posted
From questionable race science to an inaccurate synthesis of a mummy’s voice, scholars regularly contribute to providing poor understandings of the past.
Mummies, it seems, are always in the news. Just days after a British team claimed, somewhat dubiously, that they had synthesized the voice of a 3,000-year-old mummy of the priest Nesyamun, a second group of British researchers announced their own study about a 2,600-year-old mummy of a woman named Takabuti in the Ulster Museum. Like the earlier study, this announcement made news headlines around the world. Using CT scans and DNA analysis, the researchers made a number of new findings about Takabuti’s life (they found that she had an extra tooth, for instance), violent death (she had been stabbed in the back), and mummification.
The news stories also announced that Takabuti’s DNA suggested her ancestry was closer to modern Europeans than Arabs. This last finding stands out for many reasons. For one thing, when we look at the details of the claim, it begins to fall apart. The geneticist involved in the study (Konstantina Drosou of the University of Manchester) refers to the mummy’s “genetic footprint,” H4a1, a reference to a specific mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) ancestry or haplogroup. Yet mitochondrial DNA represents just a single ancestral lineage — a single data point — among all of the tens of thousands for any individual. Mitochondrial DNA is passed along from mother to child. This means that, as a pointer to distant ancestry, it points to the genes of a single female ancestor out of many. For instance, take any person living today and trace their ancestry back 500 years. They would have had tens if not hundreds of thousands of ancestors living at that time. Mitochondrial DNA analysis, if successful, will identify the genes of just one of those tens of thousands of people. It is a huge leap to move from a single lineage to broad conclusions about ancestry being “European” or “Arab,” especially when these terms are used as monolithic ancestral groups — failing to take into account movements of individuals and groups throughout the last few thousand years.
That is not the only problem. Proving the European ancestry of ancient Egyptians — particularly of Egyptian royalty — has been a running goal of research on mummies for some 200 years. A century or two ago it was determined by measuring skulls and comparing physical features; now it is done through ancient DNA (aDNA). Throughout all of this, the methods have been scientifically questionable. Problems with aDNA studies are legion: small sample sizes, broad claims made from individual data points, and (not surprisingly) contradictory results. The failures of past race science should give researchers pause in the present, to consider that our current assumptions might also be flawed and troubled. And researchers should stop and ask why this question of European ancestry continues to be such a focus of primarily European research on mummies. After 200 years, the public would be forgiven for thinking that researchers really want ancient Egyptians to have been European, or even that researchers think Africans would not have been capable of producing the great monuments of the Egyptian past.
In a statement provided to Hyperallergic, the National Museums Northern Ireland, the organization that includes the Ulster Museum, wrote, “The museum takes its responsibility over the care of Takabuti very seriously, prioritising respect, sensitivity and ethical alignment.” The organization continued to say, “The current genetic results are part of a wider project that involves the museum, academics and Egyptologists.”
“The preliminary genetic analysis shows that Takabuti’s ancestors may not have always lived in Egypt,” the statement added. “We believe they confirm how diverse and complex Egyptian society was at the time. We do not suggest Takabuti was white and the evidence we have does not support such a conclusion. She was one person in a culturally diverse society.”
With the Takabuti announcement following the earlier mummy’s voice study so quickly, several Egyptologists and archaeologists publicly called for an ethical review of mummy research. Archaeologist David Wengrow of University College London focused on a central point: there was no indication of any peer review of the Takabuti research, either of its scientific claims or its ethics, which is especially notable considering that it involved work on human remains. David Tosh of the Ulster Museum, one of the scholars involved with the study, replied that the researchers had solicited second opinions on their findings before the University of Manchester and the Ulster Museum put out their press release making the announcement, but that full publication of the study (and detailed peer review) will follow. It appears that the institutions put out the press release before publication to coincide with the 185th anniversary of the unwrapping of Takabuti in Belfast. (Should we really be celebrating the anniversary of unwrapping human remains in this way?) Tosh noted the museum’s interest in ethical concerns, including wishes of modern Egyptians, having discussed such issues with an official of the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities during their visit to Belfast last year. But is this enough?
If we listen to scholars, we often hear that the sensationalism and factual errors in popular understanding of history are the fault of the media. They suggest that journalists distort the findings of scholarship or aren’t interested in ethical issues. Yet, in the cases of the two recent mummy announcements — as in many others — we see that these problems start with the scholarship itself.
When I first saw the headline “Shocking truth behind Takabuti’s death revealed” circulating online I thought it was from a British tabloid, maybe the Express or the Daily Mail, not from a university press release. It is no wonder that news outlets focus on sensational aspects of scholarship or amplify dubious claims.
The vocal tract study was of dubious scientific value, adding nothing to our knowledge of ancient Egyptians: we did not need to this study to show that ancient Egyptians could produce the vowel sound “a” or “e,” and in any case (because of the changes in the mummy’s vocal tract after death and mummification) the study was not even successful in proving this. The Takabuti study, while adding to our knowledge of an ancient Egyptian, involved questionable race science. The truth is that scholars, publicists, and journalists all collaborate in providing poor understandings of the past and how we study it to the public.
These examples also raise another troubling question: Do scholars tailor their work to get media attention? This wouldn’t exactly be surprising, given the temptations for publicity and funding, but it would be a major problem. Scholars should publicize issues like ethics because they are important and shape our understanding of how we use the past; this shouldn’t depend on whether the media care. When we fail to discuss these issues, we teach readers and viewers that news stories about mummies are supposed to be lurid and sensationalist. When it comes to ethics, we tell them not to care.
But, in my own experience, audiences do care. As people who study and write about the past, we should take the time to encourage that interest, rather than choose the easy route of sensationalism. We owe you that much.
posted
If assorted bloviators on the web are trying to spin a "Caucasia" angle for indigenous Egyptian makeup based on Takabuti they have already failed. In any event 2600 years ago is Late Period, when more mixes and distant foreigners were coming into Egypt such as the Assyrians and others due to the wars in the region. ------------------------------------------------------------ UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS https://www.memphis.edu/egypt/resources/timeline.php
MACEDONIAN PERIOD (ca. 332 - 305 B.C.E.) Alexander the Great and his successors PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY (ca. 305 - 30 B.C.E.) Ptolemy I and ending with Cleopatra VII
ROMAN and BYZANTINE EMPIRE (ca. 30 B.C.E. - 642 C.E.) Beginning with Augustus Caesar --------------------------------------------------
Late Period Egyptian samples in several cases show up differently in various studies, and don't show some characteristic patterns of earlier period sampling series. This is usually interpreted as indicating some foreign influence.
This makes sense as the wars in the region, particularly involving Palestine and Mesopotamian areas, as in the Assyrian conquests, allow plenty of scope for Late Period foreign slaves, soldiers or war captives etc to be in the area. Thus someone with so-called "Arab" or "Euro" patterns could quite possibly be one of these late-coming foreign elements, in a late era when foreign influence was increasing.
^^None of the above says an "African" can't have the particular DNA Haplogroup in question though. Overall the H4 group makes up a minor 5.7% of Egyptian distribution, and the H4a1 variant is a rather rare bird even on top of this small slice.
Still chillin...
With the Takabuti announcement following the earlier mummy’s voice study so quickly, several Egyptologists and archaeologists publicly called for an ethical review of mummy research. Archaeologist David Wengrow of University College London focused on a central point: there was no indication of any peer review of the Takabuti research, either of its scientific claims or its ethics, which is especially notable considering that it involved work on human remains.
^^Curious. Perhaps they were seeking to cash in on the "anniversary" angle?
Some similar issues dogged the much ballyhooed "Abusir" study which SOY Keita and other credible scholars debunked in detail as far as stretched claims. In that study samples from the Late Period, then also the Greek and Roman periods were placed in the mix. All these late periods had more foreign influence, and the study's authors skewed things using more samples from the north, relatively near the Medit which has tended to see more foreign influence like Greeks etc.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Reposting here from another thread for relevance:
quote: And again, these images by themselves without context have no historical value. The late period of the Dynastic Era was marked by shift to South and rule by high priests of Amun. During this era from the 19th to 21st dynasties there was a mini rennaissance in culture along the Nile and it was during this time that many of the ancient mummies were recovered, restored and reburied. And it is from this period that we get the best preserved mummies of the entire history of the Nile with undeniable black African features. So of course they aren't going to talk about that because this is before even the 25th dynasty which also came to power through the institution of Amun.
Also, the high priests of Amun were also often the Viceroys/Governers of Kush to the South. And many of these late period priests of Amun were also Viceroy's of Kush. This means they ruled an area from Waset/Thebes/Luxor down to the 3rd Cataract. And also during the 21st dynasty, females began to show up in this position. This institution fell apart in the 23rd dynasty.
This mummy is from the 25th dynasty which was the Kushite Dynasty which came to power explicitly due to the connections between Kush and Amun. This goes at least back to the 18th dynasty and probably farther back to the Middle Kingdom and the establishment of Amun as the dominant deity by the lineage of Montuhotep and Amenhemat (again Southerners).
The distinction here and the game being played is in genetic segregation. European science has decided that African DNA is limited to the Haplogroup L lineages as "sub Saharan" lineages. Meaning that all other downstream lineages are "Eurasian" thus splitting African DNA into "Eurasian" North African DNA and African (black) Sub Saharan DNA.
DNA from Sudan and Sahara ancient or modern is almost always excluded from these studies because it would be problematic to such simplistic categorizations. Sudan is not "Sub Saharan" and neither is so called "Nubia". So there should be no expectation of those North East African populations having exclusively "Sub Saharan" DNA. Without that DNA from Sudan and the Sahara to compare against, it makes these studies worthless and this is what the OP is calling out, along with the omission of the historical context provided. If the 25th Dynasty was a Kushite Dynasty then we should expect to see some evidence of mixture with Sudanese populations in Upper Egypt which was the administrative and political center of the country. But we don't see that because this goes against the narrative that "Sub Saharan" DNA is required for them to be "black Africans".
Hence:
quote: The X-Group set showed some sharing of haplotypes: Four samples (50% of X-Group set) belonged to the African mega-haplogroup L with two individuals having haplogroup L3 (25% of X-Group set), one individual was labeled L2 and the other one L1. Regarding the Eurasian haplogroups, two individuals shared the X haplogroup (Table 2). The reference set showed one haplotype H2 (rCRS, no polymorphisms observed on the HVS-I) shared by two individuals (MIS-TM, MIS-TMT - Table 2).
(Here is Table 2)
Haplogroup diversity These haplogroups were compared with the database of current mt-DNA haplogroups collected from the literature (Supplementary Table S2). The distribution among the X-Group seemed to be highly diverse, belonging to common Eurasian (N, T1, X) and sub-Saharan haplogroups (L1–L3), as expected. However, they were less diverse in the reference set; surprisingly they belonged only to common Eurasian haplogroups (H2 and W1
mtDNA and Y-DNA is not phenotype nor race. Assigning a genetic lineage to "Eurasia" does not mean that anybody carrying it is a white Eurasian. No less than anybody carrying an "African" DNA lineage is not necessarily black African either. However, the simplistic assignment of DNA lineages into "Eurasian" and "African" categories allows for such arm waving and semantics that don't hold up to scrutiny. The only way to know what DNA lineages were carried by ancient black Africans on the Nile is to get more samples from those populations. Assuming that the ancient Upper Egyptians or Lower Sudanese must possess L or E DNA lineages in order for them to be accepted or acknowledged as "black" is objectively stacking the deck to produce a desired result based on this semantic lineage segregation in the naming of lineages.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ The bottom quote references a DNA study on Ballan culture remains aka ‘X-Group’ (Ballaneans)
Evaluation of DNA conservation in Nile-Saharan environment, Missiminia, in Nubia: Tracking maternal lineage of "X-Group". Yahia Mehdi Seddik CHERIFIa,∗, Selma AMRANIb
BALLANA KINGDOM AND CULTURE The breakup of the Sudanese empire of KUSH in the fourth century was the signal for major population movements in the Nile Valley. Both Nubian-speaking tribes and Beja tribes took possession of different territories that had formerly been under the rule of Kush. In the far north of Nubia there appeared a kind of hybrid culture that combined some of the old traditions of Kush with new influences from Greco-Roman Egypt. The Meroitic written language of Kush disappeared, to be replaced on a very limited scale by Greek.
When the post-Kushite culture of lower Nubia was first discovered by archaeologists early in the twentieth century, it was given the designation “X-Group” because of uncertainty as to who the newcomers were.
The Ballana monarchy, as reflected in the royal tombs, is believed to have endured from about 350 to 550. The kings and their subjects evidently kept up the worship of the old Egyptian deities, especially Isis, even though Egypt by this time was officially Christian and the cult of the earlier deities had been suppressed. Christian ideas were also beginning to make some headway among the Nubians, to judge from the votive lamps and other Christian paraphernalia found in the Ballana tombs.
Very few textual records from the Ballana period have survived.
____________________
Christian Nubia
Around 350 AD, the area was invaded by the Kingdom of Aksum and the Meroitic kingdom collapsed. Three smaller Christian kingdoms replaced it: the northernmost was Nobatia (capital Pachoras; now modern-day Faras, Egypt) between the first and second cataract of the Nile River; in the middle was Makuria (capital Old Dongola), and southernmost was Alodia (capital Soba). King Silky of Nobatia defeated the Blemmyes and recorded his victory in a Greek language inscription carved in the wall of the temple of Talmis (modern Kalabsha) around 500 AD.
Christianity had been introduced to the region by the fourth century: Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated Marcus as bishop of Philae before his death in 373 AD.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Reposting here from another thread for relevance:
quote: And again, these images by themselves without context have no historical value. The late period of the Dynastic Era was marked by shift to South and rule by high priests of Amun. During this era from the 19th to 21st dynasties there was a mini rennaissance in culture along the Nile and it was during this time that many of the ancient mummies were recovered, restored and reburied. And it is from this period that we get the best preserved mummies of the entire history of the Nile with undeniable black African features. So of course they aren't going to talk about that because this is before even the 25th dynasty which also came to power through the institution of Amun.
Also, the high priests of Amun were also often the Viceroys/Governers of Kush to the South. And many of these late period priests of Amun were also Viceroy's of Kush. This means they ruled an area from Waset/Thebes/Luxor down to the 3rd Cataract. And also during the 21st dynasty, females began to show up in this position. This institution fell apart in the 23rd dynasty.
^^ this seems to be a quote of Doug quoting himself from another thread. He's talking about 19th to 21st dynasties "we get the best preserved mummies of the entire history of the Nile with undeniable black African features"
However in 2020 18th dynasty mummies were tested for DNA both Y and mtDNA
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
Yehia Z Gad,
^^ Note Yuya, that is a noble with G2 YDNA however he does not pass his G2 to the famous kings of the Amarna. Amenhotep III is of haplogroup R1b like the rest of those kings but it was not reported what clade of R1b it was. Possibly it was V88 which is found in Siwa and in Cameroon (high frequencies in certain parts of Cameroun) Looking below at an Amenhotep III painting (and in sculpture very stereotypic African looking features) The mtDNA of these kings was haplogroup K that comes from Tiye. You may think Tiye looks very African in that famous wooden head but look at how her skintone is depicted here http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010395
However the oldest mummy there is Amenhotep III again and he was before the descendance of Tiye. Surprisingly, him having more African looking features in the art than some other kings in the 19th his mtDNA was H2, it's there on that tree chart above, that is surprising. If I had to guess his clade of R1b I would say R1b-V88 due to him looking like that in the art and that is why he looks so African. The other clades of R1b are the most common YDNA group in Europe but V88 is the one that isn't
The DNA testing of the 18th dynasty mummies by Egyptian researchers led by Gad, associated with Zahi Hawass came and went very quietly. There could have been all sorts of mainstream news articles about it but there wasn't. There wasn't a big press release or videos, it was kept low key but their results are surprising and interesting. With the genetics Zahi Hawass' teams is a lot more low key generally than David Reich, Max Planck and the German circle including Verena J. Schuenemann (Abusir El-Meleq article "Ancient Mummy Genomes")
People who are critical of this type of research might come in two or more varieties a) "DNA is Virtually Useless in Ancient Egyptian Studies" or b) DNA is a useful element in Ancient Egyptian Studies in determining ancestry of mummies. -But should not be used to make broad conclusions about Ancient Egypt without broad enough sampling
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Lioness please stop quoting me and trying to twist my words.
we can quote who we want you are making a lot of misleading assumptions that need clarification There was no conspiracy with the Takabuti mummy in regard to the defining the 25th dynasty as a whole.
You are not doing your homework. #1 - find the original research article that the OP mainstream article is based on
^^ turns out this story is two years old as well as mainstream spin off articles hyping it Is the gist of it that the 25th dynasty had European DNA? No, this is not like the Abusir El-Meleq article with over-broad sweeping conclusion This is about University of Manchester and one mummy at a museum in Belfast they had access to. It is the first case of a rare clade of H2 Always read the primary research article before the opinion pieces.
#2 then check out the mainstream articles at the time. Did they try to spin it?
Daily Mail, 2020 Ancient Egyptian mummy Takabuti died after being STABBED ..
^^ other articles at the time this paper came out are the same, they used the fact that she was stabbed to death the point of interest, not broad points about Kush or the 25th dynasty (in actuality axed to death) The hyperallergic author thought to highlight her murder was sensationalizing (but so what)
______________________________
second point, you talked about haplogroup L and you quote (again improper quoting you should not have just URLs but article title) The title was Evaluation of DNA conservation in Nile-Saharan environment, Missiminia, in Nubia: Tracking maternal lineage of "X-Group
^^ People need to be informed that this X-group in Nubia is the transition period into Christion Nubia so we can't look at the DNA and tell if it was due to foreigners (X-group 350-550 AD) or not. The X group is called that due to lack of information about them
"N, T1a and X haplogroups are mostly present in Arabia and the Near East, respectively at 25.5%, 11.5%, and 10.0%, and still present in North Africa at less than 1.8%"
_______________
^^ None of these even matters, The OP article is referring to the Takbuti mummy, the articles that came out at the time were talking about how she was stabbed to death, not some commentary on the Kushite dynasty
But in my next post, one side claim they did make as is about finding this haplogroup prior to Greco-Roman periods
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
always go to the original 2020 research article before coming to a conclusion about other articles referring to it.
So let's do that and get to the key statements. The research article is not commenting on the 25th dynasty in particular, not making broad statements about Kush. Their point is they found a mummy with H4 before the Greco-Roman period Egypt
Here is what they say and you can judge it, see bolded
The first reported case of the rare mitochondrial haplotype H4a1 in ancient Egypt Konstantina Drosou, 2020
Abstract Takabuti, was a female who lived in ancient Egypt during the 25th Dynasty, c.660 BCE. Her mummified remains were brought to Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1834 and are currently displayed in the Ulster Museum. To gain insight into Takabuti’s ancestry, we used deep sampling of vertebral bone, under X-ray control, to obtain non-contaminated bone tissue from which we extracted ancient DNA (aDNA) using established protocols. We targeted the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), known to be highly informative for human ancestry, and identified 38 single nucleotide variants using next generation sequencing. The specific combination of these SNVs suggests that Takabuti belonged to mitochondrial haplogroup H4a1. Neither H4 nor H4a1 have been reported in ancient Egyptian samples, prior to this study. The modern distribution of H4a1 is rare and sporadic and has been identified in areas including the Canary Islands, southern Iberia and the Lebanon. H4a1 has also been reported in ancient samples from Bell Beaker and Unetice contexts in Germany, as well as Bronze Age Bulgaria. We believe that this is an important finding because first, it adds to the depth of knowledge about the distribution of the H4a1 haplogroup in existing mtDNA, thus creating a baseline for future occurrences of this haplogroup in ancient Egyptian remains. Second, it is of great importance for archaeological sciences, since a predominantly European haplogroup has been identified in an Egyptian individual in Southern Egypt, prior to the Roman and Greek influx (332BCE).
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of our findings, which is of great archaeological interest and importance, is the observation of a predominantly European haplogroup in an Egyptian individual located in Southern Egypt. What is fascinating is that the individual pre-dates the Roman and Greek influx (332BCE). At face value, the current genetic evidence suggests a high degree of isolation from migration into Southern Egypt. However, this finding challenges that assertion, suggesting that further investigative work could be carried out to gain a better understanding of the genetic makeup of ancient Southern Egypt.
_____________________________
The mainstream news articles at the time however,they did not focus on this comment about haplogroup H. That haplogroup H, is the most common female haplogroup in Europe and also found in the Middle East. They focused on that she was stabbed to death "Murder Mystery" and so on. That is how they sold the story, they weren't even talking about haplogroup H or Kushites The writer at Hyperallergic would have made a stronger case had he used the Abusir El-Meleq article or some other article.
wiki:
"H4 is often found in the Iberian peninsula, Britain and Ireland at levels between 1-5% of the population. It is associated with Neolithic migrations.
H4 and H13, along with H2 account for 42% of the hg H lineages in Egypt"
_________________
H was also found in several of the Taforalt Moroccan remains as reported by Kefi 2016 and has high frequencies in some Maghreb Berber populations especially Libyan Tuareg although at low diversity It is also the most common mitochondrial DNA in Europe. I noticed in the Kefi there were also varying clades of H there although no H4 and it's also found in modern Egypt (and H2 in Amenhotep III) but the aim of this study on this one mummy was not to review the origin of haplogroup H. At this time I think it can't be ruled out as possibly originating in Northern Africa or Syria or the Caucuses but I think it's safe to say it's not common in "sub-Saharan Africa". I think there is reality to a division over several thousand years of dryness between Northern and "sub-Saharan Africa" however I also think there is more of an exception to that looking at the Eastern side of Africa because of the Nile transgresses that division and costal populations even on the Western side to an extent.
Suppose this mummy who nobody has ever heard of as per Egyptian history had ancestry in Syria or Iberia OR was it Morocco or Egypt and never outside of Africa ??
does it really make a difference?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
That is not the only problem. Proving the European ancestry of ancient Egyptians — particularly of Egyptian royalty — has been a running goal of research on mummies for some 200 years. A century or two ago it was determined by measuring skulls and comparing physical features; now it is done through ancient DNA (aDNA). Throughout all of this, the methods have been scientifically questionable. Problems with aDNA studies are legion: small sample sizes, broad claims made from individual data points, and (not surprisingly) contradictory results. The failures of past race science should give researchers pause in the present, to consider that our current assumptions might also be flawed and troubled. And researchers should stop and ask why this question of European ancestry continues to be such a focus of primarily European research on mummies. After 200 years, the public would be forgiven for thinking that researchers really want ancient Egyptians to have been European, or even that researchers think Africans would not have been capable of producing the great monuments of the Egyptian past.
A lot of people see the games being played and are calling these people out on it. The fundamental point being that they are now using genetics to support their racial theories. The Nile Valley in Sudan and Egypt was never in "sub saharan" Africa and therefore does not imply or impose a separation from being black African. This is why to this day they still have not done any considerable research on Sudanese DNA ancient or modern. Presence of so-called "Eurasian" DNA does not make any particular population of Africans less black or less African, yet this is explicitly the agenda being pushed. If H, N and M lineages are found in ancient and modern Sudanese and Egyptians how does that make them not African? Just like the so called "Eurasian" genes in Ethiopia or Somalia does not make them less black either. All of these populations should cluster together as North East Africans before anybody else and the idea that these "Eurasian" genes makes them Eurasian is the narrative being pushed.
Therefore, this is why the Abusir El Meleq study will remain the defacto standard for ancient DNA in Egypt for a long time to come because they do not really want to establish any credible DNA catalog for the ancient Nile. If various DNA lineages such as H or N have ALWAYS been present among populations on the Nile then you cannot claim this represents a marker for "Eurasian" identity in ancient Africa.
Notice that even with studies showing waves of mixture since 10,000 years ago from the Levant and further East, nobody claims the ancient populations in Europe are less European (even the mythology of Europa being a phoenician princess is right on that point). Yet here in Africa they are doing this double standard game of trying to make DNA lineage somehow be a racial and ethnic marker trumping phenotype and culture. Heck they haven't done any DNA testing on modern so-called Nubians around Aswan, which tells you something. And these people are not sub Saharan.
Hence:
quote: Modern Egyptians share 8% of their genome with central Africans, far more than ancient ones, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Communications. The influx of sub-Saharan genes only occurred within the last 1,500 years. This could be attributed to the trans-Saharan slave trade or just from regular, long distance trade between the two regions. Improved mobility on the Nile during this period increased trade with the interior, researchers claim.
Egypt over the span of antiquity was conquered many times including by Alexander the Great, by the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and more. Researchers wanted to know if these constant waves of invaders caused any major genetic changes in the populace over time. Group leader Wolfgang Haak at the Max Planck Institute in Germany said in a press release: "The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan we studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule."
The study was led by archaeogeneticist Johannes Krause, also of the Max Planck Institute. Historically, there’s been a problem finding intact DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies. “The hot Egyptian climate, the high humidity levels in many tombs and some of the chemicals used in mummification techniques, contribute to DNA degradation and are thought to make the long-term survival of DNA in Egyptian mummies unlikely,” the study noted.
So according to this article that means this DNA proves they were really always white or "other" and not black Africans.
And then they say this:
quote: Researchers in future want to determine exactly when sub-Saharan African genes seeped into the Egyptian genome and why. They’ll also want to know where ancient Egyptians themselves came from. To do so, they’ll have to identify older DNA from, as Krause said, "Back further in time, in prehistory."
Because of course, they couldn't have been from Africa as the archaeological record suggests, including the Sahara during the last wet phase and so forth. Yes this is an agenda and there is nothing subtle or scientific about it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Presence of so-called "Eurasian" DNA does not make any particular population of Africans less black or less African
what you are saying makes no logical sense. A person inherits 23 pairs of chromosomes from each parent
Presence of Eurasian DNA does particular population of Africans less African
and depending on the degree of it just like presence of African DNA makes a person predominantly European less European
And if the Eurasian DNA come from lighter skinned parents of ancestors they may also be less black
throw away ideas of racial purity
Father and mother of Barack Obama Barack Sr, and his mother Ann
Barack's half brother Malik Obama was born and raised in Nairobi, Kenya. His parents are economist Barack Obama Sr. and his first wife, Kezia Obama.
Suppose you didn't know who he was and he was dressed like and African You might say he's still black and African
but this is anthropology not socially constructed political categories
He is Afro-European, period
and according to you "Black" means anybody with dark skin so he's black according to that definition Yet in actuality he is quite a bit lighter than his father so he is in fact less black
You can't make an "it's skin color only" definition and then switch to a political definition back and forth The term "black" only causes confusion in anthropological discussions
Barack Obama on the biological level is Afro-European and his skin is medium-light brown If your claim is "black" is "skin color alone" then why isn't "brown" used when that is the accurate word? - Because "black" is always political. It always has connotation beyond skin alone and the proof is that the word "brown" is not used yet is used for every other brown thing, chocolate bars, cinnamon, soil etc
Then he married Michelle Robinson She may have some European ancestry but appears to be predominantly of African descent so it is probably safe to say Barack's daughters are more African than he is What if he had married a light skinned Asian or European woman? Then his kids would have been less African
Let's throw these ideas of racial purity out the window.
