# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  First Genomes from Ancient Egypt

## holderlin

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Check it out.

Very little SSA compared to modern Egyptians, and very similar to Bronze Age Levant

The three males' Y HG calls from Genetiker are below:

JK2134 Pre-Ptolemaic 776–569BC J1a2a2-Z2329 calls
JK2911 Pre-Ptolemaic 769–560BC J2b1-PF7314 calls
JK2888 Ptolemaic 97–2BC E1b1b1a1b2-V22 calls

----------


## davef

No surprise that they would be Levantine in nature.

----------


## Megalophias

They did have SSA. Less than modern Egyptians though. 

On the PCA modern Egyptians are close but shifted towards Arabs ISTM.

----------


## holderlin

> They did have SSA. Less than modern Egyptians though. 
> 
> On the PCA modern Egyptians are close but shifted towards Arabs ISTM.


I guess they do say this, but compared to modern day populations it's very small. I can't even see it on the plots.

I edited the OP.

----------


## holderlin

I'm a little bummed there's no Old Kingdom, but if simple spatial logic is applied they should look closer to Natufian with less Anatolian Neo, and Iranian Neo.

----------


## Angela

Thanks, Holderlin.

We started a preliminary discussion based on the abstract here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ient+Egyptians

"Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level."

I think some pertinent questions were raised, but they'll have to be examined in light of the data we now have from the actual paper.

"So the samples are from 1070 BC forward, and after the Hyksos and Sea Peoples, but also after the time of Rameses III and his SSA yDna, yes? Interesting."

I also wondered how the Copts would compare.

----------


## holderlin

@Angela didn't see that, thanks.

----------


## Angela

Actually, this is the time period and what they were examining:
"all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE, Supplementary Data 1). In particular, we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination, especially during the Ptolemaic (332–30BCE) and Roman (30BCE–395CE) Periods."

The site is Abusir el-Meleq, which is sortNile of mid . I probably shouldn't comment as I'm just starting to read, but doesn't it seem an odd place to look for Greek and Roman introgression? It was in the delta, in Alexandria, where Greeks were perhaps half of the population. 

Ah, it's near Fayum.

Ed. Honestly, is it my allergies or early senility. I made a stupid word substitution and a typo!

----------


## Hauteville

> They did have SSA. Less than modern Egyptians though. 
> 
> On the PCA modern Egyptians are close but shifted towards Arabs ISTM.


No because on this graphic the ancient egyptian samples did not have yoruban-like admixture.

host immagini

----------


## Yetos

> Actually, this is the time period and what they were examining:
> "all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE, Supplementary Data 1). In particular, we seek to determine if the inhabitants of this settlement were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination, especially during the Ptolemaic (332–30BCE) and Roman (30BCE–395CE) Periods."
> 
> The site is Abusir el-Meleq, which is sort of mid isle. I probably shouldn't comment as I'm just starting to read, but doesn't it seem an odd place to look for Greek and Roman introgressio? It was in the delta, in Alexandria, where Greeks were perhaps half of the population. 
> 
> Ah, it's near Fayum.



That makes me also wonder,

----------


## Angela

Nice admixture graph. Slightly off-topic, but this visual is a nice illustration of why PCA is only one way of looking at the data. Unless I'm reading it wrong, on the PCA the ancient Egyptians look like they're sitting right on top of Bedouin A, and yet the admixture run shows they're quite different.

Strange that the Saudi group they tested has no SSA. Going by this it looks like the ancient Egyptians are closest to Bronze Age Levant and these strangely non SSA Saudis. Other things are about as expected. North African Jews picked up some Berber, but it was before the North Africans got all that SSA it looks like. Tunisians and Algerians are very similar. Bedouin A has SSA, Bedouin B doesn't. Anybody know if the Bedouin tribes that went to Palestine and Jordan were predominantly Bedouin A?

Well, here's one thing I was very wrong about, along with a lot of other people. The Druse were not a good proxy for the Neolithic migrations to Europe. They have a lot of Iran Chl, even a lot more than in the Levant Bronze Age. Maybe what they represent is the population in the Levant around the beginning of the modern era? Or, do they have more Iran Chl for one reason or another

Why on earth no Copts?

Do they do an analysis elsewhere using East Africans? Or would that just pick up all that shared ancestry? Is most of Saudi "African" ancestry actually East African? From what I remember even regular Saudis, not peripheral groups, have a ton of African mtDna.

----------


## Angela

@Hauteville,

They may not show it in Admixture, but it's there. I have to read the Supplement, but they probably are using Mbuti for some of these tests.

" Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. *Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations* (see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8). We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago (700 years ago), consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years."

Well, that may be overstating it a tad, yes? It's not a huge jump from 6 to 14%, or from 15 to 22%, and this is just one site. Sites further south might have been quite different. 

Well, I guess we know now that Ramses' African "Y" was not a fluke. The Egyptians of this era did have some SSA, even if it wasn't very substantial. It remains to be seen what it was like further back in time.

----------


## Angela

Honestly, not the correct site, as they themselves implicitly acknowledge. 

" Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44. Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices2,45. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time."

This verges on the silly. You need the context of the samples to make a determination that they are likely to show any introgression that occurred. It doesn't exist for these three samples. 

How disappointing. If the Egyptian government allowed access to samples from more promising sites, we might get some answers as to the amount, if any, of Greek and Roman introgression, or if it was sort of like the German communities in the Balkans, where they lived alongside the natives for hundred of years, but didn't intermingle.

----------


## I1a3_Young

> *Estimating phenotypes*Finally, we analysed several functionally relevant SNPs in sample JK2911, which had low contamination and relatively high coverage. This individual had a derived allele at the SLC24A5 locus, which contributes to lighter skin pigmentation and was shown to be at high frequency in Neolithic Anatolia41, consistent with the ancestral affinity shown above. Other relevant SNPs carry the ancestral allele, including HERC2 and LCT, which suggest dark-coloured eyes and lactose intolerance (Supplementary Table 9).


Seems expected. I wonder if their procedures to rule out contamination were only for modern contamination or also apply to the mummy prep. These mummies would have been extensively handled and processed by possibly those of slave status. Or maybe not? Still makes me wonder.

----------


## Angela

This is after the Hyksos, and its a Hyksos site, so perhaps explaining the Iran Chl. Like I said, wrong site.

Plus, depends what you mean by ancient, right? Maybe more introgression from the Near East lowered the amount of the SSA.

----------


## DuPidh

> Nice admixture graph. Slightly off-topic, but this visual is a nice illustration of why PCA is only one way of looking at the data. Unless I'm reading it wrong, on the PCA the ancient Egyptians look like they're sitting right on top of Bedouin A, and yet the admixture run shows they're quite different.
> 
> Strange that the Saudi group they tested has no SSA. Going by this it looks like the ancient Egyptians are closest to Bronze Age Levant and these strangely non SSA Saudis. Other things are about as expected. North African Jews picked up some Berber, but it was before the North Africans got all that SSA it looks like. Tunisians and Algerians are very similar. Bedouin A has SSA, Bedouin B doesn't. Anybody know if the Bedouin tribes that went to Palestine and Jordan were predominantly Bedouin A?
> 
> Well, here's one thing I was very wrong about, along with a lot of other people. The Druse were not a good proxy for the Neolithic migrations to Europe. They have a lot of Iran Chl, even a lot more than in the Levant Bronze Age. Maybe what they represent is the population in the Levant around the beginning of the modern era? Or, do they have more Iran Chl for one reason or another
> 
> Why on earth no Copts?
> 
> Do they do an analysis elsewhere using East Africans? Or would that just pick up all that shared ancestry? Is most of Saudi "African" ancestry actually East African? From what I remember even regular Saudis, not peripheral groups, have a ton of African mtDna.


Is today's Cyprus population the closest possible to Levant, at the time of ancient Egypt?
I am trying to picture how did the Levant people looked back then

----------


## Angela

> Is today's Cyprus population the closest possible to Levant, at the time of ancient Egypt?
> I am trying to picture how did the Levant people looked back then


Levant Bronze Age is very similar to the ancient Egyptian sample, which I think will turn out to be close to the Egyptian Copts. They don't at all look Cypriot to me. 







Greek Cypriots:



Obviously, there are a few non-Cypriots in the following. :)


Plus, didn't the paper on the Canaanites tell us that these Bronze Age Canaanite samples have no derived SLC45A2, so not only different than people in the Levant today, but also quite a bit darker than the people of the Anatolia Neolithic and the EEF of Europe, who did have reasonably high percentages of derived SLC45A2. In fact, I think a recent paper revised those estimates upwards from where they were a while ago.. This might suggest that most of the Iran Chl, like the CHG themselves, only had the derived SLC25A2 allele, and thus were rather darker than not only Anatolia Neolithic, but also Levant Neolithic, since some of them also had derived SLC45A2, although the Natufians did not.

The admixture run isn't optimal, but going by that the Bronze Age Levant doesn't look all that different from the Saudis. So, maybe tribal Saudis or Yeminis without obvious SSA?







Who knows, though?

----------


## LeBrok

Interestingly, modern Near Easterners are the construct of BA mixing, a similar process as in Europe in BA. Well, there are some changes since, but not that dramatic.

Looks like modern Palestinians and Bedouin A are the closest to Levant BA and BA Egypt. Was Levant BA the Semitic birthplace?

----------


## davef

Hmmm....by the graph, it seems that the ancient Egyptians were closest to modern north (east) Africans. Makes sense. I always figured that far northeast africans (by far I mean way up north near the Mediterranean and east as in near the Levant) were Levantines with a dash of Sub Saharan.

----------


## Angela

> Hmmm....by the graph, it seems that the ancient Egyptians were closest to modern north (east) Africans. Makes sense. I always figured that far northeast africans (by far I mean way up north near the Mediterranean and east as in near the Levant) were Levantines with a dash of Sub Saharan.


From the graphic posted I don't see that at all, unless you're coining your own definitions for population groups. Northeast Africans are Horners.

The only "Africans" the ancient Egyptians from this period plot close to are North Africans, who are mostly Levantines with SSA, more than half of it coming in the last 2000 years, presumably through the Arab slave trade, plus whatever traces of the prior population(s) are left. None of that is a surprise. 

Anyone who has been paying attention to the papers knows that two major population flows moved out of the Near East, the western farmers, and then a few thousand years later a population related to the Iranian farmers. Both spread over vast distances and mixed with earlier populations where ever they went. The first group spread all along the southern coast of the Mediterranean, among many other places, and even deep into Africa. We can see the traces of the second major Near East group in northern Africa too, but in much smaller percentages. 

Basically, as LeBrok pointed out, the Bronze Age may be the last really major population upheaval in western Eurasia. As I stated in another thread, the second gene flow out of the Near East, which was less consequential for most of Europe was like a pincer movement into Europe, I believe, with part of it going over the Caucasus and onto the steppe, and part of it going into southeastern and southern Europe, as well as all over the Near East, and some of it even reaching North Africa.

It looks like a modified version of the old Dienekes theory of the Womb of Nations to me, but as you have to consider also the western farmers, it's not just the Caucasus area, but the Anatolia/Levant region as well.

----------


## ThirdTerm

> Our analysis furthermore shows that derived alleles for the genes SLC24A5, known to be responsible for partially lighter skin pigmentation were present in both JK2888 and JK2911 (see Supplementary Note 6 for details). For further genes such as SLC45A2, LCT and EDAR we were unable to find derived alleles for both JK2888 and JK2911. For JK2134, there was no sufficient coverage after quality filtering at all the specific sites, which is why the analysis revealed no further clues.


Supplementary Data 3 shows that mtDNA haplogroups for the three ancient Egyptian samples JK2134 JK2888 and JK2911 are J1d, U6a2 and M1a1, respectively. J1d and its subclades are considered Near Eastern and U6a2 is close to the East African cluster U6a2a. M1a1 was also found in Ethiopia and the majority of the M1a lineages found in Africa had a more recent Eastern African origin. These ancient Egyptian mummies had partially light skin pigmentation without further light skin pigmentation genes and they probably resembled modern-day East Africans. Ethiopians are known to plot closer to Near Easterners in PCA, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component in East Africa.

----------


## davef

> From the graphic posted I don't see that at all, unless you're coining your own definitions for population groups. Northeast Africans are Horners.
> 
> The only "Africans" the ancient Egyptians from this period plot close to are North Africans, who are mostly Levantines with SSA, more than half of it coming in the last 2000 years, presumably through the Arab slave trade, plus whatever traces of the prior population(s) are left. None of that is a surprise. 
> 
> Anyone who has been paying attention to the papers knows that two major population flows moved out of the Near East, the western farmers, and then a few thousand years later a population related to the Iranian farmers. Both spread over vast distances and mixed with earlier populations where ever they went. The first group spread all along the southern coast of the Mediterranean, among many other places, and even deep into Africa. We can see the traces of the second major Near East group in northern Africa too, but in much smaller percentages. 
> 
> Basically, as LeBrok pointed out, the Bronze Age may be the last really major population upheaval in western Eurasia. As I stated in another thread, the second gene flow out of the Near East, which was less consequential for most of Europe was like a pincer movement into Europe, I believe, with part of it going over the Caucasus and onto the steppe, and part of it going into southeastern and southern Europe, as well as all over the Near East, and some of it even reaching North Africa.
> 
> It looks like a modified version of the old Dienekes theory of the Womb of Nations to me, but as you have to consider also the western farmers, it's not just the Caucasus area, but the Anatolia/Levant region as well.


Sorry for mis-wording things, by northeast Africans I was referring to modern Egyptians, Tunisians, and Algerians. These groups are the closest to the ancient Egyptian samples studied in this study.

----------


## Hauteville

Those samples have an extra Iran_Neolithic, maybe they are mixed with Hyksos more than purest ancient Egyptians.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Interestingly, modern Near Easterners are the construct of BA mixing, a similar process as in Europe in BA. Well, there are some changes since, but not that dramatic.


For some parts of the Middle East it occurred before the BA. The three genetic components Caucasians are makeup of; EHG, EEF, CHG were present in the Caucasus by at least 4000 BC. The same could be true for Anatolia and Mesoptamia. IranChalolithic isn't radically different from Assyrians, Kurds, Persians, etc. 

Maybe nothing like the expansion of Steppe ancestry in Europe occurred in the Middle East. It expanded from out of a pocket in Russia to most of Europe in about 500 years.

----------


## MarkoZ

> Looks like modern Palestinians and Bedouin A are the closest to Levant BA and BA Egypt. Was Levant BA the Semitic birthplace?


I think the southern Levant is most commonly proposed as the homeland of Semitic. Those Bedouin samples incidentally are from the Negev just south of the Levant.

----------


## DuPidh

> Levant Bronze Age is very similar to the ancient Egyptian sample, which I think will turn out to be close to the Egyptian Copts. They don't at all look Cypriot to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greek Cypriots:
> ...


There were comments from newspapers about this study as well. One paper I read on line was saying that the study showed that (many mummies of 96 of them, where they were able to extract DNA) mummies were carrying the gene for white skin. The population of Egypt back then was compared with Turkeys population today. Since Turkey today has all possible shades of European populations I don't know what they mean by Turkish. That's why I said probably Cyprus was the best candidate.

----------


## DuPidh

> Levant Bronze Age is very similar to the ancient Egyptian sample, which I think will turn out to be close to the Egyptian Copts. They don't at all look Cypriot to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greek Cypriots:
> ...


This one is a coment by "washington post" about the topic:The scientists compared these ancient genetics with those of 100 modern Egyptians and 125 modern Ethiopians that had been previously analyzed. If you ask Egyptians, they'll say that they have become more European recently, Krause said. “We see exactly the opposite,” he said.


So The post is saying that back then many Egyptians from this site looked more European

----------


## Fire Haired14

I knew the reporters would miss interpret derived allele A111t(rs1426654) in ancient Egyptians. That mutation is overrated. For too long it was viewed as the cause of European light skin. But still today researchers overrate its affect on skin color. 

Yeah, that mutation in ancient Egyptians indicates their skin wasn't as Black as night but it doesn't indicate they had "light skin" which is what the paper said. Now I bet some articles online are going to miss interprat that information and information about Egyptians relationship to Neolithic Europeans and conclude ancient Egyptians were white Europeans. 

Just look at ancient Egyptian art. They depicted themselves with brown skin.

----------


## davef

> I knew the reporters would miss interpret derived allele A111t(rs1426654) in ancient Egyptians. That mutation is overrated. For too long it was viewed as the cause of European light skin. But still today researchers overrate its affect on skin color. 
> 
> Yeah, that mutation in ancient Egyptians indicates their skin wasn't as Black as night but it doesn't indicate they had "light skin" which is what the paper said. Now I bet some articles online are going to miss interprat that information and information about Egyptians relationship to Neolithic Europeans and conclude ancient Egyptians were white Europeans. 
> 
> Just look at ancient Egyptian art. They depicted themselves with brown skin.


I agree with you! I'm tired of euro centrists, Nordicists, and skinheads stating that they claim every ancient civilization bc that's crazy talk. And yes, by the data, the ancient Egyptians were NOT genetically close to european farmers. Not by a long shot.

----------


## I1a3_Young

Skin genes are not like hair and eye genes, based on personal observations of mixed people. Hair and eyes have dominant and recessive genes, of which color is one component. Skin of mixed people is always a gradient between the parents. Mix a Nigerian and a Swede and you will always get the brown color in between, but never a white or black skin. The eyes and hair would be dark and less coarse than the Nigerian's, but the children of that mixed child could produce light hair or eyes if their partner had the correct genes.

Therefore, I'm not sure how you can say "light skin genes" as it appears to be much more fluid than other types of genes.

----------


## John Doe

> I agree with you! I'm tired of euro centrists, Nordicists, and skinheads stating that they claim every ancient civilization bc that's crazy talk. And yes, by the data, the ancient Egyptians were NOT genetically close to european farmers. Not by a long shot.


At the same time you have the We Wuz Kingz Afro-centrists who claim that ancient Chinese were black, the vikings were black, Shakespeare was black etc.

----------


## I1a3_Young

> At the same time you have the We Wuz Kingz Afro-centrists who claim that ancient Chinese were black, the vikings were black, Shakespeare was black etc.


Heh I have met those. Frustrating and amusing at the same time. I suppose there's an internal affinity towards tribalism that makes people behave this way. Afro master race! Nordic master race! Celtic master race! Italian master race! Iberian master race! Croatian master race! Japanese master race! etc.

----------


## davef

> At the same time you have the We Wuz Kingz Afro-centrists who claim that ancient Chinese were black, the vikings were black, Shakespeare was black etc.


I agree, they're just as bad.

----------


## bicicleur

> Skin genes are not like hair and eye genes, based on personal observations of mixed people. Hair and eyes have dominant and recessive genes, of which color is one component. Skin of mixed people is always a gradient between the parents. Mix a Nigerian and a Swede and you will always get the brown color in between, but never a white or black skin. The eyes and hair would be dark and less coarse than the Nigerian's, but the children of that mixed child could produce light hair or eyes if their partner had the correct genes.
> 
> Therefore, I'm not sure how you can say "light skin genes" as it appears to be much more fluid than other types of genes.


I don't think so.
I know of a case where a white woman cheated on her white husband with a black man and got a perfect white daughter, and the white husband was never aware of the cheating.
Then the white daughter got pregnant from her white boyfriend and got a black son.
Her white boyfriend rejected her and her black son, untill a DNA test proved what had realy happened.

----------


## Angela

Look, for the ten thousandths time, gentlemen, pigmentation is a polygenic trait. There's no way we can get a fix on it without getting the results for a whole group of alleles and running them through algorithms. That's why the academics always speak in relative terms. 

The allele in question does impact skin color. However, what is commonly perceived as "European" skin color pigmentation also seems to be very affected by derived SLC45A2. Going by memory, the paper on the Canaanites said that among today's Levantines, 1/3 (or was it 2/3?) have at least one copy of derived SLC45A2 along with the other major skin lightening allele. So, all they could say is that the Bronze Age Canaanites and the Levant Bronze Age people were probably darker than some of today's people from the same region. The ancient Egyptian samples also lack this second skin lightening allele, and they also possess some degree of SSA which the ancient samples from the Levant did not, so I highly doubt they were German looking or Greek Cypriot looking. Neither, however, did they look SSA. So, I guess racists on either side aren't happy.

Reporters always get things wrong. It's just the way it is.

----------


## holderlin

> We Wuz Kingz


 :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Angela

> I agree with you! I'm tired of euro centrists, Nordicists, and skinheads stating that they claim every ancient civilization bc that's crazy talk. And yes, by the data, *the ancient Egyptians were NOT genetically close to european farmers.* Not by a long shot.


I don't know what you mean by that. They had a lot of "farmer" ancestry. Perhaps it was more Levant Neolithic, but Levant Neolithic contained minority Anatolian Neolithic, just as Anatolian Neolithic contained minority Levant Neolithic. Plus, which European farmers do you mean? The early Neolithic farmers in Europe picked up almost no additional WHG. That only happened thousands of years later in the MN, when it went up to about 20-25% depending on the area. 

Of course, it seems the Egyptians from the era in question did have some Iran Chl. type material, but it wasn't much. They did have, for a lower bound number, about 6% SSA, which European Neolithic people did not. 

The skin pigmentation of European farmers also seems to have been quite different. On the other hand, everybody at that point in time was darker than today.

----------


## Angela

I think that we should also keep in mind that this paper only covers a relatively recent period in Egyptian ancient history. We have no idea of the SSA profile of the ancient Egyptians before that time. It might have been higher, so any "crowing" seems a little premature. There were also Nubian rulers of Egypt, so who knows how that affected gene flow. Or even, as they imply, if the Old Kingdom wasn't significantly higher in SSA, we don't know the profile as you move further south toward Libya.

----------


## I1a3_Young

> I don't think so.
> I know of a case where a white woman cheated on her white husband with a black man and got a perfect white daughter, and the white husband was never aware of the cheating.
> Then the white daughter got pregnant from her white boyfriend and got a black son.
> Her white boyfriend rejected her and her black son, untill a DNA test proved what had realy happened.


That is interesting. I've seen hundreds of mixes and never heard of that before. Do they have available public pics, like a FB profile or something? I believe you, but I find it so bizarre that it must be a rare occurrence.

----------


## Angela

> Sorry for mis-wording things, by northeast Africans I was referring to modern Egyptians, Tunisians, and Algerians. These groups are the closest to the ancient Egyptian samples studied in this study.


As I explained, they're not north-east Africans: they're North Africans. Plus, this group of ancient Egyptians may have had less SSA than modern Tunisians and Algerians, depending on the tools used. The authors go to great lengths to point out that although there is continuity in Egypt, the ancient Egyptians, who aren't so ancient, are closer to some other groups. From admixture it looks as if they're closer to minimally SSA admixed Saudis. I have to check the Supplement and the other types of analyses to make sure.

----------


## bicicleur

> That is interesting. I've seen hundreds of mixes and never heard of that before. Do they have available public pics, like a FB profile or something? I believe you, but I find it so bizarre that it must be a rare occurrence.


no I don't have any pics or links to some site, but it is a genuine case
I agree with you that most of the time the children have a complexion in between that of the parents, but appearantly it doesn't have to, although in that case I guess it happens in the 2nd generation

----------


## davef

> I don't know what you mean by that. They had a lot of "farmer" ancestry. Perhaps it was more Levant Neolithic, but Levant Neolithic contained minority Anatolian Neolithic, just as Anatolian Neolithic contained minority Levant Neolithic. Plus, which European farmers do you mean? The early Neolithic farmers in Europe picked up almost no additional WHG. That only happened thousands of years later in the MN, when it went up to about 20-25% depending on the area. 
> 
> Of course, it seems the Egyptians from the era in question did have some Iran Chl. type material, but it wasn't much. They did have, for a lower bound number, about 6% SSA, which European Neolithic people did not. 
> 
> The skin pigmentation of European farmers also seems to have been quite different. On the other hand, everybody at that point in time was darker than today.


Sorry, I was going by the chart Hauteville posted, page 1 of this thread. The ancient Egyptian samples have _some_ Anatolian by that chart (indicated by the shred of "dark blue"), but not much. Natufian seems to be the dominant component.

I'll admit, I may not know what I'm talking about :).

----------


## Angela

Once again I find myself mostly in agreement with Razib Khan:

https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/30/anci...medium=twitter

----------


## Angela

The Fayum mummy portraits might give us some idea what the people in the later part of this "ancient Egyptian" period looked like, although they might have a little admixture from Hellenistic and Roman periods.







There were a few lighter ones too:


It's to be expected given that there's going to be variation.

I don't think my Bedouin, Yemeni example is that far off. :)

Copts generally look different to me, more like some Samaritans if they were darker: not such fine feature in a lot of them, and more SSA. Perhaps the "SSA' in the Copts is less East African than in these ancient Egyptians?

----------


## Angela

Just to throw it in...Nefertiti



I think she's stunning.

Kemsit, the Pharaoh Mentuhotep's Nubian queen:


I think the difference is obvious, yes?

----------


## davef

Third one down from the top looks very Arabian so you may be right about ancient Egypt being close to Saudis.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> The Fayum mummy portraits might give us some idea what the people in the later part of this "ancient Egyptian" period looked like, although they might have a little admixture from Hellenistic and Roman periods.


It would be interesting to see if Natufian/LevantN heavy SW Asians look similar to Sardinians. I tend to think the stero typical Middle Eastern look derives from IranNeo-CHG.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Once again I find myself mostly in agreement with Razib Khan:
> 
> https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/30/anci...medium=twitter


Since he talks about various dynasties, how much SSA did the Nubian dynasty had?

----------


## Fire Haired14

The ADMIXTURE analysis in Supplementary Info Figure 4 is the best I've seen. It isolates a Natufian(ish) component, IranNeo/CHG(ish) component, AnatoliaNeo(ish) component, and EuroHG(ish) component.

The results are consistent with what qpADM and D-stats give. Sardinia scores a little in the Natufoan(ish) and IranNeo/CHG(ish) components. What I think has made Sardinia so special is its lack of Steppe/ANE-heavy ancestry which all other Europeans have a lot of. Sardinia might have as much Near Eastern ancestry as other Italians but because they lack Steppe ancestry they pack a lot more AnatoliaNeo ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> It would be interesting to see if Natufian/LevantN heavy SW Asians look similar to Sardinians. I tend to think the stero typical Middle Eastern look derives from IranNeo-CHG.


I have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Why would Sardinians look particularly southwest Asian? 

Saudis are 65% SW Asian. Palestinians are 36% SWAsian

Sardinians are 8.7% SWAsian.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Why would Sardinians look particularly southwest Asian?


Because Natufians, who makeup most of that SW Asian component in the paper, might be closely related to Anatolia Neolithic.

----------


## Angela

> Because Natufians, who makeup most of that SW Asian component in the paper, might be closely related to Anatolia Neolithic.


I knew you must have forgotten the percentages for SW Asian in Europeans, but you persist even after I provided the percentages for SW Asian in the post above? 

I take it you've also forgotten that the early farmers who went to Europe were extremely close to Anatolia Neolithic, and that Anatolia Neolithic had only a minority component of Levant Neolithic, which was also not completely Natufian? Perhaps you want to review those papers and the stats for these populations.

In addition to all of that, of course, the Sardinians have a pretty big chunk of WHG. 

So, again, I don't know why on earth you'd think Sardinians would look particularly southwest Asian.

----------


## Angela

There's variation everywhere, so I don't think blanket generalizations are at all helpful, but no, most Sardinians don't look at all southwest Asian, if what you mean is Arabian or Palestinian looking. You've obviously not seen very many of them. 













Famous people from Saudi and Palestine:













I can't imagine where you get these ideas.

----------


## harena

He's implying that Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic and Natufians all hail from the same stock, Anatolia Neolithic is just more WHG admixed.

----------


## Alan

> Those samples have an extra Iran_Neolithic, maybe they are mixed with Hyksos more than purest ancient Egyptians.


The site where the samples come from have no record of Hyksos or Greek settlements + they are burried in typical Egyptian fashion. There is absolutely no way that they were mixed with Hyksos. They are Iran_Neo admixed because the ancient Egyptian derive most likely from late-Neolithic or Bronze Age Levant. This would explain why ancient Egytpain language is linguistically closer to Semitic than Berber. It is because it left the South Levant as a secondary wave of Afro_Asiatic speakers. After the Proto Berbers left earlier.

----------


## Alan

> This one is a coment by "washington post" about the topic:The scientists compared these ancient genetics with those of 100 modern Egyptians and 125 modern Ethiopians that had been previously analyzed. If you ask Egyptians, they'll say that they have become more European recently, Krause said. “We see exactly the opposite,” he said.
> 
> 
> So The post is saying that back then many Egyptians from this site looked more European


Not more European but more Caucasian aka Near Eastern.

----------


## LeBrok

> He's implying that Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic and Natufians all hail from the same stock, Anatolia Neolithic is just more WHG admixed.


Anatolian Neolithic was surprisingly more distinct than just WHG admixture. IIRC Anatolian Neolithic was 10% WHG, 20 Natufian and the rest (70%) their own stock, Anatolian farmers.

Well, they are related by ancient relatives belonging to 3 major admixtures/groups, though in different proportions, and they have drifted way through thousands of years of separation. Here are their genomes in HarappaWorld GedMatch run.

M041601
Merged

M54279
I0746

Natufian


Anatolian EF

Run time
 6.39

Run time
 10.20

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Caucasian
 13.98

Caucasian
 35.90

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
 3.91

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
 0.68

Papuan
-

American
-

American
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Mediterranean
 27.39

Mediterranean
 46.12

SW-Asian
 53.62

SW-Asian
 14.03

San
-

San
-

E-African
 4.33

E-African
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

W-African
-

W-African
-



They have mostly similar admixtures (living relatively close by), but in so different proportions that it makes them very distinct.

----------


## Angela

Thank you, LeBrok.

----------


## LeBrok

Here are the 3 ancestral populations of every Near Easterner today, well major ancestral components. Natufian, Anatolian and Iranian farmers. Iranian is quite different, though united with the first two by local Caucasian component.

M041601
Merged

M54279
I0746

M967114 I1290

Natufian


Anatolian EF

Iranian Neolithic
10 kya

Run time
 6.39

Run time
 10.20

Run time
 7.91

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
 6.13

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
 62.71

Caucasian
 13.98

Caucasian
 35.90

Caucasian
 24.97

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
 3.91

NE-Euro
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
 0.68

Papuan
-

Papuan
 0.35

American
-

American
-

American
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Mediterranean
 27.39

Mediterranean
 46.12

Mediterranean
-

SW-Asian
 53.62

SW-Asian
 14.03

SW-Asian
 3.88

San
-

San
-

San
 0.18

E-African
 4.33

E-African
-

E-African
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
 1.78

----------


## LeBrok

Now, Levant Neolithic and BA samples, plus modern Lebanese, Palestinian, Bedouin and Egyptian.

M115616
I0867

M291439
I1706

Modern


Modern


Modern


Modern


Levant Neolithic

Levant BA

Lebanese

Palestinian

Bedouin


Egyptian


Run time
9.93

Run time
13

Run time


Run time


Run time


Run time


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.26

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
1

Baloch
-

Baloch
3.57

Baloch
11

Baloch
7

Baloch
5

Baloch
3

Caucasian
25.97

Caucasian
37.26

Caucasian
41

Caucasian
39

Caucasian
21

Caucasian
28

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
3

NE-Euro
1

NE-Euro
2

NE-Euro
1

SE-Asian
0.07

SE-Asian
0.62

SE-Asian
1

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
1

Siberian
1

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

NE-Asian
0.06

NE-Asian
0.43

NE-Asian
1

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

American
-

American
0.34

American
0

American
0

American
0

American
0

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Mediterranean
32.53

Mediterranean
12.01

Mediterranean
13

Mediterranean
12

Mediterranean
7

Mediterranean
17

SW-Asian
39.86

SW-Asian
44.73

SW-Asian
23

SW-Asian
31

SW-Asian
56

SW-Asian
33

San
-

San
-

San
0

San
0

San
0

San
0

E-African
1.52

E-African
-

E-African
3

E-African
5

E-African
5

E-African
12

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.4

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

W-African
-

W-African
0.38

W-African
1

W-African
1

W-African
3

W-African
6

----------


## Angela

> Now, Levant Neolithic and BA samples, plus modern Lebanese, Palestinian, Bedouin and Egyptian.
> 
> M115616
> I0867
> 
> M291439
> I1706
> 
> Modern
> ...


It's good to remind people that Levant Neolithic is not the same as Natufian. The transition brought more "Caucasus" and Med and decreased the SWAsian. I think that's admixture with Anatolian Neolithic, which shows up in the modeling. 

Then in the Levant Bronze, Caucasian went up, which is in line with what these papers have been talking about, Baloch appears, but SW Asian also went up. Perhaps there was more movement from Arabia north? Virtually no SSA in the Levant Bronze Age, however, so whatever brought the additional SW Asian didn't carry it. Both the East African and West African came after that. 

For SWAsian, it's 23 to 31, Lebanese to Palestinian. Are these Christian Lebanese? If they aren't, the differences might be larger.

Well, you can see not only the increase in the East African in modern Egyptians, but also the increase in West African. 


Amazing how low the Med component drops. Anatolia Neolithic was 46% Med. So, I guess since Med is the Sardinian cluster, it's mostly Anatolian Neolithic plus WHG?

----------


## LeBrok

> It's good to remind people that Levant Neolithic is not the same as Natufian. The transition brought more "Caucasus" and Med and decreased the SWAsian. I think that's admixture with Anatolian Neolithic, which shows up in the modeling. 
> 
> Then in the Levant Bronze, Caucasian went up, which is in line with what these papers have been talking about, Baloch appears, but SW Asian also went up. Perhaps there was more movement from Arabia north? Virtually no SSA in the Levant Bronze Age, however, so whatever brought the additional SW Asian didn't carry it. Both the East African and West African came after that. 
> 
> For SWAsian, it's 23 to 31, Lebanese to Palestinian. Are these Christian Lebanese? If they aren't, the differences might be larger.
> 
> Well, you can see not only the increase in the East African in modern Egyptians, but also the increase in West African. 
> 
> 
> Amazing how low the Med component drops. Anatolia Neolithic was 46% Med. So, I guess since Med is the Sardinian cluster, it's mostly Anatolian Neolithic plus WHG?


Palestinians are almost true BA Levant, plus 5 percent of baloch and 6 percent of SSA. Amazing. I'm betting that ancient Jews will turn very similar and most likely Phoenicians too.

