quote:My initial response was to dismiss this as mere hearsay until the paper has been published. But to hear the people on Anthrogenica tell it, the poster who shared this "leak" has a reliable track record.
Based on some pca plots which I've seen (but can't publish), I can say that Old Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_Neolithic samples and Mid Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_BA samples. New Kingdom samples seem to be closer to Old Kingdom samples. I don't have any idea about when related paper(s) will be published.
quote:I would expect native North Africans (aka "Basal Eurasians"), without any significant back-to-Africa ancestry, to plot where Taforalt is on this PCA chart below.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
What do you think indigenous North Africans looked like autosomally?
What do you think of "Basal Eurasian"?
How on earth do you find this proximity to ancient Near easterners so significant without much context to the metrics? Especially after posting this.
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
quote:Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
quote:Maybe Elmaestro could do it if he has time.
Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
quote:He's already done it with the Abu Sir samples.
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:Maybe Elmaestro could do it if he has time.
Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
quote:Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
quote:Definitely did... even did the late Egyptian Roman migrant guy.
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:He's already done it with the Abu Sir samples. [/QB]
Originally posted by One Third African:
[Maybe Elmaestro could do it if he has time.
quote:I can't remember where I posted the Abusir results but I can just replicate them. I can post something raw quick and dirty using the Abusir samples, if you guys want... Don't really have the time to neaten things up.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@MansaMusa
I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the North Africans shifting more towards the roman-Egyptian cluster for two reasons.
one: is that both components among north Africans somewhat peak in the same population or person. for example the sahawari, then the Morrocan Ifrane Berbers score the most IAM and Roman-Egyptian among North Africans... that is not the Negative correlation I'd expect if IAM ancestry is being wiped out by the newer invading components.
two: The Roman Egyptian can be modeled just fine as IAM + EEF...code:So it is likely to me that IAM like ancestry in North Africans are being absorbed by that Roman Egyptian component because of the post-Gasfian EEF ancestry from southern Europe 3-5Kya.chisq tail prob Ifri_n_Amr Greece_Peloponnese England_EMBA Natufian
5.128 0.400465 15.60% 84.40% 0.00% 0.00%
1.373 0.927208 35.70% 0.00% 64.30% 0.00% BEST
I do find it interesting that Taforalt and IAM form their own cluster entirely though. Those Fst distances were really no joke.
quote:Mythical how so? If BE didn't exist than what explains the decrease in neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East and whats do we call all of the ancestry thats attributed to BE?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Well... Are you saying that Taforalt is a good representation of BE? If so, couldn't someone here just test an Ancient Egyptian genome for Taforalt DNA? This would show how much AE is BE...
Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:I guess the trick then is to figure out how much AE ancestry is BE and how much of it is genuinely Eurasian?
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Didn't ancient Levantines have significant Basal Eurasian ancestry anyway, so Ancient Egyptians plotting close to them should be expected no? Rather than AEs having significant Non African ancestry maybe its shared ancestry
.
quote:Egyptians of any time period should plot "close" to the Levant because Egypt is next to the Levant.
Originally posted by One Third African:
Today I saw this post on Anthrogenica.
quote:My initial response was to dismiss this as mere hearsay until the paper has been published. But to hear the people on Anthrogenica tell it, the poster who shared this "leak" has a reliable track record.
Based on some pca plots which I've seen (but can't publish), I can say that Old Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_Neolithic samples and Mid Kingdom samples are closer to Levant_BA samples. New Kingdom samples seem to be closer to Old Kingdom samples. I don't have any idea about when related paper(s) will be published.
You guys think this could be another northern Egyptian sample? How do you expect ancient Upper Egyptian and Nubian samples to plot on a PCA like this?
EDIT: Cut out a lot of insecure ranting towards the end of my OP. It made me look like an anxious fool.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
quote:Neanderthals were in the middle east but were not breeding with humans until in later other locations
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Mythical how so? If BE didn't exist than what explains the decrease in neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East and whats do we call all of the ancestry thats attributed to BE?
quote:I second this.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Dog this ain't bout to be a refugium degenerate posting.
quote:Maybe you should dial it back so you don't get your post erased on Anthrogenica. Were all of your post erased?
Originally posted by Treday:
quote:Ok....so it's clear that many of the people here on Egyptsearch are also happy members of Anthrogenica, forum biodiversity aka lil Stormfront for whatever reason.It's just like the "Doja cat" situation with a lot y'all and these white supremacist on those Nazi boards.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:I second this.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Dog this ain't bout to be a refugium degenerate posting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR0x05Z0Ngg
You have Africans and so called "black people" cheering on a racist anti black redneck from the swamps of Florida who is trying to write black people out of history with his racialization of genetics. For y'all to go out of your way (thanking every single reply to my post) support that nonsense against me (a brother arguing the truth) is some agent crap plain and simple. I'm glad that many people have noted that there is an attempt to push only genetic research on this board and in this discussion on the illusion of a more sophisticated form of information. In reality it's nothing than geeky forum blog babble and codified nonsensible acronyms. That's something that I cannot see myself getting down with.
