...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [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).[/QUOTE]The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily. [/qb][/QUOTE]So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were [/qb][/QUOTE]Yes although the [b]region[/b] of Middle Egypt could've recieved these "SSA" influences from Upper Egyptians further south (and Kushites). How do I at least theorize this? Because Ramses III was from Waset and shared DNA found in SSA. [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tAd7z8PM9GI/UNFTbOeZLiI/AAAAAAAAAsE/Ucc6CnM-SEs/s1600/rameses3dnaresults.jpg[/IMG] The Amarnas from hundreds of years prior also descended from families in upper Egypt and have affinities with SSA. Slavery is not likely for reasons I've stated already. Greater affinities for people labeled SSA is shown after masking out dna from the Islamic expansion. So I doubt that "SSA" affinity is from the 19th century. All this goes both ways too. From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics. We don't even know what the author is calling "Sub Saharan" because the populations that made Egypt predates it's full return but I'll suppose it's non-African if only to express my confusion on why this is such a big deal. Kmt civilization was of local origin, there is still plenty of evidence to support this. This bit of data can only make inferences on the [b]time periods[/b] and [b]locations[/b] it covers. Middle Egypt in [b]that[/b] time period could've had more DNA that the author is attributing to North Africa or the Middle East compared what's there right now. A lot of people (especially white supremacist Eurocentrics) are not placing the data within the context of established information and are running with the hope for claims of Eurasian influences. They want to broaden what this could potentially imply for the entire history of Egypt but cannot, no matter what it says. The remains are not old enough to dispel the in-situ theory most popular right now. For all we know the author could be suggesting North African DNA was in larger quantity, and they will likely try to take such labels and suggest they aren't authentically African. But assuming the author is discussing the presence of non-African DNA, I am wondering if migration and mixing per generation could have been enough to change the demographics of [b]Middle Egypt[/b] by the time the author states. At first, I'd made a thread before all this wondering if there was ever a period of mass migration. But according to this no mass migrations needed to have [b]ever[/b] taken place. If you had say 6-7% or even 10% migration rate per [b]generation[/b], and about 3.5% rate of reproduction, this could explain the change population demographics over time. It would mean lower and middle Egypt were experiencing periods of migration and mixing prior to Greek/Roman. Prior to the Third Intermediate period, Egypt not only faced foreign rulership, but extended territories of control into the Middle East. I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3