quote:Egypt provides a privileged location to study historical population dynamics as it is at the crossroads between the ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. In the first millennium BC, ancient Egypt witnessed foreign domination by the neighboring populations including Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, and others, whose roles vary from trade exchange to invasion and rule. Despite being potential to addressing questions on the population’s demographic, retrieval of ancient DNA from the Egyptian mummies has greatly been challenged by the presence of contamination. Here we report a preliminary, rigorously tested genome-wide dataset from mummies using high-throughput DNA sequencing and targeted capture techniques. The individuals in our study are recovered from Upper and Lower Egypt sites and spanning around 900 years of ancient Egyptian history, from the Third Intermediate to the Roman period. Our study aims to characterize the major ancestry components for ancient Egyptians and to explore the genetic continuation and admixture through times and regions.
Still relatively young as far as Egyptian mummies go (none are older than the Third Intermediate Period), and no word on the results or the sample size yet. But they appear to have sampled mummies from a broader geographic range than Abusir el-Meleq this time. I would recommend interested parties keep an eye on this.
Can only hope this Saudi led team will give up some forensic worthy autosomes as well as 'full genomes'.
Does the list of institute affiliations suggest the subject mummies are all located outside Egypt? Germany 7 Denmark 1 Switzerland 1 Could this be why contamination issues are in the abstract?
Any guesses why mummies in Egypt, and never left home, aren't assayed by Egyptian scientists --never mind inner African scientists are paying no attention at all to their countries' and peoples' population genetics-- ?
Based on old Zink & Pusch ADNA articles, which included all participants DNA, I'd bet Egypt's got the technology. Politics and grants may be the goat.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
I do expect more ANA and Sub-Saharan DNA from Upper Egypt, but I don't think it will be significant considering the time period.
I was surprised to find that even ancient Kushitic genomes from El-Kurru were not even Sub-Saharan African; they were dominated by Eurasian lineages.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Sorry, couldn't resist. A bit older than the el-Kurru all Eurasian yield Briedenstein samples (25%).
Enjoy a rare case of Africans themselves reporting on African population genetics.
Cherifi & Amrani's ancient so-called X-group mtDNA HGs from Missiminia which is north from Kerma and just south of the Dal in Upper Nubia, 350 B.C.E to 500 C.E
Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: * African: L1, L2 and L3, * Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current * East African, * North African, * Arab[ian], and * Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
Results It was possible to find the haplogroups (L1b, L2, L3, H2, N, T1a, X and W) and to carry out comparative data analysis in relation to haplogroup data cited in the literature. This investigation into the maternal lineage of X-Group (350 to 500 C.E.) origins allowed us to validate the efficiency of petrous bone sampling from ancient human remains from the Nile-Saharan milieu and established that the Ballaneans experienced an in-situ development with more admixture from the Levant region and North Africa.
Wondering about the Eurasian female lineages. Same as those entering the Horn c 1000 BCE, Pagani (2012) Kivisild (2004), or different? Could they have traveled down Nile rather than directly from the Levant or wherever?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
Most probably similar results to Abusir el meleq with maybe some middle eastern and nubian outliers
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
I do expect more ANA and Sub-Saharan DNA from Upper Egypt, but I don't think it will be significant considering the time period.
I was surprised to find that even ancient Kushitic genomes from El-Kurru were not even Sub-Saharan African; they were dominated by Eurasian lineages.
what kind of sub saharan ancestry would you expect from upper egypyt?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
I do expect more ANA and Sub-Saharan DNA from Upper Egypt, but I don't think it will be significant considering the time period.
I was surprised to find that even ancient Kushitic genomes from El-Kurru were not even Sub-Saharan African; they were dominated by Eurasian lineages.
what kind of sub saharan ancestry would you expect from upper egypyt?
I don't have a great deal of insight into this, but I expect to see L1b, L3B, L3e and L2 based on what we have found in nearby samples.
I still don't understand how the Meroitic samples were dominated (66.7%) by Eurasian markers like H2.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Sorry, couldn't resist. A bit older than the el-Kurru all Eurasian yield Briedenstein samples (25%).
Enjoy a rare case of Africans themselves reporting on African population genetics.