I again challenge ANYBODY to prove me wrong on my main arguments. If y'all ain't willing to do that then when it comes to me duck your head down and in the words of CdaGod "Shut the F up forever".
I know that y'all know me, and I'm a hit list from a couple of white supremacist lap dogs for actively promoting facts that are deemed as Afrocentrism. Please understand that the feeling is mutual. I think that most of what y'all argue in regards to genetics is sciolist gibberish. If a conversation runs parallel in both forums then why not relay the information. Is the OP not literally bringing over RUMORS of a study from another board? So you have to miss with me with any of that. I will take ANY OF YOU out in a debate on my stance, and y'all know that by now. You don't like me stay out of way, and I will do the same with you. Dr. Clyde, XYman and a few others have the correct mindset in view of these discussions.
quote:You're right, I shouldn't get upset over this sort of stuff. We'll have to wait and see what the paper says, if it gets published anytime soon. Would be nice if they had phenotypic data to share too.
Why are you nervous if I may ask? Culturally southerners were an African people, racially these people were (originally) phenotypically black. Unless you're one of those people who thinks cultural prowess or racial identity is embedded in some kind of a "genetic identity" I don't see why what their genetics say matters.
quote:Im not 100% sure but i would probably say North East Africa so, B
Originally posted by the lioness,:
@SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco
b) Egypt/Sudan
c) India
d) Libya
e) Spain
f) Anatolia
g) Central Asia
h) Gobero
i) the Arabian peninsula
j) The Horn of Africa
k) none of the above
quote:Southern Egypt was heavily impacted by flow from the South from the beginning and all throughout dynastic history. There are multiple lines of evidence for this. A cline between Egypt and the Levant has existed since prehistory because humans have been traveling from Africa into the Levant since forever. The likelihood is that there has always been some level of shared ancestry between the two groups. Therefore finding "Levantine" lineages in ancient populations along the Nile does not imply migrations of Levantines. But that would require honest research not promoting agendas.
Originally posted by Ase:
It depends on the location of the site and understanding sites selected within a proper understanding of their local history. First dynasty Abydos is in southern Egypt and had a heavy inflow of northerners. So what do you think would happen if an article claimed to sample first dynasty abydos? They'd probably say there was a substantial near eastern component among indigenous southern Egyptians. Depending on the graves they chose, you could even get an entirely NE sample. A lack of (or misrepresented) local history is pretty common with every AE genetic study I've read so far. To allow viewers a proper understanding of what they were reading would've made for fewer headlines...I doubt they'd let me down now.
Getting a decent understanding of what an indigenous southern Egyptian would've originally been like genetically cannot occur by simply examining random sites, not even in southern Egypt. History of the sampling site needs to be disclosed as well. That's how we got the whole problem with Dakleh and Abusir: Two sites that technically can be considered "Upper Egyptian" but had evidence of contact with Near Easterners, Libyans and Lower Egyptians. This is in my mind how you can get the genetic data Keita was posting, while this the stuff being talked about here is also true. If I'm honest I imagine that indigenous southerners had Near Eastern ancestry by the end of the predynastic due to their contacts with the north, and that many northerners had much more NE ancestry, if they weren't completely NE. But culturally, the development of Egyptian civilization and presence of local Egyptian kings predate the political unification of Northern Egypt by many hundreds of years. Ultimately, I don't think SSA components in the south are all that deniable. We'll see how it goes though.
Why are you nervous if I may ask? Culturally southerners were an African people, racially these people were (originally) phenotypically black. Unless you're one of those people who thinks cultural prowess or racial identity is embedded in some kind of a "genetic identity" I don't see why what their genetics say matters.
quote:Of course they deleted everything lol. I bodied them one by one on their own turf. lol look at the message that the admin wrote to save face. The COli is the new place for true Afrocentrics though. A lot of old Egyptsearch folks on there fyi.
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:Maybe you should dial it back so you don't get your post erased on Anthrogenica. Were all of your post erased?
Originally posted by Treday:
quote:Ok....so it's clear that many of the people here on Egyptsearch are also happy members of Anthrogenica, forum biodiversity aka lil Stormfront for whatever reason.It's just like the "Doja cat" situation with a lot y'all and these white supremacist on those Nazi boards.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:I second this.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Dog this ain't bout to be a refugium degenerate posting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR0x05Z0Ngg
You have Africans and so called "black people" cheering on a racist anti black redneck from the swamps of Florida who is trying to write black people out of history with his racialization of genetics. For y'all to go out of your way (thanking every single reply to my post) support that nonsense against me (a brother arguing the truth) is some agent crap plain and simple. I'm glad that many people have noted that there is an attempt to push only genetic research on this board and in this discussion on the illusion of a more sophisticated form of information. In reality it's nothing than geeky forum blog babble and codified nonsensible acronyms. That's something that I cannot see myself getting down with.
I again challenge ANYBODY to prove me wrong on my main arguments. If y'all ain't willing to do that then when it comes to me duck your head down and in the words of CdaGod "Shut the F up forever".
I know that y'all know me, and I'm a hit list from a couple of white supremacist lap dogs for actively promoting facts that are deemed as Afrocentrism. Please understand that the feeling is mutual. I think that most of what y'all argue in regards to genetics is sciolist gibberish. If a conversation runs parallel in both forums then why not relay the information. Is the OP not literally bringing over RUMORS of a study from another board? So you have to miss with me with any of that. I will take ANY OF YOU out in a debate on my stance, and y'all know that by now. You don't like me stay out of way, and I will do the same with you. Dr. Clyde, XYman and a few others have the correct mindset in view of these discussions.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Since you don't like it here so much. The doors wide open. Spread your garbage somewhere else.
quote:Well they can be hot shit somewhere else. Anyways, lets get back on topic people.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
These dudes coming here thinking they're hot sh#t....
quote:
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Since you don't like it here so much. The doors wide open. Spread your garbage somewhere else.
quote:l) all of the above except k
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco
b) Egypt/Sudan
c) India
d) Libya
e) Spain
f) Anatolia
g) Central Asia
h) Gobero
i) the Arabian peninsula
j) The Horn of Africa
k) none of the above
quote:Wait, but how could it have simultaneously originated in India, Anatolia, Spain, the Horn of Africa and all those other places?
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:l) all of the above except k
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco
b) Egypt/Sudan
c) India
d) Libya
e) Spain
f) Anatolia
g) Central Asia
h) Gobero
i) the Arabian peninsula
j) The Horn of Africa
k) none of the above
quote:I like this answer.
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:l) all of the above except k
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco
b) Egypt/Sudan
c) India
d) Libya
e) Spain
f) Anatolia
g) Central Asia
h) Gobero
i) the Arabian peninsula
j) The Horn of Africa
k) none of the above
quote:Do you mind explaining how that makes sense?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:I like this answer.
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:l) all of the above except k
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] @SlimJim, if a basal eurasian existed but no longer does where did it originate?
a) Morocco
b) Egypt/Sudan
c) India
d) Libya
e) Spain
f) Anatolia
g) Central Asia
h) Gobero
i) the Arabian peninsula
j) The Horn of Africa
k) none of the above
quote:Let me first say that after reading the Wiki entry twice I still don’t completely understand why Basal Eurasian exist as a concept. Supposedly this is the explanation as to why Neanderthal ancestry peaks in less diverse populations instead of areas where Neanderthals lived and it also explains where all this Eurasian ancestry posted and diversified before breading with Neanderthals.
Originally posted by SlimJim:
Do you mind explaining how that makes sense?
quote:Recall this PC chart showing the Taforalt position between modern Afar and Yemenis before North Africans.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Taforalt individuals are considered by those who believe in the Max Planck Institute's mythological Basal Eurasians likely direct descendants of this population but not closer to them than Holocene-era Iranians
Taforalt, Morocco
Four U6 individuals here
.
quote:I still don't understand how its that different from
Originally posted by Swenet:
Damn. The data is cold if you on the wrong side of the truth.
Reminds me of Mboli et al who mainly use Middle Egyptian in their analyses, under the assumption they were working with the 'original' Egyptian language. Only to find out the time period in question had a short-lived (but widespread ) spike of Central African influences across the board in Egyptian society.
Man, that's cold. If that's your life work.
quote:There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch. The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt. We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
Welcome back Swenet and yea I think I remember posting that the Egyptian language had Chadic influence.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean, but you cannot tell haplogroup arrival times from haplogroup split times or node TMRCAs. You cannot tell from the dates listed in your chart, when different haplogroups arrived where they are found today. I tried to explain in the other thread. You have to use the other chart that shows the tree structure and breakdown (the funnels or triangles, their height, their resolution, and so on).
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
I still don't understand how its that different from
You can really see it in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOMFk_pi6tc&ab_channel=42Tribes [/qb]
quote:It says that only one Egypt-specific lineage was found and dated so far. So how can you have a chart showing two dated Egyptian-specific E-M2? You have 72 and 73, which are associated with one haplogroup, and you have 71. The authors say in that quote, that they only acknowledge the variation associated with 72 and 73 as a dated Egypt-specific haplogroup. They do not accept 71 as an Egypt-specific haplogroup.
In
this context, although the large majority of the geo-
graphically restricted lineages come from sub-Saharan
regions, we also found two northern African-specific
clades, namely E-V5001 and E-V4990. E-V5001 has only
been found in Egypt, is one of the sister clades within
the E-M4727 multifurcation and coalesced at 3.88 kya.
quote:Whoa....
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch.
quote:There are some people who believe E-M2 is not only North African but the people who carry it come from that region. But man..... I have a feeling that E-M2 is going to surprise a lot of people in the future.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt.
quote:Wait... Are you saying that this may in fact have some truth to it?
Originally posted by Swenet:
We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
I keep hearing that part of the Bantu migration theory needs to be revised. quote:I think I heard before that people from the Middle Kingdom had more "southern influence." I bet that racist article wrote them off as just invading Nubians.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
quote:What "adjustments" do you mean? You seemed to have been rather confident in your past views.
Originally posted by Swenet:
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2CHVw6twM
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
quote:Is there a possible link?
Originally posted by One Third African:
Bumping this...
I suspect this is going to be another northern Egyptian sample, since kolgeh mentioned a shift towards Bronze Age Levantines in affinity during the Middle Kingdom (which would be consistent with migration events we know led to the Hyksos takeover). Though, of course, we don't even know how reliable a source he is.
quote:lol I don't think anyone here thinks or believes that.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Not sure why anybody would be shocked to see African gene flow into or out of the Nile Valley in ancient times. Its common sense really. Especially when you consider the alternative model proposed by Euro idiots who claim that ancient North Africa was some kind of genetic and cultural apartheid zone separate from the rest of Africa. This especially ties into the concept of Bantus in that it uses Bantus as the origin of all African history, culture and technology South of the Sahara. As if to say Sub Saharan African history only started a few thousand years ago. All of which is complete and utter nonsense. So sure, while some are happy to see the links between the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa, it should be noted that African history, culture, technology and evolution did not start with Bantus. Africans have been traveling across Africa since 200,000 years ago and all human technology, culture and history starts in Africa.
quote:Let's take this to PM I'll respond later on tonight.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
@Swent You should come back to the FB group because we been discussing the Ancient Egyptian language "Bantu" and Afro-Asiatic loan words. Very interesting discussions. Anyways....
quote:Whoa....
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch.
quote:There are some people who believe E-M2 is not only North African but the people who carry it come from that region. But man..... I have a feeling that E-M2 is going to surprise a lot of people in the future.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt.
quote:Wait... Are you saying that this may in fact have some truth to it?
Originally posted by Swenet:
We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
To clarify are you saying that "Bantus" could've migrated from an area southwest of Egypt?
quote:I think I heard before that people from the Middle Kingdom had more "southern influence." I bet that racist article wrote them off as just invading Nubians.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
quote:What "adjustments" do you mean? You seemed to have been rather confident in your past views.
Originally posted by Swenet:
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2CHVw6twM
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
quote:The way I see it, there are only two North African-specific haplogroups given by the paper. All the other E-M2 carried by Egyptians in your chart is not supposed to be counted as Egyptian-specific E-M2, unless they have accumulated local E-M2 variation. But the study didn't clarify that and so these Egyptian E-M2* are unusable. They are just placeholders to be clarified by later studies.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
@ Swenet
I hope you saw the corrections replacing my earlier errors.
Nodes rep for cumbersome haplogroup marker designations.
In other words they are haplogroups. Redux F2 shows major
node marker names added in red, node 71 is M4727 eg.
The node numbers are to correlate material when cross
referencing the various figures and tables as seen when
Supplemental Table 3 is posted alonside Figure 2b.
BTW I left out young <400 yr old Maghreb
samples and markers out of the phylo redux.
The best place to see markers, unsampled nodes, dates
and carrier regions is Supplemental Figure S4:E-M2 but
the specific ethnies sampled in a region are not there
and region can mislead as to origin, language, etc.
https://i.postimg.cc/5yz8kk8Z/D-Atanasio2018-SF5-ST5-E-M2-M4727x-ES.png
All E-M2 in this research is from E-M4727 unless it's basal
or outlier V4257 (node 70). E-M4727* as detected in the
samples is undated. E-M4727 'itself' gets a ~11k date,
BEAST vs Rho differs but not by much.
