...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes
» 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 Swenet: [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt. both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself.. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.[/QUOTE]For what, if I may ask? [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4. [b]Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.[/b][/QUOTE]mtDNA of Egyptian Coptic immmigrant sample from Sudan: n=29 [b]L1c1a1 (6.9%) R/U6a1 (27.6%) M1 (10.3%) M1a (3.4%)[/b] N/J1 (10.3%) N/J2 (10.3%) preHVI (13.8%) R/T1 (17.2) (Hassan 2009) Not a geographically SSA sample in the world (not even Horners) that becomes 'Eurasianized' like this, with their African ancestry split between predominantly North African mtDNAs and little SSA lineages. The Abusir sample, this Coptic sample, and to a lesser extent, Canary Islanders, [i]did[/i] become Eurasianized like this. So if people want to fool themselves and deflect to Upper Egypt and expect AE=SSA in future samples because Abusir is mixed, that's their prerogative. But that don't mean I have to play along. Lol. [/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