Cherifi & Amrani's ancient so-called X-group mtDNA HGs from Missiminia which is north from Kerma and just south of the Dal in Upper Nubia, 350 B.C.E to 500 C.E
Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: * African: L1, L2 and L3, * Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current * East African, * North African, * Arab[ian], and * Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
Results It was possible to find the haplogroups (L1b, L2, L3, H2, N, T1a, X and W) and to carry out comparative data analysis in relation to haplogroup data cited in the literature. This investigation into the maternal lineage of X-Group (350 to 500 C.E.) origins allowed us to validate the efficiency of petrous bone sampling from ancient human remains from the Nile-Saharan milieu and established that the Ballaneans experienced an in-situ development with more admixture from the Levant region and North Africa.
Wondering about the Eurasian female lineages. Same as those entering the Horn c 1000 BCE, Pagani (2012) Kivisild (2004), or different? Could they have traveled down Nile rather than directly from the Levant or wherever?
???
Does it surprise you (as it does me) that the Meroitic samples were so Eurasian? If Meroitic samples are this Eurasian shifted, how can we expect substantial Sub-Saharan profiles in Upper Egypt?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
I do expect more ANA and Sub-Saharan DNA from Upper Egypt, but I don't think it will be significant considering the time period.
I was surprised to find that even ancient Kushitic genomes from El-Kurru were not even Sub-Saharan African; they were dominated by Eurasian lineages.
what kind of sub saharan ancestry would you expect from upper egypyt?
I don't have a great deal of insight into this, but I expect to see L1b, L3B, L3e and L2 based on what we have found in nearby samples.
I still don't understand how the Meroitic samples were dominated (66.7%) by Eurasian markers like H2.
recall basal eurasian heavy groups having only eurasian haplogroups, EEF has no African haplogroups at all, yet would be 44% basal eurasian(african)
also, i doubt ancient egyptians and lower nubians are gonna be significantly sub saharan, they will look levantine if anything, we will see how much of it is ACTUAL levantine and how much of it is indigenous north african ancestry in the future
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:also, i doubt ancient egyptians and lower nubians are gonna be significantly sub saharan, they will look levantine if anything, we will see how much of it is ACTUAL levantine and how much of it is indigenous north african ancestry in the future
That may be how these mummies will look, and maybe Lower Egyptians from most periods as well. However, I'm currently picturing predynastic Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians occupying a space between the Iberomaurisians/early Neolithic Moroccans on one end and Natufians/PPNB on the other. I could turn out to be wrong though.
quote:also, i doubt ancient egyptians and lower nubians are gonna be significantly sub saharan, they will look levantine if anything, we will see how much of it is ACTUAL levantine and how much of it is indigenous north african ancestry in the future
That may be how these mummies will look, and maybe Lower Egyptians from most periods as well. However, I'm currently picturing predynastic Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians occupying a space between the Iberomaurisians/early Neolithic Moroccans on one end and Natufians/PPNB on the other. I could turn out to be wrong though.
Yhh that does seem like a very real possibility, I've been thinking, PN Kenyans were represented as a mix between Omotic, Dinka and chalcolithic Israel, they carried a lot of K1, M1 and some E lineages of north East African origin, the kind of stuff we would expect to be rich in ancient Egypt and likely has its presence in those Kenyans due to the chalcolithic Israel like ancestry, we know cushitic ancestry originated somewhere in Egypt or Sudan, or at least thats where the Israeli stuff came from, so I think that attests to the presence of Chalcolithic Israeli related ancestry being in ancient Egypt and ultimately being what causes much of the craniofacial clustering between Afro-asiatic speaking Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis, I doubt if horners had none of this kind of ancestry(leaving them with Omotic and Dinka) would they cluster with ancient Egyptians, this common Levantine related stuff is what causes much of the affinity IMO. Kerma is said to be Cushitic aswell and they clustered quite close to Giza.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
You seem to be pushing the idea that ancient Egyptian civilisation is a Levantine transplant. Is that your position?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
People get around so it's not but so surprising to me. .
I'm unsure how you're using 'Meroitic'. Cherifi's samples are all from Missiminia near Lake Nasser. . * Meroitic - MIS-TM : H2 * Late Meroitic- MIS-TMT : H2 . are from the Meroitic era not from the 5th Cataract. They are older than the Ballanean (X-group) remains. .
I try to steer clear of pre-expectations and take the raw data for what it is than be disappointed it's not what any interest group might wish it were.
Only after 'examining' the raw data for myself will I then go on to read the author(s)'s text. This way I'm not led to their point of view on the data's significance.
Missiminia is closer in both time and space to old Upper Egypt than is el Kurru and 4 out of 7 recoverable Missiminia mito HGs are Inner African (Sahra and south of Sahra).