Each article is a separate issue as per genetics
and each haplogroup is a separate case as to where it's origin is thought to be
The Abusir el-Meleq article is the one that made broad sweeping unfair conclusion in my opinion
but this thread is about Takabuti in the Ulster Museum and it's H4 DNA
So if you have a problem a coherent argument would to argue that maybe mitochondrial H is African. That is a possibility If that is the case then then about 45% or Europeans are not European but instead Euro-African. Several of the Taforalt people in prehistoric Morocco were of haplogroup H but then again some of the limb proportions of Iberomaurusian were very un-tropical. Does it prove on they were partially Eurasian? Not necessarily but it is suggestive of it. I think that is fair at the same time I would not says the origin of H could not be Morocco or Egypt but it could also be Syria or elsewhere
the terms "white" and "black" are becoming less and less relevant as science comes in and people get their DNA tested often show a whole lot of mixture from various places. That is the value of genetics to show that complexity Can it be spun also? Yes but as time goes on and more data is accumulated it becomes less and less spinable and reality is shown to be a lot more complex then simplistic old paradigms of 3-5 "races", "black", "white", "asian" etc Similar as more and more people get their DNA tested the broader categories "African" and "Eurasian" start to erode as people see more precise locations, estimates of their ancestry broken down into countries rather than just continents
and Egyptian mummy DNA is in it's infancy with nothing tested Old Kingdom yet and including what mummies they actually have to be tested and including some pre-dynastic
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who’s Responsible for Bad Reporting on Mummies?
Nobody is held responsible It's like any other mainstream science article, there is freedom of the press in the U.S. and Europe you can write a story as objective or subjectively biased as you want, period
If a mainstream science article is based on a science journal article then that science journal has certain standards and peer-review that they say they uphold but it's the same situation. They can say whatever they want to
What is the other option? The other option is that laws are passed where you can't say something in an article until it is approved by the government
Who’s Responsible for Bad Reporting on Mummies?
The question doesn't even make sense in Western countries and other places with freedom of the press If somebody thinks it is bad reporting that it is sensationalizing to make a headline about evidence showing a mummy was of a person who was murdered then write a new article saying they should not sensationalize or what ever issue it is, spin of DNA or using a limited sample to make over-reaching conclusions
I think the weakness of the OP article and some threads is that they do a critique without first referencing the specific article title they are critiquing and some quotes from it so we can see exactly what they are critiquing. Apparently the author was talking about various mainstream articles but there needs to reference to the exact title
So he says
"Konstantina Drosou of the University of Manchester) refers to the mummy’s “genetic footprint,” H4a1,"
So now I have to figure out what article that is So I search for the researcher's name and "genetic footprint"
So this is probably it, I linked it before, the website is Manchester 1824 (who here ever heard it it) anyway
Takabuti, the famous ancient Egyptian mummy on display at the Ulster Museum, suffered a violent death from a knife attack, a team of experts from National Museums NI, University of Manchester, Queen’s University Belfast and Kingsbridge Private Hospital have revealed.
The team, whose findings are made public on the 185 year anniversary of Takabuti’s unwrapping in 1835, also show that her DNA is more genetically similar to Europeans rather than modern Egyptian populations.
____________________________________
That might be true. Haplogroup H has always been known to be the most common mitochondrial haplogroup in Europe. But it's also in Egypt and Arabia
I think it's fair to say that Takabuti is more similar genetically to most Europeans. However that doesn't means she was European. And if you look at North Africa was a whole there is a lot more H there than the entire African continent which is many times larger than Europe. And H is very high in certain Tuaregs (but these shallow article writers dont know that)
I do agree though that these articles need to shut up with the statements like " more genetically similar to". Just leave it out There needs to be further research on Haplogroup H, that is a much broader issue. I had noticed in the past there don't seem to be that many articles on it's origin. I think it is fair to say though it's not that common in West and Central Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic