Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes (Schuenemann et al. 2017) – 501 days old

[beyoku]

People are acting like North Africa is NOT a linguistic, Uni-parental, Autosomal, cultural/physical anthropological reality.

Folks are arguing ancient Egyptians are basically middle Eastern Farmers.
When did middle Easterners invent farming? When did Europe receive farming? When did Egypt receive farming?

Does any data exist for Iran or Turk aDNA coming in contact with Natuf/Levant Farmer? Why not?

[technogc]

E-V22 is common in Sudan and the Horn of Africa. If anyone knows the age of E-V22 in the HOA, and it's <3000 ybp, then E-M35 coming into Egypt from the north east/ north west or Egypt itself is more likely.

[Bones]

Let's wrap this up. I did not intend to make this a discussion for its own sake:

—As I said in my previous reply, it is not my claim that Palaeolithic Egyptians were both broad and long headed. There are no Palaeolithic Egyptian fossils with broad heads. They simply do not exist.
—Skull shape is subject to selective pressures and it is well known among biologists that alleles can become fixed. There is no scientific contradiction in pointing out long term continuity of broad heads in the Levant.
—You are calling Jebel Sahabans "native" with no basis. There is no evidence that Jebel Sahabans of the so-called 'racial war' were native to northern Sudan.
—Mesolithic Nubians weren't "killed off" or "pushed back", as we still find them at Wadi Halfa and other northern places millennia later.
—Semitic speakers were Africans and their arrival in Syria is associated with African ancestry. There was a strong admixture event in Mesopotamia involving Africans and local groups 3800BC, which is the exact date associated with the arrival of Semitic speakers. This admixture event can be, and has been, detected using Sub-Saharan Africans as a reference sample. (See Haber et al 2015).
—Levels of Basal Eurasian have little to do with being close to Natufians. The two populations with the most Basal Eurasian (prehistoric Iranians and Natufians) are not at all closely related. And it should be pointed out that modern population aren't exactly close to Natufians, either (Lazaridis et al 2016). It's just that some populations are closer to Natufians than others are. This wouldn't be the case if all one needed to be close to Natufians was Basal Eurasian.
—ASI forms a clade with all other living Eurasians and have have been modeled on trees as being a part of the larger Eurasian family. MSA African ancestry is only heightened in them. The ASI component doesn't represent a wholesale carryover from MSA Africans.

most of what you said is false, and the rest is just speculation.

however your argument makes no sense considering the fact that we have evidence of gracile featured population in northern sudan 13.000 years ago according to the race war article. And according to that article those gracile populations where foreigners and came from the north/eurasia. And i agree with them, however that means they must have come from either north africa or the levant/middle east. According to you paleolithic levantines where broad skulled and because of that these gracile invaders cannot have come from that region (and youre wrong about that but im just pointing out how your way of arguing makes no sense)

this means we have a group of graciles surrounded by ancient populations who all looked different from them, which means you cannot use cranometrics or skullshape to determine where a certain population came from in this case, so genetics are more important. Natufians do not have any genetic admixture but made a strong paternal impact on the native proto-nubians while killing many of them off at the same time, as described in the race war article. Nubians today are a mixture of this eurasian component (which has a lot of natufian included) and a dinka-like component. So its safe to assume that nubians/sudanese and horners all looked more like dinka before they received eurasian admixture and now look somewhere in between which is visible both on their genotype as well as phenotype.

Semitic speakers where not africans and they did not bring african ancestry to syria. The ancient east african component spotted in arabians and other middle easterners most likely was brought there more recently after natufians had already turned into proto-egyptians and mixed with some of the natives.

And wrong again, basal eurasian is very important in determining how close to natufians you are, as well as the ammount of neanderthal admixture you have, because BE lacks neanderthal meaning that the more neanderthal you have the further away from natufians you will cluster. Regardless though natufians completely lack SSA admixture while being the most similar to modern bedouins, so it has nothing to do with the sub-saharan admixture in bedouins.

ASI has been deconstructed as a mix of ancient south eurasian and eastern north asians, anything else is more likely to be ancient affinity due to such old paleolithic populations not having differentiated enough as of yet, so this mousterian connection is not likely to be anything real or of significance.

[nee4speed111]

So to bring this topic back on point, some have already started doing some testing on these Ancient Samples, here are their Iran Neolithic K6 scores

JK2134 776-569 cal BC

0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.00% East_Asian
25.22% Iran_Neolithic
61.91% Natufian
8.00% WHG
4.86% Sub_Saharan

JK2911 769-560 cal BC

2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.94% East_Asian
24.59% Iran_Neolithic
57.60% Natufian
6.64% WHG
6.93% Sub_Saharan

JK2888 97-2 cal BC

0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
0.01% East_Asian
35.25% Iran_Neolithic
54.16% Natufian
2.36% WHG
8.22% Sub_Saharan

Beginning observation is, that the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry, with the both pre-Ptolemaic samples having less. The second big observation is the Iran-Neolithic admixture in the Ptolemaic sample is significantly higher than both pre-Ptolemaic samples, with the Natufian admix staying roughly the same across all 3 samples, & surprisingly the WHG admix being lowest in the Ptolemaic sample, very interesting all around.


Now a comparison to a modern copt, which should be enlightening.

1.64% Ancestral_S_Eurasian
1.75% East_Asian
24.77% Iran_Neolithic
55.94% Natufian
4.56% WHG
11.34% Sub_Saharan

This is either mine or Lifeisdandy's result on the same test, as you can tell we are autosomally more SSA on average than these samples, although not by much in comparison to the Ptolemaic era sample. What is very interesting however, is our Iran-Neolithic admix is more in line with the pre-Ptolemaic samples amount, as opposed to the Ptolemaic one, which raises some interesting questions.

