|
Post by truth on Jun 24, 2017 5:43:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jun 24, 2017 6:17:06 GMT -5
The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time. The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups. In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time: [*]Haplogroup Frequency U 18.5 T 22.2 J 18.5 X 0.0675 M1a 0.0675 H 0.0675 I 0.0675 HV 0.037 RO 0.037 K 0.037 N 0.037
The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt. In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian mtDNA. Reference: Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694 .
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jun 24, 2017 10:20:38 GMT -5
As you say elsewhere, many are trying to use Schuemann and late period data as something special. But it is not. Recap: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2017 study finds sub-Saharan influence around Roman period. Ancient samples drawn from later period of Dynastic Egypt -taken from the farther north- downplaying the south, and excluding nearby Nubia & Sudan Ancient samples from Abusir, near Faiyum in the north Samples from Late period-of Egypt- which have more foreign influence quote: “According to the radiocarbon dates .. the samples can be grouped into three time periods: Pre-Ptolemaic (New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period), Ptolemaic and Roman Period." Sampling from the far north- quote: Written sources indicate that by the third century BCE Abusir el-Meleq was at the centre of a wider region that comprised the northern part of the Herakleopolites province, and had close ties with the Fayum.. We aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community .. since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period..” Limitations of study candidly admitted by authors - Quote: “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." --Schuenemann 2016 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. NatComm, 8:15694
|
|
|
Post by piccolo on Jun 25, 2017 2:04:36 GMT -5
This is why I take historical accounts not backed by genetic science with a grain of salt. Why would you take someone who actually walked and talked among ancient peoples descriptions of those ancient peoples with a grain of salt? They were actually THERE! Also, I doubt you would take Herodotus accounts with a grain of salt if he described the Ancient Egyptians as tall blonde haired & blue eyed. It hurts that a white man who actually MET the Ancient Egyptians described them as looking like the stereotypical true negro huh?
|
|
|
Post by melanitex on Jul 1, 2017 9:17:20 GMT -5
The results are in. Ancient Egyptians as we know it, dynastic Egyptians, that is, were Eurasian and European people. This is why I take historical accounts not backed by genetic science with a grain of salt. As it's been mentioned by others on here before I don't understand how someone can ignore historical accounts from multiple scholars who saw and at times stood right next to these people. Furthermore this study was taken from one location during the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period. A time where we know migrants from Greece and the Levant started coming in. To get the true racial representation of the Ancient Egyptians you have to take samples from the Pre-Dynastic and Old Kingdom in Upper Egypt. Furthermore you have to test them against other N/E African and North Central African samples...not Yoruba samples all the way in tropical West Africa.... This is what you call controlled sampling......
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Jul 1, 2017 16:18:34 GMT -5
Taking the new data into account. You would have to discount all the other data that shows they were black. Such as; DNA Tribes. Ramses iii haplogroup being E1b1a. The Ancient Greeks account of them. And literally all of their artwork showing brown skinned afro haired peoples. To say they were white. It doesnt matter anyway. Culturally they were far more in tune with Sub Saharan African than the ME.
|
|
|
Post by forty2tribes on Jul 7, 2017 17:37:04 GMT -5
This one test of about 10 yet you are concluding that 'the' results (singular) are in?
|
|