Missiminia was not a place of population continuity. Meroitic HGs aren't in Ballanea or Makuria timeframes Ballanean HGs aren't in Meroitic or Makurian levels. Makurian HGs aren't in Meroitic or Ballanean eras. Each of the three are unique unto themselves.
Well now, a completely different female based population during each succeeding culture does surprise me. Honestly? Expectations would've been for some level of continuity. But can't base any firm long term conclusions on so few samples. Yet to minimize speculation we must go with the leads we have.
The Algerians' preprint makes a point re Nile-Sahara designation. We know early and mid Holocene tropical North Africa birthed not only some of the so-called Sahro-Sudanese cultures, whose base in fact originated in Sudan, but that certain nrY HGs developed there in the Last African Humid Period Tropical North Africa aka "the Green Sahara".
So my challenge is one of not distinguishing Sahro-Sudanese from "sub-sahara" or sahara. (In my worldview) certain so-called modern sub-saharans are Saharan if their uniparentals developed or bifurcated there. In other words, some modern sub-saharans are Saharan not 'sub-Saharan' as I see things. U6 is widely considered Eurasian despite birth and 30,000 years domicile and residence in Africa. So I don't see why so-called Saharo-Sudanese can't be non sub sahara by that token.
Women with Eurasian HGs may have first looked exotic along the Nile. But their female offspring over the generations will look more and more like locals until indistinguishable regardless of the uniparental. This implies changes in the looks of the locals who absorb the incomers.
A vital factor often missing from these articles are the forensic STaRs. Outside full genome data those STR autosomes 'define' geo-genetic populations at racial and even tribal levels. Tourist info @ https://www.academia.edu/503709
I think people at the time weren't paying attention to genetics, nor genomics, and cared very little about 'racial purity' and were bent on hooking up with an agreeable life partner preferably from cultures similar to their own.
Eurasian women came from the northeast east and southeast to enter continental Africa proper. With only 3 region I hypervariables at most, it's out my league to narrow down those HGs to Levantine, Aqaba/Red Sea, S Arabian, or indigenous origins or movements across wide territories.
Please forward more of your thoughts.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
Does it surprise you (as it does me) that the Meroitic samples were so Eurasian?
If Meroitic samples are this Eurasian shifted,
how can we expect substantial Sub-Saharan profiles in Upper Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Sorry, couldn't resist. A bit older than the el-Kurru all Eurasian yield Briedenstein samples (25%).
Enjoy a rare case of Africans themselves reporting on African population genetics.
Cherifi & Amrani's ancient so-called X-group mtDNA HGs from Missiminia which is north from Kerma and just south of the Dal in Upper Nubia, 350 B.C.E to 500 C.E
Mitochondrial HVS-I sequences were obtained for eleven specimens (73.3%) and can be classified into different haplotypes: * African: L1, L2 and L3, * Eurasian: N, H1, H2, N, T1, X and W (Table 1). All are still frequent in current * East African, * North African, * Arab[ian], and * Near East populations (Supplementary Table S2).
Results It was possible to find the haplogroups (L1b, L2, L3, H2, N, T1a, X and W) and to carry out comparative data analysis in relation to haplogroup data cited in the literature. This investigation into the maternal lineage of X-Group (350 to 500 C.E.) origins allowed us to validate the efficiency of petrous bone sampling from ancient human remains from the Nile-Saharan milieu and established that the Ballaneans experienced an in-situ development with more admixture from the Levant region and North Africa.
Wondering about the Eurasian female lineages. Same as those entering the Horn c 1000 BCE, Pagani (2012) Kivisild (2004), or different? Could they have traveled down Nile rather than directly from the Levant or wherever?
You seem to be pushing the idea that ancient Egyptian civilisation is a Levantine transplant. Is that your position?
No, but what i think would be the dominant kind of ancestry which is largely responsible for the clustering between ancient Egyptians, Kermans and horn of Africans is common ancestry which is represented by chalcolithic Israel/Levantine ancestry, I think some old prehistoric Egyptian remains will show close genetic ties to the levant, even if it has very little actual Eurasian ancestry, as in, the presence of ancient Levantine ancestry in north east Africa is partly due to African ancestry being common to both groups, its just that we don't have autosomal data from pre historic Egypt or Sudan to know to what extent is the so called "Levantine" ancestry in Africa indigenous. Kinda like how Taforalt was said to be 63% Natufian related, yet predated the existence of the natufians and of course didn't mix with them, so this was likely common ancestry.
