[Please don't reply for the sake of continuity until all four of my preliminary posts are made. Thank you.]
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The in quote material is from
Hawass et al Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family Journal of the American Medical Association 303 (7):638
I'm only presenting what I find to be relative to ascerning the nrY Chromosome assignment of Tut/Akhenaton/Amenhotep III and the team members responsible for the scientific work.
I'll also include funder info because of DSC inadvertantly making it possible to interpolate the alleles for the STRs.
quote: METHODS Molecular Genetics
Sixteen Y-chromosomal short tandem repeats (DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y-GATA-H4, DYS437, DYS438, DYS448) were amplified ...
RESULTS Kinship Analyses
Markers DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif located in the microsatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun ...
The report has 3 tables, 6 figures, and an online eSupplement. No tabulation of Y-STR raw data is presented in the report. I was able to see neither the eSupplement nor Table 1. Characteristics of the Royal 18th-Dynasty Mummies Under Investigation (N = 16)
quote: AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author: Carsten M. Pusch, PhD, Institute of Human Genetics, Division of Molecular Genetics, University of Tübingen, Germany Author Contributions: Drs Hawass, (Supreme Council of Antiquities, Cairo, Egypt) Gad, (National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt) ____(Ancient DNA Laboratory, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt ) Zink, (Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, EURAC, Bolzano, Italy) Pusch had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Statistical analysis: Ball, (Institute of Human Genetics, Division of Molecular Genetics, University of Tübingen, Germany) Gostner, (Department of Radiodiagnostics, Central Hospital Bolzano, Italy) Zink, Pusch Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Discovery Channel and the Brando Quilici production group. Funding was also obtained from the Mini-Graduiertenkolleg Tübingen and the DAAD (GERLS exchange program). Siemens medical donated material and installed the multislice computed tomography scanner used in the study. Role of the Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
My next two posts will give what I make out as the Hg lineage.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Hawass only published the allele values for 2 STRs, DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 as 13 and 11 respectively (see Kinship Analyses section snippet previously posted).
Using Y STR frequencies for select haplogroups I get
Since someone says the report gives DYS456 allele 15, assumingly from the eSupplement, I give its Hg freqs.
code:
hg locus 15 E3a 456 70 E3b 456 30 G 456 61 I 456 24 J2 456 44 R1a 456 30 R1b 456 36
This sparse data makes the Hg assignment a toss up between E3a and R1b favoring the former (i.e., R1b) with I a heavy also ran while E3b and R1a lag behind
but there's more to come. (OK, some statistician may rank E3b above I, so I will recognize that).
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The Discovery Channel broadcast information on the DNA studies of King Tut & suspected family before Hawass published "his" report with Pusch listed as its corresponding author.
The DSC broadcast showed screens with the scientific raw Y STR data of AMIII (Amenhotep III) and KV55 (Akhenaton?)
Someone identified as RealDealT claims to have come up with the values of all 16 Y STRs listed in the report using peak information from the broadcast and Applied Biosystems database. Presented below are his findings prefaced with frequencies of the major African Hg contenders E3 and R1.
In the above table 00 indicates less than .5%, blank = 0%
It wouldn't upset the balance but I don't have any frequencies for DYS635. The asterisked weight's predonderance is for R1b. Remember R1b1a is a known marker for peoples in Cameroun, Nigeria, Niger, and Siwa Oasis. It's also present in a few other northern African populations.
What further data will enable us to indicate which subclade of R1b is involved? No SNPs were reported.
[OK, floor's open for your responses now, please.]
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Thanks for sharing the specifics of the data that has been published. Honestly, the information on either DYS393 or Y-GATA-H4 alone is not sufficient to make an informed guesswork on the likely lineage at hand. What may provide a more intuitive assessment of the most probable lineage, i.e. short of the invaluable and irreplaceable unique event binary markers, is the combination of STR information, not just one or two random tandem repeats here and there. That's my 2c.
As for the "RealDealT" fellow, as I have said in the other thread before, his/her postings is questionable at this point, not only from a lack of independently verified officially published print of the findings, but also from other examinations of the same clip, the fellow supposedly extracted his/her info from. See this discussion: Link
And yes, you are right about hg R1b, not that it really matters, but simply because it has become the subject of rumor. Using some discussants' mentality, these people [mentioned: i.e. natives of "Cameroun, Nigeria, Niger, and Siwa Oasis"] would be "white", even though anyone with a good pair of eyes can clearly see otherwise, and even though, their markers are actually more upstream than any "white" peoples of Europe.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL So much for the rumors then! Looks like the Euronuts are jumping the gun as usual. Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Djehuty/Altakturi can you explain the data (even if we don't know if its the real deal yet)
1.What are the frequencies of each marker 2.Or better yet, how to read the tables so I can find out for myself
thnx
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Kalonji
In this table Row 1 lists 4 haplogroups E3a E3b R1a R1b. Columns 1 through 4 are percentages of the above Hgs associated with the STR allele of column 5.
Example: Row 2 shows that for STR DYS456 allele 15 haplogroup E3a has a frequency of 70% haplogroup E3b has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1a has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1b has a frequency of 36% meaning DYS456,15 favors haplogroup E3a.
Row 3 shows that for STR DYS389i allele 13 haplogroup E3a has a frequency of 74% haplogroup E3b has a frequency of 64% haplogroup R1a has a frequency of 71% haplogroup R1b has a frequency of 80% meaning DYS389i,13 favors haplogroup R1b.
Get the picture? And so it goes for the remaing STRs.
12 STRs are usually enough to hazard a Hg assignment. The more STRs the more surety of most probable Hg.
SNPs, not shown, are the most reliable Hg indicators. Unfortunately Hawass(2010) appears not to have sought them.
In presenting this table I assumed no bias on the part of the individual who derived the alleles from the DSC broadcast who I take to be someone interested in genetics as I am. I doubt he doctored the repeat count to make the outcome point to any particular Hg. He makes no claim to being correct in detecting all the repeat figures and himself anticipates an official release of data from the despot of data, Zahi Hawass, as do we all.
I don't understand how the medical and genetics community can condone Hawass' despotism concerning the Y STR raw data and why they don't demand the release of that information and further testing by independent labs elsewhere than Egypt where everyone cowers under Hawass.
Hawass' in Egypt by all Egyptian lab workers smacks of prejudice and discrimination that wouldn't be tolerated were any Euro official or institution to make the same demands.
I don't know if it was a lucky fluke or if DSC was being brave and giving the finger to Hawass when they allowed us the audience to glimpse the actual scientific monitor of the haplotypes. Without their money there would've been no testing yet they too feared to directly counter Hawass and forthrightly present the raw data (see the Role of the Sponsor disclaimer in an above post).
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri:
Kalonji
In this table Row 1 lists 4 haplogroups E3a E3b R1a R1b. Columns 1 through 4 are percentages of the above Hgs associated with the STR allele of column 5.
Example: Row 2 shows that for STR DYS456 allele 15 haplogroup E3a has a frequency of 70% haplogroup E3b has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1a has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1b has a frequency of 36% meaning DYS456,15 favors haplogroup E3a
12 STRs are usually enough to hazard a Hg assignment The more STRs the more surety of most probable Hg.
A hah I stumbled on 100 + percentages when I tried to add the numbers up in each row, so I knew I was reading it wrong.
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: SNPs, not shown, are the most reliable Hg indicators.
Unfortunately Hawass(2010) appears not to have sought them.
Hmm, would it be just to say based on that table that J,A,B etc. were not present in those sampled mummies? Or are there potentially more HGs that could have fallen outside the picture provided by the table because of the lack of enough SRTs?
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: I don't understand how the medical and genetics community can condone Hawass' despotism concerning the Y STR raw data and why they don't demand the release of that information and further testing by independent labs elsewhere than Egypt where everyone cowers under Hawass. Hawass' in Egypt by all Egyptian lab workers smacks of prejudice and discrimination that wouldn't be tolerated were any Euro official or institution to make the same demands.
They're on his nuts!!! They need his approval to do research in Egypt.
BTW, There were 4 females for sure among the mummies: KV35EL (EL stands for elderly lady) and KV35YL (younger lady), kv21A & kv21B. Is their Dna represented in that table? If so, I hope we will be able to find out pre-yuya alleles (KV35EL) from that table. If so, we can narrow down the options and see whether or not Yuya was responsible for bringing in the R lineages.
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I showed J in my 393 GATAH4 456 table. I excluded J from my 16 STR table because of its weak showing.
There's no evidence SNP or other UEP testing was carried out on the mummies hence no haplogroups are missing. 16 STRs are quite enough of haplotype to arrive at a probable haplogroup assignment.
There is no positive sure haplogroup assignment without UEPs.
The relationship is symbiotic. Hawass will lack his fame and glory without the USA media nor will have the kind of money he craves without them.
Female mummy DNA is part of the autosome analysis. Females don't have Y Chromosomes.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Thanks for sharing the specifics of the data that has been published. Honestly, the information on either DYS393 or Y-GATA-H4 alone is not sufficient to make an informed guesswork on the likely lineage at hand. What may provide a more intuitive assessment of the most probable lineage, i.e. short of the invaluable and irreplaceable unique event binary markers, is the combination of STR information, not just one or two random tandem repeats here and there. That's my 2c.
As for the "RealDealT" fellow, as I have said in the other thread before, his/her postings is questionable at this point, not only from a lack of independently verified officially published print of the findings, but also from other examinations of the same clip, the fellow supposedly extracted his/her info from. See this discussion: Link
And yes, you are right about hg R1b, not that it really matters, but simply because it has become the subject of rumor. Using some discussants' mentality, these people [mentioned: i.e. natives of "Cameroun, Nigeria, Niger, and Siwa Oasis"] would be "white", even though anyone with a good pair of eyes can clearly see otherwise, and even though, their markers are actually more upstream than any "white" peoples of Europe.
This is what I don't understand, when researching the R1b it is found in people of the Cameroon and even in the Siwa Oaisis. Why are people pointing to a European origian rather than populations like Siwa?? It it becuase of higher frequencies??
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Now, I will gladly and openly admit that I have not yet taken the time to understand how genetics variations and distributions work, so any assumptions I make here could easily be wrong. Please feel free to correct me as I'm happy to learn: But what seems to stand out for me is that E3a (the so called West/SW/Central African marker) seems to be at a higher frequency than E3b (the so-called East African marker) (I've seen the term Somalid banded about, alongside others... most ridiculous of all I've seen people using the markers to define their existence, but I won't go into that!)... now, I've always been dubious about some posters willingness to attribute such titles to genetic markers, but surely the evidence provided (along with the R1b evidence) is leaning us toward a strong probability of strong 'West-African' influence in AE and the likelihood of migrations, as Diop had suggested...
Once again, just guessing here, any feedback would be appreciated. (I intend to up my 'genealogist' game in the near future, but until then, your braces are appreciated... lol)
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: ]This is what I don't understand, when researching the R1b it is found in people of the Cameroon and even in the Siwa Oaisis. Why are people pointing to a European origian rather than populations like Siwa?? It it becuase of higher frequencies??
Highest R1b is in white Europeans like the Irish, but how then did the Irish or similar "pace-setting caucasoids" get to ancient Egypt? Explorer, Takuri, Djehuti et. al. correct me as needed but R1b is thought to have originated in Asia then filtered into Europe according to some research. Various tudies have already been posted on ES on this- Arredi, Poloni etc etc.. The highest frequencies of R1b are found among white people of northern Europe, the Irish for example at 90-99%. The English have it at around 75%. The Basques, a people on the border of France in Western Europe weigh in around 80% or so. Should Tut have R1b lineages, expect a big propaganda splash from the racist Neo-nazi crowd and their sympathizers about the "white Nordic" or 'Aryan" character of Tut.
Middle easterners are minor players in the sweepstakes.Strangely enough, Middle Eastern peoples in areas close to Egypt show relatively small frequencies: Turks 15%, Iraqis 11%, Syrians 10%, UAE Arabs 4%. Reputedly "white" Berbers also show much smaller frequencies- only 16% for the Kabyles, 11% for Algerian Arabs and 7% for Moroccan Arabs. In short, proponents of a “white Nordic Egypt” will assert that the northern white Aryan peoples like the Irish, or English, or Basques bordering France have more of a claim to king Tut via this particular marker than nearby Iraqis, Syrians or Lebanese, or Berbers.
The white press will not look too closely at the data and will dutifully repeat the Hawass spin about 'Eurasian' lineages.
Hypothetically then, all will look good for the Eurocentric propaganda machine, UNTIL ... the scholars at ES ram some sticks in its gears. Because the following must also be put on the table.
a) In Africa itself, there are several "negroid" tribes with R lineages in percentages that exceed that of 'Middle easterners" or Berbers, without the need for any "Nordics." The Hausa of the Sudan for example weigh in at around 40%. Various tribes of Chad in the Saharan zone weigh in at up to 35%. As Explorer and others note, there are underived R lineages in Africa that do not rely on influx from other outside sources. The two main continental contenders in the R1b "sweepstakes" then (sarcasm) are thus the white Nordics of western Europe, and the black tribes of Africa.
(b) Now ask yourself- based on solid historical, archaeological and anthropological data, which peoples are more likely to have had significant dealings with ancient Egypt prior to the New Kingdom era with its many foreign influx? Black tribes in the nearby Sudan and the Chadic Saharan zone, or distant white Irish, English or other Europeans?
(c) Just such a scenario was put to the test by Keita in his early Nile Valley Farmers from al Badari study. In a head to head comparison of the Badari, a foundational group of ancient Egypt against white Europeans, the badari clustered much more with tropical Africans than Europeans. quote: "An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
(d) Several limb proportion studies show the same thing, even for the far north of Egypt in the foundational dynastic period (Zakrewski 2003, 2007, Raxter and Ruff 2008, Kemp 2005 as shown below) No major influx of the much touted "white Nordics" has been found by any credible scholar.
(e) It is clear then that Tut had more than enough scope to acquire R1b lineages WITHIN AFRICA rather than from the fantasy "wandering Caucasoids" of white Europe. The peoples of the Sudan and Saharan zone provide a more than sufficient pool for the distribution of the marker.
(f) But, some may say, doesn't the high "white Nordic" frequency prove 'Aryan' influence in the elite councils of ancient Egypt? Alas, any reputedly "incoming Caucasoids" would like blacks. Lets give the Euronuts the benefit of the doubt and say that a horde of white people from Europe flowed into Egypt way back in the Neolithic or Paleolithic to deliver genetic diversity to the natives. Ask yourself, what would these early Europeans have looked like? Would they be white? Not at all- they would look like today's blacks, according to the mainstream research of C.L Brace 2005, who found that early people living in Europe had some tropical adaptations and looked like Africans. So the touted "incoming white hordes" would look like black people to begin with. SO much for those 'Aryan" looks.
g) The neo-Nazis tried to do the same thing based on blood types, claiming that blood type A2 is found mostly in certain white populations and since traces were found in association with Tut, this proves his "white" lineage. Alas for them, Africa itself has indigenous A2, and did not need any "wandering Caucasoids" to introduce it. They will try the same bogus dodge with the R1b, but they will fail there as well.
(h) But some may argue, if the R lineages originated in Asia that would make them "non black." Not necessarily. The early peoples of Southwest Asia for example resembled today's Black Africans according to credible mainstream research. So any inflowing 'Asiatic hordes' would look like blacks to begin with. A much ballyhooed "Asiatic" origin does not conveniently whitewash away "black" populations. Alack and alas for the much touted 'Aryan' hordes.
So if our Aryan dupes make a propaganda splash, it will not last long. The burden of proof remains on them to show how Tut got his "white Aryan" lineages. After all, the white Irish and English weigh in at 99%-75% respectively on R1b which makes Tut "white." How though did said white "role models" get to ancient Egypt to give genetic diversity to Tut and the natives? We already know the answer. They didn't.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ Thank you that is exactly what I was thinking that if Tut had R1b it would be more likely that he recieved it from Africans rather than "Irish" or other Europeans. The Idea of Irish people in Egypt is too obsurd to even take serious.
I think if Tut was R1b the Media would waste no time making a big deal about it. I can see it now "Tut Boy King, Ancestor of the Irish"..lol. Honestly I don't think Hiwass will even release Tuts DNA Haplogroup.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Altakruri: I showed J in my 393 GATAH4 456 table. I excluded J from my 16 STR table because of its weak showing.
There's no evidence SNP or other UEP testing was carried out on the mummies hence no haplogroups are missing. 16 STRs are quite enough of haplotype to arrive at a probable haplogroup assignment.
There is no positive sure haplogroup assignment without UEPs.
Female mummy DNA is part of the autosome analysis. Females don't have Y Chromosomes.
Thnx for the explanation
quote: Originally posted by Altakruri: The relationship is symbiotic. Hawass will lack his fame and glory without the USA media nor will have the kind of money he craves without them.
Indeed, the USA media is where he got his ''indiana jones'' attire from in the first place.
I guess we'll have to deal with another so called ''piece of evidence'' that the Eurocentrics will be using beside their hair color, hair structure, teeth, elongated features arguments.
Yawn
quote: Originally posted by Altakruri: 16 STRs are quite enough of haplotype to arrive at a probable haplogroup assignment.
BTW, its interesting that there were no ancient ''unknown'' haplogroups like the ones that turned up in the DNA of 11th dy skeletons. Also, no R markers turned up in that study according to my knowledge. Does anyone have access to that study? Might be usefull additional information especially for those that think that they have another so called ''piece of evidence'' for their pre conceived notions. I wonder how those researchers got their hands on the 11th dy skeletons and whether or not the extracted African lineages had something to do with Hawass's strict policy in letting foreigners near the mummies and releasing their Ychromosome and Mtdna markers.
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Cut to the chase.
Haplogroup can only be positively determined by UEPs.
Haplotype does not equal haplogroup.
Haplotype (a series of STRs) can only indicate probable haplogroup.
The more STRS in the haplotype the higher the probability.
Hawass(2010) employed the 16 STRs commonly used in forensics.
The haplotype of those STRs haven't been published.
No one can say the mummies have so much of this or so much of that haplogroup based on any proposed Amenhotep/Akenaton/Tutankhamun haplotype.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
It's a Wiki but it's the most comprehensive list of African R1b available for free from Cruciani
Cruciani's R-V88 abstract (first posted here by Evergreen)
quote: Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%.
Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times.
Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes.
A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa.
The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.
Also note that R1b1a, though not numerically predominant, is older than non-African R1b1b.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
To what report does this refer?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: BTW, its interesting that there were no ancient ''unknown'' haplogroups like the ones that turned up in the DNA of 11th dy skeletons.
Also, no R markers turned up in that study according to my knowledge. Does anyone have access to that study? Might be usefull additional information especially for those that think that they have another so called ''piece of evidence'' for their pre conceived notions.
I wonder how those researchers got their hands on the 11th dy skeletons and whether or not the extracted African lineages had something to do with Hawass's strict policy in letting foreigners near the mummies and releasing their Ychromosome and Mtdna markers.
Kalonji
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Altakruri: To what report does this refer?
It refers to this:
quote: One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa. [20] The other 12th Dynasty lineages were not identified, leading to speculation. [21] Contamination from handling and intrusion from microbes have also created obstacles to recovery of Ancient DNA. [19] Consequently most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt. [22] [23] [24] [25]
To add to my post above R1 is not only found in Siwa but in Sudanese as well. In fact looking at the NRY of the Siwa they reflect more as a Southern Group. Southern = Sudanese/Saharan/Sahel. R1* on the most part in Africa is a southern Lineage. B-M60 and E-V6 combined = over 60% - Again, southen Ancestry.
Remember this thread: Do Siwa Berbers come from Sudan? Siwa carrying high diversity yet low frequency of E-M81 "Northern" Lineage and total Absence of Mtdna U6 Northern Lineage..
All in all I see the 18th Dynasty hailing from the Far South.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Sorry for the delay. This is the full text and supplemental of the paper in question.
Click "Regular Download" and then click "Download" at the bottom of the page.
In order for all to understand the issue with Hawass et all and this whole fiasco oen muster understand the difference between a SNP and a STR and why SNP's were not tested for.
As the image shows a SNP shows DEEP ancestry to tie you to specific markers : E-M78, V22, V12, M81, V32 E-M2, E-m33 etc. etc. Meanwhile STR's show more recent ancestry, it is a way to distinguish for instance one group Haplogroup J lineage in Africa that date to Neolithic times vs another group of J lineage spread by Arabs in Historic times.
quote: Y-DNA Haplogroups
Haplogroups are groups or a population derived from a common ancestor. Y-DNA Haplogroups are defined by slowly evolving SNPs, and each SNP identifies a particular paternal haplogroup or branch of the Y-DNA phylogenetic tree. (Note: mtDNA SNPs are used to determine haplogroups for maternal lineages).
By contrast, the faster changing STRs are employed to determine haplotypes for the Y-DNA, where haplotypes are defined as a collection of variations in STR markers observed on the Y-DNA and can be thought of as a signature, one which tracks more recent genetic history. Frequent haplotypes, commonly known as modal haplotypes can often be associated with defined populations and geographical regions, and can be informative or predictive of haplogroups that also show geographical preferences
The problem arises that NO SNP's were identified yet FEW STR's WERE Identified. The few STR's that were identified fit on to MULTIPLE haplogroups. The MORE STR's you have the more you can narrow down the true Haplogroup but were were only given 2 or 3 published STR's. That gives ups very little to work with. These same STR's that were giving could have been given for ANY AFRICAN.
If these three STR's were given for an African from Benin or Sengal where Hap E is over 90% would we then; based on the modern frequency in the country, and other multidisciplinary factors list it as E3a or would it Hap R still be a contender. Taking the same multidisciplinary approach to Egypt, its history and MODERN makeup where Hap E is overwhelming compared to 1-2%R should R even be a contender?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^ Thnx Astenb, very helpful
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
You experts correct me if I'm wrong since my knowledge of genetics is rudimentary and pretty much all that I can remember from undergrad days...
STRs are short tandem repeats of nucleotides, and they use the STR polymorphisms to test close or recent relations like paternity because the mutations that cause such variations occur more often, correct?
SNPs are single-nucleotide polymorphisms where there is a difference in a single nucleotide, but such a mutation occurs more rarely than for STR variation. And that SNP can be a form of UEP which is unique event polymorphism right?
So STR can give individual haplotype, they can only give probable hints at halpgroup or clade depending on the pattern, correct?
So the little percentages are just chances of this haplogroup or that based on STR pattern, then.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
STRs simply allow a clade to be phylogenetically placed within a particular sub-clade, with the help of and secondary to, of course, key binary markers. Yes, guesswork of the probable clade is possible from a whole set or at least a considerable section of Y STR loci. However, it is a mistake to assume that STRs cannot mislead, since STR loci have been documented in various occasions to be homoplasic. What is the significance of this; it can lead to wrong guesswork about a clade, without key binary marker information. They are also susceptible to reversions, since they are less stable than unique event polymorphisms. For an example, see: Link
As for unique event polymorphisms; they are supposed to have occurred only one time in history, which is what makes them good markers of where and when a common ancestor emerged. Clusters or haplotypes (denoted by characteristic STRs) help us track the migration path of a certain lineage, and associated possible time frames in which it occurred.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
(sigh) ...we've been through this b.s., how many times before?
R1b is supposed to be the Aryan haplotype...sheeesh, how long will we take this Big Lie seriously?
For what it's worth:
Distribution of Haplotype R1b in Africa: Hausa - 40% Sudan - 10% Chad - 20-35% Egyptians - 4.1% Cameroon - 20-96% !!!
Surprise, surprise, surprise - the folks in Cameroon are Aryans!
...I have this elegant bridge for sale that connects San Francisco to Marin County - make me an offer... Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
But again, except for the bone head racists who get off on using speculation and hearsay as fact, there is nothing that has been released that states what lineages were found in the DNA from Tut or his family.
I don't believe that the full DNA data sets retrieved will be ever released officially. Why? Because Egyptology and the white fanatics that run it are not about facts. They want to pretend that everything about Egypt is a "mystery", especially the origins and identity of the AE people. Therefore, while not "officially" published, various writers and others will continue to support their "opinionated" views of what they believe to the the origins of the AE and the late 18th dynasty with little to no direct evidence to support their views. Which is what they always do.
Keep in mind that anyone who has access to actual scientific journals and peer reviewed publications would see that the real facts are totally different from what these publications for the general public like to put out as "popular science".
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
I knew this was coming....denial.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But again, except for the bone head racists who get off on using speculation and hearsay as fact, there is nothing that has been released that states what lineages were found in the DNA from Tut or his family.
I don't believe that the full DNA data sets retrieved will be ever released officially. Why? Because Egyptology and the white fanatics that run it are not about facts. They want to pretend that everything about Egypt is a "mystery", especially the origins and identity of the AE people. Therefore, while not "officially" published, various writers and others will continue to support their "opinionated" views of what they believe to the the origins of the AE and the late 18th dynasty with little to no direct evidence to support their views. Which is what they always do.
Keep in mind that anyone who has access to actual scientific journals and peer reviewed publications would see that the real facts are totally different from what these publications for the general public like to put out as "popular science".
I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but Black Genesis by Robert Bauval will probably be the biggest book about the race of the AEs since Black Athena. Egyptology can attempt to hide facts all they want, but it doesn't stop people out of the mainstream like Bauval who actually do real research and make real discoveries. Instead of regurgitating the same nonsense about Ancient Egypt like King Tut. I doubt there will be genetic studies in the book since Egyptian Antiquities is really tight about that. I also heard Bauval say on a program that there are a couple of documentary programs being made (he mentioned only the BBC though) about his book. It'll be interesting to see the slant they take. I've never seen a program aired on TV about Black Egyptians...or the entire race debate period.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
King, this is another radical black crap book. Nobody exept a few knuckle heads that buy into that garbage will pay attention to it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What are the alleles for E-M2 haplotype 4?
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I think its E3a, Or even hap B. Is B in the database that they are pulling from? I would assume it is but....
In any case it is VERY clear to see that this is possibly Haplotype IV. Which is the Southern Haplotype found in the Lucotte et al study:
^^AlTakuri.. I'm still trying to understand how to read a lot of this so forgive me if this data is totally useless, but I'm just wondering if the link below may be of any help?
Just ran into it browsing after looking up your inquiry..
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: STRs are short tandem repeats of nucleotides, and they use the STR polymorphisms to test close or recent relations like paternity because the mutations that cause such variations occur more often, correct?
Yes.
Commercial DNA testing companies will also use a customer's STR haplotype to identify a potential haplogroup. At that point the customer can then decide whether or not to take on the cost of a UEP test to confirm the haplotype assignment.
quote: SNPs are single-nucleotide polymorphisms where there is a difference in a single nucleotide, but such a mutation occurs more rarely than for STR variation. And that SNP can be a form of UEP which is unique event polymorphism right?
Yes.
One would expect that tests on the level of Hawass(2010) to take the 13 STR haplotypes usually used to guess a haplogroup to go ahead and then do the UEP testing neccessary to yield the haplogroup.
quote: So STR can give individual haplotype, they can only give probable hints at halpgroup or clade depending on the pattern, correct?
Yes.
quote: So the little percentages are just chances of this haplogroup or that based on STR pattern, then.
The two STRs given in the official report are not enough. It's a standard 13 STR haplotype used for guessing haplotype. Hawass(2010) has the STRs used in that haplotype but did not publish the alleles.
The alleles "derived" from the DSC broadcast are of course unofficial. The method employed did not yield unmistakeable allele values for all the STRs needed to check a haplotype against its probable haplogroup.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
JAMA is not a "pop science" publication. I imagine queries to its editors may prompt the corresponding author of Hawass(2010) to present the alleles of the published STRs.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Keep in mind that anyone who has access to actual scientific journals and peer reviewed publications would see that the real facts are totally different from what these publications for the general public like to put out as "popular science".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
TO ALL
PLEASE LET'S NOT BRING THIS THREAD DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF RACE BAIT. ANCIENT EGYPT FORUM IS FOR THAT. I BROACHED THIS THREAD HERE ON EGYPTOLOGY FOR THE MORE SERIOUS MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE, QUERY, AND COMMENT.
THANK YOU
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Much thanks for the E-M2 haplotype. For sure it's a help. The DSC "derived" composite KV55/AmIII haplotype does not match it.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^AlTakuri.. I'm still trying to understand how to read a lot of this so forgive me if this data is totally useless, but I'm just wondering if the link below may be of any help?
Just ran into it browsing after looking up your inquiry..
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Takruri, The conversation is over. There are no race issues left to discus unless you want to talk about the blode hair on the Yuya mummy last night.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What are the alleles for E-M2 haplotype 4?
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I think its E3a, Or even hap B. Is B in the database that they are pulling from? I would assume it is but....
In any case it is VERY clear to see that this is possibly Haplotype IV. Which is the Southern Haplotype found in the Lucotte et al study:
Thats the thing, they dont list them. The article is quite short. 4 Pages
Materials and Methods
quote: Venous blood was obtained from a total of 274 unrelated adult males, living in Egypt during 1995– 1999. The choice of these individuals was based on their locations in the valley, and in each case their genealogy goes back for several generations of paternally local ancestry. These 274 males included 162 inhabitants of Alexandria and the surrounding region (representating the Delta and Lower Egypt), 66 from Upper Egypt, and 46 from Lower Nubia (Fig. 1). Genomic DNA was extracted from whole blood by the classic method, using proteinase K and several successive phenol-chloroform extractions (Gautreauet al., 1983). We used the informative p49a,f Y-chromosomespecific DNA probes (Lucotte and Ngo, 1985), mapped to the nonrecombinant (NRY) Yq11.2 region (Quack et al., 1988). Using the Southern hybridization method, these probes oligolabeled by random priming revealed 10 male-specific TaqI fragments, at least five of which (A, C, D, F, and I) were polymorphic and determined 16 main haplotypes (I–XVI) in the initial reference population studied (Ngoet al., 1986).
HAP IV
quote: Haplotype IV is characteristic of sub-Saharan populations in Africa (Torroni et al., 1990; Spurdle and Jenkins, 1992), where its geographical distribution can be an indication of Bantu expansion: for example, in Central Africa (Lucotte et al., 1994), the frequency of haplotype IV is 55.2% in Cameroon, and reaches 80.3% in Zaı¨re and up to 83.9% in the Central African Republic.
I dont have the time at this moment to dig through the others studies and see if the information is there.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I DON'T WANT TO TALK RACE AT ALL. I WANT TO TALK HAWASS(2010) AS RELATES TO GENETIC GENEAOLOGY ISSUES WITHOUT EMOTIONALISM.
I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THIS THREAD NOT DEVOLVING TO RACE BAIT. FROM THIS POINT ON I WILL REQUEST REMOVAL OF RACIALLY CHARGED POSTS. I WANT THIS THREAD TO BE USEFUL TO WEB SURFERS WITHOUT OFFENDING ANYONE SENSIBILITIES WHATEVER RACE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BELONG TO.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Takruri, The conversation is over. There are no race issues left to discus unless you want to talk about the blode hair on the Yuya mummy last night.
No it's not, I can't stand ASSUMPTIONS... and your sir, are ASSUMING!!
The Ancient Egyptians were Saharo-Tropical African variants, they were not European or Asian or Aliens.
All of the evidence points to Africa.
Don't be stupid.
LOL, I wouldn't call Yuya's hair blond... more like... I can't even describe his hair color. ( The next time you see indivduals with hair that color please send me a picture). Also, southwest Asians are dark haired people... WAIT, are actually claiming a Northern European origin for AE, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Doctoris, the issue is dead. Tut is not black afican, that is clear. You know you are spinning here and you can do better than that. The issue of a black egypt was on the back burner even before this. The problem you have now is that the public and the media will no longer be interested in your views. Eventually you end up like the Flat Earth society....just talking to each other.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I DON'T WANT TO TALK RACE AT ALL. I WANT TO TALK HAWASS(2010) AS RELATES TO GENETIC GENEAOLOGY ISSUES WITHOUT EMOTIONALISM.
I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THIS THREAD NOT DEVOLVING TO RACE BAIT. FROM THIS POINT ON I WILL REQUEST REMOVAL OF RACIALLY CHARGED POSTS. I WANT THIS THREAD TO BE USEFUL TO WEB SURFERS WITHOUT OFFENDING ANYONE SENSIBILITIES WHATEVER RACE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BELONG TO.
Genius, do you realize that you only encourage the country school teacher by indirectly replying to his posts?
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Doctoris, the issue is dead. Tut is not black afican, that is clear. You know you are spinning here and you can do better than that. The issue of a black egypt was on the back burner even before this. The problem you have now is that the public and the media will no longer be interested in your views. Eventually you end up like the Flat Earth society....just talking to each other.
Not really
I don't feel like having a discussion about something so obvious, Ancient Egypt was an African civilzation and that the Ancient Egyptian people's had predominant ties to people living in the Sudanic-Saharo region.
If Tut carried Haplogroup R, I'm sure the news would have been out by now. Your simply assuming due to some webster's theory, to be honest... YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IT.
STOP LYING TO YOURSELF!!
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ hey, cant you f!cking read?
quote:TO ALL
PLEASE LET'S NOT BRING THIS THREAD DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF RACE BAIT. ANCIENT EGYPT FORUM IS FOR THAT. I BROACHED THIS THREAD HERE ON EGYPTOLOGY FOR THE MORE SERIOUS MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE, QUERY, AND COMMENT.
THANK YOU
Posted by ameny-ra (Member # 17092) on :
quote: Originally posted by Hammer:
"Takruri, The conversation is over.There are no race issues left to discuss unless you want to talk about the blonde hair on the Yuya mummy last night"...
"The hair color of mummies or buried bodies can change.Hair contains a mixture of black-brown-yellow eumelanin and red pheomelanin.Eumelanin is less chemically stable than pheomelanin and breaks down faster when oxidized.It is for that reason EGYPTIAN MUMMIES have REDDISH HAIR.The color of hair changes faster under extreme conditions (example:Ginger mummy).It changes more slowly under dry oxidizing conditions (such as in burials in sand or in ice) than under wet reducing conditions (such as burials in or plaster coffins)"...
Wikipedia, Human Hair Color (changes in hair color after death, 2007)
There you have it Hammer, your blonde Egyptian fantasy was Debunked by Hair experts, and it was also prooven that some mummies hair was dyed with Henna, and with that said, your DOUBLE DEBUNKED.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
YHRD data on the DSC "derived" KV55/AmIII combined haplotype. This is what I'm using because its all anyone has to go on now. Is it official? No way. We don't know that the given haplotype is actually from KV55 and Amenhotep III. Viewing and reviewing the DSC clip reveals that at 01:18 and timeframes from 01:33 onward there's a different allele shown for DYS393 than at 01:23.
Which one, if either, is data from the Tut family tests?
With that caveat heavily in mind this is what YHRD shows when supplying a 13 STR haplotype composed of the given alleles of DYS19 DYS389I DYS389II DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 DYS385 and DYS439. There were no matches for the complete 16 STR haplotype.
quote: All Metapopulation: Found 3 of 54838 matching haplotypes [f=5.471 × 10-5 (95% CI: 1.128 × 10-5 – 1.599 × 10-4)] in 2 of 377 populations. Eurasian Metapopulation: Found 1 of 25192 matching haplotypes [f=3.97 × 10-5 (95% CI: 1.005 × 10-6 – 2.211 × 10-4)] in 1 of 200 populations. European Metapopulation: Found 1 of 20728 matching haplotypes [f=4.824 × 10-5 (95% CI: 1.221 × 10-6 – 2.688 × 10-4)] in 1 of 164 populations. Western European Metapopulation: Found 0 of 7690 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 4.796 × 10-4)] in 0 of 45 populations. Eastern European Metapopulation: Found 0 of 6942 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 5.312 × 10-4)] in 0 of 71 populations. South-Eastern European Metapopulation: Found 0 of 3343 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.103 × 10-3)] in 0 of 40 populations. Altaic Metapopulation: Found 0 of 1663 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.216 × 10-3)] in 0 of 14 populations. Caucasian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 0 matching haplotypes [f=0.0] in 0 of 0 populations. Uralic-Yukaghir Metapopulation: Found 0 of 909 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 4.05 × 10-3)] in 0 of 1 populations. Indo-Iranian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 413 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 8.892 × 10-3)] in 0 of 9 populations. Indian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 1479 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.491 × 10-3)] in 0 of 12 populations. East Asian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 15788 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.336 × 10-4)] in 0 of 63 populations. Korean Metapopulation: Found 0 of 3080 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.197 × 10-3)] in 0 of 9 populations. Japanese Metapopulation: Found 0 of 1642 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.244 × 10-3)] in 0 of 22 populations. Sino-Tibetan Metapopulation: Found 0 of 8572 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 4.302 × 10-4)] in 0 of 17 populations. Tibeto-Burman Metapopulation: Found 0 of 2010 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.834 × 10-3)] in 0 of 5 populations. Chinese Metapopulation: Found 0 of 6562 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 5.62 × 10-4)] in 0 of 12 populations. Austro-Asiatic Metapopulation: Found 0 of 225 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.626 × 10-2)] in 0 of 2 populations. Thai Metapopulation: Found 0 of 572 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 6.428 × 10-3)] in 0 of 2 populations. Austronesian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 1367 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.695 × 10-3)] in 0 of 9 populations. Indo-Pacific Metapopulation: Found 0 of 0 matching haplotypes [f=0.0] in 0 of 0 populations. Dravidian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 330 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.112 × 10-2)] in 0 of 2 populations. Australian Aboriginal Metapopulation: Found 0 of 0 matching haplotypes [f=0.0] in 0 of 0 populations. African Metapopulation: Found 0 of 3120 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.182 × 10-3)] in 0 of 14 populations. Sub-Saharan Metapopulation: Found 0 of 913 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 4.032 × 10-3)] in 0 of 6 populations. Afro-American Metapopulation: Found 0 of 1772 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 2.08 × 10-3)] in 0 of 5 populations. Afro-Caribbean Metapopulation: Found 0 of 435 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 8.444 × 10-3)] in 0 of 3 populations. Amerindian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 528 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 6.962 × 10-3)] in 0 of 13 populations. Eskimo Aleut Metapopulation: Found 0 of 342 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.073 × 10-2)] in 0 of 8 populations. Afro-Asian Metapopulation: Found 0 of 2710 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.36 × 10-3)] in 0 of 31 populations. Semitic Metapopulation: Found 0 of 2249 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.639 × 10-3)] in 0 of 26 populations. Berber Metapopulation: Found 0 of 260 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.409 × 10-2)] in 0 of 4 populations. Cushitic Metapopulation: Found 0 of 201 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.819 × 10-2)] in 0 of 1 populations. Admixed Metapopulation: Found 2 of 7158 matching haplotypes [f=2.794 × 10-4 (95% CI: 3.384 × 10-5 – 1.009 × 10-3)] in 1 of 48 populations.
quote: Africa: Found 0 of 2528 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.458 × 10-3)] in 0 of 25 populations. Oceania / Australia: Found 0 of 11 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 0.2849)] in 0 of 1 populations. Europe: Found 0 of 19818 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.861 × 10-4)] in 0 of 167 populations. Arctic: Found 0 of 342 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.073 × 10-2)] in 0 of 8 populations. Asia: Found 0 of 19635 matching haplotypes [f=0 (95% CI: 0 – 1.879 × 10-4)] in 0 of 100 populations. Latin America: Found 2 of 8187 matching haplotypes [f=2.443 × 10-4 (95% CI: 2.959 × 10-5 – 8.822 × 10-4)] in 1 of 69 populations. North America: Found 1 of 4317 matching haplotypes [f=2.316 × 10-4 (95% CI: 5.865 × 10-6 – 1.29 × 10-3)] in 1 of 7 populations.
code:
Population summary
n of N Geoposition [Population] Metapopulation Continent 2 of 55 Isla de San Andrés, Colombia [Afro-Caribbean, Mestizo] Admixed Latin America 1 of 1301 United States [European American] Eurasian - European North America
quote: Eurasian - European - Western European Frequency estimates with given haplotype not included in the database: Mean: 0, Mode: 0
Frequency estimates with given haplotype included in the database:, Mean: 0, Mode: 0
Eurasian - European - Eastern European Frequency estimates with given haplotype not included in the database: Mean: 9.277 × 10-5, Mode: 4.319 × 10-5
Frequency estimates with given haplotype included in the database:, Mean: 1.423 × 10-4, Mode: 9.277 × 10-5
Eurasian - European - South-Eastern European Frequency estimates with given haplotype not included in the database: Mean: 3.825 × 10-3, Mode: 3.812 × 10-3
Frequency estimates with given haplotype included in the database:, Mean: 3.838 × 10-3, Mode: 3.825 × 10-3
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
From the above forensics data I'd say the DSC "derived" haplotype interpolated from 01:18/ 02:18 is not from any Tut family member.
It appears to be the haplotype of someone living today in the Western Hemisphere.
Some oldworld hit should have surfaced if the suspect haplotype belonged to Tut's lineage.
DSC did not let slip anything under Hawass' nose.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: From the above forensics data I'd say the DSC "derived" haplotype interpolated from 01:18/ 02:18 is not from any Tut family member.
It appears to be the haplotype of someone living today in the Western Hemisphere.
Some oldworld hit should have surfaced if the suspect haplotype belonged to Tut's lineage.
DSC did not let slip anything under Hawass' nose.
alTakruri
-From the information you have as of present, which Haplogroup seems the most likely to have been found amoung the Amarna mummies.
From what I can comprende it's looking a lot like E3a.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Excellent work alTakuri!! Thank you for digging into this a bit deeper as opposed to taking the given rumors at face value. Looking forward to more.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: From the above forensics data I'd say the DSC "derived" haplotype interpolated from 01:18/ 02:18 is not from any Tut family member.
It appears to be the haplotype of someone living today in the Western Hemisphere.
Some oldworld hit should have surfaced if the suspect haplotype belonged to Tut's lineage.
DSC did not let slip anything under Hawass' nose.
Stock material huh? US results popped up, which is exactly what we would expect of an organisation that is based in the US (Discovery channel).
Kalonji
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
^ Correct and keep in mind the people involved in the study had their OWN lineages tested as well. It could be one of theirs. Somewhere in the article i believe it states that NONE of the mummy samples matched the Teams samples.
In any case it DOES look to be E3a or at least again "Haplotype IV":
The interesting thing is, the same group of people that argued Haplotype IV was NOT E3a because they used Str's and NOT SNP's seems like the same crowd that is arguing for R1b when it is much more reasonable based on these STR's that it is E3a or whatever subclade Haplotype IV falls within.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It's a Wiki but it's the most comprehensive list of African R1b available for free from Cruciani
Cruciani's R-V88 abstract (first posted here by Evergreen)
quote: Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%.
Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times.
Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes.
A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa.
The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.
Does anyone have that paper available? I'm having issues finding it through two my institutions, while Nature seems to lock me out. I'll have to access the hard copy, but meh at the moment.
Just interested in reading that paper.
