peloponnesian
Regular Member
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 81
- Points
- 18
Which recent findings?So these recent findings lend some credence as too why blue eyed ancient egyptian statues exist. I recall many ancient Jews had blue eyes aswell.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which recent findings?So these recent findings lend some credence as too why blue eyed ancient egyptian statues exist. I recall many ancient Jews had blue eyes aswell.
It looks like even King Tut and his dynasty were likely contaminated.
It looks like even King Tut and his dynasty were likely contaminated.
Old Kingdom Egypt are almost entirely E-M35 with some rare J/T present.
agree by logic we should find some e-m78>v12
and e-m78>v22 among the ancient egyptians
about contamination i think they are talking about this paper :
“Genetic Predisposition of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Ancient Human Remains”
( And it look like that paper includes:
some new 17 ancient egyptian remains)
Genetic Predisposition of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Ancient Human Remains
Several computed tomographic studies have shown the presence of atherosclerosis in ancient human remains. However, while it is important to understand the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), genetic data concerning the prevalence ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
p.s
some of them were uploaded to theytree
it is not only strange the r1b dominance among them
but also autosomally there k12b values look more like southern europeans
Those that show minimal Steppe ancestry are contaminated. That should especially be true for "Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom-Djehuty_Nakht_2100B.C:I6130" but if my memory serves me well also for "Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom_Period:Egyptian_1879bc:Nakht-Ankh".Egyptian_Old_Kingdom_Period_Gizeh:I6409
Egyptian_Old_Middle_Kingdom_Period_Dahshur:I10020
Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom-Djehuty_Nakht_2100B.C:I6130
Egyptian_Dynasties_Period:I4270
Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom_Period:Egyptian_1879bc:Nakht-Ankh
Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Period:JK2134
Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Period:JK2911
Do any of these samples have contamination?
Egyptian_Ptleomic_Period:EGY_Hellenistic_contam:JK2888 This one is labeled as having contamination. Is some contamination ok when using samples for modeling? I wouldn't think so.
It looks like even King Tut and his dynasty were likely contaminated.
Old Kingdom Egypt are almost entirely E-M35 with some rare J/T present.
Those that show minimal Steppe ancestry are contaminated. That should especially be true for "Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom-Djehuty_Nakht_2100B.C:I6130" but if my memory serves me well also for "Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom_Period:Egyptian_1879bc:Nakht-Ankh".
Contaminated samples are more or less useless because they show modern ancestry by those that worked on them.
I never believed in Tuts supposed R1b Y-Haplogroup in the first place. Didn’t make much sense 3 years ago and much less today.
None.What's the evidence for that?
from this paper :
Genetic Predisposition of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Ancient Human Remains
Several computed tomographic studies have shown the presence of atherosclerosis in ancient human remains. However, while it is important to understand the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), genetic data concerning the prevalence ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
View attachment 15855
those that were uploaded to theytree:
1967 | Egypt 1st IP - Middle Kingdom (2160-1650 BC) - R-L20 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1967 | Egypt 1st IP - Middle Kingdom (2160-1650 BC)www.theytree.com
2284 | Egypt Old Kingdom - 1st IP (2686-2055 BC) - R-M269 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:2284 | Egypt Old Kingdom - 1st IP (2686-2055 BC)www.theytree.com
1946 ÄM 14590 | Egypt Predynastic (4500-3500 BC) - R-L20 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1946 ÄM 14590 | Egypt Predynastic (4500-3500 BC)www.theytree.com
1945 ÄM 700/3 ERR11563087 ERR11600029 - R-P310 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1945 ÄM 700/3 ERR11563087 ERR11600029www.theytree.com
1946 ÄM 14590 ERR11563088 ERR11600030 - R-L20 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1946 ÄM 14590 ERR11563088 ERR11600030www.theytree.com
1951 JK 615.11 (ÄM 36996) ERR11563089 ERR11600031 - G-Z6552 / K1a18 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1951 JK 615.11 (ÄM 36996) ERR11563089 ERR11600031www.theytree.com
1967 ÄM 16201 ERR11563093 ERR11563094 ERR11600034 ERR11600035 - R-L20 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:1967 ÄM 16201 ERR11563093 ERR11563094 ERR11600034 ERR11600035www.theytree.com
2287 Provv. 1488 (child) ERR11563101 ERR11600048 - J-L70 / H5a7 - 祖源树TheYtree
祖源树TheYtree样本:2287 Provv. 1488 (child) ERR11563101 ERR11600048www.theytree.com
p.s
it is ok even as an hobbyist like myself to ask questions
were is e1b1b1?
strange
it is the most common y haplogroup in egypt
It was already given an answer, these are not real results. They are contaminated and will be nullified.
Old Kingdom Egypt will be mostly E-M35. They are coming soon as a peer reviewed paper.
I wish they would go into overdrive in pumping out new samples (G25 coords, etc) for Egypt and the near east entirely. For England alone from the BA-IA there's over 280 samples. For Egypt counting the questionable samples that aren't averages, there's only like 12 with coordinates.
these are the only ancient egyptians individuals
i see at davidski g25 spreadsheet : ( we need more )
Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod:JK2134,0.046667,0.149283,-0.037712,-0.119188,-0.001846,-0.050479,-0.005875,-0.008077,0.048063,0.005467,-0.000487,-0.012139,0.030178,0.002615,-0.001221,-0.012066,-0.008996,-0.004307,-0.006159,0.009755,0.004742,0.000618,0.005053,0.011568,0.006347
Egypt_ThirdIntermediatePeriod:JK2911,0.054635,0.144205,-0.045632,-0.118219,-0.001846,-0.04769,-0.019271,-0.000231,0.048063,0.006925,0.01835,-0.016635,0.0278,-0.009771,-0.003529,0.002121,-0.00678,0.005828,-0.006536,0.018759,0.006613,0.006306,0.003821,-0.008917,-0.005508
Egyptian_Old_Kingdom_Period_Gizeh:I6409,0.029665247,0.13868540,-0.047587444,-0.14426329,-0.0022221347,-0.063518622,-0.014261081,-0.013556098,0.087986490,0.0041161682,-0.0028172711,-0.019512651,0.055365686,0.0068209691,0.0071103512,0.014172621,-0.0011899901,-0.019799603,-0.021658496,0.032836460,-0.0024145371,-0.010472191,-0.0046426664,-0.0034683108,0.0029676763
Egyptian_Old_Middle_Kingdom_Period_Dahshur:I10020,0.011530275,0.13728656,-0.049170061,-0.11359996,0.00099127203,-0.049440638,-0.020387999,-0.0026683728,0.062675346,-0.0081175666,0.0020009024,-0.011293133,0.028314321,0.020438082,0.0095046032,0.0088030027,-0.017175880,-0.0096735594,-0.0038784026,0.00068539449,0.0029141859,-0.015338366,-0.0043286787,-0.0012691466,0.0014364105
Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom-Djehuty_Nakht_2100B.C:I6130,0.053504150,0.13702279,-0.042256778,-0.088577892,0.0016483012,-0.037922341,-0.014478379,-0.0022917330,0.032911256,0.0051009809,0.0091531458,-0.013376381,0.026522487,0.0012096728,-0.0043573045,-0.0011185066,-0.021307803,6.0763451e-05,0.0033831153,0.0024352202,0.0013931869,-0.0017261886,0.0014597641,0.0049339092,0.0086866961
Egyptian_Dynasties_Period:I4270,0.029426332,0.12950421,-0.035513124,-0.086261212,0.00033343075,-0.051749749,-0.019966154,-0.0054937906,0.034047365,-0.0075339831,0.0072808600,-0.0097472856,0.017746303,0.0042224539,-0.0035992889,0.017692031,-0.0029042799,0.0011414125,-4.6902190e-05,-0.0047014951,0.0096118254,0.0052474445,0.0030944825,0.0031438881,0.0037047543
Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom_Period:Egyptian_1879bc:Nakht-Ankh,0.0012,0.129,-0.044,-0.0965,-0.0031,-0.0534,-0.017,-0.0078,0.0551,-0.0049,0.0138,-0.0172,0.0306,-0.0015,0.0069,-0.0072,-0.0111,0.0053,-0.004,0.0042,-0.0012,0.0046,-0.0078,0.0026,-0.0013
Egyptian_Ptleomic_Period:EGY_Hellenistic_contam:JK2888,0.040976,0.159438,-0.055437,-0.102068,0,-0.060798,-0.023266,-0.008307,0.048472,0.007472,0.015427,-0.019782,0.034341,-0.004129,0.00475,-0.015646,-0.024121,0.007348,-0.005028,-0.00025,-0.004617,0.008285,-0.012571,0.005302,-0.005987
Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Period:JK2134,0.046667,0.152329,-0.037712,-0.121126,0,-0.054384,-0.010575,-0.006231,0.048472,0.007289,0.000162,-0.010191,0.026164,0.000138,0,-0.008486,-0.007953,-0.005194,-0.00176,0.006878,0.005989,0.001237,0.005053,0.013134,0.006227
Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Period:JK2911,0.053497,0.141159,-0.04714,-0.115635,-0.004001,-0.04518,-0.020681,-0.003231,0.046427,0.005103,0.017863,-0.012739,0.0333,-0.011836,-0.001629,0.004375,-0.00691,0.001267,-0.005279,0.017133,0.005241,0.002102,0.002218,-0.005302,-0.007424
Egyptian_Outlier:Byzantine_Period:Iznik_Basilica_Nun,0.034147,0.143190,-0.036958,-0.089956,0.014157,-0.035001,-0.012574,-0.004385,0.047654,0.016766,0.008282,-0.010416,0.026313,-0.001170,0.004208,-0.005635,-0.005802,-0.009312,-0.019986,0.007254,-0.006426,-0.013355,0.005978,-0.004820,0.002036
Egyptian_Outlier:Beirut_IAIII_Egyptian:SFI-43,0.037562,0.14319,-0.050911,-0.109821,0.000615,-0.045459,-0.009635,0.001154,0.044995,0.006196,0.012991,-0.020382,0.0388,0.001101,-0.000407,0.005436,-0.002999,-0.002914,-0.004399,0.018259,0.013975,0.002968,0.001356,0.005302,-0.003353
Egyptian_Outlier:Beirut_IAIII_Egyptian:SFI-44,0.046667,0.146236,-0.040729,-0.094639,-0.000308,-0.03765,-0.011281,0.000231,0.041109,0.006743,0.010068,-0.010341,0.024529,-0.000826,0.006379,-0.010607,-0.015125,-0.001774,-0.002137,-0.001376,0.010107,0.009645,-0.001109,-0.001807,0.002754
Egyptian_Outlier:England_Roman_Period_Egyptian_Gladiator_o:3DT26,0.05122,0.156392,-0.050911,-0.102068,-0.003077,-0.044065,-0.012926,-0.007154,0.031906,0.000364,0.004384,-0.015436,0.027354,0.003853,-0.003936,0.005304,-0.000782,-0.001014,-0.005908,0.010505,0.003494,-0.003833,-0.001109,0.006868,-0.010059
None.
In fact the paper tested staff member DNA (as usual) to verify for contamination risks.
But, it is a typical mecanism from non-scientific "theoreticians", when their model didn't fit with data, then they will claim that the data have an issue.
I even saw that in collaboration meeting few years ago (in Physics), when a dude started to "yell" that there was a big issue with our data !!!
Our data were quite new. We were still trying to figure out all aspect of the data, thus we were all interested about what he might have found. We asked him what he identified.
He just replied that his model wasn't fitting, and therefore the data were wrong.
Back in those day, we nearly all laughed quite loudly.
Usually it start to smell bad when data quality is determined on the basis of the agreement with a model.
On internet forum, this is a behavior you'll meet quite often.
Regarding King-Tut Y-haplogroup ... it is pointless anyway.
Could a R-M269 made its way to egyptian New Kingdom ? Definitely possible (It is not like the geographical distance is that huge).
But, we know that if such movement occured it was linked to isolated travellers/merchants as no significant cultural influences are documented.
Thus : end of the "scientific" part of the story, Y-lineage are peculiar oddities based on the lucky success of some males, like for any other mutations (sometimes expansion of mutations is based on natural selection, sometimes just on random founder effects).
Then starts the "ideological" part of the story, with some idéologically motivated considerations ... with peoples fighting not about data/science but about some preconceived ideology they want to push for.
In the case of Tut's lineage, what strongly disfavor the contamination idea is the coherence of the genealogic tree :
If heavy contamination was at play, you won't expect it to follow the structure of the genealogic tree.
Therefore, considering the contamination checks made in the paper, and considering that the results are following a consistent patern for the genealogic tree ... there is little to no scientific reasons to cast doubts about the found haplogroups.
Now, of course, some ideologies might be annoyed that such haplogroup made it to Egypt back in the New Kingdom and even "dared" to end up on a Royal line !
In fact, a single lineage taken alone (even on a Royal line) says nothing about autosomal components and cultural influences.
The only peoples who care about that are probably having some "strange" vision of how humans mobility works (and how cultural integration works).
What we know from modern DNA of Egyptians is that if some European lineages made it to Egypt during BA, they weren't a lot (which is consistent with the lack of cultural influences).
Trying to prove that not a single lonely traveller made it to Egypt is at best a very weird angle for a scientific work.
Scientifically speaking it is pointless, no-one serious cares about one peculiar haplogroup when reasoning at the scale of civilisations.
What shows Tut's Y-DNA is just that human mobility between Europe and North-Africa wasn't equal to 0 (yet we have many reasons to think that is was very very small).
Which shouldn't comes as a surprise anyway.
Now, most likely, Tut's lineage didn't arrive from outside to conquer Egypt ... it was likely from a traveller that got abosrbed by Egyptian culture and luckily accessed to power many years after, once being an "integrated" component of the egyptian population.
Thus it is only a "case" for people having some ideological issues about human mobility.
Historically-wise, such peculiar Y-DNA is pointless. Statistical analysis about Y-lineages can be usefull, but for that it would require a lot of tested lineages (and not only royals), and very deep analyses to establish exact clades.
Those that show minimal Steppe ancestry are contaminated. That should especially be true for "Egyptian_Middle_Kingdom-Djehuty_Nakht_2100B.C:I6130
This thread has been viewed 27070 times.