quote:This analysis points to this pre-dynastic sample being similar to Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic Moroccans in that they posses a genetic profile vaguely related to both West Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans. More so, they typically fail to yield statistically significant results from two way admixture models of any modern Sub-Saharan and ancient West Eurasian source and the percentages of each cohort vary depending on the comparative samples or method of analysis. Though these North African samples can at times be used interchangeably as an “autochthonous” North African proxy, the two regions (North-West and North-East Africa ) seem to prefer different ancestral proxies themselves. For instance, while North-West Africans like Taforalt can be modeled most significantly with Natufians, AM14590 (the sample ID) of Naqada’s west Eurasian related DNA is most similar to Neolithic Iranians. In fact, it seems that the individual unearthed from one of the Belt Caves, Hotu, shares the most similarity with the “Non-African” portion of this pre-dynastic sample. Though, it could be the case that Hotu’s relatively low SNP count yielded high P values and ancestry estimates due to ascertainment bias, the overwhelming preference of this sample to model the bulk of the pre-dynastic samples ancestry should still be noted. When using the Natufian and Yoruba to model NaqadaI the proportions are more or less identical to that of Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic Moroccans though the p-values are close to null.
you are posting charts made by an anonymous blogger "Stro"
quote:
Pre-dynastic Egyptian DNA: A Sneak Peak into North East Africa’s Distant Past Leave a Comment / Backroom, Genetics, Inquiry & Investigation, Methods & Materials, North East Africa, Uncategorized / By Stro
For the greater parts of a century archaeologists have wrestled with the identity of ancient samples. None more controversial than ancient Egyptians in the last few centuries. Just to add more to the controversial nature of this field of study, there was research published late 2023 by Wurst and colleagues. This study sought to look at diseases in mummified individuals from around the globe. Here I’ll report a preliminary analysis on some of their samples that were pulled from Egypt. One ancient individual in particular from Gebelein dated to and culturally associated with the first Naqada period will be emphasized foremost. I also would like to freely discuss methods in processing ancient data in a series of posts forthcoming...
Here I’ll report a preliminary analysis on some of their samples that were pulled from Egypt. One ancient individual in particular from Gebelein dated to and culturally associated with the first Naqada period will be emphasized foremost...
To see how Pre-Dynastic ancestry was inherited, I calculated potential admixture proportions in East Africans and a few Egyptian samples gathered from outside of Africa. Unfortunately, site information for all samples of the dynastic periods were not available. Therefore I left the Identifiers as “unknown.” Within the other samples I included ancient and modern Nubians27–29 as well as Somalians and an ancient Kenyan30 who had previously shown evidence of having high Ancestral North African related ancestry...
For Naqada’s ancestry estimates I did not follow the methods seen in either Lazaridis 201910 or Loosdrect 20178 to where they excluded African populations in the reference grouping.
Genetic Predisposition of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Ancient Human Remains Authors Christina WURST, Frank Maixner, Alice Paladin, Alexandra Mussauer, Guido Valverde, Jagat Narula, Randall Thompson, Albert Zink
On the upper right the SNP data for Egypt the following samples
Ancient Egypt
2288 / 1958 / 2287 / 1967
these samples are also highlighted below with a green dot in a list of only the Egyptian samples
if you look at the column on the left at number 11 That is the Predynastic Gebelein Naqada sample as it says, (#)1946 unfortunately, it's not one of the green dotted Egyptian samples with SNP data
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you are posting charts made by an anonymous blogger "Stro"
I believe that “anonymous blogger” would be our own Elmaestro. I’ll let him defend his analysis of this data.
I will say, though, that the green dots indicate the presence of a risk allele in the original Wurst article.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I didn't know that is what you meant when you said "Courtesy of our own Elmaestro" I thought he had just called attention to the blog instead of wrote it. You are saying " Predynastic Egyptian genome sequenced" Where? Not by Wurst or Maesto Green circles are risk factors? Yes That predynastic Gebelein didn't get a green dot because information for all samples of the dynastic periods were not available but I did have enough for the phenotype call on skin
quote: "Although no PRSs could be calculated for the Egyptian individuals (due to the reasons mentioned above), a variety of risk alleles for ASCVD were found, dating back to the First Intermediate Period (Ind. 1967: cal BC 2131–1903)."
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Can a mod please feature/pin this topic? It's a pretty big one IMO, despite the lack of discussion so far.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
The lack of posts in this thread really shows that many of you on Egyptsearch have been stagnated and area really BEHIND when it comes to relevant discussions in the African bio-anthro sphere or heck bio-anthro sphere in general. For such a site that CLAIMS they are all about Ancient Egyptian(or African in general) bio-anthro discussions! How the heck does such a bombshell like this lack many replies!?
And yes @BrandonP I will sticky this thread. Its such a damn shame that I even have to.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
This was an interesting read. I was going to reply yesterday but I was waiting for replies to roll in first. Apparently I missed a lot and I wanted to see what the more “tuned in” folks thought the biggest revelations here were, especially if Maestro was going to give more commentary. @askia I think a lot of folks are “chilled” about speaking too soon cause every major drop has been throwing curve balls, especially if you’re a hardliner on these things. I saw this was being teased prior, what would you guys say you expected and didn’t expect from this?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: The lack of posts in this thread really shows that many of you on Egyptsearch have been stagnated and area really BEHIND when it comes to relevant discussions in the African bio-anthro sphere or heck bio-anthro sphere in general. For such a site that CLAIMS they are all about Ancient Egyptian(or African in general) bio-anthro discussions! How the heck does such a bombshell like this lack many replies!?
In fairness, this forum doesn't have that many active users anymore, and people do have lives outside of it. I know DJ for instance is quite busy as a lab technician, even though he'd be one of the posters with the most to say on this topic. The recent attempt on a certain real-estate businessman's life might have also distracted attention from this topic, although personally I'd rather focus on the predynastic Egyptian genetic findings than political stuff right now.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
[/QB]
I just noticed you put in time period "time period added by Brandon P." Is this otherwise an untouched Wurst Table? This table is not in Stro's article in the OP
what are the top categories BW, BX, BY etc
How do we read this table? For instance I see that very dark brown bar "DarktoBlackSkin" 3), 4) It's showing for BOTH Predynastic and Late period
Yet the OK sample, 2) is less Dark, "Dark but exclude "Black" category
7), a Nubian less dark than that a lighter brown color called "Intermediate skin"
How are we to draw conclusions from this? It seems a group of random individuals, not enough to draw conclusions ?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I just noticed you put in time period "time period added by Brandon P." Is this otherwise an untouched Wurst Table? This table is not in Stro's article in the OP
This is his original version (which you can find if you scroll to the very bottom of his article just above the citations). I just added the text in red to make the samples' provenance clearer to laypeople. I didn't doctor the data itself, if that's what you're desperately trying to insinuate.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
Are there any references for the phenotype calls in modern populations or people?
edit: nvm found it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
How accurate are the results,I have'nt read everything but IDK Im at the point where Im weary of anything coming out supporting anything on "our side" so to speak
Also as Brandon pointed out there really are'nt many active users here, plus little academic level engagement/ideologies outside of DJ and Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: The lack of posts in this thread really shows that many of you on Egyptsearch have been stagnated and area really BEHIND when it comes to relevant discussions in the African bio-anthro sphere or heck bio-anthro sphere in general. For such a site that CLAIMS they are all about Ancient Egyptian(or African in general) bio-anthro discussions! How the heck does such a bombshell like this lack many replies!?
And yes @BrandonP I will sticky this thread. Its such a damn shame that I even have to.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
@Askia you're right, just a brief reading shows some pretty big bombs dropped...
Just some of the stuff that caught my eye...
quote:What seems to be the case here is that a grand majority of pre-dynastic ancestry is extinct and not directly related to populations who haven’t directly inherited their lineage, like the modern Egyptians, Copts and other neighbors. Moreover it becomes even more obvious when we take into account that the actual best 3-way admixture model includes Ganj Dareh, Villabruna (a West Eurasian Huntergatherer from Sicily) and a 7 thousand year old East African Hunter-Gatherer from Tanzania’s Kisese rockshelter.50 (actual Best statistics are achieved with hunter-gatherers similar to Kisese II from Nyarindi, Kenya, Hotu and WHG/Villabruna but the former two samples both maintain a fraction of the SNP count.)
.....
quote:The results were not too surprising though not entirely predictable on all fronts. For one, it should be expected that individuals such as the Sudanese Copts would score among the highest amount of this ancestry given their history and genetic profile.28,31–33 For example, though they are dominated by paternal haplogroup J, their culture and genetics are linked to ancient populations of the region and was preserved by their endogamous practices. And given what’s being suggested by the autosomal result of NaqadaI, their frequency of macro-haplogroup B33 shouldn’t be undermined as well. An overall general trend is that later samples, particularly those of the Roman Era show more dilution of pre-dyanastic ancestry despite modern individuals from North East Africa showing signs of recurring pre-dynastic ancestry. The variation is alarming given that such high levels of the indigenous component likely could have been maintained in individuals through out time in the region.
So the Ancestry
1) Seems to be mix of SSa/Eusasian 2) Is Extinct or related to ancestry that is extinct
That's what I got so far...Waiting for the more intelligent posters to comment now..lol
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Also pretty big is in the admixture graph, only one Abusier mummy inherited the Gebelein ancestry, its virtually absent in the Abu sier ancestry...
In regards to the ancestry being similar to Early Neolithic Morrocans...We know that by the Late Neolithic Moroccans were admixed so would this be before the admixture with migrants from Europe
quote:We show that Early Neolithic Moroccans are composed of an endemic Maghrebi element still retained in present-day North African populations, resembling the genetic component observed in Later Stone Age communities from Morocco. However, Late Neolithic individuals from North Africa are admixed, with a North African and a European component. Our results support the idea that the Neolithization of North Africa involved both the development of Epipaleolithic communities and the migration of people from Europe.
Probably does'nt matter tbh, the estimates in the pie graph shows the Gebelein ancestry to be a good mix of Eurasian/SSA...
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@jari
More so North African/SSA but that's another story. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I saw that too lol, yeah the results are pretty big esp given the absence in Abu Sier..
Crazy...
so many different conclusions/discussions to draw from this...
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @jari
More so North African/SSA but that's another story.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: @Askia you're right, just a brief reading shows some pretty big bombs dropped...
Just some of the stuff that caught my eye...
quote:What seems to be the case here is that a grand majority of pre-dynastic ancestry is extinct and not directly related to populations who haven’t directly inherited their lineage, like the modern Egyptians, Copts and other neighbors. Moreover it becomes even more obvious when we take into account that the actual best 3-way admixture model includes Ganj Dareh, Villabruna (a West Eurasian Huntergatherer from Sicily) and a 7 thousand year old East African Hunter-Gatherer from Tanzania’s Kisese rockshelter.50 (actual Best statistics are achieved with hunter-gatherers similar to Kisese II from Nyarindi, Kenya, Hotu and WHG/Villabruna but the former two samples both maintain a fraction of the SNP count.)
.....
quote:The results were not too surprising though not entirely predictable on all fronts. For one, it should be expected that individuals such as the Sudanese Copts would score among the highest amount of this ancestry given their history and genetic profile.28,31–33 For example, though they are dominated by paternal haplogroup J, their culture and genetics are linked to ancient populations of the region and was preserved by their endogamous practices. And given what’s being suggested by the autosomal result of NaqadaI, their frequency of macro-haplogroup B33 shouldn’t be undermined as well. An overall general trend is that later samples, particularly those of the Roman Era show more dilution of pre-dyanastic ancestry despite modern individuals from North East Africa showing signs of recurring pre-dynastic ancestry. The variation is alarming given that such high levels of the indigenous component likely could have been maintained in individuals through out time in the region.
So the Ancestry
1) Seems to be mix of SSa/Eusasian 2) Is Extinct or related to ancestry that is extinct
That's what I got so far...Waiting for the more intelligent posters to comment now..lol
This is all I could glean as well lol. For the most part it’s not too much of a surprise given what we’ve seen previously so I’m guessing the heat is in the phenotype calls in comparison to the admixture breakdown? Or is it more so what it confirms?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I've had more time with this data than most. I'll read along for a bit as I don't want to steer the conversation. If I can I will answer some questions though.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yes, but I def. would not have guessed the lack of the Gebelein ancestry(or Predynastic ancestry for that matter) in Abu Sier, I would have guessed Predynastic ancestry would have a Eurasian strain that would be consistent and match with Abu Sier...the lack of it is pretty big as the only other ancesty that lacks it is outside the Nile Valley(Somali and Lebanon)
Also as cool as the phenotype calls I def. think what its confirming is pretty big...def/ some interesting discussions to be had
One scenario that could be gleamed is that the proto-Afro-Asiatic "Cluster" that many of us here are speculating about...could very well be extinct
another is how the ancestry is peaking consistently in dynastic Egypt but at low levels in Modern Egypt(Though that could be because its only in certain mummies/regions)..
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: This is all I could glean as well lol. For the most part it’s not too much of a surprise given what we’ve seen previously so I’m guessing the heat is in the phenotype calls in comparison to the admixture breakdown? Or is it more so what it confirms?
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I've had more time with this data than most. I'll read along for a bit as I don't want to steer the conversation. If I can I will answer some questions though.
This may be a bit of an ask, but in generalized terms, how would you model the population history of the area w/ the context given by these results? Vague question I know but I’m interested in how far reaching this can be.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
It would be even more awesome if we could get our hands on more predynastic samples to see if their ancestry makeup (or their phenotype calls) all looks like this one.
Anyway, I suspect the reason the software is modeling Gebelein as a SSA/West Eurasian mix is because it doesn't really fit snugly into either population, being intermediate between other Africans and OOAs as DJ would say. Note that the closest-fitting Eurasian proxies are Iranian Neolithic samples which have even more Basal Eurasian than Natufians IIRC.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes, but I def. would not have guessed the lack of the Gebelein ancestry(or Predynastic ancestry for that matter) in Abu Sier, I would have guessed Predynastic ancestry would have a Eurasian strain that would be consistent and match with Abu Sier...the lack of it is pretty big as the only other ancesty that lacks it is outside the Nile Valley(Somali and Lebanon)
Also as cool as the phenotype calls I def. think what its confirming is pretty big...def/ some interesting discussions to be had
One scenario that could be gleamed is that the proto-Afro-Asiatic "Cluster" that many of us here are speculating about...could very well be extinct
another is how the ancestry is peaking consistently in dynastic Egypt but at low levels in Modern Egypt(Though that could be because its only in certain mummies/regions)..
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: This is all I could glean as well lol. For the most part it’s not too much of a surprise given what we’ve seen previously so I’m guessing the heat is in the phenotype calls in comparison to the admixture breakdown? Or is it more so what it confirms?
That’s definitely something that needs more exploration. I wonder how much of the modern genetic landscape is legitimate post-dynastic admixture and how much of it is just Egyptians of different “types” fluctuating in number (if that’s an apt description). Gonna be fun times ahead if we can get more data from more varied locations.
ETA; I have a bit of an “out there” theory (I know) about how Egyptian animosity towards Nubians may have played a role in what we see today but I’ll save it for another thread lol
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Regional variation is definitely a factor to consider, but the near lack of predynastic ancestry in the Abusir el-Meleq mummies makes me wonder if they really do descend from Hyksos or some other Bronze Age Levantine immigrants. I recall Elmaestro saying they resembled Bronze Age Levantine samples quite a while ago.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Regional variation is definitely a factor to consider, but the near lack of predynastic ancestry in the Abusir el-Meleq mummies
what about the approx 15% Naqada (Yellow) of Stro's last sample of the 3 Abusir el-Meleq mummies, #2134?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Regional variation is definitely a factor to consider, but the near lack of predynastic ancestry in the Abusir el-Meleq mummies
what about the approx 15% Naqada (Yellow) of Stro's last sample of the 3 Abusir el-Meleq mummies, #2134?
Notice I said "near".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
15% is significant
Abusir el-Meleq mummy JK 2134 is dated 776-569 BC Y-DNA J mtDNA J1d (one of the 3 full genome tested mummies)
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), among Sudanese Arabs, 67% of Arakien, 43% of Meseria, and 40% of Galilean individuals carry the Haplogroup J. The remainder mainly belong to the E1b1b clade,
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
Great article bro we all appreciate this, really.
What do you make of Somalis scoring no Naqada? This is surprisng to me given the fact that Beni Amer score it and Horners in general derive most of our ancestry from Lower Nubians, if you look at a lot of the material culture we find in Eritrea and Ethiopia they very often show affinities to C group culture, Kerma and Pan Grave culture. Also, I'm sure you're aware that those specific Nubians often cluster with Predynastic Egyptians in craniofacial studies.
Also what do you make of Iranian and WHG being the best proxy? I'm open to the idea that Hotu has North African ancestry given the fact that they score Basal Eurasian and a small Hadza component on admixture. I forgot who it was but one old anthropologist noted similarities between some Iberomaurusian remains and Hotu.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: [QB] Great article bro we all appreciate this, really.
What do you make of Somalis scoring no Naqada?
He also has them modeled at about 55% Dinka, the remainder non-African
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
Throwback to this post from Swenet. He's one of the very few individuals in this sphere that has argued for North African ancestry in Hotu from the beginning.
The Tomb of Two Brothers is an ancient sepulchre in Deir Rifeh, Egypt, [MK] Middle Kingdom (12th dynasty), the chamber tomb of the ancient Egyptian high status priests (NA)Nakht-Ankh and (KN)Khnum-Nakht,
Ancient DNA analysis of the mummies of Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht, found that the brothers belonged to the M1a1 mtDNA haplogroup with 88.05–91.27% degree of confidence, thus confirming the African origins of the two individuals. The presence of M1 in Africa is the result of a back-migration from Asia. The analysis of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosomes made it possible to establish that the two titular brothers were actually half brothers, having the same mother but different fathers. In 2023 Nakht-Ankh's was published by FTDNA under Y-DNA haplogroup H2 (H-Z19008) //discover.familyH-Z19008 haplogrouptreedna.com/y-dna/H-Z19008/notable
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: 15% is significant
Abusir el-Meleq mummy JK 2134 is dated 776-569 BC Y-DNA J mtDNA J1d (one of the 3 full genome tested mummies)
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), among Sudanese Arabs, 67% of Arakien, 43% of Meseria, and 40% of Galilean individuals carry the Haplogroup J. The remainder mainly belong to the E1b1b clade,
In the context of the other samples it’s suspiciously insignificant. We can expect to see a lot of variation from the pre-dynastic given how Egypt was peopled but given the fact of how ubiquitous the pre-dynastic component is in the other samples, clearly this ancestry ended up being characteristic of the population. Something is definitely fishy about the Abusir mummies, hard to imagine how they can be explained away by simple regional variation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@El Maestro on the predynastic remains AM14590, Gebelein, Naqada
is there genetic data available from a specimen sample on this mummy? If so where is it? Is there a table with STRs or other genetic data on it? This is not a rhetorical question, I am trying to figure out the raw data on you are creating these charts as for Naqada. I thought none of it had been tested?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Sorry for the late reply but I've had a busy weekend not to mention that since the attempted assassination attempt on Trump a lot of folks were calling me asking for my views and opinions as if I'm some kind of expert just because I have some knowledge on the occult forces behind the scenes and so-called "conspiracy theorists" like myself have been proven right time again.
Speaking of theorists, it seems this study has also confirmed my hunch as well as that of other posters in this forum. The predynastic Egyptians were indeed the missing link between Epipaleolithic Maghrebi and Epipaleolithic Levantines (Natufians).
Also, that their profile behaves as vaguely in between West Eurasians and Sub-Saharans shows that they appear close to the common ancestor of both.
That this predynastic ancestry was displaced by others or became extinct is not that surprising. Even Swenet brought up the fact that the displacement of indigenous Egyptian ancestry began during the Middle Kingdom with the advent of the Hyksos and hasn't stopped since then.
Also, I would love to read Elmaestro's take on these findings.
Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: What do you make of Somalis scoring no Naqada? This is surprisng to me given the fact that Beni Amer score it and Horners in general derive most of our ancestry from Lower Nubians, if you look at a lot of the material culture we find in Eritrea and Ethiopia they very often show affinities to C group culture, Kerma and Pan Grave culture. Also, I'm sure you're aware that those specific Nubians often cluster with Predynastic Egyptians in craniofacial studies.
If I had to guess, Somali ancestry is diluted enough with Upper Nile and Arabian ancestry that it obfuscates the Proto-Afroasiatic connection they share with predynastic Egypto-Nubians.
quote:Also what do you make of Iranian and WHG being the best proxy? I'm open to the idea that Hotu has North African ancestry given the fact that they score Basal Eurasian and a small Hadza component on admixture. I forgot who it was but one old anthropologist noted similarities between some Iberomaurusian remains and Hotu.
Like I said, Hotu having more BE than Natufians says to me that it's the BE in them that makes them the best "fit" for the Eurasian-related ancestry in the predynastic sample.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Elmaestro
Would it be possible for you to get your findings published in a peer-reviewed journal? I personally don't doubt your credibility, but I believe laypeople would have less reason to dismiss it out of hand if it came in the form of a published scientific paper instead of a blog post with a pseudonymous author.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
To be fair to Itoli, he doesn't seem to be challenging these findings that much. He did say in the Metatron thread that he has basically been arguing both sides of this issue to "pick his brain". In all honesty, that approach of his isn't to my liking, as I'd rather someone take a clear stance on an issue than switch between sides for whatever reason, but at least he doesn't seem that invested in the Eurocentric narrative either.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Fair enough.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: In the context of the other samples it’s suspiciously insignificant. We can expect to see a lot of variation from the pre-dynastic given how Egypt was peopled but given the fact of how ubiquitous the pre-dynastic component is in the other samples, clearly this ancestry ended up being characteristic of the population. Something is definitely fishy about the Abusir mummies, hard to imagine how they can be explained away by simple regional variation.
The Abusir samples come from the Late Period and I and others in this forum, as well as Egyptologists themselves have warned about using them to represent all ancient Egyptians let alone from earlier periods. It was the same case with the Late Period Gizeh samples used as representative of all Egyptians. Many Eurocentrics love to obfuscate by cherry picking certain samples as representative of what they think ancient Egyptians looked like.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
One thing I do wonder about the "dark to black" category in the phenotype calls is whether it recognizes gradients in dark skin. Could we imagine the "dark to black" Egyptians as being mahogany-skinned like the Egyptian characters in the "Table of Nations" sequences, or would the software reserve that category for ebony-skinned people (e.g. the Nubians in those same sequences)? How would someone with a mahogany complexion score compared to someone closer to ebony?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: What do you make of Somalis scoring no Naqada? This is surprising to me given the fact that Beni Amer score it and Horners in general derive most of our ancestry from Lower Nubians, if you look at a lot of the material culture we find in Eritrea and Ethiopia they very often show affinities to C group culture, Kerma and Pan Grave culture. Also, I'm sure you're aware that those specific Nubians often cluster with Predynastic Egyptians in craniofacial studies.
That's the thing, Somalis are NOT a Nile Valley people. The other Horn region groups you mentioned at least live close to the Nile Valley. That Somalis lack Gebelein (Naqada) ancestry is not surprising since although Brace's craniometric study groups Somalis close to Naqada, all non-metric studies show a disparity and even the metric dental studies show Somalis to have crown sizes intermediate between North Africans (Naqada) and typical Sub-Saharans. The finding for the Kadruka (Kerma) sample aren't surprising since all metric and nonmetric cranial data plot Kerma samples right next to Naqada. This is why Nubians especially Kushites are the kryptonite to the Euronuts because those old 'black foes' of the Egyptians turn out to be their close relatives.
quote:Also what do you make of Iranian and WHG being the best proxy? I'm open to the idea that Hotu has North African ancestry given the fact that they score Basal Eurasian and a small Hadza component on admixture. I forgot who it was but one old anthropologist noted similarities between some Iberomaurusian remains and Hotu.
Ditto to what Brandon said about the BE in Hotu giving the 'Eurasian' fit to the predynastic Egyptian. Basal Eurasian itself is African as seen in the Lazaridis chart I posted above.
This makes me wonder about the genomes of A-Group Nubians or that of Al-Khiday.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Fair enough.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: In the context of the other samples it’s suspiciously insignificant. We can expect to see a lot of variation from the pre-dynastic given how Egypt was peopled but given the fact of how ubiquitous the pre-dynastic component is in the other samples, clearly this ancestry ended up being characteristic of the population. Something is definitely fishy about the Abusir mummies, hard to imagine how they can be explained away by simple regional variation.
The Abusir samples come from the Late Period and I and others in this forum, as well as Egyptologists themselves have warned about using them to represent all ancient Egyptians let alone from earlier periods. It was the same case with the Late Period Gizeh samples used as representative of all Egyptians. Many Eurocentrics love to obfuscate by cherry picking certain samples as representative of what they think ancient Egyptians looked like.
No there’s something a lot more weird going on. Look at the other samples from the late period, they have considerably more of the pre dynastic component. The Abusir mummies, if they’re representative, look a lot more like foreign transplants or an endogenous foreign community rather than assimilated migrants.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: No there’s something a lot more weird going on. Look at the other samples from the late period, they have considerably more of the pre dynastic component. The Abusir mummies, if they’re representative, look a lot more like foreign transplants or an endogenous foreign community rather than assimilated migrants.
FWIW, an endogenous foreign community (possibly Hyksos-descended) does seem like a probable identity for them. We would need more Lower Egyptian samples from a broad time range to test for how commonplace such communities were in ancient Egypt.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: No there’s something a lot more weird going on. Look at the other samples from the late period, they have considerably more of the pre dynastic component. The Abusir mummies, if they’re representative, look a lot more like foreign transplants or an endogenous foreign community rather than assimilated migrants.
FWIW, an endogenous foreign community (possibly Hyksos-descended) does seem like a probable identity for them. We would need more Lower Egyptian samples from a broad time range to test for how commonplace such communities were in ancient Egypt.
Yup. That’d be my bet as well.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Based on mtDNA Scheuneman et al claim that also Egyptians further back in time and from the the whole Egyptian Nile valley shared similar haplogroups as the remains from the Abusir el-Meleq study. Would be interesting to read the full study if it ever will get published.
Abstract from the, 9th International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology held in Toulouse, France in the summer of 2021 :
quote: Urban, Christian; Neukamm, Judith; Eppenberger, Patrick; Brändle, Martin; Rühli, Frank and Schuenemann Verena, 2021: Human mitochondrial haplogroups and ancient DNA preservation across Egyptian history
quote: Egypt represents an ideal location for genetic studies on population migration and admixture due to its geographic location and rich history. However, there are only a few reliable genetic studies on ancient Egyptian samples. In a previous study, we assessed the genetic history of a single site: Abusir el-Meleq from 1388 BCE to 426 CE. We now focus on widening the geographic scope to give a general overview of the population genetic background, focusing on mitochondrial haplogroups present among the whole Egyptian Nile River Valley. We collected 81 tooth, hair, bone, and soft tissue samples from 14 mummies and 17 skeletal remains. The samples span approximately 4000 years of Egyptian history and originate from six different excavation sites covering the whole length of the Egyptian Nile River Valley. NGS based ancient DNA 8 were applied to reconstruct 18 high-quality mitochondrial genomes from 10 different individuals. The determined mitochondrial haplogroups match the results from our Abusir el-Meleq study. Our results indicate very low rates of modern DNA contamination independent of the tissue type. Although authentic ancient DNA was recovered from different tissues, a reliable recovery was best achieved using teeth or petrous bone material. Moreover, the rate for successful ancient DNA retrieval between Egyptian mummies and skeletal remains did not differ significantly. Our study provides preliminary insights into population history across different regions and compares tissue-specific DNA preservation for mummies and skeletal remains from the Egyptian Nile River Valley.
And we are still waiting for the study conducted by Alexandra Mussauer et al, which is due to be published in 2025. The abstract was presented in the OT.
How much will these studies change current views of ancient Egyptian genetics?
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
Elmaestro, clean your inbox. I want to send you a message about something and get your thoughts on it.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
Our own Elmaestro did the breakdown and phenotype calls with his own software, as you can see if you read the OP post's methods section.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
Our own Elmaestro did the breakdown and phenotype calls with his own software, as you can see if you read the OP post's methods section.
I hate to be the guy who says this but is ElMaestro a professional geneticist or anthropologist? If not how would this be any different to lets say a guy like Miro C over on twitter painting certain narratives?
Don't get it twisted this isn't a dig at anyone from a character perspective and I'm super grateful for the discussion these types of results generate. However I think it would be intelligent for all of us to remain at least sceptical until official peer-reviewed published data is released.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Nice. Shout out to the person who spotted these findings first (elMaestro?)
Some observations:
Notice this is Naqada I, (not Naqada II or Naqada III [let alone dynastic Egypt]). Relevance? Probably the SSA-like is going to go down from here, in the same way that Badarians will have more of it than Naqada I has. (Although I have, interestingly enough, seen some rare reports of Naqada period samples with 'southern' affinities at similar levels as Badarians).
As others have already pointed out, the common denominator between all these samples (ie, between farmer samples, or pastoralists, as in the case of Africa) is Basal Eurasian. So I wouldn't make a big deal out of what seem to be contradictions, like samples sharing in 'NA ancestry' (Raqefet Natufians, Hotu, predynastics, Horners, Loosdrecht's Taforalt) forming some interesting subgroups that we're not used to seeing (ie Dinka-admixed pastoralists-Somalis, Naqada-Hotu, Natufian-Taforalt). The common denominator is still NA ancestry. So, these Basal Eurasian-affiliated ancestry components have low genetic distance between each other (it's the other components [WHG, Dinka] that are driving these samples apart and are presumably also influencing the software programs to obscure the underlying affinity by variegating what is essentially one big component, or more likely a set of components, called Basal Eurasian). More interesting to me, is how admixtures and shared drift affect these subgroups. What could give such subgroups is Hotu and Shuqbah Natufians getting direct input from ancestors of predynastics, which increases shared drift with Egyptians, to the exclusion of Raqefet Natufian-Loosdrecht Taforalt, and to the exclusion of Dinka-admixed pastoralist-Somalis. (This is in addition to some possible backflow from Mesopotamia. But, needless to say, this backflow scenario wouldn't explain predynastics possessing this component, as I've already established in the first sentences of this paragraph). We'll have to wait and see how these subgroups fit the existing data, in terms of uniparentals and morphology. One could say that this shared drift scenario between Hotu and predynastics, could be reflected in some uniparentals (e.g. E-M123), which show Egyptians being in a MENA subgroup that generally excludes East Africans and Maghrebis. However, this doesn't really work because then the Raqefet Natufians with Y-DNAs sister to E-M123, should be in the Hotu-Naqada subgroup, which they aren't.
Keep in mind that Raqefet Natufians (discussed by the abstract in the OP) are not Shuqbah Nafufians. The difference is that the former, much like Natufians in general, have never been shown to have substantial morphological affinities to predynastics (generally speaking, Natufians, like many palaeolithic populations, don't resemble modern populations). That would be Shuqbah Natufians who resemble predynastics, and that's probably because they're largely transplants from Egypt, unlike most other Natufians, who are more like hybrids, with some having African ancestry that is not even Egyptian, but rather, Sub-Saharan African, as mtDNA L2 in PPN confirms. You can thank the blogs and all of its 'influencers', for overhyping and exaggerating the affinities of Egyptians and Natufians (see the 3 abstracts thread where Antalas, for instance, was even making direct links between Bedouins and Egyptians and Natufians) to the point where some would think Egyptians having better relationships with other farmers would be weird. Comment I made weeks ago:
And we can tell, as you pointed out, that northern Mediterranean samples from the Mesolithic (Muge) and Neolithic will have this admixture, even though talk of Natufian ancestry in Egyptians is all the rage now and no one is talking about the fact that predynastics and certain farmers were closer, morphologically (with only Shuqbah Natufians being closer, presumably). --Swenet
EDIT: @Slimjim. Too bad Briggs comments don't really help us connect the dots specifically in terms of the excess genetic affinity compared to Raqefet Natufians (Briggs has Hotu Cave as Type A + B + C, Egyptians as Type B, and Shuqbah Natufians as Type B, while Raqefet Natufians whose aDNA we have, have never been analyzed in this manner). But it is helpful that he called out African ancestry in that Hotu sample, which we now know has the highest % of Basal Eurasian in Eurasia. Taforalt might have the highest levels of Basal Eurasian so far out of all ancient samples, if that recent report is correct (and I'm not sure that it is).
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
The real question is then, is basically how representative of predynastic Egyptians is this? As you. said we would need to see more Predynastics sampled to really make any conclusions
Another thing is would the mainstream academia actually publish a predynastic A. Egypt study if it revealed such results without wording it to sound like its Eurasian dominated. Because if this is the trend for other predynastic samples then it kinda goes against the mainstream narritive they tried to spin with Abu Sier...IDK.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: No there’s something a lot more weird going on. Look at the other samples from the late period, they have considerably more of the pre dynastic component. The Abusir mummies, if they’re representative, look a lot more like foreign transplants or an endogenous foreign community rather than assimilated migrants.
FWIW, an endogenous foreign community (possibly Hyksos-descended) does seem like a probable identity for them. We would need more Lower Egyptian samples from a broad time range to test for how commonplace such communities were in ancient Egypt.
red hired Nubian?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This super interesting...from DJ & Swenet....If Im reading correctly could some of the Shuqbah Natufians have come from Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of theorists, it seems this study has also confirmed my hunch as well as that of other posters in this forum. The predynastic Egyptians were indeed the missing link between Epipaleolithic Maghrebi and Epipaleolithic Levantines (Natufians).
.....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] That would be Shuqbah Natufians who resemble predynastics, and that's probably because they're largely transplants from Egypt, unlike most other Natufians, who are more like hybrids, with some having African ancestry that is not even Egyptian, but rather, Sub-Saharan African, as mtDNA L2 in PPN confirms.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
Our own Elmaestro did the breakdown and phenotype calls with his own software, as you can see if you read the OP post's methods section.
I hate to be the guy who says this but is ElMaestro a professional geneticist or anthropologist? If not how would this be any different to lets say a guy like Miro C over on twitter painting certain narratives?
Don't get it twisted this isn't a dig at anyone from a character perspective and I'm super grateful for the discussion these types of results generate. However I think it would be intelligent for all of us to remain at least sceptical until official peer-reviewed published data is released.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
Our own Elmaestro did the breakdown and phenotype calls with his own software, as you can see if you read the OP post's methods section.
I hate to be the guy who says this but is ElMaestro a professional geneticist or anthropologist? If not how would this be any different to lets say a guy like Miro C over on twitter painting certain narratives?
Don't get it twisted this isn't a dig at anyone from a character perspective and I'm super grateful for the discussion these types of results generate. However I think it would be intelligent for all of us to remain at least sceptical until official peer-reviewed published data is released.
Don't wait for the world to reproduce those pigment gene profiles. You might wait a decade. Be the peer that reviews his work.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Great article bro we all appreciate this, really.
What do you make of Somalis scoring no Naqada? This is surprisng to me given the fact that Beni Amer score it and Horners in general derive most of our ancestry from Lower Nubians, if you look at a lot of the material culture we find in Eritrea and Ethiopia they very often show affinities to C group culture, Kerma and Pan Grave culture. Also, I'm sure you're aware that those specific Nubians often cluster with Predynastic Egyptians in craniofacial studies.
Also what do you make of Iranian and WHG being the best proxy? I'm open to the idea that Hotu has North African ancestry given the fact that they score Basal Eurasian and a small Hadza component on admixture. I forgot who it was but one old anthropologist noted similarities between some Iberomaurusian remains and Hotu.
Yea Somalis scoring little of this ancestry had me curious too.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
(# 1946) AM14590, Gebelein, Naqada
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
DNAtribes was very relevant(and can still be relevant if one doesnt take the results LITERALLY like many Afrocentrics were doing). All DNAtribes did was run samples from Zahi Hawass team into their computer and boom.
This is like dismissing someone translating ancient texts because well... It wasn't published by a major journal website. When the tools are already there and one just needs to use them. Thats all DNAtribes and Elmaestro are doing... This is literally just DATA. How one interprets it is another story.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Keep in mind that Raqefet Natufians (discussed by the abstract in the OP) are not Shuqbah Nafufians. The difference is that the former, much like Natufians in general, have never been shown to have substantial morphological affinities to predynastics
Swenet, could you provide book quotes on the Raqefet Natufians morphology being dissimilar? It would help a great lot in making this point known.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh and the findings that predynastsic and early Egyptians had dark to black skin should shut up Itoli, Metatron, and others who make claims otherwise, hopefully.
Is this information from an actual official release though? I haven't seen any official release paper on any scientific journal website. Not to rain on the forums parade (as this is a very interesting discussion) but this looks like it could be another DNATribes situation.....
DNAtribes was very relevant(and can still be relevant if one doesnt take the results LITERALLY like many Afrocentrics were doing). All DNAtribes did was run samples from Zahi Hawass team into their computer and boom.
This is like dismissing someone translating ancient texts because well... It wasn't published by a major journal website. When the tools are already there and one just needs to use them. Thats all DNAtribes and Elmaestro are doing... This is literally just DATA. How one interprets it is another story.
I would be interested in knowing how DNA Tribes got the results they did, FWIW. That said, I believe their software was proprietary, whereas Elmaestro is using tools that anyone with the know-how can use.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
to download the full genome. Each one is quite large. Then you have to process them. That I'm not sure about but it seems doable.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Biosample: SAMEA113591464 An ancient Egyptian individual Organism: Sample Title:AM 14590 Center Name:EURAC Research Sample Alias:1946 Checklist:ERC000011 Sample Accession:SAMEA113591464 ENA-CHECKLIST:ERC000011 Collection Date:2015-09-29 Scientific Name:Homo sapiens Common Name:human Tissue Type:Skull bone fragment Geographic Location (Country And/or Sea):Egypt ENA-LAST-UPDATE:2023-06-12
_______________________________
aka sample from Gebelein, Naqada
wither I don't know how to navigate to see data for this particular sample
this the sample from the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, borrowed (it seems) by Eurac in Turin was not able to recover much from this predynastic skull fragment
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice this is Naqada I, (not Naqada II or Naqada III [let alone dynastic Egypt]). Relevance? Probably the SSA-like is going to go down from here, in the same way that Badarians will have more of it than Naqada I has. (Although I have, interestingly enough, seen some rare reports of Naqada period samples with 'southern' affinities at similar levels as Badarians).
How could I forget about the Badarians? DNA studies should be done on them since the Badarians are allegedly the founding Neolithic culture of Upper Egypt and according to many cranial studies they seem to be at the centroid of all Upper Egyptian crania and perhaps Egyptian crania in general. In the North African 'Negro' Paradox thread you mentioned how 'negroid' is somewhat of an umbrella term. The Badarian were described as "negroid" in certain traits but metrically and nonmetrically they are North African.
G. Bräuer (1984) places Badarians as intermediate between 'Negrid' and 'Europid' but he does the same with Mesolithic Nubians (Wadi Halfa & Jebel Sahaba)
Even though Mesolithic Nubians like Wadi Halfa display many Sub-Saharan affinities other traits like their mandibular morphology group them with North Africans. It's rather curious.
quote:As others have already pointed out, the common denominator between all these samples (i.e, between farmer samples, or pastoralists, as in the case of Africa) is Basal Eurasian. So I wouldn't make a big deal out of what seem to be contradictions, like samples sharing in 'NA ancestry' (Raqefet Natufians, Hotu, predynastics, Horners, Loosdrecht's Taforalt) forming some interesting subgroups that we're not used to seeing (ie Dinka-admixed pastoralists-Somalis, Naqada-Hotu, Natufian-Taforalt). The common denominator is still NA ancestry. So, these Basal Eurasian-affiliated ancestry components have low genetic distance between each other (it's the other components [WHG, Dinka] that are driving these samples apart and are presumably also influencing the software programs to obscure the underlying affinity by variegating what is essentially one big component, or more likely a set of components, called Basal Eurasian). More interesting to me, is how admixtures and shared drift affect these subgroups. What could give such subgroups is Hotu and Shuqbah Natufians getting direct input from ancestors of predynastics, which increases shared drift with Egyptians, to the exclusion of Raqefet Natufian-Loosdrecht Taforalt, and to the exclusion of Dinka-admixed pastoralist-Somalis. (This is in addition to some possible backflow from Mesopotamia. But, needless to say, this backflow scenario wouldn't explain predynastics possessing this component, as I've already established in the first sentences of this paragraph). We'll have to wait and see how these subgroups fit the existing data, in terms of uniparentals and morphology. One could say that this shared drift scenario between Hotu and predynastics, could be reflected in some uniparentals (e.g. E-M123), which show Egyptians being in a MENA subgroup that generally excludes East Africans and Maghrebis. However, this doesn't really work because then the Raqefet Natufians with Y-DNAs sister to E-M123, should be in the Hotu-Naqada subgroup, which they aren't.
That's why I've had a sneaking suspicion that 'Basal Eurasian' is not one single component per say but rather a group of related components since we are talking about a very ancient node that arose from a 'Non-African' common ancestor along with 'Main Eurasian', the latter I think would be found more so in early South Asians and possibly Iranians. I think this is also the case with Ancestral North African.
Also, where do you think A-Group Nubians and Al-Khiday fit in??
quote:Keep in mind that Raqefet Natufians (discussed by the abstract in the OP) are not Shuqbah Nafufians. The difference is that the former, much like Natufians in general, have never been shown to have substantial morphological affinities to predynastics (generally speaking, Natufians, like many palaeolithic populations, don't resemble modern populations). That would be Shuqbah Natufians who resemble predynastics, and that's probably because they're largely transplants from Egypt, unlike most other Natufians, who are more like hybrids, with some having African ancestry that is not even Egyptian, but rather, Sub-Saharan African, as mtDNA L2 in PPN confirms. You can thank the blogs and all of its 'influencers', for overhyping and exaggerating the affinities of Egyptians and Natufians (see the 3 abstracts thread where Antalas, for instance, was even making direct links between Bedouins and Egyptians and Natufians) to the point where some would think Egyptians having better relationships with other farmers would be weird. Comment I made weeks ago:
And we can tell, as you pointed out, that northern Mediterranean samples from the Mesolithic (Muge) and Neolithic will have this admixture, even though talk of Natufian ancestry in Egyptians is all the rage now and no one is talking about the fact that predynastics and certain farmers were closer, morphologically (with only Shuqbah Natufians being closer, presumably). --Swenet
You're right. I keep forgetting that 'Natufian' is the label for the culture and that the populations of that culture were heterogeneous. Early anthropologists like Buxton and Coon described the earlier Natufians as 'Eurafrican' while later Natufians as 'Proto-Mediterranean'. Also, speaking of uniparental lineages what about mtDNA N1? It is associated with Neolithic famers even in Europe but North Africa has upstream markers as seen in the Takarkori shelter study. Speaking of Bedouin, what do you make of the 1994 Bar Yosef study on PPN South Sinai populations showing more cranial affinities to Arabian groups than with Levantine or Egyptian groups?
quote:Have to go, for now.
EDIT: @Slimjim. Too bad Briggs comments don't really help us connect the dots specifically in terms of the excess genetic affinity compared to Raqefet Natufians (Briggs has Hotu Cave as Type A + B + C, Egyptians as Type B, and Shuqbah Natufians as Type B, while Raqefet Natufians whose aDNA we have, have never been analyzed in this manner). But it is helpful that he called out African ancestry in that Hotu sample, which we now know has the highest % of Basal Eurasian in Eurasia. Taforalt might have the highest levels of Basal Eurasian so far out of all ancient samples, if that recent report is correct (and I'm not sure that it is).
Hotu Cave in Iran has the highest known in Eurasia, while Taforalt in Morocco has the highest known. So what is a good candidate for a population source, if not Egypt??
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I ran my 23andme after some processing and I was predicted to have intermediate skin and red hair too.
I am the same color as dude. Its not unusual for pigment gene predictors to error on the side of red hair. Remember when a Yoruba individual was predicted to be a red head in that black Neanderthal study? A Neanderthal was predicted to be a red head too.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It probably detected the gene for pheomelanin which gives hair the reddish hue. Pheeomelanin occurs in many Africans but in conjunction with eumelanin which gives the jet black color. The oxidation caused by embalming of mummies is what breaks down the eumelanin only giving mummies red hair like 'Ginger'.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes and I'm sure many Eurasiocentrics would love to stress the larger 'West Eurasian' portion and hold up the Neolithic Iranians of Hotu Cave as quintessential Eurasians.
Various commentators online point out that there are no African haplogroups so far in the Iranian samples, yet, they have more Basal Eurasian than Natufians. Therefore, these proponents argue, Basal Eurasian must not be African. Similar questions have been raised regarding the apparent sparseness of E-V13 among European farmers. Such arguments arise out of ignorance in how haplogroups propagate over time under evolutionary forces. I've already explained this in my previous post on Basal Eurasian, which you can find here. What I want to deal with right now is the fact that the features that make Keith's Natufians stand out, can be found in the same Iranian sites that we're told are supposed to be free of African admixture. We'll get to the features of the oldest individuals in the Hotu cave (Hotu II and Hotu III) in a minute. But first, some context is required. A year ago I had the following to say about the African contingent among the Natufians:
Descriptions of Natufian and PPN remains consistently report post bregmatic depression, among other features consistent with Sub Saharan African ancestry [Meiklejohn et al 1992; Agelarakis 1993; Hershkovitz et al 1994; Bocquentin 2003]. Strangely, despite proximity to Africa, the prospect of these being a marker of recent African ancestry is typically not seriously considered, as in [Meiklejohn et al 1992], where it is treated as an artificial deformation.
A Natufian skull pictured in Bocquentin 2003 exhibiting many features consistent with recent African ancestry, including post-bregmatic depression (see the slight depression along the length of the vault of this skull).
As was pointed out in this quote, post-bregmatic (or post-coronal) depression (PBD) is a cranial trait that is often used in forensic analyses as a possible indication of Sub-Saharan African ancestry. What the quoted excerpt doesn't explicitly state is that the data in several of these sources indicate that PBD is found in the wider Middle East, seemingly from the late Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic onwards. For instance, it is attested in the proto-neolithic in northern Iraq (Shanidar cave), the neolithic in Iran (Ganj Dareh) and yes, even in the Mesolithic of Iran (Hotu cave). However, one problem is that cranial deformation practices (including some that, perhaps, induced PBD) became frequent all over the Middle East after the Mesolithic and Epipalaeolithic. This makes the use of PBD to diagnose African ancestry after the Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic somewhat unreliable. This is exacerbated by the fact that the people involved with studying these practices make no serious effort to distinguish genetic from man-made causes of PBD.
Meiklejohn et al 1992 don't even consider that at least some of the PBD in Neolithic Iranian and other sites could have a genetic cause. They attribute all incidences of PBD to artificial cranial deformation. Granted, the clear evidence of various forms of cranial deformation (other than PBD) in these sites indicate that artificial deformation could explain at least a portion of the sky-rocketed frequencies of PBD during the Neolithic. However, I'm not saying this because the authors' arguments were so compelling. In fact, it strikes me as remarkable that the authors don't take a step back from their conclusions given the discrepancies in their data. According to their own data, most of cranial deformation-inducing practices left behind cranial 'scars' reasonably consistently. Only one type of supposed 'deformation' was not associated with any scarring pattern. Curiously, this exception was PBD. For instance, the bandaging practices that supposedly induced cranial deformation artificially, left behind horizontal and diagonal groove patterns on most of the skulls. However, the authors report no vertical grooves that would be consistent with PBD-inducing vertical bandage practices (see image to the left). Instead, we're left with the following substitute for actual evidence:
"Of the features noted by Lambert, Post-Coronal Depression and Parietal Bulging are hard to explain other than by deformation. Meiklejohn et al 1992"
But PBD was the most frequently observed 'deformation'. Is it merely a coincidence that no scarring pattern was found for PBD? Remarkably, the authors seem to be unaware of the fact that PBD is a non-metric trait. Either that, or they refuse to consider that genetic causes plays a role here, in which case "hard to explain", as they put it, simply means 'unwilling to consider'.
