Nuerat could be to Egyptian aDNA what updated Otzi is to Middle Neolithic Europe in terms of reminding people that genetic similarity in the context of homogenized West Eurasia, hides ongoing admixture (e.g. spread of skin pigmentation genes, CHG, assimilation of WHG, and so on).
That's basically a straw man argument. My emphasis on continuity doesn't imply a denial of population movements during the prehistoric/protohistoric periods. I've noticed your arguments are becoming increasingly strained, but in any case, one undeniable fact remains: there's a considerably stronger genetic affinity with the Middle East than with SSA. Perhaps Keita will release a new paper complaining about these results and provide a fresh STR analysis to support your perspective XD
Literally no data support their Black egypt fantasy. That's it drop the case.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Much like your friend Archeo, you hate your opponents so much that it's clouding your judgement, where you feel the need to use underhanded tactics.
Until you can post a quote of me talking about 'black Egypt' or 'SSA Egypt', it's really you who lost. Post a quote of me saying that or it's just another lie.
Also, you do not understand genetics or physical anthroplogy, as shown by your comments. Yesterday you claimed that Arabs are close to Natufians or the Natufian component. But Upper Palaeolithic populations are not close to any modern population. Not physically/morphologically, and not genetically.
You were quickly corrected on that and tried to clean it up, but in an unconvincing way, as usual (see your unconvincing attempts to explain why some Ethiopians and Moroccans [not just the Moroccan king, as you falsely tried to claim] claiming patriarchs, is somehow fundamentally different from Afrocentrism).
(Yes, I'm well aware of those letters that some people buy in Morocco to claim descent from Mohammed).
You need to work on your attempts at cleaning up. You're all over the place.
You thought you could get away with posting the leak as some sort of victory for you, when we have the Nuerat sample, which lacks CHG. Is your judgement really that clouded, that you cannot see that the leaked screenshot works against your specious misleading non sense that "modern Egyptians are close to predynastics"?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Much like your friend Archeo, you hate your opponents so much that it's clouding your judgement, where you feel the need to use underhanded tactics.
Until you can post a quote of me talking about 'black Egypt' or 'SSA Egypt', it's really you who lost. Post a quote of me saying that or it's just another lie.
Also, you do not understand genetics or physical anthroplogy, as shown by your comments. Yesterday you claimed that Arabs are close to Natufians or the Natufian component. But Upper Palaeolithic populations are not close to any modern population. Not physically/morphologically, and not genetically.
You were quickly corrected on that and tried to clean it up, but in an unconvincing way, as usual (see your unconvincing attempts to explain why some Ethiopians and Moroccans [not just the Moroccan king, as you falsely tried to claim] claiming patriarchs, is somehow fundamentally different from Afrocentrism).
(Yes, I'm well aware of those letters that some people buy in Morocco to claim descent from Mohammed).
You need to work on your attempts at cleaning up. You're all over the place.
You thought you could get away with posting the leak as some sort of victory for you, when we have the Nuerat sample, which lacks CHG. Is your judgement really that clouded, that you cannot see that the leaked screenshot works against your specious misleading non sense that "modern Egyptians are close to predynastics"?
Yes, you've never explicitly advocated for a "Black Egypt," yet it seems you react strongly whenever someone questions this position. Moreover, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention "cleaning up" my post. In reality, I was in agreement with the point that having a significant Natufian ancestry doesn't give modern Arabs more legitimacy to claim Egyptian heritage than Egyptians themselves.
Must I really clarify the distinction between saying "I am descended from X" and "They were black, and my ancestors" ? Even a child would comprehend this difference. Claiming descent from someone doesn't necessarily imply I believe I'm physically or genetically identical to them.
As for your latest argument, it appears as though you might soon assert that there's no similarity between Chalcolithic NWAs and modern ones simply because the former lack the 8% Steppe ancestry. SMH
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
It's so Over ...lmao even the "racist" dynastic race theory seems to be confirmed :
Phenotypes:
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
Even though I've always been a staunch believer in a "Black Egypt" I always knew they wouldn't be overwhelmingly SSA due geography, morphology etc. I thought they'd be something like 40-50% SSA and the rest some sort of "ANA" or Natufian like ancestry. Basically like Taforalt but with more SSA.
The lack of SSA in these supposed Upper Egyptian sample results (if true) has surprised me a little.
However as I've mentioned before it's a mistake to just take one or two samples (from Upper Egypt) and use that to explain the entirety of the regions history. Furthermore how do we know there hasn't been any selection bias at hand here?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's so Over ...lmao even the "racist" dynastic race theory seems to be confirmed :
Phenotypes:
…that’s quite a narrative he’s derived from a study with only seven full genomic samples. How would that be enough to assess (among other issues) class differences in skin color alleles?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol Dynastic Race Thory is confirmed lmao i know it was a matter of time until they showed their true agenda. So much for the white knighting for modern Egyptian facade. Me and Al called these people for what they were years ago. So even modern Egyptians were too dumb to create their own civilization they needed an invasion of a superior race to do it huh lol
Hey Archeo where’s your pearl clutching at
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Lol Dynastic Race Thory is confirmed lmao i know it was a matter of time until they showed their true agenda. So much for the white knighting for modern Egyptian facade. Me and Al called these people for what they were years ago. So even modern Egyptians were too dumb to create their own civilization they needed an invasion of a superior race to do it huh lol
Hey Archeo where’s your pearl clutching at
I don't quite understand why you find it implausible, especially considering you're likely already aware of Mesopotamian influences in this early period. Even Keita 1992 demonstrated how the 1st dynasty exhibits a more northern pattern compared to predynastic remains, albeit he interpreted it as an influence from the Delta.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes, you've never explicitly advocated for a "Black Egypt," yet it seems you react strongly whenever someone questions this position. Moreover, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention "cleaning up" my post. In reality, I was in agreement with the point that having a significant Natufian ancestry doesn't give modern Arabs more legitimacy to claim Egyptian heritage than Egyptians themselves.
Must I really clarify the distinction between saying "I am descended from X" and "They were black, and my ancestors" ? Even a child would comprehend this difference. Claiming descent from someone doesn't necessarily imply I believe I'm physically or genetically identical to them.
As for your latest argument, it appears as though you might soon assert that there's no similarity between Chalcolithic NWAs and modern ones simply because the former lack the 8% Steppe ancestry. SMH
Still unconvincing.
So where are those quotes where I spoke of 'black' or 'SSA' Egypt?
Oh, never mind. You've just admitted it was something you made up as part of your crusade where you have no qualms with posting misinformation:
Yes, you've never explicitly advocated for a "Black Egypt," --Antalas
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Still unconvincing.
So where are those quotes where I spoke of 'black' or 'SSA' Egypt?
Oh, never mind. You've just admitted it was something you made up as part of your crusade where you have no qualms with posting misinformation:
Yes, you've never explicitly advocated for a "Black Egypt," --Antalas [/QB]
So you even struggle with Sarcasm ? lmao...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Antalas, you posting this is a perfect example of what I mean:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [Antalas continues to unravel, posts aDNA leaks debunking his posting history, but presents them as a victory]
You must have a mental illness where you can't keep track of your posting history. I thought your whole deal was that ancient Egyptians were the same as modern Egyptians in terms of skin pigmentation and other traits?
Watch the cleanup attempt at 5.. 4.. 3.. 2... And notice how his cleanup attempts are never convincing.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
You know what I’m being real with you, despite our history I usually would give you credit for being knowledgeable and contributing to the academic discussion on here, if someone would’ve asked I would have said you’d be one of the few non black members of the biodiversity community that would fight against the idea of people seriously promoting the Dynastic Race Theory in 2023 ….like that this is even a discussion is pretty mind blowing smh
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Lol Dynastic Race Thory is confirmed lmao i know it was a matter of time until they showed their true agenda. So much for the white knighting for modern Egyptian facade. Me and Al called these people for what they were years ago. So even modern Egyptians were too dumb to create their own civilization they needed an invasion of a superior race to do it huh lol
Hey Archeo where’s your pearl clutching at
I don't quite understand why you find it implausible, especially considering you're likely already aware of Mesopotamian influences in this early period. Even Keita 1992 demonstrated how the 1st dynasty exhibits a more northern pattern compared to predynastic remains, albeit he interpreted it as an influence from the Delta.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Even though I've always been a staunch believer in a "Black Egypt" I always knew they wouldn't be overwhelmingly SSA due geography, morphology etc. I thought they'd be something like 40-50% SSA and the rest some sort of "ANA" or Natufian like ancestry. Basically like Taforalt but with more SSA.
The lack of SSA in these supposed Upper Egyptian sample results (if true) has surprised me a little.
A lot of the SSA ancestry they do have might be locked up in the "Natufian" portion. Admittedly, Lazaridis IIRC didn't think there was a lot of SSA ancestry in his Natufian sample, but there is at least one study claiming a small Omotic-like input in the Natufian genomes.
That said, the Natufians of the Levant aren't really a perfect representative for the predominant ancestry in ancient Nile Valley populations. Look at this graph from Holliday's 2013 study on limb proportions. The Natufians from El Wad appear much more European-like in their limb proportions than ancient Egypto-Nubians, who on the other hand are somewhat more similar to SSA with regards to this specific metric. Mind you, post-cranial physical proportions do not indicate genetic affinity by themselves, but they could indicate that ancient Nile peoples were more heat-adapted (i.e. more like modern African and Australasian peoples) than Levantine Natufians. That would indicate that the former aren't simple Natufian migrants like some in the armchair anthropologist community might model them as.
That is, assuming I'm not misunderstanding these findings (Swenet or DJ would be more qualified than I to discuss this sort of thing).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I know a certain group is going to claim I'm(and a few of us) are "making excuses", but I'm more curious about the other two studies, especially considering this leaked one lacks resolutions.
I'm also curious about the Nuerat sample. All in all I don't see this as an "L" in regards to what some of us been saying especially when it comes to ANA in the Egyptians...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] You know what I’m being real with you, despite our history I usually would give you credit for being knowledgeable and contributing to the academic discussion on here, if someone would’ve asked I would have said you’d be one of the few non black members of the biodiversity community that would fight against the idea of people seriously promoting the Dynastic Race Theory in 2023 ….like that this is even a discussion is pretty mind blowing smh
Calm yourself, I used the word "seems", so it's clear that I don't actually believe that a group of Mesopotamian settlers suddenly arrived and initiated Egyptian civilization. Egypt's roots run much deeper. However, the presence of CHG/Iran_N ancestry, coupled with the northern affinities seen in the Royal Tombs of Abydos, is undeniably perplexing, to say the least.
In any case, I hope you can now see who had a more accurate understanding of their DNA composition and appearance.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you posting this is a perfect example of what I mean:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [Antalas continues to unravel, posts aDNA leaks debunking his posting history, but presents them as a victory]
You must have a mental illness where you can't keep track of your posting history. I thought your whole deal was that ancient Egyptians were the same as modern Egyptians in terms of skin pigmentation and other traits?
Watch the cleanup attempt at 5.. 4.. 3.. 2... And notice how his cleanup attempts are never convincing.
Are egyptians supposed to be light skinned now ? Do they all consistently have the same skin tone? ? What are you talking about ? It appears you're feeling a bit flustered, possibly because you're having trouble accepting the results.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As far as the 'leaks', I don't see how enough DNA could have been obtained from Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic Egyptians to make those claims.
The only Neolithic remains from Egypt I've heard of is the Nabta Playa skeletal remains, and the Qarunian woman, and one other skull I read about a long time ago. I believe the latter skull was from one of the oases. Of these, the Qarunium woman is not biologically Egyptian (fits better with Mesolithic Nubians). Of the Nabta Playa remains I've seen three fragmentary individuals (E-75-8, E-00-1, E-97-17) are biologically Sub-Saharan or Mesolithic Nubian, while only one seems to some degree related to later Egyptians (E-91-1).
As far as the Epipalaeolithic, the Nile is emptied out during much of it, so what Egyptian remains are they talking about?
quote:From the calibrated conventional and AMS available 14 C dates (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Data 1), some of which are now rather old with a large standard error, and for some probably without an adapted fractionation, it can be observed that mainly two periods of occupation are present; a first from about 23 until 20 ka calBP and a later one from about 16 until 14 ka calBP. In between the number of data is more restricted. During Heinrich Event 2 and the LGM an important cooling and dryness was observed (Krom et al., 2002), which coincides with the start of an important increase of human presence along the Nile in Upper Egypt. There came an end to the visibility of human presence after 13 ka calBP and for a long period of several millennia no sites have been documented in Upper Egypt, except some rare Epipalaeolithic sites around 9.0 ka calBP (Vermeersch, 1978). Only with the end of the Holocene pluvial at about 5.5 ka calBP when Predynastic culture is developing, is a high number of sites observed in the area (Kuper and Kr€opelin, 2006).
What little skeletal remains we have during this period (e.g. the Sebilian skull fragment) does not resemble later Egyptians, so any claim that "Egyptians changed" over the course of this period is not supported by any facts on the ground. The populations at the Nile during this period were generally not ancestral to Egyptians.
Egyptians as in, pharaonic Egyptians, do not have control of the Egyptian Nile Valley until the Bronze Age, as the Vermeersch paper above indicates:
Only with the end of the Holocene pluvial at about 5.5 ka calBP when Predynastic culture is developing, is a high number of sites observed in the area (Kuper and Kr€opelin, 2006).
We don't know the whereabouts of people ancestral to Egyptians before the Badarians/Tasians appear:
The origin of the Egyptians was looked for in the course of almost two centuries in nearer or more distant regions in all possible directions. It has not been, however, established yet with certainty. --Strouhal
The claims by these alleged DNA leaks get more and more dubious. Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Check PMs real quick.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The claims by these alleged DNA leaks get more and more dubious.
Like I said, this Miro dude on Twitter appears to be building a whole grand narrative (right down to claims of notable skin color differences between classes starting in the Middle Kingdom*) out of the seven autosomal genomes Mussauer et al. report examining. Unless he somehow has access to more autosomal genomes down the pipeline that aren't covered in the upcoming Mussauer report, I don't see how he would have enough to make such bold proclamations. Seems to me that, like a lot of these amateur anthropologists, he's extrapolating a lot from limited data.
* To be fair, upper-class Egyptians marrying foreign nobility isn't a crazy proposition, and it must have happened quite a bit when the Hyksos's forerunners were establishing a significant presence in the Nile Delta toward the end of the Middle Kingdom. But, again, this is not something you would be able to deduce from only seven autosomal genomes dispersed from the predynastic to medieval times.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
By the way,
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: We don't know the whereabouts of people ancestral to Egyptians before the Badarians/Tasians appear:
The origin of the Egyptians was looked for in the course of almost two centuries in nearer or more distant regions in all possible directions. It has not been, however, established yet with certainty. --Strouhal
I don't think any skeletal remains are mentioned, but this report appears to describe a number of parallels in material culture between Neolithic inhabitants of the Dakhleh Oasis in the Western Desert and predynastic Egyptians. Maybe this is one of several refugia to look at for possible AE ancestors?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol these people are wasting no time eroding 50+ years of archeological study in order to promote diffusionism non sense and even trying to slip Europeans in lmao
AfRiCenTriC HoTePs ArE TrYinG tO StEaL EgYpTiAn HiStOrY
Lol it was only a matter of time.
I can’t wait for this study to drop, people’s true colors about to be exposed real quick. All these Little fake white knights who pretended to care about modern Egyptians all these years crying their crocodile tears about to change the hustle up real quick watch lol
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The claims by these alleged DNA leaks get more and more dubious.
Like I said, this Miro dude on Twitter appears to be building a whole grand narrative (right down to claims of notable skin color differences between classes starting in the Middle Kingdom*) out of the seven autosomal genomes Mussauer et al. report examining. Unless he somehow has access to more autosomal genomes down the pipeline that aren't covered in the upcoming Mussauer report, I don't see how he would have enough to make such bold proclamations. Seems to me that, like a lot of these amateur anthropologists, he's extrapolating a lot from limited data.
* To be fair, upper-class Egyptians marrying foreign nobility isn't a crazy proposition, and it must have happened quite a bit when the Hyksos's forerunners were establishing a significant presence in the Nile Delta toward the end of the Middle Kingdom. But, again, this is not something you would be able to deduce from only seven autosomal genomes dispersed from the predynastic to medieval times.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Thanks for response but your inbox is full.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: That is, assuming I'm not misunderstanding these findings (Swenet or DJ would be more qualified than I to discuss this sort of thing).
If you're interested Jay Stock has a nice graphic showing Natufians gravitate towards Africans compared to pre-Natufian predecessors, in terms of overall body plan. It's online, but I don't know the year. The Natufians you have posted are not the ones that have a tradition of being called out for appearing especially African. See the NY times article where the very first Natufians are announced by Keith and Garrod. Those have most of the African ancestry, especially the ones they describe that are from Shuqbah.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The claims by these alleged DNA leaks get more and more dubious.
Like I said, this Miro dude on Twitter appears to be building a whole grand narrative (right down to claims of notable skin color differences between classes starting in the Middle Kingdom*) out of the seven autosomal genomes Mussauer et al. report examining. Unless he somehow has access to more autosomal genomes down the pipeline that aren't covered in the upcoming Mussauer report, I don't see how he would have enough to make such bold proclamations. Seems to me that, like a lot of these amateur anthropologists, he's extrapolating a lot from limited data.
* To be fair, upper-class Egyptians marrying foreign nobility isn't a crazy proposition, and it must have happened quite a bit when the Hyksos's forerunners were establishing a significant presence in the Nile Delta toward the end of the Middle Kingdom. But, again, this is not something you would be able to deduce from only seven autosomal genomes dispersed from the predynastic to medieval times.
I agree. I'm definitely not taking their word for anything they say.
The little data we have does not support a foreign ruling elite. Although, like you said, nothing can really be ruled out at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The five Aswan populations are subdivisions of a single large study group made on the basis of archaeological criteria for the socioeconomic status of the burials, as follows: 1: uppermost, 2: upper middle, 3: middle, 4: lower middle, 5: lowest. The two Theban groups are simply two different skull collections
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I agree the Takokori study seems way more interesting to me, the spread of pastoralism in Africa seems super intriguing ngl
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I know a certain group is going to claim I'm(and a few of us) are "making excuses", but I'm more curious about the other two studies, especially considering this leaked one lacks resolutions.
I'm also curious about the Nuerat sample. All in all I don't see this as an "L" in regards to what some of us been saying especially when it comes to ANA in the Egyptians...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If the CHG by OK times is accurate, it would not bode well for Antalas as it would show that Egyptians have been impacted by CHG migrations already since OK times, and that it's only the homogenization of MENA that hides these constant migrations (if the migrations involved 'pure' CHG ancestry, ie if CHG were not mediated by Bronze Age people, modern Egyptians would be very far removed from ancient samples like Nuerat).
Likewise, if Egyptians' HG component were identified (similar to Taforalt who have ANA, and Takarkori and Moroccan cave dwellers who seem to have something else), bloggers would not be able to get away with making specious claims, as we'd have a way of establishing a baseline of native Egyptian ancestry (which we lack right now).
So, claims that modern Egyptians are similar to Abusir, may be true, technically speaking, but that would not mean countless foreign migrations did not happen.
Looks like Nuerat could be to Egyptian aDNA what updated Otzi is to Middle Neolithic Europe in terms of reminding people that genetic similarity in the context of homogenized West Eurasia, hides ongoing admixture (e.g. spread of skin pigmentation genes, CHG, assimilation of WHG, and so on).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Swenet
Thanks for response but your inbox is full.
Fixed..
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you're interested Jay Stock has a nice graphic showing Natufians gravitate towards Africans compared to pre-Natufian predecessors, in terms of overall body plan. It's online, but I don't know the year. The Natufians you have posted are not the ones that have a tradition of being called out for appearing especially African. See the NY times article where the very first Natufians are announced by Keith and Garrod. Those have most of the African ancestry, especially the ones they describe that are from Shuqbah.
I haven't had luck finding that graphic yet. However, as I recall you pointing out before, the Natufian aDNA samples are from a sub-population that was physically less African-like than the others. Not sure if it was El Wad or some other group though.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I agree the Takokori study seems way more interesting to me, the spread of pastoralism in Africa seems super intriguing ngl
Yep. We're just going to have to wait and see. To me the Takokori study will give us a bigger picture. But as for the Nuerat its interesting and funny how they have the LEAST amount of CHG compared to the other samples. And according to a certain someone(will not name him out of respect), they also appear to have very little EFF too...
But overall we have to just wait and see. Any "early victory" celebrations is dumb.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you're interested Jay Stock has a nice graphic showing Natufians gravitate towards Africans compared to pre-Natufian predecessors, in terms of overall body plan. It's online, but I don't know the year. The Natufians you have posted are not the ones that have a tradition of being called out for appearing especially African. See the NY times article where the very first Natufians are announced by Keith and Garrod. Those have most of the African ancestry, especially the ones they describe that are from Shuqbah.
I haven't had luck finding that graphic yet. However, as I recall you pointing out before, the Natufian aDNA samples are from a sub-population that was physically less African-like than the others. Not sure if it was El Wad or some other group though.
The Skeletal Phenotype of "Negritos" from the Andaman Islands and Philippines Relative to Global Variation among Hunter-Gatherers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24297221/
See fig 9.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Swenet
Thanks for the link! I'll share the image for the benefit of interested posters.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's probably a pooled sample, too (ie, not Natufians at their most African). I bet the Shuqbah sample would plot even closer to the predynastic sample. But the huge distance between Natufians and Epipalaeolithic Levantines is enough to make a point with all these narratives in the blogs about Natufians.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's probably a pooled sample, too (ie, not Natufians at their most African). I bet the Shuqbah sample would plot even closer to the predynastic sample. But the huge distance between Natufians and Epipalaeolithic Levantines is enough to make a point with all these narratives in the blogs about Natufians.
I say it's long overdue for them to sample the Shuqbah Natufians. It would go a long way to complicate certain narratives.
That said, I don't quite understand your earlier statement that having Mesopotamian aDNA would have much affect on the discourse around Egypt. Proto-Semitic peoples probably will be modeled as Natufian-like (as has been the case with most ancestry associated with Afroasiatic-speakers), but what does that change? Sumerian aDNA would be nice to have to compare with Egyptian genomes since Antalas brought up the dynastic race hypothesis, but I dunno if it will appear all that related to Afroasiatic-speakers apart from some admixture with Proto-Semites.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I won't comment much on this yet as I think there will be some changes that will come with clarity once the studies are released. But I think most of the ideas passed on by folks with a decent grasp on archaeology, specifically ideas revolving around North African substructure especially highlighted by the Wadi Howar Baker 2011 study will be vindicated. I'm not sure if the public will catch on with just this Egyptian study, but the leaks make sense. The narrative right now will be that Yemenites founded AE which is a gross misunderstanding of the data. High Natufian + No SSA, is telling of not only Epipaleolithic-Neolithic substructure in Africa but substructure within the Natufian component. The later, a composite containing small levels of ancestral forms of what we considered SSA ancestry, or just Novel Ancestral North African ancestry and a generalized west Eurasian component we seen in the Dzudzuana preprint.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@BrandonP
What I mean is that the piecemeal release of dynastic Egyptian and Levantine aDNA is going to keeping encouraging bloggers to do hack jobs on anything N. African. As we've seen with the Nuerat or Takarkori samples, whose affinities are informative in certain ways, one good predynastic Egyptian sample would nip a lot of that in the bud and put other samples in the correct context.
I don't believe that more predynastics will just keep revealing a Natufian base. Natufians were formed as a result of Egyptian migration to native UP Levantines. Sooner or later they are going to find a predynastic sample that is going to shift the picture to where that's reflected in the aDNA, much like EEF now being considered to only have a 'minor' Basal Eurasian component of >20%, compared to 2014, when the estimate was >40%.
Didn't the Fulani paper already do that (reframe of the Natufian component)?
Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area. (Without necessarily implying they were numerically dominant).
Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants, and those who went farthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish (§4.2; 5.2; 6.2). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
Though I would disagree with him (ie Lipinski) on including Eberites (Edomites, Hebrews, Moabites) and Canaanites as particularly influenced by these migrations. We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians). I would also mainly look to the earliest settlers for resemblance to predynastics, not so much the later periods.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BrandonP
What I mean is that the piecemeal release of dynastic Egyptian and Levantine aDNA is going to keeping encouraging bloggers to do hack jobs on anything N. African. As we've seen with the Nuerat or Takarkori samples, whose affinities are informative in certain ways, one good predynastic Egyptian sample would nip a lot of that in the bud and put other samples in the correct context.
I don't believe that more predynastics will just keep revealing a Natufian base. Natufians were formed as a result of Egyptian migration to native UP Levantines. Sooner or later they are going to find a predynastic sample that is going to shift the picture to where that's reflected in the aDNA, much like EEF now being considered to only have a 'minor' Basal Eurasian component of >20%, compared to 2014, when the estimate was >40%.
Didn't the Fulani paper already do that (reframe of the Natufian component)?
Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area.
I admit, I'm not that familiar with the bio-archaeology of Mesopotamia, so I wouldn't know which recovered skeletal remains from that region one would look at for aDNA, but I agree completely with you that certain samples are needed to clear up the picture.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @BrandonP
What I mean is that the piecemeal release of dynastic Egyptian and Levantine aDNA is going to keeping encouraging bloggers to do hack jobs on anything N. African. As we've seen with the Nuerat or Takarkori samples, whose affinities are informative in certain ways, one good predynastic Egyptian sample would nip a lot of that in the bud and put other samples in the correct context.
I don't believe that more predynastics will just keep revealing a Natufian base. Natufians were formed as a result of Egyptian migration to native UP Levantines. Sooner or later they are going to find a predynastic sample that is going to shift the picture to where that's reflected in the aDNA, much like EEF now being considered to only have a 'minor' Basal Eurasian component of >20%, compared to 2014, when the estimate was >40%.
Didn't the Fulani paper already do that (reframe of the Natufian component)?
I literally only seen three people comment on the Natufian/ANA correspondence exposed by that paper. And it wasn't long after people murmured about it that the genomes of the Newest Neolithic Moroccan paper "leaked." People then hyped the non-endogenous components of that paper then went completely silent after a week. But now we have it from the cat's mouth:
And AFAIK this was solved with G25... Which is not the best pipeline to help solve anything.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I literally only seen three people comment on the Natufian/ANA correspondence exposed by that paper. And it wasn't long after people murmured about it that the genomes of the Newest Neolithic Moroccan paper "leaked." People then hyped the non-endogenous components of that paper then went completely silent after a week. But now we have it from the cat's mouth:
And AFAIK this was solved with G25... Which is not the best pipeline to help solve anything. [/QB]
^I have no idea what to make of this Miro guy. His comparisons to modern samples (Yemenis, Palestinians even Samaritans) makes me think he's just another weird blogger living on an island of genetics programs and ignorant of anthropology.
How could Abusir, likely the most admixed of the ancient Egyptians, and the most 'modern' AE sample, be closest to farmers and Sardinians (f3 stats), yet this guy is claiming older dynastic Egyptians are closest to moderns, like Palestinians and even Samaritans? I can see Yemenis and Palestinians since I can see their low SSA give the appearance of some type of affinity (like Taforalt and Afar having the appearance of close affinity in PCA), but Samaritans? And this guy is talking about actual closeness, not the appearance of closeness.
Notice that the brightest symbols on the map (red) are all ancient samples, not moderns.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I literally only seen three people comment on the Natufian/ANA correspondence exposed by that paper. And it wasn't long after people murmured about it that the genomes of the Newest Neolithic Moroccan paper "leaked." People then hyped the non-endogenous components of that paper then went completely silent after a week. But now we have it from the cat's mouth:
And AFAIK this was solved with G25... Which is not the best pipeline to help solve anything. [/QB]
Do we know if he's any type of credentials? Or is he just another guy on twitter?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I have no idea what to make of this Miro guy. His comparisons to modern samples (Yemenis, Palestinians even Samaritans) makes me think he's just another weird blogger.
How could Abusir, likely the most admixed of the ancient Egyptians, be closest to farmers and Sardinians (f3 stats), yet this guy is claiming earlier Egyptians are closest to moderns, like Palestinians and even Samaritans? I can see Yemenis and Palestinians since I can see their low SSA give the appearance of some type of affinity (like Taforalt and Afar having the appearance of close affinity in PCA), but Samaritans? And this guy is talking about actual closeness, not the appearance of closeness.
He's purposefully using "perceived" closeness and genetic distance (the downstream fst provided by vahaduo and G25) interchangeably and in conjunction to assign biological affinity. He seems like just another opinionated dude but somehow has access to pre-released data. He even states and I paraphrase "the genetic distance between SSA's and A.Egyptians are like that of a different species being >0.7." A sentiment which looks/sounds extremely familiar. However if he can see and publicly admit substructure, it must be blatantly obvious come release.
It's odd that he has time to write a dynastic race fanfic but not address the initial pre-peer-reviewed abstract labeling the later samples as Canaanites or admixed Canaanites. Or even try to model pastoral Neolithic Africans and Christian Nubians with North East African ancestry with these samples. He also seems to try his best to avoid the Hyksos allegations. I wasn't particularly interested in this study but now I wanna see how much shit these people decided to trample in just to get at "Hoteps" like alluded to earlier.
And speaking of pre-peer reviewed preprints: Remember Lazaradis in preprint stated that Natufians likely had unsampled ancestry from East African, post peer review that statement disappears. The Dzudzuana paper which was preprinted before the fertile crescent megastudy is still in preprint. That study first proposed ANA component was pervasive in Natufians. As far as the preprint game goes, Genetic Anthropology is suss.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I'm glad I never got into those softwares and never really invested in genetics blogs and forums where people use that. Props to those who can make it work but their output makes no sense to me.
We now have a whole generation of bloggers pushing the bs coming out of these programs, but don't know the first thing about where these samples fit culturally or morphologically, let alone the many samples well known to athropology, that aren't genetially tested yet, and how that creates many unknowns that these programs can't fill in. Hence Antalas making the profoundly stupid claim that Arabs are close to Natufians, not realizing that there is no one Natufian type and that he's talking about Raqefet Natufians, and even then he's wrong on his claim.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak:
Old-Middle Kingdom:
J F1826 DER J F3119 DER J F3176 DER J FGC1599 DER J1 CTS1138 DER J1 PF4659 DER J1 PF4667 DER J1 F4320 DER J1a PF4772 DER
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
Dynastic:
E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER
E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER
E1b1b1 M5322 DER
E1b1b1 M5360 DER
E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER
E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm glad I never got into those softwares and never really invested in genetics blogs and forums where people use that. Props to those who can make it work but their output makes no sense to me.
We now have a whole generation of bloggers pushing the bs coming out of these programs, but don't know the first thing about where these samples fit culturally or morphologically, let alone the many samples well known to athropology, that aren't genetially tested yet, and how that creates many unknowns that these programs can't fill in. Hence Antalas making the profoundly stupid claim that Arabs are close to Natufians, not realizing that there is no one Natufian type and that he's talking about Raqefet Natufians, and even then he's wrong on his claim.
Why do you lie? I only said that arabs are autosomally predominantly natufian.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm glad I never got into those softwares and never really invested in genetics blogs and forums where people use that. Props to those who can make it work but their output makes no sense to me.
We now have a whole generation of bloggers pushing the bs coming out of these programs, but don't know the first thing about where these samples fit culturally or morphologically, let alone the many samples well known to athropology, that aren't genetially tested yet, and how that creates many unknowns that these programs can't fill in. Hence Antalas making the profoundly stupid claim that Arabs are close to Natufians, not realizing that there is no one Natufian type and that he's talking about Raqefet Natufians, and even then he's wrong on his claim.
That's the reason why I find the online aDNA fandom so off-putting. It's infested with the most insufferable dudebros and neckbeards, many of whom just have a racist or ethno-nationalist axe to grind even if they don't have the courage or intellectual honesty to admit it. They are worse than a cancer on the field.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^It seems like the subtext underlying a lot of these antics is that they don't want Egypt in the African genetic landscape. And they will try to spin everything connected to Egyptians, from Natufians, Basal Eurasian, and so on, and flip the script so that all the genetics language surrounding Egyptian genetics has Eurasian connotations. Hence Miro talking about "Egyptian Natufians". What is an Egyptian Natufian?
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak:
Old-Middle Kingdom:
J F1826 DER J F3119 DER J F3176 DER J FGC1599 DER J1 CTS1138 DER J1 PF4659 DER J1 PF4667 DER J1 F4320 DER J1a PF4772 DER
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
Dynastic:
E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER
E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER
E1b1b1 M5322 DER
E1b1b1 M5360 DER
E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER
E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER
I see what you mean with the Y-DNA G and Y-DNA J providing context as far as the comments about autosomals.
But the abstracts didn't speak on Y-DNA (only mtDNA and autosomal results). I'll take it seriously when I see the paper.
He's a good storyteller though. His grand narratives remind me of Captain Haddock from Tintin talking about his paternal ancestor.
"Massive amounts of Levantines settled all over the country and for a moment it seemed Egyptians were about to be overrun"--Miro
"At last the cavalry arrived, and ancestry came from the deep south and restored Egyptian ancestry"---Miro
C'mon now...
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^It seems like the subtext underlying a lot of these antics is that they don't want Egypt in the African genetic landscape. And they will try to spin everything connected to Egyptians, from Natufians, Basal Eurasian, and so on, and flip the script so that all the genetics language surrounding Egyptian genetics has Eurasian connotations. Hence Miro talking about "Egyptian Natufians". What is an Egyptian Natufian?
Bingo. It's all Afrophobia, or maybe melanophobia. Or maybe we should call it Melanoafrophobia (wordy term I coined there, I know)?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol, Yall finally saying the ish I was saying years ago when that Dog Whistling Titled Abu Sier study came out, I may not be the most educated on DNA Anthropology but I know a Grift, when I see one lol.
This whole crocodile tear shedding, pearl clutching, "We'Re DeFeNdInG ThE MoDeRn EgYpTiAnS" schtick has to be one of the most successful Grifts in modern academia.
Not saying you guys never saw it, but damn it feels good hearing you come out and say it...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^It seems like the subtext underlying a lot of these antics is that they don't want Egypt in the African genetic landscape.
quote:Bingo. It's all Afrophobia, or maybe melanophobia. Or maybe we should call it Melanoafrophobia (wordy term I coined there, I know)?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Sad that we won't get clarity, I was under the assmuption that E1b1b1 was forming some sort of "Afro-Asiatic" cluster and that it could've originate in North Africa...These results from the Leak and Nuruet being both from the OK and opposite different results seems to throw a wrench in that but it's interesting your take on possible Early Mesopotamian Shemetic and Predynastic connection...because if there was it would fit in with that E1b1b1 Afro-Asiatic cluster scenario..
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
If this data actually did leak to this specific group of folks, it likely is another example of the establishment supporting such online discourse promoting certain ideologies. And it is more apparent in who certain Egyptologists are choosing to openly support on social media in terms of the narratives they promote. And of course many times these papers are deliberately published and worded a certain way to promote a narrative whether the data warrants it or not.
As for the data in the leaks themselves, I don't see how any of it makes any sense because you cannot even establish population continuity from it. Are we to think that different waves came in at different time with these different lineages? It makes no absolute sense to even try to model any sort of population continuity or evolution with such limited data covering a period of over 5,000 years. But hey can't help themselves, as someone else said, they got to keep the grift going, not just in terms of the Nile Valley, but in terms of these limited data sets having any true value even with these statistical methods they run on them, which has been proven false multiple times. Garbage in equals garbage out, meaning such models are easily debunked with new data, which in this case is more DNA, especially more ancient DNA.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I think I might drop a breakdown/Masterclass on G25 and Vahduauo to help users and non users understand the output and how it works. I don't use the sites or Davidski's data much as I gone on record to say that it doesn't make much logical sense when every other method is superior (but requires more technical skill or critical thinking.) However I know exactly how it works and I can't particularly disagree with Doug here if one of the people with a "career" in this field is licensed officially or figuratively to say something as categorically stupid or just straight up scientifically wrong as what I quoted above in the bold.
If you look at figure S9 in this 6 year old study a person with decent deductive problem solving skills can see in retrospect exactly what's going on. And how misinformed "genetic distance" calculated by projected pca coordinate averages can not realistically output any information on speciation.
As it relates to the Y-DNA data. There will be Y-haplogroups available with monsaeur et. al, 20xx Six of em are written on the low res poster. I can only make out what looks like K1a1a, T3, R1b and 2xE1b1bxx but it could be my imagination. The quality is too shit. "Full leaks" report: J1, G2a, E-Z830, E-M78 and R1b... Doesn't seem impossibly different from the scan.
@Jari Not gonna lie, from the minute you read the abstract for this particular study you should have known you weren't gonna get no damn clarity lmao.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Sad that we won't get clarity, I was under the assmuption that E1b1b1 was forming some sort of "Afro-Asiatic" cluster and that it could've originate in North Africa...These results from the Leak and Nuruet being both from the OK and opposite different results seems to throw a wrench in that but it's interesting your take on possible Early Mesopotamian Shemetic and Predynastic connection...because if there was it would fit in with that E1b1b1 Afro-Asiatic cluster scenario..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics.
I'm with you on E1b1b having that affinity. Why the change of mind? There were always going to be foreigners based on old anthropology identifying what they called "aliens" in dynastic Egyptian and Nubian cemeteries (which were rare or absent in most predynastic samples).
Many of the non.negroid bodieg in these pits arc undoubtedly Egyptian, but a considerable proportion of them present features of alien types."
Notice people were already calling out features foreign to the predynastic type, in the 19th and 20th century (this report was written for an expedition dating to 1907-1908). People nowadays are regressing in terms of this basic fact, which nowadays may be considered an 'Afrocentric' view by some who think any Egyptian genome is automatically biologically Egyptian, even if it carries Y-DNA J (Abusir).
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Lol, Yall finally saying the ish I was saying years ago when that Dog Whistling Titled Abu Sier study came out, I may not be the most educated on DNA Anthropology but I know a Grift, when I see one lol.
This whole crocodile tear shedding, pearl clutching, "We'Re DeFeNdInG ThE MoDeRn EgYpTiAnS" schtick has to be one of the most successful Grifts in modern academia.
Not saying you guys never saw it, but damn it feels good hearing you come out and say it...
Thing is, a lot of Egyptians and other North Africans' melanophobia runs deep enough that they'll willingly go along with the Eurocentrics on this. They'll happily accept that all their own African or "Black" ancestry is the result of medieval slavery in the name of keeping charismatic figures like King Tut or Hannibal away from "Black people".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak:
Old-Middle Kingdom:
J F1826 DER J F3119 DER J F3176 DER J FGC1599 DER J1 CTS1138 DER J1 PF4659 DER J1 PF4667 DER J1 F4320 DER J1a PF4772 DER
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
Dynastic:
E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER
E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER
E1b1b1 M5322 DER
E1b1b1 M5360 DER
E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER
E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER
OK. Lets just go with this as a practical exercise.
First question, where was the samples taken from for each of these time periods? Were they from 'named' burials, such as pharaohs and officials or just other random burials? Also were these remains from individual tombs or mass graves? And how distributed are these samples geographically? Are they from the same site/sites in one geographic area or multiple sites across a large geographic area?
Second question, how many samples are we talking about for each of these time frames? More than 5 but less than 10? Less than 4? Between 10 and 20? And what is the time distribution for these samples? 100 years apart, 10 years, 50?
Last question would be what populations are the best fit as the origin for these lineages, meaning who and from where? And do they have any ancient DNA from surrounding areas in similar time frames showing those lineages and potential donor populations?
That would determine any "value" of these lineages, because ultimately what any good geneticist would want to know is how 'representative' these samples are of the population in any time frame. If you got three different sets of lineages from 3 different time frames, then obviously the odds are this data is not representative of any "base" population with genetic continuity over time. And that is what they "should" be wanting to find. Because otherwise, just taking this at face value with baseless assumptions, one would think that the populations of these different eras were of completely different origins due to various waves of mixture.
Of course the above is the 'wild eyed' speculation that we see taking place, but the point remains this data is not helping answer the question of the actual predominant genetic lineages on the Nile at any period in the ancient past because they keep doing these piecemeal studies as opposed to something like the European farming study which studied DNA across a huge geographic area from Anatolia to the UK. And in order to come up with a similar history of the Nile they would need to do the same thing across the Levant, Nile Valley, Sinai,Sahara, Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan and so forth. But they don't want to do that because they don't want to actually get an honest answer to the question. And they especially don't want to get any proof of so-called "Eurasian" lineages appearing first in Africa, such as in ancient Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
Actually I see it as the opposite: North Africans and Egyptians caping for Europeans and their racist historical narratives. The irony is when that same narrative turns and bites them either socially, politically or historically. But literally this is part of the whole European geopolitical strategy of using North Africa as a buffer between Europe and the rest of Africa.Because in European minds they want the ancient Nile Valley for themselves ultimately and will play along with 'olive' ancient Egyptians to a point. Because the whole goal for them has always been to show Europe has a right to dominate the rest of the planet as the 'inventors' and 'creators' of civilization. And when it comes to that they are very exclusive as to who fits in that category.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Second question, how many samples are we talking about for each of these time frames? More than 5 but less than 10? Less than 4? Between 10 and 20? And what is the time distribution for these samples? 100 years apart, 10 years, 50?
From the abstract in the OP:
quote:Due to high-throughput sequencing and targeted enrichment methods, ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis is emerging as a valuable tool for the investigation of ancient Egypt’s demographic history. However, the recovery of aDNA from Egyptian human remains is challenging due to poor DNA preservation and a high contamination risk. Thus, so far, less than five ancient Egyptian genome-wide datasets have been published. In addition, mitochondrial genomes are almost exclusively limited to a timespan ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period (1550 BCE - 395 CE) as well as to a single archaeological site (Abusir el-Meleq). To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom. Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale. Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Second question, how many samples are we talking about for each of these time frames? More than 5 but less than 10? Less than 4? Between 10 and 20? And what is the time distribution for these samples? 100 years apart, 10 years, 50?
From the abstract in the OP:
quote:Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale. Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past.
7 individuals from where? And were they all from the same site or separate sites and within the same time frame or over a larger time frame? IE: if you found these lineages across multiple locations on the Nile within various times over a 200 - 400 year period that would mean one thing. But if all you have is 7 individiuals from the same tomb or group of tombs in a time period spanning 20 to 80 years that means something else.
If we are going to go by the wild eyed speculation about a "dynastic race" in the Nile, then they would have to show how these lineages come from or are related to the proto dynastic and pre dynastic populations on the Upper Nile in and around Luxor and going south. And then if they are going to follow that line of reasoning, they would have to show how those lineages represent a large scale migration from say South Arabia into the red sea coasts of the Upper Nile. Obviously I don't expect them to do this and at this point this just remains a disconnected set of factoids designed purely for fueling spin in online discussion as opposed to actually answering any serious questions. I want to know the genetic lineages of those buried in those proto dynastic and pre dynastic cemeteries not some random individuals from who knows where on the Nile unrelated to that. And this goes to the point mentioned by others is that they would rather publish these DNA studies from random individuals from who knows where as opposed to doing DNA studies on well established key burial sites and named burials at key points in the history of the Nile.
Status quo "standard" history of the Nile:
quote: In Upper Egypt, between Asyūṭ and Luxor (Al-Uqṣur), have been found the Tasian culture (named for Dayr Tāsā) and the Badarian culture (named for Al-Badārī); these date from the late 5th millennium bce. Most of the evidence for them comes from cemeteries, where the burials included fine black-topped red pottery, ornaments, some copper objects, and glazed steatite beads. The most characteristic predynastic luxury objects, slate palettes for grinding cosmetics, occur for the first time in this period. The burials show little differentiation of wealth and status and seem to belong to a peasant culture without central political organization.
Probably contemporary with both predynastic and dynastic times are thousands of rock drawings of a wide range of motifs, including boats, found throughout the Eastern Desert, in Lower Nubia, and as far west as Mount ʾUwaynāt, which stands near modern Egypt’s borders with Libya and Sudan in the southwest. The drawings show that nomads were common throughout the desert, probably to the late 3rd millennium bce, but they cannot be dated precisely; they may all have been produced by nomads, or inhabitants of the Nile valley may often have penetrated the desert and made drawings.
But anyway, I will wait to see what actually gets published.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Sad that we won't get clarity, I was under the assmuption that E1b1b1 was forming some sort of "Afro-Asiatic" cluster and that it could've originate in North Africa...These results from the Leak and Nuruet being both from the OK and opposite different results seems to throw a wrench in that but it's interesting your take on possible Early Mesopotamian Shemetic and Predynastic connection...because if there was it would fit in with that E1b1b1 Afro-Asiatic cluster scenario..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics.
I'm with you on E1b1b having that affinity. Why the change of mind? There were always going to be foreigners based on old anthropology identifying what they called "aliens" in dynastic Egyptian and Nubian cemeteries (which were rare or absent in most predynastic samples).
Many of the non.negroid bodieg in these pits arc undoubtedly Egyptian, but a considerable proportion of them present features of alien types."
Notice people were already calling out features foreign to the predynastic type, in the 19th and 20th century (this report was written for an expedition dating to 1907-1908). People nowadays are regressing in terms of this basic fact, which nowadays may be considered an 'Afrocentric' view by some who think any Egyptian genome is automatically biologically Egyptian, even if it carries Y-DNA J (Abusir).
There definitely is a regression. Heck, pointing out E-M78 in Northeast Africa or heck probably even point out how the civilization was started in Upper Egypt, and Upper Egypt having close connections with "Nubia" would be deemed "Afrocentric."
And those people who want to be "friendly" with Egyptians if they had it their way would erase modern Egyptians from the Ancients if they had it their way. We already see with this weird Egyptian vs non-Egyptian Arab small scale beef in the anthro community. Heck if Eurocentrics of European descent had it their way, they would love to reinstate the argument for a White Egypt. We slowly seen that with the Abusir study which they used out of context.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^The regression is real. And the scientific establishment is a part of it, too. As I've said many times, anthropologists were generally better pre 1970s. Although there was a lot of variation back then as well, in terms of talent, and also more racism.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
Actually I see it as the opposite: North Africans and Egyptians caping for Europeans and their racist historical narratives. The irony is when that same narrative turns and bites them either socially, politically or historically. But literally this is part of the whole European geopolitical strategy of using North Africa as a buffer between Europe and the rest of Africa.Because in European minds they want the ancient Nile Valley for themselves ultimately and will play along with 'olive' ancient Egyptians to a point. Because the whole goal for them has always been to show Europe has a right to dominate the rest of the planet as the 'inventors' and 'creators' of civilization. And when it comes to that they are very exclusive as to who fits in that category.
I agree with most of what you say here, but to understand what we mean you should have visited the anthro blogs and forums around the time Abusir was posted. People were taking the Abusir-modern Egyptian similarities and extrapolating them back to predynastic times even saying predynastics will have even less SSA than Abusir (which, according to them, Abusir already had SSA ancestry in the single digits, but that was apparently too much for them). Anything other than modern Egyptian identity was treated as an untouchable and unthinkable subject by some, although there were others who didn't hide behind fake sympathy for Egyptians (e.g. some claimed Bronze Age Levantine ancestry for predynastics).
Interestingly, some Egyptian posters were more reasonable and detached. Which is why caping is a perfect term to describe what these people are doing. And like Jari said, it wasn't always convincing that they even cared about setting the record straight for Egyptians (most of them were just anti-African).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The regression is real. And the scientific establishment is a part of it, too. As I've said many times, anthropologists were generally better pre 1970s. Although there was a lot of variation back then as well, in terms of talent, and also more racism.
I agree with most of what you say here, but to understand what we mean you should have visited the anthro blogs and forums around the time Abusir was posted. People were taking the Abusir-modern Egyptian similarities and extrapolating them back to predynastic times even saying predynastics will have even less SSA than Abusir (which, according to them, Abusir already had SSA ancestry in the single digits, but that was apparently too much for them). Anything other than modern Egyptian identity was treated as an untouchable and unthinkable subject by some, although there were others who didn't hide behind fake sympathy for Egyptians (e.g. some claimed Bronze Age Levantine ancestry for predynastics).
Interestingly, some Egyptian posters were more reasonable and detached. Which is why caping is a perfect term to describe what these people are doing. And like Jari said, it wasn't always convincing that they even cared about setting the record straight for Egyptians (most of them were just anti-African).
That's an erroneous analysis. They are rarely "anti-African" whatever that term implies, as they typically don't have strong feelings about africans or make any claims about them. Their reaction stems from their frustration with a community that appears to struggle with severe inferiority complex, identity crisis, and self-hate (also often looking for acceptance). They find it concerning that this community is now boldly appropriating a history and culture that isn't theirs and aggressively confronting every North African they encounter even expressing racist feelings.
Furthermore,refrain from using the excuse that "Whites did it too". We both understand that the majority of contemporary white academics, as well as most white individuals, do not claim Egypt or perceive it as "white". To find such claims, you would need to look back to the early 20th century or some fringe online Eurocentric group.
Now you're panicking, bringing conspiracies and accusations of "racism" likely because you're struggling to come to terms with the objective results. However, it's clear where this discussion might be headed: now that there isn't a significant genetic affinity with SSA, there will be an attempt to emphasize the African connection with Natufians, possibly by highlighting isolated morphological traits or the detected 6-7% Omotic-like ancestry. Afrocentrists are too emotionally involved in this therefore it's truly a waste of time debating with them even if tomorrow we get thousands of egyptian samples they'll still stay in denial.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
^And what community is this with "Inferiority complex" or "identity crisis"?
Not to derail...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Antalas, you're coming across as irrational and like you don't have good reading comprehension... Don't you have something better to do than projecting your paranoia and emotional baggage on me?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's an erroneous analysis. They are rarely "anti-African" whatever that term implies, as they typically don't have strong feelings about africans or make any claims about them.
If someone is defiant to the data, after being repeatedly shown why they're wrong, and if they avoid such data going forward, while continuing to make the same claims again, they're anti African, period. And if you're defending that, you're anti-African in my book as well. Like I said, some people have standing up for truth lower in priority than shitting on Afrocentrics and perceived Afrocentrics. If you deny that's going on, it's probably because you know you're doing it, too.
quote:Furthermore,refrain from using the excuse that "Whites did it too".
I don't do whataboutisms. You must have me confused for another member.
quote: likely because you're struggling to come to terms with the objective results.
Such a weird claim. It's you who has been abandoning your old claims, which centered on modern Egyptians being the same as predynastics. My view, which is that predynastics as epitomized by Naqadans and Badarians and A Group Nubians at the Egyptian border, are predominantly African, has remained the same and has never been under pressure or threatened so far, unlike your specious claims which are all over the place and change with the weather. I've never said dynastic Egyptians are necessarily predominantly African BTW. They are only African to the extent that they preserve ancestry from palaeolithic groups ancestral to predynastics, who in turn would have had less Eurasian than both predynastics and dynastics.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree with most of what you say here, but to understand what we mean you should have visited the anthro blogs and forums around the time Abusir was posted. People were taking the Abusir-modern Egyptian similarities and extrapolating them back to predynastic times even saying predynastics will have even less SSA than Abusir (which, according to them, Abusir already had SSA ancestry in the single digits, but that was apparently too much for them). Anything other than modern Egyptian identity was treated as an untouchable and unthinkable subject by some, although there were others who didn't hide behind fake sympathy for Egyptians (e.g. some claimed Bronze Age Levantine ancestry for predynastics).
Interestingly, some Egyptian posters were more reasonable and detached. Which is why caping is a perfect term to describe what these people are doing. And like Jari said, it wasn't always convincing that they even cared about setting the record straight for Egyptians (most of them were just anti-African).
Understood, but I am generally referring to the fact that these anthropology forums have been spouting historical pseudo science since long before any Egyptians or North Africans became involved as an extension of older Eurocentric scholarship. Most Egyptians don't speak English and of those that do, most aren't going to study Egyptology, as it requires knowledge of English or French. And it is those European institutions that are the source of most of the genetic research on the Nile, including these papers. And we all should know the history of European anthropology and ethnology.
Prior to Napoleon's invasion most Egyptians were not talking about the ancient past as a source of "national pride" as opposed to being part of the Arab world Islam. It wasn't until Egyptian independence and the emergence of the democratic state that Pharonism and Arabism became entertwined in modern Egyptian identity, obviously after the European invasions and looting of ancient artifacts. And it is that rise of Pharonism along with having some of the first modern universities in the arab world that gave modern Egypt is sense of pride in the wider Arab world....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Antalas, you're coming across as irrational and like you don't have good reading comprehension... Don't you have something better to do than projecting your paranoia and emotional baggage on me?
The response was also directed at other members,since you complain about the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If someone is defiant to the data, after being repeatedly shown why they're wrong, and if they avoid such data going forward, while continuing to make the same claims again, they're anti African, period. And if you're defending that, you're anti-African in my book as well. Like I said, some people have standing up for truth lower in priority than shitting on Afrocentrics and perceived Afrocentrics. If you deny that's going on, it's probably because you know you're doing it, too.
You're projecting. For years, you've been reading genetic and bioanthropology papers and they consistently point in a certain direction. Yet there's a persistent effort to misinterpret their findings or, as some do here, suggest an ongoing presence of "bias" or academic conspiracies involving the suppression or reversal of information
Furthermore, avoid generalizing about "Africans" as if the entire continent was a homogeneous entity. People often do not perceive North Africans simply as "Africans"; it's more accurate to refer to "anti-black" sentiments. The only true "anti-African" attitudes I've encountered are from Afrocentrists who struggle to accept the diversity among Africans, both in terms of genetics and physical appearances. This essentially amounts to racism against North Africans, yet it's often accepted and normalized due to the narratives surrounding "North Africans being anti-black" or "muh the slave trade".
Additionally, it's worth noting that I am from Africa, while I am unsure of your background. I find your paternalistic and condescending tone, speaking on behalf of all Africans, rather off-putting. It's important to remember that you're discussing people and a history that is not your own.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Such a weird claim. It's you who has been abandoning your old claims, which centered on modern Egyptians being the same as predynastics. My view, which is that predynastics as epitomized by Naqadans and Badarians and A Group Nubians at the Egyptian border, are predominantly African, has remained the same and has never been under pressure or threatened so far, unlike your specious claims which are all over the place and change with the weather. I've never said dynastic Egyptians are necessarily predominantly African BTW. They are only African to the extent that the preserve ancestry from palaeolithic groups ancestral to predynastics.
I didn't abandon anything and in fact, I'm the one who shared anthro papers regarding the ancient diversity that once existed in the Nile Valley. I even highlighted the variations between the Badarians and the late Predynastic/early Dynastic Egyptians. What does your "African" even mean here when you know that eurasians poured into North Africa and the Nile Valley millenias before Egypt even existed.
Why are black americans of west african descent who pretend to not claim anything so emotionally involved in this debate and repeatedly emphasizing "African" as if it mean they had a connection to this part of the continent ? The data we have is abundantly clear: Ancient Egyptians, indigenous to Northeast Africa, exhibited both morphological and genetic similarities with their Middle Eastern neighbors, while maintaining their distinct characteristics and showing some affinities with SSA.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why are black americans of west african descent who pretend to not claim anything so emotionally involved in this debate and repeatedly emphasizing "African" as if it mean they had a connection to this part of the continent ? The data we have is abundantly clear: Ancient Egyptians, indigenous to Northeast Africa, exhibited both morphological and genetic similarities with their Middle Eastern neighbors, while maintaining their distinct characteristics and showing some affinities with SSA.
Only if you're misreading the skeletal data:
... Jay Stock has a nice graphic showing Natufians gravitate towards Africans compared to pre-Natufian predecessors, in terms of overall body plan. --Swenet
Which Middle Easterners group close to Egyptians? Not the pre-Natufian ones found so far (which lack the high Egyptian ancestry in Natufians). So your argument is circular and specious. If I'm wrong, you can show me in your next post (let's see if you will).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Antalas, you're coming across as irrational and like you don't have good reading comprehension... Don't you have something better to do than projecting your paranoia and emotional baggage on me?
The response was also directed at other members,since you complain about the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If someone is defiant to the data, after being repeatedly shown why they're wrong, and if they avoid such data going forward, while continuing to make the same claims again, they're anti African, period. And if you're defending that, you're anti-African in my book as well. Like I said, some people have standing up for truth lower in priority than shitting on Afrocentrics and perceived Afrocentrics. If you deny that's going on, it's probably because you know you're doing it, too.
You're projecting. For years, you've been reading genetic and bioanthropology papers and they consistently point in a certain direction. Yet there's a persistent effort to misinterpret their findings or, as some do here, suggest an ongoing presence of "bias" or academic conspiracies involving the suppression or reversal of information
Furthermore, avoid generalizing about "Africans" as if the entire continent was a homogeneous entity. People often do not perceive North Africans simply as "Africans"; it's more accurate to refer to "anti-black" sentiments. The only true "anti-African" attitudes I've encountered are from Afrocentrists who struggle to accept the diversity among Africans, both in terms of genetics and physical appearances. This essentially amounts to racism against North Africans, yet it's often accepted and normalized due to the narratives surrounding "North Africans being anti-black" or "muh the slave trade".
Additionally, it's worth noting that I am from Africa, while I am unsure of your background. I find your paternalistic and condescending tone, speaking on behalf of all Africans, rather off-putting. It's important to remember that you're discussing people and a history that is not your own.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Such a weird claim. It's you who has been abandoning your old claims, which centered on modern Egyptians being the same as predynastics. My view, which is that predynastics as epitomized by Naqadans and Badarians and A Group Nubians at the Egyptian border, are predominantly African, has remained the same and has never been under pressure or threatened so far, unlike your specious claims which are all over the place and change with the weather. I've never said dynastic Egyptians are necessarily predominantly African BTW. They are only African to the extent that the preserve ancestry from palaeolithic groups ancestral to predynastics.
I didn't abandon anything and in fact, I'm the one who shared anthro papers regarding the ancient diversity that once existed in the Nile Valley. I even highlighted the variations between the Badarians and the late Predynastic/early Dynastic Egyptians. What does your "African" even mean here when you know that eurasians poured into North Africa and the Nile Valley millenias before Egypt even existed.
Why are black americans of west african descent who pretend to not claim anything so emotionally involved in this debate and repeatedly emphasizing "African" as if it mean they had a connection to this part of the continent ? The data we have is abundantly clear: Ancient Egyptians, indigenous to Northeast Africa, exhibited both morphological and genetic similarities with their Middle Eastern neighbors, while maintaining their distinct characteristics and showing some affinities with SSA.
Anatalas do you see yourself culturally or genetically African? Yes or no?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Only if you're misreading the skeletal data:
... Jay Stock has a nice graphic showing Natufians gravitate towards Africans compared to pre-Natufian predecessors, in terms of overall body plan. --Swenet
Which Middle Easterners group close to Egyptians? Not the pre-Natufian ones found so far (which lack the high Egyptian ancestry in Natufians). So your argument is circular and specious. If I'm wrong, you can show me in your next post (let's see if you will).
Don't make me say what I didn't say. Here examples :
quote:The Merimde specimens were tall, with a mean femur length in males of 47.1 cms, compared to 43.6cm at Maadi and 44.7 cm at Byblos (Fig 6.2). They also had long narrow crania, moderately long faces and narrow noses. The last two features distinguish them from Predynastic populations and align them more closely both with later Dynastic populations and with the southern Levant (fig. 6.3). Beck and Klug (1990) described the Maadi and Wadi Digla samples as showing long narrow crania and short faces similar to those of other Predynastic sites in Egypt, but resembling some sites in the Levant in nasal and orbital characteristics.
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
quote:Overall, these results suggest that New Kingdom Egyptians were closely related to Levantine peoples and also reveal a distinction between Egyptian and Levantine females, which may reflect differences between the sexes in level of interaction during this period of expansion.
Kaitlyn E. Sanders, Morphological changes and expansion in New kingdom egypt and the levant, 2017
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Anatalas do you see yourself culturally or genetically African? Yes or no? [/QB]
I don't share the same definition of "African" as you do. It seems your perspective on it might be somewhat disconnected, possibly because you grew up far from the continent, and as a result, you may tend to perceive it as a singular, homogeneous entity. In reality, "African" is primarily about geography only. From this standpoint, my people back home are culturally predominantly "African" (even though their culture is of course closer to cultures found in other parts of the mediterranean and the Middle East) and genetically, they exhibit around 20-30% African/non-Eurasian heritage.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Anatalas do you see yourself culturally or genetically African? Yes or no?
I don't share the same definition of "African" as you do. It seems your perspective on it might be somewhat disconnected, possibly because you grew up far from the continent, and as a result, you may tend to perceive it as a singular, homogeneous entity. In reality, "African" is primarily about geography only. From this standpoint, my people back home are culturally predominantly "African" (even though their culture is of course closer to cultures found in other parts of the mediterranean and the Middle East) and genetically, they exhibit around 20-30% African/non-Eurasian heritage.
Simple yes or no answer is all I am asking for because obviously we are talking geographically as Africa is a continent.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Don't make me say what I didn't say. Here examples
There are more Lower Egyptian predynastic samples than Maadi North, Merimde and Wadi Digla.
Source: The Origin of Civilization: The Case of Egypt and Mesopotamia from Several Disciplines, p134
So it seems your argument just consist of misrepresenting the skeletal data. Predynastics are not really all that close to Middle Easterners.
But to bring this all back to why we're talking about this in the first place. It's really your own positions that are threatened by these results. Not mine.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
If "African" is solely "geographical" then why does "African" exist as a biological reality? Even with genetic distance? Even with genetic distance why do the majority of Africans aka "neo-Africans" share a common PN2 paternal lineage going way back? Yea, of course PN2 is not the only thing that defines neo-Africans but you get what I mean.
Even if many neo-Africans don't share PN2 the fact that their genetic variation/lineages arose in Africa means that they are "African."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Garaad Awal said: Nothing has been leaked.You and the other Arabs are making things up
Papaya said: The Old Kingdom samples has been leaked as early as 2018. You heard their description. The samples we are getting are coherent with the 2018 leaks by people in the known. It is only a matter of time we get the study but for many people the long time waited was way too long. It is out of normality to regularly get stuff from Lithuania but none from Egypt. ________________________
Sunday at 5:21 PM #73
Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer
Conference: New Horizons in Biomolecular Archaeology (ISBA10) | Tartu | 13.9.2023 - 16.9.2023
Mohammad Abdelhady Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
posted in same forum somalispot.com/ discussing haplogroup I (it seems, as per chart) - arabic translated, added in blue
Source: The Origin of Civilization: The Case of Egypt and Mesopotamia from Several Disciplines, p134 So it seems your argument just consist of misrepresenting the skeletal data. Predynastics are not really all that close to Middle Easterners.
But to bring this all back to why we're talking about this in the first place. It's really your own positions that are threatened by these results. Not mine.
I fail to see how any of this contradicts what I've posted. I explicitly stated, "while maintaining their distinct characteristics and showing some affinities with SSA". It's puzzling how a single isolated trait could suddenly categorize them as non-"Caucasian", especially when such a trait is still prevalent among many modern North Africans. I don't believe I need to remind you of their SSA affinities, especially when compared to Eurasians.
Do I really have to remind you about this ? :
quote:The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They are also expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in the teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology, and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, modern egyptians resemble sub-saharan africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)."
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
You're clearly exaggerating what those sources are saying and this is what the author adds in one of your source :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So what is your point? Where is all this going? Since you're always correct, even when you blatantly debunk yourself by posting aDNA leaks claiming Egyptians were dark skinned, which you always denied.
Look at how irrational your arguments are:
Swenet: My view, which is that predynastics as epitomized by Naqadans and Badarians and A Group Nubians at the Egyptian border, are predominantly African, has remained the same and has never been under pressure Antalas: Egyptians were close to Middle Easterners Swenet: Middle Eastern samples before the Egyptian input in Natufians (Ohalo, Manot Cave) do not show close affinity to Egyptians Antalas: But that's not what I meant, don't twist my words
Antalas: [Posts predynastic Lower Egyptians to contradict me, but does not mention predynastic Heliopolis] Swenet: [I post predynastic Heliopolis for nuance] Antalas: I fail to see how this contradicts what I posted
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You're clearly exaggerating what those sources are saying
I never paraphrased those sources, I merely posted them without any comment of my own, so how could I "exaggerate"? Then you repost one of my quotes and tell me I failed to take it into account, when I posted it myself. Unlike your underhanded behaviour, I captured all the relevant anthro info I could find in nearby sections in that pdf, and posted the whole thing, even the parts hinting at Eurasian admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's puzzling how a single isolated trait could suddenly categorize them as non-"Caucasian", especially when such a trait is still prevalent among many modern North Africans.
Modern Egyptians have +20% Sub-Saharan African ancestry compared to Abusir, which you yourself have used against your opponents here. So, this is just another example of you misrepresenting skeletal remains and seemingly engaging in underhanded tactics.
On the one hand, you argue that Abusir and twitter leaks lack the +20% Sub-Saharan African, but then you post these same +20% SSA modern Egyptians when it suits you, to argue that they have predynastic Egyptian features. So, which is it. is the +20% Sub-Saharan foreign or predynastic?
One thing I have to correct is that the Maadi South sample I posted is seemingly same sample as the Wadi Digla sample already posted by Antalas. So, rather than being an entirely new sample, that book quote I posted seems to add more info to Patricia Smith's Wadi Digla sample.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] So what is your point? Where is all this going? Since you're always correct, even when you blatantly debunk yourself by posting aDNA leaks claiming Egyptians were dark skinned, which you always denied.
What is "dark skinned" even supposed to mean ? The majority of Egyptians today have dark skin. It seems to be a common American interpretation to equate dark skin with "Black African", which I don't endorse. I refute the claims of those who assert that AEs were "black" in the sense of being "similar to most modern Sub-Saharans", as such an opinion lacks support from any academic paper.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Look at how irrational your arguments are:
Swenet: My view, which is that predynastics as epitomized by Naqadans and Badarians and A Group Nubians at the Egyptian border, are predominantly African, has remained the same and has never been under pressure Antalas: Egyptians were close to Middle Easterns Swenet: Middle Eastern samples before the Egyptian input in Natufians (Ohalo, Manot Cave) do not show affinity to Egyptians Antalas: But that's not what I meant, don't twist my words
Antalas: [Posts predynastic Lower Egyptians to contradict me, but does not mention Heliopolis] Swenet: [I post Heliopolis] Antalas: I fail to see how this contradicts what I posted
As I've mentioned before, the term "African" in this context doesn't provide significant insight into their phenotypes or gene pool. Regardless of whether one chooses to characterize them as "African" or not, the fact remains that they were both morphologically and genetically much closer to Eurasians than any modern SSAs. The only exceptions are Horners and North Sudanese, who of course have substantial amount of Eurasian ancestry.
You may not be aware but I do acknowledge the presence of SSA admixture, as well as ANA ancestry and certain negroid traits among the ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I never paraphrased those sources, I merely posted them without any comment of my own, so how could I "exaggerate"? Then you repost one of my quotes and tell me I failed to take it into account, when I posted it myself.
You shared those quotes, seemingly suggesting that they weren't closely related to Middle Eastern populations solely due to the presence of alveolar prognathism in some communities. Such an argument seems rather disingenuous. What's next? Are we going to claim that North Africans aren't dentally aligned with other Eurasians just because of some bushman canines ? So yes you clearly exaggerate.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Modern Egyptians have +20% Sub-Saharan African ancestry compared to Abusir, which you yourself have used against your opponents here. So, this is just another example of you misrepresenting skeletal remains and seemingly engaging in underhanded tactics.
On the one hand, you argue that Abusir lack the +20% Sub-Saharan African, but then you post these same +20% SSA modern Egyptians when it suits you, to argue that they have predynastic Egyptian features. So, which is it. is the +20% Sub-Saharan foreign or indigenous?
Once again, you seem to be exaggerating the situation. I've come across numerous modern Egyptian samples that exhibit a similar level of SSA ancestry as those Abusir samples. There's no misrepresentation here; in fact, the academic papers themselves emphasize this striking similarity.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: If "African" is solely "geographical" then why does "African" exist as a biological reality? Even with genetic distance? Even with genetic distance why do the majority of Africans aka "neo-Africans" share a common PN2 paternal lineage going way back? Yea, of course PN2 is not the only thing that defines neo-Africans but you get what I mean.
Even if many neo-Africans don't share PN2 the fact that their genetic variation/lineages arose in Africa means that they are "African."
It really depends on how you define biologically "African", but what's evident is that North Africans exhibit significant genetic/morphological differences from SSAs. Additionally, the mutation you're highlighting constitutes such a minor portion of our DNA that it's hardly worth attention. Genetically, NAs share a much stronger affinity with Asians and Europeans. I fail to see what the issue is here, especially when considering that for instance not all Asians are alike either.
Unfortunately your Pan-African perspective appears to influence your interpretation of biological facts.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Once again, you seem to be exaggerating the situation. I've come across numerous modern Egyptian samples that exhibit a similar level of SSA ancestry as those Abusir samples. There's no misrepresentation here; in fact, the academic papers themselves emphasize this striking similarity.
Bottom line is NO Levantine sample before Natufians so far resembles Egyptians. You ran away from addressing this and you know why. Everything you've said about AE is on the line with the meaning of the Natufian component, so of course you're running from the fact that Natufians have no antiquity in the Middle East..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Their reaction stems from their frustration with a community that appears to struggle with severe inferiority complex, identity crisis, and self-hate (also often looking for acceptance). They find it concerning that this community is now boldly appropriating a history and culture that isn't theirs and aggressively confronting every North African they encounter even expressing racist feelings. [/QB]
I hear this accusation FAR too often from North Africans. There is ZERO inferiority complex among African Americans. African Americans are arguably the richest and most influential group of "Africans" on the planet (in modern times) They've icons that are literally known the world over. This isn't the 1920's or 1930's where education isn't widely abundant. Why on earth would they be self hating?
Those of us that subscribe to the idea of a "Black Egypt" do so not because we secretly loathe our own history it's because based on the current bio and cultural anthropology data at the very least an argument can be made for such. Do you really think we just woke up out of bed one morning and started shouting out "We Wuz Kangz!" Of course not lol. Contrary to popular belief the hypothesis of a "Black Egypt" does actually have some scientific merit behind it.
This video by Stuart Tyson Smith (A NON African American) gives a good scientific explanation behind the idea/hypothesis of a "Black Egypt"
As for identity crisis this exists only from the standpoint that historically AA's have viewed all Sub-Saharans as their "Black Brothers" and that is primarily a function of the WESTERN education system as well as the Western world itself ie: Nubians being the black slaves of Caucasoid Egyptians. In other words AA's and other new world Blacks claim Ancient Egypt not because they believe they themselves built it but because they believe other Black folks did.
Furthermore what about this? This seems like an identity crisis if you ask me.
As for your comment about African Americans self-hating as well as also often looking for "acceptance."Who exactly are they looking for acceptance from?
As for the nasty comments towards North Africans by AA's do they exist, absolutely I won't deny this but let's not pretend North Africans can't be equally as nasty. For every "You're just an Arab invader that's why you're in North Africa, get out!" there is a "You're just a black slave/abeed that's why you're in North Africa get out!" Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@LoSranger] I wouldn't go down this road with Antalas. For one it's off topics. For two he already knows what your saying. He's very good at circular reasoning and the thread will be derailed.
In fact Antalas should know so much from going back and forth on here that he should be schooling that Miro C guy who leaked the study. What we're seeing here was broken down multiple times to him in different ways. It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] So what is your point? Where is all this going? Since you're always correct, even when you blatantly debunk yourself by posting aDNA leaks claiming Egyptians were dark skinned, which you always denied.
What is "dark skinned" even supposed to mean ? The majority of Egyptians today have dark skin. It seems to be a common American interpretation to equate dark skin with "Black African", which I don't endorse. I refute the claims of those who assert that AEs were "black" in the sense of being "similar to most modern Sub-Saharans", as such an opinion lacks support from any academic paper.
Look at what you're arguing with. The AEs can share pigmentation and shade with other Africans but he draws the line when the comparison is made specifically with Africans who aren't Afroasiatic. Even though there are Africans who might've been on average lighter skinned than the Ancient Egyptians. So we see evidence popping up which is showing indigenous African substructure and the AE's were likely dark beyond the threshold of what anyone would blindly consider black (in the literal sense not social), but actually saying that they were black Africans is really harmful in his eyes. Why Argue with this?
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @LoSranger] I wouldn't go down this road with Antalas. For one it's off topics. For two he already knows what your saying. He's very good at circular reasoning and the thread will be derailed.
In fact Antalas should know so much from going back and forth on here that he should be schooling that Miro C guy who leaked the study. What we're seeing here was broken down multiple times to him in different ways. It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
Alright my bad bro.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Even if many neo-Africans don't share PN2 the fact that their genetic variation/lineages arose in Africa means that they are "African."
I feel you're ignoring the fact that North Africans have significant ancestry from outside of the continent and are far closer to West Asians genetically than to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even the 15kya Moroccans show the majority of their ancestry from outside the continent.
63.5% Levantine-related or 55% Dzudzuana[West-Eurasian related] depending on which study you believe.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @LoSranger] I wouldn't go down this road with Antalas. For one it's off topics. For two he already knows what your saying. He's very good at circular reasoning and the thread will be derailed.
In fact Antalas should know so much from going back and forth on here that he should be schooling that Miro C guy who leaked the study. What we're seeing here was broken down multiple times to him in different ways. It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
Alright my bad bro.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Even if many neo-Africans don't share PN2 the fact that their genetic variation/lineages arose in Africa means that they are "African."
I feel you're ignoring the fact that North Africans have significant ancestry from outside of the continent and are far closer to West Asians genetically than to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even the 15kya Moroccans show the majority of their ancestry from outside the continent.
63.5% Levantine-related or 55% Dzudzuana[West-Eurasian related] depending on which study you believe.
We don't know the portion of Ancestry which is putatively non African in the modern sense ie: representing ancestry which was not only bottlenecked but contributed to the lineages of multiple non-African groups. I take the estimates of 55% ANA related as per Lipson et, al. 2020 as likely but even that might be a modest estimate judging by the phylographic position of Skhirat-Rouazi as per Simoes 2023. I think Swenets comments above couple with the stupid quote from Miro should help break down what the Natufian component really is in light of the New Egyptian samples.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Some additional tweets by Miro make me wonder just what his agenda is:
Not even West Africa is safe from Eurocentric nuttery.
Seriously, crap like this is dangerous. All this racist pseudoscience polluting the Internet is a major contributor to the recent spate of White supremacists gunning down Black people and other minorities in public spaces. People are dying because of this garbage.
Open a Miro C thread in Kemet. This thread is specifically about the Abstracts and leaked data surrounding the abstracts. Complaints and concerns regarding the racial implications behind leakers or researchers is not up for discussion here.
Further related posts will be deleted. //MOD
[ 23. September 2023, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Elmaestro ]
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Modern Egyptians are at the bottom of this list of f3 stats precisely because they have +20% SSA.[/URL] Your whole purpose with posting the Miro leaks was to point out that ancient Egyptians don't have SSA , so this must be another one of your unconvincing clean up attempts.
Wtf ?? I just pointed out that they had it + Some type of ANA that is still not properly detected. You either confuse me for someone else or perhaps, being unable to counter my arguments, you resort to creating straw man arguments.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bottom line is NO Levantine sample before Natufians so far resembles Egyptians. You ran away from addressing this and you know why. Everything you've said about AE is on the line with the meaning of the Natufian component, so of course you're running from the fact that Natufians have no antiquity in the Middle East..
Ok we now clearly see that you have no proper counter-argument... you have to reach far back, even before Natufians, to find any evidence that contradicts my claims. However, it's important to clarify that I'm referring to historical Egyptians, their immediate ancestors and their contemporary neighbours, not individuals from 20k years ago in the Levant.
The Abusir samples, The egyptian samples from Phoenicia, these new set of samples, the uniparental results all point to a much closer connection to eurasia and specifically the Middle east. Morphologically AEs were far more close to Middle eastern people despite their southern/equatorial affinities. That's basically still the case today.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I hear this accusation FAR too often from North Africans. There is ZERO inferiority complex among African Americans. African Americans are arguably the richest and most influential group of "Africans" on the planet (in modern times) They've icons that are literally known the world over. This isn't the 1920's or 1930's where education isn't widely abundant. Why on earth would they be self hating?
Those of us that subscribe to the idea of a "Black Egypt" do so not because we secretly loathe our own history it's because based on the current bio and cultural anthropology data at the very least an argument can be made for such. Do you really think we just woke up out of bed one morning and started shouting out "We Wuz Kangz!" Of course not lol. Contrary to popular belief the hypothesis of a "Black Egypt" does actually have some scientific merit behind it.
This video by Stuart Tyson Smith (A NON African American) gives a good scientific explanation behind the idea/hypothesis of a "Black Egypt"
As for identity crisis this exists only from the standpoint that historically AA's have viewed all Sub-Saharans as their "Black Brothers" and that is primarily a function of the WESTERN education system as well as the Western world itself ie: Nubians being the black slaves of Caucasoid Egyptians. In other words AA's and other new world Blacks claim Ancient Egypt not because they believe they themselves built it but because they believe other Black folks did.
Furthermore what about this? This seems like an identity crisis if you ask me.
As for your comment about African Americans self-hating as well as also often looking for "acceptance."Who exactly are they looking for acceptance from?
As for the nasty comments towards North Africans by AA's do they exist, absolutely I won't deny this but let's not pretend North Africans can't be equally as nasty. For every "You're just an Arab invader that's why you're in North Africa, get out!" there is a "You're just a black slave/abeed that's why you're in North Africa get out!"
Like your friend Maestro told you, similar arguments have been encountered before, and it seems like you may not even be fully convinced by your own statements. Let's pretend Black americans larping as Ancient Israelites, Ancient Olmecs, Moors, etc is also because there is an "argument" for it.
Furthermore, your assertion that "because other Black folks did it" is factually incorrect, as ancient Lower Nubians do not share genetic or morphological similarities with West Africans. So, it's a bit of a stretch to take pride in something that is not your own heritage or linked to your ancestral lineage.
Regarding Stuart Tyson Smith's arguments, it's clearly lacking in substance but you may not see it simply because of Bias and ignorance. The "Abusir not representative" argument has been raised numerous times already. Why doesn't he reference the multitude of bioanthropological papers that clearly illustrate the differences between ancient Egyptians and SSAs or why he omit other genetic studies ? This points to a broader issue within modern academia, particularly in the US, where the focus on presenting "neutral", "objective" or "post-colonial" views can sometimes overshadow the importance of accurate data interpretation.
In my personal experiences, both IRL and online, North Africans have demonstrated less racism compared to blacks. However, racism towards us is often accepted and normalized by the general population due to the better reputation of the latter group and because they are often perceived as perpetual victims. On the internet, the few instances of racism I've seen from North Africans towards Blacks have typically been in reaction to Afrocentrism or appropriation.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
Yes let's focus on a single sample and disregard all the others, because we used to highlight NE African substructure didn't we ? And since we're at it let's also deny any variation in the Nile Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Look at what you're arguing with. The AEs can share pigmentation and shade with other Africans but he draws the line when the comparison is made specifically with Africans who aren't Afroasiatic. Even though there are Africans who might've been on average lighter skinned than the Ancient Egyptians. So we see evidence popping up which is showing indigenous African substructure and the AE's were likely dark beyond the threshold of what anyone would blindly consider black (in the literal sense not social), but actually saying that they were black Africans is really harmful in his eyes. Why Argue with this?
Doesn't this man share "pigmentation and shade with other Africans" ?
Yet is he genetically and morphologically akin to them ? So yes, my question was entirely valid because relying solely on skin tone doesn't provide significant insights into their genetic makeup or cranial morphology. This is the concern I have with your approach. It appears that your desire to claim them as part of a "Black African" category has led you to broaden it to such an extent that it has lost its biological significance. Skin color is a superficial and inconsequential trait when it comes to establishing genetic relationships between diverse human groups. Yet, you seem unconcerned by this as you strive to assert this claim, even to the point of labeling those who disagree as "anti-black".
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
More from Miro....
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Open a Miro C thread in Kemet. This thread is specifically about the Abstracts and leaked data surrounding the abstracts. Complaints and concerns regarding the racial implications behind leakers or researchers is not up for discussion here.
Further related posts will be deleted. //MOD Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
Yes let's focus on a single sample and disregard all the others, because we used to highlight NE African substructure didn't we ? And since we're at it let's also deny any variation in the Nile Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Look at what you're arguing with. The AEs can share pigmentation and shade with other Africans but he draws the line when the comparison is made specifically with Africans who aren't Afroasiatic. Even though there are Africans who might've been on average lighter skinned than the Ancient Egyptians. So we see evidence popping up which is showing indigenous African substructure and the AE's were likely dark beyond the threshold of what anyone would blindly consider black (in the literal sense not social), but actually saying that they were black Africans is really harmful in his eyes. Why Argue with this?
Doesn't this man share "pigmentation and shade with other Africans" ?
Yet is he genetically and morphologically akin to them ? So yes, my question was entirely valid because relying solely on skin tone doesn't provide significant insights into their genetic makeup or cranial morphology. This is the concern I have with your approach. It appears that your desire to claim them as part of a "Black African" category has led you to broaden it to such an extent that it has lost its biological significance. Skin color is a superficial and inconsequential trait when it comes to establishing genetic relationships between diverse human groups. Yet, you seem unconcerned by this as you strive to assert this claim, even to the point of labeling those who disagree as "anti-black".
...I don't even know what you're going on about. That man has derived pigmentaion genes. He also likely has autosomal ancestry representative of the later samples we now know is ode to a bronze age expansion from the levant. And the Nuerat sample is only ~4.5kya. The full sample set is obviously relevant you don't have to disregard anything. The next oldest sample (with uniparentals) is J1 for example. Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
We're not arguing semantic/social definitions of black in this thread. Define how you're using it and post on.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What is "dark skinned" even supposed to mean ? The majority of Egyptians today have dark skin. It seems to be a common American interpretation to equate dark skin with "Black African", which I don't endorse. I refute the claims of those who assert that AEs were "black" in the sense of being "similar to most modern Sub-Saharans", as such an opinion lacks support from any academic paper.
Black skin is not exclusive from dark skin, yet here we go with you and your nonsense. There are black African Egyptians in Egypt today and they have always been there just like they have always been part of "North Africa". The reason why I asked you if you call yourself African is because you are pushing this idea that "North Africans" are separated from Africans by having substantial Eurasian ancestry. Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians and theefore not African and therefore distinct from Africans, subsharan or otherwise, because the first North Africans were black and there were no Eurasians there. Not to mention there are plenty of lighter skinned Africans in North Africa and elsewhere who are still Africans, not Eurasians. Black skin in North Africa is just as indigenous as any other part of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You may not be aware but I do acknowledge the presence of SSA admixture, as well as ANA ancestry and certain negroid traits among the ancient Egyptians.
ANA is African genetic ancestry and not Eurasian and disproves your claim of ancient North Africans being segregated in features from other Africans because of Eurasian input. In other words, it shows that ancient "North African" ancestry originated in Africa not Eurasia. But even beyond that, there is no monolithic "North African" anyway and different populations in ancient times and today have different ancestry components. Just like the Nile Valley has distinct ancestry components as well. And in ancient times, there were different population clusters in the Nile and it is those populations in the South that originated the dynastic culture. Which means that it obviously originated in Africa and would have its closest affinity to other Africans and not Eurasians. That is beyond dispute, but these DNA samples are not taken from these groups.
Also, Sub Saharan is a meaningless buzz word, because nobody in their right minds would argue that the people of the Nile Valley were more related to Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region. And you keep parroting these talking points when makes no sense and has no meaning. African ancestry is ancestry that originates in Africa and of course black skin comes with that because Africa straddles the equator.
So again, unless they are actually sampling the DNA from the main population clusters in the Nile Valley during the predynastic in large numbers, this kind of DNA work is useless because it isn't telling you anything about the majority of the population.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB]Now watch how the morphologically Negroid Takarkori samples who seems to not have Eurasian ancestry (at least not shared with other Sub-Saharan Africans) will be spun post autosomal sequencing. Somehow someway they'll be Eurasianized because of the implications of Mt.DNA M and N and contemporaneous and later pocket populations particularly those of the Nile valley.
I was just reading this again and wanted to ask you, which study showed the Takarkori as morphologically "Negroid?"
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
We're not arguing semantic/social definitions of black in this thread. Define how you're using it and post on.
I use the modern definition of black because there was a time when Europeans referred to white people who wore black robes, armor, or had a sun tan or dark hair as black. And, as I previously stated, I do not consider the Yemeni boy with dark skin to be black in the "racial sense," but some Americans may. Nonetheless, I know that many Americans, including Afro-Americans, do not consider Indians, who can be nearly jet black, to be black. Furthermore, if there is no clear definition of what "black people" means, and alternative and descriptive, anthropological terms such as "Negroid," Subsaharan African, or SSA-like are dismissed, then determining what "race" the Ancient Egyptians were or whether they were black in the modern sense will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Having said that, the abstracts are an indicator but do not tell the entire story. And who knows, maybe some future papers on Ancient Egypt will be able to flip the coin. So far, it appears that the Ancient Egyptians had only a minor indigenous African ancestral component.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@LoStranger
quote:
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Having said that, the abstracts are an indicator but do not tell the entire story. And who knows, maybe some future papers on Ancient Egypt will be able to flip the coin. So far, it appears that the Ancient Egyptians had only a minor indigenous African ancestral component.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. So what Eurasians from where spread into North Africa 15,000 years go? The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Because he's a troll whose job it is to be subversive against people like us. Why haven't you gotten that already? He's only here because he wants to use this opportunity as a keyboard warrior to stop "Afrocentrists" (his definition, not mine) from potentially ever using the slightest of info against his flock of fawning Nationalists & disgruntled Bloggers. Why you think he's been instigating arguments ever since he first came to this forum? He obviously was attracted to its notoriety as a place against his fellow white compatriots from other forums and was never interested in actually learning from this one.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
Not even Hawass gave a straightforward answer to what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and he always remained vague about it. The closest we got for an answer from him was this:
quote:Zahi in responding to the inquisitive party, seemingly implied the current consensus was that, "a scholar" had "a theory" that ancient Egyptians were "hamitic", while the other major theory was supposedly that they were both "hamitic" and "semitic" peoples. Zahi made sure to add, that the one scholar who held the theory that ancient Egyptians were "hamites" was "an Ethiopian".
quote:His answer made it quite obvious, first of all, that he still held firmly to his old racial conceptions of Africa and that no faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania where he had spent some years preparing for his Ph.D. had mentioned to him that such terms, "hamitic" and "semitic", were mostly linguistic at least in academic-speak today, having little genetic significance. After all, most "semitic" dialects are still found in the modern Ethiopian/Eritrean area among the peoples formerly called "hamites".
But, to add insult to injury, he explicitly expressed the view that they weren't Africans either, equating "African" & "SSA" as synonymous with each other. So the biological concept of North Africa probably doesn't even pass by his mind. He also discounted the notion that they weren't Arabs, ironic considering this leak:
quote:He adds, "Hawass has already made this quite clear with his latest commentaries on this issue to the official Egyptian MENA news agency....the portrayal of ancient Egyptians as black has no truth to it. Egypt is not Arab, and not African, despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa" (Bauval, p. 178)
So not only doesn't he believe they were Black, he doesn't even believe they were Africans or above all Arabs, the group the Old Kingdom remains are closest to.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
quote: North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture, from Morocco. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans to Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one-third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
.....
Archaeogenetic studies on additional Iberomaurusian sites will be critical to evaluate the representativeness of Taforalt for the Iberomaurusian gene pool. We speculate that the Natufian-related ancestral population may have been widespread across North Africa and the Near East, associated with microlithic backed bladelet technologies that started to spread out in this area by at least 25,000 yr B.P. [(10) and references therein]. However, given the absence of ancient genomic data from a similar time frame for this broader area, the epicenter of expansion, if any, for this ancestral population remains unknown.
And none of those population above have anything to do with the Upper Nile Valley cemeteries and population centers of the predynastic or even dynastic, except as related to that ancestral Saharan "ANA" population.
And as far as the Natufians go, I have always argued that it was Africans moving out of the Sahara/Nile due to the environmental changes that helped spark the Neolitchic due to the need to adapt and create survival strategies, including wild grain cultivation/attempts at domestication.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
There's a clear difference in the amount of Eurasian ancestry between the groups you just mentioned and other North Africans who tend to predominate in Eurasian ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
This is the 15kya one. It's from the same 2018 study by VAN DE LOOSDRECHT
You're correct about the coastal regions though that's why I said "There's no evidence of Levantines moving deep into the Sahara." The Sahara is a completely different kettle of fish compared to the coastal regions of North Africa. So I think we're in agreement here.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
There's actually another study about the 15kya Moroccans done by Lazaridis 2018 which contested the results of the previous study I posted. It basically infers what you're saying about "ANA" moving into and contributing to the Natufians instead of the reverse. However there was still significant Eurasian ancestry within that genome as they were modelled as 45% Ancestral North African and 55% Dzudzuana (Eurasian)
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I agree, but The only real group who are predominantly Eurasian are coastal NAs and even then E1B1B is pretty dominant and that haplogroup derived in Africa and is widespread in Africa(correct me if I’m wrong)
Also the Nubians in that study (and many others for that matter) are heavily Eurasian, almost as much as A. Egyptians, are Nubians now not African? I’m just confused honestly looking for clarification
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
There's a clear difference in the amount of Eurasian ancestry between the groups you just mentioned and other North Africans who tend to predominate in Eurasian ancestry.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I agree, especially considering the Nile Valley being a crossroads so to speak I can definitely see “foreigners” being in Kmt in early periods.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Sad that we won't get clarity, I was under the assmuption that E1b1b1 was forming some sort of "Afro-Asiatic" cluster and that it could've originate in North Africa...These results from the Leak and Nuruet being both from the OK and opposite different results seems to throw a wrench in that but it's interesting your take on possible Early Mesopotamian Shemetic and Predynastic connection...because if there was it would fit in with that E1b1b1 Afro-Asiatic cluster scenario..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics.
I'm with you on E1b1b having that affinity. Why the change of mind? There were always going to be foreigners based on old anthropology identifying what they called "aliens" in dynastic Egyptian and Nubian cemeteries (which were rare or absent in most predynastic samples).
Many of the non.negroid bodieg in these pits arc undoubtedly Egyptian, but a considerable proportion of them present features of alien types."
Notice people were already calling out features foreign to the predynastic type, in the 19th and 20th century (this report was written for an expedition dating to 1907-1908). People nowadays are regressing in terms of this basic fact, which nowadays may be considered an 'Afrocentric' view by some who think any Egyptian genome is automatically biologically Egyptian, even if it carries Y-DNA J (Abusir).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
This is the 15kya one. It's from the same 2018 study by VAN DE LOOSDRECHT
So now you are jumping around trying to find a paper to match your points when the first paper was the most accurate and better reflects more recent data, such as that from Takarkori. So it sounds like you are just jumping on a bandwagon as opposed to following the facts.
You haven't disproven my point Eurasians did not sweep across all of "North Africa" 15 thousand years ago. And those papers focused on Morocco do not prove that. Morocco is not all of North Africa and ancient Morocco does not cluster with the Nile Valley, ancient or modern. The issue is using ancient coastal North Africa as a proxy for all "North Africa" over the span of thousands of years with little ancient DNA from any other parts of North Africa.
Ultimately there isn't a lot of proof ancient Eurasians sweeping across North Africa except in interpretations of small amounts of ancient DNA from certain locations in North Africa, which is focused on coastal North Africa. Like I mentioned, coastal North Africans are not representative of all ancient North African populations.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: You're correct about the coastal regions though that's why I said "There's no evidence of Levantines moving deep into the Sahara." The Sahara is a completely different kettle of fish compared to the coastal regions of North Africa. So I think we're in agreement here.
You keep claiming you agree but then jump back to arguing that coastal North Africans are the ancestors of all North Africans when they aren't. If an ANA lineage is found that would be ancestral to ancient coastal North Africans and that is an African lineage, not Eurasian.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
There's actually another study about the 15kya Moroccans done by Lazaridis 2018 which contested the results of the previous study I posted. It basically infers what you're saying about "ANA" moving into and contributing to the Natufians instead of the reverse. However there was still significant Eurasian ancestry within that genome as they were modelled as 45% Ancestral North African and 55% Dzudzuana (Eurasian)
The more recent data from the Takarkori cave supports the first. So I am not sure why there are objections to Africans being in ancient Africa are coming from as the data supports it. Not to mention the ultimate point presented here about Natufians having African ancestry. All of that lines up with the paper you originally posted which would line up with ANA ancestry being African.....
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I just recently post the info below in another thread and i will post it here as well.
Topic: What types of modern Egyptians do you think best resemble the ancients?
Some updates on dna and other talk.
Genetic history of Egypt
quote:The genetic history of Egypt reflects its geographical location at the crossroads of several major biocultural areas: North Africa, the Sahara, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa.
Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians. The subclade E-M78 of E1b1b is suggested to have originated in Northeast Africa in the area of Egypt and Libya, and is more predominant in Egypt. These two haplogroups and their various subclades in general are distributed in high frequencies in the Middle East and North Africa.
Genetic studies on ancient Egyptians
quote: Egyptologist Barry Kemp has noted that DNA studies can only provide firm conclusions about the population of ancient Egypt if the sample results are of a significant number of individuals and represent a broad geographical and chronological range. According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis on recent genetic samples such as the Amarna royal mummies has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.
Wikipedia.
Egypt–Mesopotamia relations
quote: Egypt–Mesopotamia relations were the relations between the civilisations of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, in the Middle East. They seem to have developed from the 4th millennium BCE, starting in the Uruk period for Mesopotamia (circa 4000–3100 BCE) and the half a millennium younger Gerzean culture of Prehistoric Egypt (circa 3500–3200 BCE), and constituted a largely one way body of influences from Mesopotamia into Egypt.
Prior to a specific Mesopotamian influence there had already been a longstanding influence from West Asia into Egypt, North Africa and even into some parts of the Horn of Africa and the Sahel in the form of the Neolithic Revolution which from circa 9000 BCE diffused advanced agricultural practices and technology, gene-flow, certain animals and crops and the likely spread of Proto-Afroasiatic language into the region.
Mesopotamian influences can be seen in the visual arts of Egypt, in architecture, in technology, weaponry, in imported products, religious imagery, in agriculture and livestock, in genetic input, and also in the likely transfer of writing from Mesopotamia to Egypt and generated "deep-seated" parallels in the early stages of both cultures.
2017 DNA Genome Study
quote: A 2017 study of the mitochondrial DNA and Genome wide DNA composition of Egyptian mummies has shown a high level of affinity with the DNA of the populations of Western Asia and Anatolia. The study was made on mummies of Abusir el-Meleq, near El Fayum, which was inhabited from at least 3250 BCE until about 700 CE. A shared drift analysis of the ancient Egyptian mummies is highest with ancient populations from the Levant and Anatolia, and to a lesser extent modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. the Admixture analysis and PCA show the most affinity to ancient and modern middle eastern populations.
Overall the mummies studied were closer genetically to near easterners than the modern Egyptian or indeed nearby Libyan or Sudanese populations, who today have a greater proportion of genes (8% more) coming from sub-Saharan Africa which probably arrived after the Roman period.
The data suggest a very high level of genetic input from Western Asia since ancient times, probably going back to Prehistoric Egypt and as far back as the Neolithic Era: "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, colonisation, immigration, invasion and deportation".
The study stated that "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 [native] population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level."
The study's authors cautioned that the mummies may be unrepresentative of the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole.
Gourdine, Anselin and Keita criticised the methodology of the Scheunemann et al. study and argued that the Sub-Saharan "genetic affinities" may be attributed to "early settlers" and "the relevant Sub-Saharan genetic markers" do not correspond with the geography of known trade routes".
In 2022, Danielle Candelora noted several limitations with the 2017 Scheunemann et al. study such as its “untested sampling methods, small sample size and problematic comparative data” which she argued had been misused to legitimise racist conceptions of Ancient Egypt with “scientific evidence”
Because the 2017 study only sampled from a single site at Abusir el-Meleq, Scheunemann et al.(2022) carried out a follow-up study by collecting samples from six different excavation sites along the entire length of the Nile Valley, spanning 4000 years of Egyptian history. 81 samples were collected from 17 mummies and 14 skeletal remains, and 18 high quality mitochondrial genomes were reconstructed from 10 individuals. The authors argued the analyzed mitochondrial genomes supported the results from the earlier study at Abusir el-Meleq.
In 2023, Christopher Ehret criticised the conclusions of the 2017 study which proposed the ancient Egyptians had a Levantine background based on insufficient sampling and a biased interpretation of the genetic data. Ehret argued this was reminiscent of earlier scholarship and also conflicted with existing archaeological, linguistic and biological anthropological evidence which determined the founding locales of Ancient Egypt to be the descendants of longtime populations in Northeastern Africa such as Nubia and the northern Horn of Africa. Ehret also criticised the study for asserting that there was “no sub-Saharan” component in the Egyptian population. Ehret cited other genetic evidence which had identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker “M35 /215” Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant.
Wikipedia.
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Position of modern scholarship
quote: William Stiebling and Susan Helft wrote in 2023 on the historical debate concerning the race and ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in light of recent evidence. They argued that the physical appearances would have varied along a continuum from the Delta to the Nille’s source regions in the south. The authors specified that “some ancient Egyptians looked more Middle Eastern and others looked more Sudanese or Ethiopians of today, and some may even have looked like other groups in Africa”. The authors reached the view that “Egypt was a unique civilization with genetic and cultural ties linking it to other African cultures to its south and west and to Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures to its north”.
Wikipedia.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I don't know why the mods keep letting this chump take shots at African Americans, a group of people he knows nothing about. As for identity crisis maybe he should ask his fellow North Africans why do a lot of them consider themselves as Arabs.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Significance of Takarkori in the African archaeological record:
Africa's Earliest 'Farmers' Grew Cereals in The Lush Sahara 10,000 Years Ago
quote: Some 10,000 years ago, during the early Holocene, the Sahara desert looked very different. Up until around 5,000 years ago, the region was thought to be lush and fertile, covered with vegetation and lakes. This was known as the African Humid Period.
During this time, a place now known as the Takarkori rock shelter was frequented by human hunter-gatherers. Sediments and fibre artefacts such as baskets and rock art point to a long history of a human presence.
Aquatic fauna from the Takarkori rock shelter reveals the Holocene central Saharan climate and palaeohydrography
quote: The abundant faunal remains from the Takarkori rock shelter in the Tadrart Acacus region of southwestern Libya are described. The material that covers the period between 10,200 to 4650 years cal BP illustrates the more humid environmental conditions in the Central Sahara during early and middle Holocene times. Particular attention is focussed on the aquatic fauna that shows marked diachronic changes related to increasing aridification. This is reflected in the decreasing amount of fish remains compared to mammals and, within the fish fauna, by changes through time in the proportion of the species and by a reduction of fish size. The aquatic fauna can, in addition, be used to formulate hypotheses about the former palaeohydrographical network. This is done by considering the possible location of pre-Holocene relic populations combined with observations on the topography and palaeohydrological settings of the Central Sahara.
Takarkori rock shelter (SW Libya): an archive of Holocene climate and environmental changes in the central Sahara
quote: Rock shelters in the central Saharan massifs preserve anthropogenic stratigraphic sequences that represent both a precious archive for the prehistory of the region and a powerful proxy data for Holocene palaeoenvironments. The geoarchaeological (micromorphology) and archaeobotanical (pollen analysis) approaches were integrated to investigate the anthropogenic sedimentary sequence preserved within the Takarkori rock shelter, a Holocene archaeological site located in the Libyan central Sahara (southern Tadrart Acacus massif). The site was occupied throughout the Early and Middle Holocene (African Humid Period) by groups of hunter–gatherers before and by pastoral communities later. The investigation on the inner part of the sequence allows to recognize the anthropogenic contribution to sedimentation process, and to reconstruct the major changes in the Holocene climate. At the bottom of the stratigraphic sequence, evidence for the earliest frequentation of the site by hunters and gatherers has been recognized; it is dated to c. 10,170 cal yr BP and is characterized by high availability of water, freshwater habitats and sparsely wooded savannah vegetation. A second Early Holocene occupation ended at c. 8180 cal yr BP; this phase is marked by increased aridity: sediments progressively richer in organics, testifying to a more intense occupation of the site, and pollen spectra indicating a decrease of grassland and the spreading of cattails, which followed a general lowering of lake level or widening of shallow-water marginal habitats near the site. After this period, a new occupational phase is dated between c. 8180 and 5610 cal yr BP; this period saw the beginning of the frequentation of pastoral groups and is marked by an important change in the forming processes of the sequence. Sediments and pollen spectra confirm a new increase in water availability, which led to a change in the landscape surrounding the Takarkori rock shelter with the spreading of water bodies. The upper part of the sequence, dating between c. 5700 and 4650 cal yr BP records a significant environmental instability towards dryer climatic conditions, consistent with the end of the African Humid Period.
Ancestral mitochondrial N lineage from the Neolithic ‘green’ Sahara
quote: Because Africa’s climate hampers DNA preservation, knowledge of its genetic variability is mainly restricted to modern samples, even though population genetics dynamics and back-migrations from Eurasia may have modified haplotype frequencies, masking ancient genetic scenarios. Thanks to improved methodologies, ancient genetic data for the African continent are now increasingly available, starting to fill in the gap. Here we present newly obtained mitochondrial genomes from two ~7000-year-old individuals from Takarkori rockshelter, Libya, representing the earliest and first genetic data for the Sahara region. These individuals carry a novel mutation motif linked to the haplogroup N root. Our result demonstrates the presence of an ancestral lineage of the N haplogroup in the Holocene “Green Sahara”, associated to a Middle Pastoral (Neolithic) context.
Networking through pottery characterisation at Takarkori rock shelter (Libyan Sahara, 10,200–4650 cal BP)
quote: Routine pottery analyses (optical microscopy, X-ray powder diffraction, X-ray fluorescence) and digital image processing of polarised light photomicrographs were used to answer questions on the provenance and technology of pottery assemblages belonging to Late Acacus hunter–gatherers (ca. 10,200–8000 cal BP) and Pastoral herders (ca. 8300–4650 cal BP) from Takarkori rock shelter (SW Libya, central Sahara). This integrated analytical approach on potsherds was combined with the characterisation of local clayey sediments to identify different local and proximal sources for coarse and fine sediments exploited for pottery production. Two main fabric groups (i.e. Q* and QF*) were identified among the analysed potsherds, where the sediments from the Takarkori area are compatible with the quartz-dominated fabrics (Q*). The local fabric QVe shows evidence of dung addition. Pottery with plutonic non-plastic inclusions (QF*) points to provenance from the southern edges of the Tassili n’Ajjer and is more frequent in Late Acacus and Early Pastoral layers. New insights into pottery production and circulation between Early Holocene Saharan hunter–gatherers and Pastoral communities, as well as into modes of occupation of Takarkori rock shelter, are provided.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
He just said that "the black in Egypt" is not like African Americans or Sub-Saharan Africans. He may or may not have been saying that this 'black' is close to ancient Egyptians. Probably that's what he meant, but I wouldn't call it a straightfoward admission.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
There’s actually a lot of racist animosity between Berbers and Arabs
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why the mods keep letting this chump take shots at African Americans, a group of people he knows nothing about. As for identity crisis maybe he should ask his fellow North Africans why do a lot of them consider themselves as Arabs.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree with elMaestro who, just like myself, isn't taking Antalas bait when he's trying to insert subjectives like the meaning of black or the meaning of African.
No one is inserting these subjectives, only Antalas. The alleged leaks have Ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation as "pretty dark", which has nothing to do with the discussion of what 'black' means. Likewise, the anthropology has predynastics as in an African direction compared to Bronze Age Levantines, dynastics and modern Egyptians, which has nothing to do with what 'African' means. We are talking about objectives (ie genetic and morphological distrance).
Antalas for some reason thinks he's much smarter than he really is, and that everyone is much dumber than he is.
(Not a criticism of Jari's question to Mightywolf and things like that, but Antalas underhanded behaviour)
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Lets stay on topic people. Like @Elmaestro said.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...I don't even know what you're going on about. That man has derived pigmentaion genes. He also likely has autosomal ancestry representative of the later samples we now know is ode to a bronze age expansion from the levant. And the Nuerat sample is only ~4.5kya. The full sample set is obviously relevant you don't have to disregard anything. The next oldest sample (with uniparentals) is J1 for example. Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that this individual indeed possesses derived pigmentation genes, possibly owing to the Bronze Age expansion from the Levant. Can you tell me who introduced these genes to the Levantine population and during which specific historical period ? I've noticed you express strong opinions, which seem to lack substantial basis.
It's important to remember that near eastern migrations into the Nile Valley occurred long before the foundation of Egypt, and these migrations involved people who already had ANF ancestry. Additionally, as MightyWolf has pointed out, having dark skin doesn't automatically categorize a population as racially black. That's why I emphasized that it's too simplistic to rely solely on skin color when trying to understand the characteristics of ancient Egyptians and their genetic affiliations.
I've noticed that you haven't brought up or discussed bio-anthropological papers, which are often corroborated by genetic findings, concerning these early Egyptians. I really wonder why...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @LoStranger
quote:
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Sereno et al. 2008 showed that Gobero E clustered close to Iberomaurusians and capsians so how can they suddenly be "negroid" ? (there also seems to be a chronological mistake in your paper in regards to Gobero) Also "wide morphological variation" is ambiguous. Is it Brachycephaly ? I'm also curious about why this seems to be a concern for you, given that there are numerous examples of populations with significant Eurasian ancestry that still exhibit many SSA traits simultaneously.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I agree with elMaestro who, just like myself, isn't taking Antalas bait when he's trying to insert subjectives like the meaning of black or the meaning of African.
No one is inserting these subjectives, only Antalas. The alleged leaks have Ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation as "pretty dark", which has nothing to do with the discussion of what 'black' means. Likewise, the anthropology has predynastics as in an African direction compared to Bronze Age Levantines, dynastics and modern Egyptians, which has nothing to do with what 'African' means. We are talking about objectives (ie genetic and morphological distrance).
Antalas for some reason thinks he's much smarter than he really is, and that everyone is much dumber than he is.
(Not a criticism of Jari's question to Mightywolf and things like that, but Antalas underhanded behaviour)
Of course it has all to do with what "black" means since this "pretty dark" is used by your fellow Afrocentrists, like Maestro, to advance the idea that the ancient Egyptians were unequivocally "Black Africans", and hence can legitimately be taken as a source of pride by west africans like him. Anyone questioning this or introducing nuance into this discourse is labeled as "anti-black" and perceived as uncomfortable with the notion of historical Egyptians having darker complexions.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Update info for Population history of Egypt.
Population history of Egypt Neolithic and Predynastic periods
quote: Around 8000 BCE, the Sahara had a wet phase, the Neolithic Subpluvial (Holocene Wet Phase). There is very little evidence of human occupation of the Egyptian Nile Valley during the Early and Middle Holocene periods. This may be due to problems in site preservation. The Middle Nile Valley (Nubia) had population settlements attested by occupational sequence since the Pleistocene and the Holocene. People from the surrounding areas moved into the Sahara, and evidence suggests that the populations of the Nile Valley reduced in size. Several scholars have argued that the origins of the Egyptian civilisation derived from pastoral communities which emerged in both the Egyptian and northern Sudanese regions of the Nile Valley in the 5th millennium BCE.
