View Full Version : The New View of Africa - Ancient DNA and How the Lost Tribe Found Family

09-24-2018, 04:29 PM
Hello, This is my first real post here on Anthrogenica. I posted an introduction thread, but it didn't give any more information than just an introduction. I am going to attempt to keep this first post on African DNA very simplified. I feel that this subject not only goes against what we view as African, but that it allows us to theorize a view of early Africa that we have not had before.

African ancestrage is a struggle of mine. My male line is vastly unknown. We can trace back to a grandfather who was born in the early 1600s, but whose lineage was unknown. He immigrated through Cologne, with many people debating if he was from Germany or the Netherlands. I decided to start out my genetic testing with three different companies. I purchased Ancestry, to help and find cousins. I purchased a Y-111 test from FamilyTree DNA, and the Geno 2.0 from National Geographic. I received all of these results about 2 years ago. This is when the difficulty started.

Both Nat Geo and FamilyTree show that my haplogroup was an E. They both state plainly that every E haplogroup is African. Wow, my male line is African. This was a point of pride. Unfortunately, any claim of being African-American was met with skepticism. My skin color doesn't match what society associates with that ethnicity. The more open minded people simply assume that I am South African. This again is just another unfair stereotype. I want to show that these types of assumptions are incorrect.

This Tribal theory is one that is new to me. I came up with this logical deduction just two weeks ago. It disappointed me, because I had this data for about two years. I just had never put together the links. I didn't make the connection. On the night where I put this together, I cried four times. It was very liberating and freeing. There's plenty of time to talk about the background of my testing and my data. I want to focus on this Tribal theory, and what it means to me.

National Geographic Genographic Project is my favorite test for it's value. It's data is the one that brought me this Tribal revelation. Nat Geo started their testing service the proper way. They traveled to Africa, and gave out thousands of DNA tests to tribal members in different regions. This gives them great baseline data for understanding ancient Africa. It is this baseline which gives me the data to make this revealing conclusions.

My haplogroup is a subclade of E-V13. It was Nat Geo's data on a further upstream subclade, which brought me this Tribal theory. Nat Geo looks as E-M96 in an interesting way. They show that this haplogroup matches 97 percent of every male lineage of the Bantu men in the Congo. This haplo matches 91 percent of every man in the Dogon tribe. It matches 92 percent of every Yoruban male. It matches 76 percent of all Zulu male line lineages, and between 85 and 92 percent of all Berbers.

To me, this tells me that if I was to look at the Bantu tribe in the Congo, then only 3 of the men out of 100 would NOT match me. 97 of them would be me. They would be family. This data also tells me that these tribes were all one, at one point in time. Nat Geo approximates this time period to be 50 thousand years ago. Not only do I see family in each of these tribes, but I now view a combined tribe where all of these tribes are brothers. If the male lineages of over 90 percent of two tribe members match, then it's not much of a logical jump to understand that they are family. I see my male line as part of the combined tribe, but that it's a tribe that has been lost to antiquity. We are still the same, but have lost our dark skin.

Nat Geo also does "genius matching", where they compare known dna samples of famous people with user's tested samples. An intriguing result from there is they show a common ancestor with Ramses II between 25 thousand and 45 thousand years ago. This is just inside the 50 thousand year estimation for E-M96. While this is not saying that I descend from Ramses II, it is indeed suggesting that we descend from the same family. There is no other way to have common ancestors. It is intriguing to theorize that perhaps ALL of the tribes described in my thread descend from the same family as the pharaohs. I feel this would put a new face to the origins of Africa.

There is an additional bit of information that we can juxtapose from this Nat Geo data. I believe that it is great to interpret different isolation values for tribes. While I mentioned that the haplo matches 97 percent of the Bantu living in the Congo, it only matches 83 percent of the Bantus from Kenya, and 86 percent from Tanzania and Gabon. I believe these show the amount of genetic influx into these tribes. This E-M96 is the "father" line to all of these tribes, and has been joined with other dna as tribe members reproduce with men from outside of these originating lineages. This then shows that both Dogon and Yoruba tribes have had a very genetically secluded and isolated reproductive history. They still are 90 percent pure with originating lineage reproduction over thousands of years. The Zulu showing 76 percent has had more influx than these other tribes.

While some of these points are theories of my own creation, I believe that they are backed by evidence. I feel that the data supports these claims. What do you think this data shows? Am I right to assume that this would be interesting to publish papers on this topic?

When I first learned of my E haplogroup, I struggled to come to grips with my African ancestry. With the combined Tribal data, I now do not struggle anymore. I view myself as VERY African. I have five tribes, that I view as family. I can now learn their history, religion, language and cultures. I can travel and learn directly from my people in the homeland. Now I desire to go live with each of these tribes for six months or longer. There will never be any doubt in how African I am.

09-26-2018, 04:56 PM
I'm confused. My African-American son-in-law carries a classic West African E1b1a Y-DNA haplogroup. From what I've read, his haplogroup is dominant in much of Africa. I was naturally curious how your E-V13 fit into this. I'm a dilettante with all this, but from what I've read, E-V13 came into Europe from the Middle East with early farmers and is not uncommon. I am pretty dumb about all this, but are you saying that E-V13 is also massively widespread in Africa?

09-26-2018, 05:32 PM
Well, you're looking at two different things. First, it's entirely possible that E1b1a is a dominant haplogroup in Africa, but I am discussing a haplogroup that is dominant amongst these specific tribes. It's unique that these tribes have continued to keep a large majority of a single bloodline as their tribal makeup. EV13 is a more recent derivative of E-m96. There are some interesting assumptions of E-V13 if you google "E-v13 and hamitic". One website owner suggests that this is the lineage of Nimrod. I am unsure of his claims. However, there are some claims on this forum that E-CTS1273 is the bloodline of Abraham. Wouldn't it follow that Abraham would be descendant of Nimrod?

When you are looking for E-v13, it is not going to be as common in Africa, because this tribe has migrated up into the Middle East around 50 thousand years ago. I feel that this is when the tribal exodus happened. Some event caused this mass tribe to split and head into different regions. This bloodline is also up to 50 percent of Egyptian Men, 40 percent of all Albanians, and 30 percent of all Greeks. It is very widespread, but it's the African origins that I'm more interested in. Is it possible that a third of the Greeks have traceable African lineage? That would be interesting.

Here are two break downs of my haplogroup. The combined tribal line is E-M96, of which E-V13 is a more recent subclade or version of it. I'm including the Nat Geo breakdown, as well as the Y-full breakdown. I really enjoy the Yfull tree.

09-26-2018, 07:10 PM

09-26-2018, 09:16 PM
Can't tell if your serious, but your E-V13 is about as closely related to Zulu/Yoruba/Congolese E-V43 as Grossvater's R1b-U152 is to Australian Aboriginal S-P308.

09-26-2018, 11:57 PM
They all were the same haplo of E-M96 50 thousand years ago. How is that not closely related?

10-01-2018, 06:11 PM
They all were the same haplo of E-M96 50 thousand years ago. How is that not closely related?

Surely you are trolling. How is 50,000 years close?

10-02-2018, 04:49 PM
They all were the same haplo of E-M96 50 thousand years ago. How is that not closely related?

For reference, Homo Sapiens left Africa around 70000 years ago. Considering 50000 years is on the same timescale, its surprising you could consider this closely related.

F-M89 (including its subclades) constitutes 90% of paternal lineages outside of Africa, and is also dated around 50000 years ago. I wouldn't say that everyone who comes under F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S or T are closely related at all.

01-27-2019, 07:45 AM
I don't understand your refutation to saying that I am closely related to E-M96. This is the same line of descent that I am. My line is just a variant of E-M96 that's classified as something else, but that doesn't mean that I'm not E-M96. I feel that showing that I am the same genetic line as multiple tribes in Africa is an important thing. It took me four years or so to really grasp what the data has shown me.