...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [QUOTE]While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier [b]The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians[/b] than to Greeks or other European populations.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Game over. [QUOTE]Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent. [b]Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical mean MMD values of 0.126.[/b][/QUOTE]Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]). [QUOTE]Lastly, the [b]Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2)[/b], low and insignificant MMDs (Table 4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so sam- ples (Fig. 2).[/QUOTE]Game over. In short, AE changed over time to an EEF-like population. This is not specific to the Abusir sample, but part of a wider gradual phenomenon all over dynastic Egypt. Trying to blame this squarely on immigrants fails also, because predynastic Egyptians were already fundamentally akin to such EEF-like populations, albeit much more shifted towards Africans. This was already known since 2005 and even before that, but people just want to play dumb and have selective memory: [QUOTE]The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other [b]and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen[/b] (farmers) of Israel. [b]When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa.[/b][/QUOTE]—Brace et al 2005 This Abusir population has lost (most of) this predynastic Egyptian African ancestry and wasn't any more African than EEF-like samples are. Whatever you want to argue the main affinity of this lost African ancestry was, it wasn't anything like DNA Tribes Great Lakes or South African region. Game over. [/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