...
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 Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [qb] Originally posted by Doug: [b]1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of populations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time. The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest. Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing [/b] Your 5-point sketch does appear to recognize the caveats Keita talks about - namely mystical use of the "Eurasian" label.. [i]"The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion."[/i] --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246 [/qb][/QUOTE]Of course. These people talking about 'superior DNA science' either don't accept the limitations of DNA and/or they don't realize that current scholarship on DNA(in terms of how DNA lineages are classified) has put them in a corner even as they tout it as "superior". So they resort to name calling Africans who didn't come up with this classification scheme as if the African scholars are the root cause of the confusion. Typical cop out tactics. They don't see that the question I asked about what lineages should we expect to find in the Nile Valley are those that they should be asking the geneticists doing these studies. I mean if there is a big "gap" in knowledge about how OOA happened and what DNA splits arose where and when, wouldn't they want to try and find the answers to that question in places like the Nile Valley? You would think so. But of course instead of getting to that fundamental question they resort to calling out "SSA" relationships over time in the Nile Valley as being "more recent". OK. So what DNA would they expect ancient Nile Valley Africans to have if it wasn't SSA and not Eurasian going back 10KYA? Because that statement and conclusion of the study either implies that they expected all AE populations to descend from NON African migrants or they expect some "other" indigenous population of Africans to have inhabited the Nile but not carry so-called (as they classify it) SSA lineages..... Those are the only choices you have if you go by the current classifications of mtDNA as defined by current scholarship. So the idea that this is an "afrocentric" theory is pure bull sh*t. Just like the African origin of all humans is a position of most modern scholarship. So is that "afrocentric" as well? And if you accept that, then you accept that if the AE were African they would have to be tied to the ancient lineages that arose in Africa. Otherwise they weren't African. Which means that according to modern science they would have to be "sub saharan" if they were truly African. Not to mention that even in this paper they label "L0-L4" as the only African mtDNA lineages which they also associate with Sub Saharans. But they don't call out the fact that L3 was the mtDNA supposedly associated with the Northern OOA route through the Nile Valley, again according to modern science. So what "other" lineages could the AE have had if not mtDNA L0-L4 going back to OOA? Duh. [QUOTE] Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100 to 130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. [b]Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world.[/b] The timing of the expansion of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ∼70 ka in Eastern and Central Africa rather than to symbolically mediated behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to Central Africa ∼60 to 35 ka and major migrations in the immediate postglacial again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in the L3 data is 3-4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and Southern Africa in the last 3-2 ka.[/QUOTE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22096215 From the paper: [QUOTE] Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a [b]marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% [/b](consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test [b]despite this sub-Saharan African influx[/b], while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5). [/QUOTE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22096215 [/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