As for the STR results, sounds interesting. Not sufficient, as Explorer, said to derive an actual Y-DNA haplogroup. That's especially the case when dealing with likely ancient lineages. Oh well, looks like an interesting thread.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: STRs simply allow a clade to be phylogenetically placed within a particular sub-clade, with the help of and secondary to, of course, key binary markers. Yes, guesswork of the probable clade is possible from a whole set or at least a considerable section of Y STR loci. However, it is a mistake to assume that STRs cannot mislead, since STR loci have been documented in various occasions to be homoplasic. What is the significance of this; it can lead to wrong guesswork about a clade, without key binary marker information. They are also susceptible to reversions, since they are less stable than unique event polymorphisms. For an example, see: Link
As for unique event polymorphisms; they are supposed to have occurred only one time in history, which is what makes them good markers of where and when a common ancestor emerged. Clusters or haplotypes (denoted by characteristic STRs) help us track the migration path of a certain lineage, and associated possible time frames in which it occurred.
Thanks very much, I understand now.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb: In any case it DOES look to be E3a or at least again "Haplotype IV":
The interesting thing is, the same group of people that argued Haplotype IV was NOT E3a because they used Str's and NOT SNP's seems like the same crowd that is arguing for R1b when it is much more reasonable based on these STR's that it is E3a or whatever subclade Haplotype IV falls within.
LMAO
That is because double-think and hypocrisy are the marked traits of racists, but as Takruri says, forget about them and focus more on the info at hand-- as that is the best way to destroy them.
Indeed, it would be a savory twist of irony if Tut's lineage is indeed E3a and not E3b, thus linking him with West and Central Africans even more. Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
^ It'd be a blast to see the reaction! ^_^
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
sigh! sigh! sigh! Boy are we slow. Not you DJ personally.
A lot of these debates can be resolved by undertanding the ancient migration patterns of Africans.
What makes E3a "link" (per DJ)with West Africans. E3a supposedly originated in somewhere in western Sudan. Do you think they ALL teleported to West Africa? Some Ethiopian and Sudanese groups carry as much as 45% E3a. Upper Egyptians also carry the hg. Tut has ALMOST a good a chance being E3a as E3b. And a greater chance than R1b.
You guys really have to start analyzing the data yourself and stop regurgitating the conclusion section. Where is our resident DNA expert? Stop stroking yourself and get to work. This kid Astenb is pulling ahead.
QUOTE. . . . . : Indeed, it would be a savory twist of irony if Tut's lineage is indeed E3a and not E3b, thus linking him with West and Central Africans even more. Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Tut is not E3B, he is R1b.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Please note there is a difference between population genetics and individual genetics such that a single individual could be a minority as small as one in any given population.
I'm going to do a few more things with the DSC "derived" Tut family haplotype.
While noticing only 3 people in YHRD's database had the haplotype I used I'm going to narrow it down a bit. Why? The more STRs used the smaller the number of hits will be. Forensics as used in crime solving is meant to point to one culpable party, i.e., a forensic sample is supposed to single out who the victim is or who the perp is.
It also came back to me that the values for DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 published in Hawass(2010) and broadcast on DSC are the same. This means there's a chance the DSC "derived" haplotype is actually the unreleased Hawass(2010) haplotype of either Amenhotep III, KV55, or King Tut.
The method of obtaining the values from the DSC broadcast is replicable and falsifiable.
More later.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Hammer Keep saying it and you may eventually believe it. In case you haven't caught on yet. Most here don't believe in a supposedly R1b Tut.
Those who were scrambling to make R1b African have given up. . .why. . it doesn't make historical, genetic and cultural sense.
Long story short, we are giving Hawass the benefit of the doubt, there wasn't any official release, after one week of hysteria, we are moving on.
Even the resident village comic, Osirion-amid, don't believe the result.
@ Altk - great thread, keep it coming, many are reading.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah. He could be hg-I,J, M or even Ameri-Indian. The question is what is the statistical probability of that being the case. Where is the statistical, cultural, historical and linguistic data to support the supposedly genetic data. Especially one that is wack.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Please note there is a difference between population genetics and individual genetics such that a single individual could be a minority as small as one in any given population.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
The man is R1b and Hawass has already said his ancestors were european farmers. The information has been all over the net. You see it but you have to deny it because it destroys your racist ideology.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"It over the NET" so it is true. . .and YOU are a scholar? We are suppose to believe you are intelligent and not one of the many caught up in hype and hysteria.
You should realize by now one of the strength of this board is many don't get caught up in the hype. . . .the recent events being an exception .
BTW: "his ancestors were European farmers". You are NOT really good at spin . . are you? a first year college student could of come up with a better story than that. Sound like even YOU don't believe he is R1b. with this Euro farmer BS.
(added)
I learnt this from white people. Good spin has to have an element of truth.
How about this. His great-grandparents(female) were part of Sesostoris army that settled in Europe (Colchians). The descendants(male) eventually returned to AE. And moved up the ladder.(Moses?) . . . .the problem with that story , although believable , it will have to apply to the heretic(Akhaneton ). . . . .
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
xyyman
Scary world. Will continue to fight for the people, even if I may get caught up sometimes.
Live and Learn.
As for this European Tut, I would not be surprised if that is what they say he is. This world is deep into corruption.
Peace
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said . I have NEVER come across a white man who can out-think me. No offence King. This is directed to THE HAMMERRRRR.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In this thread, despite hijack attempts, I'm dealing with the few and disputed facts at hand, as is.
1. Hawass(2010). 2. The DSC broadcast in tandem with Hawass(2010). 3. Haplotype "derived" from the DSC broadcast. 3. Haplogroup indicated by that haplotype. 4. Populations of either that haplotype or its implied haplogroup. 5. Comment, question, and criticism of the above.
Everything else is extraneous and doesn't belong in my thread and I wish to heaven the moderator would purge my thread of the off topic rhetoric that's spoiling it and making it tedious to read for those who really want the material pertinent to the subject.
Some people have asked serious questions that for the most part have already been answered in posts before they even asked the question. For now I'd suggest going back and rereading the on topic posts.
As a summary recap, the given haplotype shows up in people belonging to haplogroup R1b. Currently I don't know which subclade, nor do I know if, Cruciani's haplogroup R-V88's haplotypes are in any database that I can access.
R1b is divided into African and Eurasian specific branches. The African branch is numerically small. The Eurasian branch is the vast majority. The African branch's high frequencies are mostly in central northern Africa among Chadic speakers. Afrisan speakers also have it, -- as do Niger-Congos and Nilo-Saharans -- Siwa Oasis having the highest R1b1a Egyptian frequency.
code:
African R1b1a R1b1b2 R1b1a* R1b1a4 Region Population Country Language N Total% (R-V88) (R-M269) (R-V88*) (R-V69)
C Ouldeme Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 22 95.5% 95.5% 0.0% 95.5% 0.0% C Mafa Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 8 87.5% 87.5% 0.0% 25.0% 62.5% C Mada Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 17 82.4% 82.4% 0.0% 76.5% 5.9% C Guiziga Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 9 77.8% 77.8% 0.0% 22.2% 55.6% C Other Chadic Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 4 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0%
C Guidar Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 9 66.7% 66.7% 0.0% 22.2% 44.4% C Moundang Cameroon (Nth) NC/Adamawa 21 66.7% 66.7% 0.0% 14.3% 52.4% C Daba Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 19 42.1% 42.1% 0.0% 36.8% 5.3% C Shuwa Arabs Cameroon (Nth) AA/Semitic 5 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% C Massa Cameroon (Nth) AA/Chadic 7 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3%
N Berbers from Siwa Egypt AA/Berber 93 28.0% 26.9% 1.1% 23.7% 3.2% C Fali Cameroon (Nth) NC/Adamawa 48 20.8% 20.8% 0.0% 10.4% 10.4% C Hausa Nigeria (North) AA/Chadic 10 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% C Fulbe Niger NC/Atlantic 7 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% C Kanuri Cameroon (Nth) NS/Saharan 7 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%
C Foulbe Cameroon (Nth) NC/Atlantic 18 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 5.6% 5.6% C Ngambai Chad NS/Sudanic 11 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% C Tali Cameroon (Nth) NC/Adamawa 22 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 4.5% 4.5% N Baharia Egypt AA/Semitic 41 7.3% 4.9% 2.4% 0.0% 4.9% N Northern Egyptians Egypt AA/Semitic 49 6.1% 4.1% 2.0% 4.1% 0.0%
N Composite Morocco AA 338 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
Here are the alleles that permit placing the given haplotype among haplotypes found in R1b individuals. The closest matches are with R1b1b the non-African specific branch.
I'm not an expert in the DNA field. What is the ethnicity leaning to according to these results?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Silence. . . .?
So the DSC result is of a typical Western European R1b1b. The closest African R lineage being R1b1b2(M-269) found only in Northern Egypt at about 2%.
So R1b1b is not even found in Africa. . including Egypt. So the DSC is most likely stock footage/re-enactment since supposed marker doesn't even show up in modern day Egypt.
Explorer, am I reading this right?
This was all about nothing then.
Quote:
The closest matches are with R1b1b the non-African specific branch. Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
King, What do you mean "fight for the people?" This shows me that you are not interested in truth at all....what people? Looks to me like you just made the point I have been making all the time. None of this has to do with Egypt. It is all ablut modern black politicas and everyone here knows it.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The first table shows that some of the "dreaded" West African/Nigerian also carry R1b1a and R1b1a*, albiet old. To me this only proves that Central Africa is most like the origin of the R1b1* lineage and NOT Asia. This is supported by the fact that R1b1b2 is also present in Central Africa along with the original R1*(not in Table).
The migration pattern holds the clue why R1b1b1 is in Western Europe and (R1a?) is found to the East. The migration most likely occured through Iberia and NOT along the Medit Coast line of Europe.
Blog me baby!!!
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
It has already been pointed out that the central african componet is small. In addition Hawass and other publications have given Tut's ancestors as ancient European farmers.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The fact is that Ancient Egyptians according to all scientific and peer reviewed sources were native Africans. The 18th dynasty originated in Upper Egypt/Lower Sudan. R1b1b would not be a lineage found on these populations.
quote: In human genetics, Haplogroup R1b is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe, Bashkortostan[3] and amongst speakers of Chadic languages in northern parts of sub-Saharan Central Africa. R1b is also present at lower frequencies throughout Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, and parts of North Africa. Due to European emigration it also reaches high frequencies in the Americas and Australia. While Western Europe is dominated by the R1b1b2 (R-M269) branch of R1b, the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1a (R-V88). These represent two very successful "twigs" on a much bigger "family tree".
...
R1b1a
R1b1a is defined by the presence of SNP marker V88, the discovery of which was announced in 2010 by Cruciani et al.[12] Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in northern and central Africa.
...
R1b1b
R1b1b is defined by the presence of SNP marker P297. In 2008 this polymorphism was recognised to combine M73 and M269 into one R1b1b cluster.[1] The majority of Eurasian R1b is within this clade, representing a very large modern population, which has been relatively well studied, therefore the branching within this clade can be explained in detail below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29
Therefore, until the details of the DNA are officially released any claims of R1b1b or any other sort of "European" genes in ancient Egypt is strictly wishful thinking.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Enough has come out to cause many to say that it really could only be R1b from Europe. Keep in mind also Doug that the royal family will often not reflect perfectly the genetics of it's population. Example, the Russian royal family have very few Russians in it by 1917. As for peer reviewed reasearch, nobody here ever does that...ever, including you.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Therefore, until the details of the DNA are officially released any claims of R1b1b or any other sort of "European" genes in ancient Egypt is strictly wishful thinking.
Definitely. As alTakuri has found, there were no old world matches with the haplotype supposedly extracted from the Discovery Channel video. Only new age matches and matches with more recent Europeans, of the type that likely managed said equipment, leading to what is a general assumption out there that this is simply stock footage (and not an actual film of Tut or his family's Y-DNA). Indeed, It seemed apparent to me from the onset that an R1b1b lineage within the 18th dynasty royal line would be beyond bazaar. It is extremely difficult to reconcile with history, archaeology, and even current population structure. This is why I'm thankful that we have people on this board who know how to properly critique such information.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Keep in mind also Doug that the royal family will often not reflect perfectly the genetics of it's population. Example, the Russian royal family have very few Russians in it by 1917.
An example only an illiterate school teacher would make. There was no European royalty, especially among "farmers", that the AE royals would have found welcoming in their bloodline.
Sorry for offending anyone but I couldnt resist replying to the school teacher on that one! lol
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
This is why you guys are complete morons. If nothing else, if all else fails you would resort to calling Hawass a liar. Whatever it takes to duck and dodge is what you will do. It stems from a complete lack of personal character and corruption.
The result of alll this is that those who oppose you in academia will now feel less constrained by PC and the media will further ignore your position. National Geo was insulting your silly position by putting a picture of Tut's mask on their web site with razor thin lips.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That's the best BS you can come up with. No wonder you guys are losing ground. Many of you are riding on the coat tales of . . . . Good God man!!.
Sorry Altk. Couldn't resist.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: It has already been pointed . . . . Tut's ancestors as ancient European farmers.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Silence. . . .?
So the DSC result is of a typical Western European R1b1b. The closest African R lineage being R1b1b2(M-269) found only in Northern Egypt at about 2%.
So R1b1b is not even found in Africa. . including Egypt. So the DSC is most likely stock footage/re-enactment since supposed marker doesn't even show up in modern day Egypt.
I've run the numbers, as noted in the other thread in the "Ancient Egyptology" section, of this "RealDealT" fellow's post; and NO matches came up. Those who paid attention then, would have taken note.
Many of the questions that keep being asked here, have already been repeatedly answered in the ancient Egypt section of this board here and a whole host of *multiple* threads on this same topic about Tut's DNA. I say, for those who have made up their mind, then that it shall be. I have already made *my* position clear on this issue.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
xyy, you guys are frozen out of the media, thank God for that.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That's right thank god for censorship!!
You don't even realize what you saying.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: xyy, you guys are frozen out of the media, thank God for that.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
we know what we are saying. Here is the point. Radical fringe ideas do not get much media attention. The views expressed here for the most part have never recieved much media coverage. The Bernal book really hurt you guys. Even though it got a splash in the media left most academics with a negative view of those ideas. National Geo is downtight hostile to your viewpoints. They slap at you every time they get a chance. In conclusion, you are frozen out of the mainstream media for the most past as you should be.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correction. All of our work here is based on mainstream scholarship, especially science such as genetics which you now all of a sudden are vouching for despite your denial of it before this!
Obviously you didn't pay any attention to what is said of the DNA findings...
quote:Originally posted by Tarkruri: In this table Row 1 lists 4 haplogroups E3a E3b R1a R1b. Columns 1 through 4 are percentages of the above Hgs associated with the STR allele of column 5.
Example: Row 2 shows that for STR DYS456 allele 15 haplogroup E3a has a frequency of 70% haplogroup E3b has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1a has a frequency of 30% haplogroup R1b has a frequency of 36% meaning DYS456,15 favors haplogroup E3a.
Row 3 shows that for STR DYS389i allele 13 haplogroup E3a has a frequency of 74% haplogroup E3b has a frequency of 64% haplogroup R1a has a frequency of 71% haplogroup R1b has a frequency of 80% meaning DYS389i,13 favors haplogroup R1b.
Get the picture? And so it goes for the remaing STRs.
12 STRs are usually enough to hazard a Hg assignment. The more STRs the more surety of most probable Hg.
Let all this sink in your twisted little mind (if it can).
Now in respect of both the thread topic and its author, let us get back to the issue at hand...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: A lot of these debates can be resolved by undertanding the ancient migration patterns of Africans.
What makes E3a "link" (per DJ)with West Africans. E3a supposedly originated in somewhere in western Sudan. Do you think they ALL teleported to West Africa? Some Ethiopian and Sudanese groups carry as much as 45% E3a. Upper Egyptians also carry the hg. Tut has ALMOST a good a chance being E3a as E3b. And a greater chance than R1b.
You guys really have to start analyzing the data yourself and stop regurgitating the conclusion section. Where is our resident DNA expert? Stop stroking yourself and get to work. This kid Astenb is pulling ahead.
E3a is the predominant PN2 haplogroup for West, Central, and southern Africa. That said, it doesn't mean it doesn't occur in east or northeast Africa as well. In fact the highest concentrations of E3a occurring in east Africa do so around the Nile Valley, hence it's high frequency in Sudan and Upper Egypt. The converse is true with E3b-- it occurs predominantly in East Africa, but it is also found in West and especially Northwest Africa as well. Either way, they are BOTH PN2 clade and both are sibling lineages. As far as R1b, it was explained before that while R1b predominates in Europe there is a paraclade in Africa that exist and in fact the oldest underived R1* lineages are found in West Africa. Thus, if by any chance Tut carried R1b, it is going to be that of the African variety related to Siwa Oasis peoples than some German or Irishman as idiots like Hammered believe. LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I believe Doug has taken a good approach. Let's try to tie in the DNA findings to what we know about Tut's genealogy historically. Tut and his family the 18th dynasty were natives of Waset (Thebes) in Upper Egypt. Thus, it would only be expected to use Y haplogroups common to that area first and foremost. Does anyone have a study of haplogroups from that area? I know such has been posted in this forum at least several times before.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Does Cruciani say anything about the R1b1b2 in the Siwa, Baharia, and the Northern Egyptian samples?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Djehuti is beig areless once again. He ASSUMES that the royal family will reflect the ethnic make up of the people around them. We know that often just the opposite is true. These kind of assumptions are the reason this egg headed philosophy has no credibility in the world and is not frozen out of the media.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hammered, your presumptions are ridiculous because it is based on not only modern but European models with your incessant reference to examples such as the Russian royal family being of French ancestry or the English Royal family having German ancestry. You may have a point that some royals may have different ancestry from the general populace as it was shown the Naqada royals of Nekhen were of northern Nubian ancestry from Ta-Seti. However, the point is that all the European royals were STILL European just as all the African royals including Egyptians were STILL African!
Tut's pedigree is quite clear. He and his family descend from a Waseti (Theban) elite that were local and there's no indication of ancestry from elsewhere let alone one that's not of the African continent. Myra has an excellent genealogical tree of the 18th dynasty right here if you are truly interested, and before you complain about how "afrocentric" it is, you should realize that all her material is based on mainstream Egyptological works as all of our knowledge on Egyptian history is. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Does Cruciani say anything about the R1b1b2 in the Siwa, Baharia, and the Northern Egyptian samples?
I don't know about the most recent studies but I remember from the 2004 Underhill et ales. Horn vs. Levant paper, this was written:
"M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman...
..The antiquity of the M173 backflow is implied by the total lack in sub-Saharan Africa of downstream mutations associated with the post–Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) reinhabitation of Eurasia (R1a1-M17 and R1b-M269) (Semino et al. 2000) or, later, with the Neolithic expansion (J-12f2 and G-M201) (Hammer et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; King and Underhill 2002; Cinnioğlu et al. 2004). Egypt is the only African population that is known to harbor all three M173 subtypes (R1b-M269, R1*-M173, and R1a1-M17). This unique status is most likely due to Egypt’s strategic location and its long history of interaction with Eurasia. Oman, like Egypt, also exhibits all three M173 haplogroups. The relatively high frequency of R1a1-M17 (9%) may result from the post-LGM expansion associated with this mutation. The expansion estimates of this haplogroup (11.4–3.4 ky; see table 3) support this hypothesis."
^ All the above of course was before the discovery of paragroup R-P25*, but as you can see Oman was also included as having the same status with regards to having the same R derived groups. Of course the Euroloons aren't in such a hurry to white-wash the Omani as they are with an actual African population from ancient times no less. Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
It's funny how usually afrocentrics are being labeled as attempting to "steal" egyptian history, but it's now crystal clear since the DC promotional footage was released, which in reality represented test results of the lab technicians themselves and not the remains of the 18th dynasty (as if they were clumsy and dumb enough to release the actual results before discovery channel cashed in from it's advertising, if ever allowed to reveal the haplogroup results, we all know the egyptian authority and their strict stance when it comes to investigating modern population relationship with those of ancient egypt), it's anyways now obvious who the real culprits are when it comes to "stealing" egyptian history. It has been really pure entertainment to witness how all these fantasies of European Ancient egyptian elites suddenly exploding throughout forums and blogs based on a small unvalidated stock footage, lol. That short clip cleverly revealed how some otherwise percieved sane people can get completly frentic and get intoxicated by oppressed fantasies of some elite ancestors as far back as early antiquity. I hope that footage was orchestered for this very purpose, a genious approach at revealing the true die hard fanatics. Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
yonis, you gys are very predictable. If there is nothing left for you the option is always to accuse those who disagree with you of fraud. This is all part of a black self loathing mentality you are all involved in. When you have nothing you simply make up an ideology and build your own history. That is where you are but the world is not listening.
To the average white person you are out of sight, out of mind. They live their lives and never think of you as a factor one way or the other. They may get concerned if you move in next door or talk to their daughters but otherwise they are indifferent towArd you.
They are certanily not interested in your made up history and do not want to hear your complaints.
Djehuti, the lights are on in your brain but nobody is home. The issue is settled for everyone but this group of self loathing negroes, including you. Nobody care what you guys think, nor do they want to hear what you think. Maybe you need a little more affirmative action to give you a little more education.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ true die hard fanatic. lol
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
no fanatic, just speaking the truth. You guys need to stop this black self loathing and try to carve out a place in the world, make a contribution.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Apparently non of the blacks here loath themselves but YOU obviously loath them to spend so much time disparaging their African cultural heritage, yet at the same time try to claim that heritage via ancient Egypt! I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. Racism is a mental disorder, and you are obviously suffering from it BAD. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: It's funny how usually afrocentrics are being labeled as attempting to "steal" egyptian history, but it's now crystal clear since the DC promotional footage was released, which in reality represented test results of the lab technicians themselves and not the remains of the 18th dynasty (as if they were clumsy and dumb enough to release the actual results before discovery channel cashed in from it's advertising, if ever allowed to reveal the haplogroup results, we all know the egyptian authority and their strict stance when it comes to investigating modern population relationship with those of ancient egypt), it's anyways now obvious who the real culprits are when it comes to "stealing" egyptian history. It has been really pure entertainment to witness how all these fantasies of European Ancient egyptian elites suddenly exploding throughout forums and blogs based on a small unvalidated stock footage, lol. That short clip cleverly revealed how some otherwise percieved sane people can get completly frentic and get intoxicated by oppressed fantasies of some elite ancestors as far back as early antiquity. I hope that footage was orchestered for this very purpose, a genious approach at revealing the true die hard fanatics.
What is hilarious is the notion that Afrocentrics are somehow "stealing" history that is rightfully theirs to begin with since Egypt IS African, last time I checked! Yet for centuries the Euronuts have tried so hard to disassociate Egypt from its African locale and make it part of something else-- the "Near East", the "West" or some other.
By the way, this thread makes it clear the Y-chromosomal STRs were used primarily to track down PATERNITY not population lineage. A few STRs alone while giving hints about population lineage or clade aren't enough to make a clear answer. The footage of R1b in on the computer screen by geneticists was already explained on this thread to anyone with a decent attention span and reading comprehension. But obviously some foam-mouth frantic individuals would rather grab on to anything. Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
afrocentrics cannot steal history, nobody listens to them. People like Djehuti are frozen out of the media for all of the obvious reasons.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Does Cruciani say anything about the R1b1b2 in the Siwa, Baharia, and the Northern Egyptian samples?
I don't know about the most recent studies but I remember from the 2004 Underhill et ales. Horn vs. Levant paper, this was written:
"M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman...
..The antiquity of the M173 backflow is implied by the total lack in sub-Saharan Africa of downstream mutations associated with the post–Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) reinhabitation of Eurasia (R1a1-M17 and R1b-M269) (Semino et al. 2000) or, later, with the Neolithic expansion (J-12f2 and G-M201) (Hammer et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; King and Underhill 2002; Cinnioğlu et al. 2004). Egypt is the only African population that is known to harbor all three M173 subtypes (R1b-M269, R1*-M173, and R1a1-M17). This unique status is most likely due to Egypt’s strategic location and its long history of interaction with Eurasia. Oman, like Egypt, also exhibits all three M173 haplogroups. The relatively high frequency of R1a1-M17 (9%) may result from the post-LGM expansion associated with this mutation. The expansion estimates of this haplogroup (11.4–3.4 ky; see table 3) support this hypothesis."
^ All the above of course was before the discovery of paragroup R-P25*, but as you can see Oman was also included as having the same status with regards to having the same R derived groups. Of course the Euroloons aren't in such a hurry to white-wash the Omani as they are with an actual African population from ancient times no less.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, and to continue it is now known that the form of R1b predominant in Africa is R1b1a (R-V88). It predominates around central western Africa around the same areas as underived R1* but was also found by Cruciani to occur in North Africa including Egypt specifically around the Siwa Oasis population. The STR alleles processing for Tut though used that of the Eurasian or European. It makes little difference since only a few STRs were used and many of them show high percentage for E3a which it is far more likely being considering the origins of Tut's family. Also as Astenb pointed out, I wouldn't be surprised if Tut carried haplotype IV since it almost reaches 40% in Upper Egypt from what I remember of the Lucotte 2003 study. Either way it is unlikely Tut's Waseti (Theban) family of Upper Egypt had Eurasian ancestry let alone 'European' ancestry.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Have been plugging along with this, developed a flowchart and a near match R1b1b2 subclade table. I won't bother sharing either or continuing this investigation and here's the reason why.
Industry insider Thomas Krahn, of FamilyTreeDNA, is sure the DSC's 16 STR pherogram screen is "most likely a control sample from haplogroup R."
quote: Thomas Krahn FTDNA's Genomics Research Center Thomas Krahn is a Member of FTDNA's Scientific Advisory Board. Thomas is the Technical Laboratory Manager of FTDNA's Genomics Research Center in Houston. Graduated from the Technical University of Berlin with an MSC (Dipl. Ing.) in biotechnology and genetics. Thomas specializes in complex kinship testing and family reconstructions. He is an expert in developing new molecular biological methods and assays to resolve questions of biological heritage.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO
Well so much for Tut being R1b! I wonder what the Euronuts have to say now. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
link? Is this it?
Also there are actually (at least) two different scenes which show peaks from entirely different persons. At 1 minute and 18 seconds they show apparently a full set of (blue, green, black, red) traces which is most likely a control sample from haplogroup R. My best guess for the haplotype would be DYS456 15 DYS389I 13? (additional bin) DYS390 23? (additional bins) DYS389II 30? (additional bins) DYS458 16 DYS19 14 DYS385 11-14 DYS439 10 DYS438 12 DYS437 13 or 14 (additional bins) Y-GATA-H4 11 (NIST nomenclature) DYS393 13 DYS391 11 No warranty for any of the values! This could possibly be the 007 control DNA that comes with the ABI Yfiler kit. At least it looks similar.
I smell a rat!!! all of this could be a well orchestrated controversy to keep folks guessing and keeping fingers crossed..interest in the Boy-King will rise folks will talk more about ancient Kemet and some will even decide to travel to Egypt to see the King himself.. Ka-Chiing ..if that,s the case then bravo and well played.. Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: It's funny how usually afrocentrics are being labeled as attempting to "steal" egyptian history, but it's now crystal clear since the DC promotional footage was released, which in reality represented test results of the lab technicians themselves and not the remains of the 18th dynasty (as if they were clumsy and dumb enough to release the actual results before discovery channel cashed in from it's advertising, if ever allowed to reveal the haplogroup results, we all know the egyptian authority and their strict stance when it comes to investigating modern population relationship with those of ancient egypt), it's anyways now obvious who the real culprits are when it comes to "stealing" egyptian history. It has been really pure entertainment to witness how all these fantasies of European Ancient egyptian elites suddenly exploding throughout forums and blogs based on a small unvalidated stock footage, lol. That short clip cleverly revealed how some otherwise percieved sane people can get completly frentic and get intoxicated by oppressed fantasies of some elite ancestors as far back as early antiquity. I hope that footage was orchestered for this very purpose, a genious approach at revealing the true die hard fanatics.
I agree, its sad really. So where is the Cocroach Bitch Mathilda condeming them for stealing Egypt?? You see they only have a problem when Egypt is put into its African context.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Noby on planet earth believes Egypt was black african except a few arfonuts who promote this nonsense. You have the same thing in other fields. Big Foot, atlantis, UFO's etc all are the same lind of demented thinking as this black Egypt. A great anology would be "Caesar must have invaded America because some Roman coins were found buried in Kansas."
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Noby(is he from Lord of the Ring?) on planet earth indeed!! He! He! He!
Sounds like you are falling apart Hammer.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LMAO
Well so much for Tut being R1b! I wonder what the Euronuts have to say now.
Krahn posted that on rootsweb a long time ago (postmarked Feb 18th), hence "Euronuts" have still been saying a lot since then because at this point, everything is speculation until we can receive some type of confirmation or disconfirmation from DSC or the authors of the study. Though Krahn does point out some striking inconsistencies from the screen shots which leads to the near certainty that it is stock footage, as normal some still choose to ignore it.
quote:Astrid and I have also spent an hour on interpreting the electropherograms from the video yesterday. Unfortunately it's not as easy as counting the gray bars (bins) from the Genemapper software because the lab technicians have added additional bins by themselves for some alleles that don't show up in the ladder.
Also there are actually (at least) two different scenes which show peaks from entirely different persons. At 1 minute and 18 seconds they show apparently a full set of (blue, green, black, red) traces which is most likely a control sample from haplogroup R. My best guess for the haplotype would be DYS456 15 DYS389I 13? (additional bin) DYS390 23? (additional bins) DYS389II 30? (additional bins) DYS458 16 DYS19 14 DYS385 11-14 DYS439 10 DYS438 12 DYS437 13 or 14 (additional bins) Y-GATA-H4 11 (NIST nomenclature) DYS393 13 DYS391 11 No warranty for any of the values! This could possibly be the 007 control DNA that comes with the ABI Yfiler kit. At least it looks similar.
The more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces from the mummies. Due to a bug in the Genemapper software the bins are not displayed correctly. Note that some of the peaks are far off from the bins. So the only way to investigate this is to use the actual fragment sizes on the bp scale. We have measured and calculated the peak positions with a ruler on the monitor screen and then assigned the alleles based on experimental data from runs on our own instruments. Of course the instrument results vary and there is again no warranty that my guesswork is correct. My call of the NED labeled markers may be something like: DYS393 9 DYS439 11 DYS391 12 DYS635 23 DYS392 13 or 14 (resolution not good enough for a trinucleotide repeat)
In an earlier scene at 1:12 in the blue trace we can definitely read allele 16 for the marker DYS458 and as discussed in the article itself we know about Y-GATA-H4 being 11 in NIST nomenclature. Yet another scene at 1:30 shows DYS389I in the blue trace which is most likely allele 13 I'll leave it to the experts to predict a haplogroup for this profile. Without the rare DYS393 allele 9 it matches multiple haplogroups. With the DYS393 = 9 allele I have no matches in the FTDNA database.
Again this could still be a wrong sample and I could still have made errors with my analysis. In any case I hope this helps.
Thomas
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
Why are you attempting to steal Egyptian history? shame on you. Stick to your celtic/saxon whatever history. Your attempt is shamefull and disgusting to say the least, where is your honour and pride of the northern european ancestors? Were they not flashy enough so you target ancient Africans as part of your ancestors instead?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's the exact problem with white supremacist nutcases like Hammered-- they are not satisfied with their own European culture and try to steal the credit of other ancient cultures.
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better 'professor'.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Meanwhile, back to reality.
We know that Tut and his family were native Egyptians from Waset (Thebes), southern Egypt.
We know how he and his family look like from actual portraits made when they were alive.
Tut's Grandparents
Tut's Parents
^ We just aren't certain who the identities of his parents are. His father is in all likelyhood Akhenaten although sarcophagus is unmarked and his mother is full sibling of Akhenaten.
As for haplogroup, he definitely wasn't R1b...
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Krahn posted that on rootsweb a long time ago (postmarked Feb 18th), hence "Euronuts" have still been saying a lot since then because at this point, everything is speculation until we can receive some type of confirmation or disconfirmation from DSC or the authors of the study. Though Krahn does point out some striking inconsistencies from the screen shots which leads to the near certainty that it is stock footage, as normal some still choose to ignore it.
quote:Astrid and I have also spent an hour on interpreting the electropherograms from the video yesterday. Unfortunately it's not as easy as counting the gray bars (bins) from the Genemapper software because the lab technicians have added additional bins by themselves for some alleles that don't show up in the ladder.
Also there are actually (at least) two different scenes which show peaks from entirely different persons. At 1 minute and 18 seconds they show apparently a full set of (blue, green, black, red) traces which is most likely a control sample from haplogroup R. My best guess for the haplotype would be DYS456 15 DYS389I 13? (additional bin) DYS390 23? (additional bins) DYS389II 30? (additional bins) DYS458 16 DYS19 14 DYS385 11-14 DYS439 10 DYS438 12 DYS437 13 or 14 (additional bins) Y-GATA-H4 11 (NIST nomenclature) DYS393 13 DYS391 11 No warranty for any of the values! This could possibly be the 007 control DNA that comes with the ABI Yfiler kit. At least it looks similar.
The more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces from the mummies. Due to a bug in the Genemapper software the bins are not displayed correctly. Note that some of the peaks are far off from the bins. So the only way to investigate this is to use the actual fragment sizes on the bp scale. We have measured and calculated the peak positions with a ruler on the monitor screen and then assigned the alleles based on experimental data from runs on our own instruments. Of course the instrument results vary and there is again no warranty that my guesswork is correct. My call of the NED labeled markers may be something like: DYS393 9 DYS439 11 DYS391 12 DYS635 23 DYS392 13 or 14 (resolution not good enough for a trinucleotide repeat)
In an earlier scene at 1:12 in the blue trace we can definitely read allele 16 for the marker DYS458 and as discussed in the article itself we know about Y-GATA-H4 being 11 in NIST nomenclature. Yet another scene at 1:30 shows DYS389I in the blue trace which is most likely allele 13 I'll leave it to the experts to predict a haplogroup for this profile. Without the rare DYS393 allele 9 it matches multiple haplogroups. With the DYS393 = 9 allele I have no matches in the FTDNA database.
Again this could still be a wrong sample and I could still have made errors with my analysis. In any case I hope this helps.
Thomas
You know, this reminds me about the first time that DNA tests were done on Egyptian mummies to find population relations years ago in the late 90s but Hawass and the Egyptian government attacked it, saying the results were inaccurate. Their reasoning was that it was done and perverted by Zionists! Now, what genetic lineage could possibly associated with 'Jews' except J derived ones which are also associated with Arabs! Anyway, the actual findings were not published at all, but flash forward about a decade with more accurate DNA assessing technology and curious how the only thing the Egyptian SCA will release is info on family relations but not population ones. I seriously don't think the testings this round were tainted by 'Zionist' Jews.
You would think that if Tut's haplogroup were something connected to Europeans, the results would have been published the first day! But no it hasn't, which leaves Euronuts like Hammered frothing at the mouth and coming to wild conclusions that Tut had European derived lineage.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What are European farmers? No such archaeology or anthropology term.
Neolithic farmers of hgs E and J spread their industry to Europe.
Farming was introduced into Europe by people from the Levant some of whom had African derived E hgs.
I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Old news for old dogs incabable of new tricks.
Earliest European Farmers Left Little Genetic Mark On Modern Europe
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2005)
The farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans, according to the first detailed analysis of ancient DNA extracted from skeletons of early European farmers.
he passionate debate over the origins of modern Europeans has a long history, and this work strengthens the argument that people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.
This paper appears in the 11 November 2005 issue of the journal Science published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.
The researchers from Germany, the United Kingdom and Estonia extracted and analyzed DNA from the mitochondria of 24 skeletons of early farmers from 16 locations in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of these 24 skeletons contain genetic signatures that are extremely rare in modern European populations. Based on this discovery, the researchers conclude that early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," said Science author Joachim Burger from Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany.
"Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," said Science author Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK.
To get at questions surrounding the ancestry of modern Europeans, the researchers studied mitochondrial DNA from early farmers in Central Europe. Mothers pass mitochondrial DNA to their offspring primarily "as is," without mixing or recombination with mitochondrial DNA from fathers. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, provides a way for researchers to piece together how closely members of a species are related, using maternal lineages as a guide, explained Burger.
In the new study, the researchers attempted to extract mitochondrial DNA from the skeletons of 56 humans who lived in various parts of Central Europe about 7500 years ago. These ancient humans all belonged to well known cultures that can be identified by the decorations on their pottery -- the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the Alföldi Vonaldiszes Kerámia (AVK). The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago.
From bones and teeth of these 56 skeletons, the researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA sufficient for analysis from 24 of the skeletons. Six of the 24 early farmers belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures or "haplotypes" in their mitochondrial DNA that the researchers studied. These six skeletons are from archeological sites all across central Europe. Few modern Europeans belong to this N1a lineage, and those that do are spread across much of Europe.
The other 18 early farmers belonged to lineages not useful for investigating the genetic origins of modern Europeans because their genetic signatures from the scrutinized region of mitochondrial DNA are widespread in living humans, according to the authors.
Using the tools of population genetics and a worldwide database of 35,000 modern DNA samples, the researchers investigated the genetic legacy of early European farmers based on the fact that six of the 24 early European farmers are from a lineage that is now extremely rare in Europe and around the world.
At least 8 percent of the early farmers belonged to the N1a lineage, according to the researchers who estimate the range was between 8 and 42 percent.
Even this conservative estimate of 8 percent stands in stark contrast to the current percentage of central Europeans who belong to the N1a lineage -- 0.2 percent. This discrepancy suggests that these early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern Central Europeans, the authors say.
"It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into Central Europe had such a huge cultural impact," said Forster.
Small pioneer groups may have carried farming into new areas of Europe, the authors suggest. Once farming had taken hold, the surrounding hunter-gatherers could have adapted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers, diluting their N1a frequency to the low modern level. A range of archeological research supports different aspects of this hypothesis, the authors say.
Alternatively, a different population may have replaced the early farmers in Central Europe, eliminating most of the N1a types, but archaeological evidence for this scenario is scant, according to the authors.
###
Wolfgang Haak, Barbara Bramanti, Guido Brandt, Marc Tänzer, Kurt Werner Alt and Joachim Burger at Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany; Peter Forster, Shuichi Matsumura and Colin Renfrew at University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK; Richard Villems at Tartu University in Tartu, Estonia; Detlef Gronenborn at Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz, Germany. This study was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by American Association for the Advancement of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
These are the only Euro farmers related to Texans failing their attempt to crackerize ancient history.
quote: COPA (European Farmers) first started out with 13 member organisations from the then six Member States. Today COPA (European Farmers) is made up of 60 organisations from the countries of the European Union and 36 partner organisations from other European countries. The broad membership allows COPA to represent both the general and specific interest of farmers in the Member States and since its inception, it has been recognised by the Community authorities as the spokesman for the agricultural sector as a whole. Padraig Walshe was elected President of COPA on 23 April 2009. He is the first Irishman to hold this post.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ ROTFLOL
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What are European farmers? No such archaeology or anthropology term.
Neolithic farmers of hgs E and J spread their industry to Europe.
Farming was introduced into Europe by people from the Levant some of whom had African derived E hgs.
Yes and the Hammered one should know this as he's seen the evidence for the above all too many times before.
quote:I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
Indeed. Not that I take Hawass that seriously anyway, I would like to know when he actually said that. Or is this another made up rumor that Hammered brains has bought.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
So we should not take hawass seriously but we SHOULD take you seriously?? The man who dreams of african armies taking the middle east?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Old news for old dogs incabable of new tricks.
Earliest European Farmers Left Little Genetic Mark On Modern Europe
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2005)
The farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans, according to the first detailed analysis of ancient DNA extracted from skeletons of early European farmers.
he passionate debate over the origins of modern Europeans has a long history, and this work strengthens the argument that people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.
This paper appears in the 11 November 2005 issue of the journal Science published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.
The researchers from Germany, the United Kingdom and Estonia extracted and analyzed DNA from the mitochondria of 24 skeletons of early farmers from 16 locations in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of these 24 skeletons contain genetic signatures that are extremely rare in modern European populations. Based on this discovery, the researchers conclude that early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," said Science author Joachim Burger from Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany.
"Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," said Science author Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK.
To get at questions surrounding the ancestry of modern Europeans, the researchers studied mitochondrial DNA from early farmers in Central Europe. Mothers pass mitochondrial DNA to their offspring primarily "as is," without mixing or recombination with mitochondrial DNA from fathers. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, provides a way for researchers to piece together how closely members of a species are related, using maternal lineages as a guide, explained Burger.
In the new study, the researchers attempted to extract mitochondrial DNA from the skeletons of 56 humans who lived in various parts of Central Europe about 7500 years ago. These ancient humans all belonged to well known cultures that can be identified by the decorations on their pottery -- the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the Alföldi Vonaldiszes Kerámia (AVK). The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago.
From bones and teeth of these 56 skeletons, the researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA sufficient for analysis from 24 of the skeletons. Six of the 24 early farmers belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures or "haplotypes" in their mitochondrial DNA that the researchers studied. These six skeletons are from archeological sites all across central Europe. Few modern Europeans belong to this N1a lineage, and those that do are spread across much of Europe.
The other 18 early farmers belonged to lineages not useful for investigating the genetic origins of modern Europeans because their genetic signatures from the scrutinized region of mitochondrial DNA are widespread in living humans, according to the authors.
Using the tools of population genetics and a worldwide database of 35,000 modern DNA samples, the researchers investigated the genetic legacy of early European farmers based on the fact that six of the 24 early European farmers are from a lineage that is now extremely rare in Europe and around the world.
At least 8 percent of the early farmers belonged to the N1a lineage, according to the researchers who estimate the range was between 8 and 42 percent.
Even this conservative estimate of 8 percent stands in stark contrast to the current percentage of central Europeans who belong to the N1a lineage -- 0.2 percent. This discrepancy suggests that these early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern Central Europeans, the authors say.
"It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into Central Europe had such a huge cultural impact," said Forster.
Small pioneer groups may have carried farming into new areas of Europe, the authors suggest. Once farming had taken hold, the surrounding hunter-gatherers could have adapted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers, diluting their N1a frequency to the low modern level. A range of archeological research supports different aspects of this hypothesis, the authors say.
Alternatively, a different population may have replaced the early farmers in Central Europe, eliminating most of the N1a types, but archaeological evidence for this scenario is scant, according to the authors.
###
Wolfgang Haak, Barbara Bramanti, Guido Brandt, Marc Tänzer, Kurt Werner Alt and Joachim Burger at Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany; Peter Forster, Shuichi Matsumura and Colin Renfrew at University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK; Richard Villems at Tartu University in Tartu, Estonia; Detlef Gronenborn at Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz, Germany. This study was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by American Association for the Advancement of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
There is evidence that suggests mitochondrial haplogroup N1a is of African origin. If that is so, then it is likely the female correspondence of E1b1b that also migrated to Europe.
