posted                         

If you read the population genetics literature you would assume that Egypt was a non-African civilization and the founders of Egypt came from the Middle East carrying so-called Eurasian DNA. This is false. There is no such thing as Eurasian DNA. The haplogroups associated with Eurasians are African genes this is proven by analysis of the papers relating to North African ancient DNA especially the Abusir el-Meleq aDNA.

Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042

As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:

' '

..

In an experimental research project scientists test hypotheses. Descriptive research, on the other hand, is a type of research that describes a population, situation, or phenomenon that is being studied.

Many people do not understand that Population genetic articles are not experimental research projects. Population genetic articles are examples of descriptive studies that describes the genome of a population.

These articles can provide us with a body of genomic data relating to eye color, and skin lightness or darkness. Any claims associated population movements, racial affiliations, culture and etc., are beyond population genetics purview, even though some population geneticists claim genome has this ability. As a result, we can accept the data found in many population genetics article as valid and reliable, any claims about the cultural, racial and ethnic affiliation of a population based solely on genomic data is unfounded. And interesting comment related to this methodological issues was made by Tukuler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I'll play it again Sam: I don't read the article authors'
text until after I examine the provided data and draw
up interpretations seen through my eyes. And maybe
not read 'em even after then.

---

.
Population genetics' articles are a treasure trove of data. Population Genetics articles are informative, and should be seen solely as Descriptive Research. Descriptive research is a type of research that describes a population, situation, or phenomenon that is being studied. It focuses on answering the what, when, and where questions about a phenomena.

It can not answer the how and why questions associated with population movements and origins. Population geneticist make inferences or guesses about the origin and spread of populations, but, these claims remain unsupported without archaeological data to support these claims. This is due to the fact that genome can tell me a person's genetic profile, only archaeology can answer the how/when/who and why questions.

An archaeologist can use the artifacts found at a site to determine the culture and/or cultural complex the people who built a series of artifacts belonged. This evidence will answer answer the question of where the people came from and,why the people moved to a particular locale, e.g., was the region wherethe presently people lived near valuable fauna and flora that could made their habitation profitable and sustainable.

Archaeologists can usually date a site. This means that it can give us a date when a population lived at a specific time. In addition, if the artefacts match artifacts from other sites we can determine the possible connection and/or origin of the people who built the culture associated with the artifacts.

Finally archaeology answers the who question concerning the racial origin of the population found at a particular site. Archaeologists use craniometrics to determine the race of skeletal remains found at a site. Because archaeology answers the when/who and why questions , when geneticists attempt to make claims in their descriptive research articles that they have answered the how/when/who and why questions these claims are unfounded because genome is speechless when it comes to what race or culture the bearer of the aDNA belonged.

Population geneticists can not answer why and how questions associated with a specific population because multiple populations can carry the same genes or haplogroups. You can use genome to determine the haplogroup carried by a skeleton or human remains. But the genome does not tell you the race of that individual and where s/he came from.

Archaeology is the only way you can answer who questions. This means that you need the artifacts and skeletal remains found at a site associated with the individual whose ancient DNA (aDNA)has been recovered.

Once you acknowledge that population genetics is based on the descriptive research model you understand that the data in the article is open to reinterpretation.
A good example of this was the Abusir Mummies data. The authors of the article used this paper to make the claim Sub-Saharan Africans did not enter Egypt until after the Eurasians. Although, this was the authors' claim the data told a different story.

The Abusir mummies prove that there is no such thing as Eurasian genes. The presence of so-Called Eurasian genes at Abusir show that these genes were native to the Egyptians and other Africans.




.

The problem with most people who have read the Abusir article don’t understand how to critically analyze a research article and the data therein, and form a conclusion. As a result, when they read a paper they accept what is written at face value without looking critically at the data and making their own interpretation.

The idea that Eurasians dominated Lower Egypt is ludicrous. First of all, Afro-American scholars have accepted that the Egyptians were Black/African people for the past 200 years, i.e., Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois, and J.A. Rogers, and the Senegalese scholar Anta Diop ; but, Negro Apologist : Gates, Kittles and etc, spend their time parroting the status quo line that the Egyptians were a mixed race.

This same group attempt to make it appear that the Fulani, Somalis and Ethiopians are black skinned whites, because of their facial features. This is stupid, because man originated in Africa, so the physical features of these populations are African features.

The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.

The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.

In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:

• Haplogroup Frequency
  U 18.5
  T 22.2
  J 18.5
  X 0.0675
  M1a 0.0675
  H 0.0675
  I 0.0675
  HV 0.037
  RO 0.037
  K 0.037
  N 0.037

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged |