quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
how do you know that the R1b1a2 (R-V88) is not from the white Ethiopians mentioned by strabo and procopius?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012242

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

In other words, you believe the authors were probably talking about a tribe of Albino Blacks. This is not impossible given the fact that Africans can be quite biased towards Albinos.

No matter who they were, these people were never situated outside of Africa, and can not relate to the introduction of R-V88. The fact remains there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Europe to Africa, but there is ample evidence that Bell Beaker originated in Africa , spread to the Levant and thence to the Steppes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
I was partially joking but this is an issue sense thin featured Africans when mutated can become indistinguishable from contemporary Europeans,that's why genetic and other metrics that reenforce their Africanness is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

In other words, you believe the authors were probably talking about a tribe of Albino Blacks. This is not impossible given the fact that Africans can be quite biased towards Albinos.

No matter who they were, these people were never situated outside of Africa, and can not relate to the introduction of R-V88. The fact remains there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Europe to Africa, but there is ample evidence that Bell Beaker originated in Africa , spread to the Levant and thence to the Steppes.

---

white people were coming into Africa from Europe many years ago
(for example): the ancient Greeks and vandals migrated into Africa

Tarikh al-fattash mentions white kings coming to establish ancient Ghana

there may be some truth to this story^^^

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

In other words, you believe the authors were probably talking about a tribe of Albino Blacks. This is not impossible given the fact that Africans can be quite biased towards Albinos.

No matter who they were, these people were never situated outside of Africa, and can not relate to the introduction of R-V88. The fact remains there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Europe to Africa, but there is ample evidence that Bell Beaker originated in Africa , spread to the Levant and thence to the Steppes.

---

white people were coming into Africa from Europe many years ago
(for example): the ancient Greeks and vandals migrated into Africa

Tarikh al-fattash mentions white kings coming to establish ancient Ghana

there may be some truth to this story^^^

---

Anyone who has studied African history, know that these so-called whites, were just light skinned Africans--not European or Turkish whites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

In other words, you believe the authors were probably talking about a tribe of Albino Blacks. This is not impossible given the fact that Africans can be quite biased towards Albinos.

No matter who they were, these people were never situated outside of Africa, and can not relate to the introduction of R-V88. The fact remains there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Europe to Africa, but there is ample evidence that Bell Beaker originated in Africa , spread to the Levant and thence to the Steppes.

---

white people were coming into Africa from Europe many years ago
(for example): the ancient Greeks and vandals migrated into Africa

Tarikh al-fattash mentions white kings coming to establish ancient Ghana

there may be some truth to this story^^^

---

Anyone who has studied African history, know that these so-called whites, were just light skinned Africans--not European or Turkish whites.

---

i would agree however the Haplogroup R1b is found in the same location where these white Ethiopians were located

the Hausa claim descent from none Africans and they are carriers of Haplogroup R1b

"Hausa folk-lore, customs, proverbs, etc ...." vol 1 By Robert Sutherland Rattray
This book mentions the origins of the Hausa
"idan matanbaiyi ya tanbaye ka, ana mafarin hausawa? ka che, gaskia mafarinsu barebari da arewawa."
"Where did the Hausa people have their origin? (say to him) Truly their origin was the Barebari and Northerners" pg 2

---

\.


The Hausa people live in Nigeria-not Morocco, where the leucoethiopians were alledgely settled.

In addition. the Hausa could not have made their way fro North Africa, because the Mande speakers occupied much of North Africa from Morocco to Libya, where they were established as the Garamante.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No Dr. Winters he's right white Ethiopians.

http://middleburymagazine.com/features/through-the-looking-glass/

---

In other words, you believe the authors were probably talking about a tribe of Albino Blacks. This is not impossible given the fact that Africans can be quite biased towards Albinos.

No matter who they were, these people were never situated outside of Africa, and can not relate to the introduction of R-V88. The fact remains there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Europe to Africa, but there is ample evidence that Bell Beaker originated in Africa , spread to the Levant and thence to the Steppes.

---

white people were coming into Africa from Europe many years ago
(for example): the ancient Greeks and vandals migrated into Africa

Tarikh al-fattash mentions white kings coming to establish ancient Ghana

there may be some truth to this story^^^

---

Anyone who has studied African history, know that these so-called whites, were just light skinned Africans--not European or Turkish whites.

---

i would agree however the Haplogroup R1b is found in the same location where these white Ethiopians were located

the Hausa claim descent from none Africans and they are carriers of Haplogroup R1b

"Hausa folk-lore, customs, proverbs, etc ...." vol 1 By Robert Sutherland Rattray
This book mentions the origins of the Hausa
"idan matanbaiyi ya tanbaye ka, ana mafarin hausawa? ka che, gaskia mafarinsu barebari da arewawa."
"Where did the Hausa people have their origin? (say to him) Truly their origin was the Barebari and Northerners" pg 2

---

\.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Aethiopians#/media/File:North_African_location_of_White_Aethiopians_Oric_Bates_1914.png



The Hausa people live in Nigeria-not Morocco, where the leucoethiopians were alledgely settled.

In addition. the Hausa could not have made their way fro North Africa, because the Mande speakers occupied much of North Africa from Morocco to Libya, where they were established as the Garamante.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
“The Hausa people live in Nigeria-not Morocc“.

That is true, however they do live in the Northern part of Nigeria and are Tuareg and Fulani affiliated.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


"Hausa folk-lore, customs, proverbs, etc ...." vol 1 By Robert Sutherland Rattray
This book mentions the origins of the Hausa
"idan matanbaiyi ya tanbaye ka, ana mafarin hausawa? ka che, gaskia mafarinsu barebari da arewawa."
"Where did the Hausa people have their origin? (say to him) Truly their origin was the Barebari and Northerners" pg 2

---

Many West African ethnic groups claim to have come from other places but West Africa itself. By this is meant the North or even the “Middle East”/ Arabian Peninsula.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".

---

the ancient nehesy are east of Hausa

the White Ethiopians were not in morocco because they lived southward beyond the Sahara desert

Europe and the Berbers live north of the Hausa and the Hausa carry European DNA how do you explain this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".

---

the ancient nehesy are east of Hausa

the White Ethiopians were not in morocco because they lived southward beyond the Sahara desert

Europe and the Berbers live north of the Hausa and the Hausa carry European DNA how do you explain this

---

LOL. Everyone knows the Hausa migrated from ancient Egypt into west Africa. Hausa carry R1, because the kushites took this haplogroup to Europe, where they mated with indo-european speakers after 1200 BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".

---

the ancient nehesy are east of Hausa

the White Ethiopians were not in morocco because they lived southward beyond the Sahara desert

Europe and the Berbers live north of the Hausa and the Hausa carry European DNA how do you explain this

---

LOL. Everyone knows the Hausa migrated from ancient Egypt into west Africa. Hausa carry R1, because the kushites took this haplogroup to Europe, where they mated with indo-european speakers after 1200 BC.

---

if every body knows the Hausa migrated from Egypt then how come the Hausa themselves don't know that?

according to the Hausa's they come from the Berbers and Northerners

R1b is predominately in Europe similar to how E1b is predominately in Africa

white skin and straight hair is predominately in Europe similar to how black skin and woolly hair is predominately in Africa

---

quote:

---

Finally, phenotypic predictions based on genetic variants of known effects agree with our estimates of global ancestry. IAM people do not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples present ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982) and OCA2 (rs16891982 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European- derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye colour, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs16891982)

See: web page

.

---

 

---

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


.
In the chart below
R-V88 is listed as R1b1a-L761
notably in Chad (also in neighboring Cameroon)

R-M269 is listed as R1b1a1a2-L500
(L500 is one of it's particular clades)
There's a little bit in Egypt under 1% and some of the non-Arab Lebanese 15-16%
Another subclade of M269 is R1b1a1a2a1-S128, very low frequencies in Egypt and Lebanon

If one combines all the R carrying populations of Africa (excluding Europeans) it's under 1% of the African population

R1b, however has high frequencies in the Chad basin area and parts of Cameroon.
Hassan also reported R1b to be the most frequent Y group of the Fulani (13%)
The paragroup R is more diverse outside of Africa including not only R1b but also haplogroup R2 and R1a which have numerous sub clades






 

---

Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe the Hausa came from ancient Egypt or Libya. Egypt is north of the Hausa states.
.

.
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy/Nahasy) in the South. The original Hausa, may have been one of the Nahasy tribes of ancient Egypt and the Fezzan.

Many scholars like Snowden (1976,1992) define the Egyptian term Nahasy , as "Negroes". But this name Nahasy, has no racial connotation it was the name of one of the Kushite tribes which lived below Kem (Egypt). A Nahasy origin for the Hausa would explain their tradition of being "Northerners".

---

the ancient nehesy are east of Hausa

the White Ethiopians were not in morocco because they lived southward beyond the Sahara desert

Europe and the Berbers live north of the Hausa and the Hausa carry European DNA how do you explain this

---

LOL. Everyone knows the Hausa migrated from ancient Egypt into west Africa. Hausa carry R1, because the kushites took this haplogroup to Europe, where they mated with indo-european speakers after 1200 BC.

---

if every body knows the Hausa migrated from Egypt then how come the Hausa themselves don't know that?

according to the Hausa's they come from the Berbers and Northerners

R1b is predominately in Europe similar to how E1b is predominately in Africa

white skin and straight hair is predominately in Europe similar to how black skin and woolly hair is predominately in Africa

---

LOL. R1b is predominate in Europe because the contemporary Europeans mated with the Kushites and now carry their genes. It is made clear in the recent paper on the North African Neolithic article the R1b people were dark skinned--not white skinned as you imagine.


Rosa Fregel et al , in "Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe", noted that :

quote:

---

Finally, phenotypic predictions based on genetic variants of known effects agree with our estimates of global ancestry. IAM people do not possess any of the European SNPs associated with light pigmentation, and most likely had dark skin and eyes. IAM samples present ancestral alleles for pigmentation-associated variants present in SLC24A5 (rs1426654), SLC45A2 (rs16891982) and OCA2 (rs16891982 and 12913832) genes. On the other hand, KEB individuals exhibit some European- derived alleles that predispose individuals to lighter skin and eye colour, including those on genes SLC24A5 (rs1426654) and OCA2 (rs16891982)

See: web page

.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


.

which kushites are you referring to?

which Kushites carry R1b and why did they not spread it in Africa and Asia to the same extent as europe? if you don't mind me asking [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
which kushites are you referring to?

which Kushites carry R1b and why did they not spread it in Africa and Asia to the same extent as europe? if you don't mind me asking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
which kushites are you referring to?

which Kushites carry R1b and why did they not spread it in Africa and Asia to the same extent as europe? if you don't mind me asking

---

There are two ways Haplogroup R, exist among whites . Firstly, the Khoisan introduced the R haplogroup 24kya to Eurasia. The Ice Age, came to Europe and many Khoisan fled into the caves , became depigmented and evolved into the white race. These whites left the caves after 2000 BC, in Central Asia, and began to expand into the rest of Europe and the Egyptian Delta after 1200 BC, carrying y-chromosome R.


