amazing genetics

16 Nov 2015

At http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/ancient-genome-from... ... the story begins with a genome taken from a skull in a cave in Ethiopia dating back 4500 years. The genome of this person is not too different from modern people living in Ethiopia. However, it is said to predate a migratory event which is purported to have occurred 3000 years ago. Think about that for the moment. We are at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age in western Asia. Apparently this episode is known to geneticists as the Euroasian Back Flow, an episode that witnessed an influx of people from western Asia. The back flow element is a reference to Out of Africa theory - which illustrates how ingrained this politically correct number plate has become. By comparing the ancient genome in Ethiopia with the genome of modern Africans it was discovered that East Africans have something like 25 per cent ancestry from western Asia. Not only that but people in western and southern Africa also have traces of these newcomers - some 5 per cent of the genome of those people used as guinea pigs. How could this happen?

Well, the authors of the piece express no knowledge of anything that might have caused a mass migration of people into East Africa - no downturn in climate, nothing. This appears to be as a result of the date (or calculated date) and the fact that the end of LB event requires lowering by some 100 to 200 years (or so). Once the 1200BC event is downdated one can see that this is what provoked the migration(s). We also have plenty of evidence of population movement. Funny how orthodox chronology has spoilt the plot.

The genetic evidence is that a migration from western Asia and Anatolia affected the genetic inheritance of many Africans - something like a quarter of native Africans have this intrusive gene. It would suggest that the migration event coincided with a drop in population amongst Africans - or that continued intrusions continued many years after the initial event. Well, we know that part of what is now Sudan (formerly known as Nubia) was renamed as Saba during the first millennium BC. It seemed there was a kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia and a kingdom of Saba in the Sudan during the Greco-Roman period. This is therefore one line of migration. We also know these people, hybridised with the natives, have continued to harass the indigenous people of the region, even in recent years (the conflict between northern Sudan and the African tribesmen of southern Sudan). We also know that these mobile people were able to spread right across the Sahel to the northern zone of West Africa, and there is plenty of evidence they migrated, as a hypridised group, into southern Africa, over a long period of time. However, at the same time we also know that the Egyptians were subject to migration from east and west during mid to late dynasty 20 - and the succeeding pharaohs are classified as Libyan. All this means is they came from east of the Nile and gained ascendancy over the natives - during a period of famine and civil upheaval. To become the ruling elite they must have hybridised with Egyptian nobility - but even that is not a necessity as they could have been ascendant in the delta zone and less so in the Middle Nile valley, only later gaining control of the south as a result of military expeditions.

The Libyans were probably a hotch potch in origin having a connection with Libyans (people living in North Africa east of the Nile) and the descendants of sea peoples (recorded by Merenptah and Ramses III) that had moved into what is now known as Cyrenaica. Thus we have the Anatolian link - and probably a link with the Aegean. Tickling out migrations from genetic material is difficult but in Africa it is rather more clear as the newcomers had a distinctly different genome. We may wonder what happened to the native Egyptian ruling class - the peasants remained peasant farmers we may assume.

The genetic influx probably continued over many centuries, even into modern times. It was aided and abetted by another migratory event that began around 3000 years ago, a movement of Bantu people out of West Africa towards central and eastern Africa. The two groups came up against each other we may assume and some hybridisation occurred, and later the Bantu people moved south towards Zambia and Zimbabwe. We should also bear in mind that Arabian genes and those of western Asia would have been supplemented by Arab activity along the coast of east and southern Africa during the AD period.

What is peculiar is that the author of the article calls this a mystery. He is unaware of an event that could have caused people to move in such a manner. This is because he divides the migration from the end of LB event. There, we have plenty of evidence of famine, drought, and civil collapse, with Egypt beset on all sides by migrants, from the delta to as far south as Thebes. When the murkiness clears and we are in the Libyan era the newcomers appear to have gained control of all Egypt - or native Egyptians have had to adopt the names and gods of the newcomers. We also know there were epidemics and a fall in general population levels in western Asia (including Egypt) at this time. The newcomers arrived during a native bottlekneck (a reduced population) which may account for their genetic imprint being so clear. On top of that we have the a record of the 'star of Anat' falling on the enemies of Egypt and it is this which apparently caused the Libyans and others to move enmasse into Egypt. I can't see where the mystery lies.