>> Movement of material culture items is not an absolute confirmation of   
   >> population movement, nor of the exchange of genetic material.   
   >   
   >Show us that material culture. If you read for content you might notice   
   >that they never mention it. They make it clear that the conclusions are   
   >based solely on the interpretation of DNA evidence.   
      
   Smile, you evoked archaeoalogy and it as evidence of population movement   
   assuming one gets one with the other willy nilly.   
      
   Another uninformed "maybe" speculative notion not supported by the facts in   
   the context at hand.   
      
   In science the answers one gets depend on the   
   questions asked.>   
   >   
   In this case the only questions were related to genetic material, not   
   material cultural evidence.   
      
   One would not then expect to be addressing questions of archaeology, no?   
      
   The archaeology of the time and location has been extensively studied, but   
   such material does not inform us about genetics, the very failure of your   
   original speculative point.   
      
   Sorry bub, you ain't gonna get extensive egyptian genetics showing up in   
   the population in question given the results.  Yourr original speculation   
   fails to be confirmed by the evidence of this research.   
      
   It's science son, science I say.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)