The Southern whites who live in the Levant and Central Asia are descendants of the Gutians. They usually do not carry haplogroup R. Abu-Amero,KK, Hellani A, Gonzalez AN, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Underhill, PA. 2009. BMC Genetics, 10:59 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-59. Retrieved 04/30/2010 at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59 , claims that in Asia the frequency of haplotype M173 is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R-V88 in Africa, that ranges between 7-95% and averages 39% ; but no trace of Eurasiatic maternal lineages in West Central Africa.


The second way , haplogroup R entered Eurasia was the migration of the Kushites and Moors from Africa into Europe after 3000 BC. The Kushites carrying R1, expanded across Eurasia from Iran. One group took R1b into Europe while the Dravidians mainly spread R1a in Central and South Asia.

Gutian whites who lived in Middle Asia (the Levant and Central Asia), and the Caucasians who originated in the caves, who early settled Europe mated with the Kushites, and due to the large number of Black Europeans carrying R haplogroup--some of these whites carry the R haplogroup today.


Y-Chromosome R1-M173 was probably spread in Western Europe first by African Roman soldiers, and later by African Muslims when they conquered Western Europe as Moors. This would explain why 60-70% French and Spanish males carry this y-haplogroup. The R1 haplogroup originated in Africa.

.

.


.
The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia.


In fact recent research on y-haplogroups in Africa suggest that R1-M269 is also widespread in Africa.



Above is a figure from Gonzalez et al. The Gonzalez et al article found that 10 out of 19 subjects in the study carried R1b1-P25 or M269. This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers in this study were M269, this finding is further proof of the widespread nature of this so-called Eurasian genes in Africa among populations that have not mated with Europeans.


Abu-Amero et al (20009) reveal the fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroups illustrate the recent introduction of Ry-chromosomes to Eurasia. The frequency of haplotype M173 in Eurasia is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R1 in Africa that ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon (Coia et al, 2005). Coia et al (2005) has revealed that no maternal Eurasian lineages have been found among Sub-Saharan Africans with a R1- M173 profile.
Haplogroup V88 has the greatest frequency in Africa. It is predominately carried by Chadic speakers, ranges between 2-60% among Central African Niger-Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).



The vast majority of Africans belong to the y-chromosome E macrohaplogroup. Phylogenetically haplogroup R1b is mainly found in West Africa and the Sahel.

In this region the frequency of R-M173 can range between 85-100% among some Niger Congo speakers in Cameroon (Cruciani et al, 2010). The paternal record of M173 on the African continent illustrates a greater distribution of this y-chromosome among varied African populations than, in Asia.



The greatest diversity of R1b in Africa is highly suggestive of an Africa origin for this male lineage because it is not isolated to just one part of Africa.

Archaeological (Lal, 1963), genetic (Winters, 2008;2010a), placenames (Balakrishnan, 2005) and linguistic data group (Aravanan,1979,1980; Upadhyaya, 1976,1979; Winters 1985a,1985b, 1989) linking Africans and Dravidian support the recent demic diffusion of SubSaharan Africans and gene flow from Africa to Eurasia. An early colonization of Eurasia 4kya by Sub-Saharan Africans and Dravidian carriers of R1-M173 is the best scenario to explain the high frequency and widespread geographical distribution of this y-chromosome on the African continent (Winters, 2010c). Given the greatest diversity of R1- M173, this is the most parsimonious model explaining the frequency of R-M173 in Africa.

Africans carry haplogroup R1a.

In India the Dravidian people carry the R1a haplogroup The Dravidian people of India originally lived in Middle Africa and belonged to the Proto-Saharan Civilization.
The Proto-Saharan civilization was situated in the Proto-Sahara, which includes Cameroon.
.

.
In Cameroon we find carriers of R1a.
In addition to carriers of R1a in Cameroon; the Dravidian languages are still spoken today in Cameroon see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk


In conclusion, the R macrohaplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa.




The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 (Cruciani et al, 2010). Kivisild et al 2017 appears to date V88 to around 18,000 kya according to Figure 7.Toomas Kivisild (2017).The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA. web page

The article is interesting. It is most interesting because it places V88 in ancient Europe. Kivisild (2017) also made it clear that V88 is the earliest offshoot of R-M343 .


.


Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015. Kivisild (2017) wrote:"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
.


Kivisild (2017) made it clear that the Samara and Spanish samples were different from other aDNA samples. Kivisild (2017) wrote: "Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from Central and Western Europe have typically the R1b-L11, R1a1-Z283 and R1a-M417 (xZ645)
affiliation while the samples from the Yamnaya and Samara neighbourhood are different and belong to sub-clades R1b11-Z2105 and R1a2-Z93 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Cassidy et al. 2016; Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015; Schiffels et al. 2016)."

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, these samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278. In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.

.

quote:

---

Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

• I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
  I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ There's about 36 wrong and misleading/butchered statements here.

It would take about a week to untangle the knot

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


I'm going to explain how to properly read this chart because Clyde has a version up to small to read
At top is the full chart. Then we have a detail of the left portion of the chart. That potion uses the color red to show branches of R that correspond to locations in Europe.

The next chart is the enlarged left portion of the top chart showing the locations on a map of Europe.

At the bottom is the right portion of the top chart.
Where it says R1b there is a split, the branch at left is P297.

The branch at right has four red colored European branches of R1b.
These are not R-V88 but instead distant relatives

V88 is the black branch at far right only. It the earliest offshoot of R1b but it is not the ancestor of it's distant relatives indicated by the red lines.

The descendants of V88 would be under the black line extending down from V88 but not shown on this chart the sub clades M18, V35 and V69.
As referenced in the article, all of the primary DNA analysis regarding V88 in the above Kivisild 2017 comes from

Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages.

Cruciani 2010


Clyde wants to detach the information from it's source so he can spin and slant the information for use as propaganda

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


I'm going to explain how to properly read this chart because Clyde has a version up to small to read
At top is the full chart. Then we have a detail of the left portion of the chart. That potion uses the color red to show branches of R that correspond to locations in Europe.

The next chart is the enlarged left portion of the top chart showing the locations on a map of Europe.

At the bottom is the right portion of the top chart.
Where it says R1b there is a split, the branch at left is P297.

The branch at right has four red colored European branches of R1b.
These are not R-V88 but instead distant relatives

V88 is the black branch at far right only. It the earliest offshoot of R1b but it is not the ancestor of it's distant relatives indicated by the red lines.

The descendants of V88 would be under the black line extending down from V88 but not shown on this chart the sub clades M18, V35 and V69.
As referenced in the article, all of the primary DNA analysis regarding V88 in the above Kivisild 2017 comes from

Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages.

Cruciani 2010


Clyde wants to detach the information from it's source so he can spin and slant the information for use as propaganda

---

---

Stop making stuff up!

Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269. I pointed out above these samples came from Haak et al(2015).

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, these samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.
,



.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.

.

quote:

---

Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf


I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf


I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
.
As you see this statement was not misleading. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak

I0124 (Samara_HG)
The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). Thus, this individual was basal to most west Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478 lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution17. The occurrence of chromosomes basal to the most prevalent lineages within haplogroups R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers, together with the finding of basal haplogroup R* in the ~24,000-year old Mal’ta (MA1) boy18 suggests the possibility that some of the differentiation of lineages within haplogroup R occurred in north Eurasia, although we note that we do not have ancient DNA data from more southern regions of Eurasia. Irrespective of the more ancient origins of this group of lineages, the occurrence of basal forms of R1a and R1b in eastern European hunter-gatherers provide a geographically plausible source for these lineages in later Europeans where both lineages are prevalent4,17,19.
I0410 (Spain_EN)
We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3).
The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. We are not aware of any other western European R1b lineages reported in the literature before the Bell Beaker period (ref. 2 and this study). It is possible that either (i) the Early Neolithic Spanish individual was a descendant of a Neolithic migrant from the Near East that introduced this lineage to western Europe, or (ii) there was a very sparse distribution of haplogroup R1b in European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, so the lack of its detection in the published literature may reflect its occurrence at very low frequency.
The occurrence of a basal form of R1b1 in western Europe logically raises the possibility that present- day western Europeans (who belong predominantly to haplogroup R1b1a2-M269) may trace their origin to early Neolithic farmers of western Europe. However, we think this is not likely given the

existence of R1b1a2-M269 not only in western Europe but also in the Near East; such a distribution implies migrations of M269 males from western Europe to the Near East which do not seem archaeologically plausible. We prefer the explanation that R-M269 originated in the eastern end of its distribution, given its first appearance in the Yamnaya males (below) and in the Near East17.

---

Clyde were you aware that there was a time where there was no R1b?

Were you aware that there was a split of R into R1 and R2 before R1 a and R1b ever existed ?
This chart doesn't even go back that far, nor does the Kivisild

Off course the names of the clades changes every year, They make new discoveries!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23285/full

Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara

Iva Kulichová,
Verónica Fernandes,AliouneDeme,JanaNováčková,VlastimilStenzl,Andrea Novelletto,Luísa Pereira,
Viktor Černý
First published: 24 July 2017Full publication history
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23285


The important question for us is whether there is evidence of Near Eastern uniparental lineages being introduced by migrants into the gene pool of the Sahel/Savannah dwellers, and expanding around the time pastoralism reached the area, i.e., 4–5 ka. In fact, the contemporary North African mtDNA gene pool includes

The fact that haplotypes having 222,018*G and 213,910*T LCT alleles are shared by the Fulani from Northern Cameroon, the Mozabite Berbers from Algeria and European populations (Lokki et al., 2011; Ranciaro et al., 2014) can be taken as another signal of an ancient pastoralist migration from outside Africa (Myles et al., 2005).

It is well attested that H1 emerged in Iberia/South Europe (Pereira et al., 2005b); after its introduction to North Africa (Cherni et al., 2005; Pereira, Cunha, Alves, & Amorim, 2005a) it was conveyed beyond the Sahara by nomads such as the Tuareg (Ottoni et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2010). Curiously, however, Tuareg H1 line- ages (H1v, H1w, and H1x) do not belong to the same H1cb clade (HVS-1 motive 16145A–16222T) that we found in the Fulani (Ottoni et al., 2010).

Both H1cb and U5b1b1b seem to be excellent markers of Euro- pean - and not Near Eastern - ancestry inputs into the contemporary Fulani population.