Here is Anatolian and EEF, BA Italian and Sardinian

M54279
I0746

M405327
I1506 NE1

Remedello Average

Modern from Harappa table


Anatolian EF

Hungary, Polgár-Ferenci-hát
7.2kya

Bronze Age (Neolithic Genome)
Sardinian


Run time
10.2

Run time
 19.95

Run time


Run time


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
 -

S-Indian


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
 -

Baloch


Caucasian
35.9

Caucasian
28.27

Caucasian
 11.03

Caucasian
20

NE-Euro
3.91

NE-Euro
12.13

NE-Euro
 21.25

NE-Euro
13

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
 0.61

SE-Asian


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
 -

Siberian


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
 -

NE-Asian


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
 -

Papuan


American
-

American
-

American
 -

American


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
 -

Beringian


Mediterranean
46.12

Mediterranean
45.75

Mediterranean
 60.61

Mediterranean
60

SW-Asian
14.03

SW-Asian
13.45

SW-Asian
 5.50

SW-Asian
7

San
-

San
-

San
 -

San


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
 -

E-African


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.05

Pygmy
 0.08

Pygmy


W-African
-

W-African
0.35

W-African
 0.92

W-African

----------


## bicicleur

> Palestinians are almost true BA Levant, plus 5 percent of baloch and 6 percent of SSA. Amazing. I'm betting that ancient Jews will turn very similar and most likely Phoenicians too.


so the Palestinians are not the Filistines, the Sea People that settled in Gaza

maybe the Jews and the Phoenicians have common ancestors, but that is then from before they entered in history
Phoenicians are from the Lebanese coast, often a place for refugees from inland, trying to escape from the domination of the Hittites or the Egyptians
and the origin of the Jews are marginal herders in the hills in the interface between the Southern Levant and the Negev desert who expanded into the vacuum created by the Egyptians when they abandonned the Levant

----------


## harena

> Anatolian Neolithic was surprisingly more distinct than just WHG admixture. IIRC Anatolian Neolithic was 10% WHG, 20 Natufian and the rest (70%) their own stock, Anatolian farmers.
> 
> Well, they are related by ancient relatives belonging to 3 major admixtures/groups, though in different proportions, and they have drifted way through thousands of years of separation. Here are their genomes in HarappaWorld GedMatch run.
> 
> M041601
> Merged
> 
> M54279
> I0746
> ...



I'm not too sure about backward modeling very ancient samples like that, some of those components are partly derived from Natufian/Anatolian Farmers not the other way around. 
IIRC Lazaridis modeled Natufians roughly as 50% Basal Eurasian and 50% WHG; Levant Neolithic, Anatolian farmers, EEF and Copper Age Iberia are all on the same cline, just look at a PCA.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Post at my blog about the new ancient Egyptian mtDNA results: First look at ancient Egyptian mtDNA

mtDNA doesn't get anymore SouthWest Asian than the ancient Egyptian's mtDNA. There isn't a lot of East African mtDNA in my database. The stuff I've read about East African mtDNA indicates their West Eurasian mtDNA shares a lot of similarities. 

R0a, HV1, T1a, J2a2, N1, M1a might all ultimately derive from Natufian-like people. N1, T1a, J2a link Neolithic Anatolians with Natufian-rich people.

Think about this. Andronovo, Bronze age British, and these ancient Egyptians were roughly contemporary to each other. Each carries roughly the same frequency of T1a and I as the ancient Egyptians. That demonstrates the widespread distribution of Neolithic West Asian ancestry.

----------


## bicicleur

the calls for Y-DNA of the 3 males :

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...ancient-egypt/

----------


## Fire Haired14

This paper's ADMIXTURE analysis is maybe the most interesting aspect of the paper. It's 100% consistent with results I and others have gotten using D-stats provided by David Wesoloski at Eurogenes. Recall that the ADMIXTURE isolated Natufian, AnatoliaNeolthic, CHG, and Europe HG centered components. 

Here are some interesting details the ADMIXTURE analysis shows...

-Saami's European-side has more Euro_HG(WHG, EHG) ancestry than any Europeans including Lithuanians and Finns. D-stats indicate they have 10-15%(exact percentages might be wrong) Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer ancestry which was rich in EHG and also had its own unique alleles. D-stats and this paper's ADMIXTURE give Saami roughly 40% EuroHG ancestry, 20% CHG ancestry, 15% AnatoliaNeo ancestry, and 25% something East Asian-like.

-Southern Italians score as much in the Natufian component as Iranians which indicates their Near Eastern ancestors lived south and west of Iran. 

-BedouinB might be mostly Natufian(ish). They score 70% in the Natufian component, 20% in the CHG component, and 20% in the AnatoliaN component. 

-YemaniteJew, ancient Egyptians, and Jordan_EBA are all really similar to each other. They score 50% in the Natufian component, 20-30% in CHG, and 20-30% in AnatoliaN. All modern SouthWest Asians score an extra dose in CHG(30-40%) and significantly less in Natufian(35-40%). 

-The Near Eastern ancestor of North African Jews and European Jews was probably similar to the average modern Levantie. The Near Eastern ancestor of Yemanite Jews was probably similar to Jordan_EBA and ancient Egyptians.

----------


## MarkoZ

> The site where the samples come from have no record of Hyksos or Greek settlements + they are burried in typical Egyptian fashion. There is absolutely no way that they were mixed with Hyksos. They are Iran_Neo admixed because the ancient Egyptian derive most likely from late-Neolithic or Bronze Age Levant. This would explain why ancient Egytpain language is linguistically closer to Semitic than Berber. It is because it left the South Levant as a secondary wave of Afro_Asiatic speakers. After the Proto Berbers left earlier.


However the predynastic sites that look like the best candidates for the Protoegyptians (the Naqada horizon) are rather concentrated in Upper Egypt. I guess only ancient DNA will tell, but in my mind that makes an origin from the Levant unlikely.

----------


## bicicleur

> However the predynastic sites that look like the best candidates for the Protoegyptians (the Naqada horizon) are rather concentrated in Upper Egypt. I guess only ancient DNA will tell, but in my mind that makes an origin from the Levant unlikely.


prior to Naqada was the 8.2 ka climate event, which attracted all kind of herders and farmers from SW Asia to the Nile Delta and beyond, into Northern Africa
after the 8.2 ka event, the Sahara became 'green again' till 5.9 ka when the Sahara desert expanded again, which drove many herders & farmers back into the Nile Valley
the Protoegyptians probable were in Northern Africa since 8.2 ka and their origin was SW Asia
of course, later chalcolithic influxes are also possible and likely

----------


## MarkoZ

> prior to Naqada was the 8.2 ka climate event, which attracted all kind of herders and farmers from SW Asia to the Nile Delta and beyond, into Northern Africa
> after the 8.2 ka event, the Sahara became 'green again' till 5.9 ka when the Sahara desert expanded again, which drove many herders & farmers back into the Nile Valley
> the Protoegyptians probable were in Northern Africa since 8.2 ka and their origin was SW Asia
> of course, later chalcolithic influxes are also possible and likely


While I think that's possible, the most commonly proposed origin for Afrasian seems to be in the pre-neolithic Eastern Sahara and the Horn of Africa.

----------


## davef

> Because Natufians, who makeup most of that SW Asian component in the paper, might be closely related to Anatolia Neolithic.


Sorry, but if you go by Hauteville's charts posted in the first page of this thread, you'll find that Natufians aren't anywhere near Anatolian Neolithic farmers. They are way way different. They lack that "dark blue" component. Natufians were pretty much Bedouins if I recall. Leagues away from Anatolian.

----------


## bicicleur

> While I think that's possible, the most commonly proposed origin for Afrasian seems to be in the pre-neolithic Eastern Sahara and the Horn of Africa.


that is what I tought also, untill the Y-DNA of the Natufians was published about a year ago
since then, I'm pretty convinced that the Afroasiatic languages originated in the Levant along with haplo E1b1b1 and also spread along with this clade out of the Levant

as for the 8.2 ka event : before 8.2 ka the 'green Sahara' was full of HG, during the 8.2 ka event, which lasted a few centuries, the Sahara was empty, and after the event, the 'green Sahara' was full of herders

whatever happened in the Nile delta at that time, nobody knows because everything is burried under very deep layers of sediments

----------


## Aaron1981

> From the graphic posted I don't see that at all, unless you're coining your own definitions for population groups. Northeast Africans are Horners.
> 
> The only "Africans" the ancient Egyptians from this period plot close to are North Africans, who are mostly Levantines with SSA, more than half of it coming in the last 2000 years, presumably through the Arab slave trade, plus whatever traces of the prior population(s) are left. None of that is a surprise. 
> 
> Anyone who has been paying attention to the papers knows that two major population flows moved out of the Near East, the western farmers, and then a few thousand years later a population related to the Iranian farmers. Both spread over vast distances and mixed with earlier populations where ever they went. The first group spread all along the southern coast of the Mediterranean, among many other places, and even deep into Africa. We can see the traces of the second major Near East group in northern Africa too, but in much smaller percentages. 
> 
> Basically, as LeBrok pointed out, the Bronze Age may be the last really major population upheaval in western Eurasia. As I stated in another thread, the second gene flow out of the Near East, which was less consequential for most of Europe was like a pincer movement into Europe, I believe, with part of it going over the Caucasus and onto the steppe, and part of it going into southeastern and southern Europe, as well as all over the Near East, and some of it even reaching North Africa.
> 
> It looks like a modified version of the old Dienekes theory of the Womb of Nations to me, but as you have to consider also the western farmers, it's not just the Caucasus area, but the Anatolia/Levant region as well.


While related, the admixture in northern Europe is from mesolithic age CHG and doesn't appear male mediated, the admixture event in the western Middle East is Iran_CHL/Iran_NEO, which is a distant, younger relative. If you try to model north Europeans as Iran_CHL/NEO, it won't jive.

Let's face it, until J1, J2, G2...etc start showing up in droves on the neolithic steppe, I will still consider CHG admixture in northern Europe as female driven. We know R1 was originally WHG/EHG along with I.

----------


## MarkoZ

> While related, the admixture in northern Europe is from mesolithic age CHG and doesn't appear male mediated, the admixture event in the western Middle East is Iran_CHL/Iran_NEO, which is a distant, younger relative. If you try to model north Europeans as Iran_CHL/NEO, it won't jive.
> 
> Let's face it, until J1, J2, G2...etc start showing up in droves on the neolithic steppe, I will still consider CHG admixture in northern Europe as female driven. We know R1 was originally WHG/EHG along with I.


You might want to back that up, because Iran_ChL/EHG is exactly the model Lazaridis proposed for Yamnaya.

R1 wasn't originally WHG-EHG for god's sake. Stop being silly.

----------


## MarkoZ

> since then, I'm pretty convinced that the Afroasiatic languages originated in the Levant along with haplo E1b1b1 and also spread along with this clade out of the Levant


I guess more samples are needed. Though E-M35 should be around thousands of years before Natufian.

----------


## kingjohn

_no mtdna h3 was found in the ancient egyptions 
it looks like it originated or in iberia or in morocco/ algeria area_ ...

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm not too sure about backward modeling very ancient samples like that, some of those components are partly derived from Natufian/Anatolian Farmers not the other way around.


I wish someone has finally made a calculator, strictly based on these ancient samples of 3 farmer groups (or better the h-gs they came from) and 3 h-gs groups. Sort of gold standard, based on samples from 10 kya.



> IIRC Lazaridis modeled Natufians roughly as 50% Basal Eurasian and 50% WHG;


 Relly?! Could you link me to this fact as I don't seem to remember it. One impossible thing to overcome is that genesis of Natufians starts at the same time as genesis of WHG about 14 kya, and they plot way away on PCA. THis is the first that I hear that WHG was an ancestor of Natufian, and in 50% level. There is some degree of "immediate" common ancestry, but not 50% and not directly WHG!



> Levant Neolithic, Anatolian farmers, EEF and Copper Age Iberia are all on the same cline, just look at a PCA.


 Sure they are on the same cline, as I said that they have big degree of same ancestry, but you wouldn't ever say that Iberia Copper is the same as Levant Neolithic. At least half of their genome is different from each other and drifted 5 thousand years apart, so even having closely related genes they developed different alleles, mutations.

----------


## Angela

> Palestinians are almost true BA Levant, plus 5 percent of baloch and 6 percent of SSA. Amazing. I'm betting that ancient Jews will turn very similar and most likely Phoenicians too.
> 
> Here is Anatolian and EEF, BA Italian and Sardinian
> 
> M54279
> I0746
> 
> M405327
> I1506 NE1
> ...


Remedello isn't Bronze Age. It's basically just Middle Neolithic, although they already had copper.

In your prior post, interesting that the 6 point increase in SSA, plus a few other minor changes, lowered the SW Asian in Palestinians by 8 points.

----------


## bicicleur

afaik the Natufians were not 100 % proper Natufian, they had some EEF admixture in them
I would also be surprised that they were 100 % E1b1, all samples we have are from 1 single site and about the same age.
I wouldn't be surprised to find some haplo G2 (but not G2a2) in Natufians, and some H2.

----------


## Angela

> While related, the admixture in northern Europe is from mesolithic age CHG and doesn't appear male mediated, the admixture event in the western Middle East is Iran_CHL/Iran_NEO, which is a distant, younger relative. If you try to model north Europeans as Iran_CHL/NEO, it won't jive.
> 
> Let's face it, until J1, J2, G2...etc start showing up in droves on the neolithic steppe, I will still consider CHG admixture in northern Europe as female driven. We know R1 was originally WHG/EHG along with I.


I don't know if it was female or male driven. Does it change the fact that the gene flow occurred? Does it somehow not count if it was female driven? I think not. 

I don't have an agenda or a paper or a book or thousands of prior posts to defend. I'm just following the data. It's possible there was bride exchange at the edges into a very lightly populated steppe. However, a lot, if not most, of the mtdna looks standard northern. How could that amount of "southern" mtdna have led to people who were roughly half "southern"? Maybe a modified version of Maciamo's theory is correct. I always thought it was a possibility. I'm content to wait and see what the dna shows. 

As for the mixing agent being "Caucasus", color me skeptical that this population survived in unadmixed form thousands of years after those ancient samples. Plus, as Marko pointed out, the Reich Lab has modeled the mixing agent as something resembling Iran Chl. As Lazaridis intelligently pointed out, they may find a population which fits better, and it may not have actually come from Iran. 

Honestly, it's as if there's a phobia with connecting anything with Iran. I suppose I don't completely get the subtext.

----------


## Angela

> I wish someone has finally made a calculator, strictly based on these ancient samples of 3 farmer groups (or better the h-gs they came from) and 3 h-gs groups. Sort of gold standard, based on samples from 10 kya.
> Relly?! Could you link me to this fact as I don't seem to remember it. One impossible thing to overcome is that genesis of Natufians starts at the same time as genesis of WHG about 14 kya, and they plot way away on PCA. THis is the first that I hear that WHG was an ancestor of Natufian, and in 50% level. There is some degree of "immediate" common ancestry, but not 50% and not directly WHG!
> Sure they are on the same cline, as I said that they have big degree of same ancestry, but you wouldn't ever say that Iberia Copper is the same as Levant Neolithic. At least half of their genome is different from each other and drifted 5 thousand years apart, so even having closely related genes they developed different alleles, mutations.


Exactly so.

----------


## Angela

> so the Palestinians are not the Filistines, the Sea People that settled in Gaza
> 
> maybe the Jews and the Phoenicians have common ancestors, but that is then from before they entered in history
> Phoenicians are from the Lebanese coast, often a place for refugees from inland, trying to escape from the domination of the Hittites or the Egyptians
> and the origin of the Jews are marginal herders in the hills in the interface between the Southern Levant and the Negev desert who expanded into the vacuum created by the Egyptians when they abandonned the Levant


That's true Bicicleur, but didn't the Canaanite paper make the point that the Sidon sample and the Levant Bronze Age sample from further inland were very much alike? I think they made the specific point that coastal and inland people were basically the same even if they had different modes of subsistence.

----------


## Angela

> Since he talks about various dynasties, how much SSA did the Nubian dynasty had?


Sorry, I just saw this while going through the thread. Somehow I missed it the first time. When we get some Nubian dynasty era genomes, and perhaps some from Nubian era mummy we'll know. Right now, based on representations, I think they had quite a lot.

This is the Pharaoh Taharqa


Shebitku:

It just goes to show that some short lived invasions can come and go without having a profound effect on the total gene pool of the "native" people.

There are also a few Pharaohs from prior periods who have a bit of an SSA look to them, but rulers are notorious for taking wives and concubines from foreign lands. How "English" is the House of Windsor after all? It also doesn't change the composition of the people.

Then we have Ramses III, who carried an African y, yet doesn't look at all SSA to me. The y can so easily and quickly become decoupled from autosomal dna.

----------


## harena

> Relly?! Could you link me to this fact as I don't seem to remember it. One impossible thing to overcome is that genesis of Natufians starts at the same time as genesis of WHG about 14 kya, and they plot way away on PCA. THis is the first that I hear that WHG was an ancestor of Natufian, and in 50% level. There is some degree of "immediate" common ancestry, but not 50% and not directly WHG!


Well they plot away because Basal Eurasian is highly divergent. It started differentiating prior to the East and West Eurasian split. 
Also there's no evidence WHG or WHG-related ancestry wasn't around before 14kya.

Here are few quotes from the paper "Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East":

(from the abstract)



> *We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a 'Basal Eurasian' lineage* that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and *that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.*





> *We used qpAdm to estimate Basal Eurasian ancestry in each Test population.* We obtain the highest estimates in the earliest populations from both Iran (66±13% in the likely Mesolithic sample, 48±6% in Neolithic samples), and the Levant (*44±8% in Epipaleolithic Natufians*) (Fig. 2) showing that Basal Eurasian ancestry was widespread across the ancient Near East.





> MA1, EHG, SHG, Switzerland_HG are consistent with having no Basal Eurasian ancestry, while at least some such ancestry is inferred for the remaining populations. *Neolithic Iran and Natufians could be derived from the same Basal Eurasian population but are genetically closer to EHG and WHG respectively* We take the model of Fig. S4.9 and attempt to fit Natufians as a mixture of the same Basal Eurasian population that contributes to Iran_N and any other population of the tree. Several solutions are feasible, and we show the best one (lowest ADMIXTUREGRAPH score) in Fig. S4.10.
> We can add both EHG and MA1 as simple branches to the model structure of Fig. S4.10 and show the results in Fig. S4.11. *An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG, while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG. Natufians and Iran_N may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related/EHG-related admixture.*


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...#extended-data




> Sure they are on the same cline, as I said that they have big degree of same ancestry, but you wouldn't ever say that Iberia Copper is the same as Levant Neolithic. At least half of their genome is different from each other and drifted 5 thousand years apart, so even having closely related genes they developed different alleles, mutations.


It's less than half even for Iberia Copper, more like 40%. Just look at the PCA, Levant Neolithic and Anatolia Neolithic (which maybe has some 20% extra WHG) are relatively similar and for the most part same stock. You can think of them as Bell Beaker vs Corder Ware if you like, they are not particularly drifted:

PCAtest.jpg

----------


## Angela

We have no analyzed Mesolithic samples from the Near East. Who knows what hunter-gatherers were present? 

Iran Neolithic is heavily CHG and is also heavily Basal Eurasian, as is CHG, and yet David Reich just got through explaining that the western and eastern farmers were initially as different from one another as East Asians and Europeans are today, despite sharing high levels of Basal Eurasian.

Obviously as admixture occurs, various different groups who carry similar percentages of these ancient groups will cluster together.

I don't see the point of this whole line of argumentation.

----------


## Alan

> We have no analyzed Mesolithic samples from the Near East. Who knows what hunter-gatherers were present? 
> 
> Iran Neolithic is heavily CHG and is also heavily Basal Eurasian, as is CHG, and yet David Reich just got through explaining that the western and eastern farmers were initially as different from one another as East Asians and Europeans are today, despite sharing high levels of Basal Eurasian.
> 
> Obviously as admixture occurs, various different groups who carry similar percentages of these ancient groups will cluster together.
> 
> I don't see the point of this whole line of argumentation.


Wasn't there a rumour or statement in a study that they found a mesolithic Anatolian sample which looked like a WHG individual? I for sure remember something like that. So indeed as I have proposed it seems there was a fluent cline from WHG to ANE from Anatolia to Caucasus/North Iran. And than a Basal Eurasian like group moved further North (possibly from the Persian Gulf/Mesopotamia or even Arabia) and merged with WHG like group in the West (Anatolia/Levant) and ANE like group in the East.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Sorry, I just saw this while going through the thread. Somehow I missed it the first time. When we get some Nubian dynasty era genomes, and perhaps some from Nubian era mummy we'll know. Right now, based on representations, I think they had quite a lot.
> 
> [..]


The point is there might have been dynasties with 0% SSA or with 50+% etc. I don't believe we can consider those samples representative of 'Ancient Egyptians', since they could have acquired non-native admixture at that point.

----------


## Angela

> The point is there might have been dynasties with 0% SSA or with 50+% etc. I don't believe we can consider those samples representative of 'Ancient Egyptians', since they could have acquired non-native admixture at that point.


I am sure the admixture varied by dynasty, but you specifically asked about the Nubian dynasty. 

Plus, these samples weren't royal samples. Ruling dynasties can carry certain dna in proportions that aren't at all representative of the majority of the people. That's something that I think we all have to keep in mind when we make broad generalizations based on usually elite graves. 

If you're thinking that the SSA present in the samples analyzed came from the time of the Nubian dynasty because perhaps there was a somewhat substantial folk migration during their rule I don't know. 

The Nubian pharaohs ruled from 760 BC to 656 BC. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...nasty_of_Egypt

Does anyone know the date for the three samples for which they were able to get the y and the autosomal admixture? 

If it's after the date of the Nubian reign, it's certainly possible that this affected the population.

On the other hand, there has been contact with Nubia throughout Egypt's history. Ramses III and his y are before this Nubian dynasty period.

From the authors:

"By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, *we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues**1*6. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50. *However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa**51,52,53**. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made."*

There is also this:
"The ancient DNA data revealed* a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago**17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54**. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant**54.*
Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. *It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree55. Additional genetic studies on ancient human remains from Egypt are needed with extensive geographical, social and chronological spread in order to expand our current picture in variety, accuracy and detail."*

People are making claims based on this paper which the authors themselves don't make, but then the authors either know a bit of history or are working with historians. Typical.

I find it particularly interesting to look at the vast difference between the undoubted findings of this paper and the ridiculous findings of the authors relying on Alder and other flawed methods, and so collapse thousands of years of gene flow into the latest and most recent episode.

----------


## Alan

> The point is there might have been dynasties with 0% SSA or with 50+% etc. I don't believe we can consider those samples representative of 'Ancient Egyptians', since they could have acquired non-native admixture at that point.


If the samples are homogenous over a timespan of 1000 years and more, I guarantee you we are not dealing here with foreign admixture. South Egyptians might had more SSA admixture (around 15% like modern Egyptians) but I doubt that North and Middle Egyptians differed much from these samples at hand.

----------


## Promenade

> Wasn't there a rumour or statement in a study that they found a mesolithic Anatolian sample which looked like a WHG individual? I for sure remember something like that.


Can anyone verify this? The closest thing I can think of is that one Anatolian from the Neolithic period had y-dna I and another had y-dna I2c, but of course this is something very different.

----------


## Alan

> Can anyone verify this? The closest thing I can think of is that one Anatolian from the Neolithic period had y-dna I and another had y-dna I2c, but of course this is something very different.


Yes there was a statement of a sample from very early Neolithic in Central Anatolia who was significantly higher in the WHG like component compared to the later Anatolian_Farmers.

----------


## LeBrok

> Well they plot away because Basal Eurasian is highly divergent. It started differentiating prior to the East and West Eurasian split. 
> Also there's no evidence WHG or WHG-related ancestry wasn't around before 14kya.


That's what I said, that they are related by some common ancestry. Not by 50% of WHG mixed into Natufian, as you mentioned in post before. They never met directly or indirectly, just related by some common ancestry thousands of years before.
Look at the distance between WHG and Natufians on PCA chart. It is even bigger than Natufians to Iranian Farmers.





> It's less than half even for Iberia Copper, more like 40%. Just look at the PCA, Levant Neolithic and Anatolia Neolithic (which maybe has some 20% extra WHG) are relatively similar and for the most part same stock. You can think of them as Bell Beaker vs Corder Ware if you like, they are not particularly drifted:


I'm not sure where you going with this "close relation". Let's put it this way. They were divergent and distinct enough to warrant their own admixture colour, as a different source population. CW and BB overlap on PCA plot, where there is a substantial gap between LN and AF.

----------


## davef

> I don't know if it was female or male driven. Does it change the fact that the gene flow occurred? Does it somehow not count if it was female driven? I think not. 
> 
> I don't have an agenda or a paper or a book or thousands of prior posts to defend. I'm just following the data. It's possible there was bride exchange at the edges into a very lightly populated steppe. However, a lot, if not most, of the mtdna looks standard northern. How could that amount of "southern" mtdna have led to people who were roughly half "southern"? Maybe a modified version of Maciamo's theory is correct. I always thought it was a possibility. I'm content to wait and see what the dna shows. 
> 
> As for the mixing agent being "Caucasus", color me skeptical that this population survived in unadmixed form thousands of years after those ancient samples. Plus, as Marko pointed out, the Reich Lab has modeled the mixing agent as something resembling Iran Chl. As Lazaridis intelligently pointed out, they may find a population which fits better, and it may not have actually come from Iran. 
> 
> Honestly, it's as if there's a phobia with connecting anything with Iran. I suppose I don't completely get the subtext.


You get the subtext perfectly! The simple answer is that Iranians aren't Nordic. The rule set in stone by the majority of anthro sites is that you're either nordic or a loser. You aren't blessed unless you've been stamped with odin's seal of approval. 

Yeah, Kiss Me, I'm Norwegian. 

Seriously, the idiots who are afraid of connecting anything with Iran are bigots who can't amount to much else so they try to see themselves as members of the "winning team" to build up their self esteem.

I bet that quite a few of them are sick to their stomachs over this study which strengthens the common sense idea that Egypt wasn't Norway on the Nile.
Lol.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> I am sure the admixture varied by dynasty, but you specifically asked about the Nubian dynasty. 
> 
> Plus, these samples weren't royal samples. Ruling dynasties can carry certain dna in proportions that aren't at all representative of the majority of the people. That's something that I think we all have to keep in mind when we make broad generalizations based on usually elite graves. 
> 
> If you're thinking that the SSA present in the samples analyzed came from the time of the Nubian dynasty because perhaps there was a somewhat substantial folk migration during their rule I don't know. 
> 
> The Nubian pharaohs ruled from 760 BC to 656 BC. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...nasty_of_Egypt
> 
> ...


I actually think that these samples may have acquired admixture from outside Africa. What they found is important but actually that is 'Genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq' and the title of their study should have stated just that, because now they make a statement that their data do not allow them to make, irrespective of if it is likely or not. 

Those are the samples (3,4,6). I copied them from ancestraljourneys.org

Royal
Egypt
Deir el Bahari [Ramses III]

1155 BC
E1b1a



Hawass 2012

Royal
Egypt
Deir el Bahari [Unknown man E - Pentawere?]

1155 BC?
E1b1a



Hawass 2012

Tomb mummy
Egypt
Abusir el-Meleq [JK2134]

776-569 cal BC
J
J1d


Schuenemann 2017

Tomb mummy
Egypt
Abusir el-Meleq [JK2911]

769-560 cal BC
J
M1a1


Schuenemann 2017

Tomb mummy
Egypt
[DMG5]

402-385 BC


I2
73G, 152C, 199C, 204C, 207A, 250C, 263G, 750G, 1438G, 1719A, 2706G, 4529T, 4769G, 7028T, 8251A, 8860G, 10034C, 10238C, 10398G, 11719A, 12501G*, 12705T, 13780G, 14766T, 15043A, 15326G, 15758G, 15924G, 16129A, 16223T, 16391A, 16519C**= excluded by HaploGrep in analysis
Khairat 2013

Tomb mummy
Egypt
Abusir el-Meleq [JK2888]

97-2 cal BC
E1b1b1a1b2 [V22]
U6a2


Schuenemann 2017

----------


## harena

> That's what I said, that they are related by some common ancestry. Not by 50% of WHG mixed into Natufian, as you mentioned in post before. They never met directly or indirectly, just related by some common ancestry thousands of years before.



It's not "some" common ancestry. It's over 50% WHG-related (as per figure S4.10) and Natufians clearly sit halfway on a Basal-WHG cline, not Basal-SHG or Basal-EHG, what do you think that means? Or did you perhaps miss the Iron Gates_HG and Varna HG genomes from the Balkans which are overwhelmingly WHG? It's not a huge leap from there to Anatolia/Levant, you know. 




> Look at the distance between WHG and Natufians on PCA chart. It is even bigger than Natufians to Iranian Farmers.


And? Of course they would be more distant. It's Basal that is highly divergent from European HG, not European HG from each other.




> I'm not sure where you going with this "close relation". Let's put it this way. They were divergent and distinct enough to warrant their own admixture colour, as a different source population. CW and BB overlap on PCA plot, where there is a substantial gap between LN and AF.


As a matter of fact they are more or less equidistant. CW and BB do not overlap, only few outliers do; we already know few in Central Europe interacted and intermingled. Check again:

pcacwbbs.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> It's not "some" common ancestry. It's over 50% WHG-related (as per figure S4.10) and Natufians clearly sit halfway on a Basal-WHG cline, not Basal-SHG or Basal-EHG, what do you think that means? Or did you perhaps miss the Iron Gates_HG and Varna HG genomes from the Balkans which are overwhelmingly WHG? It's not a huge leap from there to Anatolia/Levant, you know.


What is your argument about? Let me repeat myself. I don't have problem with them sharing common ancestry. I had problem with you describing this sharing ancestry as a relation of Natufians with WHG, which is false. In case you forgot what you said, here it is:



> *IIRC Lazaridis modeled Natufians roughly as 50% Basal Eurasian and 50% WHG;*


And this is what experts say:



> * Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG*


We still don't know where your 50% is coming from. And let's stress that relationship between ancestral groups is very distant in time. Perhaps peak of LGM or even before.




> And? Of course they would be more distant. It's Basal that is highly divergent from European HG, not European HG from each other. 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact they are more or less equidistant. CW and BB do not overlap, only few outliers do; we already know few in Central Europe interacted and intermingled. Check again:


 Obviously perceiving distances is like seeing beauty. In eye of beholder.

----------


## Angela

> I actually think that these samples may have acquired admixture from outside Africa. What they found is important but actually that is 'Genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq' and the title of their study should have stated just that, because now they make a statement that their data do not allow them to make, irrespective of if it is likely or not. 
> 
> Those are the samples (3,4,6). I copied them from ancestraljourneys.org
> 
> Royal
> Egypt
> Deir el Bahari [Ramses III]
> 
> 1155 BC
> ...


So, yes, these three for which we have autosomal material are after the reign of the Nubian Pharaohs and the last one is also after the arrival of the Greeks. I can see where an argument could be made for some relatively recent Nubian introgression at that period, but are you saying there was also Greek introgression? On the last sample? You don't think that the authors would have been able to pick it up?

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point here. Are you talking about the Hyksos? The authors already talk about their possible impact.

No "ethnic" group is totally static. The Europeans pre-Bronze Age were very different from the Europeans post-Bronze Age. The same thing seems to have happened in Egypt.

----------


## Angela

> *What is your argument about?* Let me repeat myself. I don't have problem with them sharing common ancestry. I had problem with you describing this sharing ancestry as a relation of Natufians with WHG, which is false. In case you forgot what you said, here it is:
> 
> And this is what experts say:
> 
> We still don't know where your 50% is coming from. And let's stress that relationship between ancestral groups is very distant in time. Perhaps peak of LGM or even before.
> 
> Obviously perceiving distances is like seeing beauty. In eye of beholder.


I don't get it either. After thousands of years of drift, all these populations, despite some common ancestry in the far distant past, were as far apart from one another as East Asians from West Eurasians. It was the migration of the Anatolian farmers and later that of the people from around the Caucasus who drew the populations of West Eurasia together.

----------


## holderlin

I read a pretty good book "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times"

It sited some pretty compelling evidence that the dynasties originated only after what appears to be strong influence from Mesopotamia. I don't really know how to apply this to the genetics that we have right now, but it's some good food for thought.

Remember we already have a bunch of genomes from West Asia that span from the Neolithic (mesolithic-ish in some cases) to the bronze age, and the Old Kingdom dynasties don't even begin until the Bronze Age well after when we see the mixing of these different farming populations just to the North East around the fertile crescent. I guess my point is that once Egypt starting acting like Egypt they probably looked much like Bronze Age Levant, for the most part with of course some Nubian here and there.

The interesting conundrum with Egypt is that all the resources (lots of gold) seem to be flowing from up river in Nubia, yet the dynasties themselves appear to be oriented closer to the delta with the evidence of influence from across the Sinai as I mentioned. So I think there's still some puzzles that enough genetic data could help us solve. The obvious model is that the dynastic powers emerged with a strong influence from the fertile crescent as a means to tap these resources from up river. I know that before the emergence of the Old Kingdom dynasties we see gold and other stuff from Nubia in the already developed Mesopotamian urban powers.

----------


## Angela

The paper has already made its way onto youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiPLOK59CFk

Unfortunately, from the first few comments it has brought out all the white supremacist nut jobs too.

Predictably, their take away is that "the ancient Egyptians were European". No, they weren't. The Egyptians of* this era* were closest to Arabians and Levant people, who, the last time I checked, were not Europeans. What they were like in the time of Pharaohs like Ramses III with his African y we don't know, although the mtdna, of which they have a lot more, doesn't seem to change very much over a much longer period.

When that is pointed out the claim is then made that all the people from Europe through the Middle East were "white" and so all those accomplishments coming from the Near East were by "white" people. Well, that's certainly interesting. Now all of a sudden the Saudis and Palestinians and Syrians are white. Bedouin too, I guess. 

And so the madness continues.

Oh, and for those racists who mimic ghetto slang to make fun of the claim that SSA or SSA admixed people were ever Kings of Egypt, get out your history books and read about the *25th NUBIAN DYNASTY*. If you can read and actually comprehend what you read, that is.

----------


## harena

> What is your argument about? Let me repeat myself. I don't have problem with them sharing common ancestry. I had problem with you describing this sharing ancestry as a relation of Natufians with WHG, which is false. In case you forgot what you said, here it is:
> 
> And this is what experts say:
> 
> We still don't know where your 50% is coming from. And let's stress that relationship between ancestral groups is very distant in time. Perhaps peak of LGM or even before.


You would know had you actually taken the time to read the paper, particularly figure S4.10; there's a big arrow from the WHG tree going straight into the Natufian tree with a 55% estimate upon it. 




> Obviously perceiving distances is like seeing beauty. In eye of beholder.


LOL.

----------


## davef

> The paper has already made its way onto youtube.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiPLOK59CFk
> 
> Unfortunately, from the first few comments it has brought out all the white supremacist nut jobs too.
> 
> Predictably, their take away is that "the ancient Egyptians were European". No, they weren't. The Egyptians of* this era* were closest to Arabians and Levant people, who, the last time I checked, were not Europeans. What they were like in the time of Pharaohs like Ramses III with his African y we don't know, although the mtdna, of which they have a lot more, doesn't seem to change very much over a much longer period.
> 
> When that is pointed out the claim is then made that all the people from Europe through the Middle East were "white" and so all those accomplishments coming from the Near East were by "white" people. Well, that's certainly interesting. Now all of a sudden the Saudis and Palestinians and Syrians are white. Bedouin too, I guess. 
> 
> ...


It's so predictable. And what's amazing is that a simple peak at the charts should reveal that those Ancient Egyptians were very Bedouin like (subtract SSA admixture in Bedouins). It's shocking that in spite of clear, easy to grasp evidence that Ancient Egypt wasn't "European", these morons still cling to their silly versions of ancient history/genetics. 