According to historian, Donald Redford (1992), the period from 9000 to 6000 BC had left very little in the way of archaeological evidence. Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt. Some studies based on morphological,genetic,and archaeological data have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region.
However, other scholars have disputed this view and cited linguistic, biological anthropological, archaeological and genetic data which does not support the hypothesis of a mass migration from the Levantine during the prehistoric period. According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, this view posits that the ancient Egyptians are the same original population group as Nubians and other Saharan populations, with some genetic input from Arabian, Levantine, North African, and Indo-European groups who have known to have settled in Egypt during its long history. Historian Christopher Ehret, cited genetic evidence which had identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker "M35/215" Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant. Ehret argued that this genetic distribution paralleled the spread of the Afrasian language family with the movement of people from the Horn of Africa into Egypt and added a new demic component to the existing population of Egypt 17,000 years ago.
Predynastic Egypt is conventionally said to begin about 6000 BCE. Between 5300 and 3500 BCE. the wet phase declined and increasing aridity pushed the Saharan peoples into locations with reliable water, such as oases and the Nile Valley.The mid-Holocene droughts drove refuges from the Southern Levant and the Eastern Sahara into Egypt, where they mixed and settled.
From around 4800 to 4300 BCE, the Merimde culture, known from the typesite Merimde Beni-Salame, flourished in Lower Egypt.Later, Lower Egypt was also the home of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian).
Around 3000 BCE, the wet phase of the Sahara came to an end. The Saharan populations retreated to the south towards the Sahel, and east in the direction of the Nile Valley. It was these populations, in addition to Neolithic farmers from the Near East, that likely played a role in the formation of the Egyptian state as they brought their food crops, sheep, goats, and cattle to the Nile Valley.
Wikipedia
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @LoStranger
quote:
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Sereno et al. 2008 showed that Gobero E clustered close to Iberomaurusians and capsians so how can they suddenly be "negroid" ? (there also seems to be a chronological mistake in your paper in regards to Gobero) Also "wide morphological variation" is ambiguous. Is it Brachycephaly ? I'm also curious about why this seems to be a concern for you, given that there are numerous examples of populations with significant Eurasian ancestry that still exhibit many SSA traits simultaneously.
Now you are misrepresenting Serreno:
quote: Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara).
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995 Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Hommes fossiles du Sahara : peuplements holocènes du Mali septentrional / Olivier Dutour
quote: This is the first significant study of a fossil human population from the Sahara Desert. The sample is large, the methods of analysis are sophisticated and the results are commensurately important. Until recently, the prehistory of the southwestern Sahara has been virtually unknown. This report will stand as a landmark study of the physical anthropology of that area.
The report deals with two distinct populations who lived in the south-western Sahara during the early and middle Holocene. The earlier and better sampled of these populations is Mechtoid. These were a robust and Cro-Magnon-like type, who were originally known only from the Maghreb where they were associated with the Iberomaurusian : le parent pauvre de la Palethnologie maghrébine (Gobert, 1954 : 441). Because of their limited distribution and restricted association, Mechtoids were not regarded as very important in the story of human physical development. Subsequently, they have been found associated with the later Capsian industries in the Maghreb, and with the Late Palaeolithic industries of the Nile Valley, from more than 20 000 until about 12 000 years ago. The earliest Mechtoid remains now known were found with an Upper Palaeolithic industry in the Nile Valley and are about 35 000 years old. Thus, it is now apparent that Mechtoid groups lived across the whole of North Africa, and were the makers of at least most of the later Palaeolithic industries there. Their relationship to the makers of the earlier, Middle Palaeolithic is uncertain, but is likely to have been one of descent. Dutour's study shows that this important human type survived in North Africa until much later than had been thought, contributing to North African cultural development even down to the Neolithic period.
Nowhere do these papers support the idea of "Eurasian types" spreading across North Africa 20,000 years ago.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
What is all of this wikipedia data supposed to be saying that is relevant?
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
What is all of this wikipedia data supposed to be saying that is relevant?
That was suppose to be included with the first page with the dna info i recently posted above but just split up. I wanted to combined the dna info with the above other info since dna was not the only thing talk about in the thread even if that's the main focus.
Note- Just a reminder that most of the population of ancient egypt live in upper egypt.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Antalas You're just talking to talk or typing to type. The reason why I don't post any papers in rebutting you is because I don't have to. You're refuted by logic. For example you're looking for chronology in the NJT of vincenzo 2015, while highlighting Gobero e's (or a regarding Vincenzo) mechtoid affinity, while also stating Eurasians can have multiple SSA traits at random. In attempt to bulletproof your non-point (cause you actually don't have an argument, you're just trying to refute everything I say.) you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. And you did all of this in the face of an abstract insinuating a novel ancestral lineage.
Also, regarding your question about levantines and light skinned pigmentation being introduced to where ever, etc. etc. look at your leak. You answered your own question pages and ages ago.
I already made it clear we aren't discussing sociology in this thread, so the mental gymnastics about "black people and west Africans" will be ignored by me and I urge other's to do the same. But I want people to see how desperate you are for attention so I won't delete it. But further posts will be removed.
Any who I was discussing the topic with Lostranger, sort yourself out & let the grown men talk.
@Lostranger Just in case you didn't know, there are two set of burials at Gobero each likely representing a different population. Kiffian, Gobero E and Tenerean, M according to Sereno and Gobero A and B according to Vincenzo respectively. Kiffian were more mechtoid and robust while Tenereans were more gracile akin to modern SSA populations however with short statures. The eastern Iberomaurasian pool used in Serano clustered with later Capsians, Samples form Mali; Hassi el Abiod, and Gobero E who trended toward the later samples (Gobero m,). The NJT in Vincento doesn't group phylogeny, ie not assigning chronology but grouping based on similarity/phenetics. The Takartori 2 groups the two Gobero populations together likely from being intermediate or like both in measurements. If you need further insight on their biological classifications you can inquire or take it to pms.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
There's actually a lot going on with these leaks
The main "controversy" so to speak is that Basically someone leaked some o the results which has a significant amount of genetic lineage called CHG, and further this was from OK samples from Upper Egypt.
This basically means that the OK A. Egyptians were more "Eurasian" than Modern Egyptians..This is seen in the images posted by Nassa, someone(The Miro C dude?) put some of the samples into a program that showed 0 SSA who are modeled as Yoruba in that image.
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
Also funny with this Miro dude(I know Maestro does'nt want this thread to be about him but I think its relevant.)
This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Naw this dude isn't biased, he isnt using same old tired tolken Nubians are Kakazoid in one breath then Abid slaves in the Next...
Like you really hate Hoteps so much you have to lie, obfuscate and misrepresnt A. Egyptian history and A.Egyptian/NHSY relations to make your argument, and at that point, aren't you no better than the Hoteps? Yet Hoteps remain the token devil in the Biodiversity Totem Pole..
Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Whatever, IDK, you can probably get a better breakdown from other Members like Lostranger or Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I also agree with Maestro to ignore the semantics game of "Dark Skin" as folks will just post cherry picked images of various dark skinned non Africans like someone did earlier of the most Eurasian looking Socotran despite other more "Africoid" looking Socotrans existing
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Another Sample is supposedly "A Woman from Thbes who some are guessing is Takabuti
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
Then we go to the list of haplogroups above That whole section of G2 is marked Djehutynakh, so that seems to be all that one mummy and it was already tested as of a rare U5a on the mitochondrial side
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian? For example the human material left at Nabta Playa as well as the child mummy at Uan Muhuggiag were definitely Negroid(s) as the studies on them mentioned mostly no North African affinities (there were some minor North African traits detected in Nabta Playa samples but they were mostly Sub-Saharan.)
However from the sound of it, it seems like the populations at Gobero aren't Negroid (at least not mostly) but instead line up with North African Iberomaurusians and Caspians whom from what I understand are definitely not "Negroid."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
I'm not advocating for the Dynastic race theory.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
No predynastic egyptians are grouped with SSA, they appear overall even more caucasoid than Horners :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Some thing to note the original initial pre-peer-reviewed abstract had samples with no CHG found, and these were also OK.
that's not from the same study.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Are you suggesting that all nubians were similar to each other ? Don't you see in the picture above that some nubians cluster very close to the SSA cluster ? Some are literally part of it (nub-X). Can't you see that some nubians also cluster with egyptians and closer to europeans than SSA ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Aren't egyptians dark skinned (Especially Upper egyptians) ? Isn't E1b1b the dominant paternal haplogroup in Modern North Africa ? Indeed make of that what you will.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] I also agree with Maestro to ignore the semantics game of "Dark Skin" as folks will just post cherry picked images of various dark skinned non Africans like someone did earlier of the most Eurasian looking Socotran despite other more "Africoid" looking Socotrans existing
His point was to show that the combo "Dark skin" + high Natufian-like ancestry doesn't make people necessarily physically similar to what we consider "Black".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian? For example the human material left at Nabta Playa as well as the child mummy at Uan Muhuggiag were definitely Negroid(s) as the studies on them mentioned mostly no North African affinities (there were some minor North African traits detected in Nabta Playa samples but they were mostly Sub-Saharan.)
However from the sound of it, it seems like the populations at Gobero aren't Negroid (at least not mostly) but instead line up with North African Iberomaurusians and Caspians whom from what I understand are definitely not "Negroid."
The Serreno paper shows that these populations cluster together as Africans. There are no Eurasians populations part of that particular paper. You are trying to interpret the data in such a way to try and inject Eurasians into something that has nothing to do with Eurasia, at least from the data provided. Both of the papers I posted state clearly that the Mechtoid populations were spread across Northern Africa from Nile over to the Maghreb 20,000 years ago. And neither of those papers claim that they shared affinities with Eurasians except in the general case of having 'cromagnon' features. Therefore, the affinity of these mechtoids with Iberomaurisans is a sign of African affinity through common ancestry not of Eurasian affinity. The point was people take these papers and twist them to try and argue Eurasians somehow spread over Northern Africa 20,000 years ago, when the papers literally say the opposite. If there was Eurasian introgression it came at the later stages of occupation of these sites, including those of the Iberomaurisans. So basically what the evidence is saying is that ancient North African populations 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago were primarily of African origin. But that isn't what certain folks want to hear who are arguing that North Africa has always been separated from the rest of Africa due to Eurasian migrations from this timeframe, which these papers do not support. Gracile does not mean Eurasian. Negroid/non Negroid is not a marker for African/Non African population is what I am saying. These were African populations.
If they wanted relationships to Eurasians then they would have to post cranial metrics for various contemporary Eurasian populations to see how they cluster.....
quote:Figure 6. Principal components analysis of craniofacial dimensions among Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
Plot of first two principal components extracted from a mean matrix for 17 craniometric variables (Tables 4, 7) in 9 human populations (Table 3) from the Late Pleistocene through the mid-Holocene from the Maghreb and southern Sahara. Seven trans-Saharan populations cluster together, whereas Late Pleistocene Aterians (Ater) and the mid-Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-m) are striking outliers. Axes are scaled by the square root of the corresponding eigenvalue for the principal component. Abbreviations: Ater, Aterian; EMC, eastern Maghreb Capsian; EMI, eastern Maghreb Iberomaurusian; Gob-e, Gobero early Holocene; Gob-m, Gobero mid-Holocene; Mali, Hassi-el-Abiod, Mali; Maur, Mauritania; WMC, western Maghreb Capsian; WMI, western Maghreb Iberomaurusian.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: There's actually a lot going on with these leaks
The main "controversy" so to speak is that Basically someone leaked some o the results which has a significant amount of genetic lineage called CHG, and further this was from OK samples from Upper Egypt.
This basically means that the OK A. Egyptians were more "Eurasian" than Modern Egyptians..This is seen in the images posted by Nassa, someone(The Miro C dude?) put some of the samples into a program that showed 0 SSA who are modeled as Yoruba in that image.
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
Also funny with this Miro dude(I know Maestro does'nt want this thread to be about him but I think its relevant.)
This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Naw this dude isn't biased, he isnt using same old tired tolken Nubians are Kakazoid in one breath then Abid slaves in the Next...
Like you really hate Hoteps so much you have to lie, obfuscate and misrepresnt A. Egyptian history and A.Egyptian/NHSY relations to make your argument, and at that point, aren't you no better than the Hoteps? Yet Hoteps remain the token devil in the Biodiversity Totem Pole..
Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Whatever, IDK, you can probably get a better breakdown from other Members like Lostranger or Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Basically it is just the same old game of trickling out limited genetic data from the Nile Valley in order to try and support a narrative as long as possible. And some people in the online community are so desperate for data they will jump on "leaks" (whatever that means), just to have something to talk about. Because the scientific community is obviously dragging their feet DNA testing the various cemeteries from various time frames and regions that they have across the region.
Concerning CHG, note how comprehensive they are in papers discussing the DNA evolution across Europe compared with what they do for Africa, such as this study from Europe:
quote: Map of samples, sites and archaeological cultures mentioned in this study. Temporal and geographic distribution of archaeological cultures is shown for two windows in time a, b that are critical for our data. The zoomed map c shows the location of studied individuals from various sites in the Caucasus. Symbols and sample names correspond with Fig. 2 and Supplementary Data 1. The dashed line illustrates a hypothetical geographic border between genetically distinct Steppe and Caucasus clusters. (BB Bell Beaker; CW Corded Ware; TRB Trichterbecher/Funnel Beaker; SOM Seine-Oise-Marne complex). (All three maps were prepared by S. Reinhold and D. Mariaschk based on freely available geological and vegetation GIS-data from https://www.usgs.gov/,https://www.naturalearthdata.com/ and modified after Stone, T.A., and P. Schlesinger. 2003. RLC Vegetative Cover of the Former Soviet Union, 1990. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/700.)
That said, if you go back to the paper where they detailed the genomes of CHG, it says the following:
quote: (a). Genomic affinity of modern populations1 to Kotias, quantified by the outgroup f3-statistics of the form f3(Kotias, modern population; Yoruba). Kotias shares the most genetic drift with populations from the Caucasus with high values also found for northern Europe and central Asia. (b). Sources of admixture into modern populations: semicircles indicate those that provide the most negative outgroup f3 statistic for that population. Populations for which a significantly negative statistic could not be determined are marked in white. Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian?
Evidence of human occupation at Gobero started during the Early Holocene dating around 7550 BCE to 6250 BCE (9500 to 8200 BP).[5] The Early Holocene occupation is associated with the Kiffian culture
The Middle Holocene occupation is associated with the Ténérians, who settled the area 1000 or more years after the Kiffians, 6250 BCE to 2550 BCE (8200 to 4500 BP)
Distribution of archaeological sites with human remains from the Iberomaurusian (top) Capsian (middle) and Neolithic (bottom) periods in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia
The Iberomaurusian Taforalt sample within an African-West-Eurasian PCA model. Loosdrecht et al. (2018) analysed genome-wide data from seven ancient individuals from the Iberomaurusian Grotte des Pigeons site near Taforalt in north-eastern Morocco. The fossils were directly dated to between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present. The scientists found that all males belonged to haplogroup E1b1b Taforalt individuals carried the mtDNA Haplogroup N subclades like U6 and M which points to population continuity in the region dating from the Iberomaurusian period.[9][10]
The Iberomaurusian is a backed bladelet lithic industry found near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. It is also known from a single major site in Libya, the Haua Fteah, where the industry is locally known as the Eastern Oranian.[note 1] The Iberomaurusian seems to have appeared around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), somewhere between c. 25,000 and 23,000 cal BP. It would have lasted until the early Holocene c. 11,000 cal BP.
The Capsian culture was a Mesolithic and Neolithic culture centered in the Maghreb that lasted from about 8,000 to 2,700 BC
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Very interesting. This pre-Natufian paper (it was published in 2015) has Middle Easterners as EEF + African, which appears to have been mostly reframed as/subsumed under Levant N. (Arabs, Levant) and Natufian (Hadramawt, Soqotri) with better aDNA.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Modeling the Soqotri gene pool requires a ~55% contribution from a Natufian-like source, while models with a Neolithic Levantine-related source do not fit. This Natufian-related source is also required to model the ancestry of present-day people from the Hadramawt, while other groups living in Arabia and the Levant often are mostly better modeled with a Neolithic Levantine-related proxy. These data suggest that Natufian-like ancestry was also present in the Arabian Peninsula and that later Levantine-related ancestry may not have permeated throughout the entirety of this region. Soqotra was home to a small and consanguineous population during the Medieval Period:
Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Very interesting. This pre-Natufian paper (it was published in 2015) has Middle Easterners as EEF + African, which appears to have been mostly reframed as/subsumed under Levant N. (Arabs, Levant) and Natufian (Hadramawt, Soqotri) with better aDNA.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Modeling the Soqotri gene pool requires a ~55% contribution from a Natufian-like source, while models with a Neolithic Levantine-related source do not fit. This Natufian-related source is also required to model the ancestry of present-day people from the Hadramawt, while other groups living in Arabia and the Levant often are mostly better modeled with a Neolithic Levantine-related proxy. These data suggest that Natufian-like ancestry was also present in the Arabian Peninsula and that later Levantine-related ancestry may not have permeated throughout the entirety of this region. Soqotra was home to a small and consanguineous population during the Medieval Period:
Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
Genetically the population(s) you're alluding to has been identified. By "tricking" the admixture algorithm by using the homozygous Taforalt samples and a high quality Ifri_Ouberid of Epipaleolithic morocco in the same run. North East African ancestry has been parsed.. What essentially happened is the Taforalt individuals tightly clustered together causing the heterozygousity of the later Oub02 to be split into proper ancestral components, one representing local Iberomaurasian and the other representing the pulse migration form an eastern source like we spoke about a couple years ago with Capra. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Interesting run. But I think we are really looking for a relatively exclusive group of populations due to the component being maximized in Natufians, and dynastic Egyptians (ie Nuerat), and to a somewhat lesser extent in Taforalt, then even less in African pastoralists, Luxmanda, Levant N and among the lowest in Bronze Age Levantines.
The Natufian component also got watered down quickly, compared to the EEF-like component which is present in Dzudzuana at 24ky and is still at similar levels in Iceman and Middle Neolithic farmers. (Though Natufian-like is still high in Egypt by OK times). This seems to me consistent with a somewhat exclusive ancestry that that got replaced due to the lack of closely related migrants reinforcing the component in places outside of Egypt.
EDIT: re: exclusiveness
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area. (Without necessarily implying they were numerically dominant).
Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants, and those who went farthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish (§4.2; 5.2; 6.2). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
Though I would disagree with him (ie Lipinski) on including Eberites (Edomites, Hebrews, Moabites) and Canaanites as particularly influenced by these migrations. We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians). I would also mainly look to the earliest settlers for resemblance to predynastics, not so much the later periods.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
All add further in Laymen's terms for people who might not understand what was said prior All three abstracts in the OP works in corroboration with previously reported data. Natufians were on the receiving end of an African component which peaked in East African populations. The Iberomaurasian also received this admixture likely acquiring E-m78. This African ancestor was likely a Mesolithic Egyptian forager/gather based on the center of their ancestry distribution. As you can see in the graphs posted this component follows the distribution of African related ancestry in doug's post and is high in all Egyptian samples ancient and modern. See it's distribution in Yemeni samples for example.
Furthermore in relation to Takarkori... We can all get the idea that there was a bit of diversity in Saharan/North African populations now. Modern central Saharan populations have a higher chance of showing relict components distantly related to North African components (Natufian/Iberomaurasian), This is because they've receive less admixture from further African populations than both the Eastern Nilotic populations and the Western African populations. This very phenomena has been hinted at timelessly through archaeology.
The Mechtoid traits which grouped Gobero with Iberomaurasians weren't good signal of relatedness by descent and were even thought to be superficial by some researchers. Capsians & Iberomaurasians and to a lesser extent even A group Nubians can be grouped together while, Hassi el Abiod and their likely descendants at Kobadi, Gobero and Takartori can be group with other Africans. Now with some cracks opening up due to genetics we can see that the Iberomaurasians homogenized further grouping them with other "Iberomaurasians" eastern Oranian", Capsians and A group Nubians because they all had specific North African ancestry. The other Saharans were related but might not have received this ancestry until more recent times which in then was possibly attached to legit Eurasian ancestry.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: There's actually a lot going on with these leaks
The main "controversy" so to speak is that Basically someone leaked some o the results which has a significant amount of genetic lineage called CHG, and further this was from OK samples from Upper Egypt.
This basically means that the OK A. Egyptians were more "Eurasian" than Modern Egyptians..This is seen in the images posted by Nassa, someone(The Miro C dude?) put some of the samples into a program that showed 0 SSA who are modeled as Yoruba in that image.
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
Also funny with this Miro dude(I know Maestro does'nt want this thread to be about him but I think its relevant.)
This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Naw this dude isn't biased, he isnt using same old tired tolken Nubians are Kakazoid in one breath then Abid slaves in the Next...
Like you really hate Hoteps so much you have to lie, obfuscate and misrepresnt A. Egyptian history and A.Egyptian/NHSY relations to make your argument, and at that point, aren't you no better than the Hoteps? Yet Hoteps remain the token devil in the Biodiversity Totem Pole..
Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Whatever, IDK, you can probably get a better breakdown from other Members like Lostranger or Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Thank you... yes the old dynastic race theory has returned but of course, and yes Miro's racism is relevant to this thread if you are going to use interpretation of " leaks "
Both Samuel Mortons one of the early figures of scientific racism, he argued against monogenism, the single creation story of the Bible, instead supporting polygenism, a theory of multiple racial creations. Petrie were two of the founders of Scientific racism
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
[/qb][/QUOTE]Basically it is just the same old game of trickling out limited genetic data from the Nile Valley in order to try and support a narrative as long as possible. And some people in the online community are so desperate for data they will jump on "leaks" (whatever that means), just to have something to talk about. Because the scientific community is obviously dragging their feet DNA testing the various cemeteries from various time frames and regions that they have across the region.
@Doug
This exactly! These are politically managed releases and studies. limited to extract the data they want put forward.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
Egyptologist 7 formerly Phoenician7 is very biased as to deny no African influence in Ancient Egypt, very one-sided and her former name suggest the Levantine bias
.
.
Based on just one location site Schuenemann made broad based conclusion: "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." Hawass, up to this point seems not to publish articles with that extent of presumption.
The study was of 90 mummies all at the same location. All but a few were late period. All 90 of the mummies were tested for maternal mitochondrial DNA except for 3 which also had paternal YDNA results (as above) and these 3 were all late period (as we see on the chart)
Thus it is not fair at all for Schuenemann et al to make that broad sweeping statements (and likewise her co-authors which included the well known geneticists Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause)
So now we have a new unpublished article upcoming and they may make similar presumptions, so we are on wait and see at this point until they release the hard data
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
And what relevance do those other people especially Clyde Winters of all people have to do with this thread? Stay on topic. And when I mean topic I mean actual academia material.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The video talks about the new abstract and quotes from it as well as has quotes from two different Egyptsearch members as well as other videos that are influential on youtube with high view counts relative to the topic. I don't think it should not be referred to even if I disagree with it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
And what relevance do those other people especially Clyde Winters of all people have to do with this thread? Stay on topic. And when I mean topic I mean actual academia material.
Word. We already have enough whiny threads about individual youtubers. They need to keep that social commentary and youtuber popularity contest in the respective threads which are already too many and repetitive as it is.
(Not a request for moderation, just expressing agreement that some people don't want to see that type of content follow them in academic threads).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
And what relevance do those other people especially Clyde Winters of all people have to do with this thread? Stay on topic. And when I mean topic I mean actual academia material.
Word. We already have enough whiny threads about individual youtubers. They need to keep that social commentary and youtuber popularity contest in the respective threads which are already too many and repetitive as it is.
(Not a request for moderation, just expressing agreement that some people don't want to see that type of content follow them in academic threads).
I'm thinking about making a big thread for all of that. Or moving them all to the Deshret section.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)
Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy; Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany Co-authors: Christina Wurst1,2, Alice Paladin1, Valentina Coia1, Frank Maixner1, Albert Zink
1 Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy
2 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
Abstract: Due to high-throughput sequencing and targeted enrichment methods, ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis is emerging as a valuable tool for the investigation of ancient Egypt’s demographic history. However, the recovery of aDNA from Egyptian human remains is challenging due to poor DNA preservation and a high contamination risk. Thus, so far, less than five ancient Egyptian genome-wide datasets have been published. In addition, mitochondrial genomes are almost exclusively limited to a timespan ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period (1550 BCE - 395 CE) as well as to a single archaeological site (Abusir el-Meleq). To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA),
we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals
>> dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom.
Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale.
Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past.
(bolded added)
Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer Eurac Research PhD Student Institute for Mummy Studies Bolzano, South Tyrol, Northern Italy
ALBERT ZINK Eurac Research Head of Institute Institute for Mummy Studies Bolzano, South Tyrol, Northern Italy
Dr. Albert Zink received his PhD (1998) at the University of Munich, where he also finished his habilitation (Assistant Professor) in 2005. He is director of the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman in Bolzano, Italy. His major scientific interest is the evolution of infectious diseases and the impact of diseases on historic populations and their development. He is currently president of the Society of Anthropologists in Germany.
____________________________________
2023 High-coverage genome of the Tyrolean Iceman reveals unusually high Anatolian farmer ancestry
Ke Wang,1,2,3 Kay Prüfer,2 Ben Krause-Kyora,4 Ainash Childebayeva,2 Verena J. Schuenemann,5,6,7 Valentina Coia,8 Frank Maixner,8 Albert Zink,8,∗ Stephan Schiffels,2 and Johannes Krause2,9, ___________________
May 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
Verena J. Schuenemann, et al.
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 Anatolia
___________________
February 17, 2010 Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
Zahi Hawass, PhD; Yehia Z. Gad, MD; Somaia Ismail, PhD; Rabab Khairat, MSc; Dina Fathalla, MSc; Naglaa Hasan, MSc; Amal Ahmed, BPharm; Hisham Elleithy, MA; Markus Ball, MSc; Fawzi Gaballah, PhD; Sally Wasef, MSc; Mohamed Fateen, MD; Hany Amer, PhD; Paul Gostner, MD; Ashraf Selim, MD; Albert Zink, PhD; Carsten M. Pusch, PhD
Eurac Research is a private research center headquartered in Bolzano, South Tyrol. The center has eleven institutes and five centers. Eurac Research has more than 800 partners spread across 56 countries. Core funding is provided by the autonomous province of South Tyrol, with additional financing coming from membership fees and European project funds.[3]
Institutes and Center
Institute for Minority Rights Institute for Public Management Institute for Comparative Federalism Institute for Applied Linguistics Institute for Alpine Environment Institute for Earth Observation Institute for Regional Development Institute for Renewable Energy Institute for Biomedicine Institute of Mountain Emergency Medicine Institute for Mummy Studies Center for Advanced Studies Center for Sensing Solutions Center for Mountain Safegard Research Center for Autonomy terraXcube
________________________________
Eurac Research Headquarters
Bolzano's Viale Druso. The historic building in which our research center has one of its headquarters was renovated in 1995 and supplemented with modern elements.
The "Ex-GIL" Building The historical part of the complex was built between 1934 and 1936 by order of the fascist regime for the female fascist youth known at the time as GIL (Gioventù Italiana del Littorio). Francesco Mansutti and Gino Miozzo were the original architects, and both came from Padua. At the time the site included classrooms, lecture halls, and a gym. The architecture of the building sections and the directly adjacent Druso Bridge reveals the clean lines of “Razionalismo” as well as influences of the opulent “Stile Imperiale”, which referenced buildings of the ancient Roman Empire. After the end of fascism, the former GIL building (“Ex-GIL” as it was called) became a stone monument to a time that was never to return. Over the years the building housed a supermarket, cinema, various storage and commercial spaces, bookbinders, and an animal shelter. Over time it fell into disrepair. An international architectural competition launched in 1995 finally saved the complex from collapse. The winning design was by Klaus Kada, an architect from Graz whose project juxtaposed the listed building with modern architecture. Through elaborate technical procedures, the building retained its old facades and its original coat of Pompeian red paint. Additions of glass, concrete and steel complement the structure. Bridges connect the individual parts of the building and in this way reflect not only the coexistence of old and new but also a liberal shift from the building’s repressive history. ___________________________
When conflict is written in stone: Fascist legacy in South Tyrol Alessia Setti 01 March 2021
In summer 2020, protests originating in the United States against police brutality and racism soon spread to Europe and the debate about the legacy of monuments and statues commemorating controversial historical personalities re-emerged. However, there is a place in Europe that for a long time has already been dealing with this issue. Indeed, Italy’s Autonomous Province of Bolzano/South Tyrol still hosts some remnants of the Fascist regime. What is South Tyrol’s approach and, above all, how do South Tyroleans make use of that historical period?
Remove, preserve, or neutralise? A South Tyrolean trilemma...
If no consensus can be reached on the future of these monuments, however, one aspect certainly gets everyone to agree: Fascist monuments are still an open wound for most South Tyroleans.
______________________________
^^a Eurac blog article discussing the controversy over re-use of buildings dating back to Italian fascism yet does not mention the very institution she is writing for is headquartered in one of these building. I do see Eurac has on their long list of "Institutes" an Institute for Minority Rights, for whatever that's worth, I haven't looked into it
Albert Zink who is probably the mentor or senior advisor to of the young researcher Alexandra Mussauer's upcoming article on the Egyptian mummies (he's a co-author) I notice the connections here with Zink. He has been co-author in articles both with Hawass (Egypt) and Schuenemann (Germany)
So there seems some connection between the German and Egyptian researchers (although this institute is in Italy ) and this connection despite Hawass' not liking how Germany has not returned the Nefertiti bust and other artifacts (although one could distinguish between the German government and private research companies in Germany)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I Cant find any of these anywhere, but I did find this:
quote: Four thousand years of maternal ancestry in ancient Egypt illuminated by MITOCHONDRIAL genome sequencing
10th World Congress on Mummy Studies (Bolzano, 05/09/2022 - 09/09/2022) 2022
Mussauer, Alexandra(Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Wurst, Christina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Paladin, Alice (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Coia, Valentina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Maixner, Frank (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Helmbold- Doyé, Jana (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany); Del Vesco, Paolo (Museo Egizio, Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino, Turin, Italy); Rosendahl, Wilfried (Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany); Zink, Albert (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy);
During the last decade, the population genetic history of ancient Egypt has been illuminated by an increasing number of genetic studies on ancient Egyptian human remains from different time periods utilizing high-throughput sequencing methods. Nonetheless, mitochondrial genomes representative of the Egyptian population prior to the New Kingdom (1550 - 1069 BC) are still scarce. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. These individuals have been recovered from different archaeological sites in Egypt and encompass a timeframe ranging from about 4000 BC to AD 800. All samples were analyzed using next- generation sequencing methods, including mitochondrial DNA enrichments. Following the application of criteria for authenticity and quality control, we were able to reconstruct 34 mitochondrial genomes of ancient Egyptian individuals, predominantly from southern Egypt, that have been dated from the Predynastic to the Byzantine Period (3600 BC - AD 650). Our data supports the presence of western Eurasian and northeastern African mitochondrial haplogroups in Egypt throughout antiquity. Furthermore, the mitochondrial genomes extend the pool of available datasets, adding novel information for the older periods of Egypt’s past as well as for a broader geographical context. Thereby, this study constitutes another important step for the reconstruction of Egypt’s genetic history, which in the future could be further investigated by genome-wide studies.
From an organization I haven't heard of before, the Eurac Instute of Mummy Studies:
quote: Snapshots of the past times that help us to gain unique insights into our present. By studying skeletons and mummies from all over the world and from different historical periods, we gain knowledge on population history, the development of pathogens and the preservation of archaeological finds.
(^ bolded added ) As Brandon pointed out earlier this conference presentation from 2022 is probably the same analysis at the top of this post, the other conference of 2023 ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)
Project duration: January 2017 - December 2023
______________________________________
^ So at this point they started with 99 mummies and the study was mitochondrial DNA but at top in what mightywolf quoted in the OP they added 7 of these individuals Y-DNA also:
(from top of this post)
a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA),
we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals
>> dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE)
Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale.
I hade overlooked this earlier when I was asking where the number 7 came from, it was there all along
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A video by YouTuber Egyptologis7 about the abstract. In the video she also discusses the Abusir study. She criticizes some YouTubers like "The Kings Monologue", "Asar Imhotep" and "Mr Imhotep" and she also mentions Clyde Winters.
And what relevance do those other people especially Clyde Winters of all people have to do with this thread? Stay on topic. And when I mean topic I mean actual academia material.
Word. We already have enough whiny threads about individual youtubers. They need to keep that social commentary and youtuber popularity contest in the respective threads which are already too many and repetitive as it is.
(Not a request for moderation, just expressing agreement that some people don't want to see that type of content follow them in academic threads).
I'm thinking about making a big thread for all of that. Or moving them all to the Deshret section.
I hope I did not influence that. I'd hate to be the whistle/whisper in ear guy. As long as I have a choice in not having to see the archaeologist insert his 'smart Nora & smart friends of Egypt' vs 'dumb youtubers who never visited Egypt'.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I hope I did not influence that. I'd hate to be the whistle/whisper in ear guy. As long as I have a choice in not having to see the archaeologist insert his 'smart Nora & smart friends of Egypt' vs 'dumb youtubers who never visited Egypt'.
Suffice for me to say, I feel ya.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Didn't influence anything. Been wanting to do this.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Imhotep was the governor of the city (in Thebes), a judge and a vizier under Thutmose I. He was also said to be a tutor to the sons of the king.[1]
QV46 Imhotep was buried in tomb QV 46 in the Valley of the Queens. The tomb was discovered by Ernesto Schiaparelli during an expedition which took place between 1903 and 1905. The tomb is a simple shaft with a single chamber that contained the burial. During the excavations his mummy was recovered along with funerary goods.[1] The finds included coffin-fragments, a canopic jar inscribed with his name, and an alabaster oval plaque.[2] These objects are now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, as well as mummified ducks in boxes, wooden boxes, and baskets found in the tomb.[1]
Ostraca from the later Ramesside Period were recovered from near the tomb's entrance
Imhotep (vizier) 18th Dynasty, Museo Egizio, Torino (Turin)
ABSTRACT HGP-023 Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE) Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy; Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany Co-authors: Christina Wurst1,2, Alice Paladin1, Valentina Coia1, Frank Maixner1, Albert Zink1
1 Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy 2 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
Abstract: Due to high-throughput sequencing and targeted enrichment methods, ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis is emerging as a valuable tool for the investigation of ancient Egypt’s demographic history. However, the recovery of aDNA from Egyptian human remains is challenging due to poor DNA preservation and a high contamination risk. Thus, so far, less than five ancient Egyptian genome-wide datasets have been published. In addition, mitochondrial genomes are almost exclusively limited to a timespan ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period (1550 BCE - 395 CE) as well as to a single archaeological site (Abusir el-Meleq). To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of
a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains.
Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting
the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals
dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom.
Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale.
Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past.
(bolded added)
I should have just read the abstract more carefully the first time.
And above they don't tell us what museums these mummies are from but below they do:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I Cant find any of these anywhere, but I did find this:
[QUOTE] Four thousand years of maternal ancestry in ancient Egypt illuminated by MITOCHONDRIAL genome sequencing
10th World Congress on Mummy Studies (Bolzano, 05/09/2022 - 09/09/2022) 2022
Mussauer, Alexandra(Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Wurst, Christina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Paladin, Alice (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Coia, Valentina (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Maixner, Frank (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy); Helmbold- Doyé, Jana (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany); Del Vesco, Paolo (Museo Egizio, Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino, Turin, Italy); Rosendahl, Wilfried (Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany); Zink, Albert (Institute for Mummy Studies, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy);
During the last decade, the population genetic history of ancient Egypt has been illuminated by an increasing number of genetic studies on ancient Egyptian human remains from different time periods utilizing high-throughput sequencing methods. Nonetheless, mitochondrial genomes representative of the Egyptian population prior to the New Kingdom (1550 - 1069 BC) are still scarce. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. These individuals have been recovered from different archaeological sites in Egypt and encompass a timeframe ranging from about 4000 BC to AD 800. All samples were analyzed using next- generation sequencing methods, including mitochondrial DNA enrichments. Following the application of criteria for authenticity and quality control, we were able to reconstruct 34 mitochondrial genomes of ancient Egyptian individuals, predominantly from southern Egypt, that have been dated from the Predynastic to the Byzantine Period (3600 BC - AD 650). Our data supports the presence of western Eurasian and northeastern African mitochondrial haplogroups in Egypt throughout antiquity. Furthermore, the mitochondrial genomes extend the pool of available datasets, adding novel information for the older periods of Egypt’s past as well as for a broader geographical context. Thereby, this study constitutes another important step for the reconstruction of Egypt’s genetic history, which in the future could be further investigated by genome-wide studies.
^^ compiling both abstracts we see all the mummies were from Turin and Berlin
Summary:
⚫ in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
⚫ These individuals have been recovered from different archaeological sites in Egypt and encompass a timeframe ranging from about 4000 BC to AD 800.
⚫ the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals
⚫ Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale.
_______________________________
Bernardino Drovetti, Piedmontese, consul general of France during the occupation in Egypt, collected over 8,000 pieces among statues, sarcophagi, mummies, papyri, amulets, and various jewels. In 1824 King Carlo Felice bought this large collection for 400,000 lire and joining other finds of classical antiquities already belonging to the House of Savoy, including the Donati collection, gave birth to the first Egyptian Museum in the world.
__________________________
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@ Askia_The_Great Got it.
As far as Phoenician7, whose vids I will not watch, let's break it down for her, as well:
So, if +20% SSA in modern Egyptians is not enough, what amount of SSA would it take to get modern Egyptians to cluster in between outlier 'Nubians' like Gebel Ramlah and coastal North Africans, where predynastics are?
They would need >40% if the Ethiopian sample below is any indication. This is one way we can translate, in simple language, the morphological distance between predynastic and modern Egyptians, for which no proper genetics language exists other than terms like "Natufian", that only play into the hands of people like Phoenician7, as these terms obscure the morphological distances involved.
Either way, one would end up with a predominantly African genome, as this model of a modern Egyptian genome with >40% SSA component does not take into account the non-SSA portion already present in modern Egyptians, that is also present in the Ethiopian sample. There is also some uncertainty that might give underestimations as the Ethiopian sample below that I used to arrive at >40%, does not exactly cluster with predynastics, but with pooled Upper Egyptians (the only unpooled predynastic sample is the Hierakonpolis sample, and it's considerably more African than the Ethiopians and pooled Upper Egyptians).
As can be seen, the centroid of Gebel Ramlah (GRM in Figures 132-133) is equidistant between those of pooled sub-Saharan Africans (SAF) at the top of Figure 9, and Europeans (EUR) near the bottom -- yet it is clearly unique relative to both. It is nearest to, though again equidistant from, pooled samples of post-Neolithic Nubians (NUB) and Upper Egyptians (UEG); it is next most like Ethiopia (ETH) and, to a lesser extent, samples from the Middle East (MEA), Maghreb (MAG), and Lower Egypt (LEG). Other samples of interest include Egyptian predynastic Hierakonpolis (HRK) at the bottom of the graph, Late Paleolithic Taforalt (TAF) and Afalou (AFA) from the Maghreb in the upper right, and Late Paleolithic Jebel Sahaba (JSA). Like the dental afnities, the latter sample, situated just under 100 km south of Gebel Ramlah, more closely resembles the pooled sub-Saharan sample than Gebel Ramlah and other regional Nubians and Egyptians. The human skeletal remains from Gebel Ramlah: A physical anthropological assessment https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Irish/publication/232660381_Gebel_Ramlah_Final_Neolithic_Cemeteries_from_the_Western_Desert_of_Egypt/links/0deec52b1e7c2c1e92000000/Gebel- Ramlah-Final-Neolithic-Cemeteries-from-the-Western-Desert-of-Egypt.pdf
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: ^^ compiling both abstracts we see all the mummies were from Turin and Berlin
This got my attention too, as I distinctly recalled that the predynastics with signs of sickle cell also come from a museum in Turin. Also, from another study I read years ago, I know that some or all of the predynastic mummies there come from Gebelein.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains.
Marin A, Cerutti N, Massa ER.
1999 May-Jun
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell'Uomo, Università degli Studi di Torino.
quote: We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: ^^ compiling both abstracts we see all the mummies were from Turin and Berlin
This got my attention too, as I distinctly recalled that the predynastics with signs of sickle cell also come from a museum in Turin. Also, from another study I read years ago, I know that some or all of the predynastic mummies there come from Gebelein.
They also said some of these mummies were at the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung) but I don't see mummies listed there (?)
⚫ in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
The Turin ones are probably all non-royals. They say 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals. I'm guessing the vast majority are not mummies but instead skeletons. I've just seen 2 Turin mummies on wiki's lists but I'm not sure if there are more. With recent methods they seem to use teeth a lot for sampling
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Finally I got caught up! It seems every time I get busy with work, interesting threads like this come up. As usual big ups to Swenet for clarifying issues that come up with such studies as well as making Antalas squirm. I agree with what he said about modularity and that certain common components tend to be noticed more so than others. But I have been noticing the trend of people leaking out certain tidbits of info on ancient population genetics even when those genomic samples themselves aren't resolute enough to tell the whole story.
But Swenet is correct about the dishonesty we see in academic publications of ancient populations and their genomics. I've been saying it for years especially ever since the Late Period Abusir Study. I have even gotten word from academics who know researchers in the field telling them how some samples are being being suppressed or not published while others are. This shouldn't be surprising since as Swenet pointed out the African looking Natufians are blatantly being ignored or underrepresented which is a stark contrast to decades ago when Natufians were first described as "negroid cannibals". Why is it not surprising then the same is true for genetic samples or even the interpretation of the run results.
Oh and to Antalas, I'm not as generous as as Swenet. Yes, I call Egyptians 'black' because that is what the Hebrews, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans called them. I know you idiotically identify 'black' with Sub-Saharans only, but then what are we to make of Nubians who share the same alleged "Levantine ancestry" as Egyptians. Of course they're not black anymore right?? LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Agree.
Since modern Egyptians have +20% SSA, in would be interesting to see how the recent SSA ancestry affected the HbS gene proportions. There is paper that says that HbS is correlated with R-V88 among Lebanese Muslims (but not other Lebanese), likely indicating it's of common era date, like modern Egypt's +20% SSA. So if there was change in the Levant, there is a good chance that modern Egyptian HbS genes were changed as well, from predynastic times, as a result of migration from the south.
Seeing how the proportions of genes changed over time would be interesting.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: ^^ compiling both abstracts we see all the mummies were from Turin and Berlin
This got my attention too, as I distinctly recalled that the predynastics with signs of sickle cell also come from a museum in Turin. Also, from another study I read years ago, I know that some or all of the predynastic mummies there come from Gebelein.
They also said some of these mummies were at the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung) but I don't see mummies listed there (?)
⚫ in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
The Turin ones are probably all non-royals. They say 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals. I'm guessing the vast majority are not mummies but instead skeletons. I've just seen 2 Turin mummies on wiki's lists but I'm not sure if there are more. With recent methods they seem to use teeth a lot for sampling
Good sleuthing work. For more info I would suggest looking for papers that studied the Turin and Berlin mummies, as opposed to museum catalogues. Among other things you'll find that Turin has a large collection of pred. mummies from Gebelein and part of it includes actual mummies, as in Gebelein Man ('Ginger') level of preservation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak:
Old-Middle Kingdom:
J F1826 DER J F3119 DER J F3176 DER J FGC1599 DER J1 CTS1138 DER J1 PF4659 DER J1 PF4667 DER J1 F4320 DER J1a PF4772 DER
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
Dynastic:
E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER
E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER
E1b1b1 M5322 DER
E1b1b1 M5360 DER
E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER
E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER
mightywolf, all of the above are dynastic so what period within the dynastic is the lower portion of E1s?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: To this day there are still Europeans that promote all kinds of fringe nonsense such as the Egyptians of the Grand Canyon, which is obviously absurd. And again, the idea that Africans have to argue with people that Africans were in the ancient Nile Valley, which is totally in Africa, is different from arguing about ancient black Britons. People like throwing around these other ideas as somehow proof that Africans in ancient Africa is somehow fringe when it is not. And unfortunately a lot of people in the African diaspora are more interested in assimilation into foreign culture than promotion of African culture. So they aren't truly "Afrocentric". The whole point of ancient black Britons, blacks in Asia and the Americas is to show the proof of all humans originating in Africa . But that doesn't make those populations African either and unfortunately some people have gotten caught up in semantics over words like "african" vs "black" and so forth.
Avoid using the term "African" as if the incredibly diverse population of this continent was homogeneous. Africa's population is heterogeneous, each with varying genetic and morphological characteristics, some of which may even have closer genetic/morphological affinities to populations outside of Africa. This principle also applies to populations in Asia.
Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage and of course these people are not similar to the ancient people of the Nile Valley. Consequently, their perspectives and narratives shouldn't automatically be deemed more authoritative or legitimate than those of Europeans or other groups. People of West/Central african descent are as foreign to the Nile Valley as Europeans if not more.
As I mentioned before there is also this abstract by Scheunemann et al who was presented in 2021: Urban, Christian; Neukamm, Judith; Eppenberger, Patrick; Brändle, Martin; Rühli, Frank and Schuenemann Verena, 2021: Human mitochondrial haplogroups and ancient DNA preservation across Egyptian history
At the same conference also an abstract about Nubia from Meroitic time up until c AD 1450 was presented. Scheunemann was involved in that study too. I have not seen that study published yet (?)
quote:The kingdoms of Nubia, located in the Nile River Valley of modern-day northern Sudan and southern Egypt, served as an important corridor of migration for millennia. Little is known of the ancient genetic landscape, but this biological perspective can further our understanding of population movements before this event. Here, we created a time-transect of genetic diversity in the Middle Nile region, using whole mitochondrial (MT) genome analysis of ancient DNA samples obtained from several archaeological sites spanning nearly two thousand years, from the Meroitic period (ca. 350 BCE) to before the Arab expansion (ca. 1450 CE). We trialed 43 individuals, extracting DNA using newly developed 8, including petrosal bone extraction, nonheat sample processing, enzymatic pretreatments, and DNA capture techniques, optimized for samples with very poor DNA preservation. Following strict contamination and authentication assessments, we retrieved whole mitogenomes for six individuals: two with African ancestry and four with Eurasian ancestry. The ancient Nubians showed most genetic affinity with modern East Africans, Middle Easterners, and Egyptians. These results indicate that Nubians had a strong African component with evidence of gene flow from Eurasia dating back to at least Meroitic through Christian times. Although these individuals ncompass varying archaeological contexts and span two millennia, these initial results hint at the complexity of the region's genetic makeup and begin to reconstruct the impact of migrations from outside Africa. Lastly, our work represents the first successful retrieval of full MT sequence data from Middle Nile inhabitants, further demonstrating the viability of paleogenomic work in Sudan.
Scheunemann et al 2021: Paleogenomic insights into Nubian ancestry from ancient Middle Nile populations
Both abstracts were presented at the ISBA9 9th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology, June 1st – 4th 2021 (Toulouse, FRANCE)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ "we retrieved whole mitogenomes for six individuals"
mitogenomes = mitochondrial DNA, female side only
Thus any conclusion one attempts is half a conclusion
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: To this day there are still Europeans that promote all kinds of fringe nonsense such as the Egyptians of the Grand Canyon, which is obviously absurd. And again, the idea that Africans have to argue with people that Africans were in the ancient Nile Valley, which is totally in Africa, is different from arguing about ancient black Britons. People like throwing around these other ideas as somehow proof that Africans in ancient Africa is somehow fringe when it is not. And unfortunately a lot of people in the African diaspora are more interested in assimilation into foreign culture than promotion of African culture. So they aren't truly "Afrocentric". The whole point of ancient black Britons, blacks in Asia and the Americas is to show the proof of all humans originating in Africa . But that doesn't make those populations African either and unfortunately some people have gotten caught up in semantics over words like "african" vs "black" and so forth.
Avoid using the term "African" as if the incredibly diverse population of this continent was homogeneous. Africa's population is heterogeneous, each with varying genetic and morphological characteristics, some of which may even have closer genetic/morphological affinities to populations outside of Africa. This principle also applies to populations in Asia.
Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage and of course these people are not similar to the ancient people of the Nile Valley. Consequently, their perspectives and narratives shouldn't automatically be deemed more authoritative or legitimate than those of Europeans or other groups. People of West/Central african descent are as foreign to the Nile Valley as Europeans if not more.
so is this the new breakdown?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afrocentrists, as emphasized by Archeo, often trace their ancestry back to West/Central Africa, including Black Americans who have additional NW European heritage
quote: Black americans are made up of varied black ethnic groups like white americans. Black americans could be ethnic african americans,nigerian americans,jamaica americans,south african americans,black puerto rico ricans americans,black brazilians americans,ethiopians americans,black egyptians etc..
Rinse and repeat.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: the european admixed afro-american.
I don't know why you keep saying this(in fact i think i know why),just say african americans etc..but when you bring up white or european americans you do to not bring up the every time they have african admixture and what you said is non-sense /incorrect anyway.
If you bring up white americans next time i want you to keep that same energy and write something like this.
Antalas quote-
quote: Yes okay you're just playing on semantics and you do not have anything to back up your "possibly". Iberomaurusians were physically very different from modern europeans including the african admixed euro-american.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afro-americans have NW european ancestry
Originally posted by Firewall: The way you write this you make it seem like it's all,but it's not true. Some african americans have NW european ancestry,not all.
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: ^^ compiling both abstracts we see all the mummies were from Turin and Berlin
This got my attention too, as I distinctly recalled that the predynastics with signs of sickle cell also come from a museum in Turin. Also, from another study I read years ago, I know that some or all of the predynastic mummies there come from Gebelein.
They also said some of these mummies were at the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. (Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung) but I don't see mummies listed there (?)
⚫ in this study, we analyzed samples taken from 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
The Turin ones are probably all non-royals. They say 99 ancient Egyptian mummified or skeletonized individuals. I'm guessing the vast majority are not mummies but instead skeletons. I've just seen 2 Turin mummies on wiki's lists but I'm not sure if there are more. With recent methods they seem to use teeth a lot for sampling
Good sleuthing work. For more info I would suggest looking for papers that studied the Turin and Berlin mummies, as opposed to museum catalogues. Among other things you'll find that Turin has a large collection of pred. mummies from Gebelein and part of it includes actual mummies, as in Gebelein Man ('Ginger') level of preservation.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak:
Old-Middle Kingdom:
J F1826 DER J F3119 DER J F3176 DER J FGC1599 DER J1 CTS1138 DER J1 PF4659 DER J1 PF4667 DER J1 F4320 DER J1a PF4772 DER
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
Dynastic:
E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER
E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER
E1b1b1 M5322 DER
E1b1b1 M5360 DER
E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER
E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER
If the mummies and skeletons are from Turin and Berlin museums why is Djehutynakht listed here? That is a mummy head in Boston Museum of Fine Arts https://collections.mfa.org/objects/144861
_______________________
Look at this image from somalispot.com where they talk about the leak >>
Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens Odile Loreille, et al
In order to unequivocally determine the biological sex of the individual, the MFA collaborated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory to perform DNA analysis.
The mtGenome profile independently obtained from the tooth by the FBI and HMS laboratories were identical and can be found in Table S2. The haplotype (deposited in GenBank under accession number MG736653) belongs to mitochondrial DNA lineage U5b2b5
____________________________
^^ the Y-DNA of Djehutynakht has not been published yet, just the mtDNA (U5). The leak is saying G2 same haplogroup as reported by Yehia Gad 2020 for Yuya of the 18th dynasty
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If the mummies and skeletons are from Turin and Berlin museums why is Djehutynakht listed here? That is a mummy head in Boston Museum of Fine Arts https://collections.mfa.org/objects/144861
As I said to Mightywolf, in the abstracts it's never said that Y-DNA was obtained. If these Y-DNA leaks posted by Miro and others are valid, they are possibly from another upcoming paper. But Djehutiynakth coming from a Boston museum (as opposed to the museums listed in the abstract), is just one more clue that they're not from any of the official abstracts we've seen.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Was reminded of this when I read the Takarkori abstract, but was too lazy to go find it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Preliminary results obtained from ancient DNA studies are presented in Chapter 13, by Carla Babalini and co-workers. Mitochondrial DNA extraction was attempted upon a sub-sample of human teeth from ten individuals. The mtDNA locus was selected due to its maternal inheritance pattern, high copy number, simple structure and relatively fast rate of mutational change. Analysis was undertaken upon the two hypervariable regions and region V. The authors report that the mtDNA from the individuals from site 96/129 was reasonably distinct from that obtained from the other sampled material. Only one individual was fully characterised, and was found to be a member of an African haplotype (L3).
Zakrzewski, Review Submitted: March 2004
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrezewski says of the genetically ''reasonably distinct'' site that yielded mtDNA L3:
quote:The fifth chapter consists of descriptions of the excavations undertaken. Some clear accounts are given of the tumulus excavations, such as the sequence of burials in tumuli 1 & 2 at site 96/129 near Tahalla. The burials consist of a vast range of biologically aged individuals, from neonates, through children and juveniles, to mature adults. These skeletons are found in association with grave goods, including beads (stone, ostrich egg-shell and faience), carinated scrapers and bifacial arrowheads etc. Detail is provided as to the phasing of the construction of the tumuli through analysis of the changing tumuli complex shapes. The authors suggest, with little evidence provided, that this is associated with a change from kinship linkage to the assertion of social ranking in groups. There is much interpretation of the archaeological evidence, and potentially some over-interpretation of the data, such as hypothesising over potential sacrifice of the female in Tumulus 3bis (H1) and its presumed association with the male in Tumulus 3 (H2) at site 96/129, or of the potential mother and child in Tumulus 10 (H2 and H4 respectively) again at site 96/129. When site 96/129 was selected for excavation it was believed to represent a single middle to large cemetery of Late Pastoral phase. Excavation indicated that it dated to the start of the 4th millennium BP and ended around 2500 BP (and thus overlapped with the start of the Garamantian phase). In the following chapter however, describing the textiles and leather, the same site is simply described as a Late Pastoral cemetery, radiocarbon dated to 3800-2700 BP.
I decided to finally search for this Libyan mtDNA data after teading this, in the Djehutinakth paper Lioness posted:
However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy. Biological Sexing of a 4000-Year-Old Egyptian Mummy Head to Assess the Potential of Nuclear DNA Recovery from the Most Damaged and Limited Forensic Specimens https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867856/
I looked at those 5 references (63,67,74,89,90) and, unsurprisingly, they're all late samples, while the Libyan L3 and non-Eurasian(?) HVS-I mito haplotypes above are older. In the later Libyan samples we see a change to Eurasian HVS-I mito haplotypes. Again, unsurprising, as this Libyan aDNA (5000-3500 BP) is simply reflecting the change to Eurasian DNA over time, that we also see in Egypt.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also interesting: according to Lipinski those Libyan tumuli discussed by Zakrzewski in her review, appear in the Levant as well during Semitic migrations out of Egypt, and he regards them as signs of N. African migration.
This might have been the period when the speakers of Proto-Semitic passed through the Nile delta from the West to the East, and reached Western Asia, where written documents of the third millennium B.C. preserve noticeable traces of Pre-Semitic and, in Mesopotamia, also of Pre- Sumerian substratum. The collapse of the Ghassulian culture in Palestine around 3300 B.C. and the Egyptian finds in southern Palestine from the Early Bronze period I (ca. 3300-3050 B.C.) may testify to the arrival of these new population groups. The Palestinian tumuli, belonging to the culture of semi-nomadic groups during much of the fourth and third millennia B.C., seem to confirm this hypothesis, since a very similar type of sepulture characterizes pre-historic North Africa, especially Algeria, and it is a typical feature of the old Libyco-Berber tradition. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If the mummies and skeletons are from Turin and Berlin museums why is Djehutynakht listed here? That is a mummy head in Boston Museum of Fine Arts https://collections.mfa.org/objects/144861
As I said to Mightywolf, in the abstracts it's never said that Y-DNA was obtained. If these Y-DNA leaks posted by Miro and others are valid, they are possibly from another upcoming paper. But Djehutiynakth coming from a Boston museum (as opposed to the museums listed in the abstract), is just one more clue that they're not from any of the official abstracts we've seen.
Yes, I miscounted the method "whole-genome enrichment capture" as meaning "we included Y-DNA" not thats not what it means. After looking into that term it refers to a technique used in genetic analysis to capture and focus on specific regions of an individual's entire genome but selecting and isolating specific DNA sequences of interest from the entire genome for further analysis. It helps to uncover insights into specific genetic variations or mutations
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: Apparently separate leaks I guess you've seen this (bottom of page) at somalispot
I've not done any searching into those leaks as I'm not interested in what bloggers like Miro and Phoenician7 have to say. For me the leaks are in limbo, not accepted and not dismissed, until we get something from an official source.
Miro talking about "a change" from Epipalaeolithic to Neolithic Egyptians, when the remains from this period are rare, and do not resemble pharaonic type Egyptians (only thing resembling Egyptians in this period is al Khiday, but that's in Sudan), is just another reminder not to get taken for a ride by these people.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Weather the leaks are reliable or not, they are a result of that some researchers go out and introduce the results of a research project on conferences and similar, then it takes rather long time until they actually publish a paper with those results. Or sometimes any paper fail to materialize at all, as in the case of the abstract about Ancient Egypt by Scheunemann et al who was presented in 2021.
The Scheunemann study is even mentioned in Wikipedia:
quote: A unpublished, follow-up study by Scheunemann & Urban et al. (2021) was carried out collecting samples from six excavation sites along the entire length of the Nile valley spanning 4000 years of Egyptian history. Samples from 17 mummies and 14 skeletal remains were collected, and high quality mitochondrial genomes were reconstructed from 10 individuals. According to the authors the analyzed mitochondrial genomes matched the results from the 2017 study at Abusir el-Meleq.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also interesting: according to Lipinski those Libyan tumuli discussed by Zakrzewski in her review, appear in the Levant as well during Semitic migrations out of Egypt, and he regards them as signs of N. African migration.
This might have been the period when the speakers of Proto-Semitic passed through the Nile delta from the West to the East, and reached Western Asia, where written documents of the third millennium B.C. preserve noticeable traces of Pre-Semitic and, in Mesopotamia, also of Pre- Sumerian substratum. The collapse of the Ghassulian culture in Palestine around 3300 B.C. and the Egyptian finds in southern Palestine from the Early Bronze period I (ca. 3300-3050 B.C.) may testify to the arrival of these new population groups. The Palestinian tumuli, belonging to the culture of semi-nomadic groups during much of the fourth and third millennia B.C., seem to confirm this hypothesis, since a very similar type of sepulture characterizes pre-historic North Africa, especially Algeria, and it is a typical feature of the old Libyco-Berber tradition. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
What type of tumuli exactly ? The examples in NW Africa are relatively simple, and as far as I know, the only ones that have been dated are from the latter half of the 1st millennium BC.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^See the Zakrzewski quotes above for their approximate dates.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weather the leaks are reliable or not, they are a result of that some researchers go out and introduce the results of a research project on conferences and similar, then it takes rather long time until they actually publish a paper with those results. Or sometimes any paper fail to materialize at all, as in the case of the abstract about Ancient Egypt by Scheunemann et al who was presented in 2021.
The Scheunemann study is even mentioned in Wikipedia:
quote: A unpublished, follow-up study by Scheunemann & Urban et al. (2021) was carried out collecting samples from six excavation sites along the entire length of the Nile valley spanning 4000 years of Egyptian history. Samples from 17 mummies and 14 skeletal remains were collected, and high quality mitochondrial genomes were reconstructed from 10 individuals. According to the authors the analyzed mitochondrial genomes matched the results from the 2017 study at Abusir el-Meleq.
There is not any known abstract announcing Y-DNA from Egypt, let alone Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic aDNA implied by Miro. Unless you're arguing that the conference hosting the speakers associated w/ these leaks conveniently left no traces online, unlike all the other presentations for which we have records.
The sources of these leaks also are also claiming to do their own analyses, which means that someone is claiming to possess the unpublished genomes. Hard to get that from watching a presentation.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I talked more generally that if researchers present studies on conferences and similar, and it then take some time before an actual study is published, it can lead to speculations and false or true leaks online. At least if it concerns subjects which are often hotly debated.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I talked more generally that if researchers present studies on conferences and similar, and it then take some time before an actual study is published, it can lead to speculations and false or true leaks online. At least if it concerns subjects which are often hotly debated.
Understand that the Schuenemann 2017 study Ancient Mummy Genomes keeps getting used over and over again as argument. The only paternal DNA it showed was of 3 late period mummies
As a comparison if you look at most Berbers in the Maghreb they are paternal Y Haplogroup E-M81 . That is an African haplogroup Only their female side DNA is considered Eurasian, most commonly U6 (with some H and other clades) and U6 an African variant of the haplogroup U
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^See the Zakrzewski quotes above for their approximate dates.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weather the leaks are reliable or not, they are a result of that some researchers go out and introduce the results of a research project on conferences and similar, then it takes rather long time until they actually publish a paper with those results. Or sometimes any paper fail to materialize at all, as in the case of the abstract about Ancient Egypt by Scheunemann et al who was presented in 2021.
The Scheunemann study is even mentioned in Wikipedia:
quote: A unpublished, follow-up study by Scheunemann & Urban et al. (2021) was carried out collecting samples from six excavation sites along the entire length of the Nile valley spanning 4000 years of Egyptian history. Samples from 17 mummies and 14 skeletal remains were collected, and high quality mitochondrial genomes were reconstructed from 10 individuals. According to the authors the analyzed mitochondrial genomes matched the results from the 2017 study at Abusir el-Meleq.
There is not any known abstract announcing Y-DNA from Egypt, let alone Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic aDNA implied by Miro. Unless you're arguing that the conference hosting the speakers associated w/ these leaks conveniently left no traces online, unlike all the other presentations for which we have records.
The sources of these leaks also are also claiming to do their own analyses, which means that someone is claiming to possess the unpublished genomes. Hard to get that from watching a presentation.
None of the purported "leakers" have access to the samples. Maybe some "bloggers" or users who roamed sites like anthrogenica, but no one who was associated with leaking the data has access. The only thing we can speculate is whether or not Davidski was able to get them projected onto his G25 PCA. All leaked information could only be that of downstream analysis to which some peers are using false estimated projections of a projection on G25.
Moreover the article who's abstract is included in the OP doesn't not contain the same samples as the leaks. The oldest sample which reported autosome in Mussauer 2023 is dated between 1800 - 1500bc. She does have Y-DNA estimates for these sample written on the blurry poster. And the mtDNA haplogroups Arch is obsessed with were some of those captured in this study. I believe that the boom in diversity with be correctly associated with bronze age expansion come release.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:And the mtDNA haplogroups Arch is obsessed with were some of those captured in this study. I believe that the boom in diversity with be correctly associated with bronze age expansion come release.
No one is obsessed. I only mentioned them, since the Abusir study, and the unpublished Scheunemann et al study from 2021 mostly included mtDNA haplogroups.
Otherwise it is of course best to wait until the new study is published before drawing any conclusions. Speculations often do not lead anywhere.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: None of the purported "leakers" have access to the samples. Maybe some "bloggers" or users who roamed sites like anthrogenica, but no one who was associated with leaking the data has access. The only thing we can speculate is whether or not Davidski was able to get them projected onto his G25 PCA. All leaked information could only be that of downstream analysis to which some peers are using false estimated projections of a projection on G25.
Moreover the article who's abstract is included in the OP doesn't not contain the same samples as the leaks. The oldest sample which reported autosome in Mussauer 2023 is dated between 1800 - 1500bc. She does have Y-DNA estimates for these sample written on the blurry poster. And the mtDNA haplogroups Arch is obsessed with were some of those captured in this study. I believe that the boom in diversity with be correctly associated with bronze age expansion come release. [/qb]
They explicitly mentioned mtDNA, but not Y-DNA in the Mussauer abstract. Maybe Mussauer are just quoting Y-DNA from another unpublished paper in that blurry table (if they didn't get the Y-DNA themselves, it would make sense that they only announced successful sequencing of mtDNA and autosomes in the abstract). Guess we'll have to wait and see.
If you are correct this upcoming paper will not be giving any clarity re: the entry of CHG in Egypt as 1800-1500BC is younger than Nuerat. The leaks are potentially showing themselves to be incongruent, as they have CHG in Egypt already in OK times. Guess we won't have to look to Mussauer because their autosomal data is too late to clarify the issue.
I will say though, the increase of SSA ancestry in Middle Kingdom times in the leaks matches the TMRCA of E-M2 and R-V88 in Egypt (D’Atanasio et al 2018) as well as other signs of migration Kupfer et al 2006.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I will say though, the increase of SSA ancestry in Middle Kingdom times in the leaks matches the TMRCA of E-M2 and R-V88 in Egypt (D’Atanasio et al 2018) as well as other signs of migration Kupfer et al 2006. [/QB]
This alleged leak
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: I believe that further details from the published studies will demonstrate the context of several results.
Here are the haplogroups from the leak....
_____________________
Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):
G2a F2529 DER G2a P15 DER G2a2a PF3159 DER G2a2a PF3167 DER G2a2a PF3168 DER
a graphic with a sculpture of Djehutynakht and text saying G2a2a Djehutynakht of the middle kingdom was already reported to be of a U5a clade on the mitochondrial side. The 18th dna Yuya was reported G2 also and K on the female side by Gad in 2020
Although this is just one individual. And the rest of the 18th article reported and unspecified clade of R1b, all mtDNA was K (also found in KEB (Moroccan Late Neolithic) samples as well as T2 and K2 by Fregal, 2018) although IAM samples were U6a and M1
I noticed on the above list the haplogroup is followed by DER I was wondering what that means. I don't think it's any standard abbreviation if capitalized at the end like that
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lioness. See the OK/MK samples' Dinka column. Compare with the Dinka in the OK individual. One of the '?' samples also has elevated Dinka.
And compare with Egypt-specific E-M2 dating to MK times:
quote:In this context, although the large majority of the geo- graphically restricted lineages come from sub-Saharan regions, we also found two northern African-specific clades, namely E-V5001 and E-V4990. E-V5001 has only been found in Egypt, is one of the sister clades within the E-M4727 multifurcation and coalesced at 3.88 kya.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness. See the OK/MK samples' Dinka column. Compare with the Dinka in the OK individual. One of the '?' samples also has elevated Dinka.
Of note Cruciani in his 2010 article on R-V88 reported B2a1a 28% in Siwans, Egypt although Siwans aside other articles on Egyptian DNA report A/B under 3%
Keep in mind that's not an official analysis. It's done by bloggers. With formal tests the ancestry will increase (see the SSA in Abusir when they drew it out; it got up to 15%, IIRC, depending on the outgroups used) and the exact affinity can be tested.
It's not really the amount that matters anyway. The issue is the increase that will probably be across the board in MK samples, compared to OK times. Since I'm not saying that MK samples are Sub-Saharan African, the amount of SSA is not the issue. It's the pervasiveness and the timing and the fact that it matches the TMRCA of E-M2 in Egypt.
Yes, Dinka are known for A-M32, B-M60, not E-M2. But that's missing the point.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
increase of SSA ancestry in Middle Kingdom times...
when did you first come to this conclusion?
I haven't studied it
If it was looked at regarding Y-DNA, I assume you are referring to E-M2 and not A or B (?)
as per this chart E-M2 would correspond with Yoruba
I see a tiny increase there in MK, 0.2% as opposed to 0% at all other places
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: when did you first come to this conclusion?
This was always vaguely hinted at by the data (e.g. royal women in 11th dynasty tombs, like Ashait and Kemsit whose skeletal remains were said to look different as in: "Nubian", and there was some Sub-Saharan aDNA from this dynasty, as well). But with D’Atanasio et al 2018 things became more tangible as far as the timing of new SSA arrivals in Egypt (see D’Atanasio et al quote above).
quote:Originally posted by the Lioness: when did you first come to this conclusion?
This was always vaguely hinted at by the data (e.g. royal women in 11th dynasty tombs, like Ashait and Kemsit whose skeletal remains were said to look different as in: "Nubian", and there was some Sub-Saharan aDNA from this dynasty, as well).
an article documented human Sub-Saharan DNA from the 11th dynasty?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
An old Paabo study published in an expensive book, from what I remember.
Wiki:
In 1993, a study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated from Sub-Saharan Africa but other lineages were not identified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Middle_East
Although these specific cases of "SSA lineages" could have been present since predynastic times (unlike North African-specific E-M2 and R-V88, they're not mentioned by name and we don't know their distribution).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: An old Paabo study published in an expensive book, from what I remember.
Wiki:
In 1993, a study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated from Sub-Saharan Africa but other lineages were not identified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Middle_East
Although these specific cases of "SSA lineages" could have been present since predynastic times (unlike North African-specific E-M2 and R-V88, they're not mentioned by name and we don't know their distribution).
This is not on the internet
but I got a hold of it. here are the relevant portions of that chapter :
quote:Paabo S, Di Rienzo A (1993). "A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history.". In Davies V, Walker R (eds.). In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. pp. 86–90.
In Egypt, an extensive survey of the mtDNA variability in the Nile Delta population is in progress and preliminary results (Di Rienzo and Wilson in preparation) allow one to formulate hypotheses on the origin and history of this population. For example, one interesting finding is that a small subset of modern Egyptian mitochondrial DNA lineages are closely related to Sub-Saharan African lineages. Fig. 1 shows the phylogenetic relationships among such lineages. Two different patterns are observed. In one case (Fig. 1A) two Egyptian lineages branch off from different African lineages. A reconstruction of migration events, indicated by arrows, suggests that the two Egyptian lineages originated independently from an ancestral African population. The application of a time scale to the tree could allow an estimation of the time interval when these migrations occurred. In the case of the diagram in Fig. 1A, one migration has occurred in the interval between 12 in the past and the present, while the other migration took place in the interval between 13 in the past and the present. In the case depicted in Fig. 1B, two Egyptians are also closely related to Sub-Saharan lineages. However, in this case the two Egyptian lineages are each other's closest relatives. This allows one to explain the occurrence of these lineages in Egypt with only one migration event involving an ancestor of the two Egyptian lineages (arrow). In this case, an older (13) as well as a younger time limit (t1) in the past can be inferred for the migration. We envision that when we gain a better knowledge of the mitochondrial DNA variability of the Egyptian population, we will be able to arrive at a quantitative estimate of the numbers of such migration events that have occurred as well as of their timing. These inferences can then be tested by going back in time to mummies and skeletal remains. An illustration of the feasibility of this approach is provided by the mummy of Nekht-Ankh, a priest of the Middle Kingdom. Short mitochondrial DNA sequences (45 and 81 nucleotides long) have been determined by PCR and direct sequencing from the remains of his liver found in a canopic jar (Paabo, 1989). When this sequence is compared to the sequences determined from the Delta population, it is found that it is. identical to four of the modern Egyptian mitochondrial lineages. However, in order to achieve comparisons that are statistically meaningful, sequences that are as long as the modern ones (approximately 400 nucleotides) will have to be determined from the ancient populations. This is a laborious task because the ancient DNA is degraded to such an extent that a 400 nucleotide sequence needs to be determined in approximately eight shorter, overlapping pieces. However, we believe that this work is well worth the effort, since it will give us the first molecular view ever of an ancient human population and of its modern descendants.
The kinship of two 12th Dynasty mummies revealed by ancient DNA sequencing Konstantina Drosoua et. al 2018
ABSTRACT We resolve a longstanding question regarding the kinship of two high-status Egyptians from the 12th Dynasty, Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht, whose mummies were discovered in 1907 by Egyptian workmen directed by Flinders Petrie and Ernest Mackay. Although their coffin inscriptions indicate that Nakht-Ankh and KhnumNakht were brothers, when the mummies were unwrapped in 1908 the skeletal morphologies were found to be quite different, suggesting an absence of family relationship. We extracted ancient DNA from the teeth of the two mummies and, following hybridization capture of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome fractions, sequenced the DNA by a next generation method. Analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms showed that both Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht belonged to mitochondrial haplotype M1a1, suggesting a maternal relationship. The Y chromosome sequences were less complete but showed variations between the two mummies, indicating that Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht had different fathers. Our study emphasizes the importance of kinship in ancient Egypt, and represents the first successful typing of both mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA in Egyptian mummies.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@the lioness,
Not sure how I forgot but I remember reading that Paabo text on FB years ago, along with disappointing dendrograms. Def. doesn't hold a candle to any modern aDNA research. But useful as a reminder that African uniparentals are found with greater ease earlier on in dynastic Egypt (compared to Abusir).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @the lioness,
Not sure how I forgot but I remember reading that Paabo text on FB years ago, along with disappointing dendrograms. Def. doesn't hold a candle to any modern aDNA research. But useful as a reminder that African uniparentals are found with greater ease earlier on in dynastic Egypt (compared to Abusir).
The Paabo refers to mitochondrial DNA of Nakht-Ankh but was awaiting more precise technology to line up the comparison to modern samples. Konstantina resolved it in 2018 Nakht-Ankh's mtDNA was determined of haplotype M1a1
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Any comments in that 2018 paper as to the closest matches on the continent today (e.g. Egyptian, Tuareg, Ethiopian, etc)? Don't remember if the more recent paper said something to that effect (probably not), but would be interesting to see if Paabo at least got that SSA part correct (it could be close to Horn mtDNA M1), or if it's just Egyptian mtDNA M1, as I guessed it could very well be.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Any comments in that 2018 paper as to the closest matches on the continent today (e.g. Egyptian or Ethiopian)? Don't remember if the more recent paper said something to that effect (probably not), but would be interesting to see if Paabo at least got that SSA part correct (it could be close to Horn mtDNA M1), or if it's just Egyptian mtDNA M1, as I guessed it could very well be.
I just noticed something I never saw before. Family Tree has Nakht-Ankh's Y-DNA reported as Y DNA> >> H-Z19008 but don't I know of an an article stating that. That a subclade of the now rare H-P96, will have to look into it later
They said "most likely haplogroup", so I'm guessing the SNPs are not diagnostic of any Y-DNA hg. Still, would have liked to see their breakdown of how they came to that conclusion, because they make it seem like they put some research into it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
and his brother had a different father
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Family Tree has Nakht-Ankh's Y-DNA reported as Y DNA> >> H-Z19008 but don't I know of an an article stating that. That a subclade of the now rare H-P96, will have to look into it later
I've noticed that in wiki's page on Haplogroup H (Y-DNA)
H2 H2 (H-P96), which is defined by seven SNPs – P96, M282, L279, L281, L284, L285, and L286 – is the only primary branch found mainly outside South Asia. Formerly named F3, H2 was reclassified as belonging to haplogroup H due to sharing the marker M3035 with H1. While being found in numerous ancient samples, H2 has only been found scarcely in modern populations across West Eurasia.
H2 (H-P96)in modern populations
Central Asia Dolan 1.3 West Asia UAE 0.6 West Asia South Iran 1.7 West Asia Assyrian 0.5 West Asia Armenia 0.6 South Europe Sardinia 0.2
However there is a huge time gap between and H-p96 and H-Z19008 Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They said "most likely haplogroup", so I'm guessing the SNPs are not diagnostic of any Y-DNA hg. Still, would have liked to see their breakdown of how they came to that conclusion, because they make it seem like they put some research into it.
for the thread I'll quote it
quote:Nakht-Ankh's most likely Y-DNA haplogroup was determined based on third-party analysis by FamilyTreeDNA and other researchers and low coverage sequencing data from the study by Drosou et al. 2018. The brother Khnum-Nakht’s Y-DNA* haplogroup could not be determined, but they share the same mitochondrial haplogroup M1a1.
What's all this with Djehutynakht?? Yes he shows Eurasian ancestry but he dates to the Middle Kingdom and the area he lives in (Middle Egypt) was known to be an immigrant town in dynastic times.
What about these other ancient Egyptian samples?:
quote: OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: No predynastic egyptians are grouped with SSA, they appear overall even more caucasoid than Horners:
LMAO Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans. All but one population samples he circled fall below the x-axis and the circled sample closest to Europeans is the one in quadrant II. The encircled Badarian and Naqada samples along the Y-axis are in close proximity to the Nubian centroid which is right below the "Somali-Galla" sample which are Horn Africans. LOL Delusion is a funny thing.
Speaking of which, what about ancient Arabians and other Southwest Asians?
Not only do we have HBS but if I'm not mistaken the most common sublade of E in Mesopotamia is E-M34 that was found in Natufians and Neolithic Syrians and as Swenet pointed out made its way as far east as India.
Underhill et al.(2009): Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions Results Saudi Arabia differentiates from other Arabian Peninsula countries by a higher presence of J2-M172 lineages. It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages. Around 14% of the Saudi Arabia Y-chromosome pool is typical of African biogeographic ancestry, 17% arrived to the area from the East across Iran, while the remainder 69% could be considered of direct or indirect Levantine ascription. Interestingly, basal E-M96* (n = 2) and J-M304* (n = 3) lineages have been detected, for the first time, in the Arabian Peninsula. Coalescence time for the most prominent J1-M267 haplogroup in Saudi Arabia (11.6 ± 1.9 ky) is similar to that obtained previously for Yemen (11.3 ± 2) but significantly older that those estimated for Qatar (7.3 ± 1.8) and UAE (6.8 ± 1.5).
And let's not forget maternal clade N1a which was found to be in a quarter of Neolithic European Farmers but the oldest upstream N1 was discovered in Saharan Africa.
Are these not links between Africa and Eurasia during the Neolithic?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
What about these other ancient Egyptian samples?:
OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
because the above alleged leak, as you know is from 2013. It's already been talked about on Egyptsearch for the past 10 years and gone nowhere
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
^^^Yea I remember that "leak" from years and years ago and it never went anywhere...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's the problem. We have all these "leaks" and no raw or concrete data. Funny how we have all the info on the Late Period Abusir mummies but none from these mummies from earlier periods! I still remember Hawass admitting they have DNA samples from Giza going back from the 90s that they haven't released yet. Why is that?? Hawass says they are concerned about misconstruing the results including "Jewish origins" but I call b.s. on that especially now that we have Natufian-Levantine Neolithic ancestry being touted about from the Abusir findings.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And I wonder how Inuit feel about Scandinavians after unpleasant experiences with Danes etc., and whether having Scandinavian DNA is a sensitive issue in that part of the world, possibly leading to people becoming social outcasts. Seems like politics and respectful treatment of indigenous minorities can be hard to separate at times, in some countries.
aDNA does not wear kiddie gloves. No one is exempt from shocking aDNA revelations, which are happening in all parts of the world. Although African aDNA in Egypt is hardly shocking.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.
Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
One example of this is cranial height, which Zakrezewski said strongly discriminates between Gizeh E series and predynastics. When such variables (there are more of them) are not included, it's going to influence the results. The same also applies to some of Keita's work, which has Badarians closer to Sub-Saharan samples than they really are, partly due to his choices in variable selection, which I feel do not always take into account important observations made by his colleagues.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. [/QB]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed the inclusion of some variables over the exclusion of others is something I've notice about Hanihara's cranial data also which has North Africans hovering closer to Eurasians than what Irish's odontic data shows.
And the same can be said about genetics as well especially with the distorted interpretations we are seeing with these leaks.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
9 variables poorly selected based on what ? Here more details :
quote:Figure 2, which is more complex, results from the same type of analysis, but where each population has been individually identified. The sample size is limited to 97 male populations, as all European populations postdating the Bronze Age have been excluded. Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data. Axis 1, representing 70% of the total variance, is significantly correlated (r=0.69) with nose width, and Axis 2, accounting for 15% of the variance, is associated with skull width (r=0.61).
Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians) :
Details (It's amusing to see Djehuti asserting that they are intermediates when Froment himself clarified that this is not the case, and only the "Nilotes," representing the Horners/Maasai, fit that description) :
quote:The selected measurements here total 7: length, width, and height of the skull, width and height of the face, and width and height of the nose. The analysis identifies 7 discriminant functions, with the 1st expressing 80%, and the 2nd 12% of the total variance. This means that the other functions can be disregarded.
Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb. The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray) lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Whether you find this flawed or not, it provides compelling evidence that, in terms of these significant craniometric variables, Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs and, in fact, bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins.
But since you'll keep bringing desesperate excuses let's see what else we can find on those early egyptians :
Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs :
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
They remained at "the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" :
quote:Classification of these series according to the increase in C 2 distances as compared to Mirgissa (cf. Table 2) shows the Egyptians to be constantly at a great distance from the black Africans or even from the Nubians of group X (c£ Table 1). [...] We may therefore conclude that, while the existence of a black component in predynastic times may not be altogether excluded, the populations of Middle and Upper Egypt, unlike those of Nubia, remained on the fringe of the currents of Negroid infiltration .
G. Billy, Population changes in Egypt and Nubia, 1977
No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians :
quote:Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971).
Brace, C. et al., 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" :
quote:In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985)
Eugen Strouhal, Anthropology of the Egyptian Nubian Men, XLV/2-3, 2007, p. 115
Also in the 1972 paper, "On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods" by M.F Gaballah et al, it is clearly said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada.
Conclusion :
- Those early egyptians were morphologically caucasoid
- closer to maghrebis/europeans than most SSAs
- Similar to modern egyptians
- Their physical characteristics were notably distinct from those commonly observed in the majority of SSAs, including variations in hair type
- These anthropological data are increasingly supported by genetic findings. Whether we examine uniparental or autosomal results, it becomes evident that these ancient Egyptians shared similarities with modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, without displaying any pronounced affinity with SSA
- From the Badarian period to the Roman Era, Ancient Egypt was not a "black" civilization and had no direct connection to most of the people or cultures found in SSA
P.S. : Furthermore, I want to make it clear that emphasizing Egypt's lack of a significant connection with SSA does not suggest that it was exclusively a "Middle Eastern" civilization or that its population were merely "Levantines" residing along the Nile
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things). Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The problem with Antalas is he is totally blinded by his bias that he cannot properly interpret any data.
Hence Natufians vs. "Sub-Saharans"...
is the same as northeast Siberians vs. "East Asians"
By his logic Northeast Siberians are not Asian but Amerinidian.
He can't even properly read the cranial graphs he posts.
If he did, he would realize that the *Nilote* centroid comes closest to the European centroid! LOL Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things). Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be? [/QB]
I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that such analyses may be restricted by authorities, like that idiot of Hawass, who has shown difficulty in interpreting this data (I'm still surprised by his stance on the Schuemann paper). Some might fear that allowing these tests could lead neighboring countries to claim ownership of Ancient Egypt (anti-Zionism in Egypt shouldn't be underestimated). However, I do recall that in Gad et al. 2020, he allowed the publication of certain uniparental genetic data from the 18th dynasty.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
He can't even properly read the cranial graphs he posts.
If he did, he would realize that the *Nilote* centroid comes closest to the European centroid! LOL [/QB]
Thanks (screenshot is done) ; The "nilote" sample here isn't Dinka/Nuer but Horners/Masai, Froment made it clear that egyptians are closer to europeans than the nilote cluster and it seems you can't even understand what the two axes represent and what variance means :
quote: Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb.The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray)lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa . In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ The problem with Antalas is he is totally blinded by his bias that he cannot properly interpret any data.
Hence Natufians vs. "Sub-Saharans"...
So what is the proper reading of this?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
I suspect that such analyses may be restricted by authorities, like that idiot of Hawass, who has shown difficulty in interpreting this data (I'm still surprised by his stance on the Schuemann paper).
What do you consider his difficulty in interpreting data and what were his remarks on Schuenemann? Do you have a quote, I hadn't heard his remarks on it
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: However, I do recall that in Gad et al. 2020, he allowed the publication of certain uniparental genetic data from the 18th dynasty.
I would not say "allowed" Gad is part of Hawass' team and co-Author with Hawass on articles I would say whatever Gad publisher Hawass wanted to be published, like the 2020 Gad articles on the 18th dynasty DNA one of them under "Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things).
you can't ask why something said if you don't even know if such things were said.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be?
This is all assumption. You assume they have DNA samples that are not released > on what basis?
I might be true or might not be
But we can see DNA is highly political. The Egyptian government is increasingly authoritarian and they want control of information including historical
Thus far they have releasing DNA information, slowly and quietly without major press releases and often under themes of disease or kinship rather than ancestry in contrast to Scheunemann/Max Planck who do articles directly themed in ancestry and media interviews
But with the Cleopatra fiasco it seem that Hawass has become more vocal recently in documentaries and interviews going out of his way to say the ancient Egyptians were not Sub-Saharan and related commentary. However they may continue their slow and low key output of genetics articles.
Notice how Scheunemann's 2017 article gets mentioned a lot and that was primarily late period, primarily maternal DNA while Yehia Gad (Hawass' team) 2020 article on both the Y DNA and mtDNA of the 18th dynasty royals is mentioned much less. That is because of how the information is presented and how they approach or do not approach the media (I happen to respect the low key approach more rather than Scheunemann's over-reaching opinions)
List of Egyptian mummies (officials, nobles, and commoners) https://tinyurl.com/2b3p29j4 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The "Nilote" sample here isn't Dinka/Nuer but Horners/Masai,..
Maasai are Nilotes that is Nilo-Saharans but there are Nilo-Saharans in the Horn also especially in the Gambela region of Ethiopia. Spatially they are still closer meaning that in certain traits these "Nilotes" resemble Europeans.
quote:Froment made it clear that Egyptians are closer to Europeans than the Nilote cluster and it seems you can't even understand what the two axes represent and what variance means:
quote: Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb.The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray)lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa . In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
And your point? We all know that metrically Northeast Africans especially Egyptians resemble Europeans facially. According to the same metric data Indians are right beside Nubians. Does this mean that Nubians are closer related to Indians than other Nile Valley Africans? There are also Australasians that metrically resemble Sub-Saharans does that mean close genetic relation?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
So what is the proper reading of this?
The same reading as this pca of East Eurasian populations.
In another thread Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data.
Proving my point. The measurements used simply reflect what they were forced to use based on what was available. Going overboard with 97 male populations, apparently, meant they had to settle with published variables and compromise, rather than deliberately picking variables based on maximizing genetic relationships. Some examples of variables missing from Froment that would have made a difference:
nasion subtense midfacial breadth (fmb) frontal bone measurements (which are standard) orbital measurements (which are standard)
You can see in the paper below (see table 6) that simotic index is a good example of measurements that differentiate between North African samples (predynastics on one hand, and Moroccans and Gizeh on the other hand, and then West Eurasians with the highest values):
quote:Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians)
All you did was prove my point. The 7 variable analysis with its pooled samples gives results more similar to your claim of modern and ancient Egyptians being the same, while the 9 variable analysis, which adds facial flatness data, is much more consistent with dynastic Egyptian samples edging closer to ancient Eurasians over time, which is exemplified most by the E-Series from Gizeh, which is Late Dynastic, and which is fully in the ancient European ellipse.
One of the most African Egyptian samples in Froment is listed as 'Amratian'. Amratian is among the oldest phases of the predynastic, along with Badarians, Tasians, etc. You can clearly see the Amratian and Badarian samples cluster with Tamil and Vedda populations, not with Bedouins or anything else you've put forward. So, later samples plotting elsewhere then is a function of either new Eurasian ancestry, an excess of more southern types of ancestry in Amratians and Badarians (but not in the later predynastics and dynastics), or both.
The rest of your post is just filler meant to distract from the anomalous result of predynastics clustering among dynastics.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yeah, we just discussed the flawed sampling methods these studies use and the here the kid comes proving our point! LOL Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
you can't ask why something said if you don't even know if such things were said.
I can not confirm that he said that DNA could be misconstrued (I do not find the source to that claim right now) but it seems he thought that it would not lead to anything. But it was quite a while ago and he may have changed his opinion since DNA testing methods are better now.
quote: Hawass has been skeptical of the DNA testing of Egyptian mummies; "From what I understand," he has said, "it is not always accurate and it cannot always be done with complete success when dealing with mummies. Until we know for sure that it is accurate, we will not use it in our research."
In December 2000, a joint team from Waseda University in Japan and Cairo's Ain Shams University tried to get permission for DNA testing of Egyptian mummies, but was denied by the Egyptian Government. Hawass stated at the time that DNA analysis was out of the question because it would not lead to anything.
quote:There is some secrecy surrounding Egypt's DNA testing of mummies. Hawass, the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, long refused to allow DNA testing on Egyptian mummies but accepted it recently on condition it would only be done by Egyptian experts. He has never disclosed full results of the examinations, sometimes on grounds of national security. Though Hawass has never explained the reasons for this, apparently there is concern the tests could cast doubt on the Egyptian lineage of the mummies.
In another thread Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon. [/QB]
yes but Antalas goes by this new map of Africa, the brown region>
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
"Recently Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian Egyptologist and Under-Secretary of State for Giza Monuments, has indicated that the DNA tests carried out by the Cairo Museum on some of the 600 skeletal remains he found in a Giza Pyramids workers' village will soon be published"
Egypt, Trunk of the Tree: The contexts Volumes 1-2 By Simson R. Najovits · 2003 ____________________________________
"To add fuel to this fire Zahi Hawass the chief director of the Giza Plateau allow DNA testing of any mummies backed by the Egyptian government he said 'DNA testing was out of the question because it would not lead to anything."
The editor of Archaeology magazine, Mark Rose, reported in 2002 that the work was cancelled “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” An Egyptologist with close links to the antiquities service, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, agreed: “There was a fear it would be said that the pharaohs were Jewish.”
Specifically, if the results showed that Tutankhamun shared DNA with Jewish groups, there was concern that this could be used by Israel to argue that Egypt was part of the Promised Land.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Maasai are Nilotes that is Nilo-Saharans but there are Nilo-Saharans in the Horn also especially in the Gambela region of Ethiopia. Spatially they are still closer meaning that in certain traits these "Nilotes" resemble Europeans.
Maasai aren't genetically similar to southern sudanese ("Nilo-Saharan" is a linguistic term) and have Eurasian admixture :
Moreover Somalis/tigray aren't "nilotes". Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And your point? We all know that metrically Northeast Africans especially Egyptians resemble Europeans facially. According to the same metric data Indians are right beside Nubians. Does this mean that Nubians are closer related to Indians than other Nile Valley Africans? There are also Australasians that metrically resemble Sub-Saharans does that mean close genetic relation?
Ah, finally, you acknowledge their morphological proximity to Europeans. But why introduce entirely unrelated populations into our discussion when we're focusing on neighboring groups that share ancestry and sometimes even a shared history? The close proximity of certain Nile Valley populations to Indians has been well-documented multiple times, and it's not surprising given that Indians have both West Asian/Steppe ancestors and AASI ancestors who exhibit many similarities with African Negroids. Just as a Mexican mestizo can be found clustering with Central Asians, despite their lack of genetic relation
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon.
Those "Africans" and "Moroccans" are literally my ancestors (they make up 30% of my DNA) what are you even talking about ? Now, I seem to be labeled as racist towards my own ancestors, who, by the way, were dissimilar to any SSA population nor "negroid" as Djehuti tries to imply by using the broad and inaccurate term of "African".
Once again, it's essential to note that Natufians are not genetically close to Iberomaurusians, in alignment with the established scientific consensus. :
quote:Although, ADMIXTURE analysis pointed to some relationship between IAM and Levantine aDNA samples, especially the Natufians, this is not supported by FST distances.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Proving my point. The measurements used simply reflect what they were forced to use based on what was available. Going overboard with 97 male populations, apparently, meant they had to settle with published variables and compromise, rather than deliberately picking variables based on maximizing genetic relationships. Some examples of variables missing from Froment that would have made a difference:
nasion subtense midfacial breadth (fmb) frontal bone measurements (which are standard) orbital measurements (which are standard)
You can see in the paper below (see table 6) that simotic index is a good example of measurements that differentiate between North African samples (predynastics on one hand, and Moroccans and Gizeh on the other hand, and then West Eurasians with the highest values):
All you did was prove my point. The 7 variable analysis with its pooled samples gives results more similar to your claim of modern and ancient Egyptians being the same, while the 9 variable analysis, which adds facial flatness data, is much more consistent with dynastic Egyptian samples edging closer to ancient Eurasians over time, which is exemplified most by the E-Series from Gizeh, which is Late Dynastic, and which is fully in the ancient European ellipse.
One of the most African Egyptian samples in Froment is listed as 'Amratian'. Amratian is among the oldest phases of the predynastic, along with Badarians, Tasians, etc. You can clearly see the Amratian and Badarian samples cluster with Tamil and Vedda populations, not with Bedouins or anything else you've put forward. So, later samples plotting elsewhere then is a function of either new Eurasian ancestry, an excess of more southern types of ancestry in Amratians and Badarians (but not in the later predynastics and dynastics), or both.
The rest of your post is just filler meant to distract from the anomalous result of predynastics clustering among dynastics.
What kind of argument is this ? You can literally apply this to every paper or study... There's no need to "maximize" anything to gain a reasonably clear understanding of their physical traits and affinities. Thus, the paper and graph remain valid, albeit not exhaustive. Of course you have overlooked the other papers I shared, which introduces additional variables.
Furthermore, The E series literally incorporates foreigners (greeks) and the Eurasian influence over time that you're referring to had already been identified within the predynastic populations themselves (funny how people like you always ignore the nubian influence that came later notably during the Middle kingdom era) :
quote:There is a temporal pattern of interest, namely, the relative distinctiveness of the early predynastic period from its successor , the subsequent lack of difference between the two middle series (their similarity being mutually greatest with each other), and the notable distance value between the terminal predynastic period and its successor, Dynasty I (Table 4).
Keita et al., Temporal variation in phenetic affinity of early upper egyptian male crania series, 2008
quote: Results indicate that the Howells sample is similar to other late Dynastic Egyptian groups, but also shows strong similarities with Classical Greek samples that no other Egyptian groups display. Results also reflect dynamic relationships between Upper and Lower Egypt, and support a separation between Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egyptian populations followed by population continuity throughout the Dynastic Period.
Sander et al., Craniometric analysis of the Howells egyptian sample: the Greek connection, 2014
quote:While the Howells Egyptian group maintains a close relationship with later Egyptian groups, it has a special relationship with the Greek sample that the other Egyptian samples do not have. Therefore, he argue that Howells Egyptian group reflects greater Greek immigration and assimilation into the population of Egypt, a theory consistent with the historical data of the Late Period of Egypt.
quote: Our results agree with those of Stoessiger in so far as t he Badarian population appears significantly different from the later predynastic populations from Naqada and Hierakonpolis
Berry et al., genetical change in ancient egypt
quote:The change observed from the Badarian period through the Predynastic periods thus probably reflects increased gene flow via exogamy or migration along the Nile Valley (as postulated by Hassan 1988) and mirrors the results obtained by Keita (1996). The change between the LPD and the EDynastic, however, appears more fundamental and could reflect even greater migration of individuals along the Nile Valley.
Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Human skeletal diversity in the egyptian nile valley, 2006
Also funny how you missed this :
quote:Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans
Don't you see how desesperate you are with the "muh badarians less eurasian admixture therefore founders of egypt = black" XD
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I post data. What does Antalas do? He's just stuffing his posts with filler, rhetoric and scatterbrained commentary:
"What kind of argument is this ?" "You can literally apply this to every paper or study." "Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs" "Egyptians bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins. " "Portraits from Hawara as a reminder" "Thus, the paper and graph remain valid" "Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs" "They remained at the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" "No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians" "Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" "Don't you see how desesperate you are with the "muh badarians less eurasian admixture therefore founders of egypt = black" XD "
Antalas, if I'm wrong, all you had to do was post another paper proving that predynastics clustering with late dynastics in Froment is not an anomaly, but a normal result that has been replicated countless times. Of course you can't do that, so you're resorting to these pathetic antics to hide the fact that you got caught posting results that have not been replicated (Froment and Sereno et al 2018).
I have your number by now. You can only make weak, misleading, specious posts. Your grasp of anthropology is weak. You're not nearly as competent as you think you are.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yeah, we just discussed the flawed sampling methods these studies use and the here the kid comes proving our point! LOL
You can see why I avoid the places where anthro and genetics bloggers come together. They're infested with people like Antalas.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Antalas, if I'm wrong, all you had to do was post another paper proving that predynastics clustering with late dynastics in Froment is not an anomaly, but a normal result that has been replicated countless times. Of course you can't do that
That's literally what I did and even better since I showed continuity up until the roman era (Schillaci et al. 2009). As for the rest you can keep your ad hominem.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You can see why I avoid the places where anthro and genetics bloggers come together. They're infested with people like Antalas.
I don't blame you one bit for this. The online anthro/pop genetics fandom is saturated with racialists and ethno-nationalists who care only about validation for their egos and prejudices. It's all about proving their ancestors were some master race, or knocking on whatever ethnic group they happen to dislike (a favorite target of the latter being those racialized as Black, unfortunately).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Hope they have their fun while it lasts.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
9 variables poorly selected based on what ? Here more details :
quote:Figure 2, which is more complex, results from the same type of analysis, but where each population has been individually identified. The sample size is limited to 97 male populations, as all European populations postdating the Bronze Age have been excluded. Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data. Axis 1, representing 70% of the total variance, is significantly correlated (r=0.69) with nose width, and Axis 2, accounting for 15% of the variance, is associated with skull width (r=0.61).
Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians) :
What bedouins from where? You keep using these random images from Fromentin, but all of his own data clusters Nile Valley populations together. So he tries to pick traits that he claims are "Eurasian" or "less African" in order to try and get the results he wants but no matter what the populations of the Nile cluster together and you see this in numerous papers of his. Your attempts to argue that this proves that these populations cluster closer to populations of the Maghreb as if the Maghreb is a marker of Non African ancestry is the problem. Not to mention trying to use bedouins the same way when there have always been nomadic populations in Africa. All of this is just racialists nonsense trying to somehow associate certain features in Africans with Eurasia when those features did not originate in Eurasia. And the reason why the Maghreb would cluster with Africans on the Nile is due to Maghrebis having African ancestry that originated in Africa, specifically to the East around the Nile and in the horn. It does not mean that the Nile Valley and Maghreb are somehow related based on Eurasian ancestral components going back to prehistoric time and therefore making them less African. And this is all about Europeans obsession with trying to carve out North Africa from Africa so they can claim the Nile as European/Eurasian history.
Here is another example of the same kind of chart from a different Froment paper where it shows the same clustering of African populations together. Yet somehow according to him and people like him, this means these people weren't African:
And Fromentin is just another European race scientist, using skeletal metrics to support views on race.
quote: Alain Froment showed that there is a good correlation between the shape of the skull and the geographical origin of human populations. As such, he contested the allegations of the Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop by showing that the shape of the skull of the ancient Egyptians did not resemble that of sub-Saharan populations. His position was criticized by the Africanist historian C. Coquery-Vidrovitch, criticism to which the author responded in the same journal. As head of collections at the Muse'e de l'Homme, he defended the principle of collections of human remains, considered as archives of humanity.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Details (It's amusing to see Djehuti asserting that they are intermediates when Froment himself clarified that this is not the case, and only the "Nilotes," representing the Horners/Maasai, fit that description) :
quote:The selected measurements here total 7: length, width, and height of the skull, width and height of the face, and width and height of the nose. The analysis identifies 7 discriminant functions, with the 1st expressing 80%, and the 2nd 12% of the total variance. This means that the other functions can be disregarded.
Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb. The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray) lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Whether you find this flawed or not, it provides compelling evidence that, in terms of these significant craniometric variables, Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs and, in fact, bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins.
Again more of the same from you trying to argue that the populations of the Nile clustering together somehow proves them to be closer to Eurasians is pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: But since you'll keep bringing desesperate excuses let's see what else we can find on those early egyptians :
Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs :
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
Again, typical racialist approaches to interpreting African remains as if black Africans cannot have straight hair when we know that straight hair is still found among various "bedouins" such as the Beja and other nomadic African groups...... And this is what the researchers say about the development of this site and the surrounding culture in the predynastic:
quote: A northward shift of annual monsoon rains brought about a wet phase during the early Holocene (ca. 9300 BC) and resulted in the return of populations to the Western Desert, which had been abandoned since the late-Middle Paleolithic (Wengrow, 2006). Based upon similarities in lithic technology, people likely migrated into the Western Desert from the southern Nile Valley. By about 8000 BC, the first Neolithic cultures --the Saharan Neolithic-- had developed in the Western Desert. It is important to note that, in contrast to Neolithic economies in the neighboring Levant, the early Egyptian Neolithic developed without any sign of agriculture. These groups are defined as Neolithic based primarily on the presence of ceramics and evidence of the herding of cattle. Thus, the early Egyptian Neolithic developed in a manner readily distinguishable from that which emerged around the same time in the Levant, where animal domestication was adopted soon after the earliest farming villages appeared. As a further contrast between the two regions, the process of state formation in Egypt occurred relatively rapidly --about 1000 years after the first farming villages appeared in the Nile Valley-- while state formation in the Near East lagged behind the adoption of agriculture by perhaps 5000 years (Allen, 1997).
Archaeological investigations suggest that human occupation during the early phase of the Neolithic (ca. 8300 - 6900 BC) in the Western Desert was characterized by small, short-term habitation by small groups of hunter-gatherers. Faunal assemblages from these sites typically include some bones of cattle, although it is generally accepted that they were not domesticated at this point (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000; Wengrow, 2006; cf. Wendorf and Schild, 1980). During the following phases of the Saharan Neolithic, desert population reached its peak. Most sites were small, possibly outposts for herders, while the increase of waddle-and-daub structures at larger sites likely reflects permanent habitation. By about 5600 BC, sheep and goats were present, but wild game appears to have continued as the primary source of meat.
In the Nile Valley, populations practiced a mixed-subsistence economy, exploiting wild game and plants and, especially, fishing. By this time, fishing technologies had become more sophisticated since the Paleolithic; people were not only catching fish in small lakes supplied by annual flooding, but also catching deep-water species from the main channel of the river, which provides indirect evidence for boat use (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000:32). Beginning around 7000 BC, the cooler, wetter climate began to shift, reaching conditions similar to present-day aridity by about 5000 BC.
.... Naqada III (ca. 3200 - 3000 BC) is the final phase of the Predynastic period. By the end of this period, Upper and Lower Egypt had unified into a large, territorial state. As early as the beginning of the Naqada III, cultural traditions in the north had been replaced by those from Upper Egypt. Artifacts originating from Naqada cultural groups in Upper Egypt replaced material culture in sites to the north and had spread south towards Nubia. A consolidation of power in Upper Egypt preceded political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (Bard, 2000). Settlements, as well as the majority of the population had moved closer to the river valley, and larger centers included monumental architecture such as palace and temple complexes (Hoffman et al., 1986; Hassan, 1993). As larger settlements became more urbanized, desert settlements declined, and agriculture began to dominate the subsistence economy (Midant-Reynes, 2000b).
Safe to say, no evidence of caucasian Eurasian nomads or bedouins migrating up the Nile from Eurasia as opposed to African populations on the Nile from the South moving north during the last wet phase forming the basis of the development of a new subsistence economy and cultural framework.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They remained at "the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" :
quote:Classification of these series according to the increase in C 2 distances as compared to Mirgissa (cf. Table 2) shows the Egyptians to be constantly at a great distance from the black Africans or even from the Nubians of group X (c£ Table 1). [...] We may therefore conclude that, while the existence of a black component in predynastic times may not be altogether excluded, the populations of Middle and Upper Egypt, unlike those of Nubia, remained on the fringe of the currents of Negroid infiltration .
G. Billy, Population changes in Egypt and Nubia, 1977
No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians :
quote:Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971).
Brace, C. et al., 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
And here we go posting more racialist French anthropologists trying to act like they "prove" that ancient Nile Valley Africans weren't African, when the data says no such thing. So these arbitrary metrics that these European racialists keep using still put these populations on the continent of Africa and within African population history. But somehow, you keep trying to dig up these old racialized skeletal analyses to try and prove that these were somehow Eurasian caucasoids when they weren't.
But Brilly and Fromentin are part of the tradition of European race scientists, who try to assign cranial metrics to "races" and use them to support pseudo scientific racial characteristics to populations. And often this is in contradiction to what the data actually says. So for G Brilly, we have data showing African features among populations along the Nile, which he tries to argue represents different "racial types", when they don't.
quote: 1) We first encounter below a distance CH2 = 0.125 a set of populations morphologically indistinguishable from Mirgissa characterized by the absence of significant differences for the seven characters considered (Billy, 1975). Here we find all the series from Middle and Lower Egypt: Sakkarah 1st dynasty (Si) and 4th dynasty (S4), Deshasheh-Medum (DM) from the 4th to the 6th dynasty, the Egyptians E of Giza (26th to 30th dynasty).
This set corresponds to a morphological type characterized by large dimensions of the cranium associated with a high face, a narrow nose and a slight projection of the facial mass. We can locate the origin of this type in the North, in the Fayoum region, and follow its expansion in Upper Egypt, as shown by the presence in this same group of the At series (royal tombs of Abydos 1st dynasty), A18 (Abydos 18th dynasty), T18 and Tl9 (Thebes 18th and 19th dynasties).It is found in Sudanese Nubia at Sessebi (SS) and at Mirgissa from the Second Intermediate Period.
2) The second grouping, in a narrow band of CH2, between 0.17 and 0.27, includes, in one sex as in the other, all the series of Upper Egypt from the fourth millennium to the Roman period, with the exception of the male series of Shekh-Ali (SH), moreover considered by Thomson and Maciver (1905) as unrepresentative. All the Nubian series of dynastic age, with the exception of those of group C, are found precisely in this group; these are the series of groups A, B, D of Batrawi, those of Kerma and El Kubanieh.
This is the same group to which corresponds a common morphological type which, although related to the previous type from Middle and Lower Egypt, is differentiated by a narrow head and, in its Nubian variant, by a tendency with lower faces and wider noses. This morphological type therefore covered, during the dynastic era, a vast central area of the Nile valley probably extending well beyond towards East Africa, as evidenced by the still existing relationship with current Ethiopian or Somali populations. We see for example in fig. 3, which allows us to situate the Nubian populations in their African context, that the Tigray and Somali-Galla series fit perfectly into the Nubian group and are very far from the subset of Black Africans delimited by dotted lines.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" :
quote:In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985)
Eugen Strouhal, Anthropology of the Egyptian Nubian Men, XLV/2-3, 2007, p. 115
Nothing in that paper suggests or proves these were anything more than indigenous African features along the Nile. This despearate attempt to redefine African features based on similarities to Europeans, even when those African features don't come from Europeans is the problem and the reason for these studies being called pseudoscience. They have not proven these so-called "A-Group" populations originated anywhere other than in Africa and the data itself shows this but somehow they are determined to turn African populations into Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Also in the 1972 paper, "On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods" by M.F Gaballah et al, it is clearly said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada.
Conclusion :
- Those early egyptians were morphologically caucasoid
- closer to maghrebis/europeans than most SSAs
- Similar to modern egyptians
Again, trying to push again the same narrative that somehow ancient African skulls aren't African. When geography tells you that southern phenotypes are closer to African phenotypes than Eurasian phenotypes. Yet this is the absurdity that these people push in trying to downplay the obvious African origin and affinity of these populations, by hiding behind "Sub Saharan" Africa. As if to say, because ancient Nile Valley Africans don't cluster metricly with random hand picked populations thousands of miles to the South of the Nile such as Ugandans or Tanzanians, that somehow that means the Nile Valley populations weren't Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: - Their physical characteristics were notably distinct from those commonly observed in the majority of SSAs, including variations in hair type
NIle Valley Africans are Nile Valley Africans, not Kenyans, not Ugandans, not Mozambicans or West Africans. This insanity of trying to claim that these other populations are representative off all African features is absurd and ludicrous. Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt are both in the Sahara and have always been part of black Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: - These anthropological data are increasingly supported by genetic findings. Whether we examine uniparental or autosomal results, it becomes evident that these ancient Egyptians shared similarities with modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, without displaying any pronounced affinity with SSA
- From the Badarian period to the Roman Era, Ancient Egypt was not a "black" civilization and had no direct connection to most of the people or cultures found in SSA
THe anthropological data makes it clear that the ancient Nile Valley populations from Naqada and Badari cluster together with other populations in the ancient Sahara and the A-Group before any other population, including those in Central Africa, South Africa and West Africa. That is common sense and the idea that this represents "proof" of these populations not being Africans is just dumb.
The point you are missing is that all these charts that you are posting clusters Nile Valley Africans TOGETHER as Africans, not as Eurasians, not as West Africans and not as South Africans, which is to be expected for any population indigenous to a certain region and having been there a long time. And it is this basic fact of geography that the Nile is in Africa and that the ancient populations there originated in Africa that European racialists keep trying to downplay even though their data reinforces these groups cluster together as Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
The problem with Froment and many of the other analyses of these skulls or of DNA is using "differences" to prop up an a-priori assumption of Eurasian back migration and population replacement. And even worse than that, the data was used to promote the idea that all these ancient populations 'werent really African' either due to that mixture or replacement. Data such as skeletal metrics and DNA only makes sense when used holistically to identify all the relevant populations involved such as those on the Nile, those in the Levant, those in the Sahara and those further South and understand how they interacted with each other. Just saying "skeletal metrics changed" due to influence from "other populations" without identifying what other populations they are talking about just promotes speculation. And this is what these people have mostly been trying to do in these types of reports which is suggest Eurasian influence by proxy without hard evidence. Not saying that there wasn't any, but what they are promoting is something different. Again, look at how they do such studies in Europe and how they are able to identify all the relevant populations involved in any changes that occurred over time. But again this kind of research and the trickling out of selected pieces of data is just to promote more speculation, including the leaks of this DNA.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I haven't read Froment, so I can't speak to his intentions.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
Okay. So you have two Naqada II predynastic samples on the outer edge of dynastic samples. How does that resemble predynastics clustering with later dynastics, which you were defending, earlier? You even posted Roman Hawara portraits that were supposed to be similar to predynastics. Do you read your own posts?
And that big empty space (fig 3's PCO) in between Naqada II and Badari is where predynastics normally fall. That is to say, they normally never fall in the middle of dynastics (just like these Keita Naqada II samples don't fall in the middle of dynastics), so the only place for them to go is in that empty space in figure 3.
But thanks for proving that with Keita's 10 variables (as opposed to Froment's 7 and 9), you don't get a mixup of predynastics and dynastics seen in Froment's PCAs.
Your own source, Keita, even implies that you're unlikely to get this result because there is a change from LP to ED:
quote: A review of the distance matrices between the listed periods in Zakrzewski (2007:506) reveals a trend when the Badarian through ED is considered using the approach developed in Keita and Boyce (2008). The values from the Badarian consistently increase to the ED and then decrease in the OK and MK: Badarian-EP, 2.67, Badarian-LP, 4.74, Badarian-ED, 6.13, Badarian-OK, 3.22, Badarian-MK, 3.90. (Values have been truncated to two decimal points.) An examination of the distances between serial pairs of periods is possibly revealing of population change in upper Egypt from the LP to ED: Badari- EP, 2.67, EP-LP, 2.06, LP-ED-4.81; note the relative increase in the distance value between the latest predynastic period and ED, also found in Keita (unpublished analyses) and Keita and Boyce (2008) using different data. There is a parallel trend of note: The EP, LP and ED samples also have smaller distance values (are more similar) to the OK series that has a large northern component than to the Badarian one. When the distances are analyzed using principal coordinates analysis (PCO) (Figure 1) these patterns are broadly in evidence. Zakrzewski notes, by examining the misidentification of individuals from series afforded by the program—called incorrectly ‘misclassification’ in the computer output—that these individuals generally group into adjacent time periods. One interpretation is that the biodistances indicate diversification over time, and the misidentifications (misclassifications) indicate continuity. This approach to her distance results indicate a trend of increasing distinction from the Badarian, and a notable relative increase in dissimilarity between the LP and ED when compared to other serial pairs. The LP-ED difference is quite interesting because this is the period identified with state formation and greater integration of the Egyptian Nile Valley. The post- Badarian increase in similarity to the sample with northern material is also interesting.
As Djehuti pointed out, Antalas loves proving his opponents' points. This is what his own source says (no mixup of predynastics and dynastics from the viewpoint of the oldest sample's distance profile):
quote:Analysis of the distance matrix (Table 1) proves interesting. The values can be seriated into what can be called a distance hierarchy based on progressive values from a particular series. Using the Badarian sample as a baseline the following is found from the matrix: from the Badarian: Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Senon (Dynasty I Abydos/el-Amrah), Thebes (XI), Dynasty I Royal Tomb, Sakkara Dyn I, Lisht, Gizeh, Sedment, Courtier (Dynasty I Abydos). The apparent “anomaly” in this is the Courtier series—although “from” Upper Egypt it is the most distant from the Badarian. This is most striking in the PCO plot (Figure 3) and is similar to the findings in Zakrzewksi (2007). The sample from around the royal tombs are also distinct. In previous analyses in which all of the southern Dynasty I crania were amalgamated into one series it was found that when treated as unknowns to be classified in an analytical space including northern and southern series that numerous Dynasty I crania from Abydos classified into northern series (Keita 1990, 1992). This analysis reveals that it is the Courtier subset that is primarily responsible for that observation. The results discussed from Zakrzewski (2007) demonstrate the greatest dissimilarity from the Badarian as being the Dynasty I series from Abydos+el Amrah— whose major component is the Courtier subset (i.e. the same series). As noted this Courtier series shows primary affinities to some northern series (Gizeh and Lisht).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Okay. So you have two Naqada II predynastic samples on the outer edge of dynastic samples. How does that resemble predynastics clustering with later dynastics, which you were defending, earlier? You even posted Roman Hawara portraits that were supposed to be similar to predynastics. Do you read your own posts?
And that big empty space (fig 3's PCO) in between Naqada II and Badari is where predynastics normally fall. That is to say, they normally never fall in the middle of dynastics (just like these Keita Naqada II samples don't fall in the middle of dynastics), so the only place for them to go is in that empty space in figure 3.
But thanks for proving that with Keita's 10 variables (as opposed to Froment's 7 and 9), you don't get a mixup of predynastics and dynastics seen in Froment's PCAs.
Your own source, Keita, even implies that you're unlikely to get this result because there is a change from LP to ED:
quote: A review of the distance matrices between the listed periods in Zakrzewski (2007:506) reveals a trend when the Badarian through ED is considered using the approach developed in Keita and Boyce (2008). The values from the Badarian consistently increase to the ED and then decrease in the OK and MK: Badarian-EP, 2.67, Badarian-LP, 4.74, Badarian-ED, 6.13, Badarian-OK, 3.22, Badarian-MK, 3.90. (Values have been truncated to two decimal points.) An examination of the distances between serial pairs of periods is possibly revealing of population change in upper Egypt from the LP to ED: Badari- EP, 2.67, EP-LP, 2.06, LP-ED-4.81; note the relative increase in the distance value between the latest predynastic period and ED, also found in Keita (unpublished analyses) and Keita and Boyce (2008) using different data. There is a parallel trend of note: The EP, LP and ED samples also have smaller distance values (are more similar) to the OK series that has a large northern component than to the Badarian one. When the distances are analyzed using principal coordinates analysis (PCO) (Figure 1) these patterns are broadly in evidence. Zakrzewski notes, by examining the misidentification of individuals from series afforded by the program—called incorrectly ‘misclassification’ in the computer output—that these individuals generally group into adjacent time periods. One interpretation is that the biodistances indicate diversification over time, and the misidentifications (misclassifications) indicate continuity. This approach to her distance results indicate a trend of increasing distinction from the Badarian, and a notable relative increase in dissimilarity between the LP and ED when compared to other serial pairs. The LP-ED difference is quite interesting because this is the period identified with state formation and greater integration of the Egyptian Nile Valley. The post- Badarian increase in similarity to the sample with northern material is also interesting.
As Djehuti pointed out, Antalas loves proving his opponents' points. This is what his own source says (no mixup of predynastics and dynastics from the viewpoint of the oldest sample's distance profile):
quote:Analysis of the distance matrix (Table 1) proves interesting. The values can be seriated into what can be called a distance hierarchy based on progressive values from a particular series. Using the Badarian sample as a baseline the following is found from the matrix: from the Badarian: Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Senon (Dynasty I Abydos/el-Amrah), Thebes (XI), Dynasty I Royal Tomb, Sakkara Dyn I, Lisht, Gizeh, Sedment, Courtier (Dynasty I Abydos). The apparent “anomaly” in this is the Courtier series—although “from” Upper Egypt it is the most distant from the Badarian. This is most striking in the PCO plot (Figure 3) and is similar to the findings in Zakrzewksi (2007). The sample from around the royal tombs are also distinct. In previous analyses in which all of the southern Dynasty I crania were amalgamated into one series it was found that when treated as unknowns to be classified in an analytical space including northern and southern series that numerous Dynasty I crania from Abydos classified into northern series (Keita 1990, 1992). This analysis reveals that it is the Courtier subset that is primarily responsible for that observation. The results discussed from Zakrzewski (2007) demonstrate the greatest dissimilarity from the Badarian as being the Dynasty I series from Abydos+el Amrah— whose major component is the Courtier subset (i.e. the same series). As noted this Courtier series shows primary affinities to some northern series (Gizeh and Lisht).
Seems like you don't even pay much attention to the quotes I've posted. I've already acknowledged the differences but it isn't as stark as you think it is.
Here again :
quote:That study (Irish, 2006) provided evidence for predynastic/dynastic continuity , especially during the early dynastic in Upper Egypt. Temporal and geographic distributions of biological variation among skeletal samples in the present study also suggest that in situ development was associated with Egyptian state formation, albeit with some indications of migration and/or gene flow. As such, we could reject neither Hypothesis 1, the in situ model, nor Hypothesis 2, the developmentby-invading-population model.
quote:The numerically derived affinities (Table 4) and their patterning in the MDS and CA (Figs. 2, 3, 5) suggest that there is some measure of homogeneity among the bulk of Egyptian samples. Specifically, the clustering of 11 or so samples is reminiscent of that observed among post-Paleolithic Nubians in a previous regional dental study (Irish, 2005). In the latter case, homogeneity was thought to be suggestive of population continuity. Similarly, the potential Egyptian continuity extends across time (as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples) and space (as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting Upper and Lower Egyptians).
J.D. Irish, who were the ancient egyptians ? Dental affinities among neolithic trhough postdynastic peoples, 2006
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Seems like you don't even pay much attention to the quotes I've posted. I've already acknowledged the differences but it isn't as stark as you think it is.
The differences are substantial enough to know that Froment's fig 2 has not been replicated elsewhere. You just keep ignoring it by posting studies with 7-10 variables that barely differentiate the samples (including the Keita paper you've just posted; I've already mentioned that Keita's analyses often exaggerate Badarian distinctiveness). Or you post non-metric data, which is a different subject.
From older, more elaborate investigations by physical anthropologists we know that 7-10 generic variables are unlikely to show differences accurately.
It was shown by Morant (1926) that the recorded series of ancient Egyptian skulls can be divided into two groups. These were called, for convenience, the Upper and Lower Egyptian, though there is evidence that the regions represented changed somewhat with time. The series in the first group came from the neighbourhood of Thebes and sites farther south, while those in the second group came from the same region of Upper Egypt and sites farther north. The first group includes all the predynastic series that have been described and some of dynastic date, the latest being of the 18th dynasty: the second group ranges from the 1st dynasty to Roman times, though no series available earlier than the 4th dynasty had come from the region immediately south of the Delta. The Sakkara series described in the present paper extends the range of such material back to the 1st dynasty. It had been found that the means for all these series are almost constant for most of the metrical characters commonly recorded, but for a few measurements more significant differences are found and these separate the two groups of series. Characters of both kinds are treated in Table 2, which is based on Table XIII in Risdon's paper (1939) on the human remains from Lachish (Palestine). The first six characters are those which make the clearest distinction between the Upper and Lower Egyptian types of series, and they are all breadths or dependent on breadths—the latter being the horizontal circumference and the two indices—of the cranium. The Sakkara series is clearly assigned to the Lower Egyptian group, and if counted as a member of this the range of the mean minimum frontal breadths (B') for the group is slightly extended. The Thebes series is also assigned to the Lower Egyptian group by four of the six characters in question: for U and 100B/H', however, its means fall within the ranges given for the Upper Egyptian type of series.
A Study of a First Dynasty Series of Egyptian Skulls from Sakkara and of an Eleventh Dynasty Series from Thebes https://www.jstor.org/stable/2332509
And actually, there are more than the six alluded to in this quote. I've already mentioned nasion subtense for instance, which differentiates Badarians and Naqadans from West Eurasians, Moroccans and Gizeh.
In case you missed it:
The first group includes all the predynastic series that have been described and some of dynastic date
and
the second group ranges from the 1st dynasty to Roman times, though no series available earlier than the 4th dynasty had come from the region immediately south of the Delta. The Sakkara series described in the present paper extends the range of such material back to the 1st dynasty. [....] The Thebes series is also assigned to the Lower Egyptian group by four of the six characters in question: for U and 100B/H', however, its means fall within the ranges given for the Upper Egyptian type of series.
and
It had been found that the means for all these series are almost constant for most of the metrical characters commonly recorded, but for a few measurements more significant differences are found and these separate the two groups of series.
Translation, predynastics are together as a rule, while dynastics are nearby but usually have certain affinities peculiar to themselves. So yes, stark and consistent.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I haven't read Froment, so I can't speak to his intentions.
All anthropology going back before the rise of DNA in the 90s was primarily based on cranial metrics which had its origins in race science. As such most anthropology literature prior to that time was full of such baggage. And Fromentin was a supporter of continuing to use such measurements in anthropology and especially in rejecting Diop's Unesco presentation of African origins of the ancient Nile Valley. A lot of the papers on ancient North Africa were written by the French in that era, especially when it comes to the Sahara and Maghreb as they were the colonial powers there. These papers are also very popular among various North Africa centrists because of that old racialist language and likely because a lot of them are in the Francophone sphere of influence.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit.
No it doesn't Since the prevailing theory is that humankind originated in Africa then any migration into Africa is back migration
Although one could argue "back" is unnecessary to use
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
A) no mutations of DNA resulting in distinct haplogroups occurred outside of Africa, that is a racist myth
or
B) Some mutations of DNA resulting in distinct haplogroups did occur outside of Africa but some researchers are wrong about which ones or unbale to prove which ones
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Who were the ancestors of U6 carriers?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Still, having said all that, the dynastic aDNA so far came out supporting them more than it supports their opponents (you mentioned that Froment opposed Diop). Your posts also don't exactly match the aDNA results so far (your position was, among other things, that older and more southern dynastic aDNA would show major differences, but these two abstracts deny that). The more southern types of ancestry so far have only gone up significantly in the pastoral period, and I have been predicting it will also go up in the predynastic period, but probably only to a level where we can say they're predominantly African and with 'African' implying an expanded definition only understood by some anthropologists, but not by society). But you are still waiting for dynastic Egyptians to have results more optimistic than I would predict even for predynastics.
So, all these academics you feel are driven by agendas and pseudo-science.. why has the aDNA not put their claims with the rest of the abandoned and outdated theories of anthropology? It seems it's really people like Hiernaux that have been quoted extensively on this site, whose theories are outdated in light of aDNA. Including Keita to some extent (Keita recently endorsed a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes and had Egyptians as Saharo-Tropical variants, and criticized his colleagues for proposing affinities that center around the Mediterranean basin).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Still, having said all that, the dynastic aDNA so far came out supporting them more than it supports their opponents (you mentioned that Froment opposed Diop). Your posts also don't exactly match the aDNA results so far (your position was, among other things, that older and more southern dynastic aDNA would show major differences, but these two abstracts deny that). The more southern types of ancestry so far have only gone up significantly in the pastoral period, and I have been predicting it will also go up in the predynastic period, but probably only to a level where we can say they're predominantly African and with 'African' implying an expanded definition only understood by some anthropologists, but not by society). But you are still waiting for dynastic Egyptians to have results more optimistic than I would predict even for predynastics.
So, all these academics you feel are driven by agendas and pseudo-science.. why has the aDNA not put their claims with the rest of the abandoned and outdated theories of anthropology? It seems it's really people like Hiernaux that have been quoted extensively on this site, whose theories are outdated in light of aDNA. Including Keita to some extent (Keita recently endorsed a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes and had Egyptians as Saharo-Tropical variants, and criticized his colleagues for proposing affinities that center around the Mediterranean basin).
None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
It makes for imprecise argumentation to use the term "North Africa" which is too broad in the era of genetics
As we see thus far M1 is more spread in the horn and U6 is defiantly more prominent in the Maghreb than Egypt Of the competing theories on M1 (Africa vs Asia)in the African theory it is believed to originated in the horn not Egypt)
The Nile valley is a river civilization the Maghreb is not The Maghreb has Iberomaurusian sites the Nile Valley does not. E-M81 is the predominant Y-group of the Maghreb but it is not the predominant E group in Egypt
All of this could actually enhance your argument about Egyptian civilization because conclusions about the North West population of the Maghreb have significant differences from Egypt's history and you can also see that in the Egyptian art depicting Libyans. And adding to this further if you are suggesting Egyptian civilization originated from Sudan or further south then that is not even "North Africa"
West Africa is not East Africa, similarly Northern Africa is split between the coastally oriented Maghreb and the Nile Valley river system originating in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya > not North Africa
So to keep using the term "North Africa" is weakening your own arguments To use that term anthropologically today is vague and old school, similarly "Near East" (although NA can be used in strictly geographic contexts effectively)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread. [/QB]
The data says Egyptians form a clade (autosomally) with farmers to the exclusion of all other populations in the world. This clade is so exclusive with respect to modern day Africans that 1) it's extinct, 2) most of Africa probably never had members belonging to it other than through migration (e.g. Tenereans at Gobero) and 3) up until recently, the Middle East had the most members of this population.
What I mean with the last point is that we've only just now introduced some balance as far as representation of this population in Africa. It used to be that this population's oldest attestation was in the Middle East (Natufians), whereas today we have about 50% of this population in coastal North Africa and the Rift Valley (Loosdrecht's Taforalt, Al Khiday, Olduvai Man). The African side of this population has largely been uncovered in the last 10 years (Kefi's 20th century Taforalt is largely Eurasian, allegedly, but Loosdrecht's new Taforalt sample was excavated close to the time of their publication in 2018, while al Khiday was announced in 2012).
Given the correction of this imbalance over time, the argument of Morton and others is nowhere near as crazy as you're portraying it to be. Certainly far less crazy than some other ideas going around the forum or Keita endorsing a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
Anyway, I've already explained this to you in 2016 and other occasions. except back then we didn't have dynastic Egyptian mtDNAs. It's honestly crazy to see you bring this "backmigration agenda/conspiracy" back up again with these mtDNAs.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread.
The data
What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: says Egyptians form a clade (autosomally) with farmers at the expense of all other populations in the world.
What clades of what lineages and how are they clustered? Again, are you arguing for population replacement due to Neolithic migrations or are you arguing for ancient genetic shared ancestry between populations? And what "Egyptians" and how many, in what time period and what region of the Nile? Are you claiming all inhabitants of the ancient Nile down to Sudan or just certain individuals? And where is all this ancient DNA that you are saying supports this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This clade is so exclusive with respect to modern day Africans that 1) it's extinct, 2) most of Africa probably never had members belonging to it other than through migration (e.g. Tenereans at Gobero) and 3) up until recently, the Middle East had the most members of this population.
And if it is so elusive where is all the ancient DNA that you are using to show its distribution and evolution over time and who had it and when in or outside Africa going back 10,000 years in the Nile and Levant? Where is this ancient DNA from all these regions going back that far showing this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What I mean with the last point is that we've only just now introduced some balance as far as representation of this population in Africa. It used to be that this population's oldest attestation was in the Middle East (Natufians), whereas today we have about 50% of this population in coastal North Africa and the Rift Valley (Loosdrecht's Taforalt, Al Khiday, Olduvai Man). The African side of this population has largely been uncovered in the last 10 years (Kefi's 20th century Taforalt is largely Eurasian, allegedly, but Loosdrecht's new Taforalt sample was excavated close to the time of their publication in 2018, while al Khiday was announced in 2012).
We who and what data are you talking about? And how are African populations being in Africa not balanced? Not sure what "balance" you are talking about because again, I said it multiple times, the ancient DNA over large regions of the Nile, Levant and other regions of Africa don't exist to begin to even claim a comprehensive distribution of DNA clades that may have disappeared and in what time periods. Where is the ancient Sudanese DNA from the same time frame? Do they have these same clades or no?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Given the correction of this imbalance over time, the argument of Morton and others is nowhere near as crazy as you're portraying it to be. Certainly far less crazy than some other ideas going around the forum or Keita endorsing a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
What imbalance? Anybody looking at the Sahara, Nile and North Africa over the last 20,000 years knows full well the problem of modeling ancient population history without actual ancient DNA. The fact that many DNA lineages in this region over time may have disappeared, migrated or been replaced is not new. So where is all this data that you claim is now available showing all the details of the ancient genetic landscape of this region over time.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Anyway, I've already explained this to you in 2016 and other occasions. except back then we didn't have dynastic Egyptian mtDNAs. It's honestly crazy to see you bring this "backmigration agenda/conspiracy" back up again with these mtDNAs.
Honestly what I have always been saying is that people are making a whole lot of assumptions based on little data. So again, what ancient DNA has suddenly become available that clarifies this history of the NIle and surrounding regions over the last 10,000 years? Including what data says that Africans were not the primary population on the Nile during the predynastic and dynastic that formed the culture and civilization there. What "clades" do you expect these Sudanese/Upper Egyptians to have leading up to the predynastic and when did these other "clades" you refer to that clusters the early Iranian farmers with the Nile get introduced? Was it already there, a result of population mixture or population replacement? And why is calling ancient populations in Africa African not balanced if that is what they were?
Because you know it is funny you mention "balance" when last I checked nobody needs DNA to prove ancient Rome or Greece were European no matter how much mixture there was. Nobody needs DNA to prove that ancient Syria or Mesopotamia were Levantine no matter how much mixture there was and nobody needs it for ancient civilizations in other places, except in Africa. And nobody argues that such things aren't "balanced".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom genome from Upper Egypt that is conservative to some extent due to its lack an important foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
No, I am asking why you are being so ambiguous about how you respond to me without saying anything. If Kerma clusters with the Lower Nile and Levant, how does that show those populations in Africa weren't African? Because I don't think we are saying the same thing here. Are you saying those clades aren't African and represent migrations from the Levant? And if so when did those migrations take place going all the way down to Kerma and what population is candidate as the source of those clades and from where?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Excuse me, Doug, but exactly which African populations do you expect ancient Egyptians to resemble the most on a genetic level? You know so-called “Natufian” ancestry appears to have a significant chunk of (North or Northeast) African ancestry, don’t you?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Excuse me, Doug, but exactly which African populations do you expect ancient Egyptians to resemble the most on a genetic level? You know so-called “Natufian” ancestry appears to have a significant chunk of (North or Northeast) African ancestry, don’t you?
So you want me to provide the details of what genetic lineages in the ancient Nile should be categorized as "African" vs "Eurasian". Dude I am not paying that game. There should be shared lineages between both regions and the issue is finding out what lineages where where and when over time to determine which are "African" vs which are "Eurasian". Not sure why people are acting like this is some kind of new issue.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Swenet, as part of my science major I took an epistimology course (philosophy of knowledge and science) and it really opened up my eyes to how much of science we take for granted as fact was actually no different from religious ideology that was scientifically unproven. In fact, well after I got my degree I still do research on the scientific topics including the medical fields I work in and you'd be shocked about how unscientific a lot of things were and still are. So when the so-called COVID pandemic hit I was not at all surprised at the way things were handled with the lockdowns and so-called vaccines.
A lot of people are fooled by what so-called experts say even other experts. And of course when it comes to the history of bioanthropology and the racial agendas I am never amazed or surprised by the duplicity.
Take for example the Kadruka sample that Euronuts are raving about as their proof of non-black Nubians.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Did you catch the controversy in the scientific community called replication crisis? They really don't like to talk about that one in public.
Funny how in politics there is checks and balances, while in society, there is often an unquestioning obedience to mainstream science and its various outlets (science textbooks, science celebrities like Sagan and Neil Tyson, educational institutes like NG).
At the end of the day, for people with a lifetime interest in science, there is really no alternative to taking charge of one's own research as outsourcing one's research and letting 'experts' do your thinking for you, is inevitably going to run into problems sooner or later. Although this assumes one has a scientific mind to begin with. Tinfoil hats and flat earthers do 'research' too.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Indeed. As far as replication crisis, it seems like > 90% of all scientific studies that come out are based on research or rather experiments impossible to replicate. I know many in the medical field who've even filed complaints in regards to certain "medications" as to their efficacy and what experiments they were based on, but you know that it's gotten to the point of Soviet style science where one is literally paid to generate whatever results that are wanted.
This is why in some ways studies from the olden days are more reliable than today. I hate to get conspiratorial but it seems that academia and the sciences are being corrupted on purpose so as to be manipulated.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
When enough people get together influential voices emerge that get to dictate things more than should be allowed under scientific ideals, and then things start taking a life of their own, which then creates a feedback loop due to sheep mentality of many people who follow authority rather than evidence and shouldn't be in science in the first place.
We see this in the media too, with fabricated outrage ignoring plight and dignity and humanity of Palestinians, to where Biden talks about committing the most powerful nation (USA) to Israel's system of oppression, but to do what? To help a country with nuclear capabilities fight a group of fighters that numbers in the 10s of thousands? We're seeing narratives being created right in front of us by "respectable" institutions, but not the scientific establishment. They would never..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This is what Im thinking, all the DNA evidence seems to point to some grouping or Clade as you say that is grouping the Afro-asiatic speakers/people and it could have evolved in North Africa..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
We see this in the media too, with fabricated outrage ignoring plight and dignity and humanity of Palestinians, to where Biden talks about committing the most powerful nation (USA) to Israel's system of oppression, but to do what? To help a country with nuclear capabilities fight a group of fighters that numbers in the 10s of thousands? We're seeing narratives being created right in front of us by "respectable" institutions, but not the scientific establishment. They would never.. [/QB]
The U.S. sent aircraft carriers attempting to deter Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah (possibly Syria also) from opening up a second front and potentially escalating the conflict into a regional war
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^They said that's their intention. I just mentioned narratives being created right in front of us, by official and "respectable" institutions. Not sure if I'm buying that that's not just the US' pattern of providing unprincipled and hypocritical protection to countries when it feels like it. AFAIK, no other country or intelligence agency has warned of imminent threats by Iran for example, so it seems far more likely that they're just going above and beyond to help isolate and trap fighters by further tightening up Israel's blockade of Gaza already imposed decades ago. Funny how these groups number only in the 10s of 1000s, yet here comes US swashbuckling itself into yet another conflict it helped create. They know they look ridiculous, so they need these narratives to justify jumping in against fighters who are no threat to the West (notice the comparison to ISIL, was another bogus propaganda narrative to fool the public), that Israel is perfectly capable of inflicting damage on.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This is what Im thinking, all the DNA evidence seems to point to some grouping or Clade as you say that is grouping the Afro-asiatic speakers/people and it could have evolved in North Africa..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Right. But notice how the African side of this population only materialized after a long delay. I thought that was mention-worthy because Badarians and Naqadans at 6ky old were for decades the oldest on the African side of this population. Aside from occasional discoveries (e.g. Gebel Ramlah 7-6ky, Tenereans 7-6ky, and Wengrow's 'primary pastoral community' 7-6ky), there was nothing older on this population nearby, so the Middle Eastern side had better dates and early attestation all this time.
That's changed rapidly, only in the last 11 years, with the populations I've already mentioned. Taforalt being announced as allegedly being the best proxy for Basal Eurasians was also welcome news in this regard. I say allegedly because it's not yet been confirmed by a source I would accept it from. I'm not sure that the Arabia paper understands Basal Eurasian, so I'm not sure what to make of it.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Let's keep the political talk to a minimum //MOD Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If you guys want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there's a thread on the issue here.
In regards to all these DNA studies on North Africans I've always been skeptical until more information coms out let alone how the genetic data is interpreted. I've seen how the skeletal data gets skewed. In regards to Arabia, I distinctly remember reading from an old source in my college library of "negroid" remains in Arabia which I asked Dana about. She tells me that these old sources are far and few and are hardly addressed today. Most sources I see today on skeletal remains in Arabia, specifically Yemen simply describe them as "Mediterranean" and don't go into any details the way Egyptian remains are. So you can see why I'm skeptical.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm not interested in discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, anymore than you were discussing pharmaceutical industry or medicine or conspiracies. Giving examples with the main subject in mind is not discussing a different subject.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
^^Under which context are you mentioning Olduvai Man? And are you suggesting morphological overlap with Kiffians and al-Khiday with your comment on Tenerians?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Olduvai Man was considered as the par exemplar "prehistoric East African Caucasoid" when he was discovered.
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called the Upper Kenya Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble’s Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble’s Cave[…] The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of ‘Caucasoids’ (or European-like) generally attached to them.--Hiernaux
Craniometric graph from Rightmire (1975)
As for for Afroasiatics and other linguistic phyla forming their own genetic clusters this was hinted at by cranial data.
Rightmire (1976) craniometrics
Rightmire (1976) cranio-nonmetrics
Froment (1998) craniometrics
^ The above is one Froment graph you would never see Antalas post. LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^^Under which context are you mentioning Olduvai Man? And are you suggesting morphological overlap with Kiffians and al-Khiday with your comment on Tenerians?
Tenereans had some 'Egyptian' style artefacts, like flint knives, and seem to belong the Wengrow's cultural convergence, from which Gebel Ramlah and predynastics also originate.
Olduvai Man resembles Type B, in my view, although he lacks traits foreign to it (e.g. negroid features), that we see in Type B populations during the predynastic, Capsian and Natufian. Olduvai also lacks the short stature in predynastics (mostly Badarians), Shuqbah Natufians and Tenereans. So Olduvai's ancestral population is contributing ancestry to all those populations, but is at some distance from all of them.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the reason for that first trip to Olduvai Gorge was to test the idea that a modern-looking skeleton, discovered by German scientist Hans Reck in 1913, was, as Reck claimed, about half a million years old—the age of the deposits in which it had been found.
. But a few years later, other researchers, using improved geological methods, concluded that the skeleton wasn’t ancient at all, but had simply been buried in far-older sediments.
quote: Protsch, R. (1974). The age and stratigraphic position of Olduvai Hominid I. Journal of Human Evolution, 3(5), 379–385. doi:10.1016/0047-2484(74)90200-0
This famous site in Tanzania was first discovered and named 0lduva.i (German-Oldoway) in 19 11 by Professor Kattwinkel of the Bayerische Palaeontologische Staatssammlung of Munich. Then, in 19 13, the institution conducted the “Zentralafiikanische Expedition” in conjunction with the Geological and Palaeontological Institute and Museum of the University ofBerlin. In order to obtain geomorphological and other scientific information, a three month trial excavation was undertaken at the Gorge. A preliminary report (Reck, 1914) dealt with the archaeological, anthropological and palaeontological finds; the Olduvai Hominid I, the first of the numerous hominids later found, was first mentioned in this report.
3. New Chronological Interpretation
The individual, Olduvai Hominid I, dates to the middle unit of the Naisiusiu Bed, contemporary with the microlithic industries dated to approximately 17,000 years. The individual does not date the final period of the former Bed V, contemporary with the Gamble’s Cave II individuals and the Naivasha Railroad Rockshelter individual. Since the latter two sites have dates of c. 8200 and 10,600 on skeletons displaying similar morphological characteristics as Olduvai I, it can be assumed that the same physical type existed in this area for at least 9000 years. This individual from the Olduvai Naisiusiu Bed also displays some morphological characteristics similar to the contemporary Lukenya Hill individual (Gramley, Gramley & G. P. Rightmire, 1973).
Taphonomy and Paleoichnology of Olduvai Hominid 1 (OH1), Tanzania Matu Marie May 2017 International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Olduvai Hominid 1 (OH1; Figure 1) represents asubcomplete modern human skeleton discovered in 1913 by Hanz Reck in the Olduvai Gorge (northernTanzania). It is the first fossil, as well as the only Homosapiens, found at this site (Reck, 1914). It has been directly radiocarbon dated to 16,920 ± 920 BP and was thought to be contemporary with the middle unitof the Naisiusiu Bed, which contains Later Stone Agemicrolithic fragments (Protsch, 1974).
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Olduvai Man resembles Type B, in my view, although he lacks traits foreign to it (e.g. negroid features), that we see in Type B populations during the predynastic, Capsian and Natufian.
Did I seriously read above that the Olduvai specimen from 17 kya was less morphologically "negroid" than predynastic Egyptians and Natufians? I know other mentioned traits like its stature preclude it from representing those other populations' ancestors, but still, they gotta get aDNA from those Olduvai remains. If a specimen from late Pleistocene Kenya turns out to have even less affinity toward extant sub-Saharan populations than ancient North African and even Natufian samples do, that's gotta scramble a lot of people's brains.
Also, what about the Hofmeyr specimen from South Africa that resembles UP Eurasians more than it does modern SSA? Could there possibly be a distant connection between that, the Olduvai specimen, and ancient North Africans?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Certainly, remains with those affinities being in Kenya ~17kya complicate any narrative that such traits first appeared in the region with the arrival of Eurasian-admixed Cushitic pastoralists. I suppose a Eurocentric could attribute that phenotype to early U6-carriers, but that raises the question of why their post-cranial proportions reportedly don't show the same European-like tendencies as their cranial morphology.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity ]and intentional body modification John C. Willman1,et al 2019
Results: The morphological variation of the OH1 mandible is closely aligned with variation in penecontemporaneous fossils from Africa and outside that of recent humans.... The wear on both the anterior and postcanine teeth closely resemble that caused by adornments (“labrets”) worn in lower-lip and buccal facial piercings known from bioarchaeological and ethnographic contexts. The wear pattern suggests that the OH1 wore three facial piercings—two buccal/lateral and a medial one in the lower lip.
Extensive morphological variation has been documented within the sparse human fossil record from Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Africa, which suggests that we are only beginning to understand how much variation existed prior to the biological homogenization that occurred during the late Holocene and historic periods. Likewise, the evidence for labret-use presented here adds to the diversity of body modification practices already documented elsewhere in Africa during the Late Pleistocene (e.g., dental ablation) and Early to Middle Holocene (e.g., dental ablation, chipping, filing, and labret use). We have provided a detailed analysis of labret wear, and a review of similar cases, to stimulate further documentation of this cultural practice that together with inferences from biological variation and archeological investigations, can provide additional means of understanding inter- and intraregional population dynamics and interactions among prehistoric peoples across Late Pleistocene and early Holocene Africa.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
See Kisese II rockshelter.
They've been sequenced.
Then after think about Petterjohns Gully (Gamble cave descendants)
The Races Of Europe by Stevens Coon Carleton. 1939
Chapter: PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN , p 16-51
Aurignacian Man In East Africa pp 44-45
The remains of six Upper Aurignacian men have been discovered in the two colonies named. Five of these were exhumed by Leakey at Gamble's Cave, Elementitia, B4 and the sixth is the famous Oldoway skull discovered by Reck in 1914.
The orbits are high and narrow, and the noses likewise. The Gamble's Cave skulls are lep- torrhine, leptene, and leptoprosopic; Oldoway is mesorrhine, and hyperleptoprosopic. The two Gamble's Gave skulls are orthognathous, but Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism.
10/16, add for clarity: Thus when Coons says "Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism" despite his bogus "PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN" chapter title he descibes a trait more common in Africans, alveolar prognathism
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes, but it's restricted to the tooth-bearing (alveolar) region. Olduvai wouldn't have a high gnathic index.
@BrandonP
Europeans around that time (17ky) retain distal limbs that are long relative to their proximal limbs, but are different in that they have stocky bodies, and at least some of them also have shorter limbs in terms of absolute limb length. This differs from Olduvai Man whose body proportions are not stocky but represent an extreme in the African direction, as Keita pointed out.
But yes. It's not exactly water tight without aDNA. But I do think it counts for something that populations that look something like that haven't been found in Palaeolithic West Eurasia that early (e.g. La Brana, Villabruna, Ohalo, Cro Magnon I, Chancelade, Cheddar Man) except where African ancestry is suspected (Nea Nikomedea, Shuqbah Natufians have Type B).
Kefi's 20th century Taforalt and Afalou samples with lots of Eurasian mtDNA (allegedly), also look very different in general, although traces of Type B have been found among them by Briggs. So strong Eurasian in palaeolithic African sites seems to not bring Type B phenotypes, but dilute its presence.
So, we do know that large sections of West Eurasia can be ruled out from being the origin of this population, and that its earliest attestation so far (17ky), is in Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Lioness does not know the difference between alveolar and gnathic prognathism i.e. maxillary and/or mandibular. Suffice to say Hanihara's study on gnathic index shows Somalis to be the most orthognathic population in his global samples even more so than Europeans, but his study was based on gnathic index alone and did not include the alveolus which Somalis are very prognathic in that area.
As far as skeletal builds, some Euronuts try to discount skeletal limb proportions as purely adaptive but fail to take into account the time frame it takes for a population to acclimate.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I seem to recall some of Harris & Weeks' New Kingdom X rayed mummies have the same combination of traits (alveolar, but little gnathic prognatism). But KV55 is an example of a royal Egyptian who stands out in terms of the latter.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I seem to recall some of Harris & Weeks' New Kingdom X rayed mummies have the same combination of traits (alveolar, but little gnathic prognatism). But KV55 is an example of a royal Egyptian who stands out in terms of the latter.
some of those old X rays are good for the head shape but not clear on the face. This is resolved in the recent CT scans
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Lioness does not know the difference between alveolar and gnathic prognathism i.e. maxillary and/or mandibular.
smartypants, "gnathic" means "of or relating to the jaw" it is not a type prognathism and orthognathic means "Having a face without projecting jaw, one with a gnathic index less than 98"
2005 Secular change in the skull between American blacks and whites Nicole Danielle Truesdell Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Alveolar Prognathism (AP) - forward projection of the mandible and maxilla regions
Whites in the Terry Collection exhibited strong “typical” Caucasoid characteristics for each of the traits. There was no alveolar prognathism; the orbits were rhomboid with a narrow nasal bridge, large nasal spine, and sharp nasal sill...
The American Colonial blacks displayed higher frequencies for alveolar prognathism, wide nasal bridge, long cranial form, lack of a nasal spine, lack of a nasal sill, and a wide total nasal form. As such, this group presents more strongly “typical” Negroid features than the Terry blacks.
Results from the research showed that Terry blacks exhibited typical Negroid characteristics in orbital shape (oblong), nasal bridge (wide 50% of the sample), cranial form (long, 65% of the sample), nasal spine (small, 46% of the sample), and nasal sill (dull to no sill for 84% of the population). Alveolar prognathism was not a strong characteristic in the black population with only 32.5% having pronounced and 38.6% having slight prognathism. Total nasal form was also not as expected, with only 44% having a broad nasal form (Table 2).
Thus when I quoted Coon saying "Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism" despite his bogus "PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN" chapter he mentions a trait more common in Africans
The most common terms Maxillary (Alveolar)- overbite
and
Mandibular - lower jaw protrusion
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of ‘Caucasoids’ (or European-like) generally attached to them.-Hiernaux
I don't know if the remark "prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region" is correct, making this tooth region distinction because as we see above "The American Colonial blacks displayed higher frequencies for alveolar prognathism," (although this thesis seems to show that it's not as wide spread in contemporary AAs as one might assume)
Also isn't saying "Lol" all the time sort of young for you and been in decline since 2010?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: smartypants, "gnathic" means "of or relating to the jaw" it is not a type prognathism and orthognathic means "Having a face without projecting jaw, one with a gnathic index less than 98"
Yes gnathic means relating to jaws and the word itself does not mean prognathism but when jaws protrude it is prognathic. Orthognathic literally means "straight jaws". Jaws can be orthognathic while the alveolus (dental lining) can still protrude. The CT scans clearly delineate this as you said.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
As to Manansala, the Asiapacific Universe webserver shut down years ago but you can still look up his pages in the archive.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I checked the link but the pics and text appear to be gone.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
I said "I agree" mainly because some bones like the nasal bones are often not clearly visible on X Rays (e.g. Ramses II's nasal bone is not clearly visible in his X Ray, while his mummy shows an aquiline nose, implying a projecting nasal bone). But you are just saying the "new CT scans" (which turns out to be just one blurry CT scan of a skeleton with debris attached to it) are better because.. you feel it 'corrects' previous comments about this mummy having prognathism?
Amenhotep I clearly has prognathism, even in the new CT scan, which you feel is better and more accurate.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Amenhotep I clearly has prognathism, even in the new CT scan
yes, the overbite here
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In that pic his midface doesn't project forward nearly as much, as in the previous pictures you linked to, though it's still there.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
It's the same mummy each scan showing different depth levels, on the right with skin, ear and hair included
_________________________
X-Ray
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In the CT scan at the level of the bone, his head is tilted up (his chin is aligned with his brow). See the top of his head in both pics (on the left, it's level/even, on the right it's not). So, in the pic on the left, his face is positioned so you can see it better. "Midfacial prognathism" is what I've seen some call it, also in Neanderthal contexts. But it would translate to a higher gnathic index just as other cases already mentioned (KV55), who have it more as subnasal than midfacial.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In the CT scan at the level of the bone, his head is tilted up
photo angle fixed
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I wonder when the paper comes out.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In the CT scan at the level of the bone, his head is tilted up
photo angle fixed
This is how it's calculated (if you're interested). When the bottom line is longer (relative to the line going to the point between the eyes), it leads to a higher gnathic index.
In the Froment paper posted by Antalas, these two measurements made a difference as far as distinguishing Egyptian samples with more African ancestry, from Egyptian samples with less African ancestry.
Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. --Froment
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^
So technically what they're measuring is maxillary prognathism.
By the way, here are the results of Hanihara's 2000 study on facial flatness.
You can see how Hanihara did his calculations. Note the M40/M5 means for his North African samples and Somalia.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Right. Notice also that, in table 3, it's M40 that differentiates the samples in the region (Palestine, Gizeh, Naqada, Badari, Kerma) more than M5 does. So you can clearly see that some variables are more useful than others for differentiating populations in the region according to their genetic distance. Although samples outside of the region and from a different era, like Olduvai, would probably be differentiated by M5 as well, due to his larger size. So M5 would be useful in that case as a variable that improves accuracy, while in the situation of NE Africa it doesn't contribute all that much (although Badarians are differentiated by it).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Exactly. Speaking of which, have you read the 2019 mandibular study on Olduvai H1 here?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Have not read it yet. The only ones I use so far are from Brauer. I find most people don't understand them. Rightmire for instance thinks they are Bantu or Nilotes, as we discussed in a PM months ago. Some others think the that the phenotype originates from Eurasian ancestry brought to Kenya by pastoralists, even though Olduvai is 17ky and has no direct relationship to Kenyan pastoralists. Today most claim that they are a part of the Kenyan LSA, or Eburran, and that the Kenya Capsian lithic affinities were somehow mistaken/obsolete. But this has never been proved. But that's academia for you.
I find Brauer does a better job, although he uses terms like "Caucasian" and "Europid" to describe them, which is remarkable because he is one of the founders of OOA theory, so I feel he should know better as far as considering African substructure.
Brauer 1 (possibly the one Keita had in mind when he said "they cluster with Europeans") Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0047248490900213
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Exactly. Speaking of which, have you read the 2019 mandibular study on Olduvai H1 here?
These studies are typically made to preempt eventual aDNA studies. I brought up Kisese II for example earlier becasue the same happened with that sample who looked to have been related to Egyptians and pastoral neolithic populations.
quote:With a date of ?7.1 ka, dental measurements of KNM-KX 4/5/6 are expected to be most similar to the early Holocene comparative sample. However, buccolingual and mesiodistal dental measures of KNM-KX 4/5/6, as well as KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2, were closest to the Pastoral Neolithic sample, broadly dated from 4–1.5 ka Figure 4. This suggests the individuals from Kisese II had relatively smaller dentitions than early Holocene foragers, but similar to those of early pastoralist and Pastoral Neolithic eastern Africans. If KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2 are substantially younger than KNM-KX 4/5/6, the Kisese II samples would imply the relative persistence of small teeth at the site across the Holocene.
The early pastoral Neolithic samples were the ones related to Gables Cave who are relevant to the topic. These individuals have also been sequenced. Furthermore.
quote:Pairwise tests were not used for the cranial metric analyses because the Kisese II sample only consisted of one individual. The Taita, Early Holocene/LSA, Pastoral Neolithic, and KNM- KX 2 all had a similar ratio of maximum cranial breadth and length compared to the other modern African populations. Dimensions of the nasal aperture for KNM-KX 2 were smaller than most of the modern African populations but overlapped with Egyptian individuals. Kruskal-Wallis tests for all cranial measurements across individual sites within the early Holocene/LSA and Pastoral Neolithic samples were not significant
[...]
Buccolingual and mesiodistal measures from the upper and lower first and second molars significantly differed across groups χ2 = 11.52–24.48, df =3, p < 0.01, with the exception of mesiodistal length of the upper first molar. The Kisese II upper first molar buccolingual width was significantly smaller than the early Holocene/LSA and early pastoralist p = 0.01 sam- ples but did not differ from the Pastoral Neolithic group . Pairwise comparisons suggest the Kisese II dentitions did not differ from the other groups for the upper second molar buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements. Pairwise comparisons indi- cate the Kisese II buccolingual measurements for the first and second lower molars were significantly smaller than the early Holocene/LSA group
The Prettejohn's Gully samples likely descendant from earlier samples at Gambles cave carry K1a and L3f1b. Paternal clade m75 (E2). and are slightly more Eurasian shifted than the specimen at Kadruka. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25384-y 10.1126/science.aaw6275.
If we are talking about shared components, they only share east African related ancestry (possibly not discovered in full yet.)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Have not read it yet. The only ones I use so far are from Brauer.
_________________
I posted that already earlier it focuses on facial piercings
Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity ]and intentional body modification
The wear on both the anterior and postcanine teeth closely resemble that caused by adornments (“labrets”) worn in known from bioarchaeological and ethnographic contexts. The wear pattern suggests that the OH1 wore three facial piercings—two buccal/lateral and a medial one in the lower lip.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The study also features mandibular measurements and comparisons with other populations.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Have not read it yet. The only ones I use so far are from Brauer. I find most people don't understand them. Rightmire for instance thinks they are Bantu or Nilotes, as we discussed in a PM months ago. Some others think the that the phenotype originates from Eurasian ancestry brought to Kenya by pastoralists, even though Olduvai is 17ky and has no direct relationship to Kenyan pastoralists. Today most claim that they are a part of the Kenyan LSA, or Eburran, and that the Kenya Capsian lithic affinities were somehow mistaken/obsolete. But this has never been proved. But that's academia for you.
I find Brauer does a better job, although he uses terms like "Caucasian" and "Europid" to describe them, which is remarkable because he is one of the founders of OOA theory, so I feel he should know better as far as considering African substructure.
Brauer 1 (possibly the one Keita had in mind when he said "they cluster with Europeans") Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0047248490900213
I cited the Brauer 1990 study in the Nazlet Khater thread here.
While later studies like Pinhasi which focus on mandibular traits show a closer relation to modern Sub-Saharans certain cranial traits used by Brauer put NK in a more ambiguous position but the same could also be said of UP Europeans who pool closer to even Sub-Saharans in some regards.
To Elmaestro, the remains of Gamble's Cave and other sites in deep Sub-Saharan East Africa have put nails in the coffin that is the Hamitic Hypothesis but the Euronut zombie won't give up just yet.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: A multivariate analysis of mandibular morphology of OH1 compared to other Late Pleistocene, Holocene, and recent modern humans was used to ascertain biological affinity. Results: The morphological variation of the OH1 mandible is closely aligned with variation in penecontemporaneous fossils from Africa and outside that of recent humans
Gray oval seems to be "x", recent humans Notice OH1, orange diamond (Olduvai Homanid 1) in relation to GC yellow triangle (Gabel's Cave) although other yellow triangle late Pleistocenes are in close proximity to OH1
new vocabulary word " penecontemporaneous" (1930s)
penecontemporaneous adjective pe·ne·contemporaneous ¦pēnē+ : of, relating to, or being a geological phenomenon originating or effectuated during or soon after the formation of the rocks in which it is displayed
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Djehuti Notice that Olduvai's descendants are the most distant to the Mumba cave skeletal remains from South Africa in the Brauer study I listed, yet in these PCAs posted by lioness, Mumba cave is near Olduvai. This is yet another example of why I don't pay a lot of attention to studies on Olduvai. Most of these studies are all over the place.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Have not read it yet. The only ones I use so far are from Brauer.
_________________
I posted that already earlier it focuses on facial piercings
Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity ]and intentional body modification
The wear on both the anterior and postcanine teeth closely resemble that caused by adornments (“labrets”) worn in known from bioarchaeological and ethnographic contexts. The wear pattern suggests that the OH1 wore three facial piercings—two buccal/lateral and a medial one in the lower lip.
I noticed you had posted it before. I've only taken a quick look and I noticed that they have a nice table for ancient African samples with ablation. I liked that summary, but thought it was disappointing that they left out pre-Mesolithic al Khiday (with the highest rates of dental ablation, next to Iberomaurusians).
Tooth avulsion was observed in the majority of the 94 pre-Mesolithic individuals, involving the maxillary central incisors. However, only three of the 32 Neolithic individuals had avulsed teeth, targeting the mandibular central incisors, while none of the 43 Meroitic individuals showed evidence of avulsion practices. Tooth Avulsion, Identity and Funerary Archaeology at Al Khiday 2, Central Sudan 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (Jacob et al 2017)
(Stojanowski et al 2014 also make the same error, and even have pre-Mesolithic al Khiday listed as lacking ablation.)
They did have some nice (cultural) confirmation that Shuqbah Natufians are part of a subgroup of Natufians with increased affinities to Africans. This is confirmed here yet again by the fact that the Raqefet Natufians, whose aDNA has been presented as typical of all Natufians, are listed as lacking ablation, while Shuqbah Natufians are listed as having it.
This was already known from other sources, like Fanny Bocquentin's 2003 thesis, but it's good to see the literature put this kind of information up more often.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, here are the results of Hanihara's 2000 study on facial flatness.
You can see how Hanihara did his calculations. Note the M40/M5 means for his North African samples and Somalia.
quote:
Prognathism chart ^^
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 111:105–134 (2000)
Frontal and Facial Flatness of Major Human Populations TSUNEHIKO HANIHARA* Department of Anatomy, Saga Medical School, Saga 849-8501, Japan
alveolar index, basion- prosthion/basion-nasion (M40/M5) for prog- nathism;
Interesting to look at the first page of the chart also (p 112)
As for Africans, they are on the bottom of the above chart. There are no other horners here except the Somalis at (M40/M5) 94% for prognathism (unlike other Africans listed on the higher end)
But a third of the way down many Europeans (many in the 95% realm) all more prognathic than Somalis. do you buy it? Or the question could be re-arranged is it believable that Somalis are on average less prognathic than Western/Northern Europeans? Then there is Early Nubia near the Europeans at 94.8% A sample of Ancient Greece comes in at 93% on the lower end
On the previous page Asians, many around 96-98% And lowerdown, Oceania/Australia on the high end, more prognathic than Africans at around 101-105% (although Congo had 105%, second only to Vanuatu (in South Pacific islands) at 105.3% )
Other charts the article cover facial flatness which is not mutually exclusive of prognathism, should not be construed as it's opposite
quote: Coon (1967) pointed out that the zygomaxillary index is influenced by prognathism. In a previous study, the influence of prognathism on the degree of zygomaxillary flatness was esti- mated using linear regression analysis be- tween the gnathic and zygomaxillary indi- ces (Hanihara and Ishida, 1995). In that study, the expected prognathism-free values of Australians and Melanesians were quite comparable to those of Europeans. On the other hand, the values of the subSaharan African samples fall within the range of samples from Europe to the Indian subconti- nent through north Africa and the Near East, even though they indicate marked prognathism, as shown in Figure 2. As de- scribed above, the eastern Asian samples have a quite flat zygomaxillary portion in spite of their weak prognathism (Fig. 2). This suggests that the prognathism of the eastern Asian samples may be more or less attributed to alveolar prognathism. The de- gree of zygomaxillary flatness of the New World samples, together with that of the Polynesian samples, is again comparable to those of the western part of the Old World, except for the Eskimo sample
Also they used a lot of data sources, we would have to be confident that measurements were all done the same way or with a reasonable very small amount of inconstancy although some broad conclusions on which groups are more prognathic could be made (but what does it really mean?)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Djehuti Notice that Olduvai's descendants are the most distant to the Mumba cave skeletal remains from South Africa in the Brauer study I listed, yet in these PCAs posted by lioness, Mumba cave is near Olduvai. This is yet another example of why I don't pay a lot of attention to studies on Olduvai. Most of these studies are all over the place.
I'll have to look at what variables they measured. But I notice these contradictions usually happen with much older samples from before the Holocene.
quote:I noticed you had posted it before. I've only taken a quick look and I noticed that they have a nice table for ancient African samples with ablation. I liked that summary, but thought it was disappointing that they left out pre-Mesolithic al Khiday (with the highest rates of dental ablation, next to Iberomaurusians).
Tooth avulsion was observed in the majority of the 94 pre-Mesolithic individuals, involving the maxillary central incisors. However, only three of the 32 Neolithic individuals had avulsed teeth, targeting the mandibular central incisors, while none of the 43 Meroitic individuals showed evidence of avulsion practices. Tooth Avulsion, Identity and Funerary Archaeology at Al Khiday 2, Central Sudan 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (Jacob et al 2017)
(Stojanowski et al 2014 also make the same error, and even have pre-Mesolithic al Khiday listed as lacking ablation.)
They did have some nice (cultural) confirmation that Shuqbah Natufians are part of a subgroup of Natufians with increased affinities to Africans. This is confirmed here yet again by the fact that the Raqefet Natufians, whose aDNA has been presented as typical of all Natufians, are listed as lacking ablation, while Shuqbah Natufians are listed as having it.
This was already known from other sources, like Fanny Bocquentin's 2003 thesis, but it's good to see the literature put this kind of information up more often.
That's why archaeological context is always important. Cultural clues like this is very significant in terms of African influence yet it tends to get ignored for obvious reasons. If such Eurasian cultural connections are found in the Sudan then obviously it wouldn't get neglected.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ the gnathic index, prognathism
Interesting to look at the first page of the chart also (p 112)
As for Africans, they are on the bottom of the above chart. There are no other horners here except the Somalis at (M40/M5) 94% for prognathism (unlike other Africans listed on the higher end)
But a third of the way down many Europeans (many in the 95% realm) all more prognathic than Somalis. do you buy it? Or the question could be re-arranged is it believable that Somalis are on average less prognathic than Western/Northern Europeans? Then there is Early Nubia near the Europeans at 94.8% A sample of Ancient Greece comes in at 93% on the lower end
Why shouldn't I buy it? Africans are after all the most genetically diverse peoples in the world even Sub-Saharans. It was Somalis' orthognathy that facially grouped with Germans in the first place in older craniometric studies. What the study proves is that prognathy like many other characters are not clear cut to entire geographic populations and that there are degrees.
quote:On the previous page Asians, many around 96-98% And lower down, Oceania/Australia on the high end, more prognathic than Africans at around 101-105% (although Congo had 105%, second only to Vanuatu (in South Pacific islands) at 105.3% )
Indeed. Yet many Euronuts would have you believe prognathy is synonymous with Sub-Saharans and orthognathy with Eurasians even though Australasians are also Eurasians.
quote:Other charts the article cover facial flatness which is not mutually exclusive of prognathism, should not be construed as it's opposite
quote: Coon (1967) pointed out that the zygomaxillary index is influenced by prognathism. In a previous study, the influence of prognathism on the degree of zygomaxillary flatness was esti- mated using linear regression analysis be- tween the gnathic and zygomaxillary indi- ces (Hanihara and Ishida, 1995). In that study, the expected prognathism-free values of Australians and Melanesians were quite comparable to those of Europeans. On the other hand, the values of the subSaharan African samples fall within the range of samples from Europe to the Indian subconti- nent through north Africa and the Near East, even though they indicate marked prognathism, as shown in Figure 2. As de- scribed above, the eastern Asian samples have a quite flat zygomaxillary portion in spite of their weak prognathism (Fig. 2). This suggests that the prognathism of the eastern Asian samples may be more or less attributed to alveolar prognathism. The de- gree of zygomaxillary flatness of the New World samples, together with that of the Polynesian samples, is again comparable to those of the western part of the Old World, except for the Eskimo sample
Also they used a lot of data sources, we would have to be confident that measurements were all done the same way or with a reasonable very small amount of inconstancy although some broad conclusions on which groups are more prognathic could be made (but what does it really mean?)
Correct. Facial flatness is not determined by prognathism alone.
This is the zygomaxillary portion:
Facial flatness measurements used in this paper: fmo = frontomalare orbitale; n = nasion; sc = minimum horizontal breadth of the nasalia; * = nearest point of the median ridge of the nasalia to sc; zma = zygomaxillare anterius; ss = subspinale.
Interesting to look at the first page of the chart also (p 112)
As for Africans, they are on the bottom of the above chart. There are no other horners here except the Somalis at (M40/M5) 94% for prognathism (unlike other Africans listed on the higher end)
But a third of the way down many Europeans (many in the 95% realm) all more prognathic than Somalis. do you buy it? Or the question could be re-arranged is it believable that Somalis are on average less prognathic than Western/Northern Europeans? Then there is Early Nubia near the Europeans at 94.8% A sample of Ancient Greece comes in at 93% on the lower end
Why shouldn't I buy it? Africans are after all the most genetically diverse peoples in the world even Sub-Saharans. It was Somalis' orthognathy that facially grouped with Germans in the first place in older craniometric studies. What the study proves is that prognathy like many other characters are not clear cut to entire geographic populations and that there are degrees.
quote:On the previous page Asians, many around 96-98% And lower down, Oceania/Australia on the high end, more prognathic than Africans at around 101-105% (although Congo had 105%, second only to Vanuatu (in South Pacific islands) at 105.3% )
Indeed. Yet many Euronuts would have you believe prognathy is synonymous with Sub-Saharans and orthognathy with Eurasians even though Australasians are also Eurasians.
You seem in love with the word "Euronut"
Anyway these same back in the day Germans you mention would probably be using that to argue the Somalis are so called Hamites
Sanchez et al. (2005) observed the E-M78 subclade of E1b1b1a in about 70.6% of their Somali male samples.[147] According to Cruciani et al. (2007), the presence of this subhaplogroup in the Horn region may represent the traces of an ancient migration from Egypt/Libya.[Note 1][148]
After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y-DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the West Asian haplogroup T (M184).[244] The clade is observed in more than 10% of Somali males generally
According to mtDNA studies by Holden (2005) and Richards et al. (2006), a significant proportion of the maternal lineages of Somalis consists of the M1 haplogroup at a rate of over 20%.[249][250] This mitochondrial clade is common among Ethiopians and North Africans, particularly Egyptians and Algerians.[251][252] M1 is believed to have originated in Asia,[253] where its parent M clade represents the majority of mtDNA lineages.[254] This haplogroup is also thought to possibly correlate with the Afro-Asiatic language family:[250] In addition, Somalis, and other Horn African populations, also carry a significant rate of maternal L lineages associated with sub-Saharan Africa.
"We analysed mtDNA variation in ~250 persons from Libya, Somalia, and Congo/Zambia, as representatives of the three regions of interest. Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa. While our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%, our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup. This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East. Holden 2005
Autosomal ancestry
Genetic components present in select Cushitic populations
Genetic components present in select Cushitic/HOA populations (Hollfelder, Nina et al., 2017)
Research shows that Somalis have a mixture of a type of native African ancestry unique and autochthonous to the Horn of Africa, as well as ancestry originating from a non-African back-migration.
Molinaro, Ludovica et al in 2019 characterized the Non-African ancestry in Ethiopian Somalis as being derived from Anatolia Neolithic groups (similar to Tunisian Jews).[259] Ali, A.A., Aalto, M., Jonasson, J. et al. (2020) using principal component analysis showed that approximately 60% of Somali ancestry is East African and 40% Western Eurasian.[260] In the same year, 119 whole genomes of Ethiopian populations (Amhara, Oromo, Somali, Wolayta and Gumuz) were studied to investigate the modes of positive selection in the region. As part of the research, the proportion of West Asian ancestry was measured, and it showed that this component in Somalis was averaged at 44%. These values were said to be largely in agreement with previous estimates
___________________________________ ^ As we can see Somalia does not have the high frequencies of YDNA J as does Sudan They are mainly E-M78 according to the above but also carry 10% T (M184) (and Toubou T also 31% to their West in Chad/Niger/Mali as I recently mentioned in another thread ) as well as L and M1 on the maternal, Somalis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HabarYoonisNomad.png Studio portrait of a Somali man of the Habr Yunis tribe. | Photograph by Prince Roland Bonaparte, for the 'Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889'
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's why the Hamitic Hypothesis makes no sense. Somalis are suppose to represent 'caucasoids' who hail from the north yet North Africans and even many Europeans are more prognathic than them. Somalis possess even far less Eurasian lineages than their Ethiopian neighbors yet the latter is also more prognathic and have higher incidence of kinky hair than Somalis! Make it make sense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the issue of genetics..
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The results of the Ancient Egyptian samples have been revealed, and unsurprisingly, it's not good news for Afrocentrists and other proponents of a "black Egypt" :
Their SSA is even lower than modern egyptians and the irony is that they're very similar to modern arabs...
It seems indeed ironic.
In my opinion, the leak suggests that the ancestors of both Egyptians and Arabs originated from similar prehistoric populations. Due to their shared prehistoric ancient ancestors and because they both have a high proportion of Natufian or Natufian like-ancestry these ancient Egyptian samples appear to be genetically closest to Arabs. That does not, however, imply that Arabs are the offspring or direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or that they share their culture or have any connection to their civilization.
Correct, but notice how Antalas likes to parade the autosomal results of the Egyptians but not their Nubian kinsmen who also show the same Natufian-like ancestry.
If they're going to white-wash Egyptians, they must do the same to Nubians and who knows to what other people further south.
quote:In fact, the Ancient Egyptians, who spoke a Hamitic language, distinguished themselves from the Semites and Asiatics, to whom Arabs belong.
Yes 'Hamitic' was one the umbrella term for all Afroasiatic languages spoken in Africa even though more accurately there are different subfamilies of Afroasiatic and Semitic is the only one thus far originating outside of Africa meaning that it developed in Asia among African immigrants.
Ironically, Cush in the Bible was more often a reference to Arabia than Sudan!
But in terms of genetic distance between North Africans and Sub-Saharans Loosdrect et al. has already elaborated on such distance.
Sub-Saharan West Africans are closer to North Africans and Eurasians than they are to South Africans. Furthermore the Taforalt genome of Morocco shows as close proximity to Horn Africans as some modern Maghrebi.
Interestingly the Natufians as the OT study shows, are closest to the Yemeni Mahra.
Yemen was known in Biblical times as Sheba and the capital of Cush.
Mahra Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the issue of genetics..
I wish we could, but if this "leak" is real, then it shows that some within the scholarly community are purposely promoting online trolls and using them to spread misinformation. This isn't even scholarship. And that is in the case that the leaks are even real.
Anything and everything except trying to actually sample as many ancient remains from all across the Nile and Sahara as possible......
But then on that note people must recall that most predynastic remains are in foreign museums because many of them were being used for cranial studies and comparisons in the 1800s and early 1900s by various race scientists. And it is probably very unlikely that many undisturbed or "pristine" predynastic collections of remains even still exist......
quote: A major part of the collection, however, results from excavations sponsored by the UPM. The Museum sponsored excavations in settlements and cemeteries in Nubia; at Egypt's ancient capital city of Memphis (Mit-rahina); in the cemeteries at Dendera, Giza, Dra’ Abu el-Naga (near Thebes), and Meidum; and at the major cult center of Abydos, among others. Before originating its own excavations, the UPM contributed funding to support the work of the Egypt Exploration Fund (later Egypt Exploration Society), a British organization responsible for archaeological excavations throughout Egypt. In particular, it funded the work of Sir William M. Flinders Petrie, one of the foremost archaeologists working in Egypt at the time. As a result, the Museum obtained a significant portion of the material awarded to this project by the Egyptian government. Among the most important artifacts are the Predynastic and Early Dynastic remains, which document the earliest periods of Egyptian history and the formation of the unified state.
quote: Samuel G. Morton contributed to racist thought. From the 1830s through the 1840s, this Philadelphia-based physician and anatomy lecturer collected human crania. With broadly white supremacist views, Morton’s research on the crania was cited by some as evidence that Europeans, especially those of German and English ancestry, were intellectually, morally, and physically superior to all other races.
After Morton’s death in 1851, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia purchased and expanded the collection. It was moved to the Penn Museum in 1966, accessioned in 1996, and is now housed in storage in the Museum’s Biological Anthropology Section. Some of the crania had previously been stored in custom-made glass fronted cabinets in the Center for the Analysis of Archaeological Materials (CAAM) Classroom 190 and were eventually moved to storage in the summer of 2020. The collection has been referenced for scientific insight surrounding traumatic injury as well as health and disease patterns in past human populations.
But Morton wasn't the only one and Petrie actually helped with some of his work in supporting Eugenics cranial research, but many others across Europe were obsessed with finding and unwrapping mummies in the victorian era......
Suffice to say, given all of that, it will be interesting to see when or if they actually attempt DNA extraction on any of these remains.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: wish we could, but if this "leak" is real, then it shows that some within the scholarly community are purposely promoting online trolls and using them to spread misinformation. This isn't even scholarship. And that is in the case that the leaks are even real.
Even worse yet, I suspect that the leakers are employees involved in the actual projects. It's not uncommon to have ideologues involved in academic projects. Recall my thread on Information War. You have idealogues working in media outlets (both so-called 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' spheres) But then you also have ideologues working in the actual academic or scientific projects themselves. Unfortunately the youth in today's academia has become so blatantly compromised to the point that their lack of objectivity is obvious and they end up working in various projects. At least the experts leading the projects who may be biased themselves display some décor of scientific objectivity. Their young underlings on the hand don't even have the academic honesty that they leak sh*t like a faulty sceptic pipe.
quote:Anything and everything except trying to actually sample as many ancient remains from all across the Nile and Sahara as possible......
But then on that note people must recall that most predynastic remains are in foreign museums because many of them were being used for cranial studies and comparisons in the 1800s and early 1900s by various race scientists. And it is probably very unlikely that many undisturbed or "pristine" predynastic collections of remains even still exist......
quote: A major part of the collection, however, results from excavations sponsored by the UPM. The Museum sponsored excavations in settlements and cemeteries in Nubia; at Egypt's ancient capital city of Memphis (Mit-rahina); in the cemeteries at Dendera, Giza, Dra’ Abu el-Naga (near Thebes), and Meidum; and at the major cult center of Abydos, among others. Before originating its own excavations, the UPM contributed funding to support the work of the Egypt Exploration Fund (later Egypt Exploration Society), a British organization responsible for archaeological excavations throughout Egypt. In particular, it funded the work of Sir William M. Flinders Petrie, one of the foremost archaeologists working in Egypt at the time. As a result, the Museum obtained a significant portion of the material awarded to this project by the Egyptian government. Among the most important artifacts are the Predynastic and Early Dynastic remains, which document the earliest periods of Egyptian history and the formation of the unified state.
quote: Samuel G. Morton contributed to racist thought. From the 1830s through the 1840s, this Philadelphia-based physician and anatomy lecturer collected human crania. With broadly white supremacist views, Morton’s research on the crania was cited by some as evidence that Europeans, especially those of German and English ancestry, were intellectually, morally, and physically superior to all other races.
After Morton’s death in 1851, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia purchased and expanded the collection. It was moved to the Penn Museum in 1966, accessioned in 1996, and is now housed in storage in the Museum’s Biological Anthropology Section. Some of the crania had previously been stored in custom-made glass fronted cabinets in the Center for the Analysis of Archaeological Materials (CAAM) Classroom 190 and were eventually moved to storage in the summer of 2020. The collection has been referenced for scientific insight surrounding traumatic injury as well as health and disease patterns in past human populations.
But Morton wasn't the only one and Petrie actually helped with some of his work in supporting Eugenics cranial research, but many others across Europe were obsessed with finding and unwrapping mummies in the victorian era......
Suffice to say, given all of that, it will be interesting to see when or if they actually attempt DNA extraction on any of these remains.
You've read Swenet's posts. The authorities are selective in which remains they select to display let alone sample. We have yet to see the genomic analysis results of the Giza Old Kingdom samples Zahi Hawass talked about since the 90s. Yet the Late Period Abusir samples are held up as exemplar par-excellence representatives of Egyptians.
I agree with Swenet, these Euroasiatocentrist ideologues are celebrating the Levant Natufian marker for now until it will eventually turn out to be African like ANA and Basal Eurasian and who knows what else.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You've read Swenet's posts. The authorities are selective in which remains they select to display let alone sample. We have yet to see the genomic analysis results of the Giza Old Kingdom samples Zahi Hawass talked about since the 90s. Yet the Late Period Abusir samples are held up as exemplar par-excellence representatives of Egyptians.
I agree with Swenet, these Euroasiatocentrist ideologues are celebrating the Levant Natufian marker for now until it will eventually turn out to be African like ANA and Basal Eurasian and who knows what else.
Yes but which authorities? It is easy to assume it is the Egyptian government based on the activity around these leaks, but who has most of these predynastic remains? And who has been mishandling those remains for over 100 years and promoting pseudoscience around them? Not to mention do you think these Europeans or Arabs would have mishandled them this way if they really thought they were their glorious ancestors?
The other side of this is whether or not those old cranial collections and other remains are even suitable for sampling as it seems they often try and use more recent excavations of mummies. Would be interesting to see how far the DNA sampling technology could go in those cases.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems the project which include the DNA study will be completed in 2025. Maybe we will get all details then.
quote:In this project, we aim to investigate the population genetic history of Egypt using ancient DNA (aDNA) analyses. For this, Egyptian mummies and skeletal remains housed in the collections of the Museo Egizio of Turin and the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin will be analyzed. These specimens encompass a time span of about 5000 years (4000 BC - AD 800) and have been recovered from various archaeological sites in Egypt. Thus, the data obtained by this project will, for the first time, cover all periods of ancient Egyptian history as well as a broad geographical context. To all specimens high-throughput sequencing methods, including DNA hybridization capture techniques, will be applied, to reconstruct mitochondrial genomes and, for specimens exhibiting a good DNA preservation, also whole-genome datasets. Thereby, this project will investigate the genetic history of Egypt not only on a uniparental level, based on the maternal lineage, but also on a genome-wide scale.
Furthermore, in collaboration with the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, some of the mummies will be examined by means of computed tomography (CT) in the framework of a methodological test. In particular, the test aims to assess the applicability of two sex determination methods, the Ischio-Pubic Index (IPI) and the Diagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste (DSP), to CT scans, which will provide further insights into the possibilities and limitations of CT-based examinations of mummified human remains.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans. All but one population samples he circled fall below the x-axis and the circled sample closest to Europeans is the one in quadrant II. The encircled Badarian and Naqada samples along the Y-axis are in close proximity to the Nubian centroid which is right below the "Somali-Galla" sample which are Horn Africans. LOL Delusion is a funny thing.