FOR NOW, the common denominator is represented by ancient Levantine ancestry because this is the best of whats available , this will probably change once we have more data from the Nile Valley.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: What predictions do people here have?
As I said, these mummies all appear to be young by AE standards (they range from Third Intermediate to Roman period according to the abstract), so all will very likely have more Eurasian ancestry than their predynastic and earlier dynastic predecessors would. The Upper Egyptian ones at least could retain significant ANA/BE-like and maybe even distinctly sub-Saharan ancestry as well. But knowing the time period, I am not ready to bet on those two components together being predominant. We'll see.
To be honest, my main hope is that they'll include Taforalt and the recently sampled medieval Nubians as comparatives to the new mummies. I don't think you can really get a full picture of how indigenously African these Egyptian mummies' ancestry is without using appropriate African populations for comparison.
By the way, the tendency for most of the mummies in these studies to come from late dynastic to post-dynastic periods is a bit bizarre considering that most people aren't that interested in what AE would have looked like in their waning years. What most people actually care about are a) where the AE originally came from and b) what the AE would have looked like at the peak of their power when they were erecting the pyramids and most of the temples we know them for. You're not going to answer those questions with mummies that postdate King Tut by centuries and Khufu by even more centuries. At most, you might find out what the Egyptians may have looked like during Cleopatra VII's time, and even then, there's no shortage of history buffs who recognize that the Ptolemaic dynasty had Macedonian rather than indigenous Egyptian roots.
I realize that younger mummies might yield more aDNA than older ones, but it's not like there's not a fuckload of predynastic to New Kingdom Egyptian remains in museum archives all over the world. You'd think these researchers would have started with those instead.
This is why I'm skeptical. I remember decades ago there were DNA studies done on the Giza mummies but the results have not been released to the public. Yet the Abusir el-Melek mummies from the Late Period in a particular time Egyptologists know was a community of predominantly immigrants all of a sudden gets used as a par-examplar all ancient Egyptians. I hate to go into conspiracy theory mode but I can't think of any other reason why with all the mummies we have from even predynastic times the antiquity authorities seem to tap dance around the issue of indigenous Egyptian heritage.
By the way, how come hardly hear about any DNA studies being done on the remains of ancient Greeks considering the significant Southwest Asian influence on them?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This is why I'm skeptical. I remember decades ago there were DNA studies done on the Giza mummies but the results have not been released to the public yet the Abusir el-Melek mummies from the Late Period during a time Egyptologists have known was a community of predominantly immigrants all of a sudden gets used as a par-examplar all ancient Egyptians. I hate to go into conspiracy theory mode but I can't think of any other reason why with all the mummies we have from even predynastic times the antiquity authorities seem to tap dance around the issue of indigenous Egyptian heritage.
I think it's more like these geneticists know jack shit about ancient Egypt and simply assume that any mummies they can get their hands on will be representative of all AE throughout time as well as space. There might also be a bias towards younger mummies since those might yield less decayed DNA than older ones.
quote:By the way, how come hardly hear about any DNA studies being done on the remains of ancient Greeks considering the significant Southwest Asian influence on them?
There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
posted
Djehuti does host a good question though... tbh. We should have more mummies from that region.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ When genetic samples are taken from remains, the place as well as time period with historical context should be taken into account. The ignorance on Egyptian history may be true which is why usually these geneticists are assisted by archaeologists who inform them of the historical context.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
Yeah, I remember but those are the ONLY examples I could think of. Face the fact, Western scholars seem to be more obsessed with ancient Egyptians than with the ancient Greeks they hold as their proverbial cultural ancestors. How odd is that.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When genetic samples are taken from remains, the place as well as time period with historical context should be taken into account. The ignorance on Egyptian history may be true which is why usually these geneticists are assisted by archaeologists who inform them of the historical context.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
Yeah, I remember but those are the ONLY examples I could think of. Face the fact, Western scholars seem to be more obsessed with ancient Egyptians than with the ancient Greeks they hold as their proverbial cultural ancestors. How odd is that.
wtf ? There are more ancient greek samples than egyptian samples. People are complaining about this, we only got 3 mummies fully covered and some haplogroups. This is nothing in comparison to what we have for greeks or levantines.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When genetic samples are taken from remains, the place as well as time period with historical context should be taken into account. The ignorance on Egyptian history may be true which is why usually these geneticists are assisted by archaeologists who inform them of the historical context.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
Yeah, I remember but those are the ONLY examples I could think of. Face the fact, Western scholars seem to be more obsessed with ancient Egyptians than with the ancient Greeks they hold as their proverbial cultural ancestors. How odd is that.