Our results are further supported by a study revealing that multiple Eurasian migrations shaped the genetic diversity of the central Sahel (Haber et al., 2016), provided similar (even if slightly lower; 5,700– 7,300 ya) age estimate for R1b-V88 to ours.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Iva Kulichová et al. (2017).Internal diversification of non-Sub-Saharan haplogroups in Sahelian populations and the spread of pastoralism beyond the Sahara, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23285/full


This paper is based on speculation. It has no ancient DNA and archaeological data to support its conclusions. To support their propositions they cite Haber et al,2016, and Cherni et al, 2005. The Haber et al(2016) article claims that there was a back migration of R1b carriers because some Central Africans carry R1b, but these writers never name the culture bearers who introduced R1b, and the European culture this population came from. The Cherni et al (2005) paper is speculation because it lacks any aDNA to support their claims.

The authors state that:

quote:

---

RESULTS:
We show that age estimates of the maternal lineage H1cb1, occurring almost exclusively in the Fulani, point to the time when the first cattle herders settled the Sahel/Savannah belt. Similar age estimates were obtained for paternal lineage R1b-V88, which occurs today in the Fulani but also in other, mostly pastoral populations. Maternal clade U5b1b1b, reported earlier in the Berbers, shows a shallower age, suggesting another possibly independent input into the Sahelian pastoralist gene pool.

CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the fact that animal domestication originated in the Near East ∼ 10 ka, and that it was from there that animals such as sheep, goats as well as cattle were introduced into Northeast Africa soon thereafter, contemporary cattle keepers in the Sahel/Savannah belt show uniparental genetic affinities that suggest the possibility of an ancient contact with an additional ancestral population of western Mediterranean ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


I'm going to explain how to properly read this chart because Clyde has a version up to small to read
At top is the full chart. Then we have a detail of the left portion of the chart. That potion uses the color red to show branches of R that correspond to locations in Europe.

The next chart is the enlarged left portion of the top chart showing the locations on a map of Europe.

At the bottom is the right portion of the top chart.
Where it says R1b there is a split, the branch at left is P297.

The branch at right has four red colored European branches of R1b.
These are not R-V88 but instead distant relatives

V88 is the black branch at far right only. It the earliest offshoot of R1b but it is not the ancestor of it's distant relatives indicated by the red lines.

The descendants of V88 would be under the black line extending down from V88 but not shown on this chart the sub clades M18, V35 and V69.
As referenced in the article, all of the primary DNA analysis regarding V88 in the above Kivisild 2017 comes from

Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages.

Cruciani 2010


Clyde wants to detach the information from it's source so he can spin and slant the information for use as propaganda

---

---

Stop making stuff up!

Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269. I pointed out above these samples came from Haak et al(2015).

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, these samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.
,



.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.

.

quote:

---

Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf


I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
.

---

As you see this statement was not misleading.

---

Kivisild (2017) said the three individuals did not carry R-M269 and related to R-V88, not me.
.


.
 

---

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

quote:

---

From the aDNA studies we have learned that the oldest R1b-M343 lineages, including 14 KYA Villabruna Man from Italy (Fu et al. 2016) and three European hunter-gatherers and three early farmer samples (Fig. 7), did not belong to the R1b- M269 sub-clade According to the ancient DNA evidence, affinity in their autosomal genes to the early farmers of Atapuerca from Spain (Gunther et . . .


Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).

The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA

Toomas Kivisild

---

That does not say that three European hunter-gatherers and three early farmer samples belonged to R-V88 due to the fact they did not belong to the R1b- M269 which is younger.
You don't understand branch splitting and what is downstream and what is not. You have R1b and a mutation occurs yielding V88. A later mutation occurs M269 that does not mean M269 mutated from V88. It means M269 came out of P297 which came out of M343 at a later date than V88 came out of M343.

Simply put it's older sister, younger sister.

The older sister is not the ancestor of the younger sister. The ancestor is the mother.

And if they DID say three European hunter-gatherers and three early farmer samples belonged to R-V88 that would mean the oldest human remains carrying R-V88 are found in Europe suggesting Eurasian origin

The ancestor of R-V88 is R-M343
The only population yet recorded with a significant proportion of M343 are the Kurds of southeastern Kazakhstan with 13% and 4.3% among Iranian sub-populations.

The indigenous African YDNA of the Fulani are E clades
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Stop making stuff up!

Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269. I pointed out above these samples came from Haak et al(2015).

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, these samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.
,



.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.

.

quote:

---

Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf


I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269.

---

so what

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269.

---

so what

---

That makes your comments unfounded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Look at the second paragraph for Figure 7 above. It specifically says that three individuals illustrated in Figure 7, were not M269.

---

so what

---

That makes your comments unfounded.

---

show me one quoted sentence of mine where three individuals not being M269 shows the comment is unfounded

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I see what your method is Clyde.

They call that circular logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I see what your method is Clyde.

They call that circular logic.

---

No the method is called archaeogenetics. I use archaeology and genetics to determine population genetics.

The North African Neolithic and Abusir mummies aDNA, proves that Africans carried this mtDNA, and Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear all the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African clades. This confirmed by the fact that:

1) The civilizations in Iberia originated in Africa;

2) The inhabitants of the North African Neolithic, Sudan and Levant/Anatolia were Kushites

3) The textual, historical and archaeological evidence make it clear that the people in these areas were Kushites.

---

You don't know what circular logic is. Look into it.

The North African Neolithic and Abusir mummies aDNA, proves that Africans carried this mtDNA, and Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear all the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African clades.

^ this has no logic to it. (not to mention there is no scientific publication that says Tutankhamun was an R1b carrier.


The fact is if a mummy carries a certain haplogroup and the mummy was found in Africa that does not mean the haplogroup is instantly African.

Clyde that is a very simplistic assumption.

Just because a mummy found in Africa carries a given haplogroup does not mean that they got it in Africa
It might be an indigenous haplogroup or it may not have been.
It may or may not be due to admixture with foreigners and it is documented that some Egyptians had foreign wives

And all 3 of your points in regard to Tutankhamun and the Abusir mummies do not resolve this.

You have no methodology

Furthermore you keep using the term Kushites and they are of a time period much later than neolithic. You should be using a term with proper association of the time period. Nobody uses "Kushites" they way you do,
 

---

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


Here we have R1

the part of the chart does not include R-M207 the basal R that is the ancestor of R1 and R2 which would be above this section

It also doesn't show the R2 phylogeny which would be at left of this section

Anyway we can see as M343 descends it splits into P297 (something Clyde never mentions) and R-V88

If we look at the descendants of P297 we see M269 at left and at right various clades in red lines M478 , Y13200 and other clades represented by the red lines but unnumbered
These clades are not descendants of M269, They are siblings part of a split from P297.

Downstream of M269 is R1b1'9 and R1b11 and various subclades

Now going to the far right of the chart the black line is V88. It has some subclades but none are shown.

The red lines at the right are siblings of V88 but are not descendants of V88.
Those are early hunter gatherers (H) and farmers (F) in Europe

So anything on a horizontal line are siblings the parent is the straight line above the horizontal line. In this case M343

The ancestor to all of this is in Eurasia somewhere R*
One place possible is Siberia because they found very old remains there carrying R*

Anyway what happened is people from that population went their separate ways into Central Asia, Europe and Africa

and in those places mutated into various different subclades
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
There are two ways Haplogroup R, exist among whites . Firstly, the Khoisan introduced the R haplogroup 24kya to Eurasia. The Ice Age, came to Europe and many Khoisan fled into the caves , became depigmented and evolved into the white race. These whites left the caves after 2000 BC, in Central Asia, and began to expand into the rest of Europe and the Egyptian Delta after 1200 BC, carrying y-chromosome R.


The Southern whites who live in the Levant and Central Asia are descendants of the Gutians. They usually do not carry haplogroup R. Abu-Amero,KK, Hellani A, Gonzalez AN, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Underhill, PA. 2009. BMC Genetics, 10:59 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-59. Retrieved 04/30/2010 at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59 , claims that in Asia the frequency of haplotype M173 is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R-V88 in Africa, that ranges between 7-95% and averages 39% ; but no trace of Eurasiatic maternal lineages in West Central Africa.


The second way , haplogroup R entered Eurasia was the migration of the Kushites and Moors from Africa into Europe after 3000 BC. The Kushites carrying R1, expanded across Eurasia from Iran. One group took R1b into Europe while the Dravidians mainly spread R1a in Central and South Asia.

Gutian whites who lived in Middle Asia (the Levant and Central Asia), and the Caucasians who originated in the caves, who early settled Europe mated with the Kushites, and due to the large number of Black Europeans carrying R haplogroup--some of these whites carry the R haplogroup today.


Y-Chromosome R1-M173 was probably spread in Western Europe first by African Roman soldiers, and later by African Muslims when they conquered Western Europe as Moors. This would explain why 60-70% French and Spanish males carry this y-haplogroup. The R1 haplogroup originated in Africa.

.

.


.
The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia.


In fact recent research on y-haplogroups in Africa suggest that R1-M269 is also widespread in Africa.



Above is a figure from Gonzalez et al. The Gonzalez et al article found that 10 out of 19 subjects in the study carried R1b1-P25 or M269. This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers in this study were M269, this finding is further proof of the widespread nature of this so-called Eurasian genes in Africa among populations that have not mated with Europeans.


Abu-Amero et al (20009) reveal the fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroups illustrate the recent introduction of Ry-chromosomes to Eurasia. The frequency of haplotype M173 in Eurasia is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R1 in Africa that ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon (Coia et al, 2005). Coia et al (2005) has revealed that no maternal Eurasian lineages have been found among Sub-Saharan Africans with a R1- M173 profile.
Haplogroup V88 has the greatest frequency in Africa. It is predominately carried by Chadic speakers, ranges between 2-60% among Central African Niger-Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).



The vast majority of Africans belong to the y-chromosome E macrohaplogroup. Phylogenetically haplogroup R1b is mainly found in West Africa and the Sahel.

In this region the frequency of R-M173 can range between 85-100% among some Niger Congo speakers in Cameroon (Cruciani et al, 2010). The paternal record of M173 on the African continent illustrates a greater distribution of this y-chromosome among varied African populations than, in Asia.



The greatest diversity of R1b in Africa is highly suggestive of an Africa origin for this male lineage because it is not isolated to just one part of Africa.

Archaeological (Lal, 1963), genetic (Winters, 2008;2010a), placenames (Balakrishnan, 2005) and linguistic data group (Aravanan,1979,1980; Upadhyaya, 1976,1979; Winters 1985a,1985b, 1989) linking Africans and Dravidian support the recent demic diffusion of SubSaharan Africans and gene flow from Africa to Eurasia. An early colonization of Eurasia 4kya by Sub-Saharan Africans and Dravidian carriers of R1-M173 is the best scenario to explain the high frequency and widespread geographical distribution of this y-chromosome on the African continent (Winters, 2010c). Given the greatest diversity of R1- M173, this is the most parsimonious model explaining the frequency of R-M173 in Africa.

Africans carry haplogroup R1a.

In India the Dravidian people carry the R1a haplogroup The Dravidian people of India originally lived in Middle Africa and belonged to the Proto-Saharan Civilization.
The Proto-Saharan civilization was situated in the Proto-Sahara, which includes Cameroon.
.

.
In Cameroon we find carriers of R1a.
In addition to carriers of R1a in Cameroon; the Dravidian languages are still spoken today in Cameroon see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk


In conclusion, the R macrohaplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa.




The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 (Cruciani et al, 2010). Kivisild et al 2017 appears to date V88 to around 18,000 kya according to Figure 7.Toomas Kivisild (2017).The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA. web page

The article is interesting. It is most interesting because it places V88 in ancient Europe. Kivisild (2017) also made it clear that V88 is the earliest offshoot of R-M343 .


.


Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015. Kivisild (2017) wrote:"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
.


Kivisild (2017) made it clear that the Samara and Spanish samples were different from other aDNA samples. Kivisild (2017) wrote: "Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from Central and Western Europe have typically the R1b-L11, R1a1-Z283 and R1a-M417 (xZ645)
affiliation while the samples from the Yamnaya and Samara neighbourhood are different and belong to sub-clades R1b11-Z2105 and R1a2-Z93 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Cassidy et al. 2016; Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015; Schiffels et al. 2016)."

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, these samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African genome. Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278. In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.

.

quote:

---

Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

• I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
  I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Here we have R1

the part of the chart does not include R-M207 the basal R that is the ancestor of R1 and R2 which would be above this section

It also doesn't show the R2 phylogeny which would be at left of this section

Anyway we can see as M343 descends it splits into P297 (something Clyde never mentions) and R-V88

If we look at the descendants of P297 we see M269 at left and at right various clades in red lines M478 , Y13200 and other clades represented by the red lines but unnumbered
These clades are not descendants of M269, They are siblings part of a split from P297.

Downstream of M269 is R1b1'9 and R1b11 and various subclades

Now going to the far right of the chart the black line is V88. It has some subclades but none are shown.

The red lines at the right are siblings of V88 but are not descendants of V88.
Those are early hunter gatherers (H) and farmers (F) in Europe

So anything on a horizontal line are siblings the parent is the straight line above the horizontal line. In this case M343

The ancestor to all of this is in Eurasia somewhere R*
One place possible is Siberia because they found very old remains there carrying R*

Anyway what happened is people from that population went their separate ways into Central Asia, Europe and Africa

and in those places mutated into various different subclades

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

Both the Eastern and Western Kushites. It was first introduced by the Khoisan, probably during the Salutrean period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

Both the Eastern and Western Kushites. It was first introduced by the Khoisan, probably during the Salutrean period.

---

please be more specific

who are the eastern and western kushites?

how come the Khoisan did not introduce haplogroups A and B to the same extent they supposedly introduce R1b?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


The Western kushites were the Ounanian hunter-gathers who early migrated to Iberia between 10-8kya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

there is 100 years of archaeological research that places the origin of Iberian cultures in Africa from 44k BC to 1492 AD. 1492 was when the Moors were forced from Iberia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

Both the Eastern and Western Kushites. It was first introduced by the Khoisan, probably during the Salutrean period.

---

please be more specific

who are the eastern and western kushites?

how come the Khoisan did not introduce haplogroups A and B to the same extent they supposedly introduce R1b?

---

Researchers have analyzed the DNA of only a few of the ancient Negro skeletons out of the hundreds recovered from different periods in Europe so we may find news of skeletons that do carry these genes.

Up until recently researchers were mainly interested in the presence of mtDNA haplogroup N, in Europe. Now researchers are attempting to promote the idea that the Bell Beaker, Yamnaya and etc., were Indo-Europeans so they are concentrating on Neolithic and Bronze Age samples that support this myth.These skeletons are of Negroes not contemporary whites, who only entered Europe after 1400BC.

As a result, if haplogroups A and B, are found in ancient samples they would be seen as outliners and not reported.

The Western kushites were the Ounanian hunter-gathers who early migrated to Iberia between 10-8kya.

The Eastern Kushites include the Ounanian-Harifians who migrated in the Levant/Anatolian who were later known as Hatti, Kaska, and other tribes that took farming and cattle rearing into the caucasus and Steppes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

Both the Eastern and Western Kushites. It was first introduced by the Khoisan, probably during the Salutrean period.

---

please be more specific

who are the eastern and western kushites?

how come the Khoisan did not introduce haplogroups A and B to the same extent they supposedly introduce R1b?

---

Researchers have analyzed the DNA of only a few of the ancient Negro skeletons out of the hundreds recovered from different periods in Europe so we may find news of skeletons that do carry these genes.

Up until recently researchers were mainly interested in the presence of mtDNA haplogroup N, in Europe. Now researchers are attempting to promote the idea that the Bell Beaker, Yamnaya and etc., were Indo-Europeans so they are concentrating on Neolithic and Bronze Age samples that support this myth.These skeletons are of Negroes not contemporary whites, who only entered Europe after 1400BC.

As a result, if haplogroups A and B, are found in ancient samples they would be seen as outliners and not reported.

The Western kushites were the Ounanian hunter-gathers who early migrated to Iberia between 10-8kya.

The Eastern Kushites include the Ounanian-Harifians who migrated in the Levant/Anatolian who were later known as Hatti, Kaska, and other tribes that took farming and cattle rearing into the caucasus and Steppes.

---

Do you have any evidence that the Ounanian hunter-gathers carried R1b?

and why do you call them Kushites instead of Ounanian hunter-gathers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
clyde winters i hope you did not forget about my question

which kushite people are you referring to that brought R1b to Europe?

---

Both the Eastern and Western Kushites. It was first introduced by the Khoisan, probably during the Salutrean period.

---

please be more specific

who are the eastern and western kushites?

how come the Khoisan did not introduce haplogroups A and B to the same extent they supposedly introduce R1b?

---

Researchers have analyzed the DNA of only a few of the ancient Negro skeletons out of the hundreds recovered from different periods in Europe so we may find news of skeletons that do carry these genes.

Up until recently researchers were mainly interested in the presence of mtDNA haplogroup N, in Europe. Now researchers are attempting to promote the idea that the Bell Beaker, Yamnaya and etc., were Indo-Europeans so they are concentrating on Neolithic and Bronze Age samples that support this myth.These skeletons are of Negroes not contemporary whites, who only entered Europe after 1400BC.

As a result, if haplogroups A and B, are found in ancient samples they would be seen as outliners and not reported.

The Western kushites were the Ounanian hunter-gathers who early migrated to Iberia between 10-8kya.

The Eastern Kushites include the Ounanian-Harifians who migrated in the Levant/Anatolian who were later known as Hatti, Kaska, and other tribes that took farming and cattle rearing into the caucasus and Steppes.

---

Do you have any evidence that the Ounanian hunter-gathers carried R1b?

and why do you call them Kushites instead of Ounanian hunter-gathers?

---

I call them Kushites because this was the final culture founded by the descendants of the Ounanians and the name they called themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Clyde is an expert in non sequitur

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We know the Ounanians were archers.The Kushites were known in history as great archers. Plus, the people of the Lavant, and Anatolia referred to themselves as Kushites, as I discussed earlier.

We know the Kushites carried R1 due to the discovery that Tutankhamen carried R1b . Plus the Kushite haplogroups in Crete and Anatolia include R1b.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We know the Ounanians were archers.The Kushites were known in history as great archers. Plus, the people of the Lavant, and Anatolia referred to themselves as Kushites, as I discussed earlier.

We know the Kushites carried R1 due to the discovery that Tutankhamen carried R1b . Plus the Kushite haplogroups in Crete and Anatolia include R1b.

---

there are archers in many cultures around the world so that is not unique to the kushites

where is your source that the Levant and Anatolia referred to themselves as kushites?

Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

besides Tutankhamen was not a kushite

---

Tutankhamen was not a Kushite but it shows that Africans were carrying R1 in ancient times.

The kushites lived in the Sudan, North Africa and Levant/Anatolia.

Around 800 BC, Homer mentions the Aethiopians, or Kushites, in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer said that the Kushites were “the most just of men, the favorites of the Gods”.

To the Greco-Romans there were two Kush empires, one in Africa and the other in Asia. Homer alluded to the two Kushite empires when he wrote in the Odyssey i.23: “a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys”. In the Iliad. i.423, Homer wrote that Zeus went to Kush to banquet with the blameless Ethiopians.

In 64 BC, the Greek geographer and historian Strabo stated in Chapter 1 of Geography that there were two Kush empires - one in Asia and another in Africa. In addition to Kush in Nubia and Upper Egypt, some Greco-Roman authors considered their presence in southern Phoenicia up to Mount Amanus in Syria.

The Neolithic process in North Africa was done by Africans, who took the Agro-Pastoral cultures to the Levant and Europe (4).

Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. Drake et al [1] provides evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan (NS) speakers. The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [3].



The IAM people [Early Neolithic Moroccans] (5), were nothing more than hunter-gatherer Kushites that had originally belonged to the Ounanian Culture (3-4). The Ounanians, like their Kushite descendants were great archers and based their civilization on hunting using the bow, and limited cattle domestication (3-4).

The Ounanian culture was first described by Breuil in 1930 at Ounan to the south of Taodeni in northern Mali. Ounanian Points are suggested to be the hallmark of the some Epipaleolithic industries in the central Sahara, the Sahel and northern Sudan, and dated to the early Holocene.


The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [3-4]. The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. This would explain the close relationship between the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages[3].


The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. From here NC populations migrated into the Fezzan, Nile Valley and Sudan as their original homeland became more and more arid.


In the Eastern Sahara many individual types of tanged and shouldered arrowheads occur on early Holocene prehistoric sites along with Green Saharan/Wavy-line pottery (1-2) . 'Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic' wavy-line, dotted wavy line and walking-comb pottery was used from Lake Turkana to Nabta Playa, in Tibestim , Mauritania, on into in the Hoggar, in Niger. This pottery evolved into the Beaker Bell ceramics.


Wavy-line pottery

The Ounanian culture was not isolated in Africa. It was spread into the Levant. As a result, we have in the archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .


Tanged Point


Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert. Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.


The tangled Ounanian points are also found at Foum Arguin . These points were used from Oued Draa, in southern Morocco, to the Banc d’Arguin and from the Atlantic shore to the lowlands of northwestern Sahara in Mauritania . We now have DNA from Ounanian sites in Morocco.


All the burials in Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa site IAM1-IAM7 , are devoid of any artifacts, except for an original funeral ritual, which consists of placing a millstone on the skull (5) . These burials were dated from 4,850 to 5,250 BCE, they carried U6, M1, T2, X and K (5). This suggest that Africans were already carrying this mtDNA. The spread of the Ounanians to Harif in the Levant explains the presence of these Kushite clades in the Levant and Anatolia.

In summary, the Niger-Congo speakers or Kushites formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. The ancestors of the Kushites were the Ounanians who spread the Ounan-Harfian toolkit, pottery and arrows from throughout North Africa, into Iberia and the Levant. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep). It was these Kushites who introduced mtDNA U6, M1, T2, X and K; and Y-Chromosome R1b into Eurasian from their African homeland in the Sahel-Sahara.

Eurocentrists attempt to limit the extent of the Kushite empire. The Weni inscription makes it clear that many states were inhabited by the ḫ3st, or Kushites.

.

.


.
The map above makes it appear that only Irthet was Kush, but the Weni inscriptions includes Wawat, Yam and Temeh as being inhabited by Kushite = ḫ3st.

quote:

---

The inscription of Weni reads:

“His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet khas [Kusites], the Mazoi khas [Kushites], the Yam khas [Kushites], among the Wawat Khas [Kushites], among the Kau khas [Kushites], and in the land of Temeh.”

---

In the Weni inscription we can clearly see that Kushites were living in Upper and Lower Egypt. The final comment in the Weni inscription made it clear that ḫ3st (khas=Kushites) were also “in the land of Temeh”.

On this map, Temeh is situated to the south of Irthet, but in Egyptian Temeh, meant Lower Egypt.


The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA .

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st
.

References:
1. Nick A. Drake, Roger M. Blench, Simon J. Armitage, Charlie S. Bristow, and Kevin H. White. (2010). Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert PNAS 2011 108 (2) 458-462; published ahead of print December 27,2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1012231108
2. Vernet R, Ott M, Tarrou L, Gallin A, Géoris-Creuseveau J. (2007) Excavation of the mound of FA 10 (Banc d'Arguin) and its contribution to the knowledge of the culture paleolithical Foum Arguin, northwestern Sahara (Translated from French) J Afr Archaeol 5:17–46.
3. Winters C. (2012). Origin of the Niger-Congo Speakers. WebmedCentral GENETICS 2012;3(3). https://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/3149
4. Winters, C. (2017)A GENETIC CHRONOLOGY OF AFRICAN Y-CHROMOSOMES R-V88 AND R-M269 IN AFRICA AND EURASIA,http://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2017/VOL-7-NO-2/04-JLS-004-WINTERS-A-EURASIA.pdf
5. Fregel R, et al (2017). Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe. bioRxiv 191569; doi: https://doi.org
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

---

why are you saying R1b was gotten from Tutankhamen ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

---

why are you saying R1b was gotten from Tutankhamen ?

---

Do you not understand what i typed?

king tut's handlers carry R1b not tut

it is near impossible to abstract Dna from a body that decayed thousands of years ago.
king tuts body is surrounded by people of European descent thus causing a risk of contaminating the mummy with their Dna


 

---

Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We know the Ounanians were archers.The Kushites were known in history as great archers. Plus, the people of the Lavant, and Anatolia referred to themselves as Kushites, as I discussed earlier.

We know the Kushites carried R1 due to the discovery that Tutankhamen carried R1b . Plus the Kushite haplogroups in Crete and Anatolia include R1b.

---

there are archers in many cultures around the world so that is not unique to the kushites

where is your source that the Levant and Anatolia referred to themselves as kushites?

Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

besides Tutankhamen was not a kushite

---

Tutankhamen was not a Kushite but it shows that Africans were carrying R1 in ancient times.

The kushites lived in the Sudan, North Africa and Levant/Anatolia.

Around 800 BC, Homer mentions the Aethiopians, or Kushites, in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer said that the Kushites were “the most just of men, the favorites of the Gods”.

To the Greco-Romans there were two Kush empires, one in Africa and the other in Asia. Homer alluded to the two Kushite empires when he wrote in the Odyssey i.23: “a race divided, whom the sloping rays; the rising and the setting sun surveys”. In the Iliad. i.423, Homer wrote that Zeus went to Kush to banquet with the blameless Ethiopians.

In 64 BC, the Greek geographer and historian Strabo stated in Chapter 1 of Geography that there were two Kush empires - one in Asia and another in Africa. In addition to Kush in Nubia and Upper Egypt, some Greco-Roman authors considered their presence in southern Phoenicia up to Mount Amanus in Syria.

The Neolithic process in North Africa was done by Africans, who took the Agro-Pastoral cultures to the Levant and Europe (4).

Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. Drake et al [1] provides evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan (NS) speakers. The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [3].



The IAM people [Early Neolithic Moroccans] (5), were nothing more than hunter-gatherer Kushites that had originally belonged to the Ounanian Culture (3-4). The Ounanians, like their Kushite descendants were great archers and based their civilization on hunting using the bow, and limited cattle domestication (3-4).

The Ounanian culture was first described by Breuil in 1930 at Ounan to the south of Taodeni in northern Mali. Ounanian Points are suggested to be the hallmark of the some Epipaleolithic industries in the central Sahara, the Sahel and northern Sudan, and dated to the early Holocene.


The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [3-4]. The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. This would explain the close relationship between the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages[3].


The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. From here NC populations migrated into the Fezzan, Nile Valley and Sudan as their original homeland became more and more arid.


In the Eastern Sahara many individual types of tanged and shouldered arrowheads occur on early Holocene prehistoric sites along with Green Saharan/Wavy-line pottery (1-2) . 'Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic' wavy-line, dotted wavy line and walking-comb pottery was used from Lake Turkana to Nabta Playa, in Tibestim , Mauritania, on into in the Hoggar, in Niger. This pottery evolved into the Beaker Bell ceramics.


Wavy-line pottery

The Ounanian culture was not isolated in Africa. It was spread into the Levant. As a result, we have in the archaeological literature the name Ounan-Harif point. This name was proposed for the tanged points at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba .


Tanged Point


Harifian is a specialized regional cultural development of the Epipalaeolithic of the Negev Desert. Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolithic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.


The tangled Ounanian points are also found at Foum Arguin . These points were used from Oued Draa, in southern Morocco, to the Banc d’Arguin and from the Atlantic shore to the lowlands of northwestern Sahara in Mauritania . We now have DNA from Ounanian sites in Morocco.


All the burials in Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa site IAM1-IAM7 , are devoid of any artifacts, except for an original funeral ritual, which consists of placing a millstone on the skull (5) . These burials were dated from 4,850 to 5,250 BCE, they carried U6, M1, T2, X and K (5). This suggest that Africans were already carrying this mtDNA. The spread of the Ounanians to Harif in the Levant explains the presence of these Kushite clades in the Levant and Anatolia.

In summary, the Niger-Congo speakers or Kushites formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. The ancestors of the Kushites were the Ounanians who spread the Ounan-Harfian toolkit, pottery and arrows from throughout North Africa, into Iberia and the Levant. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep). It was these Kushites who introduced mtDNA U6, M1, T2, X and K; and Y-Chromosome R1b into Eurasian from their African homeland in the Sahel-Sahara.

Eurocentrists attempt to limit the extent of the Kushite empire. The Weni inscription makes it clear that many states were inhabited by the ḫ3st, or Kushites.

.

.


.
The map above makes it appear that only Irthet was Kush, but the Weni inscriptions includes Wawat, Yam and Temeh as being inhabited by Kushite = ḫ3st.

quote:

---

The inscription of Weni reads:

“His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet khas [Kusites], the Mazoi khas [Kushites], the Yam khas [Kushites], among the Wawat Khas [Kushites], among the Kau khas [Kushites], and in the land of Temeh.”

---

In the Weni inscription we can clearly see that Kushites were living in Upper and Lower Egypt. The final comment in the Weni inscription made it clear that ḫ3st (khas=Kushites) were also “in the land of Temeh”.

On this map, Temeh is situated to the south of Irthet, but in Egyptian Temeh, meant Lower Egypt.


The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA .

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st
.

References:
1. Nick A. Drake, Roger M. Blench, Simon J. Armitage, Charlie S. Bristow, and Kevin H. White. (2010). Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert PNAS 2011 108 (2) 458-462; published ahead of print December 27,2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1012231108
2. Vernet R, Ott M, Tarrou L, Gallin A, Géoris-Creuseveau J. (2007) Excavation of the mound of FA 10 (Banc d'Arguin) and its contribution to the knowledge of the culture paleolithical Foum Arguin, northwestern Sahara (Translated from French) J Afr Archaeol 5:17–46.
3. Winters C. (2012). Origin of the Niger-Congo Speakers. WebmedCentral GENETICS 2012;3(3). https://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/3149
4. Winters, C. (2017)A GENETIC CHRONOLOGY OF AFRICAN Y-CHROMOSOMES R-V88 AND R-M269 IN AFRICA AND EURASIA,http://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2017/VOL-7-NO-2/04-JLS-004-WINTERS-A-EURASIA.pdf
5. Fregel R, et al (2017). Neolithization of North Africa involved the migration of people from both the Levant and Europe. bioRxiv 191569; doi: https://doi.org

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
It is almost impossible to know if king tut carried R1b in ancient times

Strabo, Homer or any other Greek writer in ancient times did not use the word kush or kushite

you still have not shown the Ounanians carrying R1b

the only evidence of R1b in Africa are the Hausa and they claim descent from northern people

---

Ethiopian corresponded to Kush. Anyway, the Anatolians referred to themselves as Kushites.

The Hausa are not the only group to carry R1.

The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia, because the Dravidians originally belonged to the C-Group of Nubia. Africans also carry haplogroup R1a.
Research on y-haplogroups in Africa suggest that R1-M269 is also widespread in Africa.



Above is a figure from Gonzalez et al., of R1 in Guinea-Bissau. The Gonzalez et al article found that 10 out of 19 subjects in the study carried R1b1-P25 or M269. This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers in this study were M269, this finding is further proof of the widespread nature of this so-called Eurasian genes in Africa among populations that have not mated with Europeans . Moreover, Guinea-Bissau was a major area of origin of many slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade, and, as a result the South American slaves probably already came to the New World carrying R-M269.

The R1 haplogroup probably originated in Africa.

The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia.

Abu-Amero et al (20009) reveal the fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroups illustrate the recent introduction of Ry-chromosomes to Eurasia. The frequency of haplotype M173 in Eurasia is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R1 in Africa that ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon (Coia et al, 2005). Coia et al (2005) has revealed that no maternal Eurasian lineages have been found among Sub-Saharan Africans with a R1- M173 profile.
Haplogroup V88 has the greatest frequency in Africa. It is predominately carried by Chadic speakers, ranges between 2-60% among Central African Niger-Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).



The phylogenetically deep haplogroup R1b is mainly found in West Africa and the Sahel, where the frequency ranges between 85-100% among Niger Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). The paternal record of M173 on the African continent illustrates a greater distribution of this y-chromosome among varied African populations than, in Asia.

The greatest diversity of R1b in Africa is highly suggestive of an Africa origin for this male lineage. Archaeological (Lal, 1963), genetic (Winters, 2008;2010a), placenames (Balakrishnan, 2005) and linguistic data group (Aravanan,1979,1980; Upadhyaya, 1976,1979; Winters 1985a,1985b, 1989) linking Africans and Dravidian support the recent demic diffusion of SubSaharan Africans and gene flow from Africa to Eurasia. An early colonization of Eurasia 4kya by Sub-Saharan Africans and Dravidian carriers of R1-M173 is the best scenario to explain the high frequency and widespread geographical distribution of this y-chromosome on the African continent (Winters, 2010c). Given the greatest diversity of R1- M173, this is the most parsimonious model explaining the frequency of R-M173 in Africa.
In conclusion, the R haplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa. Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010). Eurasians carry the M269 (R1b1b2) mutation. The subclades of R1b1b2 include Rh1b1b2g (U106) (TMRCA 8.3kya) and R1b1b2h (U152) (TMRCA 7.4kya). The most recent common ancestor for R1b1b2 is probably 8kya (Balaresque et al, 2010).

In Africa we find R-M269 and V88. Clearly, R-V88 is older than R-M269 there is no evidence of archaeological evidence of a back migration or haplogroup R into Africa, but there is evidence of the migration of the Kushites and Proto-Sahara into Eurasia from Middle Africa. This supports the proposition the R haplogroups originated in Africa, not Eurasia.
The fact remains that R-M269, is found among Sub-Saharan Africans from West, to East and Southern Africa. This supports my contention that this haplogroup is widespread in Africa.

.


In India the Dravidian people carry the R1a haplogroup The Dravidian people of India originally lived in Middle Africa and belonged to the Proto-Saharan Civilization.
The Proto-Saharan civilization was situated in the Proto-Sahara, which includes Cameroon.
.

.
In Cameroon we find carriers of R1a.
In addition to carriers of R1a in Cameroon; the Dravidian languages are still spoken today in Cameroon see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk


In conclusion, the R macrohaplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

---

why are you saying R1b was gotten from Tutankhamen ?

---

Do you not understand what i typed?

king tut's handlers carry R1b not tut

it is near impossible to abstract Dna from a body that decayed thousands of years ago.
king tuts body is surrounded by people of European descent thus causing a risk of contaminating the mummy with their Dna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
It is almost impossible to know if king tut carried R1b in ancient times

Strabo, Homer or any other Greek writer in ancient times did not use the word kush or kushite

you still have not shown the Ounanians carrying R1b

the only evidence of R1b in Africa are the Hausa and they claim descent from northern people

---

Ethiopian corresponded to Kush. Anyway, the Anatolians referred to themselves as Kushites.

The Hausa are not the only group to carry R1.

The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia, because the Dravidians originally belonged to the C-Group of Nubia. Africans also carry haplogroup R1a.
Research on y-haplogroups in Africa suggest that R1-M269 is also widespread in Africa.



Above is a figure from Gonzalez et al., of R1 in Guinea-Bissau. The Gonzalez et al article found that 10 out of 19 subjects in the study carried R1b1-P25 or M269. This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers in this study were M269, this finding is further proof of the widespread nature of this so-called Eurasian genes in Africa among populations that have not mated with Europeans . Moreover, Guinea-Bissau was a major area of origin of many slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade, and, as a result the South American slaves probably already came to the New World carrying R-M269.

The R1 haplogroup probably originated in Africa.

The phylogeography of R1 in Africa makes it clear that this y-chromosome is spread globally across Africa and includes the genetic structure of diverse African populations including Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Khoisan,Pygmy, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Semitic speaking African populations (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009; Cruciani et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2009). The fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroup illustrate the recent introduction of R y-chromosome to Eurasia.

Abu-Amero et al (20009) reveal the fact that Dravidians carry the R haplogroups illustrate the recent introduction of Ry-chromosomes to Eurasia. The frequency of haplotype M173 in Eurasia is as follows: Anatolia 0.19%, Iran 2.67%, Iraq 0.49% Oman 1.0%, Pakistan 0.57% and Oman 1.0% . This contrast sharply with the widespread distribution of R1 in Africa that ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon (Coia et al, 2005). Coia et al (2005) has revealed that no maternal Eurasian lineages have been found among Sub-Saharan Africans with a R1- M173 profile.
Haplogroup V88 has the greatest frequency in Africa. It is predominately carried by Chadic speakers, ranges between 2-60% among Central African Niger-Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).



The phylogenetically deep haplogroup R1b is mainly found in West Africa and the Sahel, where the frequency ranges between 85-100% among Niger Congo speakers (Cruciani et al, 2010). The paternal record of M173 on the African continent illustrates a greater distribution of this y-chromosome among varied African populations than, in Asia.

The greatest diversity of R1b in Africa is highly suggestive of an Africa origin for this male lineage. Archaeological (Lal, 1963), genetic (Winters, 2008;2010a), placenames (Balakrishnan, 2005) and linguistic data group (Aravanan,1979,1980; Upadhyaya, 1976,1979; Winters 1985a,1985b, 1989) linking Africans and Dravidian support the recent demic diffusion of SubSaharan Africans and gene flow from Africa to Eurasia. An early colonization of Eurasia 4kya by Sub-Saharan Africans and Dravidian carriers of R1-M173 is the best scenario to explain the high frequency and widespread geographical distribution of this y-chromosome on the African continent (Winters, 2010c). Given the greatest diversity of R1- M173, this is the most parsimonious model explaining the frequency of R-M173 in Africa.
In conclusion, the R haplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa. Researchers have found that the TMRCA of V88 was 9200-5600 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010). Eurasians carry the M269 (R1b1b2) mutation. The subclades of R1b1b2 include Rh1b1b2g (U106) (TMRCA 8.3kya) and R1b1b2h (U152) (TMRCA 7.4kya). The most recent common ancestor for R1b1b2 is probably 8kya (Balaresque et al, 2010).

In Africa we find R-M269 and V88. Clearly, R-V88 is older than R-M269 there is no evidence of archaeological evidence of a back migration or haplogroup R into Africa, but there is evidence of the migration of the Kushites and Proto-Sahara into Eurasia from Middle Africa. This supports the proposition the R haplogroups originated in Africa, not Eurasia.
The fact remains that R-M269, is found among Sub-Saharan Africans from West, to East and Southern Africa. This supports my contention that this haplogroup is widespread in Africa.

.


In India the Dravidian people carry the R1a haplogroup The Dravidian people of India originally lived in Middle Africa and belonged to the Proto-Saharan Civilization.
The Proto-Saharan civilization was situated in the Proto-Sahara, which includes Cameroon.
.

.
In Cameroon we find carriers of R1a.
In addition to carriers of R1a in Cameroon; the Dravidian languages are still spoken today in Cameroon see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk


In conclusion, the R macrohaplogroup probably originated in Africa. In my paper POSSIBLE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF Y-CHROMOSOME R1-M173 , I argue that the P clade originated in Africa because 1) the age of R-V88 and 2) the widespread nature of R1 in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


Tutankhamen's body is too decayed to tell what haplogroup he comes from, the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers

---

why are you saying R1b was gotten from Tutankhamen ?

---

Do you not understand what i typed?

king tut's handlers carry R1b not tut

it is near impossible to abstract Dna from a body that decayed thousands of years ago.
king tuts body is surrounded by people of European descent thus causing a risk of contaminating the mummy with their Dna

---

I understand exactly what you said. You said " the only R1b dna that they got from his mummy is from his white handlers" because you say it is impossible for ancient DNA not to be contaminated by the people handling the specimen.

Let's say that's true.

So regardless of the source of the R1b, regardless of it being Tutankhamen's or that of the researchers why are you saying R1b was gotten?

Where is a credible source (keyword credible) that R1b was detected in the Tutankhamen mummy or from anybody involved in handling the mummy?

Have you done any basic research on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
where is the documentation of the Anatolians calling themselves Kushhites

the Hausa mixed with other African tribes however they are the highest frequent carriers of R1b

where is the evidence of the Ounanians carrying R1b

Europe has the largest R1b Dna than any-other part of the world
This concludes that R1b Dna originated in Europe and not Africa

---

The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon is larger than the area of Western Europe.

Moreover, the frequency of R1 in a particular region does not indicate place of origin.

The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA . [/b]

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.


.

.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.


The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.


The tribal names: Kings of Kish for the Sumerians, Kashka and Khas for the hyksos show that the Anatolians were Kushites.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

what eaxctly are you trying to ask?

the credible source is in these questions

who discovered Tutankhamen?

who were the handlers of Tutankhamen?

who conducted the genetic study on Tutankhamen?

i find it very convenient that Tutankhamen is related to the people who discovered him and handled him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamen carried R1b .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


the only evidence of R1b in Africa are the Hausa and they claim descent from northern people

---

You're not fit for taking on Clyde because you haven't done the most rudimentary research on what you claim



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


the only evidence of R1b in Africa are the Hausa and they claim descent from northern people

---

You're not fit for taking on Clyde because you haven't done the most rudimentary research on what you claim

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
where is the documentation of the Anatolians calling themselves Kushhites

the Hausa mixed with other African tribes however they are the highest frequent carriers of R1b

where is the evidence of the Ounanians carrying R1b

Europe has the largest R1b Dna than any-other part of the world
This concludes that R1b Dna originated in Europe and not Africa

---

The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon is larger than the area of Western Europe.

Moreover, the frequency of R1 in a particular region does not indicate place of origin.

The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA . [/b]

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.


.

.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.


The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.


The tribal names: Kings of Kish for the Sumerians, Kashka and Khas for the hyksos show that the Anatolian were Kushites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

what eaxctly are you trying to ask?

the credible source is in these questions

who discovered Tutankhamen?

who were the handlers of Tutankhamen?

who conducted the genetic study on Tutankhamen?

i find it very convenient that Tutankhamen is related to the people who discovered him and handled him

---

questions are not a credible source

A credible source is a peer reviewed journal article or book written by a professional scientist etc,

I am asking you why do you assume that R1b was documented by a credible source involving the mummy of Tutankhamen or of people involved in handling the mummy?

Where is the credible peer reviewed journal article or book claiming this ?

Clyde said this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamen carried R1b .

---

You assumed R1b to have been recorded (regardless of how it got there) just because Clyde said it. It is not wise to try to explain things based on premises that you have not checked.

If someone asks you why Robert De Niro's brother was in the mafia you are supposed to first find out if he had a brother before trying to deal with the question.
- he didn't have one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
.


https://www.igenea.com/en/tutankhamun

.


.







The haplogroup R-M269 arose about 9.500 years ago in the surrounding area of the Black Sea. The migration of this haplogroup into Europe started at the earliest with the spread of agriculture since 7.000 BC. It is ver probable that it is also connected to the Indoeuropeans who spread over Europe a little later in several waves of migrations.

In Egypt the contingent of this haplogroup is below 1% and partially caused by european immigration during the last 2.000 years.

Tutankhamun had been the last Pharao of the 18th dynasty and ruled from about 1.332 until 1.323 BC. His paternal lineage begins with Pharao Thutmose I. who ruled from about 1.504 until 1.492 BC. His paternal ancestry is unknown.

Therefore, it is still unclear how this line came from the region of origin to Egypt. The earliest evidence of agriculture dates back to 5000 BC. It is possible that Haplogroup R-M269 moved from the North to Egypt with the spread of agriculture from the region of the Fertile Crescent.

The fourth expansional wave of the probably indoeuropean Kurgan Culture between 2.500 and 2.200 BC is also a good candidate. This culture spread since 4.400 BC to Europe which explains the correlation with haplogroup R-M269. This haplogroup was also widespread in the indoeuropean Hittite empire in Anatolia. From the time of Akhenatens or Tuankhamuns reign a letter of an egyptian queen is known from the Hittite archives. In this letter she asks the Hittites King for one of his sons as a new Pharao because her husband died and she herself got no son.

The identity of the queen is unknown, perhaps the 18th dynasty was related to the Hittites, the origin of the R-M269-lineage could point to this.

The detailed context can only be clearified by further research. By the publication of the test result we want to contribute to the scientific discussion and bring it forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

what eaxctly are you trying to ask?

the credible source is in these questions

who discovered Tutankhamen?

who were the handlers of Tutankhamen?

who conducted the genetic study on Tutankhamen?

i find it very convenient that Tutankhamen is related to the people who discovered him and handled him

---

questions are not a credible source

A credible source is a peer reviewed journal article or book written by a professional scientist etc,

I am asking you why do you assume that R1b was documented by a credible source involving the mummy of Tutankhamen or of people involved in handling the mummy?

Where is the credible peer reviewed journal article or book claiming this ?

Clyde said this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Tutankhamen carried R1b .

---

You assumed R1b to have been recorded (regardless of how it got there) just because Clyde said it. It is not wise to try to explain things based on premises that you have not checked.

If someone asks you why Robert De Niro's brother was in the mafia you are supposed to first find out if he had a brother before trying to deal with the question.
- he didn't have one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


the only evidence of R1b in Africa are the Hausa and they claim descent from northern people

---

You're not fit for taking on Clyde because you haven't done the most rudimentary research on what you claim

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
where is the documentation of the Anatolians calling themselves Kushhites

the Hausa mixed with other African tribes however they are the highest frequent carriers of R1b

where is the evidence of the Ounanians carrying R1b

Europe has the largest R1b Dna than any-other part of the world
This concludes that R1b Dna originated in Europe and not Africa

---

The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon is larger than the area of Western Europe.

Moreover, the frequency of R1 in a particular region does not indicate place of origin.

The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA . [/b]

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.


.

.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.


The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.


The tribal names: Kings of Kish for the Sumerians, Kashka and Khas for the hyksos show that the Anatolian were Kushites.

---

^^^ im still not convinced because you have not provided the exact quote where the Anatolians called themselves Kushites

Europeans have the highest frequency of R1b than any other continent

the population of Europeans that carry R1b are higher than all the R1b African tribes combined

---

The names the Anatolians called themselves show their Kushite origin.


The hyksos called themselves Khas or kЗs



Hyksos left textual evidence of their use of the term xЗs Khas or kЗs, for Kush.

.

The Weni inscription makes it clear that the name Khas was made up (of three) N25 signs from Gardiner’s List of Egyptian Signs. The N25 sign also represents Kash = Kush. This means that N25 represented the name Kash and Khas for the ethononym Kushite.

.


.

The meaning of N25 as Kush and Kushite is obvious in the Hyksos scarabs where we see N25, as the people the Hyksos Kings ruled.

It is not my job to convince you I am just relaying the facts.

You have not provided any evidence disputing these facts so we can end the discussion.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
iGENA is a private for profit testing company not a credible source

They are not a peer reviewed journal article or published in a book much less ones that have a professional academic reputation

They have no affiliation with primary data on this subject

Try Again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
where is the documentation of the Anatolians calling themselves Kushhites

the Hausa mixed with other African tribes however they are the highest frequent carriers of R1b

where is the evidence of the Ounanians carrying R1b

Europe has the largest R1b Dna than any-other part of the world
This concludes that R1b Dna originated in Europe and not Africa

---

The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon is larger than the area of Western Europe.

Moreover, the frequency of R1 in a particular region does not indicate place of origin.

The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA . [/b]

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.


.

.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.


The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.


The tribal names: Kings of Kish for the Sumerians, Kashka and Khas for the hyksos show that the Anatolian were Kushites.

---

^^^ im still not convinced because you have not provided the exact quote where the Anatolians called themselves Kushites

Europeans have the highest frequency of R1b than any other continent

the population of Europeans that carry R1b are higher than all the R1b African tribes combined

---

The names the Anatolians called themselves show their Kushite origin.


The hyksos called themselves Khas or kЗs



Hyksos left textual evidence of their use of the term xЗs Khas or kЗs, for Kush.

.

The Weni inscription makes it clear that the name Khas was made up (of three) N25 signs from Gardiner’s List of Egyptian Signs. The N25 sign also represents Kash = Kush. This means that N25 represented the name Kash and Khas for the ethononym Kushite.

.


.

The meaning of N25 as Kush and Kushite is obvious in the Hyksos scarabs where we see N25, as the people the Hyksos Kings ruled.

It is not my job to convince you I am just relaying the facts.

You have not provided any evidence disputing these facts so we can end the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:
where is the documentation of the Anatolians calling themselves Kushhites

the Hausa mixed with other African tribes however they are the highest frequent carriers of R1b

where is the evidence of the Ounanians carrying R1b

Europe has the largest R1b Dna than any-other part of the world
This concludes that R1b Dna originated in Europe and not Africa

---

The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon is larger than the area of Western Europe.

Moreover, the frequency of R1 in a particular region does not indicate place of origin.

The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA . [/b]

Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).



The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.


.

.

Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place names (1). The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.


The Hatti controlled the city state of Kussara. Kussara was situated in southern Anatolia.


The tribal names: Kings of Kish for the Sumerians, Kashka and Khas for the hyksos show that the Anatolian were Kushites.

---

^^^ im still not convinced because you have not provided the exact quote where the Anatolians called themselves Kushites

Europeans have the highest frequency of R1b than any other continent

the population of Europeans that carry R1b are higher than all the R1b African tribes combined

---

The names the Anatolians called themselves show their Kushite origin.


The hyksos called themselves Khas or kЗs



Hyksos left textual evidence of their use of the term xЗs Khas or kЗs, for Kush.

.

The Weni inscription makes it clear that the name Khas was made up (of three) N25 signs from Gardiner’s List of Egyptian Signs. The N25 sign also represents Kash = Kush. This means that N25 represented the name Kash and Khas for the ethononym Kushite.

.


.

The meaning of N25 as Kush and Kushite is obvious in the Hyksos scarabs where we see N25, as the people the Hyksos Kings ruled.

It is not my job to convince you I am just relaying the facts.

You have not provided any evidence disputing these facts so we can end the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

So when Clyde said Tutankhamen carried R1b did you check to see if it was tested by the public?

No you assumed R1b was detected on Tutankhamen and proceeded to make up an explanation for it instead of seeing if there was a public tested source for it

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

However, "tested by the public" doesn't means anything. That is BS

Clyde fooled you into trying to answer a question and you tried to do it but didn't realize it was built on an unsubstantiated premise.

Then you made up more BS that all ancient DNA is contaminated and that it was impossible for Tut to have DNA and you also based that another false statement about the Hausa being the only R1b carriers in Africa.

One error after another. And did you check with the "public testing" ?
Did you go to the public's data base of what they tested?
No because that is nonsense

---

quote:

---

Tutankhamun[edit]

An academic study which included DNA profiling of some of the related male mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010.

Tutankhamun's Y-DNA haplogroup was not published in the academic paper,[29][30][31] however iGENEA, a Swiss personal genomics company, claimed to have reconstructed King Tut's Y-DNA profile based on screencaps from a Discovery Channel documentary about the study. iGENEA without producing any proof, proposed that King Tut belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a2,[32][33]

Members of the research team that conducted the academic study published in 2010 stated they had not been consulted by iGENEA before they published the haplogroup information and described iGENEA's claims as "unscientific." [31] After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_haplogroups_of_historic_people#Tutankhamun

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

So when Clyde said Tutankhamen carried R1b did you check to see if it was tested by the public?

No you assumed R1b was detected on Tutankhamen and proceeded to make up an explanation for it instead of seeing if there was a public tested source for it

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


for something to truly be credible is that it must be presented to the public and tested by the public
thus making it an irrefutable fact

---

However, "tested by the public" doesn't means anything. That is BS

Clyde fooled you into trying to answer a question and you tried to do it but didn't realize it was built on an unsubstantiated premise.

Then you made up more BS that all ancient DNA is contaminated and that it was impossible for Tut to have DNA and you also based that another false statement about the Hausa being the only R1b carriers in Africa.

One error after another. And did you check with the "public testing" ?
Did you go to the public's data base of what they tested?
No because that is nonsense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


i gave it the benefit of the doubt that maybe they did find R1b but it still doesnt mean it is from king tut

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


no scientific claim is credible unless proven by the public

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

the Hausa are the largest chadic group in Africa and have largest population of R1b carriers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


i gave it the benefit of the doubt that maybe they did find R1b but it still doesnt mean it is from king tut

---

It is foolish to give Clyde the benefit of the doubt. He makes up things constantly

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:


no scientific claim is credible unless proven by the public

---

"proven by the public" is a meaningless concept

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

the Hausa are the largest chadic group in Africa and have largest population of R1b carriers

---

So what?

That doesn't mean Tutankhamen was or wasn't an R1b carrier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.

If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

proven by the public means this

Every body knows fire is hot because it can be proven by the public

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.

If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.

.

---

Your typical backward reasoning is that someone can make up a theory about anything and if someone can't disprove it it is therefore true.

Science doesn't work like that. You have to prove something to be true. You can't just make up a theory and then assume because somebody can't or doesn't want to disprove it the theory is true.

So somebody says blue elephants exists. Then somebody else says "no they don't"
Then you say " have you checked the entire world to verify that?
And they say no
And then Clyde says that's proof blue elephants exists because somebody couldn't prove they don't.
You do that constantly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.

If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.

.

---

Your typical backward reasoning is that someone can make up a theory about anything and if someone can't disprove it it is therefore true.

Science doesn't work like that. You have to prove something to be true. You can't just make up a theory and then assume because somebody can't or doesn't want to disprove it the theory is true.

So somebody says blue elephants exists. Then somebody else says "no they don't"
Then you say " have you checked the entire world to verify that?
And they say no
And then Clyde says that's proof blue elephants exists because somebody couldn't prove they don't.
You do that constantly

---

This shows YOUR backward thinking. The Egyptians have the DNA.

The Egyptians could have easily provide the DNA proving that IGENEA was wrong. They have not provided any DNA to dispute the IGENEA's claim.

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.
.

---

No, you understand nothing about burden of proof

If someone has a theory the burden of proof for the theory does not lie on the rest of the world to disprove it

The burden of proof is on the claimant to list primary data in detail and describe applying scientific method in detail and only then is the theory qualified to be reviewed by other researchers.
The scientific method requires the method is described in detail so that other researchers can test the theory by the same method and see if they can reproduce a particular result.

No IGENEA did not provide those details, nor did they detail their method. They claimed to be able to read blurry data from a computer screen filmed in a video from a documentary. Other people who watched the video said much of it was too blurry to read and there was not enough data to predict haplotype. Did they show a series of screen shots of this unreleased data? No, they didn't even do that. What they did is hardly proper data sourcing

By far highest concentration of R1b in Africa is of the clade V88 in the Chad basin area that also includes part of Cameroon.
-although this is less than 1% of Africans

M269 in Africa is much rarer and you find some low frequencies in berbers and in coastal African countries who have had historical contact and low levels of mixture with Europeans



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ There's your answer questioner

"iGENEA without producing any proof"

and Clyde presents it as if it was proven

---

You have it backwards.The article makes it clear that the Egyptians never produced any "proof" disputing IGENEA.

If they did please cite the article/publication where the Egyptians disputed the IGENEA findings.

.

---

Your typical backward reasoning is that someone can make up a theory about anything and if someone can't disprove it it is therefore true.

Science doesn't work like that. You have to prove something to be true. You can't just make up a theory and then assume because somebody can't or doesn't want to disprove it the theory is true.

So somebody says blue elephants exists. Then somebody else says "no they don't"
Then you say " have you checked the entire world to verify that?
And they say no
And then Clyde says that's proof blue elephants exists because somebody couldn't prove they don't.
You do that constantly

---

This shows YOUR backward thinking. The Egyptians have the DNA.

The Egyptians could have easily provide the DNA proving that IGENEA was wrong. They have not provided any DNA to dispute the IGENEA's claim.

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.
.

---

No, you understand nothing about burden of proof

If someone has a theory the burden of proof for the theory does not lie on the rest of the world to disprove it

The burden of proof is on the claimant to list primary data in detail and describe applying scientific method in detail and only then is the theory qualified to be reviewed by other researchers.
The scientific method requires the method is described in detail so that other researchers can test the theory by the same method and see if they can reproduce a particular result.

No IGENEA did not provide those details, nor did they detail their method. They claimed to be able to read blurry data from a computer screen filmed in a video from a documentary. Other people who watched the video said much of it was too blurry to read and there was not enough data to predict haplotype. Did they show a series of screen shots of this unreleased data? No, they didn't even do that. What they did is hardly proper data sourcing

By far highest concentration of R1b in Africa is of the clade V88 in the Chad basin area that also includes part of Cameroon.
-although this is less than 1% of Africans

M269 in Africa is much rarer and you find some low frequencies in berbers and in coastal African countries who have had historical contact and low levels of mixture with Europeans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Your comments lacks any congruence. IGENEA announced that King Tut's DNA was R1b. No one has presented any evidence disputing this claim the lack of counter evidence proves that your comments have no foundation.

---

You still don't understand science and have been using fallacies in logic for your entire life

Announcing something is not proof.

And if you announce something and nobody disproves it that is also not proof.


_______________________________________

Argument from ignorance
argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true

2. false

3. unknown between true or false

4. being unknowable (among the first three)

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.


As described in Schreuder's Vision and Visual Perception:[2]

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproved to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives.

A false dilemma may take the form >>

If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be
considered false and must therefore be considered true.

or

If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproved and (b) false things can never be proved. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.

— Duco A. Schreuder, Vision and Visual Perception


To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proved, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proved and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.

The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.




Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.

Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.

The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.

Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.

Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
.


.

Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.

In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.

In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.

If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.


.




.
IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed.
.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

---

they are not published , so stop the nonsense

iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear

---

when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

^ That is a logical fallacy called
Argument from ignorance

---

Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.

The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.




Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.

Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.

The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.

Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.

Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
.


.

Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.

In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.

In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.

If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.


.




.
IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed.
.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

---

they are not published , so stop the nonsense

iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear

---

when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

^ That is a logical fallacy called
Argument from ignorance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

---

they are not published , so stop the nonsense

iGENEA had no access to the mummy or data

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Tutankhamun R1b Y-Chromosome makes it clear

---

when Tutankhamen's DNA is published and it's Hapolgroup E you will live to regret this claim

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

^ That is a logical fallacy called
Argument from ignorance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case.

---

There are two types of Argument from ignorance


Again


Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that

a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
or

b)a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

^ those are both wrong
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is a true statement which is a criticism of proposition b) which claimed a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
In other words lack of evidence for X is not evidence against X.

However your method is an illustration of the first wrong proposition a)

a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false

that is very clearly what you have here >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

^ This is a type of Argument from ignorance
The truthful criticism of it is>

"the absence of evidence is not evidence of existence"

iGENEA did not present evidence. They just said they claimed to have seen it on a computer monitor in a documentary but they presented no screen captures, no figures, no method.

So you have no idea how to present a scientific theory. Somebody just announces something, says "trust me" and if you like the theory you accept it. That is your whole life

---

Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.

The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.




Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.

Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.

The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.

Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.

Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
.


.

Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.

In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.

In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.

If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.


.




.
IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed.
.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

---

screen shots don't test a theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

---

show us the screen shots so we know you're not lying


Again


an Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in logic. It asserts that

a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
or

b)a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

^ those are both wrong

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed.

---

^ This is a type of Argument from ignorance of type a)

a) a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
or

^ This is wrong and this is your method

---

Stop Making Stuff Up. IGENEA used screen shots to test their theory.

lioness Your arguments lack congruence. This is not an appeal to ignorance as you imply.

The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", does not apply in this case. The evidence is King Tut's genetics test results.

The Egyptians have the genetics test results. As a result, if IGENEA is wrong they have the genetics evidence to prove otherwise.




Evidence is not equivocal. Evidence is the matter that both validates and invalidates a theory. In science, proof does not exist. Proof only exist in a court of law, where a Judge determines what is or what is not proof.

Research is the foundation of good science, or knowing in general. There are four methods of 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction). To explain R1b as the genome of King Tut, we have to use the scientific method which calls for hypothesis testing, not only supported by experimentation, but also that of alternative plausible hypotheses that, may place doubt on the original hypothesis.

The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.

Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation.

Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification.
.


.

Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through rigorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical evidence to invalidate a proposed theory. If a theory can not be falsified through the variables (evidenc) associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations (based on evidence) associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.

In science you either confirm, or disconfirm a theory. A valid theory has abundant evidence supporting that theory, and remains valid as long as it is not disconfirmed by a researcher who provides counter evidence, that nullifies the evidence which supported the original theory.

In short, science centers on conjecture and refutations. One makes a theory and provides evidence to support the theory. The more evidence you present in support of a theory confirms the validity of your hypothesis.

If, another researcher presents more evidence that falsifies the theory, the theory must be rejected. Thusly evidence is not equivocal. Evidence will determine both the validity and lack of validity for a theory.


.


.
IGENEA claimed Tut was R1b, based on the published screen shots of Tut’s genetics test. No counter genomic evidence has been presented to dispute IGENEA. The IGENEA theory remains valid until their theory is disconfirmed.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.

---

I disagree with the numbers in this Clyde Winters chart I think they are misinterpreted and greatly inflated.

But let's say they are true.

At top it says that the frequency of M269 in Africa is 5.2%

R-M269 is most common in western Europe, 34% (Lucotte.et.al.2015) reaching frequencies of 90% or more in Spain, Ireland and Wales.

So what Clyde is saying here is that the average European is about 7-8 times more likely to be genetically similar to Tutankhamen than an African.


That is why I'm the true afrocentric of the forum and his Afrocentric card is being revoked due to the promotion of Eurocentric misinformation

---

Granted R-M269 in western Europe, has a frequency of 34%.The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe;the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon dwarfs the area of Western Europe.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

King Tut's DNA must be R1-M269.

---

The vast majority of R1 in Chad/Cameroon is V88

---

.
.
Granted R-M269 in western Europe, has a frequency of 34%. The frequency of R1 in Chad-Cameroon, and other parts of Africa is just as high as in Europe; the frequency of R1 in Africa ranges between 7- 95% in various parts of Africa, especially Cameroon .



.

Chad-Cameroon is not the only place R1 is found. Interestingly, Chad-Cameroon dwarfs the area of Western Europe.

R-M269 is found globally in Africa.


Altered and unattributed charts are not allowed in this forum
- lioness
.

[ 02. October 2017, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

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


^ This chart shows populations used for comparison in >

The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88
Miguel González, 2012





^^ This chart from the same article show the results of their analysis of 112 Equatorial New Guineans

Looking at the percentages at right about 80% are haplogroup E

In the R section we find V88 clades 8.04%

and M269 8.93%

Equatorial Guineas's population is about 1.3 million

9% of 1,300 000 = 117,000

IM269 in the region is easily explained by the well-reported European arrivals to this territory within the last five centuries.
A Spanish Equatoguinean is a person of Spanish descent who are residents born or living in Equatorial Guinea. Many Spanish Equatoquineans are of mulatto, or multiracial, ancestry
R-V88 in the region is believed to be several thousand years older.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


^ This chart shows populations used for comparison in >

The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88
Miguel González, 2012





^^ This chart from the same article show the results of their analysis of 112 Equatorial New Guineans

Looking at the percentages at right about 80% are haplogroup E

In the R section we find V88 clades 8.04%

and M269 8.93%

Equatorial Guineas's population is about 1.3 million

9% of 1,300 000 = 117,000

IM269 in the region is easily explained by the well-reported European arrivals to this territory within the last five centuries.

A Spanish Equatoguinean is a person of Spanish descent who are residents born or living in Equatorial Guinea. Many Spanish Equatoquineans are of mulatto, or multiracial, ancestry
R-V88 in the region is believed to be several thousand years older.

---

quote:

---

.
A GENETIC CHRONOLOGY OF AFRICAN Y-CHROMOSOMES R-V88
AND R-M269 IN AFRICA AND EURASIA

*Clyde Winters

ABSTRACT
There is a global distribution of Y-Chromosome R-M343 subclades across the African continent. The
major subclades are R-M269 and R-V88. The V88 subclade is the oldest clade to separate from R-M343.

The V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across a wide geographic area from Iberia, eastward to Germany and Samara. This would place carriers of relatives of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of V88 and M269 in Africa and Neolithic Europe suggest that, the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Africans, not Indo-Europeans, because these cultural complexes and the people who practiced these cultures originated in Africa.


See: http://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2017/VOL-7-NO-2/04-JLS-004-WINTERS-A-EURASIA.pdf

.

---