Ultimately though, the results do demonstrate conclusively that copts are at the very least, descendant of Ancient Egyptians from ~2800 years ago in what is now Lower Egypt, and I am more than willing to make a bet at this point, based on what I understand of our genomes and the genomes of the region, that this relationship will certainly extend further back in time, and that modern copts will be the closest related population to people from further south, in fact it looks like we will probably be more related to Ancient Middle & Upper Egyptians, than these Lower ones, based on these SSA scores, which makes sense as that is where most of us hail from originally.

So yeah, pretty sure at this point, that it can be conclusively said that copts are in fact native to Egypt, have been in place for a while now, and that when Upper Egyptian genomes are sampled from earlier periods, it will still be modern copts who will cluster closest to them out of all surviving modern populations, exhibiting a closer relationship than any other modern population

[Desertrose]

So to bring this topic back on point, some have already started doing some testing on these Ancient Samples, here are their Iran Neolithic K6 scores

JK2134 776-569 cal BC


JK2911 769-560 cal BC


JK2888 97-2 cal BC


Beginning observation is, that the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry, with the both pre-Ptolemaic samples having less. The second big observation is the Iran-Neolithic admixture in the Ptolemaic sample is significantly higher than both pre-Ptolemaic samples, with the Natufian admix staying roughly the same across all 3 samples, & surprisingly the WHG admix being lowest in the Ptolemaic sample, very interesting all around.


Now a comparison to a modern copt, which should be enlightening.



This is either mine or Lifeisdandy's result on the same test, as you can tell we are autosomally more SSA on average than these samples, although not by much in comparison to the Ptolemaic era sample. What is very interesting however, is our Iran-Neolithic admix is more in line with the pre-Ptolemaic samples amount, as opposed to the Ptolemaic one, which raises some interesting questions.

Ultimately though, the results do demonstrate conclusively that copts are at the very least, descendant of Ancient Egyptians from ~2800 years ago in what is now Lower Egypt, and I am more than willing to make a bet at this point, based on what I understand of our genomes and the genomes of the region, that this relationship will certainly extend further back in time, and that modern copts will be the closest related population to people from further south, in fact it looks like we will probably be more related to Ancient Middle & Upper Egyptians, than these Lower ones, based on these SSA scores, which makes sense as that is where most of us hail from originally.

So yeah, pretty sure at this point, that it can be conclusively said that copts are in fact native to Egypt, have been in place for a while now, and that when Upper Egyptian genomes are sampled from earlier periods, it will still be modern copts who will cluster closest to them out of all surviving modern populations, exhibiting a closer relationship than any other modern population

what calculator is this?

[EliasAlucard]

Great post @nee4speed111 ! Now @beyoku :

Jerry Maguire - "Show me the money" sequence:




You owe me 100 bucks dawg! There's no way in hell that the proto-Egyptians would have any Negroid admixture, probably not even the predynastic Egyptians for that matter, given these results.

[NonFingo]

most of what you said is false, and the rest is just speculation.

however your argument makes no sense considering the fact that we have evidence of gracile featured population in northern sudan 13.000 years ago according to the race war article. And according to that article those gracile populations where foreigners and came from the north/eurasia. And i agree with them, however that means they must have come from either north africa or the levant/middle east. According to you paleolithic levantines where broad skulled and because of that these gracile invaders cannot have come from that region (and youre wrong about that but im just pointing out how your way of arguing makes no sense)

this means we have a group of graciles surrounded by ancient populations who all looked different from them, which means you cannot use cranometrics or skullshape to determine where a certain population came from in this case, so genetics are more important. Natufians do not have any genetic admixture but made a strong paternal impact on the native proto-nubians while killing many of them off at the same time, as described in the race war article. Nubians today are a mixture of this eurasian component (which has a lot of natufian included) and a dinka-like component. So its safe to assume that nubians/sudanese and horners all looked more like dinka before they received eurasian admixture and now look somewhere in between which is visible both on their genotype as well as phenotype.

Semitic speakers where not africans and they did not bring african ancestry to syria. The ancient east african component spotted in arabians and other middle easterners most likely was brought there more recently after natufians had already turned into proto-egyptians and mixed with some of the natives.

And wrong again, basal eurasian is very important in determining how close to natufians you are, as well as the ammount of neanderthal admixture you have, because BE lacks neanderthal meaning that the more neanderthal you have the further away from natufians you will cluster. Regardless though natufians completely lack SSA admixture while being the most similar to modern bedouins, so it has nothing to do with the sub-saharan admixture in bedouins.

ASI has been deconstructed as a mix of ancient south eurasian and eastern north asians, anything else is more likely to be ancient affinity due to such old paleolithic populations not having differentiated enough as of yet, so this mousterian connection is not likely to be anything real or of significance.

If you want to continue this, create a new thread with this as the original post and tag me in it so I can find the thread.

[EliasAlucard]

If you want to continue this, create a new thread with this as the original post and tag me in it so I can find the thread.

No need to create a new thread; I'll split it later (tomorrow or so), or move it to the proper thread.

//mod

[beyoku]

Elias, I said I will "take you up on the bet" that " The Original Egyptians will cluster right next to the Ancient Assyrians".
I then asked do the Original Egyptians = Predynastic or old kingdom". You somewhat answered, but gave an answer of dual meaning and then went on to pick apart the original bet with all kinds of qualifiers.
When you doubled back and made all those clarifications did you see me respond? No.

The original bet was about the closeness of 2 ancient samples, Original Egyptians and Ancient Assyrians.

[BlessedbyHorus]

Like expected the samples show high Natufian. Interesting.