I remember you use to talk about "Egyptomania"
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When genetic samples are taken from remains, the place as well as time period with historical context should be taken into account. The ignorance on Egyptian history may be true which is why usually these geneticists are assisted by archaeologists who inform them of the historical context.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
Yeah, I remember but those are the ONLY examples I could think of. Face the fact, Western scholars seem to be more obsessed with ancient Egyptians than with the ancient Greeks they hold as their proverbial cultural ancestors. How odd is that.
wtf ? There are more ancient greek samples than egyptian samples. People are complaining about this, we only got 3 mummies fully covered and some haplogroups. This is nothing in comparison to what we have for greeks or levantines.
The issue is that the same excuses we have received for the lack of A.Egyptian genomes can't explain the lack of A.Greek samples.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You're very welcome 'cos your prodding was the posts' catalyst.
Will certainly want to compare Salem's German research based raw data to this one's results.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Thanks for your detailed explanation, Tukuler; it provides a great perspective and I'm truly appreciative. Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When genetic samples are taken from remains, the place as well as time period with historical context should be taken into account. The ignorance on Egyptian history may be true which is why usually these geneticists are assisted by archaeologists who inform them of the historical context.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: There actually was research on ancient Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans published a few years back.
Yeah, I remember but those are the ONLY examples I could think of. Face the fact, Western scholars seem to be more obsessed with ancient Egyptians than with the ancient Greeks they hold as their proverbial cultural ancestors. How odd is that.
wtf ? There are more ancient greek samples than egyptian samples. People are complaining about this, we only got 3 mummies fully covered and some haplogroups. This is nothing in comparison to what we have for greeks or levantines.
The issue is that the same excuses we have received for the lack of A.Egyptian genomes can't explain the lack of A.Greek samples.
Maybe but that doesn't mean there is some kind of obsession with egypt. Also why would they purposedly avoid ancient greeks ?
As wee see here the parents of Yuya and Thuya are unknown but their daughter was Tiye who would become queen and wife of Amenhotep III, ancestors of Akhenaten and Tutankhamun on their female side. As we see, the chart indicates the Y DNA of the male Yuya might have passed to Pharaoh Ay who only ruled for 4 years. This conjecture is speculative only, the mummy of Ay has not been found. Pharaoh Ay is also thought to have been partially of Syrian ethnicity and may have been brother to Queen Tiye, grandfather to Tutankhamun. Ay had intended that Nakhtmin, who was either a natural son or an adopted one, be his successor. However, Horemheb eliminated his rival's claim and assumed the throne. Since Horemheb also eliminated much that existed of his predecessor Ay, little more is known of him. He had no relation to the preceding royal family other than by marriage to Mutnedjmet, who is thought (though disputed) to have been the daughter of his predecessor Ay; he is believed to have been of common birth.
Before he became pharaoh, Horemheb was the commander in chief of the army under the reigns of Tutankhamun and Ay. After his accession to the throne, he reformed the Egyptian state and it was under his reign that official action against the preceding Amarna rulers began. Due to this, he is considered the ruler who restabilized his country after the troublesome and divisive Amarna Period. Horemheb instigated a campaign of expunging the monotheistic references, including those who endorsed it. He desecrated Ay's tomb and annihilated his sarcophagus.
___________________________________
Haplogroup G-M201
At the level of national populations, G-M201 is most commonly found in Georgia; it is found at even higher levels among many other regional and minority populations in the Caucasus. G-M201 is also widely distributed at low frequencies among ethnic groups of Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and North Africa. In the Middle East, haplogroup G accounts for about 3% of the population in almost all areas. Among the Druze mostly residents of Israel 10% were found to be haplogroup G.
Around 10% of Jewish males are Haplogroup G.
In Egypt, G frequencies are between 2% and 9%. 3% of North African Berbers were found to be haplogroup G. 2% of Arab Moroccans and 0.8% of Berber Moroccans were likewise found to be G.
Ötzi the Iceman, Europe's oldest natural human mummy, found in the Ötztal Alps (hence the nickname "Ötzi") on the border between Austria and Italy and dating from 5,300 years ago was found to belong to haplogroup G2a-L91 (G2a2a2, formerly known as G2a4). Haplogroup G2a (G-P15) has been identified in Neolithic human remains in Europe dating between 5000 and 3000 BC. These Neolithic European were descendants of Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, among some of the earliest peoples in the world to practice agriculture. G-M201 has also been found in Neolithic Anatolian sites such as Boncuklu dating back to 8300-7600 BCE, and Barcin dating back to 6419-6238 BCE
Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), who ruled the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death, was of Georgian origin and belonged to haplogroup G2a1a. This was determined by testing his grandson, Alexander Burdonsky (his son Vasily's son). Al Capone, according to Geni.com, was a member of haplogroup G2a-P303.
As we can see in the chart. The G2a YDNA of Yuya, a nobleman, not a Pharaoh is only passed to Ay (but without certainty) and the lineage ends there. His successor Horemheb ruled for 14 years (Scholars have long disputed whether Horemheb reigned for 14 or 27 years). Horemheb had no relation to Ay and was part of the backlash against the Amarna. Horemheb was written down on the king’s list as the immediate heir to the throne after Amenhotep III, skipping five kings in between. If a king was not written down or their name was completely erased, then it was as if they did not exist.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, if we are just going by STRs and not the actual SNPs, I have a sneaking suspicion that instead of G2 the haplogroup could instead be another form of F-M89. I find it funny how not many genetic sources talk about the fact that there are F*-M89 and F1 found in Africa, particularly in the Sudan. Some speculate back-migration yet the highest frequencies occur in the rural Kordofan area with predominantly Nilo-Saharan speakers and and earliest known in the Nile Valley come from Meroitic Nubians.
Also recall the DNA Tribes STR analysis indicating links with Great Lakes Africans. Of course I never bought that they have direct ancestry from modern Great Lakes Africans but that the same analyses yielded affinities with populations as far out of Africa as Indigenous Americans made me wonder if the actual lineage represented a type of African one that was also 'proto-Eurasian'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations Luis, 2004
In Egypt, the order of the polymorphic groups is slightly different: E (39.5%), J (32.0%), G (8.8%), K2 (8.2%), and R (7.5%).
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] -Yuya's G2 was predicted E-M123 on Nevgen.
Nevegen also predicted Akhenaten to be R1b-M269
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Scientits, and others, should just admit they really don't know a haplogroup by mutation w/o a SNP assay. Instead we get STR 'predictions' and that guesswork is flaunted as if determined by SNP when the STR app is a blackbox that no one knows the last time it was updated. And even an "equal priors" setting reduces to lopsided oversampling of Euros, minimal sampling of Afrs.
Imbalance in sampling isn't nefarious. People are naturally more interested in 'me and mine'. Afr genomicists are to blame for unequal population origin and interaction investigations for Afrs. Their only concern seems to be with diseases and foods.
Not saying these HG predictors are blind guides when it comes to Afrs, just that such 'HGs' must be noted as 'sophisticated guesswork' subject to overturning by one of the lower % alternatives or even by a newly uncovered mutation.
posted
In other aDNA news, this preprint mentions a Roman soldier of possible Sudanese descent being found in Serbia. Here is a PCA from the supplementary materials comparing this individual (labeled "Africa outlier") to Christian Nubian samples from the 6th century AD.
I suspect the sample of the Egyptian mummies mentioned in my OP will plot anywhere between Roman-era Sudanese like this one guy and Levantine samples on a similar PCA.
The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations Luis, 2004
In Egypt, the order of the polymorphic groups is slightly different: E (39.5%), J (32.0%), G (8.8%), K2 (8.2%), and R (7.5%).
Yes, but it is one of the haplogroups in MODERN Egypt which is not the same as ancient Egypt. Both historical and skeletal data show a change in demographics through time. By the way, that paper you cite also shows how African haplogroups were introduced to the Levant.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Scientists, and others, should just admit they really don't know a haplogroup by mutation w/o a SNP assay. Instead we get STR 'predictions' and that guesswork is flaunted as if determined by SNP when the STR app is a blackbox that no one knows the last time it was updated. And even an "equal priors" setting reduces to lopsided oversampling of Euros, minimal sampling of Afrs.
Imbalance in sampling isn't nefarious. People are naturally more interested in 'me and mine'. Afr genomicists are to blame for unequal population origin and interaction investigations for Afrs. Their only concern seems to be with diseases and foods.
Not saying these HG predictors are blind guides when it comes to Afrs, just that such 'HGs' must be noted as 'sophisticated guesswork' subject to overturning by one of the lower % alternatives or even by a newly uncovered mutation.
Agreed. Not to mention that scientists are having difficulty disentangling what is truly Eurasian from 'proto-Eurasian' that originated in Africa i.e. 'West Eurasian' autosomal signal that's found click speaking Sandawe and Khwe, or when it comes to hgs Yap+ (DE) and even the presence of F-M89 in the Sudan.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes, but it is one of the haplogroups in MODERN Egypt which is not the same as ancient Egypt. Both historical and skeletal data show a change in demographics through time. By the way, that paper you cite also shows how African haplogroups were introduced to the Levant.
Yes. Curious how some scientists seem to "disavow" any supposed special interest in AE ancestry, linking such interest with unmentionable "Afrocentrism," as in Zakrewski et al's Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt https://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/18212 (critique)
.. yet here they are using ADNA to run the exact same type of investigation on AE ancestry. As various "Egyptomania" posts have exposed over the years- who more than Europeans are the ones REALLY "obsessed" with AE?
But in any event their profile of late period samples will yield significant "Eurasian" elements, as in the Abusir study. No suprises expected.
Haven't seen full test. What section of that paper talks abut the African intro into the Levant?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
i.e. 'West Eurasian' autosomal signal that's found click speaking Sandawe and Khwe, or when it comes to hgs Yap+ (DE) and even the presence of F-M89 in the Sudan.
.
Do they even recognize there are two and they two are entangled? I see it in terms of genomes as
'actual' OoA
remnant stay at home 'OoA'.
Yup, you hit it on the autosome and unilateral tips and yes STRUCTURE-like 'full' genome graphs do show ~3% W EurA Villabruna&Hotu plus 5% Anatoli ancestries in, wait for it, the 8,000 yr old Mt Hora Malawi infant girl.
Whaaat? Does Eurocentric 'science' imagine prehistoric voer trekkers heading thousands of miles deep into Africa at a time when Lake Malawi and other Lakers were moving on up nawth to the 'Green Sahara'; also far far away from their own successful cultural industries in Europe on south- east to the Zagros? It was poppin, why would they flee?
Well, that's the sprinkles on the icing of the cake Those two prime Eurasian ancestries show up in nearly all regions and throughout time, missing few individual African populations.
I see it most likely as from a portion of home based OoA-ers who stayed on continent. Seems unreasonable every single person of the home base populations of any OoA event all packed up and left.
Brings new meaning to the concept diaspora African, no?
That said, it could still be a while before other recorded presentations from this year's meeting are uploaded. The presentations from their 2018 meeting seem to have all been uploaded between last year and five months ago.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Do they even recognize there are two and they two are entangled? I see it in terms of genomes as
'actual' OoA
remnant stay at home 'OoA'.
Yup, you hit it on the autosome and unilateral tips and yes STRUCTURE-like 'full' genome graphs do show ~3% W EurA Villabruna&Hotu plus 5% Anatoli ancestries in, wait for it, the 8,000 yr old Mt Hora Malawi infant girl.
Whaaat? Does Eurocentric 'science' imagine prehistoric voer trekkers heading thousands of miles deep into Africa at a time when Lake Malawi and other Lakers were moving on up nawth to the 'Green Sahara'; also far far away from their own successful cultural industries in Europe on south- east to the Zagros? It was poppin, why would they flee?
Well, that's the sprinkles on the icing of the cake Those two prime Eurasian ancestries show up in nearly all regions and throughout time, missing few individual African populations.
I see it most likely as from a portion of home based OoA-ers who stayed on continent. Seems unreasonable every single person of the home base populations of any OoA event all packed up and left.
Brings new meaning to the concept diaspora African, no?
What's more, I personally think there were multiple OOA events and specifically at least two main waves that gave rise to modern Eurasians.
Recall the 2013 Lazaridis et al. study showing global admixture analysis at K=6:
Blue = West Eurasian Purple = Ancestral South Indian component which includes proto-South Asians and Australasian Aborigines
^ Notice how much blue is found not only in the Nilotic Masai and Datog but also in the hunter-gatherer Sandawe and Hadza peoples of East Africa but also the Khoisan speaking Nama and Khomani of Southern Africa, the latter 4 people show ZERO Eurasian lineages both maternally and paternally. Note also very subtle traces of purple in the East African groups especially in the Hadza.
This leads me to believe that the purple ASI component represents an earlier OOA wave while the blue represents a more recent one. Swenet thinks this may correlate with maternal clades with the former associated with hg M while the latter with hg N.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's more, I personally think there were multiple OOA events and specifically at least two main waves that gave rise to modern Eurasians.
Recall the 2013 Lazaridis et al. study showing global admixture analysis at K=6:
Blue = West Eurasian Purple = Ancestral South Indian component which includes proto-South Asians and Australasian Aborigines
^ Notice how much blue is found not only in the Nilotic Masai and Datog but also in the hunter-gatherer Sandawe and Hadza peoples of East Africa but also the Khoisan speaking Nama and Khomani of Southern Africa, the latter 4 people show ZERO Eurasian lineages both maternally and paternally. Note also very subtle traces of purple in the East African groups especially in the Hadza.
This leads me to believe that the purple ASI component represents an earlier OOA wave while the blue represents a more recent one. Swenet thinks this may correlate with maternal clades with the former associated with hg M while the latter with hg N.
I agree that M and N coming to Eurasia via separate migrations is possible. But aren't Aboriginal Australian mtDNA lineages mostly of the N- rather than M-derived variety? Based on that, it would seem to me that M and N descendants met and entangled with one another somewhere in southern Eurasia prior to the colonization of Australasia.
ABSTRACT Aboriginal Australians represent one of the oldest continuous cultures outside Africa, with evidence indicating that their ancestors arrived in the ancient landmass of Sahul (present-day New Guinea and Australia) ~55 thousand years ago. Genetic studies, though limited, have demonstrated both the uniqueness and antiquity of Aboriginal Australian genomes. We have further resolved known Aboriginal Australian mitochondrial haplogroups and discovered novel indigenous lineages by sequencing the mitogenomes of 127 contemporary Aboriginal Australians. In particular, the more common haplogroups observed in our dataset included M42a, M42c, S, P5 and P12, followed by rarer haplogroups M15, M16, N13, O, P3, P6 and P8. We propose some major phylogenetic rearrangements, such as in haplogroup P where we delinked P4a and P4b and redefined them as P4 (New Guinean) and P11 (Australian), respectively. Haplogroup P2b was identified as a novel clade potentially restricted to Torres Strait Islanders. Nearly all Aboriginal Australian mitochondrial haplogroups detected appear to be ancient, with no evidence of later introgression during the Holocene. Our findings greatly increase knowledge about the geographic distribution and phylogenetic structure of mitochondrial lineages that have survived in contemporary descendants of Australia’s first settlers.
This proves the theory that Australia was colonized in multiple waves with earliest waves predominantly though not solely M carriers, especially since a study shows a descendant of Tasmanian aborigines carries hg T. This proves your point about and M and N getting mixed together before they reached Australasia.
Meanwhile the majority of mt haplogroups in West Eurasia are of the N variety with some M here and there. The majority of M clades in Eurasia are found in India including M*, though there is an M1 local to East Africa.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
ABSTRACT Aboriginal Australians represent one of the oldest continuous cultures outside Africa, with evidence indicating that their ancestors arrived in the ancient landmass of Sahul (present-day New Guinea and Australia) ~55 thousand years ago. Genetic studies, though limited, have demonstrated both the uniqueness and antiquity of Aboriginal Australian genomes. We have further resolved known Aboriginal Australian mitochondrial haplogroups and discovered novel indigenous lineages by sequencing the mitogenomes of 127 contemporary Aboriginal Australians. In particular, the more common haplogroups observed in our dataset included M42a, M42c, S, P5 and P12, followed by rarer haplogroups M15, M16, N13, O, P3, P6 and P8. We propose some major phylogenetic rearrangements, such as in haplogroup P where we delinked P4a and P4b and redefined them as P4 (New Guinean) and P11 (Australian), respectively. Haplogroup P2b was identified as a novel clade potentially restricted to Torres Strait Islanders. Nearly all Aboriginal Australian mitochondrial haplogroups detected appear to be ancient, with no evidence of later introgression during the Holocene. Our findings greatly increase knowledge about the geographic distribution and phylogenetic structure of mitochondrial lineages that have survived in contemporary descendants of Australia’s first settlers.
This proves the theory that Australia was colonized in multiple waves with earliest waves predominantly though not solely M carriers, especially since a study shows a descendant of Tasmanian aborigines carries hg T. This proves your point about and M and N getting mixed together before they reached Australasia.
Meanwhile the majority of mt haplogroups in West Eurasia are of the N variety with some M here and there. The majority of M clades in Eurasia are found in India including M*, though there is an M1 local to East Africa.
posted
Getting back to the topic, I noticed one significant factor that gets missed when it comes to the genomic study in question is the historical context.
Academia like to hold up these Late Period samples as examples par excellence of ancient Egyptians without any proper historical or cultural context as to who these individuals really were and what type of communities they represent.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic