Ping message update.
Posted on 03/10/2019 4:37:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Until now the study of Egypt’s population history has been largely based on literary and archaeological sources and inferences drawn from genetic diversity in present-day Egyptians. Both approaches have made crucial contributions to the debate but are not without limitations. On the one hand, the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources is often complicated by selective representation and preservation and the fact that markers of foreign identity, such as, for example, Greek or Latin names and ethnics, quickly became ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike. On the other hand, results obtained by modern genetic studies are based on extrapolations from their modern data sets and make critical assumptions on population structure and time. The analysis of ancient DNA provides a crucial piece in the puzzle of Egypt’s population history and can serve as an important corrective or supplement to inferences drawn from literary, archaeological and modern DNA data. Despite their potential to address research questions relating to population migrations, genetic studies of ancient Egyptian mummies and skeletal material remain rare, although research on Egyptian mummies helped to pioneer the field of ancient DNA research with the first reported retrieval of ancient human DNA.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
The Arab Republic of Egypt, a nationalist, xenophobic regime? Oh pshaw. ;^)
The genome named as being “Sub Saharan”— does not assure it being “black” neccessarily or exclusively. I understand the poor use of the word’— “increase” in this broad brush application well— it’s another example of the “scholarship” of “journals” like Nature. Having a background in biochemistry/genetics has that effect on how I see this publication, to cause one to asks— “why is this being pushed with such poor science”? There is an answer.
Check out the Y-DNA haplotype of the “sub saharan” genome. There were many other genetic contributions, post Roman era. Should add, using genetic material from the mummies (cause that is all there is, and subject to the ability to date these samples) selects out the wealthy- the ruling class - not the general population of the masses— who came from everywhere.
Just for example— prior to Roman era was of course the Greeks, Macedonians, etc. Post Roman?-— The Tuaregs derive from from the Crusaders— European Crusaders, is just one example. You point out another prominent “displacement” by the Semitic Assyrians (that had to include genes from Alexander’s reign).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Sub-Saharan_Africa
Point was making is that this kind of “scholarship” is both faulty in logic and method, and.. politically driven— by even current African politics (see: obamaumao is helping form the NBA for africa—the kenyan in chief/muslim slaver family).
Sub-Saharan African shows up in greater amounts in the DNA of post-Roman Egyptian mummies. That isn't faulty scholarship. You're seeing something that just isn't there.
I was just looking for “mummy” in titles, and got wondering how long the gap between my previous activity on FR and today’s. Two weeks!
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3934016/posts?page=7#7
Ping message update.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
