...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Egyptian DNA, Forumbiodiversity, sub-Saharan Africa
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Why?[/QUOTE]Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans. Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians. [/qb][/QUOTE]Who said Horn Africa have to plot with ancient Egyptians? What was said is that they were a people similarly to them. There are many groups that haven't been plotted. Ethnic groups that live in Ethiopia to Southern Egypt. :rolleyes: Nubians are Southern Egyptians and Nubian is a cluster name for many sub groups. But ancient Egyptians certainly had contact with contact with these southern groups from the Horn. Anther act is that in cases the Sudan is seen as sub Sahara, and Al Khiday is in Central Sudan Sahel region. You can cry yourself to sleep over this, it is and remains the same. The paper spoke of "Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali". My question is why? Why specially them? What is said is the following, which eurocentricks love to ignore: [QUOTE] [b]There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.[/b] [b]In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas[/b] […] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. [b]In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.[/b] This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography” [/QUOTE]--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015) [QUOTE]"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian' … we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."[/QUOTE]--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13 [QUOTE]"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. [b]Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. [/b] The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."[/QUOTE]--Godde K. An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19. [/qb][/QUOTE]The point is that "Sub Saharan Africa" is a nonsensical and meaningless distinction because Africans are diverse across ALL of Africa. All Africans South of the Sahara do not look the same, have the same features or same DNA. Hence it is a meaningless grouping. Somalis don't look like Ugandans and don't look like Nigerians. But somehow folks are falling into the trap of defending something nonsensical. The question you should be asking is what distinguishes indigenous "North Africans" from so-called "Sub Saharan Africans". And when did this split arise. Because it sounds like some folks are claiming that indigenous North Africans don't carry L lineages and that those are "Sub Saharan" lineages. That is dumb because: [QUOTE] In human mitochondrial genetics, [b]L is the mitochondrial DNA macro-haplogroup that is at the root of the human mtDNA phylogenetic tree. As such, it represents the most ancestral mitochondrial lineage of all currently living modern humans.[b][/QUOTE]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-haplogroup_L_(mtDNA) So what we are really talking about is the origin of the U lineages found in North Africa and whether they arose in Africa or in Eurasia. [QUOTE] A research group has managed to retrieve the mitochondrial genome of a fossil 35,000 years old found in the Pestera Muierii cave in Romania. That woman was part of the first population of our species that inhabited Europe following the Eurasian expansion of Homo sapiens from Africa, and the lineage she belongs to reinforces the hypothesis of a back-migration to Africa during the Upper Palaeolithic, say investigators. The Palaeogenomics study conducted by the Human Evolutionary Biology group of the Faculty of Science and Technology, led by Concepción de la Rua, in collaboration with researchers in Sweden, the Netherlands and Romania, has made it possible to retrieve the complete sequence of the mitogenome of the Pestera Muierii woman (PM1) using two teeth. This mitochondrial genome corresponds to the now disappeared U6 basal lineage, and it is from this lineage that the U6 lineages, now existing mainly in the populations of the north of Africa, descend from. So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa. "Right now, the research group is analyzing the nuclear genome the results of which could provide us with information about its relationship with the Neanderthals and about the existence of genomic variations associated with the immune system that accounts for the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens over other human species with whom it co-existed. What is more, we will be able to see what the phenotypic features of early Homo sapiens were like, and also see how population movements in the past influence the understanding of our evolutionary history," explained Prof Concepción de la Rúa. [/QUOTE] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160526105349.htm But note that just because they found U6 in that cave in Romania doesn't mean it originated there. [QUOTE] But "this is much older, much more basal, so we demonstrate that the origin of these populations from north Africa were basically from western Eurasia." This back-migration wasn't a complete surprise, says Cosimo Posth, a PhD candidate in archaeogenetics at Tübingen University in Germany, who was not part of this new study. When the U6 haplogroup was spotted in the mitochondrial DNA of people living in northern and western Africa today that is almost absent everywhere else, some scientists proposed that a back-migration had carried these genetic markers into Africa. Finding an older version of this lineage outside of Africa would confirm that. Mr. Posth and colleagues reported a basal version of haplogroup U6 in a different skull from the same site, Peștera Muierii, in a paper published earlier this month. "This actually suggested that this haplogroup originated somewhere outside of Africa and then migrated back into Africa during the paleolithic time," Posth says. And this new paper "is a confirmation of those previous studies." [b]The researchers aren't sure when exactly the U6 haplogroup first migrated into Africa, as the archeological DNA record between the Romanian individuals and modern-day people is spotty. [/b][/QUOTE] http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0520/Out-of-Africa-and-back-again-When-did-humans-return-to-Africa Note: the upper range of the age of U6 is 50,000 years ago, which puts it in the time frame of OOA. Given that, why isn't it possible that U6 arose in Africa and migrated to Europe and that those in Africa are populations descended from those who never left? The last bit in bold above reinforces that possibility. [QUOTE] 'Since the U6 haplogroup today is most common in North African populations we didn't expect to find it in such an ancient human from Romania.' This surprising finding suggests people migrated back to Africa. The researchers took DNA from two teeth and compared it to modern day genomes. They found the man belonged to a genetic population which had not previously been identified in any ancient or present-day humans. The modern lineage derived from this group is mainly in Africa, with a small presence in Europe that can be attributed to gene-flow from North Africa. This means the remains can be traced to a reverse migration to North Africa. In 2014, the skeleton of a man buried 4,500 years ago in an Ethiopian cave allowed scientists to sequence one of the first ancient African human genomes. [/QUOTE] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3598772/Forget-Africa-Fossils-reveal-human-farmers-migrated-continent-Europe-3-000-years-ago-populate-it.html Funny how these mirror the Basal Eurasian/EEF theory. Also funny how no neanderthal DNA was found in that ancient skull either. [/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