According to these authors' source, Lambert, this practice kicks off in the Middle East during the Neolithic. This is unlikely, as it occurs in the preceding Hotu sample (Angel 1952). It would be interesting if artificial deformation was an attempt to mimic the natural headshapes of prestigious or mythological groups in the Middle East. Are the artificial examples of PBD a case of 'art' imitating life? Whatever's the case, PBD, along with other features that are consistent with Africans, are found in sites where Basal Eurasian peaks so far. These sites include the Iranian Neolithic (Meiklejohn et al 1992) and the Iranian Mesolithic (Angel 1952). Angel has, among other things, the following to say about a specimen from the latter site (Hotu II):
"The pentagonoid skull vault is 75 to 100 cc. larger than the 1,325 cc. modern average in capacity, and is long and high with marked post-coronal depression and concave and sinuous temporal planes, as if the infantile sharp curve of the parietal bone had not been fully corrected by later peripheral remodelling." (Angel 1952).
About Hotu III Angel says, among other things:
"The skull has a strikingly capacious vault (1420-1460 cc.), ovoid, broad, well-filled with wide-set base (129 mm.) and approaching the "square- head" minority among Upper Palaeolithic and later Europeans. The face has wide cheeks, wide nose, and a protruding chin, and probably resembled number 2." (Angel 1952).
If this Hotu III individual measured by Angel corresponds to "Hotu IIIb" sequenced by Lazaridis et al 2016, he's more than consistent with the Shuqbah Natufians and many Africans he's supposedly unrelated to. His nasal index is estimated at 58.2 (very broad) while his upper facial index is estimated at 44.2 (again, relatively broad). (Estimated, because the Hotu III had to be reconstructed). Hotu III combines these features with contrasting features (including somewhat broad neurocrania [CI of 77.7], a stocky build, and a general Upper Palaeolithic European 'look') that seem like they were inherited from contemporary West Eurasians. In this respect, Hotu III calls to mind Homo I from Atlit Yam, a PPNB individual who combines similar African-like and West Eurasian-like morphometric features. This mosaic of features is consistent with Hotu III's genome, as he's reported to be 40% West Eurasian and 60% Basal Eurasian.
As you can see, rather than constituting a 'problem' to the African origin of Basal Eurasian, Hotu III seems to embody quite the opposite. He fits in an emerging picture that shows that Eurasian genomes with high degrees of Basal Eurasian ancestry likely also exhibit 'African' features, whether morphological or otherwise. This tight correlation hasn't been violated yet. Aside from the Mesolithic Hotu individuals, we see it in Stuttgart's cranio-facial appearance and various pooled early Neolithic samples. If (and this remains to be seen) Kostenki-14 has Basal Eurasian, as has been suggested by some (Seguin-Orlando et al 2014), some of his cranio-facial features can also be interpreted as standing out in the African direction. Unfortunately, we do not have the skeletal remains of the recently sequenced hunter gatherers from the Caucasus. They have a substantial input of Basal Eurasian (Jones et al 2015), so, in light of what I just said, their skeletal remains would be of interest. Interestingly, the circumstantial evidence so far suggests that this correlation holds for them as well. The reason for this is that their partial descendants, the Corded Ware people, had exceptionally long and narrow heads (Coon 1939), The fact that the height of their neurocrania exceeds their cranial breadth (indicating a acroplatic index near zero) is interesting, as anthropologists from the previous century have often claimed this to be atypical of recent Europeans (Smith 1941).
"The index known as the acroplatic index, which was devised by Carl Pearson, is of special importance. It gives the relationship between height, width and length, and it has been found that Europeans as a rule show an index of something in the vicinity of +6, Negroes as a rule are approximately zero, but Egyptians, strangely enough, show a minus index, and in this particular case, -4.2." (Smith 1941)
Their cranial index (CI) and body measurements also show a peculiar trend, even compared to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. In these two characters early Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are more 'linear' (Holliday 1997a; Vercellotti et al 2008; Churchill et al 1999) than late Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. The Corded Ware people not only reverse this trend to the exclusion of nearby WHG-like groups, but, at least in terms of CI, they come out on the other end. Meaning that their head shape seems to be more 'linear' than their ancestors in both eras. This can't be explained with purely ecological explanations. While many of the Corded Ware peoples' features go in the other (i.e. European) direction, this is still a strange combination of traits for a people who supposedly have been out of the tropics for over 50ky.
Moving Forward in 2016
It has always been possible to detect clearly intrusive tropically adapted features in many Middle Eastern and Central Asian sites in between the early Holocene and the Bronze Age (Ogihara et al 2009; Dubova 2001, Stock et al 2007). What's new is that it will now, for the first time, not be up to researchers' whim whether they want to 'admit' they're there and show morphological discontinuity with groups in the region today. Did they come from Africa? The Persian Gulf Basin? Saudi Arabia? The possibilities used to be too numerous to get to the bottom of things. Moreover, any progress in this area was doomed to begin with because the select few with access to these remains have no interest in the study of Africans beyond Africa (indeed, sometimes they're not even interested in studying Africans beyond Sub-Saharan Africa, see Harich et al 2010, for instance, who allow for no mtDNA L in North Africa other than through slave trade). In this sense, aDNA can act as watershed moment.that allows for rapid progress in an area that has been both intentionally and unintentionally held back.
One gray area that will inevitably become illuminated going forward is the fact that Afroasiatic has many far flung relationships with extinct and extant pre-Semitic languages in the Middle East. What I'm interested in is not whether Basal Eurasian has something to do with this (those who are not in denial already know that this is likely), but, to what extent Eurasian languages were influenced and how many African migrations were involved:
These arguments speak for the Levantine [origin of Afroasiatic]: "Distant relationship of Afroasiatic with Kartvelian, Dravidian, Indo-European and other Eurasiatic language families within the framework of the Nostratic hypothesis (Illič-Svityč 1971-84; Blažek 2002; Dolgopolsky 2008; Bomhard 2008). Lexical parallels connecting Afroasiatic with Near Eastern languages which cannot be explained from Semitic: Sumerian-Afroasiatic lexical parallels indicating an Afroasiatic substratum in Sumerian (Militarev 1995). Elamite-Afroasiatic lexical and grammatical cognates explainable as a common heritage" (Blažek 1999). North Caucasian-Afroasiatic parallels in cultural lexicon explainable by old neighborhood (Militarev, Starostin 1984). Blažek
As you can see in the excerpt above, this evidence of contact was used by various linguists (as well as bloggers) as evidence that Afroasiatic can't possibly be African. However, this hypothesis against the African origin of Afroasiatic has now completely imploded, as it relies on the mistaken notion that Levantines weren't partially African, genetically and linguistically. Now that African Y chromosomes have been observed among Natufians, linguists who oppose an African origin of Afroasiatic can no longer pretend to be ignorant about the skeletal record and claim that Afroasiatic doesn't become associated with Africans until it arrives in Africa in the early Holocene.
North Caucasian, Kartvelian and Indo-European languages show evidence of interactions with Afroasiatic. We already know that Caucasus hunter gatherers had Basal Eurasian (Jones et al 2015), so that potentially explains the observed linguistic relationships between Afro-Asiatic on the one hand and North Caucasian and Kartvelian on the other hand. As we've already discussed, the proto-Neolithic individuals in the northern Iraq (Shanidar cave) show the same morphological features that pull the Natufians in an African direction in morphometric analyses. If genetic analyses confirm that neolithic Iraqis have Basal Eurasian and/or other types of African ancestry, this can potentially explain the observed linguistic relationships between Sumerian and Afro-Asiatic. Lastly, Basal Eurasian in Hotu III and early Iranian farmers can potentially explain links between Afroasiatic and Elamite.
Shanidar Cave proto-Neolithic individual (left). Wouldn't look out of place among mid-holocene Nubians and Egyptians as shown by its general resemblance to the dynastic Egyptian skull from Memphis (right). Images taken from Agelarkis 1993 and Martin 1841, respectively. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
this topic is not physical morphology it's DNA (although lacking in quality sample material)
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Forgive my ignorance but this appears to be saying the West Eurasian sample is closest to Neolithic Iranians. I thought Ancient North African ancestry was closely tied to Levantine "Natufian" related ancestry? What gives?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Yes and I'm sure many Eurasiocentrics would love to stress the larger 'West Eurasian' portion and hold up the Neolithic Iranians of Hotu Cave as quintessential Eurasians.
I've been seeing this very point being trumpeted by Euro and Arabcentrists over in the anthro corners of social media. Even in the brief time I've been on this forum I warned people that the West "Eurasianess" of Pre-Dynastics, Nubians, Horners etc etc was going to be the new argument they are going to hang there hats on.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I've been seeing this very point being trumpeted by Euro and Arabcentrists over in the anthro corners of social media. Even in the brief time I've been on this forum I warned people that the West "Eurasianess" of Pre-Dynastics, Nubians, Horners etc etc was going to be the new argument they are going to hang there hats on.
That's a fair concern, which is why it should be emphasized that the apparent Hotu affinity is probably due to it being the most Basal Eurasian-rich sample we have. Elmaestro, could you add that disclaimer in if you haven't already?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Pre-dynastic Egyptian DNA: A Sneak Peak into North East Africa’s Distant Past By Stro
AM14590 (the sample ID) of Naqada’s west Eurasian related DNA is most similar to Neolithic Iranians.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
Forgive my ignorance but this appears to be saying the West Eurasian sample is closest to Neolithic Iranians. I thought Ancient North African ancestry was closely tied to Levantine "Natufian" related ancestry? What gives?
We are looking at this sample AM14590. It is not a West Eurasian sample it is an Upper Egypt sample at Gebelein from the Naqada period,
__________AM14590 Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I wonder this myself. There is no explanation as to the breakdown of the samples and the specific locations where the color phenotypical data are. Maybe Brandon will provide more info on his methodology.
Red-headed Nubians though would not be unheard of in ultra diverse Africa. Still, a question mark as to methodology...
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: I wonder this myself. There is no explanation as to the breakdown of the samples and the specific locations where the phenotypical data are. Maybe Brandon will provide more info on sources and methodology.
Most of the sample info comes from this document. The rest Elmaestro, who did the original unannotated chart, told me himself.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: I wonder this myself. There is no explanation as to the breakdown of the samples and the specific locations where the phenotypical data are.
I don't see a breakdown like that here but take a look at this
Genetic Predisposition of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Ancient Human Remains Christina Wurst et al 2024
at right click on "additional files" you will see the Supplementary PDF but instead of clicking on those click on those doi URLs, those are XLS chart data
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: I wonder this myself. There is no explanation as to the breakdown of the samples and the specific locations where the phenotypical data are. Maybe Brandon will provide more info on sources and methodology.
Most of the sample info comes from this document. The rest Elmaestro, who did the original unannotated chart, told me himself.
the document is showing Endog percentages
The endonuclease G gene (Endog), which codes for a mitochondrial nuclease, was identified as a determinant of cardiac hypertrophy (Thickening of the heart muscle)
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: I wonder this myself. There is no explanation as to the breakdown of the samples and the specific locations where the phenotypical data are. Maybe Brandon will provide more info on sources and methodology.
Most of the sample info comes from this document. The rest Elmaestro, who did the original unannotated chart, told me himself.
Its an outstanding chart. Just confirming the methodology. Is he correlating individual samples with phenotypical skin color markers?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Its an outstanding chart. Just confirming the methodology. Is he correlating individual samples with phenotypical skin color markers?
I believe what he's done is have the software predict the most likely skin tone for each sample based on genetic alleles. If a sample has mostly ancestral alleles on its skin color genes, for example, it would score "dark to black".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This sample KDR001 is not in WURST 2024, I've noticed (correct me if I am wrong but I did not see not on this sample list)
it is in this other article but I don't see mention of color, the aim of the study was to be able to extract DNA from a strand of ancient mummified hair
4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists Ke Wang 2022
Ancient DNA authentification and sequencing strategy We screened five specimens deriving from four individuals from the Kadruka district of northern Sudan (Fig. 1a) for aDNA preservation, drawing on tooth (KDR001.A), hair (KDR001.B), petrous bone (KDR002, KDR004) and cranial (KDR003) samples. All specimens were excavated from archaeological contexts dating to the Neolithic and Kerma periods. The only sample that yielded detectable authentic aDNA was a lock of dark hair (127 mg) (Fig. 1b) from a Kerma period individual.
Here, we successfully reconstruct and analyse genome-wide data from the naturally mummified hair of a 4000-year-old individual from Sudan in northeastern Africa, after failed attempts at DNA extraction from teeth, petrous, and cranium of this and other individuals from the Kadruka cemeteries. We find that hair DNA extracted with an established single-stranded library protocol is unusually enriched in ultra-short DNA molecules and exhibits substantial interior molecular damage. The aDNA was nonetheless amenable to genetic analyses, which revealed that the genome is genetically indistinguishable from that of early Neolithic eastern African pastoralists located 2500 kms away. Our findings are consistent with established models for the southward dispersal of Middle Nile Valley pastoral populations to the Rift Valley of eastern Africa, and provide a possible genetic source population for this dispersal. Our study highlights the value of mummified hair as an alternate source of aDNA from regions with poor bone preservation.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I've been seeing this very point being trumpeted by Euro and Arabcentrists over in the anthro corners of social media. Even in the brief time I've been on this forum I warned people that the West "Eurasianess" of Pre-Dynastics, Nubians, Horners etc etc was going to be the new argument they are going to hang there hats on.
That's a fair concern, which is why it should be emphasized that the apparent Hotu affinity is probably due to it being the most Basal Eurasian-rich sample we have. Elmaestro, could you add that disclaimer in if you haven't already?
Not to mention the fact that Basal Eurasian and perhaps even 'Non-African' actually originated IN the African continent.
Hence the confusion that 'Eurasian' may not necessarily mean outside of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: this topic is not physical morphology it's DNA (although lacking in quality sample material)
True, but I thought it would be interesting to show how long before we had the genetic data there was morphological data that gave us clues.
But since you want to stick to DNA how about this flashback to the Schuenemann et al. (Abusir paper) admixture comparison.
Xyyman did a comparison of Neolithic Iranians with modern Makrani.
From Lazaridis 2016:
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
The only solution would be collaboration with a senior scholar. This is how it always works. The publication fees can be crazy. And no one will be able or should be willing to pay that without institutional support and funding. One of teh reasons you need support from a senior scholar.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Keita? I know some members were in contact with him Asar Imhotep did an interview with him
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
The only solution would be collaboration with a senior scholar. This is how it always works. The publication fees can be crazy. And no one will be able or should be willing to pay that without institutional support and funding. One of teh reasons you need support from a senior scholar.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
The only solution would be collaboration with a senior scholar. This is how it always works. The publication fees can be crazy. And no one will be able or should be willing to pay that without institutional support and funding. One of teh reasons you need support from a senior scholar.
I did email these results to Keita, but I'll pitch that idea to him too if Elmaestro agrees to it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baalberith:
quote:Keep in mind that Raqefet Natufians (discussed by the abstract in the OP) are not Shuqbah Nafufians. The difference is that the former, much like Natufians in general, have never been shown to have substantial morphological affinities to predynastics
Swenet, could you provide book quotes on the Raqefet Natufians morphology being dissimilar? It would help a great lot in making this point known.
Measurements of Natufians from different sites are provided by Bocquintin in her thesis. Everything considered (ie not just Bocquintin, but also other comments in the literature) Shuqbah has the best fit to predynastics, down to the practice of dental ablation (which is also discussed by Bocquintin. and which this sample shares with pre-Mesolithic alKhiday and with Iberomaurusians) and right down to this sample's stature, which matches the stature of some samples that relate to Wengrow's primary pastoral community (ie Shuqbah Natufians have a stature similar to Tenereans and Badarians).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This super interesting...from DJ & Swenet....If Im reading correctly could some of the Shuqbah Natufians have come from Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of theorists, it seems this study has also confirmed my hunch as well as that of other posters in this forum. The predynastic Egyptians were indeed the missing link between Epipaleolithic Maghrebi and Epipaleolithic Levantines (Natufians).
.....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] That would be Shuqbah Natufians who resemble predynastics, and that's probably because they're largely transplants from Egypt, unlike most other Natufians, who are more like hybrids, with some having African ancestry that is not even Egyptian, but rather, Sub-Saharan African, as mtDNA L2 in PPN confirms.
Yes. That's what I think. I see them as part of a larger migration to the Levant, but they just retained more of the morphology of their ancestors, unlike most other Natufians, who show a more mixed pattern, which, BTW, this mixed pattern also includes individuals who look like they come from other parts of Africa (see the Natufian individual below, in righthand pic; they look like they have ancestry, not from Egypt, but from elsewhere in Africa [ie more to the south]).
^This is why the Natufian sample from Brace et al 2005 has some Niger-Congo affinities, though, as a whole, Brace's Natufian sample shows mixed affinities, more than Raqefet Natufians and Shuqbah Natufians do. So, you can clearly see that Natufian samples differ by site and by time period.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That's why I've had a sneaking suspicion that 'Basal Eurasian' is not one single component per say but rather a group of related components since we are talking about a very ancient node that arose from a 'Non-African' common ancestor along with 'Main Eurasian', the latter I think would be found more so in early South Asians and possibly Iranians. I think this is also the case with Ancestral North African.
Also, where do you think A-Group Nubians and Al-Khiday fit in??
Yes. You can clearly see that samples with similar levels of Basal Eurasian, do not have similar levels of affinity to Africans. If you look at the fst data, ancient Iranians have more affinities to Sub-Saharan Africans than Raqefet Natufians do, much more (seemingly) than can be accounted for by their levels of Basal Eurasian. So, it seems that Basal Eurasian is accompanied by more African components, and that some of those additional components, that have not been named yet, are not uniformly distributed over Eurasian samples, unlike Basal Eurasian, which is uniformly present in farmer samples. So, some samples with Basal Eurasian that are closer to Africans (in terms of fst) than would be expected from their proportion of Basal Eurasian, would be good candidates of having said additional forms of African ancestry, at higher levels than, say, Raqefet Natufians do (Raqefet Natufians have [among] the weakest Fst relationship to West/Central Africans, out of all farmer samples).
^ This only confirms what posters like Rasol have been saying for years-- that there have been multiple waves of OOA entering Southwest Asia but genetics has not yet been able to refine these African elements from the truly Eurasian ones that have been superimposed.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
The only solution would be collaboration with a senior scholar. This is how it always works. The publication fees can be crazy. And no one will be able or should be willing to pay that without institutional support and funding. One of the reasons you need support from a senior scholar.
I did email these results to Keita, but I'll pitch that idea to him too if Elmaestro agrees to it.
Do you think academia by and large is now ready to deal with these findings? The Egyptian SCA still has yet to publish their genetic findings on the Archaic Period Giza from back in the 90s that Hawass has eluded to. I mean with all the leaks that have been coming out, I think the cat is out of the bag don't y'all agree??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you think academia by and large is now ready to deal with these findings?
that the predynastic sample was was 53-66% West Eurasian? I would not have guessed that. What are you referring to?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Also lets just say.... This ain't the only bomb that's gonna be drop. There are MORE and they gonna be peer reviewed since some of you like peer reviewed so much. Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you think academia by and large is now ready to deal with these findings? The Egyptian SCA still has yet to publish their genetic findings on the Archaic Period Giza from back in the 90s that Hawass has eluded to. I mean with all the leaks that have been coming out, I think the cat is out of the bag don't y'all agree??
A lot of people will have egg on their face (and of course the anti-Black racists and certain Egyptian/North African ethno-nationalists won't like it, and neither with some of the more SSA-centric Afrocentrics), but I'm hoping the scientific community writ large isn't so close-minded. Everyone has their biases, but I'd be shocked if the majority of anthropologists nowadays were determined to suppress such information once it came out. They're generally a progressive and anti-racist lot, despite all the racist creeps who infest the lay fandom.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Djehuti
More bombs are coming. And its not looking good. Yuya being predicted to be B2b and not G2a and other things.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Djehuti
More bombs are coming. And its not looking good. Yuya being predicted to be B2b and not G2a and other things.
Makes you wonder what other uniparental assignments in the archaeogenetic literature need revising.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Keita? I know some members were in contact with him Asar Imhotep did an interview with him
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: TBF a lot people in the bio-anthro world do what Maestro did, but yeah Peer Review would give him more legitimacy, the question is will any academic source be open to peer review, maybe Keita or IDK, sorry to sound conspiratorial but I just don't trust Academia to be fair or take independent research serious..
I wonder what academic training Elmaestro has? I worry that some journals may not accept a paper from a layman, even an educated and knowledgeable one who knows how to use this complicated genetic software.
The only solution would be collaboration with a senior scholar. This is how it always works. The publication fees can be crazy. And no one will be able or should be willing to pay that without institutional support and funding. One of the reasons you need support from a senior scholar.
Keita is the most high-profile and "famous" one we know. But a senior scholar could be anyone in archaeogenetics who has published before and has some credibility.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I mean I think its already kinda unofficially accepted that Yuya was or descended from "Asiatics" due to his unique looks and name, but B2A is pretty insane...like I know the Eurocentrists will use it to own the Hoteps but how are they going to spin that it their favor? If anything it kinda confirms that he's came from foreign ancestry(unless its found in older samples)....anyway...Thats just crazy IMO,
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Djehuti
More bombs are coming. And its not looking good. Yuya being predicted to be B2b and not G2a and other things.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I mean as long as we can get a clearer picture of the origins of these ancestries. Its clear the whole picture is not being presented properly
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you think academia by and large is now ready to deal with these findings? The Egyptian SCA still has yet to publish their genetic findings on the Archaic Period Giza from back in the 90s that Hawass has eluded to. I mean with all the leaks that have been coming out, I think the cat is out of the bag don't y'all agree??
A lot of people will have egg on their face (and of course the anti-Black racists and certain Egyptian/North African ethno-nationalists won't like it, and neither with some of the more SSA-centric Afrocentrics), but I'm hoping the scientific community writ large isn't so close-minded. Everyone has their biases, but I'd be shocked if the majority of anthropologists nowadays were determined to suppress such information once it came out. They're generally a progressive and anti-racist lot, despite all the racist creeps who infest the lay fandom.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I mean I think its already kinda unofficially accepted that Yuya was or descended from "Asiatics" due to his unique looks and name, but B2A is pretty insane...like I know the Eurocentrists will use it to own the Hoteps but how are they going to spin that it their favor? If anything it kinda confirms that he's came from foreign ancestry(unless its found in older samples)....anyway...Thats just crazy IMO,
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Djehuti
More bombs are coming. And its not looking good. Yuya being predicted to be B2b and not G2a and other things.
I thought they meant Y-DNA B2b and not mtDNA?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that the predynastic sample was was 53-66% West Eurasian? I would not have guessed that. What are you referring to?
Have you not been paying attention? Their so-called 'Eurasian' ancestry is actually more AFRICAN than Eurasian as Basal Eurasian in Neolithic Iranians shows. Not to mention the Hadza-like markers in Dzudzuana Caucasus.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Also lets just say.... This ain't the only bomb that's gonna be drop. There are MORE and they gonna be peer reviewed since some of you like peer reviewed so much.
I'm sure there will be. There's only so long this information can remain hidden. The latest AI programs also make it easier compiling genetic data that it pretty much forces the experts to make try and make the first move at both compiling and assessing the results.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: A lot of people will have egg on their face (and of course the anti-Black racists and certain Egyptian/North African ethno-nationalists won't like it, and neither with some of the more SSA-centric Afrocentrics), but I'm hoping the scientific community writ large isn't so close-minded. Everyone has their biases, but I'd be shocked if the majority of anthropologists nowadays were determined to suppress such information once it came out. They're generally a progressive and anti-racist lot, despite all the racist creeps who infest the lay fandom.
The implications of OOA origins for Eurasians, specifically out of North Africa pretty much destroys a lot of the old racial models that the traditionalists cling to so it's hard to say. Traditionally academia has had a lot of gate-keepers but at the same time you have newer and fresher minds that come in and take over. For all we know there is probably a civil war of sorts going on behind the scenes between the traditional racists and the new 'progressive' anti-racist types.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Djehuti
More bombs are coming. And its not looking good. Yuya being predicted to be B2b and not G2a and other things.
Makes you wonder what other uniparental assignments in the archaeogenetic literature need revising.
Well all the texts say that Tiye's family come from Akhmim in Upper Egypt. The only contradictory theory is that her father Yuya may have been a foreign Asiatic even (white) Mitanni which was used to explain the blonde hair of his mummy yet craniometrics shows him to be no different from other Egyptians and then we have depictions of Tiye herself which shows her to be very dark skinned.
This makes me wonder about the estimated uniparentals for Tut and his family. I mean you still have the Euronuts claiming Tut has Y- R1b and mt G.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Traditionally academia has had a lot of gate-keepers but at the same time you have newer and fresher minds that come in and take over. For all we know there is probably a civil war of sorts going on behind the scenes between the traditional racists and the new 'progressive' anti-racist types.
I think that "civil war" was more of a thing in the mid-twentieth century as far as academia was concerned, although of course old prejudices do not always die a quick death. That being said, the gatekeeping thing continues to be a problem regardless of the prevailing zeitgeist. I just looked up the publication fee for the journal Nature, which is the journal the paper on the Abusir el-Meleq genomes was published in. It costs well over twelve grand to publish one's paper for open access. The fees for PLOS are lower but still ridiculous. I know these publications need to make money, but such prohibitive costs must do a lot more damage to the state of scientific research than they benefit it.
Maybe bioRxiv is an option? Their page on submissions doesn't mention requiring payment before submission.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The great thing is that Rasol's prediction has come true in that as the science of bio-anthropology advances--particularly genetics-- the more academia is forced to change its views. You have some, even in the younger generation, who try to modify their racial paradigm to fit with the genetic findings but it's not working out for them. For example if what Swenet says is true about Basal Eurasian having more Sub-Saharan elements than even Naqada (Ancestral Northeast African?) then it's definitely game over for the Eurasionuts. I've been suspecting this for a long time with things like Y hg E-M34 and (Arab-Indian) HbS being very much associated with Basal Eurasian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I posted the following in the ES Reloaded:
^ If we use Naqada_Gebelein marker as the baseline for what is 'Egyptian' the results are indeed interesting. Note how except for one, the Abusir samples shown have NO Naqada marker and the one that does, has it at low frequency. The 5 samples with the highest frequency of Naqada marker are foremost the Late Period Unknown sample that also has a little Dinka-like marker, followed by the Middle Kingdom Rifeh NK sample with slightly higher Dinka marker, followed by Middle Kingdom Rifeh NA sample with Levant Neolithic marker that is higher, and then the Third Intermediate Period Unknown, and of course the Kadruka sample.
Compare with the older Revoiye admixture run on Kadruka.
Also the 2017 paper on modern populations of Northeast Africa.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
I can't securely post on ES anymore. But I've read most of the comments I could on here as well as on many other sites. I'll point out some technical things while I can.
1.Phenotype calls, The method for obtaining the phenotypes was referenced on the blogpost. The Kadruka individuals coverage was too low for imputation. therefor I used them as a negative control in which reference bias with likely influence the outcome. The human reference genome isn't that of an African or black person, so the reference allele isn't going to always be the ancestral one (fyi). hence accuracy of samples with above 0.1% coverage as mentioned in the literature cited should be significant. The Natufian individual, the positive control, has results not novel here as expected. The only other factor is contamination which I will probably address in detail in a later post. but as far as contamination is concerned, I took some hefty QC measures to prevent contamination from interfering with the analysis.
2. Iran Neolithic being the best model is likely due to the African ancestry in those samples. They've being pointed out as having the highest levels of "Basal Eurasian" consistently. CHG + Predynastic is a working model for Neolithic Iranian ancestry, though it's anachronistic and such hypothetical models of that nature would not be published as is on Revoiye. I did write under the pie chart that my methodology did not test for Autochthony as I have no real representative samples.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I can't securely post on ES anymore.
what do you mean and why? thanks
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Yeah, what do you mean Elmaestro?? Are you worried about your personal cyber security? Also what about alternative sites like Egyptsearch Reloaded?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here is an older PCA based on Kulubnarti and other studies prior to the topic one, though I forgot from which paper or authors.
And here is an older PCA from Ethiohelix.
larger view Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
In addition to Bocquintin's data, those interested may also check Angel's 1972 measurement table, which includes a sample of el Wad Natufians. There you can see his (broadnosed) el Wad sample is at odds with Trenton's cold adapted el Wad sample. So, either these are two different el Wad samples (like I said, it's known that Natufians from the same site may differ in terms of African features), or these contrasting features were really found in the same mixed population, in which case it shows that it's not really a surprise that predynastics would cluster with Type B populations, first and foremost, all the more if the Natufian sample used, is a 'random' Natufian sample (ie Raqefet), that has no history of being called out for having African features, the way certain other Natufian samples have been called out for showing African affinities.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yeah, what do you mean Elmaestro?? Are you worried about your personal cyber security? Also what about alternative sites like Egyptsearch Reloaded?
Cyber security issues. Not just on this site. But this site is quite annoying as of late (rerouting posts through http etc.)
One thing I noticed is that many people haven't read the primary sources for the samples they comment on all the time. The nature of the Kulubnarti samples should not be controversial in the context of the Predynastic sample.
quote:~Kulubnarti Nubians had varying proportions of Nilotic- and West Eurasian-related ancestry. [..] We tested 32 modern and geographically and temporally-diverse ancient West Eurasian populations, also including a pool of three ancient Egyptians who had a majority proportion of West Eurasian-related ancestry (‘Egypt_published’, comprised of pub- lished data from two individuals from the Pre-Ptolemaic New Kingdom and Late Period and one individual from the Ptolemaic Period)31,as WestEurasia_Test (“Methods”). Negative f3-statistics indicate that Kulubnarti Nubians were admixed between these ancestry types (Supplementary Data 5), confirming that a substantial West Eurasian-related ancestry component was present in this part of Nubia prior to the later migrations that contributed to the present-day genetic landscape. This is consistent with evidence of West Eurasian and Egyptian influence at Kulubnarti, including Christian churches as well as inscriptions in Greek and Coptic as well as Old Nubian.
[..]
~ Ancestry similar to that in Bronze or Iron Age Levant was likely introduced to Kulubnarti via Egypt. To obtain insight into the relative proportions of Nilotic-and West Eurasian-related ancestry and the origin of the West Eurasian-related ancestry at Kulubnarti, we again pooled individuals, this time excluding the six genetic outliers, and applied qpAdm29 (“Methods”; Supple- mentary Note 4). We selected a reference population set that allowed us to model the Kulubnarti Nubians as descended from two-way admixture between Nilotic-related and West Eurasian- related populations while also differentiating between possible sources of West Eurasian-related ancestry. ..
..We examined the fit of the 21 ancient populations previously used for admixture f3-statistics as the West Eurasian-related source and found multiple plausible solutions for two-way admixture models between Dinka and Bronze or Iron Age people from the Levant (Levant_BAIA) or Anatolia (Anatolia_EBA) No West Eurasian populations predating the Bronze Age fit as plausible sources, suggesting that the West Eurasian-related ancestry in the Kulubnarti Nubians is complex and itself admixed, plausibly requiring both Levantine- and/or Anatolian-related ancestry as well as a non-trivial amount of Iranian/Caucasus-related ancestry, which was spread into Anatolia and the Levant in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Complex and admixed West Eurasian-related ancestry at Kulubnarti is consistent with previous work showing that ancestry such as that found in Levant Neolithic-related popula- tions made a critical contribution to the genetic landscape in parts of Africa several thousand years ago, and that ancestry related to the Iranian Neolithic appeared in parts of Africa after the earlier gene flow related to Levant Neolithic populations, with Iranian Neolithic ancestry identified throughout the Levant during the Bronze Age34 and in Egypt by the Iron Age31. Indeed, we find that Egypt_published also fits as a West Eurasian-related source, suggesting that a similar type of West Eurasian-related ancestry was present in Egypt as well as Kulubnarti, consistent with the geographically- and archeologically-plausible scenarios that Egyptians could have been the more proximal source for the introduction of West Eurasian-related ancestry southward into ancient Nubia.
More than one two-way admixture model produced a valid fit with the O9 reference set. Therefore, we adopted a model competition approach, taking pairs of fitting models and adding the source population in one of the fitting models into the reference population set for the other fitting model and evaluating whether it continued to fit. If the model fails, this provides evidence that the source population moved to the reference population set shares genetic drift with the Kulubnarti individuals not present in the other source population, and thus the source moved to the reference set is in some sense genetically closer34,40. Of the three plausible sources determined with the O9 reference set (Levant_BAIA, Anatolia_EBA, and Egypt_published), all models with Levant_BAIA and Anatolia_EBA as the West Eurasian-related source fail when Egypt_published is included in the reference set, and we obtain a fit only when Egypt_published is used as the West Eurasian-related proxy (p = 0.87). With this model, we estimate that 60.4 ± 0.5% ancestry in the Kulubnarti Nubians is ancient Egyptian-related. However, ancient Egyptians have been shown to harbor a non-trivial amount of Dinka-related ancestry, which we re-estimate here using qpAdm to be 5.0 ± 0.7% (p = 0.78; Supplementary Data 7); therefore, we cannot use Egypt_published directly as a proxy source for estimating the proportion of West Eurasian-related ancestry in the Kulubnarti Nubians...
[..]
~Insight into present-day Nubian people. We were interested if ancient DNA data from Kulubnarti could provide new insights into the processes that shaped the genomes of genotyped present- day Mahas, Danagla, and Halfawieen Nubian populations (reported in ref. 20). First, we show using qpWave that none of these three present-day Nubian populations form a clade with the Kulubnarti Nubians and are therefore not their direct descendants without additional admixture. Using DATES and the same reference pairs as previously mentioned, we re-estimate that admixture occurred on average 33.9 ± 2.5 generations ago for the Mahas , 36.6 ± 2.2 generations for the Danagla (95% CI, 855–1095 CE) and 24.2 ± 3.2 generations for the Halfawieen (95% CI, 1148–1498 CE). These dates are consistent with those estimated in Hollfelder et al. (2017), supporting their conclusion that migrations that occurred with the Arab conquest beginning in the 7th century1 left a detectable signature on the genomes of present-day Nubian peoples. We tested if the same qpAdm model that explained ancestry in the Kulubnarti Nubians could also be applied to these present-day Nubian people, but found that the model did not fit any present-day Nubian group tested; we were also not able to fit Kulubnarti as a source in a two-way admixture model for any present-day Nubian group. We can therefore assume that the admixture events that shaped the genomes of these present-day Nubians also introduced different types of ancestry into the gene pool of these people. Thus, despite a superficial resemblance on our PCA, the present-day Nubian populations for which we have genotype data are not descended from a population related to the earlier Kulubnarti Nubians without additional admixture following the Christian Period. perspective of genome-wide data20 and from the perspective of uniparental markers like mtDNA75—are thus important for informing on present-day populations, but our results show that these results cannot be simply extrapolated back to ancient Nubians. Instead, this requires ancient DNA data, such as we report on here.
I remember pointing this out when the study dropped because it was a big deal then. If the Abusir samples are low in predynastic Admixture, so should be the Kulubnarti Samples. People who claim the Christian nubians should show continuity probably based their claims on G25 or some other PCA based analysis which I grew tired of critiquing. I'm thoroughly surprised at the lack of diligence in the bio-anthrospace.
And @Askia is right. The OP is just the beginning. I wonder how some people on this site will reconcile with E-M2 being in Mesolithic Iran but pretty much wiped out by the chalcolithic bronze age? This site is riddled with a compilation of data capable of contextualizing the region, moreso than any other site I've been on. Yet people are getting caught lacking left and right. Where's Tukuler lol? & shout out to DJ and Swenet.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If the Abusir samples are low in predynastic Admixture, so should be the Kulubnarti Samples.
The admixture charts in your article (which I posted in the OP) bear that out. The Kulubnarti smaples don't appear to have much more predynastic ancestry than the Abusir el-Meleq ones. The big difference between them and Abusir el-Meleq is higher Dinka-related ancestry.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
It shouldn't be a surprise that Kulubnarti scores very little predynastic Egyptian ancestry, Nilotic people from the south and Egyptians who were thorougly admixed with Eurasian farmer ancestry settled there over many years, even on G25 the Kulubnarti samples score a lot less PN ancestry than Horn Africans but get a lot more Dinka and Abusir.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
@Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Cyber security issues. Not just on this site. But this site is quite annoying as of late (rerouting posts through http etc.)
Which is exactly why I tend to post in this forum while using my spare laptop, but other than that I never post anything security sensitive.
quote:One thing I noticed is that many people haven't read the primary sources for the samples they comment on all the time. The nature of the Kulubnarti samples should not be controversial in the context of the Predynastic sample.
I remember pointing this out when the study dropped because it was a big deal then. If the Abusir samples are low in predynastic Admixture, so should be the Kulubnarti Samples. People who claim the Christian nubians should show continuity probably based their claims on G25 or some other PCA based analysis which I grew tired of critiquing. I'm thoroughly surprised at the lack of diligence in the bio-anthrospace.
It's mostly the Euronuts who don't bother reading the papers which is why they use Kulubnarti to represent dynastic era Nubians as "caucasoid". They don't even understand that Abusir does not represent dynatic Egyptians, I keep correcting the likes of Antalas with such claims, but oh well.
quote:And @Askia is right. The OP is just the beginning. I wonder how some people on this site will reconcile with E-M2 being in Mesolithic Iran but pretty much wiped out by the chalcolithic bronze age? This site is riddled with a compilation of data capable of contextualizing the region, moreso than any other site I've been on. Yet people are getting caught lacking left and right. Where's Tukuler lol? & shout out to DJ and Swenet.
Props to Swenet who spoke of E-M2 being present in mesolithic Iran and even penetrating into India. I also correlate its presence to the Arab-Indian form of HbS.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It shouldn't be a surprise that Kulubnarti scores very little predynastic Egyptian ancestry, Nilotic people from the south and Egyptians who were thoroughly admixed with Eurasian farmer ancestry settled there over many years, even on G25 the Kulubnarti samples score a lot less PN ancestry than Horn Africans but get a lot more Dinka and Abusir.
Long before DNA evidence, it was also hinted at in the skeletal evidence showing an influx of Asiatics into the north of Egypt while at the same time an influx of Sub-Saharans into the south of Egypt all happening at toward the end of the Dynastic era. So why is it so surprising that DNA confirms this?? Late Period and definitely Christian Period Egyptians and Nubians are not the same as their predecessors from earlier times. Hell we see the same situation with Africans in Southwest in much earlier periods who eventually get swamped over by Eurasians in that region.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan.
IIRC, that difference involved pretty radically different populations (like Kom Ombo Man). I suppose it's possible, that some of Raqefet Natufians' Basal Eurasian was mediated by such a population. But, if so, it should definitely show in the measurements. Jericho Man does show measurements to that effect, if you remember that convo, and we can see in the fst table I posted, that PPN does have a lowered Fst to Yoruba, compared to all, except Iran Neolithic (which has the most African ancestry, if tested through fst).
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Might the spread of certain Coptic dialects attest to population movements in Egypt in the common era? There used to be a whole bunch of Coptic dialects, but it seems that a northern dialect called Bohairic spread upriver sometime in the 9th century and has become the Egyptian Coptic church's liturgical language. I wonder if this indicates migration of northern Coptic Egyptians into Upper Egypt during that time?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That is indeed a strong correlation. There used to be a Sahidic dialect of Coptic spoken in Upper Egypt, but that became extinct and replaced by Arabic due to pressure from Islamic political forces; however, the Arabic vernacular of Sahidi Egyptians preserves many glosses and phonemes from the original Sahidic. The only reason why Boharic remains extant is because that is the liturgical language of the Coptic Church which was based in Alexandria, so Boharic's dominance among southern Copts is an interesting topic of its own in Christian liturgical history. I recall from the old study of Batrawi and others that toward the late part of the New Kingdom there was an influx of northerners into Upper Egypt and I'd imagine similar trends occurred in later times when invaders entered the Delta region. That Delta people themselves already had admixture is clearly seen by the genetic data both from the Late Period and Christian Periods.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan.
IIRC, that difference involved pretty radically different populations (like Kom Ombo Man). I suppose it's possible, that some of Raqefet Natufians' Basal Eurasian was mediated by such a population. But, if so, it should definitely show in the measurements. Jericho Man does show measurements to that effect, if you remember that convo, and we can see in the fst table I posted, that PPN does have a lowered Fst to Yoruba, compared to all, except Iran Neolithic (which has the most African ancestry, if tested through fst).
Yhh I don't think in this case the populations will be radically different, some of those populations we spoke about I think will be dominated by ANA/SSA-like ancestry. Looking at the ratio of basal Eurasian to Mota/Hadza in the Natufians and the Iranians it doesn't look to be radically different.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan.
IIRC, that difference involved pretty radically different populations (like Kom Ombo Man). I suppose it's possible, that some of Raqefet Natufians' Basal Eurasian was mediated by such a population. But, if so, it should definitely show in the measurements. Jericho Man does show measurements to that effect, if you remember that convo, and we can see in the fst table I posted, that PPN does have a lowered Fst to Yoruba, compared to all, except Iran Neolithic (which has the most African ancestry, if tested through fst).
Yhh I don't think in this case the populations will be radically different, some of those populations we spoke about I think will be dominated by ANA/SSA-like ancestry. Looking at the ratio of basal Eurasian to Mota/Hadza in the Natufians and the Iranians it doesn't look to be radically different.
Which methodology/paper or blogpost are you referring to for those estimates? (ratio of mota Hadza.) Neolithic Iranians are shifted towards Central Africans, Raqefet Natufians are shifted towards Iberomaurasians. This difference is one of the reasons Ancient North east African ancestry without predynastics was uncalculatable.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^As far as Neolithic Iranians being shifted to Central Africans, I'm glad you seemingly reached that conclusion via the same tools bloggers are using (ie via sth other than fst) because Lazaridis used an Iranian sample in his 'no SSA ancestry test' that he did on Raqefet Natufians. If so, that's nice to have it on paper that it's not just fst (you know that's what they will say [ie that it's 'just' fst], as Polako and others did, back in 2016, 2017).
About the possibility of E-M2 in Iran. I remember that being in that paper that had E-M35 in South Asia, or that it was in the talks surrounding that South Asia paper. Then this suggestion was shot down as not being valid or not admissible. So it's back on the table again?
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan. [/qb]
IIRC, that difference involved pretty radically different populations (like Kom Ombo Man). I suppose it's possible, that some of Raqefet Natufians' Basal Eurasian was mediated by such a population. But, if so, it should definitely show in the measurements. Jericho Man does show measurements to that effect, if you remember that convo, and we can see in the fst table I posted, that PPN does have a lowered Fst to Yoruba, compared to all, except Iran Neolithic (which has the most African ancestry, if tested through fst). [/qb]
Yhh I don't think in this case the populations will be radically different, some of those populations we spoke about I think will be dominated by ANA/SSA-like ancestry. Looking at the ratio of basal Eurasian to Mota/Hadza in the Natufians and the Iranians it doesn't look to be radically different.
Coon did mention a Fayum Neolithic population supposedly entirely devoid of negroid features (take with a grain of salt) that he claims would go on to form one branch of the Neolithic population of Europe, while leaving little impact on dynastic Egypt. I say that to say, there is some pretty good evidence that the Africans involved in spreading Basal Eurasian did range from more or less purely Type B (Fayum Neolithic, Olduvai Man?) to Type B + stronger negroid features (e.g. Badarians, Type B females), to even less Type B (e.g. Kom Ombo Man).
If there is variation along this Type B - negroid spectrum, and if negroid NE Africans like R12 Nubians and Gebel Ramlah Nubians are a bit divergent between themselves, according to Irish (though nowhere as divergent as Kom Ombo Man is), we could have some populations that approach your description.
Another early Neolithic civilization of Egypt which left no clear traces in the dynastic culture was that of the Fayum people and the Merimdians of the Delta, who, contemporaneously with the Tasians, and following the Sebilians, grew barley, emmer wheat, and flax along the shores of the Fayum Lake and the estuaries of the Delta. They also kept herds of cattle, and especially of swine. Their technology bridges the gap between a Capsian Mesolithic and a full Neolithic. Their pottery, a thick black ware decorated by incision, resembles early ceramic types of Neolithic western Europe and of Anatolia.
The importance of these people is that they probably represent the prototype of the Neolithic agriculturalists who moved westward along the shore of North Africa to Morocco, and over into Spain, whence they spread the Neolithic economy, with emmer flax, and swine, to the Swiss lakes and to the Rhine.17 Although they may have had little importance for Egypt, they had much for Europe. Their appearance in the Fayum and the Delta is dated at about 5000 B.C., and their disappearance about 4000 B.C. One millennium later they or people like them appeared in western Europe. The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians to be described shortly. The Races Of Europe https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope031695mbp
^Nice corroboration of the genetic data--that what is counted Basal Eurasian, is only sometimes more or less purely Basal Eurasian, while other times it's more of a cocktail of different ancestry types in which Basal Eurasian is merely the dominant ancestry type (but not the only one).
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Swenet I remember we discussed the idea that different Eurasian groups admixed with different kinds of North Africans, as in the North African ancestors of Dzuzudana were distinct from the North African ancestors of the Natufians, maybe the North African ancestors of the predynastic Egyptians were closest to the North African ancestors of the Iranians whilst the North African ancestors of the Cushites were more related to the ancestors of the Natufians. @Askia, I think this may explain why Somalis don't score any Naqadan.
IIRC, that difference involved pretty radically different populations (like Kom Ombo Man). I suppose it's possible, that some of Raqefet Natufians' Basal Eurasian was mediated by such a population. But, if so, it should definitely show in the measurements. Jericho Man does show measurements to that effect, if you remember that convo, and we can see in the fst table I posted, that PPN does have a lowered Fst to Yoruba, compared to all, except Iran Neolithic (which has the most African ancestry, if tested through fst).
Yhh I don't think in this case the populations will be radically different, some of those populations we spoke about I think will be dominated by ANA/SSA-like ancestry. Looking at the ratio of basal Eurasian to Mota/Hadza in the Natufians and the Iranians it doesn't look to be radically different.
Which methodology/paper or blogpost are you referring to for those estimates? (ratio of mota Hadza.) Neolithic Iranians are shifted towards Central Africans, Raqefet Natufians are shifted towards Iberomaurasians. This difference is one of the reasons Ancient North east African ancestry without predynastics was uncalculatable.
I'm just going off of the 2018 Taforalt papers admixture analysis where they score a component that peaks in Hadza.
Thats interesting that Neolithic Iranians are shifted towards Central Africans I think I've heard you say this before, what do you base that on?
@Swenet, didn't you propose that Basal Eurasian mixed with different types of SSA-like ancestry before spreading into Eurasia? I think this corroborates that idea.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^But what about farmer samples that are like Sardinians. Wouldn't they need a different Basal Eurasian - SSA-like ratio? One with more of the former and less of the latter? I could see the above Fayum sample being similar to that. Then you could have farmer samples like the initial n=4 Nea Nikomedea early farmers, who cluster with Upper Egyptians. Those could have a different Basal Eurasian - SSA-like ratio.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^As far as Neolithic Iranians being shifted to Central Africans, I'm glad you seemingly reached that conclusion via the same tools bloggers are using (ie via sth other than fst) because Lazaridis used an Iranian sample in his 'no SSA ancestry test' that he did on Raqefet Natufians. If so, that's nice to have it on paper that it's not just fst (you know that's what they will say [ie that it's 'just' fst], as Polako and others did, back in 2016, 2017).
Remind me what sth is again. Does that refer to heterozygosity? Most of the data that gets thrown out at the public tends to be fst or gst and I think these tend to be strawmen when they use Yoruba IBD as proxy for 'Sub-Sahara'. I know the old DNA Tribes wasn't totally accurate but I've always suspected there was something to Central African populations of the Great Lakes and Rift Valley region.
quote:About the possibility of E-M2 in Iran. I remember that being in that paper that had E-M35 in South Asia, or that it was in the talks surrounding that South Asia paper. Then this suggestion was shot down as not being valid or not admissible. So it's back on the table again?
LOL It seems to me some folks are hesitant to cede more Eurasian territory to Africans even if they aren't genetically 'Sub-Saharan'.
quote:Coon did mention a Fayum Neolithic population supposedly entirely devoid of negroid features (take with a grain of salt) that he claims would go on to form one branch of the Neolithic population of Europe, while leaving little impact on dynastic Egypt. I say that to say, there is some pretty good evidence that the Africans involved in spreading Basal Eurasian did range from more or less purely Type B (Fayum Neolithic, Olduvai Man?) to Type B + stronger negroid features (e.g. Badarians, Type B females), to even less Type B (e.g. Kom Ombo Man).
If there is variation along this Type B - negroid spectrum, and if negroid NE Africans like R12 Nubians and Gebel Ramlah Nubians are a bit divergent between themselves, according to Irish (though nowhere as divergent as Kom Ombo Man is), we could have some populations that approach your description.
Another early Neolithic civilization of Egypt which left no clear traces in the dynastic culture was that of the Fayum people and the Merimdians of the Delta, who, contemporaneously with the Tasians, and following the Sebilians, grew barley, emmer wheat, and flax along the shores of the Fayum Lake and the estuaries of the Delta. They also kept herds of cattle, and especially of swine. Their technology bridges the gap between a Capsian Mesolithic and a full Neolithic. Their pottery, a thick black ware decorated by incision, resembles early ceramic types of Neolithic western Europe and of Anatolia.
The importance of these people is that they probably represent the prototype of the Neolithic agriculturalists who moved westward along the shore of North Africa to Morocco, and over into Spain, whence they spread the Neolithic economy, with emmer flax, and swine, to the Swiss lakes and to the Rhine.17 Although they may have had little importance for Egypt, they had much for Europe. Their appearance in the Fayum and the Delta is dated at about 5000 B.C., and their disappearance about 4000 B.C. One millennium later they or people like them appeared in western Europe. The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians to be described shortly. The Races Of Europe https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope031695mbp
^Nice corroboration of the genetic data--that what is counted Basal Eurasian, is only sometimes more or less purely Basal Eurasian, while other times it's more of a cocktail of different ancestry types in which Basal Eurasian is merely the dominant ancestry type (but not the only one).
Yeah, I almost forgot that Coom claimed a continuity from the Egyptian Delta to the Maghreb and into Iberia. Remember too that the Tasians showed a close resemblance to Merimdans also. Also, could you send me more info on Kom Ombo Man? I've only read quick references to him here and there but I don't recall any specific data on him.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^As far as Neolithic Iranians being shifted to Central Africans, I'm glad you seemingly reached that conclusion via the same tools bloggers are using (ie via sth other than fst) because Lazaridis used an Iranian sample in his 'no SSA ancestry test' that he did on Raqefet Natufians. If so, that's nice to have it on paper that it's not just fst (you know that's what they will say [ie that it's 'just' fst], as Polako and others did, back in 2016, 2017).
Remind me what sth is again. Does that refer to heterozygosity? Most of the data that gets thrown out at the public tends to be fst or gst and I think these tend to be strawmen when they use Yoruba IBD as proxy for 'Sub-Sahara'. I know the old DNA Tribes wasn't totally accurate but I've always suspected there was something to Central African populations of the Great Lakes and Rift Valley region.
That's just me using the abbreviation because I'm too lazy sometimes to wrote 'something'. My bad for not being clear.
quote:LOL It seems to me some folks are hesitant to cede more Eurasian territory to Africans even if they aren't genetically 'Sub-Saharan'.
That would be a twist. If true, the table your boy Xxyman is sitting at, is going to rise 2cm (probably 1cm, really ) and he'll make sure we don't forget. Won't you, gramps? He'll be energized for the next 10 yrs off this one result, and you guys will have to put up with it at ESR.
AND it will be nice for me to be able to track movements of ancient E-M2, for once. But, first things first. Let's see if it's true.
BTW, I don't think it was me who predicted E-M2 in Mesolithic Iran (might've been someone else you have in mind). I did speculate it spread in the Iron Age along with West-Central African Iron, hence, E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) in Middle Kingdom Egypt, along with the presence of women (e.g. Ashait, Kemsit, Henhenit) of southern affinity (meaning, southern, as in: beyond what was normal for dynastic Upper Egypt in terms of African features) in 11th dynasty royal tombs.
After this time frame, we observed clades restricted to the north or to the south of the Sahara. In this context, although the large majority of the geographically 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. E-V4990 is a Moroccan clade dated to less than 4.49 kya (the time estimate of the upstream node). The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/
A while back there were reconstructions of Iron Age ppl belonging to a Central Asian civilization. One in particular looked Sub-Saharan African, but all links to the images are broken and they can't be found anymore. I speculated that Iron Age E-M2 reached as far as that site (Gonur Depe, I think it was). Maybe this comment is what you were talking about when you attributed E-M2 in Iran, to me?
quote:Yeah, I almost forgot that Coom claimed a continuity from the Egyptian Delta to the Maghreb and into Iberia. Remember too that the Tasians showed a close resemblance to Merimdans also. Also, could you send me more info on Kom Ombo Man? I've only read quick references to him here and there but I don't recall any specific data on him.
If you see the measurements and non-metrics, you might see why I think the way I do in regards to being very deliberate in reserving sapiens status for remains in our lineage, only (not to say that Kom Ombo Man entirely lacks sapiens ancestry; but he does fall outside of the range of modern humans on a number of measurements, even though he dates to the terminal pleistocene ie very recent). You can see how this morphology not co-existing at the Nile with fossils that resemble predynastics, ties in with what I've been saying about ancestors of predynastics avoiding the Nile mostly.
95. A Human Frontal Bone from the Late Pleistocene of the Kom Ombo Plain, Upper Egypt https://www.jstor.org/stable/2797442 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's just me using the abbreviation because I'm too lazy sometimes to wrote 'something'. My bad for not being clear.
Oh, never mind LOL
quote:That would be a twist. If true, the table your boy Xxyman is sitting at, is going to rise 2cm (probably 1cm, really ) and he'll make sure we don't forget. Won't you, gramps? He'll be energized for the next 10 yrs off this one result, and you guys will have to put up with it at ESR.
AND it will be nice for me to be able to track movements of ancient E-M2, for once. But, first things first. Let's see if it's true.
BTW, I don't think it was me who predicted E-M2 in Mesolithic Iran (might've been someone else you have in mind). I did speculate it spread in the Iron Age along with West-Central African Iron, hence, E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) in Middle Kingdom Egypt, along with the presence of women (e.g. Ashait, Kemsit, Henhenit) of southern affinity (meaning, southern, as in: beyond what was normal for dynastic Upper Egypt in terms of African features) in 11th dynasty royal tombs.
After this time frame, we observed clades restricted to the north or to the south of the Sahara. In this context, although the large majority of the geographically 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. E-V4990 is a Moroccan clade dated to less than 4.49 kya (the time estimate of the upstream node). The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/
A while back there were reconstructions of Iron Age ppl belonging to a Central Asian civilization. One in particular looked Sub-Saharan African, but all links to the images are broken and they can't be found anymore. I speculated that Iron Age E-M2 reached as far as that site (Gonur Depe, I think it was). Maybe this comment is what you were talking about when you attributed E-M2 in Iran, to me?
LMAO Yeah it seems like Afronuts like Xyyman just get lucky when they throw so much crap at the wall that one or two things stick. If it wasn't you who postulated E-M2 being present in Asia, then I wonder if it was either Tukuler or Supercar. I know Clyde Winters espouses the absurd claim of Dravidian being African, however we know that by the Bronze Age there were African crops like sorghum and finger millet found in the Indus Valley not mention questions about individuals like the Chanuhu-daro Lady, though I didn't think E-M2. Maybe E-M329 perhaps. By the way, how "southern" did Mentuhotep II's wives look? As far as I know their bodies are still missing and their portraits don't seem that different from other Nubians. Also, culturally they are C-Group which from the metric data I've read show affinities with modern Beja types.
quote:If you see the measurements and non-metrics, you might see why I think the way I do in regards to being very deliberate in reserving sapiens status for remains in our lineage, only (not to say that Kom Ombo Man entirely lacks sapiens ancestry; but he does fall outside of the range of modern humans on a number of measurements, even though he dates to the terminal Pleistocene ie very recent). You can see how this morphology not co-existing at the Nile with fossils that resemble predynastics, ties in with what I've been saying about ancestors of predynastics avoiding the Nile mostly.
Thanks for the paper. I'll have to read it but Kom Ombo Man to be such an outlier that he may represent Hominim admixture is interesting. So then he is the Nile Valley version Iho Eleru who also shows many archaic traits as well.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's just me using the abbreviation because I'm too lazy sometimes to wrote 'something'. My bad for not being clear.
Oh, never mind LOL
quote:That would be a twist. If true, the table your boy Xxyman is sitting at, is going to rise 2cm (probably 1cm, really ) and he'll make sure we don't forget. Won't you, gramps? He'll be energized for the next 10 yrs off this one result, and you guys will have to put up with it at ESR.
AND it will be nice for me to be able to track movements of ancient E-M2, for once. But, first things first. Let's see if it's true.
BTW, I don't think it was me who predicted E-M2 in Mesolithic Iran (might've been someone else you have in mind). I did speculate it spread in the Iron Age along with West-Central African Iron, hence, E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) in Middle Kingdom Egypt, along with the presence of women (e.g. Ashait, Kemsit, Henhenit) of southern affinity (meaning, southern, as in: beyond what was normal for dynastic Upper Egypt in terms of African features) in 11th dynasty royal tombs.
After this time frame, we observed clades restricted to the north or to the south of the Sahara. In this context, although the large majority of the geographically 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. E-V4990 is a Moroccan clade dated to less than 4.49 kya (the time estimate of the upstream node). The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/
A while back there were reconstructions of Iron Age ppl belonging to a Central Asian civilization. One in particular looked Sub-Saharan African, but all links to the images are broken and they can't be found anymore. I speculated that Iron Age E-M2 reached as far as that site (Gonur Depe, I think it was). Maybe this comment is what you were talking about when you attributed E-M2 in Iran, to me?
LMAO Yeah it seems like Afronuts like Xyyman just get lucky when they throw so much crap at the wall that one or two things stick. If it wasn't you who postulated E-M2 being present in Asia, then I wonder if it was either Tukuler or Supercar. I know Clyde Winters espouses the absurd claim of Dravidian being African, however we know that by the Bronze Age there were African crops like sorghum and finger millet found in the Indus Valley not mention questions about individuals like the Chanuhu-daro Lady, though I didn't think E-M2. Maybe E-M329 perhaps. By the way, how "southern" did Mentuhotep II's wives look? As far as I know their bodies are still missing and their portraits don't seem that different from other Nubians. Also, culturally they are C-Group which from the metric data I've read show affinities with modern Beja types.
The bodies of the women I've mentioned (and one or two others) have been excavated in Middle Kingdom tombs. They have been examined, and they all have in common that they're more southern looking than what was normal for dynastic Egypt. So the artwork showing them with dark brown or jet-black skin, is apparently realistic, in this case (ie not deification or sth symbolic).
Along with the Wadi Howar being occupied by what seem to be Sahelian pastoralists at this time of ~4ky ago (see Eric Becker's 2011 thesis on Wadi Howar), the data seems to suggest that E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) people, among others, were the northern counterpart of the Bantu migrations, which also took place around that time (with the difference being that these people had to go north as southern directions [as viewed from the Cameroon/western Sahel area] were blocked by tsetse flies that kill cattle, while Bantu speaking farmers went south [or, at least, that's my take on it]).
The paper with the remains of those foreign royal wives has some racist/disrespectful commentary so I don't post it in public. I can send you the link if you or anyone wants to read the population affinity stuff in it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:If you see the measurements and non-metrics, you might see why I think the way I do in regards to being very deliberate in reserving sapiens status for remains in our lineage, only (not to say that Kom Ombo Man entirely lacks sapiens ancestry; but he does fall outside of the range of modern humans on a number of measurements, even though he dates to the terminal Pleistocene ie very recent). You can see how this morphology not co-existing at the Nile with fossils that resemble predynastics, ties in with what I've been saying about ancestors of predynastics avoiding the Nile mostly.
Thanks for the paper. I'll have to read it but Kom Ombo Man to be such an outlier that he may represent Hominim admixture is interesting. So then he is the Nile Valley version Iho Eleru who also shows many archaic traits as well. [/QB]
Oase w/ unusually large proportion of archaic ancestry, I would consider to belong in this gray zone category, too. Same as the Red Deer Cave humans from China, and so on. Although you can tell that some of these humans were outliers all the way (e.g. Herto male, Irhoud, Qafzeh-Skhul) while others, like Kom Ombo Man, Oase I, are more gray area, more sapiens-like, IMO.
Curious to get your thoughts on if you think such establishment-endorsed AMH can be considered as easily fitting our lineage. Advanced tools entered the Nile Valley with Silsilians ~16ky, only to disappear again, and such modern behaviour (which also included art) disappeared and didn't return full blown, until the Mesolithic (Mesolithic Nubian pottery, Aqualithic tools, bow and arrow-sized hafted microliths) and the predynastic (e.g decorated combs, headrests, stone make-up palettes).
Some of the other arrivals before Silsilians (eg Wadi Kubbaniya) also had advanced tools, but no real art. Not sure what to make of that. But the Sebilians and the ones before the LGM with mode 3 tools, I would def consider to fall outside of our lineage. They are to the Nile what Aterians are to the Maghreb: a people who for whatever reason (you fill in the blanks) did not or could not compete with sapiens, as they never mastered the bow as shown by their stagnancy in continuing to use large size hafted artefacts, fit for javelins and short range stabbing spears, but not for true long range weapons, like bows.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The bodies of the women I've mentioned (and one or two others) have been excavated in Middle Kingdom tombs. They have been examined, and they all have in common that they're more southern looking than what was normal for dynastic Egypt. So the artwork showing them with dark brown or jet-black skin, is apparently realistic, in this case (ie not deification or sth symbolic).
Along with the Wadi Howar being occupied by what seem to be Sahelian pastoralists at this time of ~4ky ago (see Eric Becker's 2011 thesis on Wadi Howar), the data seems to suggest that E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) people, among others, were the northern counterpart of the Bantu migrations, which also took place around that time (with the difference being that these people had to go north as southern directions [as viewed from the Cameroon/western Sahel area] were blocked by tsetse flies that kill cattle, while Bantu speaking farmers went south [or, at least, that's my take on it]).
The paper with the remains of those foreign royal wives has some racist/disrespectful commentary so I don't post it in public. I can send you the link if you or anyone wants to read the population affinity stuff in it.
Yes, please dm me the link! For some reason most of the info on these ladies is about who they were based on the texts. There was never any argument that their dark color was symbolic especially since there is no evidence in the texts that they were ever deified. Aside from being wives of the king, they were important priestesses in the Hathor cult but not deified like Ahhotep or Ahmose Nefertari. From the material evidence they are affiliated with C-Group however there is some variation with that culture as well as some heterogeneity with crania. You may recall from the literature that there were multiple waves of migration from the Western Desert into Lower Nubia with some types looking 'Libyan' and I forgot which site but one important cemetery showed strong affinities to modern Beja types. If there was wave of E-M2 carrying migrants into the area I wonder if they have some connection to the pastoral culture of the Central Saharan region. It looks like I'll have to dig up the data of C-Group again.
quote:Oase w/ unusually large proportion of archaic ancestry, I would consider to belong in this gray zone category, too. Same as the Red Deer Cave humans from China, and so on. Although you can tell that some of these humans were outliers all the way (e.g. Herto male, Irhoud, Qafzeh-Skhul) while others, like Kom Ombo Man, Oase I, are more gray area, more sapiens-like, IMO.
Curious to get your thoughts on if you think such establishment-endorsed AMH can be considered as easily fitting our lineage. Advanced tools entered the Nile Valley with Silsilians ~16ky, only to disappear again, and such modern behaviour (which also included art) disappeared and didn't return full blown, until the Mesolithic (Mesolithic Nubian pottery, Aqualithic tools, bow and arrow-sized hafted microliths) and the predynastic (e.g decorated combs, headrests, stone make-up palettes).
Some of the other arrivals before Silsilians (eg Wadi Kubbaniya) also had advanced tools, but no real art. Not sure what to make of that. But the Sebilians and the ones before the LGM with mode 3 tools, I would def consider to fall outside of our lineage. They are to the Nile what Aterians are to the Maghreb: a people who for whatever reason (you fill in the blanks) did not or could not compete with sapiens, as they never mastered the bow as shown by their stagnancy in continuing to use large size hafted artefacts, fit for javelins and short range stabbing spears, but not for true long range weapons, like bows.
The problem is that I many others have been conditioned by the narrative that by the first successful OOA expansion, all the other hominids were extinct except for maybe Neanderthals and Denisovans whose populations had dwindled. I never even thought of the possibility that there were other hominid species present in Eurasia, much less still in Africa but the fossil records and genetics are showing otherwise.
In the graph above, obviously there were climatic changes that caused declines in population (bottlenecks) with perhaps some refugia around the Nile. I do find it curious that by the end of the Pleistocene we see A types in the Lower Nile Valley and B types in the Khartoum convergence point.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes, please dm me the link! For some reason most of the info on these ladies is about who they were based on the texts. There was never any argument that their dark color was symbolic especially since there is no evidence in the texts that they were ever deified. Aside from being wives of the king, they were important priestesses in the Hathor cult but not deified like Ahhotep or Ahmose Nefertari. From the material evidence they are affiliated with C-Group however there is some variation with that culture as well as some heterogeneity with crania. You may recall from the literature that there were multiple waves of migration from the Western Desert into Lower Nubia with some types looking 'Libyan' and I forgot which site but one important cemetery showed strong affinities to modern Beja types. If there was wave of E-M2 carrying migrants into the area I wonder if they have some connection to the pastoral culture of the Central Saharan region. It looks like I'll have to dig up the data of C-Group again.
I could be misremembering, but I haven't seen a whole lot of data indicating that C-Group Nubians (aka Wawatians) were that dramatically southern-shifted than other Egypto-Nubians, at least with regards to cranial features. This source for instance describes them as looking more or less like the preceding A-Group population (which we know in turn was similar to predynastic Egyptians of the same time). I know Swenet mentioned that Lower Nubians with otherwise similar cranial features might have differed in hair texture depending on distance from Egypt, but that would be soft-tissue traits rather than cranial ones. So if these ebony-skinned women from the Middle Kingdom were from areas south of Egypt, I don't know if I would look in Lower Nubia for their origins.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Correct. But I believe there is a source that says sth to the effect of "pharaoh x married a Medjay princess", in reference to one of these royals (possibly to Ashait). From memory, the source I'm paraphrasing may have been on Wysinger's website, back when it was still up.
But, even if that source is based on an actual ancient Egyptian document (Egyptology commentators are not always the most reliable), it doesn't rule out inner African ancestry for the rest of the women, or even for her (Ashait), as such ancient texts may indicate tribal or ethnic affiliation, but do not specify the ultimate ancestry breakdown. (In our modern day and age, we often don't even know our ancestry breakdown, hence the rise of commercial genetics testing companies and geneology companies).
If this E-M2 (E-V5001) and inner African R-V88 (R-V4759) reached Egypt, it could have reached Nubians as well. So, in that case, any ancient text about the immediate origin of one of these women, would not make us wiser about Middle Kingdom E-M2 and R-V88 arrivals in wider NE Africa (ie, not just Egypt, but also some Nubian cultures).
BTW, I've mentioned Middle Kingdom E-M2 a couple of posts back, but not yet Middle Kingdom R-V88 from the Sahel. For those who are interested:
"The genotyping of R-V88 internal markers disclosed the phylogenetic relationships of two rare European sub-clades (R-M18 and R-V35) with respect to African-specific clades (Additional file 2: Figure S6). The presence of two nested R-V88 basal European clades can be related to the high frequencies of R-V88 internal lineages in the central Sahel assuming a movement from Europe toward the central Sahel across northern Africa. In turn, considering the trans-Saharan distribution and the “star-like” topology of the sub-clade R-V1589 (branch 233), it is likely that this lineage rapidly expanded in the lake Chad area between 5.73 and 5.25 kya and moved backward to northeastern Africa across the Saharan region (Fig. (Fig.3b;3b; Additional file 2: Figure S6). The large majority of R-V1589 internal lineages harbours both northern and central Sahelian subjects, with the exception of R-V4759 and R-V5781, which are mainly restricted to northern Africa and central Sahel, respectively (Additional file 1: Table S5). The presence of a precisely dated and geographically restricted clade (R-V4759 in northern Africa; Additional file 1: Table S5 and Additional file 2: Figure S6) allowed us to define its coalescence age (4.69 kya) as the lower limit for the backward R-V88 trans-Saharan movement." The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809971/ Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The bodies of the women I've mentioned (and one or two others) have been excavated in Middle Kingdom tombs. They have been examined, and they all have in common that they're more southern looking than what was normal for dynastic Egypt. So the artwork showing them with dark brown or jet-black skin, is apparently realistic, in this case (ie not deification or sth symbolic).
Along with the Wadi Howar being occupied by what seem to be Sahelian pastoralists at this time of ~4ky ago (see Eric Becker's 2011 thesis on Wadi Howar), the data seems to suggest that E1b1a1-V5001 (E-M2) people, among others, were the northern counterpart of the Bantu migrations, which also took place around that time (with the difference being that these people had to go north as southern directions [as viewed from the Cameroon/western Sahel area] were blocked by tsetse flies that kill cattle, while Bantu speaking farmers went south [or, at least, that's my take on it]).
The paper with the remains of those foreign royal wives has some racist/disrespectful commentary so I don't post it in public. I can send you the link if you or anyone wants to read the population affinity stuff in it.[/qb]
Yes, please dm me the link! For some reason most of the info on these ladies is about who they were based on the texts. There was never any argument that their dark color was symbolic especially since there is no evidence in the texts that they were ever deified. Aside from being wives of the king, they were important priestesses in the Hathor cult but not deified like Ahhotep or Ahmose Nefertari. From the material evidence they are affiliated with C-Group however there is some variation with that culture as well as some heterogeneity with crania. You may recall from the literature that there were multiple waves of migration from the Western Desert into Lower Nubia with some types looking 'Libyan' and I forgot which site but one important cemetery showed strong affinities to modern Beja types. If there was wave of E-M2 carrying migrants into the area I wonder if they have some connection to the pastoral culture of the Central Saharan region. It looks like I'll have to dig up the data of C-Group again.
quote:[qb]Oase w/ unusually large proportion of archaic ancestry, I would consider to belong in this gray zone category, too. Same as the Red Deer Cave humans from China, and so on. Although you can tell that some of these humans were outliers all the way (e.g. Herto male, Irhoud, Qafzeh-Skhul) while others, like Kom Ombo Man, Oase I, are more gray area, more sapiens-like, IMO.
Curious to get your thoughts on if you think such establishment-endorsed AMH can be considered as easily fitting our lineage. Advanced tools entered the Nile Valley with Silsilians ~16ky, only to disappear again, and such modern behaviour (which also included art) disappeared and didn't return full blown, until the Mesolithic (Mesolithic Nubian pottery, Aqualithic tools, bow and arrow-sized hafted microliths) and the predynastic (e.g decorated combs, headrests, stone make-up palettes).
Some of the other arrivals before Silsilians (eg Wadi Kubbaniya) also had advanced tools, but no real art. Not sure what to make of that. But the Sebilians and the ones before the LGM with mode 3 tools, I would def consider to fall outside of our lineage. They are to the Nile what Aterians are to the Maghreb: a people who for whatever reason (you fill in the blanks) did not or could not compete with sapiens, as they never mastered the bow as shown by their stagnancy in continuing to use large size hafted artefacts, fit for javelins and short range stabbing spears, but not for true long range weapons, like bows.
The problem is that I many others have been conditioned by the narrative that by the first successful OOA expansion, all the other hominids were extinct except for maybe Neanderthals and Denisovans whose populations had dwindled. I never even thought of the possibility that there were other hominid species present in Eurasia, much less still in Africa but the fossil records and genetics are showing otherwise.
I've been trying to explain this for years. Now you appear to understand what I mean. I hope you and others who see what I mean, will not go back to the academic narrative without considering what I've been saying.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: In the graph above, obviously there were climatic changes that caused declines in population (bottlenecks) with perhaps some refugia around the Nile. I do find it curious that by the end of the Pleistocene we see A types in the Lower Nile Valley and B types in the Khartoum convergence point.
pre-Mesolithic al Khiday was already gone by Mesolithic times (Mesolithic Nubians of Wadi Halfa type reused the cemetery). Like I said, the ancestors of predynastics didn't co-exist with the older inhabitants of the Nile for long. And people related to dynastic Egyptians didn't take the Nile until very late. Even the settlement of the Nile by people related to Egyptians (eg Silsilians), did not last.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Do you have any ideas as to why these gaps in population history??
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti The problem is that I many others have been conditioned by the narrative that by the first successful OOA expansion, all the other hominids were extinct except for maybe Neanderthals and Denisovans whose populations had dwindled. I never even thought of the possibility that there were other hominid species present in Eurasia, much less still in Africa but the fossil records and genetics are showing otherwise.
At least in Asia we have remains of at least two more species (besides Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern Homo sapiens), Homo floresiensis in Indonesia and Homo luzonensis from the Philippines. Also there can have been remaining erectus populations rather late. Probably there are more hominins to be found both in Europe and Asia. Different hominins have been living in Asia for nearly two million years and in Europe for maybe 1,3 million years. Their mutual relations are not fully understood yet.
Pity we do not have that kind of material here were I am living (the latest ice swept away a lot of fossil bearing layers) otherwise I would be happy to study it. Maybe it is time to go abroad and work with the remains left by these really old relatives.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Someone on TV said, the picture with different human types being excavated right now, is causing palaeontology to start to look like Lord of the Rings, with 'hobbits' (ie the Indonesian hominids), and other distinct 'humanoids' distributed all over Afroeurasia. I don't think that person realized we'd soon get other additions, straight out of LOTR (e.g. Dragon Man from China).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Do you have any ideas as to why these gaps in population history??
Gaps? Can you clarify what you mean?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Damn. This thread really tanked. Anyway, I just wanted to post this in relation to my last comment. See especially the muscular body type, which could very well correspond to the robust bones we find in palaeolithic North Africa (robusticity is closely related to muscularity because muscles attach to those bony super structures). This range of body types is exactly what I mean when I agree with that TV show commentator, that the range of diversity in the human population in the palaeolithic is starting to look like LOTR. But I guess that didn't go over well.
Currently, I'm thinking: Body type A3 and B3 = mechtoids; A2 = Nilotes, the makers of the aqualithic (e.g. Kiffians); A4 = some African cold adapted types (think, Afalou #28)
Some of these depictions may fall in the world of the imaginal, so not all of it has anthro value, but those tall, muscular figures definitely call to mind tall 'mechtoids', especially since they were around when those depictions were made.
Anyway, just didn't want to leave it on that note, without clarifying what I meant. I'm glad I was able to find that pdf (wasn't sure if I still knew the name, and google search engine is not nearly as thorough as it used to be, years ago).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Sorry for the late response. By "gaps" I meant gaps in culture. Do you think that other Hominin species were occupying the area and either kept our lineage out OR simply just environmental pressures that kept them and other Hominins out?
Also, do you really believe the rock paintings reflect accurate body proportions and measurements? I mean, I don't rule it out, but the depictions could just as likely be abstract in regards to proportions.
It does talk about the flourishing of art in c. 16,000-15,000 B.P. followed by a hiatus and then again in c. 8,000 B.P.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Sorry for the late response. By "gaps" I meant gaps in culture. Do you think that other Hominin species were occupying the area and either kept our lineage out OR simply just environmental pressures that kept them and other Hominins out?
Also, do you really believe the rock paintings reflect accurate body proportions and measurements? I mean, I don't rule it out, but the depictions could just as likely be abstract in regards to proportions.
You might want to reread that Vishnyatski paper. Generally, it seems there is an alternation going on at different sites, with either makers of modern tools (mode 4, mode 5) holding the site, archaics holding the site, or makers of mixed tools holding the site (mode 3 is mixed and generally contains mode 4 and/or mode 5, especially in Africa; although most researchers are in denial that mode 3 is, in fact, a mixture that contains no distinguishing feature).
Kom Ombo Man, if he's part of the Sebilian as is thought, is an example of the latter (flakes subjected to microlithization, as if in imitation of the mode 5 revolution that was going on in North Africa, but not with mode 4 blades as the foundation, as was the case in, say, the Silsilian or the Natufian). This is part of the reason why I said, earlier, that Kom Ombo Man seems not as 'archaic' as, say, Qafzeh/Skhull.
As far as those body proportions, I'm only clarifying my comments re: LOTR. I can only say that the Iberomaurusians excavated by Roche had a body type that matches the art (tallish, bulky, muscular, but, somewhat unexpectedly, with relatively narrow hips). Nay sayers will say it's just art. That's okay. Convincing ppl is tiring. I rather leave sth for consideration and have like-minded ppl in mind.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
Looking at the 2020 Wang paper theres a bunch of interesting F4 stats in the supplementary.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the Kakapel and IA Kenyan samples share the most alleles with the Chalc Levantines and Neolithic Iranians.
Stats such as f4(Kakapel_900BP, Luo; Levant_ChL, Chimp) would measure whether Levant_ChL shares more alleles with Kakapel_900BP than with Luo? A positive value suggests that Kakapel_900BP is more genetically similar to Levant_ChL than Luo. Is this is a correct interpretation?
I'm guessing this would be partially due to actual Levantine farmer ancestry in these samples aswell as shared Basal Eurasian/North African ancestry which Neo/Meso Iranians seem to peak in.
Some samples like the IA Deloraine actually share more alleles with the ancient Moroccan samples, and then groups like the Druze and Bedouin.
^ f4 measures gene flow with one outgroup with no geneflow as a type of control (chimp) and the others used to show geneflow if any and how much. The value is either positive or negative, but I have hard time seeing the graphs so I'll have to blow them up or get a larger version of them.
From the z-scores it seems the sample that shows the closest relation to Levant ChL is the Kenya 400 BP sample. Though the Kenya_Nyarindi_3500 BP shows relation to Morocco_LN so I'm thinking perhaps Basal Eurasian and/or something similar between them.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and he'll make sure we don't forget. Won't you, gramps? He'll be energized for the next 10 yrs off this one result, and you guys will have to put up with it at ESR. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yeah it seems like Afronuts like Xyyman just get lucky when they throw so much crap at the wall that one or two things stick. If it wasn't you who postulated E-M2 being present in Asia, then I wonder if it was either Tukuler or Supercar. I know Clyde Winters espouses the absurd claim of Dravidian being African, however we know that by the Bronze Age there were African crops like sorghum and finger millet found in the Indus Valley not mention questions about individuals like the Chanuhu-daro Lady, though I didn't think E-M2. Maybe E-M329 perhaps. By the way, how "southern" did Mentuhotep II's wives look? As far as I know their bodies are still missing and their portraits don't seem that different from other Nubians. Also, culturally they are C-Group which from the metric data I've read show affinities with modern Beja types.