So considering that Africans or those of African descent introduced agriculture to Europe, why would Europeans migrate to Africa and settle not in the coasts but travel all the way up the Nile to Thebes Upper Egypt and create the 17th and 18th dynasty?? Why are there no traces of a European language or culture but only African? Perhaps these ancient 'Afrikaaners' wanted to be accepted by the natives, no? LMAO Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Baloney. What it does do is wipe out your silly black Greece idea. What about the roman coins in Kansas? Give us one of your stupid theories to explain that?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What is baloney? The genetic findings pointing to N1a origins in Africa or the previously known findings that its definitely not indigenous to Europe, or perhaps your own silly notion of European farmers settling the African Nile Valley?! LOL
Who said anything about black Greece or Roman coins? Stick to the topic please.
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: So we should not take hawass seriously but we SHOULD take you seriously?? The man who dreams of african armies taking the middle east?
First of all, unlike Hawass, I don't contradict myself. Secondly, where did you get the idea that I "dream of African armies taking the Middle East"??!
Seriously 'professor' the only dreaming here is YOU with your white Egypt nonsense. Wake up to reality already! Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
I was not talking about you Djehuti. Takruri is the one who dreams about the black srmies, you simply dream about everything. That is why academics all over the country think you guys are wackos.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Really? And where do we get all of our info from if not from academics?? Do you think we make this stuff up?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Much of what you post are assumptions. Much of it is faulty logic. Commonly, if it is possible it must be true. In addition you take a piece of information and draw conclusions that do not exist. We have been all through that a hundred times. The problem stems from the fact that you are looking for information to build up a position you already have instead of seeking truth.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
And I repeat my challenge Hammer-skin.
What are European farmers?
I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
No polka, just comply with the above request.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Did you see his special on the discovery channel, Hawass, "Tut was the descendent of European farmers."
You guys need to study something useful and drop all of this racism.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
And I repeat my challenge Hammer-skin.
What are European farmers?
I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
No polka, just comply with the above request.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Don't pull that crap on me takruri. I answered your question.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I know I'm your master but quit begging me.
You're not playing with your usual led-by-the-nose fool.
You don't know the meaning of "source cited reference."
And, I repeat my three pronged challenge to you Hammer-skin.
What are European farmers?
I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
Stop polka dancing and comply with the above request. Nothing else of mindless device will satisfy or suffice.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Don't pull that crap on me takruri. I answered your question.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Quit pressuring the Texas vocational school welding teacher. Thats asking too much of him.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You mean wood shop. That's from where hammers come.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Takruri, Tell us more about that african army that you want to see invade the middle east. Tell us how a people who cannot feed themselves are going to morph into a global power?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Tell us anything about your make believe Euro-farmers. How could Hawass make a statement about some folk you invented?
You're not playing with your usual led-by-the-nose fool.
You don't know the meaning of "source cited reference."
And, I repeat my three pronged challenge to you Hammer-skin.
What are European farmers?
I invite sourced cited references of any such entity as "European farmers" or a sourced cited reference of Zahi Hawass stating anything about supposed "European farmers" in relation to Ancient Egypt.
Stop polka dancing and comply with the above request. Nothing else of mindless device will satisfy or suffice.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Tut is R1b and his ancestors are European farmers. This shell game you guys play will not stand up.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Don't pull that crap on me takruri. I answered your question.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Takruri, Tell us more about that african army that you want to see invade the middle east. Tell us how a people who cannot feed themselves are going to morph into a global power?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I doubt he'll ever provide what you want, Takruri. Hell, I asked him to explain his "European farmers" theory here without requesting any source cited references, making it easier on him. Yet of course he still hasn't replied.
Here it is again Hammered.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Can you please explain to us how a group of European "farmers" as you put it, end up in Africa and establish themselves as an elite family not on its coasts but farther south in the Nile Valley??
Also explain why such a group would discard their own European culture for that of the supposedly 'inferior' native Africans they ruled over such as the fantasy portrait of Tetisheri above shows?-- A white woman wearing African braided hairpiece, African beaded jewelry, complete with African style topless dress exposing her breasts. Hell, why are their names African --- names like 'Tetisheri', 'Sekenenra', 'Tiye', 'Tutankhamun' etc. are etymologically African, and what of their written langauge?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Of course he can't post what he's incapable of producing. He has no academic background thus doesn't even know what source cited referencing is less lone how to go about gathering it.
Exposure is what it was all about from the start and that mission has been accomplished successfully.
His frauds have been exposed on every front, in fact, on each and every front he's fronted.
Posted by ProfitablePublisher (Member # 17517) on :
Maybe he can expalin this? Check these facts Contrary to popular imagination, the vast majority of terrorists in the world are white males. The most destructive wars in history were(and are still) waged by whites, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions. The most destructive weapons are made by whites. Pornography is manufactured exclusively by whites. They are slowly but surely destroying the environment. Whites are more likely to be sexual predators, child molesters, rapists, stalkers and mass murderers. Why? The problem lies in their own nihilistic belief of racial superiority and the lack of a real sustainable culture based on higher principles of tolerance and respect. The white race must be pacified and civilized for the betterment of the planet. This will become a reality as enlightened whites shed their racist heritage and rejoin the human race as equals.
This is sooo sad read on. This is why the European is so smart,look how they experiment firsthand to come up with some of their analysis.
OWENSBORO, Ky., March 8 – Police in Kentucky said a woman arrested for public intoxication faces an additional charge for squirting breast milk on a deputy at the jail.
Daviess County sheriff’s deputies said Toni Tramel, 31, of Owensboro, was arrested Thursday on a misdemeanor count of public intoxication and while changing into a jail uniform she allegedly sprayed a stream of breast milk into the face of a female deputy, WYMT-TV, Hazard, Ky., reported Monday.
The sheriff’s office said the deputy went through a biohazard decontamination process and Tramel was booked on an additional charge of third degree assault on a police officer, a felony. She was being held in lieu of $10,000 bail.
Who will protect these poor animals from white perverts? How long will it be before animals show up at rape survivor meetings?
Edinburgh, Scotland – John Kerr, a 30-year-old Edinburgh man pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges he used a mobile phone to record himself having sex with a dog.
According to the Edinburgh Sheriff’s Office, Kerr used a mobile phone camera to record videos of himself sexually abusing a Staffordshire Terrier.
Investigators say the alleged acts came to light when Kerr’s friend found a phone behind his couch and looked to see who the phone belonged to.
When he saw two video clips showing Kerr engaged in sex acts with the dog, he first contacted the dog’s previous owner. They then contacted police and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
“He told police that those video clips were the only occasions in which he had an unnatural connection with the dog,” said Fiscal depute Aidan Higgins. “But he said he could not really say why it was he made the recordings – it was only for himself.”
Kerr admitted in court to sexually abusing the dog – allowing it to lick his private parts between April 1 and Nov. 22 of this year.
Queen’s Court deferred sentencing in the case until background reports have been completed and returned to the court. Kerr is free on bail until his sentencing resumes.
Lock up your dogs..and your children.
SARASOTA COUNTY — A woman videotaped herself having sex with two dogs and watching child pornography with a friend, authorities say.
Caroline Willette, 53, gave a CD with the images to an acquaintance, who turned it over to police. Willette has been charged with three counts of possessing child porn and remained Wednesday in the Sarasota County Jail.
Willette admitted to detectives that she had sex with the animals in her home and watched young girls perform sex acts on the Internet, an arrest report says.
What is this white obsession with having sex with animals? There will be plenty of time practice doggie style with his cell mate.
Farmington, W. Va. – Christopher Bagwell, a 26-year-old West Virginia man was arrested after breaking into home, having sex with home owner’s dog.
Bagwell allegedly broke into a home in the area and raped an Australian shepherd/border collie mix dog. The owner was away at work, according to a witness’ report.
The witness, Sierra Hayhurst, arrived at the house on the afternoon of July 8th to return items she had borrowed from the owner. She claims that while standing in the doorway, she spotted the suspect having sexual intercourse with the male dog, which “was making an awful sound.”
She then shouted at Bagwell, calling him a “sick bastard” until he pulled up his pants and dismounted the dog. He then started toward her in a threatening manner, according to police reports.
“His pants were down around his ankles and the dog was making an awful sound,” stated the witness in the arrest complaint.
At this point, Hayhurst called Farmington Police, who soon arrived and promptly arrested Bagwell on felony burglarly and animal cruelty charges. Police allege Bagwell also damaged property in the home while looting it for an undisclosed reason.
Bagwell was booked into the local jail but quickly bonded out.
Whhites should really be proud of their intelligent race.
Warrant out for Horse sex accused in Leicester Just when you think the kuffar couldn’t get any worse…
An arrest warrant has been issued for a Leicester man accused of having sex with a horse and a donkey, after he failed to turn up to court.
Joseph Squires, 66, of Overpark Avenue, is charged with buggery of a donkey between February and April 1999 and buggery with a horse in March 2004.
He is also accused of criminal damage to the animals during the same dates.
He was due to appear at Leicester Crown Court earlier for a plea and case management hearing.
Mr Squires did not attend court and it was heard he had lost touch with his solicitors.
Judge Michael Pert QC issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Phew!! These people were diseased. They make a good case for the need for genetic diversity.
Only eight(8) markers are shown. Is this right?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Based on the Official release these are typical indigenous Africans
two independent labs
To authenticate DNA results, analytical steps were repeated and independently replicated in a second ancient DNA laboratory staffed by a separate group of personnel.
only eight data sets??? yielded complete data sets for all 8 markers in 7 mummies (Thuya, Yuya, Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, KV55, and both female mummies from KV35) but only partial data for both KV62 fetuses and the KV21A and KV21B mummies (Figure 1). Repeated attempts to complete the profiles in the 4 latter mummies were not successful; however, we were able to replicate some of the results for the previous mummies more than 4 times in the second, independent laboratory (Figure 1). Moreover, because these profiles differed from those of the laboratory staff and were not identical to the ones established for the control group, the data were considered authentic.
no longer used as race indicator. . .but Yuya is black and Tut white. yeah right. What about the women?? Not measured. One of the obvious features of Marfan syndrome is dolichocephaly.17-19 With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly. From the control group, Thutmose II and the TT320-CCG61065 mummy show dolichocephaly, with cephalic indices of 73.4 and 74.3, respectively
More than 55 bone biopsies were used to elucidate the individual relationships of 18th-dynasty individuals, with the result that several of the anonymous mummies or those with suspected identities are now able to be addressed by name.
It is unlikely that either Tutankhamun or Akhenaten actually displayed a significantly bizarre or feminine physique.
fake bust - so who put the fake face on. Was AE or the German "discoverer"? A recent radiographic examination of the Nefertiti bust in the Berlin Museum illustrates this clearly by showing that the original face of Nefertiti, present as a thin layer beneath the outer surface, is less beautiful than that represented by the artifact.3
Sickle Cell Trait? Malaria - This means either that the infection took place quite late in their lifetime, that they enjoyed strong genetic fitness ***code for resistant***, or that they aquired a partial immunity against the pathogen during their lives. Not every person infected with P falciparum becomes gravely ill, and this is especially true in populations that have been exposed to malaria pathogens over long periods.52 If Yuya and Thuya spent much of their time living in malaria-endemic areas close to the marshes of the Nile River, partial immunization may have contributed to their survival.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.
Where did you get that from? That goes against everything I've read about KV55 and Tut.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Read the JAMA paper brother. All of the quotes are from the JAMA paper.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Dolicho and brachycephalic crania below
Tut and his father below
Obviously, the author is wrong
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I agree with you brother but I am only critiquing what is written in JAMA. But it doesn't really matter does it?
The JAMA paper demonstrate that CI is basically meaningless. Yuya 70.3 but his Grandson and great grandson is . . brachycephaly. In other words based on what they wrote the feature is NOT inherited.. . .along the male line.
By the old belief Yuya(the great grand father) is a true negro. Along with other members of the Dynasty eg Thutmose II.
Notice no mention of the CI of the female line of Tut. Neither Amenhotep III. So Grandfather and great grandfather are typical "negro" but the Father and Tut is not. What does tell you?
Maybe they are back to spinning a multi-ethnic AE.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
None of the 18th dynasty Kings are negroes. the 25th dynasty is the olny Egyptian dynasty thought to be nubian. Our guy here that does ancient stuff tells me that upper Egypt was 5% negroid, lower egypt 1%.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Ok, did not mean to counterexample you, just thought I correct that before some ''anatolian egypt'' supporting douchebag seizes this wishful oppertunity to support his case.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
too late!!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You know, I did a write up on it but in the end a few words is really all that's needed. Cephalic index isn't even worth a rack to hang a hat on.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
why? Boaz work is discredited according to some, I'd like to know more about this. Where is this piece you wrote.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Dolicho and brachycephalic crania below
Tut and his father below
Obviously, the author is wrong
Which looks exactly like the artwork of ancient Egypt showing princesses and others with elongated crania, very much like those produced from head binding in other African cultures.
Head shape is unrelated to skin colour or continental origin.
Do you suppose the blacks of Africa are the only dolichocephalics or that each and every black in Africa is dolichocephalic?
Have you looked into cephalic index and noted, for instance, the change in cephalic index for native Iranis or Japanese?
What major physical anthropologists of the 20th century have you read and examined their report on cephalic indices worldwide?
If one hasn't then why rely on and repeat second hand information implying dolichocephaly as being universal among and exclusive to blacks of Africa or brachycephaly not being found in Africa's blacks?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: why? Boaz work is discredited according to some, I'd like to know more about this. Where is this piece you wrote.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, chepalic index is just one of a number cranial features that vary among populations. While one type may be common among certain populations it is not exclusive to those populations. I don't know about all of the claims of Boaz, but I am sure he was the first prominent anthropologist to use evolutionary perspectives on populations and thus dynamics and change among population traits, and not the stereotyped static view of his predecessors
As for the JAMA paper, I've only read the genetic reports but not the craniometrics data, as I and I'm sure everyone else are all to familiar with that. That said, I'm in disbelief that they would state that Tut or anyone in his family is brachycephalic since ALL craniometric studies on the 18th dynasty and perhaps all Egyptian dynasties for that matter classify them as having pronounced dolichocephaly!
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: None of the 18th dynasty Kings are negroes. the 25th dynasty is the only Egyptian dynasty thought to be nubian...
First of all, Nubians and Egyptians are closely related peoples both culturally and physically. Secondly, all craniometric studies especially those done by Harris and Wente show that the 18th dynasty bears a striking resemblance to contemporary Nubians especially the founding father Sekenenra Tao of the 17th dynasty so your baseless protests are in vain.
quote:..Our guy here that does ancient stuff tells me that upper Egypt was 5% negroid, lower egypt 1%.
We're not interested in what "your guy" that does "ancient stuff" (whatever that means) who is likely a product of your imagination has to say. Unless this guy of yours is real and has some real studies to prove this claim, you might as well not bring him up. By the way, can you please point out where in the JAMA paper did it say Tut carried R1b? The results of the genetic analysis were quite clear and they mentioned NOTHING about haplogroup let alone R1b. No doubt your R1b claims are another product of your silly imagination as is your "European farmer" origins of the Egyptian dynasties. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: fake bust - so who put the fake face on. Was AE or the German "discoverer"? A recent radiographic examination of the Nefertiti bust in the Berlin Museum illustrates this clearly by showing that the original face of Nefertiti, present as a thin layer beneath the outer surface, is less beautiful than that represented by the artifact.3
This info can be found right here!
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: That said, I'm in disbelief that they would state that Tut or anyone in his family is brachycephalic since ALL craniometric studies on the 18th dynasty and perhaps all Egyptian dynasties for that matter classify them as having pronounced dolichocephaly!
Exactly!!
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: Do you suppose the blacks of Africa are the only dolichocephalics
The same thing can be said about all stereotypical African features, from limb proportions to broad and narrow nasal indices to prognathism without questioning their usefulness in physical anthropology.
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: or that each and every black in Africa is a dolichocephalic?
That can be explained by normal variation
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: Have you looked into cephalic index and noted, for instance, the change in cephalic index for native Iranis or Japanese?
I know that several ancient middle eastern populations generally had a lower cephalic index, including Anatolians and Syrians, but I haven't read anything about Irani's or Japanese. I do know however, that the Ainu have clustered with or near Europeans before. What phenomenon are you referring to, and from what time frames are the samples that were compared in both populations?
quote: Originally posted by AlTakruri: If one hasn't then why repeat second hand information on dolichocephaly being universal and exclusive to blacks of Africa or brachycephaly not being found in Africa's blacks?
It is only logical that brachycephalic individuals are found in Africa without needing foreigners to explain it. However, in all my years of reading about the cranial charateristics of African populations, I have yet to come across an African population that was classified as Brachycephalic the way certain alpine populations are.
BTW, if you're bothered by the direction your thread is heading into we can discuss it in new thread
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I see nothing that makes dolichocephaly a reliable indicator of an individual being one of Africa's blacks nor brachycephaly barring an individual from that rank.
Neither of the cephalic indices that opened this discussion bear out the contentions they were given for adducing either continental origin or blackness. measurements
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Never mind then, I assumed you had new data to debunk the concept of cephalometric indices.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Nowadays when one needs to assess a skull's affinities to a regional or restricted population one uses a choice of select craniometric canonical variates as discriminatin functions like
This level of information is not provided in Hawass(2010) which instead gives us cephalic index which, for whatever value it does have, is useless in ascertaining population affinities.
I suggest the following texts for where physical anthropology is currently at when using craniometry for predicting affinity. RE Blackith & RA Reyment Multivariate Morphometrics London: Academic Press, 1971 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis in N Nie, C Hull, J Jenkins, K Steinhrenner & D Bent (eds) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences New York: McGraw Hill, 1975 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis. Sage University Paper series Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-001. Beverly Hills & London: Sage Publications, 1980
Probably the best book for understanding physical anthropology maybe bridging the gap between the 19th-20th century schools and today or at least explaining terms and measurements is Juan Comas Manual of Physical Anthropology Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1960
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Of course Hawass and co. will keep trying to pretend that whatever measurements they use, the AE had no relationship to other Africans......
Amarna art piece hyperdolichocephalic examples are just stylistic and have nothing to do with any actual recovered late 18th dynasty skulls.
The Mangebetu, like some other peoples around the world, shape their infant's heads to obtain asthetically valued hyperdolichocephaly.
Neither of these examples apply to naturally occuring dolichocephaly which can be found as a predominate trait even in Nordics.
This is why cephalic index has been dismissed and multivariate analyses of crania used as discriminant functions now relied upon to predict the craniometric affinity of a skull to regional or restricted populations.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Besides being useless the selective information released is aimed to mislead. If not an out right lie per DJ.
Tut and Akheneton is above 80 sublimally suggesting European. Which were released(JAMA). The "only" other male line that was below 75 was Yuya(released).
However Thutmuos(Tut's Grandfather) was NOT released. I wonder what the CI is?(wink). And nada of the female CI was released.
As guess females don't matter. Typical European perception.(insert sarcasm).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This level of information is not provided in Hawass(2010) which instead gives us cephalic index which, for whatever value it does have, is useless in ascertaining population affinities.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For a thinking man.
Based upon the limited information released Yuya is African. So how can Tut and his father be anything BUT African.
Again. . .I am not saying CI has merit but I am critiquing their double speak.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Yuya has never been considered Egyptian. Lets get off the african stff. Nobody wants to her it anymore. You could make those arguments in the 80's and 90's and a few pwoplw would listen because of political corectness, but no longer. there is a quiet backlash underway against these radical views in most schools.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nowadays when one needs to assess a skull's affinities to a regional or restricted population one uses a choice of select craniometric canonical variates as discriminatin functions like
This level of information is not provided in Hawass(2010) which instead gives us cephalic index which, for whatever value it does have, is useless in ascertaining population affinities.
I suggest the following texts for where physical anthropology is currently at when using craniometry for predicting affinity. RE Blackith & RA Reyment Multivariate Morphometrics London: Academic Press, 1971 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis in N Nie, C Hull, J Jenkins, K Steinhrenner & D Bent (eds) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences New York: McGraw Hill, 1975 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis. Sage University Paper series Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-001. Beverly Hills & London: Sage Publications, 1980
Probably the best book for understanding physical anthropology maybe bridging the gap between the 19th-20th century schools and today or at least explaining terms and measurements is Juan Comas Manual of Physical Anthropology Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1960
I have multiple eductional things I'm reading and listening to, but I will put the one you recommended on my list. I'd like to point out though, that your own list included cranial breadth. Why dispute it's usefullness then when it clearly is still useful, albeit less usefull in a context where it is singled out?
Kalonji
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course there were many other studies on the craniometrics of the royal mummies, but the one I often think of is the book X-ray Atlas of Royal Mummies done by Doctors James Harris and Edward Wente back in the late 80s and all the skulls of the royals and their relatives were described as dolichocephalic and overall African. Yuya was no exception. In fact, here is another study done by James Harris and Fawzia Hussein concerning only the 18th dynasty below:
quote:Originally posted by Hammered: Yuya has never been considered Egyptian. Lets get off the African stuff. Nobody wants to hear it anymore. You could make those arguments in the 80's and 90's and a few people would listen because of political correctness, but no longer. there is a quiet backlash underway against these radical views in most schools.
LOL Sorry but there is nothing "radical" about it. Egypt is in Africa, and its people were indigenous. It is simple as that. It is simple historical and scientific fact and there is no "politics" involved accept from the loonies in denial such as yourself. This is why even after the 90s ended up until today there are still studies coming out that support this fact and nothing that changes it.
As for Yuya, the skull analyses show him to possess many African traits which is not surprising considering how his daughter Tiye looks like.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Have you READ the study??? JAMA)Hawass 2010,
Or are you here as a pest? Just to derail the thread??
Per the study: Yuya(KV46), male, 50-60yrs, CI 70.1, great grandfather of Tut.
Contribute, even a rebuttal. or STFU.
ooppps!! Is it the 21st yet?
Anyone has pesticide??
BTW- Is Altk the only other one to read the study?
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Yuya has never been considered Egyptian. Lets get off the african stff. Nobody wants to her it anymore. You could make those arguments in the 80's and 90's and a few pwoplw would listen because of political corectness, but no longer. there is a quiet backlash underway against these radical views in most schools.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What am I dealing with here? High schoolers. No one but myself and Altk read the study and here we are commenting about it? tsk! tsk!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As I said, I've only seen the DNA results. I didn't bother to look up the craniometry stuff until you posted their findings which I find bizarre to say the least.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Djehuti, The game is up for you guys. the 80's and even 90's listened to you a bit because of PC but this is 2010 and nobody wants to hear it. You do not know squat about anyone's cranial measurements. This is like a room full of retards talking about physics. You come on here and cut and paste data from 15 years ago. You are not even savy enough to know that research that old is not acceptable. You post data from the SAME half sozen academics over and over and over again. When I go out looking I then find your points were not even accurate. By the way. How did you get into the country? Are you legal?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Amarna art piece hyperdolichocephalic examples are just stylistic and have nothing to do with any actual recovered late 18th dynasty skulls.
The Mangebetu, like some other peoples around the world, shape their infant's heads to obtain asthetically valued hyperdolichocephaly.
Neither of these examples apply to naturally occuring dolichocephaly which can be found as a predominate trait even in Nordics.
This is why cephalic index has been dismissed and multivariate analyses of crania used as discriminant functions now relied upon to predict the craniometric affinity of a skull to regional or restricted populations.
Agreed.
However, my point is that the artistic representation of dolicephalic puffy cheeked men and women is an ancient African ideal of beauty, found in modern African societies like the Mangbetu. Whether the AE actually practiced head binding or not, there is no doubt that much Amarna art was a reflection of this African form beauty.
But as for the head binding, I would argue that the images below argue for it not against it, IMO.
Sure, it could be natural, but then again it may not be. And I doubt that some scholars would be willing to admit it being unnatural for reasons we should all understand. Notice how the latest research speaks at length about Marfan's syndrome, which was the European's way of trying to explain such features. The research says flat out that this was not present in any significant degree. But many of us knew that this whole suggestion of Marfan's was simply nonsense to begin with and saw plainly a reflection of African ideals of beauty that have no relationship to Europe.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Doug, You stupid man. they talk about Marfan's because they have the ability to determine if he had it or not. No black african population with 70 IQ's could have created a major civilization. Even your hero Keita says they were not black. Everyone is off that wagon except a few of you here on ES>
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
That tut looks like a bucktooth Somali to me.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So that is your premise. . . .pure emotion.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: No black african population with 70 IQ's could have created a major civilization.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
no emotion involved.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Do you understand the difference between cranial lengths and breadths as discrete measurements in a set containing many other variables all of which when taken together can show population relations and even sib-sib or parent-child relations versus taking cranial length and cranial breadth and making a ratio index out of the two of them?
There's just no comparison between these methods the former being discrete and complex whereas the latter is a simple ratio not each measurement as a disinct value.
That's the reason current craniometry uses canonical variates and does not use indices of cranial, facial, and nasal indices. Those indices in tandem have proven unreliable in comparison to multivariate discriminant functions.
If you prefer 19th century indices to 21st century canonical variates, well, it's fine with me. Enjoy!
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Nowadays when one needs to assess a skull's affinities to a regional or restricted population one uses a choice of select craniometric canonical variates as discriminant functions like
This level of information is not provided in Hawass(2010) which instead gives us cephalic index which, for whatever value it does have, is useless in ascertaining population affinities.
I suggest the following texts for where physical anthropology is currently at when using craniometry for predicting affinity. RE Blackith & RA Reyment Multivariate Morphometrics London: Academic Press, 1971 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis in N Nie, C Hull, J Jenkins, K Steinhrenner & D Bent (eds) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences New York: McGraw Hill, 1975 W Klecka Discriminant Analysis. Sage University Paper series Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-001. Beverly Hills & London: Sage Publications, 1980
Probably the best book for understanding physical anthropology maybe bridging the gap between the 19th-20th century schools and today or at least explaining terms and measurements is Juan Comas Manual of Physical Anthropology Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1960
I have multiple eductional things I'm reading and listening to, but I will put the one you recommended on my list. I'd like to point out though, that your own list included cranial breadth. Why dispute it's usefullness then when it clearly is still useful, albeit less usefull in a context where it is singled out?
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes the scan on the left looks like head shaping was involved.
The dolichocephaly of Amarna art is not Egyptian norm. Where do we find it in Early, Old, and Middle Kingdom's art? It was a style used only in part of the reign of just one pharaoh and was rejected after his term of office. For Mangebetu it is a time honored and popular practice not a perogative of royalty alone.
Nor is there anything particularly African about headshaping to produce unnatural skull forms. It is, or was, done nearly on every continent at one time or other. This Bolivian skull is one example
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Amarna art piece hyperdolichocephalic examples are just stylistic and have nothing to do with any actual recovered late 18th dynasty skulls.
The Mangebetu, like some other peoples around the world, shape their infant's heads to obtain asthetically valued hyperdolichocephaly.
Neither of these examples apply to naturally occuring dolichocephaly which can be found as a predominate trait even in Nordics.
This is why cephalic index has been dismissed and multivariate analyses of crania used as discriminant functions now relied upon to predict the craniometric affinity of a skull to regional or restricted populations.
Agreed.
However, my point is that the artistic representation of dolicephalic puffy cheeked men and women is an ancient African ideal of beauty, found in modern African societies like the Mangbetu. Whether the AE actually practiced head binding or not, there is no doubt that much Amarna art was a reflection of this African form beauty.
But as for the head binding, I would argue that the images below argue for it not against it, IMO.
Sure, it could be natural, but then again it may not be. And I doubt that some scholars would be willing to admit it being unnatural for reasons we should all understand. Notice how the latest research speaks at length about Marfan's syndrome, which was the European's way of trying to explain such features. The research says flat out that this was not present in any significant degree. But many of us knew that this whole suggestion of Marfan's was simply nonsense to begin with and saw plainly a reflection of African ideals of beauty that have no relationship to Europe.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Do you understand the difference between cranial lengths and breadths as discrete measurements in a set containing many other variables all of which when taken together can show population relations and even sib-sib or parent-child relations versus taking cranial length and cranial breadth and making a ratio index out of the two of them?
There's just no comparison between these methods the former being discrete and complex whereas the latter is a simple ratio not each measurement as a disinct value.
That's the reason current craniometry uses canonical variates and does not use indices of cranial, facial, and nasal indices. Those indices in tandem have proven unreliable in comparison to multivariate discriminant functions.
So that's the difference? To me that is a more reliable method indeed, but so why do I stil read about everyone talking about nasal index? Even on this board there is still talk about indices.
Kalonji
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
All that is good takruri if you know how to work with the data and understand the context in which it has to be used. My guess, based on a long history of material; you have posted, is that you do not. Most of what you guys post here is either completely wrong, or at best misleading. Example: I have read a hunder post from you guys quoting Keita. Yet ...when I actually see him on the net, speaking on the subject, he says the ancient Egyptians were mixed, not black at all. Why have I never seen that quote here? You and I both know the answer to that.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I've explained the difference twice already. All I can ask is that you carefully reread it again.
The difference is as great as that between a 19th century horse and buggy and a 21st century LSUV.
Cephalic index can't distinguish between a Nordic and an East African but multivariate discrimination sure can.
Nasal index isn't cranial index yet it too fails to distinguish some Euro vs some African pops. Multivariate discrimination precisely delineates.
It's not my place to convince you. I put the up to date science before you so you should know it.
As I said earlier: If you prefer 19th century indices to 21st century canonical variates, well, it's fine with me. Enjoy!
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Do you understand the difference between cranial lengths and breadths as discrete measurements in a set containing many other variables all of which when taken together can show population relations and even sib-sib or parent-child relations versus taking cranial length and cranial breadth and making a ratio index out of the two of them?
There's just no comparison between these methods the former being discrete and complex whereas the latter is a simple ratio not each measurement as a disinct value.
That's the reason current craniometry uses canonical variates and does not use indices of cranial, facial, and nasal indices. Those indices in tandem have proven unreliable in comparison to multivariate discriminant functions.
So that's the difference? To me that is a more reliable method indeed, but so why do I stil read about everyone talking about nasal index? Even on this board there is still talk about indices.
Kalonji
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:As I said earlier: If you prefer 19th century indices to 21st century canonical variates, well, it's fine with me. Enjoy!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What? More attention begging crackerizations?
Shut up and show us where Hawass said Tut was R1b and descends from European farmers a completely wrong misleading personal opinion of your own. You and I both know you can produce no such quote.
What you need to do is invest your time in learning English grammar, spelling, and sentence composition.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: All that is good takruri if you know how to work with the data and understand the context in which it has to be used. My guess, based on a long history of material; you have posted, is that you do not. Most of what you guys post here is either completely wrong, or at best misleading. Example: I have read a hunder post from you guys quoting Keita. Yet ...when I actually see him on the net, speaking on the subject, he says the ancient Egyptians were mixed, not black at all. Why have I never seen that quote here? You and I both know the answer to that.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:As I said earlier: If you prefer 19th century indices to 21st century canonical variates, well, it's fine with me. Enjoy!
I try my best to explain something to you and tell you about current craniometry even give you reference texts and this is what I get for my efforts?
What a splendid waste of my time.
BTW this is based on canonical variation discriminant functioning, CI could never have produced it Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^The reason why I posted that emoticon is because I already agreed that that actual meassurements would be more accurate than indices, and you still posted that ''if you want to hang on to old views''.
It just seems to me that some people here are more willing to debunk no-life trolls with studies, than they are to have mature discussions, or show studies in response to genuine questions. And I do know the difference between multivariate analysis, and a single meassurement. I just assumed cranial breadth was the same as cephalic index, as they both pertain to the same region and topic.
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Cranial breadth is not the same as cephalic index. Cranial breadth is one factor of cephalic index.
Cranial breadth is part of the numerator of the cephalic index ratio. Cranial length is the denominator of the cephalic index ratio.
Both maximum cranial length and maximum cranial breadth are discrete, (i.e., not in ratio), multivariate factors used one by one to compile a skull's characterisitics.
As for showing studies I gave you the name of the definitive texts about canonical measurement use.
When you wrote "that is a more reliable method" I didn't know what "that" was refering to. Now I understand you meant canonical multivariates but before I thought you meant cephalic index. My bad.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Altakruri, I understood you the first time you said it, you seem to have misread my sentence in response to your post. That's prolly why you replied with your statement that I mistook for unnecessary when I posted that emoticon. I said:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji So that's the difference? To me that is a more reliable method indeed, but so why do I stil read about everyone talking about nasal index? Even on this board there is still talk about indices.
I didn't say ''what's'' the difference, the quesion mark is misleading, and you prolly misread it, as visible in your response.
quote: Originally posted by Altakruri: I've explained the difference twice already. All I can ask is that you carefully reread it again.
It's easy for miscommunications to arise on the internet, or for something to come over harsher than intended..
Kalonji
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
That's why good manners between colleages is essential. We kept it civil and worked it out by moving beyond assumptions and questioning each other to the point of clarity without projecting ulterior motives and devolving to detracting ad hominem atacks on each other.
A good conflict resolution model, yes?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Agreed Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes the scan on the left looks like head shaping was involved.
The dolichocephaly of Amarna art is not Egyptian norm. Where do we find it in Early, Old, and Middle Kingdom's art? It was a style used only in part of the reign of just one pharaoh and was rejected after his term of office. For Mangebetu it is a time honored and popular practice not a perogative of royalty alone.
Nor is there anything particularly African about headshaping to produce unnatural skull forms. It is, or was, done nearly on every continent at one time or other. This Bolivian skull is one example
I don't disagree, but my point still stands that Amarna art with its representation of dolicaphalic Africans was a reflection of a purely African aesthetic that was once probably more widespread than even today. It would really be interesting to find out why this aesthetic became so predominant when it did and why in Egypt.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL @ the woodshop fool's "crackerizations" as Takruri puts it.
1st of all, the vast majority of data that we "cut and paste" as you put it is recent from this this decade up to this year as for example the cranial study showing no difference between Egyptian skulls and so-called "Nubian" skulls.
2nd, the reason why scientists questioned if Marfan syndrome was present in the 18th dynasty was due to certain features presented by Akhenaten for example. Doug is correct, that such elongate features are typical and quite common for black Africans especially from northeast Africa. Thus all the DNA tests prove that Marfan syndrome was not present and the elongated features are normal.
Thirdly, you lie of course when you say there is no emotion in your statements only fact. Yet you offer NO proof that the average IQ of Africans is 70 OR that ancient Egyptian civilization was created by anyone but Africans.
I find it funny, that Doug, Takruri, and others just present data from the actual study itself that came out in last month, and all you do is complain about "Afrocentrism", "Africans", and what not. No doubt, even YOU are intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of these findings-- that Tut and his family were indeed black Africans.
So why don't you cite something about Egyptians having R1b or being the descendant of European farmers. Hell, find the exact quote from Hawass or something. In the meantime SHUT THE F**K UP!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^^
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What study is this from? Ta!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
BTW this is based on canonical variation discriminant functioning, CI could never have produced it
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Djehuti, How can I present facts and argue with a group of complete lunatics?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
xyyman
The map is from Keita! Not sure if he did the actual meassurements, but you can find it in his paper that deals with Lachish crania.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The lunatic is in your head alongside all your other multiple personalities with whom you argue.
It should be simple to show us and directly from your source for the crackerization of an R1b Tut descended from European farmers as you say from Hawass.
That in more than a week you have dismally failed to do so shows you completely fabricated it or else lack the most rudimentary of academic skills proving you could not have even have remotely possibly footnoted a term paper much less have defended a thesis.
Provided sourced cited references is beyond wood shop where peck-a-wood hammers like you belong and should now shamefully retire to.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Djehuti, How can I present facts and argue with a group of complete lunatics?
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
All you have to do moreon is read other sites around the net, it is everywhere. It was even here for a couple of days until you guys started your usual spin fest. Nothing I read here is found anywhere else. You guys are like the Jim Jones cult in Guyana. Your head is full of black african mush. You are trying to transform the lowest, least acomplished group of people in world history into something they never were nor ever will be.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
T!
Agreed. CI alone is not enough but ALL crania measurements/indices should give a better idea of point of origin.
Will add it to my arsenal!!
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: xyyman
The map is from Keita! Not sure if he did the actual meassurements, but you can find it in his paper that deals with Lachish crania.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: . . . it is everrrrrywherrrrrre. . . .
Ha! Ha! Ha!. Is this guy a baby or what. No one believes him. Sob! Sob!
Source??? Dick!!
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
"All over the net" is unaceptable as a source you stupid cracker.
Short and sweet.
Just give us the exact quote from Hawass.
No excuses.
No expecting us to do it for you.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Your mouth --> Hawass says European farmers, Your money --> ???
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: All you have to do moreon is read other sites around the net, it is everywhere. It was even here for a couple of days until you guys started your usual spin fest. Nothing I read here is found anywhere else. You guys are like the Jim Jones cult in Guyana. Your head is full of black african mush. You are trying to transform the lowest, least acomplished group of people in world history into something they never were nor ever will be.
Posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on :
al Takruri you are brilliant and your posts are excellent. i am glad that you and others like you are checking the new field of DNA.
R1b IS NOT THE HAPLOGROUP OF EUROPEAN FARMERS.
R1b IS HUNTER_GATHERER.
J2 and E1b1b ARE THE Y CHROMOSOME HAPLOGROUPS OF EUROPEAN FARMERS AND EXIST IN MODERN EGYPTIANS.
DON'T WORRY!!!!
-----------------------------
We must not also forget that everyone has a mother. The most important mtDNA in egypt is L1b.
They have the mtDNA results as well. Are King Tut and his relatives L1b?
In the future they will say much of Black America is R1b. So who cares. Hawass said our prez looks like King Tut. A mulatto is still black.
North Africa is really a mulatto area anyway.
Nothing to fear.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's funny 'Christian' is that the French scientists tried to white-wash Tut, yet the best they could do is make him "mulatto", as the bust you posted above clearly demonstrates! This in itself should tell people something. Of course, by people I mean intelligent folk not the dumb ignorant folks like Hammered who insist the NatGeo reconstruction somehow represents a European.
As for the 'professor' of woodshop, I can't put it any better than Takruri! LMAO Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Tut has been whitewashed idiot.. You sound like a complete oofball coming on here and spouting such garbage. Don't you think it is tie to grow up a bit and leave the radicalism behind?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Of course Tut was white-washed by the French scientists who did the NatGeo reconstruction. That's why the complexion is fair as opposed to his true complexion as seen in all of his authentic portraits. Also, Discovery made a reconstruction of Tut which looked more black, yet I specifically remember you complaining about how it was done by Afrocentrics even though it was conducted by white British forensic scientists who had no idea the skull belonged to Tut let alone that it was Egyptian. The French team on the other hand were not double-blinded, hence their BIAS showed in their attempted white-washing. I say attempted, because their final result still looked like someone of mixed black ancestry.
Now explain to me why the white scientists who were double-blinded and had no idea that these skulls belonged to Akhenaten and his sister look like this below?:
All in all, I am a grown-ass man who is quite mature, which is why I don't believe in fantasy tales of "European farmers" traveling to the African Nile to create Egyptian civilization. So the question here is who is the one who really harbors radical (as in CRAZY) ideas?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
As regards reconstructions and modern paintings of ancient kemites etc..all that is need is for the artist to use the same shade of paint the Kemites used in keeping with how they saw themselves, but they shy away from that because they damn well know the mental message it sends. if one was to paint this side profile you get this. Could be her son, brother, her daddy or atleast a cousin.
Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
Brada just must be an escapee from a mental institution. He goes out of his way to look just as ignorant as he possibly can. The issue is resolved. the whole black egypt afro studies thing died in the 90's. You guys cannot even get anyone to debate with you anymore. The whole movement has turned into a joke.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Pac looks 100% Gurage. All Ethiopian have told me that.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
bump! A great thread.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Have been plugging along with this, developed a flowchart and a near match R1b1b2 subclade table. I won't bother sharing either or continuing this investigation and here's the reason why.
Industry insider Thomas Krahn, of FamilyTreeDNA, is sure the DSC's 16 STR pherogram screen is "most likely a control sample from haplogroup R."
quote: Thomas Krahn FTDNA's Genomics Research Center Thomas Krahn is a Member of FTDNA's Scientific Advisory Board. Thomas is the Technical Laboratory Manager of FTDNA's Genomics Research Center in Houston. Graduated from the Technical University of Berlin with an MSC (Dipl. Ing.) in biotechnology and genetics. Thomas specializes in complex kinship testing and family reconstructions. He is an expert in developing new molecular biological methods and assays to resolve questions of biological heritage.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
One of the versions on King Tut's DNA. Several versions were posted. NONE listed his HG. The idiots were looking at stock footage.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The actual DNA info for Tut's family is here:
quote:Originally posted by Hammered-brains: Brada just must be an escapee from a mental institution. He goes out of his way to look just as ignorant as he possibly can.
Ignorant how? Brada simply pointed out how many of these so-called scholars in denial like yourself refuse to color the Egyptians in the same rich dark (black) color the Egyptians painted themselves.
quote:The issue is resolved. the whole black egypt afro studies thing died in the 90's. You guys cannot even get anyone to debate with you anymore. The whole movement has turned into a joke.
You're right about ONE thing. The issue has been resolved a long time ago. The Egyptians were native Africans which means they were 'black'. Plain and simple. There is 'Afrocentric' or otherwise movement or trend involved. Just FACTS. And all the FACTS point to the same conclusion. Egypt is in Africa and its peoples were indigenous NOT some European farmer migrants! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Pac looks 100% Gurage. All Ethiopian have told me that.
Tupac even looks like Somali deputy prime minister Sharif Sheikh Adan
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
For your review please read from pg1
Gad was on this team. He should have access to its data unrevealed to the public at the time the research was published. Him releasing R1b just seems like relying on the old media screen leak. For now no one knows.
Gad's recent release's still kept under wraps though other chapters of the book it's in are online. Gad's team is large. I expect data data data. Yet the prepub based on the book chapter reads like a commentary on the past when it comes to Tut's MSY and it has no data or methodology supplements.
Time passages since 2010 have developed new techniques to extract aDNA. I'd imagine anyone in 2020 to use them for SNiP recovery and analysis.
For the sensationalists: As it stands, contrary to Schu there were aDNA investigations of various AE mummies before her team's. The Amarna royalty is African black and Ramses&Son, especially son, are heavily so per the STaR data. The Abusir el Meleq non-royals are foreign and much more mixed according to full genome findings. One sample set (royals) is southern of various locales. The other (commons) is all from further north than Fayyoum.
Blacks ruling 'non-blacks'?!? 21st sociology can't stand the thought.
^Making sense of Schuenamann2017 and Hawass2010/2012.
=-=
Anyway don't over expect from Gad his main purpose is medical.
I expect in conformation with well known history, archaeology, physical & cultural anthropology, and pathology that enough scattered testing will reveal an ancient 00-26 Dyn Egypt of * Nile African preponderance from at least Asyut southward, * 'Libyan' African from there northward and * complemented by east/north by east Mediterranean folk Fayyoum northward.
Always remember like any First World political economy ancient Egypt was cosmopolitan and unlike today's 1st and 2nd World nations it wasn't xenophobic nor had a race based bottom caste of freed slave desendants. There're enough wills to show Asiatic slaves were often married into their owners' family with protection clauses. There was one legitimate Asiatic vizier if not pharaoh in the Middle Kingdom. Unlike the 'Libyan' element Aamu established no legitimate dynasty ruling all Egypt.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Just for reference since the old Smithsonian links are dead, you can find the old photos of Mangbetu Head binding with a woman who is a splitting image of some Amarna portraits. Keep in mind that the Mangbetu are from Central Africa and we have been seeing hints of Central African influence in the 18th dynasty.
For whatever reason the whole collection of Eliot Elisofon's photos was taken offline and replaced with bits and pieces, including those related to hair and head binding.
Bumped up for its relevance to the newer Amarna genetics study.
Also for a correction I meant to make that is long over-due!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tut's headshape is not dolichocephalic. KV55's head shape is also not dolichocephalic. How do I know? I used to think that for years, but over the years (beginning with Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements) we've learned more. Ironically, it's Yuya's head shape that is dolichocephalic.
Swenet is correct, and his post above reminded me to make this correction! From the Hawass 2010 paper that this thread is about: With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.
I, like many people, am guilty of eyeball anthropology-- making assumptions based on certain images or photos.
Without actually getting the full picture...
or more specifically the measurements.
This is why accurate information is always a necessity not a luxury and especially when it comes to Africanist scholarship which is already being undermined by disinformation!
By the way, for what it's worth not only is brachycephaly found in Africa, it is ironically most prevalent among Bantu speakers of Central Africa.
This is not to say Tut resembles Bantus as he clearly does not!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:J Forensic Sci
. 2009 Sep;54(5):985-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01118.x. Epub 2009 Aug 3. Cranial nonmetric variation and estimating ancestry* Joseph T Hefner PMID: 19686390 DOI:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01118.x
Abstract
Historically, when predicting the ancestry of human skeletal remains, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the variation within human populations, but instead have relied on a typological, experience-based approach.
Nothing wrong with eyeball anthropology its called non-metrics and even the untrained can see Tut's head isn't narrow when viewed from above the proper way to determine skullcap shape. Thing is cranial indices aren't reliable indicators of ancestry and neither length or breadth of the skullcap are part of nonmetrics nor morphoscopy.
Length breadth and their index are worthless in determining ancestry in modern anthropology.
=-=
If indeed he's the canopics' model then Tut does resemble Kenyan baNtu.
This face and shape are common enough among Kikuyu.
Remember Bantu is language not precise physical features.
=-=
Again, an Africanist is a professional that studies Africa. Seligman with all his racialisms was an Africanist. Doc Ben constantly harped about the damage white Africanist pose to Afrikan people and consequently independent Afrikan researchers eschew the term and don't identify with it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Bumped up for its relevance to the newer Amarna genetics study.
Also for a correction I meant to make that is long over-due!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tut's headshape is not dolichocephalic. KV55's head shape is also not dolichocephalic. How do I know? I used to think that for years, but over the years (beginning with Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements) we've learned more. Ironically, it's Yuya's head shape that is dolichocephalic.
Swenet is correct, and his post above reminded me to make this correction! From the Hawass 2010 paper that this thread is about: With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.
I, like many people, am guilty of eyeball anthropology-- making assumptions based on certain images or photos.
Without actually getting the full picture...
or more specifically the measurements.
This is why accurate information is always a necessity not a luxury and especially when it comes to Africanist scholarship which is already being undermined by disinformation!
By the way, for what it's worth not only is brachycephaly found in Africa, it is ironically most prevalent among Bantu speakers of Central Africa.
This is not to say Tut resembles Bantus as he clearly does not!
I didn't make the correction in 2010, either. I just made a mental note of the Hawass data, but I didn’t know how to reconcile it with Tut’s side-view pictures and other data. I only made the correction when I learned that my own source of 18th dynasty head shape (Harris and Wente) used the wrong formula to calculate cephalic index. (They used cranial length and cranial height and wrongly called it "cranial index").
Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
As far as your cranial index maps showing Siwans with hyperdolichocephaly. If you can loan it at a library I recommend Briggs for his observations about his Siwan sample and his breakdown of headshape in (Stone Age) North Africa. If you haven't already. Credit goes to Bass for bringing Briggs to my awareness again.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I didn't make the correction in 2010, either. I just made a mental note of the Hawass data, but I didn’t know how to reconcile it with Tut’s side-view pictures and other data. I only made the correction when I learned that my own source of 18th dynasty head shape (Harris and Wente) used the wrong formula to calculate cephalic index. (They used cranial length and cranial height and wrongly called it "cranial index").
I had the exact same thinking as you! When the Hawass study came out, I was confused and questioned their findings though I didn't outright deny it again due to the fact that they actually measured the skull and despite whatever bias they had it would be stupid to fabricate something like cephalic index. As for the Harris & Wente studies, I too found out that they mislabeled their cranial vertical or height-length index as cephalic index back when I went over their formulas for facial flatness after our discussion years back here.
quote:Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
There were so many reconstructions of Tut, it's a little hard to keep track of them all much less rely on which one is most accurate.
quote:Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
Yes, Susan Anton is one of those I trust the most since she was double-blinded and didn't even know that it was Tut's skull she was working on. She says his skull shape is African while his facial aspect looked European. I wonder if the African shape she was referring to was the PBD.
quote:As far as your cranial index maps showing Siwans with hyperdolichocephaly. If you can loan it at a library I recommend Briggs for his observations about his Siwan sample and his breakdown of headshape in (Stone Age) North Africa. If you haven't already. Credit goes to Bass for bringing Briggs to my awareness again.
I don't recall Lloyd Cabot Briggs' description of Siwans so please elucidate what you mean. I do remember Coon's description of Siwans being both "hyper-dolichocephalic and platycephalic" as shown here.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't recall Lloyd Cabot Briggs' description of Siwans so please elucidate what you mean. I do remember Coon's description of Siwans being both "hyper-dolichocephalic and platycephalic" as shown here.
In a quote Bass posted on another forum, Briggs basically said that his Greek period Siwan sample resembles one of the main phenotypical stocks (i.e. Type B) he had isolated in the Maghrebi samples through visual sorting. To this stock he also linked predynastics, Shuqbah Natufians, some individuals in the so-called "Kenya Capsian" and early Neolithic remains from Greece.
As you know, Angel also linked some of these exact same samples when he said they are admixed with "predecessors of Badarians and Tasians". Except Briggs also adds the Siwan sample as being close. One major difference between Angel and Briggs is that Angel seems to see them as coming from Nubia, while Briggs sees Type B as a Eurasian transplant. You can get a basic summary of Briggs' views in chapter 2 of this book.
When you read through those pages, you'll see he makes an interesting observation. He compares the hybridized Type A + B + C Maghrebi sample to "the people of Hotu". This is the same Mesolithic Hotu Cave sampled by Lazaridis et al, which has the highest percentage of Basal Eurasian, so far.
Quote: "This type is a purely local North-west African phenomenon, morphologically quite unlike any other well-known prehistoric group except perhaps the people of Hotu in northern Persia (Angel, 1952), who very probably represent only another local re- combination of genes derived from the same basic ancestral complexes."
His full discussion of these prehistoic stocks, and his comments on the Siwa sample, are in the other book.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Same Siwa sample (Derry 1927) as the one used by Briggs, but different book (Barry Kemp).
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Pac looks 100% Gurage. All Ethiopian have told me that.
Tupac even looks like Somali deputy prime minister Sharif Sheikh Adan
A lot of Somalis and other Horners swear by that Sean Combs Puff is Somali.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
A message from S.O.Y. Keitha.
Ancient Nubia Now: Nubia, Egypt, and the Concept of Race
Dr. Shomarka Keita, Research Affiliate in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, discusses race and antiquity through his perspective as a biological anthropologist.
Cranial indices like these only make sense in determining affinity in comparison to similar metrics from other groups of populations in contemporary times and modern times. Just using them in isolation makes no sense. So for example,what is the relationship between the Amarna skulls and other Dynastic mummies from the 18th dynasty? Then how do they plot in comparison to contemporary populations in Lower Sudan and Upper Egypt? Then further out from that core Nile Valley cluster, how do they compare to contemporary populations in the Levant and then Europe. And finally how do they compare to populations in these same areas today.
Anything else is almost meaningless and this is the reason why the one off use of cranial measurements to determine "racial" or population affinities fell out of favor in the 19th century as quackery. Yet given the historical use of such measurements from the Nile Valley we would have a comprehensive database of cranial values that could be used for more comprehensive analysis......
Unfortunately this same model of one off data extends into DNA as well with their one off DNA studies in isolation that really don't tell you enough to actually understand anything. But folks like Reich love pushing the idea that their labs can reconstruct all human history from a handful of DNA samples. And if that means pandering to certain folks with their sensational papers of limited value because of the lack of ancient DNA, then so be it. "Basal Eurasian" is a perfect example of the problems with using limited data sets.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
There were so many reconstructions of Tut, it's a little hard to keep track of them all much less rely on which one is most accurate.
quote:Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
Yes, Susan Anton is one of those I trust the most since she was double-blinded and didn't even know that it was Tut's skull she was working on. She says his skull shape is African while his facial aspect looked European. I wonder if the African shape she was referring to was the PBD.
I think all the reconstructions of Tut totally miss the mark, even Antons. None of them capture the facial features of the mummy mask which should be seen as a benchmark for accuracy in facial tissue reconstruction from skeletal remains.....
Which tells me these people are just determined to make up alternative facts when the existing data and evidence doesn't suit their agenda. You got the mummy and you got the facemask plus various photos of them removing the skull from the mask. Yet they insist there isn't enough data to understand what he looked like given all that plus the other artwork of the 18th dynasty.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
quote:"It is estimated that these changes in ‘heat adapted’ genes occurred over a time frame of 12,000 to 30,000 years (Young et al. 2005).
(Clark Spencer Larsen - 2010, A Companion to Biological Anthropology)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
The Mesolithic history of the Nile Valley is mostly centered on so-called "Nubia" such as sites near Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba and so forth. But this archaeological and cultural period (20kya to 10kya) is full of conflicting and contradictory reports. That is a bigger issue in the way archaeology has depended on various techniques to define eras, groups and cultures and has been prone to error. On one hand cultures like the Halfan and Qadan are called "Egyptian" but on the other hand other sites in the same areas are called "Nubian". We know where this goes given the historical discourse. Part of it definitely involves the question of how much of the Neolithic culture in this area evolved from local Mesolithic traditions (Wadi Halfa, wild grain harvesting, etc) and how much was "imported". Note that even with the importance of these historical eras to the evolution of Nile Valley society, they are not called "North African" and more often than not, younger sites in Coastal North Africa are the focus for typical North African "neolithic" populations, even though the Nile Valley has over 20,000 years of continual evolution towards Neolithic behaviors.
Just do a search for "Mesolithic Nubian" and a whole bunch of papers come up talking about the "shift" in skeletal morphology among these groups.
But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
Also, on the variability of cephalic index among populations, here is a study from West Africa:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
Which image "on the left" are you talking about?
In the left side of the color photo there is a skull that has a number of archaic features.
Then there is an outline drawing to the far lefthand side. This outline drawing is not Nubian. It's an outline drawing of a picture of a Neanderthal. Their use of Neanderthals as a stand-in for Mesolithic Nubians just shows you how these people think and how presumptuous they are. (There is possibly also deception at play since Mesolithic Nubians have a profile that is not ortochnatous and so the morphological gap has been downplayed by the use of this Neanderthal for the superimposed drawing). As I mentioned already, this outline drawing is printed in a number of anthropology textbooks as a flagship example of "in situ cranio-facial evolution".
Like I said, mainstream science routinely makes up narratives of "in situ evolution" to bridge the morphological gap with nearby samples that turn out to be totally unrelated.
It's precisely because Mesolithic Nubians have archaic features (to some degree), that they were assigned bogus ancestral evolutionary status relative to less robust and younger predynastic Nubians. So, the archaic features you see are consistent with how Mesolithic Nubians actually look, otherwise academics wouldn't have placed them in a bogus evolutionary relationship with predynastic Nubians.
You can see the image here in another publication. I don't know the original publication.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
What image "on the left" are you talking about?
In the left side of the color photo there is a skull that has a number of archaic features.
Then there is an outline drawing to the far lefthand side. This outline drawing is not Nubian. It's an outline drawing of a picture of a Neanderthal. Their use of Neanderthals as a stand-in for Mesolithic Nubians just shows you how these people think and how presumptuous they are. As I mentioned already, this outline drawing is printed in a number of anthropology textbooks as a flagship example of "in situ cranio-facial evolution".
Like I said, mainstream science routinely makes up narratives of "in situ evolution" to bridge the morphological gap with nearby samples that turn out to be totally unrelated.
It's precisely because Mesolithic Nubians have archaic features (to some degree), that they were assigned bogus ancestral evolutionary status relative to less robust and younger predynastic Nubians. So, the archaic features you see are consistent with how Mesolithic Nubians actually look, otherwise academics wouldn't have placed them in a bogus evolutionary relationship with predynastic Nubians.
You can see the image here in another publication. I don't know the original publication.
I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
But yes I was talking about the left skull in the image on the right. I have not been able to find it anywhere in any other papers on Mesolithic Nubian skulls. Most of the papers I have seen have more "modern" looking skulls not that "radically" different than the later neolithic skulls. I wanted to see more of these "archaic" mesolithic Nubian skulls.
Between these two papers I see the discussion of "local evolution" as a result of diet as impacting cranio facial features.
Again, it sounds like the same issue of making sweeping conclusions based on limited data. The oxford paper I posted earlier pointed out the limited number of Mesolithic remains from Lower Sudan.
That said, "in-situ" is a loaded term as it can refer to the changes to material subsistence strategies in a region or population, biological and physical changes to a population over time or both. Right now the biggest reason that Mesolithic Lower Sudan and Upper Egypt are so important is due to the evidence surrounding the evolution of subsistence strategies leading up to and during the Neolithic.
Thanks for the link, looks like they are trying to get some more ancient DNA from ancient Lower Sudan.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that as a rule, academics don't know what they are doing when it comes to the main drivers of morphological variation.
People on this site focus on academic mishandling of ancient Egypt and don't know the cheating, deception and incompetence is not unique to Egyptology. It's all over the place.
Even Neanderthals turn out to not be a subspecies in their own right as their mtDNA pools are fully sapiens/AMH (not local). No doubt they're just another case of population change brought about by ghost populations (sapiens), while their morphological features are being advertised as an "in situ" development.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that as a rule, academics don't know what they are doing when it comes to the main drivers of morphological variation.
People on this site focus on academic mishandling of ancient Egypt and don't know the cheating, deception and incompetence is not unique to Egyptology. It's all over the place.
Even Neanderthals turn out to not be a subspecies in their own right as their mtDNA pools are fully sapiens/AMH (not local). No doubt they're just another case of population change brought about by ghost populations (sapiens), while their morphological features are being advertised as an "in situ" development.
Yes, the more I look at it, the more I see that these people don't understand diversity. Especially in old population groups which have a lot of inter and intra population diversity. It just throws their whole system for a loop. So in the ancient Nile Valley, because of the age of the populations there, you would expect to see a lot of diversity in features and metrics. But these folks like to use broad categories as their standard data model which generalize features across large areas and populations and then try and fit the data to that model. And of course it always comes out wrong..... Africa being so vast and relatively under populated it is easy for clumps of features to arise overtime in various groups versus whole regions and populations being morphologically the same. You see this elsewhere in places like the Pacific and parts of South Asia. Their models just cannot handle that. And lets not talk about the huge variability in these populations also having overlap with other more distant populations due to historic events of migration and shared ancestry. Race is simply one example of these broad over generalizations they like to make and it won't get much better with DNA.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Yes that is true, but many times they just cover up these problems with "sweeping" theories of migration involving "new races" that just isn't accurate either. Migration and movement are a given but scale and scope affect how much of an impact depending on time period and location. This is part of the problem along the Nile. You had sparse population sites spread out over large areas that moved due to climate and migratory patterns. Because the area was so sparsely populated you still had clumps of features, cultural practices and tool kits that would have been distinct among various groups. So depending on what sites get found determines the picture you get, but instead of these guys keeping their conclusions localized to the sites they find, they make sweeping conclusions as if EVERYBODY in the same region was doing similar things at the same time, which totally isn't supported by such limited data.
And it is even worse with DNA, especially as you go back.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
Swenet, you are absolutely correct! This is why I have been doing research on Out-of-Asia peopling of the Americas. It's because I see some very striking parallels with the Out-of-African movements to Eurasia which as you know happened in multiple waves not just one!
We know that much morphological diversity has been lost during the Holocene and what we see today is only a small fraction of that diversity. We see living vestiges here and there like the Ainu in Japan or the Saami in Scandinavia.
This is why I am starting to see your point that African diversity goes beyond the division of Sub-Saharan and North African which does hold some basis. There is no telling what type of genetic diversity Africa had during the Late Pleistocene let alone how much of this spilled out into Southwest Asia or even Europe.
Tukuler is right that haplogroups only tell one-half of the story (paternal lineages and maternal lineages each telling one-quarter), the autosomal data tells the other half but you have to put it together and there are all these ghost populations popping up in the autosomal data.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
At the end of the day I see it as they just cannot accept that human diversity starts with and is deeply rooted in Africa and OOA. While they will accept the ultimate origin of humans in Africa, they have problems with the practical implications. Their minds are too focused on typologies involving supra-regional clusters of distinct features (ie. race) and sweeping movements of said groups in ancient times as the basis for all human diversity. It is ridiculous. They just cannot say simply that the populations in Africa were extremely diverse and as they left at different times there were different features that went on to further evolve into even more diverse clusters in places like South East Asia, the Pacific and so forth.... And of course the modern version of this is the idea of Neanderthals and Denisovans as this "magic population" that disappeared in ancient times but not before somehow finding and mating with every single human that left Africa. Which is a way of saying Eurasians really didn't get their diversity from Africans. Or, in Africa, "real Africans" can't have straighter hair and genes also found in Europe.....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The problem is how people are interpreting African genetic and phenotypic diversity.
On the one hand you have Eurocentrics who emphasize the diversity but then try to pigeonhole populations and say this population is "Eurasian" (read: Caucasoid) or Eurasian related while the other population is Sub-Saharan (read: Negroid) and that's it.
On the other hand you have [some] Afrocentrics who ignore the diversity and claim that all Africans are homogeneous and that even the Egyptians fall into some modern "Bantu" cultural-linguistic category.
I think the answer lies somewhere between these two extremes.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Yes that is true, but many times they just cover up these problems with "sweeping" theories of migration involving "new races" that just isn't accurate either. Migration and movement are a given but scale and scope affect how much of an impact depending on time period and location. This is part of the problem along the Nile. You had sparse population sites spread out over large areas that moved due to climate and migratory patterns. Because the area was so sparsely populated you still had clumps of features, cultural practices and tool kits that would have been distinct among various groups. So depending on what sites get found determines the picture you get, but instead of these guys keeping their conclusions localized to the sites they find, they make sweeping conclusions as if EVERYBODY in the same region was doing similar things at the same time, which totally isn't supported by such limited data.
And it is even worse with DNA, especially as you go back.
I agree. And I try to avoid that by calling samples specifically by name (e.g. Raqefet Natufians vs generalizing the recent Natufian sample to all Natufians). One DNA sample does not define the variation that exists in a culture. This is why paying close attention to the skeletal remains is important. The range of variation tells you what you can expect from any future aDNA. The range of variation of Natufians is far more uncertain than the range of variation of AE.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Swenet, you are absolutely correct! This is why I have been doing research on Out-of-Asia peopling of the Americas. It's because I see some very striking parallels with the Out-of-African movements to Eurasia which as you know happened in multiple waves not just one!
We know that much morphological diversity has been lost during the Holocene and what we see today is only a small fraction of that diversity. We see living vestiges here and there like the Ainu in Japan or the Saami in Scandinavia.
This is why I am starting to see your point that African diversity goes beyond the division of Sub-Saharan and North African which does hold some basis. There is no telling what type of genetic diversity Africa had during the Late Pleistocene let alone how much of this spilled out into Southwest Asia or even Europe.
Tukuler is right that haplogroups only tell one-half of the story (paternal lineages and maternal lineages each telling one-quarter), the autosomal data tells the other half but you have to put it together and there are all these ghost populations popping up in the autosomal data. [/qb]
And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.
BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populations Durvasula1 and Sriram Sankararama Science Advances 12 Feb 2020: Vol. 6, no. 7, eaax5097 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax5097
Abstract
While introgression from Neanderthals and Denisovans has been documented in modern humans outside Africa, the contribution of archaic hominins to the genetic variation of present-day Africans remains poorly understood. We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans. Using a method that can identify segments of archaic ancestry without the need for reference archaic genomes, we built genome-wide maps of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba and the Mende populations. Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations that represent potential targets of adaptive introgression. Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
^So Lioness, the Anunaki story is real?
And everybody. May you have a prosperous 2021.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Yappy New Hear!
The beat goes on.
A couple videos from the core group of folks promoting these unified models of sweeping ancient changes and movements in ancient times(actually not so ancient in most cases as they focus on the Neolithic)
CSHL Keynote; Dr. Svante Pääbo, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Svante Paabo: "We are so obsessed with Neanderthals basically because they are the closest evolutionary relative of all present day humans. So if we want to define ourselves from a genetic of physiological perspective as a group is really them you should compare ourselves to. Its also rather interesting that they were here rather recently 40,000 years ago or so. So its interesting how they related to modern humans when they appear.". Subtext: "The Neanderthals define modern humans".
CARTA: Exploring the Origins of Today's Humans - Jean-Jacques Hublin Joshua Akey Iain Mathieson The first and most interesting part discusses archaic humans in Africa. The rest is the Eurasian archaic/human admixture model which omits the fact that all these archaic hominids started in Africa in the first place and were still present even after the birth of AMH. Not to mention it implies that every single human that left Africa somehow immediately went to eugenic breeding camps right near the border of Africa, before moving on to the rest of Eurasia. So human diversity outside of Africa didn't start with Africans.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqX72KvH15E
Then you got this one where the talk about early modern human behaviors over 100,000 years ago in Africa, but then show photos of Eurasians, which didn't exist (12:45) CARTA presents Anthropogeny: The Perspective from Africa - Lyn Wadley Sarah Wurz Judith Sealy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIgDOLo9sbQ Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: ^So Lioness, the Anunaki story is real?
And everybody. May you have a prosperous 2021.
If this is going where I think it is, you are a sharp man. Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Doug M: Svante Paabo: "We are so obsessed with Neanderthals basically because they are the closest evolutionary relative of all present day humans. So if we want to define ourselves from a genetic of physiological perspective as a group is really them you should compare ourselves to. Its also rather interesting that they were here rather recently 40,000 years ago or so. So its interesting how they related to modern humans when they appear.". Subtext: "The Neanderthals define modern humans".
THis has heavily been the main thrust of European scientists, and popular Euro culture. Hence the popular images of evolution usually feature the pale-skinnad shaggy Neanderthal before morphing into a pale-skinnad white person, "role model" of "normality."
Racialist scholars Harpending et al. made much of Neanderthals in their book "The 10,000 Year Revolution"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The plot tickens. Human origins in crisis..? Are Neanderthals, heidelbergensis and erectus just hybrid archaics with varying degrees of AMH/sapiens DNA?
(Just found this new 2020 article while searching for any sign that scientists are beginning to admit the failures of their models).
Neanderthal Y DNA so far turns out to be AMH after the mtDNA pool was already proven to be AMH.
"amazing! you could put them in a suit and you wouldn't know they were any different if they walked past"
Yeah, no wonder with all that sapiens DNA
I see the implications are perfectly clear to them, because denial is already at the forefront of their minds. They waste no time trying to reassure the bandwagon and deny any danger to the narrative:
quote:Only a few percent of the rest of the Neanderthal genome appears to be made up of modern human DNA, yet this study found that three different Neanderthal individuals, unearthed at sites spread across Eurasia and dating to periods tens of thousands of years apart, all carried modern human–like Y chromosomes.
IMO one of the most interesting but low-key detail here is that the 'pre-Neanderthals' (Sima de los Huesos), who look more archaic than real Neanderthals, have Denisovan mtDNA, while the real Neanderthals, who look much more like sapiens, have sapiens mtDNA and apparently sapiens Y-DNA:
quote:In 2017, he and colleagues analyzed material from a very early group of Neanderthals and revealed their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to be more similar to the Denisovan mitochondrial genome.
It seems to me that Denisovans were something like Asian cousins of Sima de Los Huesos. The latter where then influenced by African AMH, which gave rise to Neanderthals who were more sapiens-like in morphology, uniparentals, autosomes and behaviour (unlike their predecessors' tools, Neanderthal Mousterian tools are in the same ball park as African MSA tools).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The plot tickens. Human origins in crisis..? Are Neanderthals, heidelbergensis and erectus just hybrids with varying degrees of sapiens DNA?
(Just found this new 2020 article while searching for any sign that scientists are beginning to admit the failures of their models).
Neanderthal Y DNA so far turns out to be AMH after the mtDNA pool was already proven to be AMH.
"amazing! you could put them in a suit and you wouldn't know they were any different if they walked past"
Yeah, no wonder with all that sapiens DNA
I see the implications are perfectly clear to them, because denial is already at the forefront of their minds. They waste no time trying to reassure the bandwagon and deny any danger to the narrative:
quote:Only a few percent of the rest of the Neanderthal genome appears to be made up of modern human DNA, yet this study found that three different Neanderthal individuals, unearthed at sites spread across Eurasia and dating to periods tens of thousands of years apart, all carried modern human–like Y chromosomes.
IMO one of the most interesting but low-key detail here is that the 'pre-Neanderthals' (Sima de los Huesos), who look more archaic than real Neanderthals, have Denisovan mtDNA, while the real Neanderthals, who look much more like sapiens, have sapiens mtDNA and apparently sapiens Y-DNA:
quote:In 2017, he and colleagues analyzed material from a very early group of Neanderthals and revealed their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to be more similar to the Denisovan mitochondrial genome.
It seems to me that Denisovans were something like Asian cousins of Sima de Los Huesos. The latter where then influenced by African AMH, which gave rise to Neanderthals who were more sapiens-like in morphology, uniparentals, autosomes and behaviour (unlike their predecessors' tools, Neanderthal Mousterian tools are in the same ball park as African MSA tools).
They are basically extending the definition of human to include Denisovans and Neanderthals. Either way it is the same game. Muddy the water and introduce all these other "archaic" humans to distinguish African humans from Eurasian humans. Even though all hominids come from Africa and all humans come from Africa, they still got to put Eurasia in there somehow as the origin of something.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Out of Africa hypothesis gained rapid acceptance in the late 1980s
The Out of Africa hypothesis gained rapid acceptance in the late 1980s, with pioneering analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which revealed very low mean nucleotide variation between the mtDNA of individuals from diverse populations (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987). This suggested that the species was young, since one interpretation of low levels of variation is that there was a genetic bottleneck in the recent past, such as would occur at speciation, and little time since then for subsequent variation to accrue. Moreover, the fact that more variation occurred in African groups suggested Africa as the source.
Modern thinking on Out of Africa began in the 1970s with the argument that because fossils phenotypically resembling recent humans are found in Africa earlier than anywhere else, “modern humans” originated there (Protsch 1975). Gunter Bräuer (1978, 1984) subsequently used new evidence to argue that Europeans must be of African descent. However, in arguing for African ancestry, neither Protsch nor Bräuer contended that early humans of modern form in Africa implied unique African origins. The Out of Africa hypothesis— the idea of an African origin for a recent modern human species—owes its genesis to interpretations of mtDNA, which suggested that the ancestors of recent humans first appeared in Africa and replaced other populations because they were a new species that did not interbreed (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987; Stoneking and Cann 1989). This model of replacement without mixture in the process of recent human origin was accepted by some paleoanthropologists (Stringer and Andrews 1988) and remains an influential model in the early 2000s.
THE GENETIC FOUNDATIONS The Out of Africa hypothesis, the theory of a recent unique African origin for the modern human species, was supported by early interpretations of the variation of mtDNA (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987; Stoneking and Cann 1989). Advances in gene sequencing technology in the 1980s provided the techniques to sequence the mitochondrial genome, and Rebecca Cann initially compared mtDNA variants from representatives of several different populations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.
Yes, well not only have I always been independent minded and always questioned things but I know that despite whatever errors scholars of the past had I knew they weren't wrong about everything. You basically take what's accurate and correct and leave the rest alone. This goes equally for early Africanist scholars like Cheikh Diop as it is does for white supremacist scholars like Carleton Coon. To put it simply, whatever erroneous theories or conclusions they may have had, you can't dismiss the objective material data they both collected.
And yeah, I've always questioned the in situ change theory as well. It never made sense how Mesolithic Nubians and late Holocene Egypto-Nubians could be the same people as if craniofacial changes that drastic could happen in so short a time. And I recognize the same exact patter with Paleo-Americans as you pointed out.
quote:BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
I have yet to read the entire paper but it wouldn't surprise me that mainstream science is lying again. It's not like the first time. Recall how lithic industries were originally measured and still today often named by what happened in Europe, as if all early human development was based on Europeans. And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Swenet do you believe in a multiregional hypothesis but occurring inside various parts of Africa?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Many multiregionalists are intellectually dishonest and kept changing their ideas to be able to stay in the race and compete with OOA. (If you don't believe me, see Tishkoff's work; she called them out in the 90s for changing their claims as they were losing the OOA vs multiregionalism debate).
So, there is no one single multiregionalism (just like there is no one single OOA theory).
Define what you mean with 'multiregionalism'.
Keep in mind that Eurasia plays the part of an equal in multiregionalism (all versions of multiregionalism denied a special role for Africa in the origins of sapiens). Therefore, multiregionalism is debunked and people should be careful with giving it legitimacy by reusing or reviving it in 2021.
If you're going to respond, you can make a new thread. This is getting too far off topic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Many multiregionalists are intellectually dishonest and kept changing their ideas to be able to stay in the race and compete with OOA. (If you don't believe me, see Tishkoff's work; she called them out in the 90s for changing their claims as they were losing the OOA vs multiregionalism debate).
So, there is no one single multiregionalism (just like there is no one single OOA theory).
Define what you mean with 'multiregionalism'.
Keep in mind that Eurasia plays the part of an equal in multiregionalism (all versions of multiregionalism denied a special role for Africa in the origins of sapiens). Therefore, multiregionalism is debunked and people should be careful with giving it legitimacy by reusing or reviving it in 2021.
If you're going to respond, you can make a new thread. This is getting too far off topic.
No, I'm not talking about traditional multiregionalism that talks about human beings establishing independently in various parts of the world
I'm asking do you believe it to be the case inside Africa, that human beings inside Africa are not all related, they are different types of Africans who arose independently from one another inside Africa, there is no transition of one type into another
Maybe a variant term would have to be created
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
How would that work without isolation or some scenario where movement on the continent was restricted? Because it would be weird to have one species that does they something (humans.) and they vastly diffs and lack any kind of interaction.
Posted by One Third African (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe.
There are records of certain hunter-gatherer societies developing greater complexity (and even social hierarchy) than you'd expect from Hadza-style egalitarian nomadic bands. Certain Native American cultures of the Pacific Northwest come to mind, as does the culture that built Gobekli Tepe. I would not be too shocked if such complex societies developed at various periods in human prehistory during the Pleistocene as well as the Holocene.
That said, my understanding is that paleoanthropologists have actually been moving away from the supposition that humans only became behaviorally modern during a sudden "revolution" that led to the LSA/UP. This paper might be of interest:
quote:Proponents of the model known as the “human revolution” claim that modern human behaviors arose suddenly, and nearly simultaneously, throughout the Old World ca. 40–50 ka. This fundamental behavioral shift is purported to signal a cognitive advance, a possible reorganization of the brain, and the origin of language. Because the earliest modern human fossils, Homo sapiens sensu stricto, are found in Africa and the adjacent region of the Levant at >100 ka, the “human revolution” model creates a time lag between the appearance of anatomical modernity and perceived behavioral modernity, and creates the impression that the earliest modern Africans were behaviorally primitive. This view of events stems from a profound Eurocentric bias and a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African archaeological record. In fact, many of the components of the “human revolution” claimed to appear at 40–50 ka are found in the African Middle Stone Age tens of thousands of years earlier. These features include blade and microlithic technology, bone tools, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, the use of aquatic resources, long distance trade, systematic processing and use of pigment, and art and decoration. These items do not occur suddenly together as predicted by the “human revolution” model, but at sites that are widely separated in space and time. This suggests a gradual assembling of the package of modern human behaviors in Africa, and its later export to other regions of the Old World. The African Middle and early Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record is fairly continuous and in it can be recognized a number of probably distinct species that provide plausible ancestors for H. sapiens. The appearance of Middle Stone Age technology and the first signs of modern behavior coincide with the appearance of fossils that have been attributed to H. helmei, suggesting the behavior of H. helmei is distinct from that of earlier hominid species and quite similar to that of modern people. If on anatomical and behavioral grounds H. helmei is sunk into H. sapiens, the origin of our species is linked with the appearance of Middle Stone Age technology at 250–300 ka.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
???
The point is that mainstream science is using deceptive labeling to keep the LSA/UP phase confined to 50ky and later. Industries that are vaguely or substantially or even essentially LSA/UP-like have been found along the entire length of the duration of the MSA/MP.
This new trend in mainstream science of fawning over the richness of African MSA cultures does not rectify LSA/UP-like industries being deceptively obscured by lumping them with MSA/MP.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
Posted by One Third African (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ???
The point is that mainstream science is using deceptive labeling to keep the LSA/UP phase confined to 50ky and later. Industries that are vaguely or substantially or even essentially LSA/UP-like have been found along the entire length of the duration of the MSA/MP.
This new trend in mainstream science of fawning over the richness of African MSA cultures does not rectify LSA/UP-like industries being deceptively obscured by lumping them with MSA/MP.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
OK, it sounds like your beef is with how archaeologists have been partitioning their chronology. Frankly, I don't see why you think something nefarious on the part of the archaeological community has to be going on here. All the data you cite seem to be saying is that there is considerable technological overlap between the MSA and LSA, to the point where you seem to think these shouldn't be considered separate time periods at all. And fair enough, all chronological divisions are socially constructed anyway. But I seriously doubt most archaeologists or paleoanthropologists are going to be that invested in defending outdated chronology.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I think you're perfectly aware of what is going on here. This is why you're misrepresenting the issue twice now, even though the quote states in crystal clear language what the issue is, and what is at stake.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
I don't see how this could be reduced to "beef about subjective partitions and social constructs".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
To refocus after the shameless derail attempts...
The LSA/UP is artificially constrained to 50-10ky. Not because the evidence demands it, but because they desperately need the MSA/MP to be ancestral to the LSA/UP.
But LSA/UP-like industries before 50ky are exposing that the MSA/MP is not ancestral:
Mellars (1991: 246) defines it as ‘fully “Upper Palaeolithic” in al- most every recognized technological and typo- logical sense’.
This is an open secret among these people. They know that LSA/UP-like industries can even underlie (ie be older than) layers containing local MSA/MP industries. But they just lump everything older than 50ky together as 'MSA/MP' to get rid of the inconvenience.
Can't beat them .... join them?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To refocus after the shameless derail attempts...
The LSA/UP is artificially constrained to 50-10ky. Not because the evidence demands it, but because they desperately need the MSA/MP to be ancestral to the LSA/UP.
But LSA/UP-like industries before 50ky are exposing that the MSA/MP is not ancestral:
Mellars (1991: 246) defines it as ‘fully “Upper Palaeolithic” in al- most every recognized technological and typo- logical sense’.
This is an open secret among these people. They know that LSA/UP-like industries can even underlie (ie be older than) layers containing local MSA/MP industries. But they just lump everything older than 50ky together as 'MSA/MP' to get rid of the inconvenience.
Can't beat them .... join them?
In other words, the timelines are based on when humans left Africa and another example of an artificial split between Africans and everybody else.. Therefore, historically it has been associated with the "revolution" of human behavior, presumably aligned with the arrival of humans to Europe as if there was something different and "special" about the homos in Eurasia versus those in Africa. Obviously they are still working hard to maintain that view.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In other words, the timelines are based on when humans left Africa and another example of an artificial split between Africans and everybody else.. Therefore, historically it has been associated with the "revolution" of human behavior, presumably aligned with the arrival of humans to Europe as if there was something different and "special" about the homos in Eurasia versus those in Africa. Obviously they are still working hard to maintain that view.
You're correct, but I see that as different issue from the fact that movements of ghost populations are being mistaken as 'in situ change'. (In this case, the 'in situ change' is supposed to be local MSA/MP groups 'waking up' and becoming modern in behaviour and cognition).
But you're correct that the 50ky date is Europe centric. Based on:
-mtDNA L3 (L3 is 70ky old) -Toba eruption (happened 70ky ago) and -the sudden proliferation of LSA-like industries ~70ky
Based on these things we know that, if there is any special moment of flourishing of sapiens behaviour, it should be 70ky, not 50ky (which, like you said, is shamelessly Eurocentric).
Ten separate occurrences of Howiesons Poort industries in southern Africa have been dated by single-grain OSL techniques to between∼59 and 65 ka (54), with an apparently precocious occurrence of a similar industry recently dated to∼71 ka at thesite of PP5-6 at Pinnacle Point on the South African Cape coast(47). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initialmodern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/26/10699.full.pdf
^Map showing the proliferation of mtDNA L3, mtDNA L0f1? and Y-DNA A3b-L427? peoples (among others) visible in the archaeological record as rapid appearance of LSA-like sites 70-50ky ago.
But my point with all of this is that the flourishing around 70ky is not because of any fundamental behavioural/biological change, but because the Toba eruption wiped out a lot of archaics, allowing sapiens to colonize much of the world in the aftermath. (And, therefore, to become more visible in the archaeological record). My point is that scientists are ignoring that LSA peoples were there all along. They are desperately trying to force LSA peoples in a narrative of "in situ change" from 'ancestal' MSA to 'newly evolved' LSA. And they need the date of the 'in situ transition' to be 50ky for personal reasons, so they pin it at 50ky.
But the most important point in all of this is the hidden migrations (especially of mtDNA L3 peoples) that are the REAL reason for these archaeological changes after 70ky. Scientists are too far down the rabbit hole of "in situ change" and denial to notice these migrations. That is the point right now.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hew Swenet, is there anyway you can send me the full Vishnyatsky paper? Also, what happened? What post was deleted?? Was it 'Lioness' again?
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Ok the childish antics between you two ends here. Both posts have been deleted, you two can ignore each other from this point forward.
If anyone has a complaint about modship(including particular mods but please have a specific incident) they can bring it to me directly.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Hew Swenet, is there anyway you can send me the full Vishnyatsky paper? Also, what happened? What post was deleted?? Was it 'Lioness' again?
This is the second time my posts got deleted after I got provoked by someone and the post of the person provoking me was left unmoderated. I'm done here.
I've just sent you the paper via PM.
Enough with you two
[ 03. January 2021, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: In other words, the timelines are based on when humans left Africa and another example of an artificial split between Africans and everybody else.. Therefore, historically it has been associated with the "revolution" of human behavior, presumably aligned with the arrival of humans to Europe as if there was something different and "special" about the homos in Eurasia versus those in Africa. Obviously they are still working hard to maintain that view.
You're correct, but I see that as different issue from the fact that movements of ghost populations are being mistaken as 'in situ change'. (In this case, the 'in situ change' is supposed to be local MSA/MP groups 'waking up' and becoming modern in behaviour and cognition).
But you're correct that the 50ky date is Europe centric. Based on:
-mtDNA L3 (L3 is 70ky old) -Toba eruption (happened 70ky ago) and -the sudden proliferation of LSA-like industries ~70ky
Based on these things we know that, if there is any special moment of flourishing of sapiens behaviour, it should be 70ky, not 50ky (which, like you said, is shamelessly Eurocentric).
Ten separate occurrences of Howiesons Poort industries in southern Africa have been dated by single-grain OSL techniques to between∼59 and 65 ka (54), with an apparently precocious occurrence of a similar industry recently dated to∼71 ka at thesite of PP5-6 at Pinnacle Point on the South African Cape coast(47). Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initialmodern human colonization of southern Asia https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/26/10699.full.pdf
^Map showing the proliferation of mtDNA L3, mtDNA L0f1? and Y-DNA A3b-L427? peoples (among others) visible in the archaeological record as rapid appearance of LSA-like sites 70-50ky ago.
But my point with all of this is that the flourishing around 70ky is not because of any fundamental behavioural/biological change, but because the Toba eruption wiped out a lot of archaics, allowing sapiens to colonize much of the world in the aftermath. (And, therefore, to become more visible in the archaeological record). My point is that scientists are ignoring that LSA peoples were there all along. They are desperately trying to force LSA peoples in a narrative of "in situ change" from 'ancestal' MSA to 'newly evolved' LSA. And they need the date of the 'in situ transition' to be 50ky for personal reasons, so they pin it at 50ky.
But the most important point in all of this is the hidden migrations (especially of mtDNA L3 peoples) that are the REAL reason for these archaeological changes after 70ky. Scientists are too far down the rabbit hole of "in situ change" and denial to notice these migrations. That is the point right now.
Very astute observations, along with the image showing previous coastal areas likely sunk in ancient times.
However, these people still can't give up the idea of Neanderthal mixture even when the evidence says these behaviors were fundamentally African and had nothing to do with "Neanderthals"......
quote: The Toba volcanic super-eruption and human evolution
The current study reports on a unique 80,000 year-long stratigraphic record from the Dhaba site in northern India's Middle Son Valley. Stone tools uncovered at Dhaba in association with the timing of the Toba event provide strong evidence that Middle Palaeolithic tool-using populations were present in India prior to and after 74,000 years ago. Professor J.N. Pal, principal investigator from the University of Allahabad in India notes that "Although Toba ash was first identified in the Son Valley back in the 1980s, until now we did not have associated archaeological evidence, so the Dhaba site fills in a major chronological gap."
Professor Chris Clarkson of the University of Queensland, lead author of the study, adds, "Populations at Dhaba were using stone tools that were similar to the toolkits being used by Homo sapiens in Africa at the same time. The fact that these toolkits did not disappear at the time of the Toba super-eruption or change dramatically soon after indicates that human populations survived the so-called catastrophe and continued to create tools to modify their environments." This new archaeological evidence supports fossil evidence that humans migrated out of Africa and expanded across Eurasia before 60,000 years ago. It also supports genetic findings that humans interbred with archaic species of hominins, such as Neanderthals, before 60,000 years ago.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