Here's the Egyptian markers and others who carry it.
https://i.postimg.cc/htG5P679/D-Atanasio2018-ST5-E-M2-Egy-ESa.png
https://i.postimg.cc/GhXXNKS9/D-Atanasio2018-ST5-E-M2-Egy-ESb.png
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000063
Originally posted by capra:
that's not known to be a clade and it doesn't have a coalescent age (unless i am missing something?). and Madjingay n=15. [/QB]
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000066
Originally posted by capra:
all the paragroups are shown fanning out from the root, not half way down like known but undated clades. because they don't know whether the paragroups actually form a clade or where they branch off. i see nothing to suggest any of them were sequenced, otherwise they'd be put on proper branches. they were genotyped in the big sample set after new variants had been discovered by sequencing the smaller set AFAICT.
so the E-M2* samples could have branched off before or after the E-M2 root in the diagram. they could be 1 young sister branch of E-CTS10066 or 3 thirty thousand year old basal branches of E-M2. who knows.
after 10 000 years there's only so much modern diversity can tell you. though admittedly i haven't looked at it properly yet.
quote:Okay, I'll make sure my PMs are cleared out.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Let's take this to PM I'll respond later on tonight.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
@Swent You should come back to the FB group because we been discussing the Ancient Egyptian language "Bantu" and Afro-Asiatic loan words. Very interesting discussions. Anyways....
quote:Whoa....
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch.
quote:There are some people who believe E-M2 is not only North African but the people who carry it come from that region. But man..... I have a feeling that E-M2 is going to surprise a lot of people in the future.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt.
quote:Wait... Are you saying that this may in fact have some truth to it?
Originally posted by Swenet:
We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
To clarify are you saying that "Bantus" could've migrated from an area southwest of Egypt?
quote:I think I heard before that people from the Middle Kingdom had more "southern influence." I bet that racist article wrote them off as just invading Nubians.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
quote:What "adjustments" do you mean? You seemed to have been rather confident in your past views.
Originally posted by Swenet:
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2CHVw6twM
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
quote:.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The way I see it, there are only two North African-specific haplogroups given by the paper. All the other E-M2 carried by Egyptians in your chart is not supposed to be counted as Egyptian-specific E-M2, unless they have accumulated local E-M2 variation. But the study didn't clarify that and so these Egyptian E-M2* are unusable. They are just placeholders to be clarified by later studies.
We cannot take the nodes these unstudied E-M2* are on, and say the haplogroups with the asterisks behind them arrived in Egypt when nodes came into existence. These Egyptian E-M2* are total unknowns and the age of their nodes tells us nothing about them. At best the nodes provide their upper age boundaries. That is what I meant when I said "nodes are not haplogroups".
As Capra tried to explain:
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000063
Originally posted by capra:
that's not known to be a clade and it doesn't have a coalescent age (unless i am missing something?). and Madjingay n=15.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000066
Originally posted by capra:
all the paragroups are shown fanning out from the root, not half way down like known but undated clades. because they don't know whether the paragroups actually form a clade or where they branch off. i see nothing to suggest any of them were sequenced, otherwise they'd be put on proper branches. they were genotyped in the big sample set after new variants had been discovered by sequencing the smaller set AFAICT.
so the E-M2* samples could have branched off before or after the E-M2 root in the diagram. they could be 1 young sister branch of E-CTS10066 or 3 thirty thousand year old basal branches of E-M2. who knows.
after 10 000 years there's only so much modern diversity can tell you. though admittedly i haven't looked at it properly yet.
Read the rest of his replies. I agree with his reading.
Basically, the E-M2* samples are unknowns. We are not much wiser just because they are placed on a node, and the node is dated.
But, yeah, I agree. The entire paper needs to be considered to come to an understanding. The supplementary E-M2 tree doesn't have all the information.
quote:My bad if I misunderstood.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Those are not my suppositions. Please reread.
For facility, nodes are used to indicate variant
marker SNPs in D'atanasio (2018)'s figures. See
Supplementary Tables 2 and 9 to understand why.
Markers shared by Egyptians and others are
extracted from the table ST 5. Anyone can
go replicate it. In it one can clearly see
all others, including fellow N Afrs, have
no V5001. I shaded out all 0.00 values
for clarity. The posted return includes
Egy specific V5001 and all other E-M2 hgs
in Egypt. Why bother to post a four cell
table? Perhaps markers found in Egypt
is better wording. Yes. I'll rename it.
Supplementary Table 5 isn't meant to show
origin and movement. It tables frequencies
in populations located and of speech as given.
