...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @Yatunde Lisa Bey - Why argue over ONE lineage when there are other Eurasians ones? What is the point? Egypt is a crossroads. 15KYA Moroccans have Eurasian DNA that likely crossed into Africa via the Sinai. Stop wasting time trying to prove genetic "Purity". ITS BS. Even Diop, Williams, et al speak of foreign migration going back into the predynastic. Even Keita said in an analysis of Egyptian crania: "However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity". V-88 [URL=https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V88/]Aint "African"[/URL] anyway if you have been paying attention to ancient DNA....and the matriarch is K1a :rolleyes: Does that make King Tut "Non-African" ? NO. Does that mean the 18th Dynasty carry lineages indicative of Recent or ancient migration from Eurasia? Yes. Further analysis will point out the time depth of these lineages in Africa. Archaeological data does a VERY good job of providing information of When opportunities for Geneflow would have happened. Its the best tool we have at the moment. @Antalas - I am not arguing the mummies are foreign. I am creating a contingency for those that are: "If This" > "Then This". I don't care either way. But notice those that DO make the argument don't think hard enough to cross the line and argue Levantines were "More African" than they are now. Or use this 6-15% as Egyptian "admixture" to reconstruct SSA in Ancient Egypt. IMO, this means they are not really thinking about it, its just COPE. :mad: As for the fossils, Foreign or not (1) They were THERE and exist as the only known fossils recognized and associated with Specific *EGYPTIAN* material cultures, they have no West African lithic precursors that i know of (Unless you argue Nile Valley pottery is a transplant of an Ounjougou precursor ;) ). (2) They seem local, in that Modern Egyptian's African Substratum is not West African derived if there was stone age continuity. The lineages that exist contain diversity that has the time depth that can only be associated with these old fossils. Egypt's SSA is modeled as "DINKA" not anything else, not Senegambian. Furthermore The Eastern Sahara/Nile Valley derived African ancestry in Horn Africans and East African pastoral Neolithic is also DINKA, not Senegambian. The type of the Australo Melanesian / Jebel Sahaba affinity goes all the way back to Nazlet Khater and Taramsa Hill Boy 35kya and 65-75kya respectively. Its not "NEW". Also keep in mind, this is just ONE model. The simplest model. The really dumbed down no genetic substructure in africa Model. This is a model i can prove appealing to peer review. I don't support this model. I am separating what i personally think and expect seeing the trends of Ancient dna vs what i can prove appealing to peer review and using the models we have right now. [/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