"Well, that's certainly interesting. Now all of a sudden the Saudis and Palestinians and Syrians are white. Bedouin too, I guess"

Using that argument, they would respond saying that these groups used to be white until they began mixing heavily with slaves. lol.

----------


## Angela

> You would know had you actually taken the time to read the paper, particularly figure S4.10; there's a big arrow from the WHG tree going straight into the Natufian tree with a 55% estimate upon it. 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.


What in heaven's name is your point? The Iranian Neolithic farmers and the western farmers shared the same amount of Basal Eurasian. It didn't stop all the scientific papers from stating that they were distinct populations, as distant from one another as East Asians and Europeans are today.

Just spit it out. What are you trying to prove? Is it a round about way of trying to say that Natufians are really "white" or "European" because they have a lot of something WHG like? Are you aware of how bizarre that is? There were no "Europeans" in those days, and the WHG were probably as dark as South Asians.

If that isn't it, then explain why this is so important and why it belongs on a thread about ancient Egyptians. 

Otherwise, drop it and get back on topic.

----------


## Alan

> The paper has already made its way onto youtube.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiPLOK59CFk
> 
> Unfortunately, from the first few comments it has brought out all the white supremacist nut jobs too.
> 
> Predictably, their take away is that "the ancient Egyptians were European". No, they weren't. The Egyptians of* this era* were closest to Arabians and Levant people, who, the last time I checked, were not Europeans. What they were like in the time of Pharaohs like Ramses III with his African y we don't know, although the mtdna, of which they have a lot more, doesn't seem to change very much over a much longer period.
> 
> When that is pointed out the claim is then made that all the people from Europe through the Middle East were "white" and so all those accomplishments coming from the Near East were by "white" people. Well, that's certainly interesting. Now all of a sudden the Saudis and Palestinians and Syrians are white. Bedouin too, I guess. 
> 
> ...


These white supremacists nut jobs are as bad as Afro_Centrics. I have been commenting on some of these articles from various News websites. The headers of many of these articles are so misleading. For example Russia Todays headline is "Ancient Egyptians have ancestry from Europe and the Middle East", from Europe what?

----------


## Alan

> It's so predictable. And what's amazing is that a simple peak at the charts should reveal that those Ancient Egyptians were very Bedouin like (subtract SSA admixture in Bedouins). It's shocking that in spite of clear, easy to grasp evidence that Ancient Egypt wasn't "European", these morons still cling to their silly versions of ancient history/genetics. 
> 
> "Well, that's certainly interesting. Now all of a sudden the Saudis and Palestinians and Syrians are white. Bedouin too, I guess"
> 
> Using that argument, they would respond saying that these groups used to be white until they began mixing heavily with slaves. lol.



I have a problem with this claim too. Many people come to the conclusion they were Bedouin like because they cluster on 2 dimensional PCAs just next to them. But this is merely projection bias. When I run ancient Levant Neolithic samples through calculators and compare them with Bedouin samples. One thing get's obvious. modern Bedouins have allot more Iran_Neolithic like admixture while in older calculators Levant_neolithics more of the Eastmed and even significant Westmed admixture in combination with the Southwest Asian component. While Bedouins are almost exclusively of the Southwest Asian variant. 
The Southwest Asian itself is a component made up on Bedouins as proxy and combines Levant_Neo and Iran_Neo ancestry with possibly little SSA admixture.
So with other words Bdouins main components are actually allot more Eastern shifted (towards Iran_Neolithic) but the ~6-8% SSA admixture in them pushes them further towards Southwest on the PCA which makes them appear to be very close to Levant_Neolithic. While in reality Bedouins are like predominantly Levant_Neolithic + allot of Iran_Neolithic + some SSA.

With other words we basically don't have any modern population that fits ancient Levantine samples. The best fit would still be modern Lebanese minus the Iran_CHL admixture or Palestinians minus Iran_CHL and the little SSA admixture

----------


## Alan

> What in heaven's name is your point? The Iranian Neolithic farmers and the western farmers shared the same amount of Basal Eurasian. It didn't stop all the scientific papers from stating that they were distinct populations, as distant from one another as East Asians and Europeans are today.


I criticized that statement already back than. THey probably made this statement to make clear how different they were. But looking at the genetic data or any PCA. that statement is obviously wrong. The difference between Iran_Neolithic and Levant_Neolithic is not comparable to that of West and East Eurasians, not even in the slightest.

----------


## davef

> I have a problem with this claim too. Many people come to the conclusion they were Bedouin like because they cluster on 2 dimensional PCAs just next to them. But this is merely projection bias. When I run ancient Levant Neolithic samples through calculators and compare them with Bedouin samples. One thing get's obvious. modern Bedouins have allot more Iran_Neolithic like admixture while in older calculators Levant_neolithics more of the Eastmed and even significant Westmed admixture in combination with the Southwest Asian component. While Bedouins are almost exclusively of the Southwest Asian variant. 
> 
> So with other words Bdouins main components are actually allot more Eastern shifted (towards Iran_Neolithic) but the ~6-8% SSA admixture in them pushes them further towards Southwest on the PCA which makes them appear to be very close to Levant_Neolithic. While in reality Bedouins are like predominantly Levant_Neolithic + allot of Iran_Neolithic + some SSA.
> 
> With other words we basically don't have any modern population that fits ancient Levantine samples. The best fit would still be modern Lebanese minus the Iran_CHL admixture or Palestinians minus Iran_CHL and the little SSA admixture


You're right. My faulty memory is to blame, I've been under the weather lately. And it's interesting how modern Levantine populations are different from ancients, that iranian_chl shook the Levantine gene pool into something new. The closest to those ancient egyptian samples is Bronze Age levant by a landslide. Maybe perhaps the ancient Levantine gene pool was much more Egyptian like. I'd safely bet on that assumption.

----------


## LeBrok

> You would know had you actually taken the time to read the paper, particularly figure S4.10; there's a big arrow from the WHG tree going straight into the Natufian tree with a 55% estimate upon it.


This one?
No Natufians, no levant Neolithic, not even Anatolian neolithic. Instead it shows connection of West Eurasian to EEF, though we know now that there was a direct gene donation from WHG to EEF, or even Anatolian Farmer. Quite outdated chart anyway.






Or this one? Again, no direct connection of WHG to Natufians! Doesn't even show ancestral connections through Basal Eurasian. There is known, indirect connection of WHG to Levant Neolithic mediated through Anatolian Neolithic, time in which Natufians didn't exist anymore.




Let's remember how it started, and what you said:



> _IIRC Lazaridis modeled Natufians roughly as 50% Basal Eurasian and 50% WHG;_


Well, you didn't Remembered Correctly. One could have only hopped that you would notice it in time and corrected your statement. We would have avoided all of this unnecessary argumentation. 

I'm going to explain to you what S4.10 actually says, because you are obviously lacking in reading with comprehension department. So, Lazaridis shows that EEF (not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF) descended from Basal Eurasian in 44% and in 56% from common ancestor of EEF and WHG, the West Eurasians. That's all it says, in relation to our conversation. 
How did you get the direct connection of WHG to Natufians from this table is beyond me, or Angela and many other members of Eupedia.

----------


## davef

> These white supremacists nut jobs are as bad as Afro_Centrics. I have been commenting on some of these articles from various News websites. The headers of many of these articles are so misleading. For example Russia Todays headline is "Ancient Egyptians have ancestry from Europe and the Middle East", from Europe what?


Ancestry from Europe? How can anyone make that claim even after just skimming the supplement? The only "European" connection the Ancient Egyptians had with Europe was that small amount of Anatolian like ancestry they had, going by the chart. They were no more European than Palestinians. 

To Russia Today: 
"From" Europe? "From" where? Denmark? 

Lol

----------


## Alan

> You're right. My faulty memory is to blame, I've been under the weather lately. And it's interesting how modern Levantine populations are different from ancients, that iranian_chl shook the Levantine gene pool into something new. The closest to those ancient egyptian samples is Bronze Age levant by a landslide. Maybe perhaps the ancient Levantine gene pool was much more Egyptian like. I'd safely bet on that assumption.


Not so much though. It seems they had allot of Iran_CHL admixture already during Late Neolithic/Bronze Age. However what did shook up the region seems to have been a combination of all (Iranian_Iron AGE, African etc), but especially a Sub Saharan African admixture via the Slave trade. Since SSA admixture is so divergent to any of the ancestry the ancient Levantines had. It is this component that drifts them significantly away from ancient once. The same reason why modern Egyptians do not overlap a 100% with ancient once and it seems like ancient Egyptians are more akine to modern Jordanians or Palestinians. This is because modern Egyptians have more SSA admixture that drifts them away on the PCA allot.

----------


## bicicleur

> You're right. My faulty memory is to blame, I've been under the weather lately. And it's interesting how modern Levantine populations are different from ancients, that iranian_chl shook the Levantine gene pool into something new. The closest to those ancient egyptian samples is Bronze Age levant by a landslide. Maybe perhaps the ancient Levantine gene pool was much more Egyptian like. I'd safely bet on that assumption.


could be
after all much of the Levant was occupied by the Egyptians till the bronze age collapse

----------


## patrician

Southeast Europe consists of present day populations from the areas of Italy, Greece, and the western Balkan states from Bulgaria to Croatia.
 It would appear that present day populations in Southeast Europe show some of the highest rates of genetic relatedness to the second wave of migration into Europe roughly 11,000 years ago. This wave of migration consisted of Neolithic farmers from the fertile crescent and expanded primarily into southern Europe, incorporating small scattered European hunter-gatherer communities along their path. The island of Sardinia, having early evidence of postglacial hunter-gatherer inhabitants, was not permanently settled until this migration of Neolithic farmers from the fertile crescent populated it roughly 8,000 – 7,000 years ago. Although a key position in early Mediterranean trade routes, the populations of Sardinia remained relatively isolated genetically, and today, represent a particularly unique connection to Southeast European Neolithic ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> I have a problem with this claim too. Many people come to the conclusion they were Bedouin like because they cluster on 2 dimensional PCAs just next to them. But this is merely projection bias. When I run ancient Levant Neolithic samples through calculators and compare them with Bedouin samples. One thing get's obvious. modern Bedouins have allot more Iran_Neolithic like admixture while in older calculators Levant_neolithics more of the Eastmed and even significant Westmed admixture in combination with the Southwest Asian component. While Bedouins are almost exclusively of the Southwest Asian variant. 
> The Southwest Asian itself is a component made up on Bedouins as proxy and combines Levant_Neo and Iran_Neo ancestry with possibly little SSA admixture.
> So with other words Bdouins main components are actually allot more Eastern shifted (towards Iran_Neolithic) but the ~6-8% SSA admixture in them pushes them further towards Southwest on the PCA which makes them appear to be very close to Levant_Neolithic. While in reality Bedouins are like predominantly Levant_Neolithic + allot of Iran_Neolithic + some SSA.
> 
> *With other words we basically don't have any modern population that fits ancient Levantine samples.* The best fit would still be modern Lebanese minus the Iran_CHL admixture or Palestinians minus Iran_CHL and the little SSA admixture


I very much agree with the bolded comment. I'm not so sure about the rest, and I'm not speaking here about the PCA but about the Admixture analysis.

 

The Palestinians have a great deal of Iran Chl. While Bedouin A seem to have about the same amount, Bedouin B have less than either. 

So, Bedouin B have the "advantage" of having less Chl. than the Palestinians, and no SSA, while the Palestinians have a similar amount of Anatolian Neolithic as the ancients, but a lot of Iran Chl as well the SSA.

Some of the Saudis are also very close to Bedouin B and also have a bit more Anatolian Neolithic. Of course, a lot of Saudis have SSA, while this group, if my eyes don't deceive me, do not. 

I'll have to go back to the Supplement if I have a chance today, and see what other measures of relatedness have to show.

Modern calculators are a much less reliable measure than these comparisons using the actual ancient genomes. 

If people start to play around with these genomes, it's important they use the non-SSA admixed group.

Does anyone know if those are the Negev group?

----------


## harena

> This one?
> No Natufians, no levant Neolithic, not even Anatolian neolithic. Instead it shows connection of West Eurasian to EEF, though we know now that there was a direct gene donation from WHG to EEF, or even Anatolian Farmer. Quite outdated chart anyway.


That's not even in the 2016 Lazaridis paper I referenced, getting desperate much? This picture has been around since 2013 and is quite frankly outdated. It also hilariously contradicts what you claimed right below: WHG in Levant Neolithic mediated via Anatolia Neolithic. 
Good try though.




> Or this one? Again, no direct connection of WHG to Natufians! Doesn't even show ancestral connections through Basal Eurasian. There is known, indirect connection of WHG to Levant Neolithic mediated through Anatolian Neolithic, time in which Natufians didn't exist anymore.


Nope. This is Table 4.a where Natufians aren't even modeled. It only confirms that they derive 45% of their ancestry from Basal Eurasian, they didn't bother with the remaining 55% probably cause it's not the focus (neareastern farmers are, as per the title of the paper) of the chart. However this is consistent with the 55% WHG-related input they estimated in figure S4.10 and that I reported in my previous comment. 
By the way even Anatolian farmers are admixed with something more like WHG-related rather than WHG, the authors described it as something like Switzerland HG Bichon but even more extreme. This is probably the best description of the WHG-related source in Natufians as well.




> Let's remember how it started, and what you said:
> 
> Well, you didn't Remembered Correctly. One could have only hopped that you would notice it in time and corrected your statement. We would have avoided all of this unnecessary argumentation. 
> 
> I'm going to explain to you what S4.10 actually says, because you are obviously lacking in reading with comprehension department. So, Lazaridis shows that EEF (not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF) descended from Basal Eurasian in 44% and in 56% from common ancestor of EEF and WHG, the West Eurasians. That's all it says, in relation to our conversation. 
> How did you get the direct connection of WHG to Natufians from this table is beyond me, or Angela and many other members of Eupedia.


There isn't even EEF in fig. S4.10, what are you babbling about? Read the paper before pretending to explain anything.
You are also deeply delusional if you think anything like the broad "West Eurasian" group (Goyet, Vestonice, Kostenki14) can be somehow conflated with WHG/WHG-related; Iosif specifically employed WHG as proxy. 
WHG (Villabruna cluster) is something specific that emerged in the late Upper Paleolithic and is sharply distinct from the pre-existing lineages in UP West Eurasia. Even El Miron (5ky older than Villabruna) who has proto-WHG ancestry plots nowhere near the WHG cluster.
So WHG is definitely more accurate than the West Eurasian nonsense you're pushing. Now you can keep splitting hair using WHG-like, WHG-related and whgatnot, the big picture stays roughly the same.

Quoting again for emphasis:




> *An interesting aspect of this model is that it derives both Natufians and Iran_N from Basal Eurasians but Natufians have ancestry from a population related to WHG,* while Iran_N has ancestry related to EHG.* Natufians* and Iran_N *may themselves reside on clines of WHG-related*/EHG-related* admixture.
> 
> **The population structure of the ancient Near East was not independent of that of Europe* (Supplementary Information, section 4), *as evidenced by the highly significant (Z=-8.9) statistic f(Iran_N, Natufian;WHG, EHG)* *which suggests gene flow in* ‘northeastern’ (Neolithic Iran/EHG) and *‘southwestern’ (Levant/WHG) interaction spheres (Fig. 4d).*

----------


## LeBrok

> That's not even in the 2016 Lazaridis paper I referenced, getting desperate much? This picture has been around since 2013 and is frankly outdated, especially considering the keener tools and ancient genomes we have today. 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. This is Table 4.a where Natufians aren't even modeled. It only confirms that they derive 45% of their ancestry from Basal Eurasian, they didn't bother with the remaining 55% probably cause it's not the focus (neareastern farmers are, as per the title of the paper) of the chart. However this is consistent with the 55% WHG-related input they estimated in figure S4.10 and that I reported in my previous comment. 
> By the way even Anatolian farmers are admixed with something more like WHG-related rather than WHG, the authors described it as something like Switzerland HG Bichon but even more extreme. This is probably the best description of the WHG-related source in Natufians as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, if you are so anxious of digging a bigger hole, go ahead and post the chart you are referring to. And remember it has to agree with your statement.




> Originally Posted by *harena*
> _IIRC Lazaridis modeled Natufians roughly as 50% Basal Eurasian and 50% WHG;_


Here is your last chance to come clean. Was your statement misleading or just wrong?

----------


## Sile

> . So, Lazaridis shows that EEF (not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF) descended from Basal Eurasian in 44% and in 56% from common ancestor of EEF and WHG, the West Eurasians. That's all it says, in relation to our conversation. 
> How did you get the direct connection of WHG to Natufians from this table is beyond me, or Angela and many other members of Eupedia.


thats a silly comment , ..............EEF lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF was created ?

All haplogroups from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_GHIJK where WHG or EHG before become EEF ...............which of these then became EEF ?

----------


## LeBrok

> thats a silly comment , ..............EEF lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF was created ?
> 
> All haplogroups from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_GHIJK where WHG or EHG before become EEF ...............which of these then became EEF ?


In your head Natufians are EEF?! The Natufians are 6-8 ky older than EEF.



> _(not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF)_

----------


## Sile

> In your head Natufians are EEF?! The Natufians are 6-8 ky older than EEF.


your the one that said it , it is embarrasing that you are trying to deflect it on me when you stated it

I questioned your silly comment ..............who told you this, Laz?

----------


## Alan

> I very much agree with the bolded comment. I'm not so sure about the rest, and I'm not speaking here about the PCA but about the Admixture analysis.
> 
>  
> 
> The Palestinians have a great deal of Iran Chl. While Bedouin A seem to have about the same amount, Bedouin B have less than either. 
> 
> So, Bedouin B have the "advantage" of having less Chl. than the Palestinians, and no SSA, while the Palestinians have a similar amount of Anatolian Neolithic as the ancients, but a lot of Iran Chl as well the SSA.
> 
> Some of the Saudis are also very close to Bedouin B and also have a bit more Anatolian Neolithic. Of course, a lot of Saudis have SSA, while this group, if my eyes don't deceive me, do not. 
> ...


I agree that small pockets of Bedouins do look quite similar to Levant_Neolithic or Egyptians. But here is the problem. They are isolated pockets. When I speak of populations I mean them as a whole as average of a population. As the people we see when we come across a ethnic Saudi or Palestinian or whoever. On Average unfortunately there is no modern population that fits ancient once 100%.

As you also pointed out the best fit are still Palestinians, Jordanians without the small amount of SSA admixture and with less Iran_CHL like admixture. 

While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%).

----------


## Alan

Guys I think both sides here are talking bypassing each other. I get the point of harena as wel LeBrock. LeBrock is correct in saying that the admixture in Anatolian_Farmers and Natufians is not WHG per se because WHG (as the name indicates, Western Hunters and Gatherers) is modeled after mesolithic Hunters from Europe. It is definitely not the case that European Hunters and Gatherers donated the WHG like ancestry to Natufians. Since WHG and Natufians are roughly of same age.

What LeBrock is trying to say is that a group ancestral to these Bishon Hunter and Gatherer who most definitely came from a region spanning the Levant, Anatolia and Balkans contributed to Natufians (they most likely where there even before the Basal Eurasians). 

Basically we have a proto WHG population that expanded first throughout Europe and the western part of the Near East. 

It's just the different terminologies.

----------


## LeBrok

> your the one that said it , it is embarrasing that you are trying to deflect it on me when you stated it
> 
> I questioned your silly comment ..............who told you this, Laz?


Let's try it agian. I said this:
_(not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF)
Now you understand, that you didn't understand the first time? Though, not surprising for old members of Eupedia.

_

----------


## Angela

> I agree that small pockets of Bedouins do look quite similar to Levant_Neolithic or Egyptians. But here is the problem. They are isolated pockets. When I speak of populations I mean them as a whole as average of a population. As the people we see when we come across a ethnic Saudi or Palestinian or whoever. On Average unfortunately there is no modern population that fits ancient once 100%.
> 
> As you also pointed out the best fit are still Palestinians, Jordanians without the small amount of SSA admixture and with less Iran_CHL like admixture. 
> 
> While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%).


I hesitate to give more space to this, because we largely agree. However, I don't concur, going by the Admixture run, that Palestinians are the closest population. They have way too much Iran Chl. for that. Imo, the closest are either Saudis without SSA or Bedouin B. I have no idea if Bedouin B is more isolated or Bedouin A is more isolated. It looks to me as if perhaps Bedouin B is just those Bedouin without all that additional SSA.

For more definitive answers I think we'll have to wait for what other tools show. That may change my opinion.

As for the discussion between Harena and LeBroc, a lot of the problem with the hobbyist community is that they use pop. genetics terms way too loosely, confusing not only themselves but others. Anatolia Neolithic is about 10%? WHG. If you go around saying that Natufians were 50% WHG it's wrong and confusing to other people.

Plus, the point is that these populations were distinct from one another, just as Anatolia Neolithic was distinct from Iranian Neolithic no matter that they shared some "components" from thousands of years before the Neolithic.

----------


## harena

> Ok, if you are so anxious of digging a bigger hole, go ahead and post the chart you are referring to. And remember it has to agree with your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your last chance to come clean. Was your statement misleading or just wrong?



With pleasure, if you can pinpoint and quote the actual insults I got an infraction for in my previous post. Otherwise it's you the one who has to worry about coming out clean i'm afraid.

----------


## Sile

> Let's try it agian. I said this:
> _(not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF)
> Now you understand, that you didn't understand the first time? Though, not surprising for old members of Eupedia.
> 
> _


And you know I told you for over 2 years that the fertile crescent and the bulk of the levant where populated from people north of the zargos mountains......I also stated the Natufians came via NE-Anatolia

----------


## LeBrok

> And you know I told you for over 2 years that the fertile crescent and the bulk of the levant where populated from people north of the zargos mountains......I also stated the Natufians came via NE-Anatolia


  :Confused:  Exactly my point. ...and you also travel through time in your time machine, and visit parallel universes. 
Let's leave it like this.

----------


## LeBrok

> With pleasure, if you can pinpoint and quote the actual insults I got an infraction for in my previous post. Otherwise it's you the one who has to worry about coming out clean i'm afraid.


Bla, bla, bla, where is the chart?

----------


## davef

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...act=mrc&uact=8

----------


## davef

Hey wait a minute, they have the internet on computers now? D'oh!
Can't post image...must be some way...d'oh! 

Hey harena, my man, can you be a bro and post that chart?

----------


## Angela

> I hesitate to give more space to this, because we largely agree. However, I don't concur, going by the Admixture run, that Palestinians are the closest population. They have way too much Iran Chl. for that. Imo, the closest are either Saudis without SSA or Bedouin B. I have no idea if Bedouin B is more isolated or Bedouin A is more isolated. It looks to me as if perhaps Bedouin B is just those Bedouin without all that additional SSA.
> 
> For more definitive answers I think we'll have to wait for what other tools show. That may change my opinion.
> 
> As for the discussion between Harena and LeBroc, a lot of the problem with the hobbyist community is that they use pop. genetics terms way too loosely, confusing not only themselves but others. Anatolia Neolithic is about 10%? WHG. If you go around saying that Natufians were 50% WHG it's wrong and confusing to other people.
> 
> Plus, the point is that these populations were distinct from one another, just as Anatolia Neolithic was distinct from Iranian Neolithic no matter that they shared some "components" from thousands of years before the Neolithic.


I just want to point out that I think Alan is absolutely correct when he says the following:

"While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%)"

It's the additional SSA that pulls modern Egyptians away from the ancient Egyptians in this sample. That's another reason why so much of the commentary in the press is so wrong.

----------


## harena

> Bla, bla, bla, where is the chart?


Still see no evidence of insults, I'm waiting..




> Hey wait a minute, they have the internet on computers now? D'oh!
> Can't post image...must be some way...d'oh! 
> 
> Hey harena, my man, can you be a bro and post that chart?


No problem on my part, I do really want to share it and discuss but I cannot let Lebrok's infraction slip. I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.

Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> .....I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.
> 
> Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.


I do not know what he did or for that matter what you, Harena, is talking about (and have no time to look for) but I want to see the explanation, because Moderators and admin in this sort of forums sometime forget that it should come with a responsibility (although not the style of Lebrok from what I have seen of him). Already got infractions that I do not understood why and just to see the same persons do the same or worst.

----------


## Odysseus

The Bronze age Levants obviously looked like vikings.

Sent from my WAS-LX1 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Alan

> I just want to point out that I think Alan is absolutely correct when he says the following:
> 
> "While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%)"
> 
> It's the additional SSA that pulls modern Egyptians away from the ancient Egyptians in this sample. That's another reason why so much of the commentary in the press is so wrong.


And that is what so freakn furstrates me I have seen comments and articles saying even things like "ancient Egyptians closer to Europeans than to modern once" what the heck?

----------


## LeBrok

> Still see no evidence of insults, I'm waiting..
> 
> 
> 
> No problem on my part, I do really want to share it and discuss but I cannot let Lebrok's infraction slip. I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.
> 
> Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.





> I do not know what he did or for that matter what you, Harena, is talking about (and have no time to look for) but I want to see the explanation, because Moderators and admin in this sort of forums sometime forget that it should come with a responsibility (although not the style of Lebrok from what I have seen of him). Already got infractions that I do not understood why and just to see the same persons do the same or worst.


Read the forum rules. If you still clueless why you got infractions, I can't help you.

----------


## davef

> The Bronze age Levants obviously looked like vikings.
> 
> Sent from my WAS-LX1 using Eupedia Forum mobile app


Is this sarcasm? :)

----------


## davef

> And that is what so freakn furstrates me I have seen comments and articles saying even things like "ancient Egyptians closer to Europeans than to modern once" what the heck?


According to the chart posted by Angela and Hauteville in this thread, the Modern Egyptians have more SSA than the Ancient Egyptian samples of this study, so these samples might be closer to Europeans in the same way Palestinians are (lack of SSA). It's meaningless, really. 

And if by "closer to european" they mean "Europeans are closer to ancient Egyptians than modern Levantines and North Africans" they're probably just disappointed with the outcome of this study and want to delude themselves. Anyone with half a brain and minute knowledge of ancient genetics can tell from the chart that a Tunisian minus a dash of SSA does not make a Swede... on the flip side, a Swede with a dash of SSA does not make a Tunisian.

----------


## Angela

The general conclusions to be taken from the paper are, I think, clear. When analyzing samples, all the results from the different tools have to be analyzed and put into a pattern. You can't just take one result showing more closeness to Europeans than to modern Egyptians and make outlandish claims. This is not new, however. It's done all the time in the amateur community to support one agenda or another.

All of that said, these samples have a tiny number of snps in common with modern gene arrays used in things like the gedmatch calculators. Any results by amateurs trying to compare these ancients to modern populations is not going to be accurate, whether it's going to be done by Egyptians, Copts, modern Levantines etc to see if they "descend" from them, or the Sikeliots of the world who would try to fit them into some sort of agenda. 

We have to try to get a grip on how these tools work, and their limitations.

One heartening thing is that in this case, both the Nordicists and the Afro-Centrists have been discomfited. The marvels of ancient Egypt were largely created by people genetically similar to the people who created the marvels of the Near East, and no, they weren't very "Nordic like" or WHG, or steppe like either.

----------


## Odysseus

I agree with you

----------


## Alan

> According to the chart posted by Angela and Hauteville in this thread, the Modern Egyptians have more SSA than the Ancient Egyptian samples of this study, so these samples might be closer to Europeans in the same way Palestinians are (lack of SSA). It's meaningless, really. 
> 
> And if by "closer to european" they mean "Europeans are closer to ancient Egyptians than modern Levantines and North Africans" they're probably just disappointed with the outcome of this study and want to delude themselves. Anyone with half a brain and minute knowledge of ancient genetics can tell from the chart that a Tunisian minus a dash of SSA does not make a Swede... on the flip side, a Swede with a dash of SSA does not make a Tunisian.


Thats the point some news outlets are misinterpreting the results. The paper clearly points out that modern Egypt = 92% ancient Egypt + 8% SSA. 

The study also says ancient Egyptians were closer to Middle Easterners and Europeans than modern Egyptians are. Well the reason for that is not them having European ancestry, but Egyptians and Europeans sharing ancient West Asian/Near Eastern genes. Also this sentence is easy to "missinterpret" into ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans than they are to modern Egyptians. It's one word changing it's position and the sentence gets a whole different meaning so it can fit in some peoples agendas. 

Let me give an example. A Chinese with a Swedish great grandfather will be closer to Europeans than a 100% Chinese will be. But does that make the Chinese with a little Swedish ancestry closer to Europeans as to other fellow Chinese?

----------


## Aaron1981

Ancient Egyptians are absolutely nothing like Europeans. EEF isn't even European really but my ancestors absorbed them thousands of years ago.

----------


## Angela

> Ancient Egyptians are absolutely nothing like Europeans. EEF isn't even European really but my ancestors absorbed them thousands of years ago.


Europeans didn't exist until the three major ancestral components admixed after 2500 BC. I can't even say nice try, but definitely no cigar.

----------


## davef

> Ancient Egyptians are absolutely nothing like Europeans. EEF isn't even European really but my ancestors absorbed them thousands of years ago.


But the EEF weren't anything like Ancient Egyptians either. Not even close. The samples used in this article were very close to Bronze Age Levantines and the closest modern populations are North Africans and modern Levantines.

----------


## Jovialis

> But the EEF weren't anything like Ancient Egyptians either. Not even close. The samples used in this article were very close to Bronze Age Levantines and the closest modern populations are North Africans and modern Levantines.


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694/figures/5

The article has this graphic that demonstrates which population is closest.

According to the map in figure A. Sardinians and the Basque have the highest frequency of similarity with Ancient Egyptians in modern populations.

In ancient times, the Linearbandkeramik and Neolithic Anatolians also shared a strong similarity. Thus, they were a lot like the EEF too.

_NOTE: I could be wrong, so if someone can point out how I'm misinterpreting this graphic; it would be much appreciated._

----------


## davef

> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694/figures/5
> 
> The article has this graphic that demonstrates which population is closest.
> 
> According to the map in figure A. Sardinians and the Basque have the highest frequency of similarity with Ancient Egyptians in modern populations.
> 
> In ancient times, the Linearbandkeramik and Neolithic Anatolians also shared a strong similarity. Thus, they were a lot like the EEF too.
> 
> _NOTE: I could be wrong, so if someone can point out how I'm misinterpreting this graphic; it would be much appreciated._


No offense, but by that logic, Lithuanians are closer to ancient Egypt than Modern Egyptians. It's likely you're misinterpreting the chart (then again, I don't know how to interpret it myself...but since those groups are at the top, it's likely you misinterpreted it as higher on the chart=more related. It can't be since Scots are higher on that chart than modern populations of the Mideast and Jews). 

If you take a look at some of the charts posted a few pages back in this thread, you'll see that Ancient Egyptians were Bronze Age Levantine like , and nowhere near Anatolian farmers.

----------


## Jovialis

> No offense, but by that logic, Lithuanians are closer to ancient Egypt than Modern Egyptians. It's likely you're misinterpreting the chart (then again, I don't know how to interpret it myself...but since those groups are at the top, it's likely you misinterpreted it as higher on the chart=more related. It can't be since Scots are higher on that chart than modern populations of the Mideast and Jews). 
> 
> If you take a look at some of the charts posted a few pages back in this thread, you'll see that Ancient Egyptians were Bronze Age Levantine like , and nowhere near Anatolian farmers.


Yes, figure B is kind of weird. I'm not sure how to read it. But I was actually referring to figure A:


_
(a) Outgroup f3-statistics measuring shared drift of the three ancient Egyptian samples and other modern and ancient populations,_

The circles are representative of the modern populations. The brightest orange is over Sardinia.

----------


## davef

> Yes, figure B is kind of weird. I'm not sure how to read it. But I was actually referring to figure A:
> 
> 
> _
> (a) Outgroup f3-statistics measuring shared drift of the three ancient Egyptian samples and other modern and ancient populations,_
> 
> The circles are representative of the modern populations. The brightest orange is over Sardinia.


I see...I don't know how to explain that either since it conflicts with the charts posted a page ago. Maybe someone can chime in and help explain this.

----------


## Alan

> But the EEF weren't anything like Ancient Egyptians either. Not even close. The samples used in this article were very close to Bronze Age Levantines and the closest modern populations are North Africans and modern Levantines.


What the paper is trying to say (and what is not incorrect) is that technically ancient Egyptians are closer to modern Europeans than modern Egyptians are because they have less SSA and little more farmer DNA. And the closest component in Europeans to the ancestry of Egyptians is EEF. EEF or Anatolian_Neo is quite similar to Levant-Neolithic even if little less UHG/WHG like and more Basal.

The problem I have with the articles however is, that they make of small side effects headlines. Looking at the ancient Egyptian DNA one of the LEAST things you would think of is that they are closer to Europeans than modern Egyptians are. This wouldn't be so bad if many people weren't so stupid and use this to misinterpret things. 

People generally with strong agendas (most humans have an agenda but some are more open minded to accept facts than other) will use these articles.

I see Afro_Centrics who claim now Basal Eurasian as Black African because they were extremely owned by the Egyptian paper. These guys are ridiculous. Both sites don't or can't accept the facts.

----------


## Alan

> According to the chart posted by Angela and Hauteville in this thread, the Modern Egyptians have more SSA than the Ancient Egyptian samples of this study, so these samples might be closer to Europeans in the same way Palestinians are (lack of SSA). It's meaningless, really.


Palestinians don't lack SSA (far from it) they just have less. There was a increase of SSA ancestry in all of the regions where the ancient Levantines expanded (Arabian Peninsula and the Levant). Palestinians have like 8% SSA while modern Egyptians 14%. Ancient Egyptians most likely had some variation like all ancient groups. Some where close to zero SSA other up to 20%. Thats my prediction. But one thing from these ancient samples if for sure. the Proto Egyptians most likely had non to very little SSA. And the SSA admixture came with the time via Nubians and later Slave trade.



> And if by "closer to european" they mean "Europeans are closer to ancient Egyptians than modern Levantines and North Africans" they're probably just disappointed with the outcome of this study and want to delude themselves. Anyone with half a brain and minute knowledge of ancient genetics can tell from the chart that a Tunisian minus a dash of SSA does not make a Swede... on the flip side, a Swede with a dash of SSA does not make a Tunisian.


Correct, it's not so much the scientists it is the news outlets that are writing their articles in a way where they leave too much room for misinterpretations, be it on purpose or not.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, figure B is kind of weird. I'm not sure how to read it. But I was actually referring to figure A:
> 
> 
> _
> (a) Outgroup f3-statistics measuring shared drift of the three ancient Egyptian samples and other modern and ancient populations,_
> 
> The circles are representative of the modern populations. The brightest orange is over Sardinia.


This is only measuring shared drift not shared ancestry. on the PCAs and the other graphs you can clearly see with whom they share most ancestry.

----------


## Jovialis

> This is only measuring shared drift not shared ancestry. on the PCAs and the other graphs you can clearly see with whom they share most ancestry.


I see, yes, Ancient Egyptians are closer to the modern populations round Palestine, and the Levant.

But what exactly is meant by shared drift, in regards to the chart I pointed out?

----------


## Angela

> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694/figures/5
> 
> The article has this graphic that demonstrates which population is closest.
> 
> According to the map in figure A. Sardinians and the Basque have the highest frequency of similarity with Ancient Egyptians in modern populations.
> 
> In ancient times, the Linearbandkeramik and Neolithic Anatolians also shared a strong similarity. Thus, they were a lot like the EEF too.


You have to be careful with terminology. This is a shared drift diagram. The shared drift is largest, obviously, with EEF, Anatolia Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic. After that, with Bronze Age Levant. Then and only then with Sardinia and Basques as far as modern populations, because they are the modern populations with the largest amount of what we could call ancient "western" Neolithic ancestry ancestry, i.e. Anatolia/Levant. 

First, as to genetic drift in general, it's the evolutionary mechanism which produces random changes in a population over time. It's different from natural selection, whereby only beneficial changes become fixed. In genetic drift the changes occur by chance, and so both beneficial and disadvantageous mutations can become fixed. It occurs more often in small populations. Bottlenecks and founder effects are examples of when it's most operative. (Sorry if I'm telling you what you already know.)

When geneticists are talking about shared genetic drift or shared drift patterns, they're saying that the populations in question share a long genetic history. Shared drift means shared evolutionary history. In terms of Sardinians/Basques and Egyptians, they both have lots of that ancient Neolithic ancestry. 

What happened with the Egyptians is that they got a bigger dose of "eastern" Neolithic ancestry, plus the SSA. 

I hope I explained that properly. If someone else wants to have a go, be my guest.

----------


## Jovialis

> You have to be careful with terminology. This is a shared drift diagram. The shared drift is largest, obviously, with EEF, Anatolia Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic. After that, with Bronze Age Levant. Then and only then with Sardinia and Basques as far as modern populations, because they are the modern populations with the largest amount of what we could call ancient "western" Neolithic ancestry ancestry, i.e. Anatolia/Levant. 
> 
> First, as to genetic drift in general, it's the evolutionary mechanism which produces random changes in a population over time. It's different from natural selection, whereby only beneficial changes become fixed. In genetic drift the changes occur by chance, and so both beneficial and disadvantageous mutations can become fixed. It occurs more often in small populations. Bottlenecks and founder effects are examples of when it's most operative. (Sorry if I'm telling you what you already know.)
> 
> When geneticists are talking about shared genetic drift or shared drift patterns, they're saying that the populations in question share a long genetic history. Shared drift means shared evolutionary history. In terms of Sardinians/Basques and Egyptians, they both have lots of that ancient Neolithic ancestry. 
> 
> What happened with the Egyptians is that they got a bigger dose of "eastern" Neolithic ancestry, plus the SSA. 
> 
> I hope I explained that properly. If someone else wants to have a go, be my guest.


Thank you for the explanation! I'm not familiar with the terms. I was a history and poli-sci major; the little I know about genetics is self-taught from reading articles online.

----------


## davef

> You have to be careful with terminology. This is a shared drift diagram. The shared drift is largest, obviously, with EEF, Anatolia Neolithic, and Levant Neolithic. After that, with Bronze Age Levant. Then and only then with Sardinia and Basques as far as modern populations, because they are the modern populations with the largest amount of what we could call ancient "western" Neolithic ancestry ancestry, i.e. Anatolia/Levant. 
> 
> First, as to genetic drift in general, it's the evolutionary mechanism which produces random changes in a population over time. It's different from natural selection, whereby only beneficial changes become fixed. In genetic drift the changes occur by chance, and so both beneficial and disadvantageous mutations can become fixed. It occurs more often in small populations. Bottlenecks and founder effects are examples of when it's most operative. (Sorry if I'm telling you what you already know.)
> 
> When geneticists are talking about shared genetic drift or shared drift patterns, they're saying that the populations in question share a long genetic history. Shared drift means shared evolutionary history. In terms of Sardinians/Basques and Egyptians, they both have lots of that ancient Neolithic ancestry. 
> 
> What happened with the Egyptians is that they got a bigger dose of "eastern" Neolithic ancestry, plus the SSA. 
> 
> I hope I explained that properly. If someone else wants to have a go, be my guest.


Wait, if the Egyptians were like Neolithic farmers then how can we explain those charts and pca in the last page?

----------


## Angela

> Wait, if the Egyptians were like Neolithic farmers then how can we explain those charts and pca in the last page?


I didn't say they're like Neolithic farmers. I said they have shared genetic drift with Neolithic farmers, as do Sardinians.

----------


## davef

> I didn't say they're like Neolithic farmers. I said they have shared genetic drift with Neolithic farmers, as do Sardinians.


Got it. I guess I'll need to read up on what shared genetic drift is.

----------


## Jovialis

> Got it. I guess I'll need to read up on what shared genetic drift is.


Yea, this is something I will need to look into myself.

----------


## ihype02

> Levant Bronze Age is very similar to the ancient Egyptian sample, which I think will turn out to be close to the Egyptian Copts. They don't at all look Cypriot to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> Greek Cypriots:
> 
> Obviously, there are a few non-Cypriots in the following. :)
> 
> Plus, didn't the paper on the Canaanites tell us that these Bronze Age Canaanite samples have no derived SLC45A2, so not only different than people in the Levant today, but also quite a bit darker than the people of the Anatolia Neolithic and the EEF of Europe, who did have reasonably high percentages of derived SLC45A2. In fact, I think a recent paper revised those estimates upwards from where they were a while ago.. This might suggest that most of the Iran Chl, like the CHG themselves, only had the derived SLC25A2 allele, and thus were rather darker than not only Anatolia Neolithic, but also Levant Neolithic, since some of them also had derived SLC45A2, although the Natufians did not.
> ...


The second picture that you used was taken after a bomb killed several victims.

----------


## IronSide

I hoped this paper would have focused more on the ethnogenesis of modern and Ancient Egyptians beyond the question of them having SSA ancestry or not?

Like how, when, and by whom the Iran_N ancestry in Ancient Egyptians appeared? what was the structure of the population before them? 

SSA is interesting, but why focus on that alone? 

Well, given the extreme interest in SSA in Near Easterners, someone up thread wondered why Saudis wouldn't have it? the admixture run was wrong in not detecting that in Saudis, who do have East African ancestry. similar to Dinka.

from Lazaridis et al(2016), a negative f3 statistic of the form f3(Saudi, Anatolia_N, Dinka) = -0.00326, Z_score = -5.1 

That means it must exist, the allele frequency in the Saudi population is intermediate between Dinka and Anatolia_N or any population ancestral to them. it exists from 1% to 5% in various Saudi tribal groups, the origin of that I would assume is ancient, because the British Roman outlier also had it.

----------


## Angela

> I hoped this paper would have focused more on the ethnogenesis of modern and Ancient Egyptians beyond the question of them having SSA ancestry or not?
> 
> Like how, when, and by whom the Iran_N ancestry in Ancient Egyptians appeared? what was the structure of the population before them? 
> 
> SSA is interesting, but why focus on that alone? 
> 
> Well, given the extreme interest in SSA in Near Easterners, someone up thread wondered why Saudis wouldn't have it? the admixture run was wrong in not detecting that in Saudis, who do have East African ancestry. similar to Dinka.
> 
> from Lazaridis et al(2016), a negative f3 statistic of the form f3(Saudi, Anatolia_N, Dinka) = -0.00326, Z_score = -5.1 
> ...


Well, it's not exactly easy to get ancient samples from Egypt. The researchers are sort of reduced to using old samples in museums. Let's hope for more in the future.

----------


## markozd

> I hoped this paper would have focused more on the ethnogenesis of modern and Ancient Egyptians beyond the question of them having SSA ancestry or not?
> 
> Like how, when, and by whom the Iran_N ancestry in Ancient Egyptians appeared? what was the structure of the population before them? 
> 
> SSA is interesting, but why focus on that alone? 
> 
> Well, given the extreme interest in SSA in Near Easterners, someone up thread wondered why Saudis wouldn't have it? the admixture run was wrong in not detecting that in Saudis, who do have East African ancestry. similar to Dinka.
> 
> from Lazaridis et al(2016), a negative f3 statistic of the form f3(Saudi, Anatolia_N, Dinka) = -0.00326, Z_score = -5.1 
> ...


I'm also interested in this. If it isn't too far off-topic, have you taken a look at the Taforalt paper? The ADMIXTURE analysis suggests that the African admixture in Natufian, Iran_Hotu/Iran_Neo and so forth is related to a component that is modal in the Hadza. A very unlikely source, but it looks quite solid. It's even more pronounced in the Taforalt samples and still very significant in modern Berbers, while in the Levant/Europe it seems to be reduced relative to ancient samples. The 'Hadza Component' is also what differentiates Dinka from West Africans.

----------


## IronSide

> I'm also interested in this. If it isn't too far off-topic, have you taken a look at the Taforalt paper? The ADMIXTURE analysis suggests that the African admixture in Natufian, Iran_Hotu/Iran_Neo and so forth is related to a component that is modal in the Hadza. A very unlikely source, but it looks quite solid. It's even more pronounced in the Taforalt samples and still very significant in modern Berbers, while in the Levant/Europe it seems to be reduced relative to ancient samples. The 'Hadza Component' is also what differentiates Dinka from West Africans.


Unfortunately, I haven't, many times ADMIXTURE detected African related components in Natufians and Levant Neolithic, that would definitely explain haplogroup E, but then came the Lazaridis paper.




> No evidence for admixture related to sub-Saharan Africans in
> Natufians. We computed the statistic f4(Natufian, Other Ancient; African, Chimp) varying African to be
> Mbuti, Yoruba, Ju_hoan_North, or the ancient Mota individual. *Gene flow between Natufians and
> African populations would be expected to bias these statistics positive. However, we find most of
> them to be negative in sign and all of them to be non-significant (|Z|<3), providing no evidence that
> Natufians differ from other ancient samples with respect to African populations.*


The Natufians don't share more alleles with (Mbuti - Yoruba - Ju_hoan_North - Mota) than the amount the EHG or WHG shares, which is null.

this f4 test *f4(Natufian, Other Ancient; African, Chimp)* tests whether the population African shares alleles with the Natufians that Other Ancient and Chimp don't, if yes it would be positive, but it wasn't. see the bolded statement above.

----------


## IronSide

> 


Interesting puzzle, why would they have Hadza like admixture ?

----------


## markozd

> Unfortunately, I haven't, many times ADMIXTURE detected African related components in Natufians and Levant Neolithic, that would definitely explain haplogroup E, but then came the Lazaridis paper.
> 
> 
> 
> The Natufians don't share more alleles with (Mbuti - Yoruba - Ju_hoan_North - Mota) than the amount the EHG or WHG shares, which is null.
> 
> this f4 test *f4(Natufian, Other Ancient; African, Chimp)* tests whether the population African shares alleles with the Natufians that Other Ancient and Chimp don't, if yes it would be positive, but it wasn't. see the bolded statement above.


I had looked at this, but I think I didn't notice that Lazaridis also used Mota as an outgroup, which should according to the analysis above have the Hadza component. This is very confusing.

I find it quite difficult to fully understand intra-African diversity to be honest. What causes the Hadza to have such an unusual position in the PCA relative to South & West Africans? Based on haplotypes I'd exclude recent Eurasian admixture.

----------


## IronSide

> I had looked at this, but I think I didn't notice that Lazaridis also used Mota as an outgroup, which should according to the analysis above have the Hadza component. This is very confusing.
> 
> I find it quite difficult to fully understand intra-African diversity to be honest. What causes the Hadza to have such an unusual position in the PCA relative to South & West Africans? Based on haplotypes I'd exclude recent Eurasian admixture.


Maybe pure Basal Eurasians admixed into them, but then the Natufians and Iran_N would share ancestry with them more than the EHG for example, but they don't. a puzzle indeed.

----------


## Idontknowwhatimdoing

Look at the autosomal admixture models of modern Copts compared to Nakht-ankh an ancient Egyptian mummy from 1879 BC, Middle Kingdom central Egypt.

The Tomb of Two Brothers is an ancient sepulchre in Deir Rifeh, Egypt. It contains the chamber tomb of the ancient Egyptian high status priests Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht, which dates from the 12th Dynasty.

The mummy has less a bit less African admix than modern Egyptians but more than Copts but the % differences are very small, they are pretty similar. I would guess that the more south you went to ancient Egypt the more African admix they had.

The coordinates of Nakht-Ankh are converted from K13 to G25. The mummy is from Central Egypt. People on anthrogenica uploaded the raw DNA data from a study and they converted them to a form that is usable on gedmatch.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....haraohs/page10











```
Egyptian_1879bc:Nakht-Ankh,0.0012,0.129,-0.044,-0.0965,-0.0031,-0.0534,-0.017,-0.0078,0.0551,-0.0049,0.0138,-0.0172,0.0306,-0.0015,0.0069,-0.0072,-0.0111,0.0053,-0.004,0.0042,-0.0012,0.0046,-0.0078,0.0026,-0.0013
```

a

----------


## Wanderer

I looked up a video and they are good compelling arguements on why these dna samples rre not representative of the majority of egyptians

He talks about the dna at 31:30



This video talks about the origins and evidence.

https://youtu.be/QVKuQBrkjrA


His specific video on the study




Also when looking at the data of the mummies only 1 of the mummies are older than 1000BC with a majority being near 500 BC and younger.
And its no where near the nakada culture sites and is the far north western area of egypt.


I personally believe the origin of egypt came from horners and nilotes. But as they spread north they mixed with more west eurasian people after sometime.

We know this because of all the Ydna tested for mummies they are come back as haplogroups common in africa but not for europe. And r1b is not determined to be european r1b found today. Its very likely a deriviative of Chadic R1b-v88 subclades. 

Ancient Egyptians would have been like afar, eriteans, beja, somalians, oromo ect peoples.

Northern egyptians would have more west eurasian then the southern ones near land.

----------


## Wanderer

They look like the depictions of ancient egyptians on the narmar plaque

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> I looked up a video and they are good compelling arguements on why these dna samples. Are not representative of the majority of egyptians
> 
> He talks about the dna at 31:30
> 
> 
> 
> This video talks about the origins and evidence.
> 
> https://youtu.be/QVKuQBrkjrA
> ...


No, the video is a mere heaping of delusional points by a pathetic afrocentrist, these "very good compelling arguments" are sheer nonsense, debunkable by any one with a iota of historical knowledge. 

I've skipped to the 30.00 minute time mark and the narrator said that the ancient Greeks described ancient Egyptians as "black" while a clip of black panther was playing: I'd believe it was a far-right parody of afrocentrism if I didn't know it is a genuine attempt at proving they wuz kangz. Anyway, ancient Greeks didn't refer to them as "black", for μελανοχρωος meant "dark-skinned", that's why it was said that both Egyptians and Ethiopians were μελανοχρωοι, that is both dark-skinned, one brown and the other black, not that they were both black. 
As for the other nonsense, we knew that along the Nile many nations of different "racial" make-up lived, but not every one was Egyptian and "Egypt" as meaning the land inhabited by ethnic Egyptians was the Nile up to the first cataract, in which western Eurasian populations with minor subsaharan contribution lived, as it can be seen in the way they represented themselves in art as distinct from the Nubians further down the Nile. 
I am tired of seeing such load of BS even on this site.

----------


## Hawk

> No, the video is a mere heaping of delusional points by a pathetic afrocentrist, these "very good compelling arguments" are sheer nonsense, debunkable by any one with a iota of historical knowledge. 
> 
> I've skipped to the 30.00 minute time mark and the narrator said that the ancient Greeks described ancient Egyptians as "black" while a clip of black panther was playing: I'd believe it was a far-right parody of afrocentrism if I didn't know it is a genuine attempt at proving they wuz kangz. Anyway, ancient Greeks didn't refer to them as "black", for μελανοχρωος meant "dark-skinned", that's why it was said that both Egyptians and Ethiopians were μελανοχρωοι, that is both dark-skinned, one brown and the other black, not that they were both black. 
> As for the other nonsense, we knew that along the Nile many nations of different "racial" make-up lived, but not every one was Egyptian and "Egypt" as meaning the land inhabited by ethnic Egyptians was the Nile up to the first cataract, in which western Eurasian populations with minor subsaharan contribution lived, as it can be seen in the way they represented themselves in art as distinct from the Nubians further down the Nile. 
> I am tired of seeing such load of BS even on this site.


Based on some leaks most of Old Kingdom Egyptians were E-M35 with some J1.

So, Ancient Egyptians had an ANA paternal lineage, that means neither Western Eurasian neither Sub-Saharan, the Mechtoid crania were distinct from both West Eurasians and Sub-Saharans, and now we know the ANA autosomal made them their particular look.

Obviously, Wandered didn't do his homework. Nilotics are mostly Y-DNA A, B and some rare and small E clades. Somalians and related people are paternally Natufian-like mixed with Nilotic females creating their current phenotype. Somali E-M78 clades are 2500 old and have no diversity, they are prone to heavy bottlenecks/founder-effect. Probably the same wave from which their Y-DNA T came from, and likely from which they differ from Egyptians since Y-DNA T is not so common in Egypt.

----------


## Wanderer

> No, the video is a mere heaping of delusional points by a pathetic afrocentrist, these "very good compelling arguments" are sheer nonsense, debunkable by any one with a iota of historical knowledge. 
> 
> I've skipped to the 30.00 minute time mark and the narrator said that the ancient Greeks described ancient Egyptians as "black" while a clip of black panther was playing: I'd believe it was a far-right parody of afrocentrism if I didn't know it is a genuine attempt at proving they wuz kangz. Anyway, ancient Greeks didn't refer to them as "black", for μελανοχρωος meant "dark-skinned", that's why it was said that both Egyptians and Ethiopians were μελανοχρωοι, that is both dark-skinned, one brown and the other black, not that they were both black. 
> As for the other nonsense, we knew that along the Nile many nations of different "racial" make-up lived, but not every one was Egyptian and "Egypt" as meaning the land inhabited by ethnic Egyptians was the Nile up to the first cataract, in which western Eurasian populations with minor subsaharan contribution lived, as it can be seen in the way they represented themselves in art as distinct from the Nubians further down the Nile. 
> I am tired of seeing such load of BS even on this site.





> No, the video is a mere heaping of delusional points by a pathetic afrocentrist, these "very good compelling arguments" are sheer nonsense, debunkable by any one with a iota of historical knowledge. 
> 
> I've skipped to the 30.00 minute time mark and the narrator said that the ancient Greeks described ancient Egyptians as "black" while a clip of black panther was playing: I'd believe it was a far-right parody of afrocentrism if I didn't know it is a genuine attempt at proving they wuz kangz. Anyway, ancient Greeks didn't refer to them as "black", for μελανοχρωος meant "dark-skinned", that's why it was said that both Egyptians and Ethiopians were μελανοχρωοι, that is both dark-skinned, one brown and the other black, not that they were both black. 
> As for the other nonsense, we knew that along the Nile many nations of different "racial" make-up lived, but not every one was Egyptian and "Egypt" as meaning the land inhabited by ethnic Egyptians was the Nile up to the first cataract, in which western Eurasian populations with minor subsaharan contribution lived, as it can be seen in the way they represented themselves in art as distinct from the Nubians further down the Nile. 
> I am tired of seeing such load of BS even on this site.


The arguements are pretty strong though. Those mummies are relatively young for the most part. 

Egyptians used afro picks and the spacing for teeth arent narrow for thin hair like in ancient greece and europe. 

The egyptians on the narmer plate have wide noses full lips and afros. The enemy slain by the bull has an aqualine nose and straight hair. Its on the narmer plate itself. Although most of figures appear to have big bulbous noses or wide nises. And full lips. The enemies tend to have straighter hair or maybe its braided? but many have full lips and wide noses.

They really did originate far south from black east african ethiopians. 

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/4...tte-two-sides/

You can download the full image yourself.

The skin color thing is addressed but you didnt pay attention. 
Its addressed at 15:00

And he is right I think because europeans dont have afros and in the narmer plaque they have afros. These people are ethiopian decendants so they would have afros and straight hair also likely.

----------


## Leopoldo Leone

> The arguements are pretty strong though. Those mummies are relatively young for the most part. 
> 
> Egyptians used afro picks and the spacing for teeth arent narrow for thin hair like in ancient greece and europe. 
> 
> The egyptians on the narmer plate have wide noses full lips and afros. The enemy slain by the bull has an aqualine nose and straight hair. Its on the narmer plate itself. Although most of figures appear to have big bulbous noses or wide nises. And full lips. The enemies tend to have straighter hair or maybe its braided? but many have full lips and wide noses.
> 
> They really did originate far south from black east african ethiopians. 
> 
> https://www.worldhistory.org/image/4...tte-two-sides/
> ...


What a wild imagination one needs to see black afro, wide noses and full lips on that plate! Anyway, it's the last time I reply but I felt that if such nonsense keeps not getting any backlash from time to time it seems as if it is condoned here.

----------


## Wanderer

> What a wild imagination one needs to see black afro, wide noses and full lips on that plate! Anyway, it's the last time I reply but I felt that if such nonsense keeps not getting any backlash from time to time it seems as if it is condoned here.


You just have to look

They look like ethiopian bejar afar oromos and other cushites.

----------


## Jovialis

The latest King Tut reconstruction. He looks a lot more West Eurasian, than his coffin would initially lead one to believe.

----------


## Angela

Some people refuse to accept reality. They see what they want to see; what confirms their agendas.

Yes, there were some Sudanese Pharaohs, but the majority were not heavily SSA admixed. We know that because we have the ancient genomes to prove it. It's only today that Egyptians have around 20% SSA, and that's because of the Arab slave trade. 

I have no idea why people think that, say, 10% SSA or 15% or even 20% SSA would necessarily show in the face.


John Wayles Jefferson, grandson of Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. If Sally was a quadroon, as seems likely, then John was 6.5% SSA if his mother was white or 13% SSA if she was also mixed race.

----------


## Wanderer

Look black to me despite what their dna test may say.

----------


## Wanderer

Tutsi dna half bantu, looks the same as other horners and sudanese




Luo african scoring 67% sudanese.





Ancient nubians



http://<br />
<a href="https://youtu...qqDMuJ3sOA</a>



http://<br />
<a href="https://youtu...Og0aW3w47Q</a>

----------


## Wanderer



----------


## Wanderer

Even if they scored lower nilotic, they score alongside other cushitics, who still look black. I would not confuse them for iranians saudis, syrians turks ect. But I might confuse them for other horner, cushites and sudanese/chaddic peoples. And some even nilotes.







Now compare her who is only about 30 percent european
And mostly sub saharan west african. What do you get? A cushite passing woman, ancient nubian and original egyptian from punt.








Nubians think she's nubian, but she's not.





Now look at the andaman Islanders
They plot with other asians who look very different. Phenotypically, it still looks black. 

That man does not look like an ancient egyptian.....

----------


## Duarte

Afrocentrists and Woke are synonyms. I personally am not in the habit of looking down on someone's culture or origins or a people's background. I have a lot of respect for the culture and origins of all peoples. The woke (this is a word that I have a hard time understanding what it means, so I take it as synonymous with “Afrocentrist of the United States”) desperately want a great ancient civilization to call their own. The blacks who came to the Americas have nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians or even the modern ones. Black Americans are descendants of Niger-Congolese peoples originally from West Africa and the term 'Black’ in its meaning achieved in the United States cannot be applied to Egyptians, descendants of Western Eurasians whose SSA heritage (much smaller in percentage terms) comes mostly from East African peoples who themselves were already quite mixed with western Eurasians. Instead of claiming ancient Egypt as the great black civilization of the past, which is a big lie, they should seek to extol the great contribution of West Africans to Western culture in sports, music, cuisine, etc, etc.

----------


## Wanderer

> The latest King Tut reconstruction. He looks a lot more West Eurasian, than his coffin would initially lead one to believe.





> The latest King Tut reconstruction. He looks a lot more West Eurasian, than his coffin would initially lead one to believe.


The reconstruction looks more ssa then me and I am a quarter black.

It doesn'tt even look like the bust

----------


## Wanderer

> Afrocentrists and Woke are synonyms. I personally am not in the habit of looking down on someone's culture or origins or a people's background. I have a lot of respect for the culture and origins of all people. The woke (this is a word that I have a hard time understanding what it means, so I take it as synonymous with “Afrocentrist of the United States”) desperately want a great ancient civilization to call their own. The blacks who came to the Americas have nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians or even the modern ones. Black Americans are descendants of Niger-Congolese peoples originally from West Africa and the term 'Black’ in its meaning achieved in the United States cannot be applied to Egyptians, descendants of Western Eurasians whose SSA heritage (much smaller in percentage terms) comes mostly from East African peoples who themselves were already quite mixed with western Eurasians. Instead of claiming ancient Egypt as the great black civilization of the past, which is a big lie, they should seek to extol the great contribution of West Africans to Western culture in sports, music, cuisine, etc, etc.


I am not an afro centrist. I dont believe africans were indigenous peoples of the americas. But the old original egyptians and yes cushites and horners and sudanese today are black people. Some are more admixed than others, but the majority are evidently black. 
Yes, African americans are niger congo? What's your point. Only niger congo look black?

----------


## Duarte

> I am not an afro centrist. I dont believe africans were indigenous peoples of the americas. But the old original egyptians and yes cushites and horners and sudanese today are black people. Some are more admixed than others, but the majority are evidently black. 
> Yes, African americans are niger congo? What's your point. Only niger congo look black?



Objective answer: The ancient Egyptians were not black. 

You have a simplistic view of ethnicity (or race, if you prefer) relating the term mainly to skin color. This simplistic view is the same as that of white supremacists who think that ethnicity is primarily defined by skin color, eye color, hair color, hair type.

----------


## Wanderer

> Objective answer: The ancient Egyptians were not black. 
> 
> You have a simplistic view of ethnicity (or race, if you prefer), relating the term mainly to skin color. This simplistic view is the same as that of white supremacists who think that ethnicity is primarily defined by skin color, eye color, hair color, hair type.


Also features, many having coarse or nappy hair. Full lips, and many have wide or flat noses. Or bulbous noses. But yes, notably, skin color also.

Ethnicity isn't, but they would still be black if they look black. Black is the color and look.
Also, white supremacists dont lock ethnicities to looks. They know two people can be the same ethnic group but have more or less certain continental ancestry designations like european or african. Even if technically those people are of the same ethnic group, they are more related to each other than to the white supremacists who would be in some way different ethnic group. Still, one of them would be black, and one could be much lighter, would still be kin despite what a white supremacists think.

Objective answer, they were brown and black. Some were light, but that's more up northern egypt. Not in the south closer to land of punt (upper egypt)

With later egyptians progressing to be lighter later on.

----------


## Duarte

@Wanderer.

I disagree of you. 
The Egyptians were and remain MENA (Middle Eastern and North African). I agree, and only in this, that the ancient Egyptians and Jesus Christ did not even remotely resemble those Nordic types portrayed by Hollywood in the movies.

----------


## Angela

Mel Gibson did better than most in his movie "Passion of the Christ"...even if he had to put dark contacts and a prosthetic nose on his actor. :)





Wound up with the most beautiful Christ figure I've ever seen imo, and not too far from early depictions, which, however, may not have been particularly close to the look of the Jews of Palestine, who might have looked more like modern Samaritans.



Of course, we have Michelangelo's Pieta, whose Christ figure was modeled by a young Jewish man from the Roman ghetto. He might, however, given what we now know, have had some Southern European ancestry.

----------


## Wanderer

> Mel Gibson did better than most in his movie "Passion of the Christ"...even if he had to put dark contacts and a prosthetic nose on his actor. :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wound up with the most beautiful Christ figure I've ever seen imo, and not too far from early depictions, which, however, may not have been particularly close to the look of the Jews of Palestine, who might have looked more like modern Samaritans.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah christ was middle eastern levantine though.

----------


## real expert

I doubt that the Samaritans resembled the first- century Jews in appearance that much because the Samaritians are a highly inbred people. In my opinion, the Jews during the time of Christ perhaps looked like modern Lebanese or Syrians. In the film Chosen, for instance, an actor of Syrian descent played Jesus, and the majority of the other cast members, including Israelis, were of Middle Eastern origin. 


Here's Jonathan Roumi. I found that he played Jesus in a relatable way.





And these actors portrayed his disciples.

----------


## Wanderer

I think Levantines would have resembled pre ashkenazi jews (who have european)

Being that jews were originally a Levantine people that are closely related to other levantine peoples like canaanites and palestinians. It only makes sense jesus would have been levantine himself.
In fact judaism is really an offshoot of Cananite Pantheon also. Yahweh was originally a cannite diety. But a sect if Yahweh followers broke off and declared him as their only and true god. Then he became synonymous with god.

----------


## mount123

> I am not an afro centrist. I dont believe africans were indigenous peoples of the americas. But the old original egyptians and yes cushites and horners and sudanese today are black people. Some are more admixed than others, but the majority are evidently black. 
> Yes, African americans are niger congo? What's your point. Only niger congo look black?


Of course you are or how would one else describe the non sense you've posted here and on multiple other posts. 

You repeatedly make bizarre statements based on your non existent archaeological and scientific foreknowledge. Nontheless, even if linked you would not read what scientific papers have to say as it obviously does not suit your bias (mixed race heritage as you have pointed out).

----------


## Wanderer

> Of course you are or how would one else describe the non sense you've posted here and on multiple other posts. 
> 
> You repeatedly make bizarre statements based on your non existent archaeological and scientific foreknowledge. Nontheless, even if linked you would not read what scientific papers have to say as it obviously does not suit your bias (mixed race heritage as you have pointed out).


If I was an afro centrist, I would believe everything was created by black people. Dont fall into this weird slippery slope fallacy.
They just look black to me. Dont know what else to say

https://smarthistory.org/running-hor...ajjer-algeria/

----------


## mount123

> If I was an afro centrist, I would believe everything was created by black people. Dont fall into this weird slippery slope fallacy.
> They just look black to me. Dont know what else to say
> 
> https://smarthistory.org/running-hor...ajjer-algeria/


When I image search the stuff you post here, it leads me to twitter accounts using the hashtag "blackgirlmagic".

----------


## Angela

He's a t-roll. Ignore him.

----------


## MOESAN

> I am not an afro centrist. I dont believe africans were indigenous peoples of the americas. But the old original egyptians and yes cushites and horners and sudanese today are black people. Some are more admixed than others, but the majority are evidently black. 
> Yes, African americans are niger congo? What's your point. Only niger congo look black?


'black' is not an anthropologic term. There was 'negroid' in old times, more or less precise, but roughly based on a convergence of considered typical features taking in account bones of head and body, flesh parts, form of hair and so on.
"black" signifies nothing.

Speaking simply, the most of Eastern Africa (the Horn) pops shows features putting them between western Eurasians and Western SSA Africans. The ancient Egyptians we could devine based on pictures of the times were mixed, rather on the wetsern Eurasian side, IMO. Concerning Elites, they changed by time, and it seems relatively pure Europoids took the power during someperiods, I don't know details about the timing of changes of elites.
We may suppose that at the dawn of high culture Egypte, the general pop was not a "pure" one concerning the classical anthropologic criteria, but we may not say either they were "black" people or dominantly 'negroid' people.
A very boring question, this no end discussion about "black Egypt".
You can only say they were Africans for the most, according to Geography.

----------


## MOESAN

"but we may not say either they were "black" people or dominantly 'negroid' people."

Maybe my phasing here is mistaking (bad English). I would say clearly: they were not "black" people, they were not dominantly 'negroid' people.

----------


## Hawk

> "but we may not say either they were "black" people or dominantly 'negroid' people."
> 
> Maybe my phasing here is mistaking (bad English). I would say clearly: they were not "black" people, they were not dominantly 'negroid' people.


Why cannot they be a culture predominantly descending from native Mesolithic North African people. Why should they be either West Eurasian/Caucasus or Negroid?

----------


## Wanderer

> When I image search the stuff you post here, it leads me to twitter accounts using the hashtag "blackgirlmagic".


Thats cute but they actually look black or black mixed soo...

----------


## Wanderer

> 'black' is not an anthropologic term. There was 'negroid' in old times, more or less precise, but roughly based on a convergence of considered typical features taking in account bones of head and body, flesh parts, form of hair and so on.
> "black" signifies nothing.
> 
> *Speaking simply, the most of Eastern Africa (the Horn) pops shows features putting them between western Eurasians and Western SSA Africans.*  The ancient Egyptians we could devine based on pictures of the times were mixed, rather on the wetsern Eurasian side, IMO. Concerning Elites, they changed by time, and it seems relatively pure Europoids took the power during someperiods, I don't know details about the timing of changes of elites.
> We may suppose that at the dawn of high culture Egypte, the general pop was not a "pure" one concerning the classical anthropologic criteria, but we may not say either they were "black" people or dominantly 'negroid' people.
> A very boring question, this no end discussion about "black Egypt".
> You can only say they were Africans for the most, according to Geography.



Yea thats why they maybe look black. I mean if you go on a pca plot west Africans are much closer to europeans then san peoples. But you wouldnt stop and say west africans arent black right?

----------


## kingjohn

> The latest King Tut reconstruction. He looks a lot more West Eurasian, than his coffin would initially lead one to believe.


Nice jovialis,
He belonged to haplogroup r1b 
I wonder if he belonged to the same branch 
As this *bronze age individual I2062 from israel Tel -Shadud*
Which is likely canaanite ( personally wasn't aware of this finding)
https://www.theytree.com/sample/e66e...7632c1b5b.html


the site :
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Shaddud

----------


## MOESAN

> If I was an afro centrist, I would believe everything was created by black people. Dont fall into this weird slippery slope fallacy.
> They just look black to me. Dont know what else to say.
> 
> ---------


Wanderer, the pics you psted show:
1- diversity among old Egyptians looks
2- the most of them show some crossings between what we call 'europoid' types ans 'negroid types', often rather on the 'euro' side
3- one of the mummies show clearly a typical 'europoid' agressive nose very far form the 'negroid' type
So nothing very neat

@others
- all typical wokes (an unlevel pop) are not afrocentrists (except the historical first American ones)
- we don't know exactly what was Jesus Christ true look
- at the time and in the region he lived there was crossings and variations among Near-East people (almost purely 'Europoid' looking, by the way)- out of topic

----------


## MOESAN

> Look black to me despite what their dna test may say.


Yu have some problems with your eyes!

----------


## MOESAN

I add Tassili N' Ajjer (walls paintings) in in Sahel (Sahara, in far southern Algeria, not in Kabyly)

----------


## Angela

> Nice jovialis,
> He belonged to haplogroup r1b 
> I wonder if he belonged to the same branch 
> As this *bronze age individual I2062 from israel Tel -Shadud*
> Which is likely canaanite ( personally wasn't aware of this finding)
> https://www.theytree.com/sample/e66e...7632c1b5b.html
> 
> 
> the site :
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Shaddud


Would be interesting to see these breakdowns for modern Lebanese and Palestinians.

----------


## Duarte

> @others
> - all typical wokes (an unlevel pop) are not afrocentrists (except the historical first American ones)
> - we don't know exactly what was Jesus Christ true look
> - at the time and in the region he lived there was crossings and variations among Near-East people (almost purely 'Europoid' looking, by the way)- out of topic


Pay attention to this Hollywood image of an Egyptian posted by Wanderer and, if possible, contextualize my reply inside the thread. The mention of Christ was made only in the sense of reinforcing Hollywood cinema's lack of common sense in portraying historical figures from the Middle East as if they were typical Englishmen, as for example the Franco Zeffirelli's Christ.




>

----------