Dates attached to any * 'haplogroup' indicates
how far back the root goes. AFAIK sampled pops'
paragroup are undated as to split else would be
haplogroups with defining variant markers.
V5001 is not the only North African specific
marker though. E-V4990 and V4240 are
Morocco specific, Bouhria and Ouarzazate
taMazight respectively. Omitted nodes 81
82 and 83 (samples 168 & 167 E-V4240)
from my F2b redux because it's only at
best 200 yrs old. V4990 is there at node
80 sample 170.
Those are my suppositions.
Anything else is from someone else.
Let's focus on the current discussion as
I've already retracted errs I made yrs ago.
Markers found in Egypt and shared by others
https://i.postimg.cc/htG5P679/D-Atanasio2018-ST5-E-M2-Egy-ESa.png
https://i.postimg.cc/GhXXNKS9/D-Atanasio2018-ST5-E-M2-Egy-ESb.png
quote:.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The way I see it, there are only two North African-specific haplogroups given by the paper. All the other E-M2 carried by Egyptians in your chart is not supposed to be counted as Egyptian-specific E-M2, unless they have accumulated local E-M2 variation. But the study didn't clarify that and so these Egyptian E-M2* are unusable. They are just placeholders to be clarified by later studies.
We cannot take the nodes these unstudied E-M2* are on, and say the haplogroups with the asterisks behind them arrived in Egypt when nodes came into existence. These Egyptian E-M2* are total unknowns and the age of their nodes tells us nothing about them. At best the nodes provide their upper age boundaries. That is what I meant when I said "nodes are not haplogroups".
As Capra tried to explain:
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000063
Originally posted by capra:
that's not known to be a clade and it doesn't have a coalescent age (unless i am missing something?). and Madjingay n=15.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009885;p=2#000066
Originally posted by capra:
all the paragroups are shown fanning out from the root, not half way down like known but undated clades. because they don't know whether the paragroups actually form a clade or where they branch off. i see nothing to suggest any of them were sequenced, otherwise they'd be put on proper branches. they were genotyped in the big sample set after new variants had been discovered by sequencing the smaller set AFAICT.
so the E-M2* samples could have branched off before or after the E-M2 root in the diagram. they could be 1 young sister branch of E-CTS10066 or 3 thirty thousand year old basal branches of E-M2. who knows.
after 10 000 years there's only so much modern diversity can tell you. though admittedly i haven't looked at it properly yet.
Read the rest of his replies. I agree with his reading.
Basically, the E-M2* samples are unknowns. We are not much wiser just because they are placed on a node, and the node is dated.
But, yeah, I agree. The entire paper needs to be considered to come to an understanding. The supplementary E-M2 tree doesn't have all the information.
That's a fact. It's focus is on HGs found both above
and below Sahra as proxy for AHP Sahra populations,
Sahro-Sudanese and Sahro-Gafsians,whose aDNA goes
almost entirely missing.
The tree isn't meant to include other A, E, or R in
the sampled regions and countries. Other super
HGs are also not reported. Same for the tables.
This may be why it isn't cited much in the literature.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
In
this context, although the large majority of the geo-
graphically restricted lineages come from sub-Saharan
regions, we also found two northern African-specific
clades, namely E-V5001 and E-V4990. E-V5001 has only
been found in Egypt, is one of the sister clades within
the E-M4727 multifurcation and coalesced at 3.88 kya.
quote:Its gravy but
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] A case of knowing enough to think I was right
but not enough to know that I was wrong.
Forty2Tribes please accept
1 - my apologies for the 2018 redux errors
2 - this corrected 2020 redux heeding critique especially from 'Stro.
Only terminal nodes had samples so fewer region, country, and people markups.
UPdated this one too but saw no need to post 'til now.
quote:No biggie. It was not that type of PM, anyway. Just responding to some things.
Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
@Swenet just letting you not ignoring your PM. Been having issues with my computer these past few days. Smdh.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis.
- 06 January 2010
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani
quote:African clade V88 of R1b was discovered in 2010 but in 2011 it was still fresh on the scene
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Funny how years ago people were trying to argue the the R-V88 in the Siwa was due to slavery despite all the logical evidence against it and the obvious evidence of it being native. Now all of a sudden we're gonna see scrambling and misdirection like never seen before.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005309;p=6
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis.
- 06 January 2010
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani
quote:current wikipedia page:
Originally posted by Might Mack (aka Sahel (Siptah):
:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
By Alice Baghdjian
LONDON (Reuters) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.
The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
Unless they have inside confirmation that the screenshot was king Tut's dna, then it's all just speculation.
quote:http://www.igenea.com/forum/threads/the-tutankhamun-dna-project.20/
iGENEA was able to reconstruct the Y-DNA profile of Tutankhamun, his father Akhenaten and his grandfather Amenhotep III with the help of a recording of the Discovery Channel.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
I can understand why you and Cassiterides give credit to this and why you can't comprehend simple English. I mean you need any little evidence you can get to link yourself to Egypt.
quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
I don't need to link myself to Egypt little whiney boy, but it seems you need to 24/7.
quote:____________________________________
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Not only are you stupid you are delusional thinking I am here 24/7... bitch get back to the corner you f-king 2 dollar slut.
quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
I don't need to link myself to Egypt little whiney boy, but it seems you need to 24/7.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:African clade V88 of R1b was discovered in 2010 but in 2011 it was still fresh on the scene
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Funny how years ago people were trying to argue the the R-V88 in the Siwa was due to slavery despite all the logical evidence against it and the obvious evidence of it being native. Now all of a sudden we're gonna see scrambling and misdirection like never seen before.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005309;p=6
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis.
- 06 January 2010
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani
Recall this old thread from August 2011
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005027;p=1
quote:current wikipedia page:
Originally posted by Might Mack (aka Sahel (Siptah):
:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
By Alice Baghdjian
LONDON (Reuters) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.
The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
R1b
R1b1a2
(PF6279/V88;[/b] previously R1b1c)
is defined by the presence of SNP marker V88, the discovery of which was announced in 2010 by Cruciani et al.[48] Apart from individuals in southern Europe and Western Asia, the majority of R-V88 was found in the Sahel, especially among populations speaking Afroasiatic languages of the Chadic branch...
__________________________________
continued:
http://af.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20110801&t=2&i=470600505&w=450&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=BTRE7701DXP00[/IMG]
Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
Unless they have inside confirmation that the screenshot was king Tut's dna, then it's all just speculation.
quote:http://www.igenea.com/forum/threads/the-tutankhamun-dna-project.20/
iGENEA was able to reconstruct the Y-DNA profile of Tutankhamun, his father Akhenaten and his grandfather Amenhotep III with the help of a recording of the Discovery Channel.quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
I can understand why you and Cassiterides give credit to this and why you can't comprehend simple English. I mean you need any little evidence you can get to link yourself to Egypt.quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
I don't need to link myself to Egypt little whiney boy, but it seems you need to 24/7.quote:____________________________________
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Not only are you stupid you are delusional thinking I am here 24/7... bitch get back to the corner you f-king 2 dollar slut.
quote:
Originally posted by Simple Girl:
I don't need to link myself to Egypt little whiney boy, but it seems you need to 24/7.
What is interesting about this whole old thread is that although it was created in 2011, this now well known article below had come out supposedly in July 2010 but people were unaware at that time and the media who published these articles on Tutankhamun with supposed Euroepan DNA that R1b1a2 is R-V88
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani, Beniamino Trombetta, [...], and Rosaria Scozzari
Results and discussion
We resequenced about 0.15 Mb of the MSY for each of the four R1b subjects and found six new mutations (V7, V8, V35, V45, V69, and V88). The V45 mutation is phylogenetically equivalent to M173. Among the other five mutations, V88 defines a new monophyletic clade (R-V88 or R1b1a), which includes haplogroups R-M18 (R1b1a1, formerly R1b1a), R-V8 (R1b1a2), R-V35 (R1b1a3, further subdivided by the V7 mutation to R1b1a3* and R1b1a3a), and R-V69 (R1b1a4) (Figure 1).
_____________________________________
This private somewhat obscure testing company iGENEA still have the page up >>
https://www.igenea.us/en/tutankhamun
they didn't not have the primary data that Hawass had which remained unreleased. They had read alleles from a computer screen in a documentary on Tut ( which was moving blurry in parts) and they predicted not only R1b but M269
Then the media latched on to the leak and in the Reuters article said
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile...
The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2
Tutankhamen was a European hurray harrah !!!
Maybe at one point R1b1a2 was identified as a new clade of R-M269
but what we know today is that is it's own clade,
R-V88 mainly in the Sahel in Chad-Cameroon basin, some southern Europeans have it but few
but how long will it take for iGENEA to get the memo ?
Eupedia has some stuff on it:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Africa
The Levantine & African branch of R1b (V88)
__________________________
So as of now it seems like the new 2020 article not released yet but in pre-print that mentioned R1b is referring to R-V88 but we will have to wait for verification
https://academic.oup.com/hmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223/5924364?redirectedFrom=PDF
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad, Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassan, Dalia M Mousa, Fayrouz A Fouad, Safaa G El-Sayed, Marwa A Abdelazeem, Samah M Mahdy, Hend Y Othman, Dina W Ibrahim, Rabab Khairat ... Show more
Human Molecular Genetics, ddaa223, https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddaa223
Published: 15 October 2020
quote:That's a pretty interesting theory you have there. I recall from old studies like Batrawi that during the Middle Kingdom there was an influx of "negroid" types in Lower Nubia, but what evidence to do you have for the iron working technology or linguistic influence?
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch. The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt. We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
quote:Yes, I think more aDNA studies are needed since I question whether your conjecture totally explains the presence of E-M2 in Middle Egypt or the Delta where the Rammesides are from and who supposedly have nothing to do with the 11th dynasty. What about Benin hbS, which also has a presence in Egypt especially in the Western Desert oases where E-M2 is also found? I recall that while Fulani predominantly carry EM2, they rarely carry the Benin hbS.
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2CHVw6twM
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
quote:Thanks. And I appreciate the Batrawi reference. I believe Reisner had made a similar claim but I never made much of it because he was intellectually dishonest and Keita had wrongly conditioned me to be suspicious of all forms of typology. Now that I have matured in my understanding of anthropology, I see there is nothing wrong per se with intelligent typology (e.g. typology as used by Angel). aDNA shows his brand of typology is generally correct.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Welcome back Swenet! Long time no see.
quote:That's a pretty interesting theory you have there. I recall from old studies like Batrawi that during the Middle Kingdom there was an influx of "negroid" types in Lower Nubia, but what evidence to do you have for the iron working technology or linguistic influence?
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is going to be more good news in store as far as that. Just watch. The E-M2 that was dated as entering Egypt during the Middle Kingdom has closest relatives to Fulani E-M2. That's really why I say Central African; to also include other people (e.g. NC speakers) from that area southwest of Egypt. We could be looking at a northern 'Bantu' migration opposite of the southern one, that involved a number of different people (Chadic, NC, etc). These were Africans with prestigious knowledge (e.g. iron working) who were able to rise in Egyptian society and beyond, because of that (non-Meteoric iron was new or rare in the Mediterranean).
quote:Yes, I think more aDNA studies are needed since I question whether your conjecture totally explains the presence of E-M2 in Middle Egypt or the Delta where the Rammesides are from and who supposedly have nothing to do with the 11th dynasty. What about Benin hbS, which also has a presence in Egypt especially in the Western Desert oases where E-M2 is also found? I recall that while Fulani predominantly carry EM2, they rarely carry the Benin hbS.
The 11th dynasty tombs had a number of more 'southern' looking women compared to contemporary Egyptians. There is an old article describing them but it's filled with racist language so I won't post it. But they were all more negroid than the average Egyptian. There is evidence like this in Middle Kingdom Egyptian society across the board.
But to get back to these supposed aDNA results. They seem to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2CHVw6twM
I might have to make some adjustments to my own views, myself. We'll see.
quote:https://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2009/06/egypt-pan-african-civilization.html
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Alain Anselin La Question Peule, makes it clear that the Fula originated in Egypt. He supports this theory with the obvious similarity between the words for cattle and milk shared by the Egyptians, Fula and Dravidians (Tamil). He believes that by the 12 Dynasty of Egypt Fula were settled in Egypt.
quote:Yeah. The foundations are already set as far as making it possible that African iron diffused to the Mediterranean. Now we just need the archaeology to catch up and give answers. Did it happen or not.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I think you may be on to something as it pertains to the diffusion of iron technology correlating with a northward migration. Mind you iron comes pretty handy in digging up wells from the aquafers of the deserts.
There is still the issue of how an R clade could end up in West Africa the firs place with the presumption that there was a migration of Eurasian descended males prior to the Bantu iron working.
As for the linguistic evidence, I do find it interesting that the Fula speak languages of the Atlantic division of Niger-Congo which is the same division that includes Wolof of Diop's famous lexical parallels with Egyptian.
quote:Yeah Fula would explain West African R but not central African V88.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I think you may be on to something as it pertains to the diffusion of iron technology correlating with a northward migration. Mind you iron comes pretty handy in digging up wells from the aquafers of the deserts.
There is still the issue of how an R clade could end up in West Africa the firs place with the presumption that there was a migration of Eurasian descended males prior to the Bantu iron working.
As for the linguistic evidence, I do find it interesting that the Fula speak languages of the Atlantic division of Niger-Congo which is the same division that includes Wolof of Diop's famous lexical parallels with Egyptian.
quote:no
Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
R1b1b M269 is more frequent in Egypt than anywhere outside of Africa.