posted
Expanding upon Al Takuri's suggestion, to deal with redundant and repetitious threads created by trolls, we shouldn't respond but merely reinforce those facts that have been distorted. For instance, what is Keita's take on the relationship between modern an ancient Egyptians? Does he consider them to be the same or similar, and does he consider the former to be either mixed or Caucasian?
From the paper cited in the parent post:
"Very little DNA has been retrieved from ancient Egyptian remains, and there are not many studies on the modern population. However, the results of analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome in the living Egyptian population show the existence of very old African lineages that are consistent with the fossil remains and of younger lineages of more recent evolution, along with evidence of the assimilation of later migrants from the Near East and Europe; mtDNA is passed only through the female line, from mother to offspring, and the relevant part of the Y chromosome, the nonrecombining section, passes only from father to son. The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations **that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time**, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences."
Hence, mixed Caucasians are not indigenous to northeast Africa and emphasizing a "range of evolutionary influences" would be misleading if they were already "mixed".
What is this genetic profile he speaks of?
Region (n) IV V XI VII VIII XII XV Lower Egypt (162) 1.2 51.9 11.7 8.6 10.5 3.7 6.8 Upper Egypt (66) 27.3 24.2 28.8 4.6 3.0 0.0 6.1 Lower Nubia (46) 39.1 17.4 30.4 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0
V, IV and XI corresponds to African haplotypes which makes up nearly 75% of Egyptian Y-Chromosome diversity. What does Keita say about the foreign lineages?
quote:It is possible that the current VII and VIII frequencies reflect, in the main, movements during the Islamic period (vs. the Neolithic) and the effects of polygamy (Salem et al., 1996; Nebel et al., 2002), as well as some of the impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner, 1961), and even more recently in the colonial era due to political events. Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times.
How does Keita also caution us on interpreting these data?
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The biological diversity of the early Holocene Nile valley is not yet fully known but can reasonably be inferred to have been diverse based on findings from later periods using comparative material (see, e.g., Mukherjee et al. 1955; Keita 1988; Zakrzewski 2002), postcranial findings (Zakrzewski 2003), and Y-chromosome variation in living Egyptians (Keita 2005), although this variation likely has been affected by more recent migrations, demographic factors, and more ancient migrations before the time of the ethnogenesis of peoples and even language phyla. - Keita (2008)
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Thanks for bumping my thread, thus shedding more light on Dr. Keita's views. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic