...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Canary Island ancient 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 Doug M: [QB] On this site we have discussed the East African origin of Berber language speakers going back many years. But beyond that the issue has always been the sampling locations of populations along the coasts of North Africa as the epitome of all North Africans at any time depth. And because of the exposure of these populations to non African gene flow over time, that has become the basis of the "sub saharan" vs "north African" genetic divide due to skewed sampling. Of course the U6 DNA lineages, being the most dominant in Northwest Africa, have been assigned a "Eurasian" origin, therefore, there has always been an issue on geographic labels for ancient African DNA. So until the assignment of these labels to these ancient lineages changes and we get better aDNA from Africa, there is no "indigenous" non SSA African genetic lineages in North Africa..... This is precisely why I refrain from using the term especially when it comes to ancient African DNA. Until we find more aDNA from Africa at greater time depths than currently available, we will not be able to get a proper picture of the population movements and patterns of North African history. It is obvious that the Sahara has had an impact on this history, but the idea that "indigenous" Africans did not and have not settled in and traveled across the Sahara, albeit in relatively small numbers, does not make sense. Yet this is what this whole "eurasian back migration" theory imposes on North African history. And the only way to find these ancient signs of small sized population sites around various oases across the Sahara and North Africa is to do greater DNA sampling outside of the extreme coasts of North Africa and to find more of these ancient settlement sites near oases, lakes and springs. Not only that but there are significant settlement sites in the Central and Southern sahara that are hardly ever used when it comes to ancient or contemporary North African DNA. Just because North Africa has been sparsely populated since the last wet phase, doesn't mean that no "indigenous African" lineages were not present. Of course the only exception to the rule of sparse populations in North Africa is the Nile Valley which would have supported much larger population settlements as we see from Ancient Egypt and predynastic population settlement patterns. But even here that whole false dichotomy of 'sub saharan' vs non existent 'north African indigenous' DNA still exists. How this fits into Canary islanders goes more into how and when the first settlers arrived in the islands. Currently it is theorized that the canary Islands were settled somewhere around 1000 BCE from the nearby African coast. The only reason this was in question, is because the currents in the area do not provide a direct route to the islands. But otherwise it shouldn't be a shock that this is the case. And therefore the DNA of the Canary island first settlers falls into generally the DNA of North Western Africa as part of "Berber" DNA even though Berber as a language is not a DNA lineage. [/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