Let's say they are being factual about this mummy, so what?? the Levant was fill With black or black enough ppl not of recent African origins ,matter of fact their presence reach the Zargos MTS, hell there are Black folks there today who have always been there, a genotype can only get you so far eg Albert Einstein and Barack Obama shared some genetic feature from Africa, do the look the same or carry the same cultural history??
Yeah, I feel the same way- I am kind of underwhelmed by this particular study
on several counts.
1) Like you say, there were plenty of black people floating around in the area for
millennia. As Diop pointed out, the phenotype is important. Hence even if all the DNA
could be labeled or classified as "Eurasian" but the people looked "black" - per common,
and well accepted European and Euro-American social construct formulations, including those
beloved of various right-wingers, then they are black. If they are black enough to be Jim
Crowed, profiled and segregated, then, using the same definitions embraced by Europeans,
they are still black, regardless of what DNA label you try to pin on them.
2) Dating and location: The dating puts the sample within the Middle Kingdom,
after the tumultuous First Intermediate Period, when there was more foreign
influence in Egypt. And the location is from the far north, near Cairo, again,
another location of more foreign influence. Based on this sampling it would not
be surprising if SOME so-called "Eurasian" traces were picked up. This far-north
sampling is an old dodge they have been using for years- they sample far north
where there was more foreign influence, while downplaying the 'darker' historic south
from whence the Dynasties sprung. They have been playing this game for decades,
both with cranial data, and with DNA data- most recently with the Abusir study.
Since they keep running the same game, we have to keep pointing out the flaws.
3) A XYZ says there are various underived and "upstream" elements of so-called
"EUrasian" lineages that only appear, or appear first in Africa, calling into
question just how "EUrasian" they are supposed to be. XYZ post more data (with clear
summary) of these underived lineages like U5 with citations- if you will.
4) The mtDNA distribution among modern Egyptians are to be expected given
heavy outside, especially Arabized influence, and particularly when samples
are taken around Cairo- a modern city with much mixing from the Middle East
and even parts of Europe.
5) Folk should be aware of the limitations of these studies in terms of a balanced
view of Egypt, as we saw in the recent Abusir study. The authors were honest enough
to admit the limitations straight up, but many in other places, do not do so openly.
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.