Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Check for new replies
Ancient Egyptians
#31
(05-07-2024, 06:39 PM)Woz Wrote: It's likely that Ancient Egyptians derived a major part of their ancestry (perhaps over 50%) not from the Neolithic, and certainly not from the Epipaleolithic, but from the Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age (i.e. 4th millenium BC) arrivals from the Fertile Crescent, all bringing varying but substantial amounts of Mesopotamian ancestry into the country. If that's correct, then so much for the "indigenousness" of Ancient Egypt.

Chalcolithic Iranian admixture through late Ghassulians is plausible but not the main source of the shift. The main change we will see is going to be Levant-like ancestry flowing into lower Egypt after the Old Kingdom period, which honestly doesn't make much sense considering Egypt dwarfed the Levant's population (over a million vs ~100k in 2200 BC respectively).
Reply
#32
(05-08-2024, 07:12 PM)Qrts Wrote: Chalcolithic Iranian admixture through late Ghassulians is plausible but not the main source of the shift. The main change we will see is going to be Levant-like ancestry flowing into lower Egypt after the Old Kingdom period, which honestly doesn't make much sense considering Egypt dwarfed the Levant's population (over a million vs ~100k in 2200 BC respectively).

Which is one of the reasons I very much doubt this scenario. There's ample archaeological evidence of Ghassulian and then, later, seemingly straightforward Mesopotamian cultural impact on Egypt in the 4th millenium BC. There's no such archaeological evidence for the First Intermediate Period. 

Once they work up the courage to test those predynastic Naqada I, II and III remains, I am willing to bet this is exactly what they'll find. Inflows of Isr_C like Levantines for Naqada I, and then samples dominated by Mesopotamian ancestry in Naqada II and III. After a period of genetic diversity in Egypt (there will probably still be almost purely Natufian samples in the Old Kingdom period), these 4th millenium BC inflows will come to dominate the Ancient Egyptian gene pool. The Late Period mummies from the 2017 study look like they would derive most of their ancestry from those relatively late (post-Neolithic) arrivals from the Fertile Crescent.
Reply
#33
(05-08-2024, 11:45 PM)Woz Wrote:
(05-08-2024, 07:12 PM)Qrts Wrote: Chalcolithic Iranian admixture through late Ghassulians is plausible but not the main source of the shift. The main change we will see is going to be Levant-like ancestry flowing into lower Egypt after the Old Kingdom period, which honestly doesn't make much sense considering Egypt dwarfed the Levant's population (over a million vs ~100k in 2200 BC respectively).

Which is one of the reasons I very much doubt this scenario. There's ample archaeological evidence of Ghassulian and then, later, seemingly straightforward Mesopotamian cultural impact on Egypt in the 4th millenium BC. There's no such archaeological evidence for the First Intermediate Period. 

Once they work up the courage to test those predynastic Naqada I, II and III remains, I am willing to bet this is exactly what they'll find. Inflows of Isr_C like Levantines for Naqada I, and then samples dominated by Mesopotamian ancestry in Naqada II and III. After a period of genetic diversity in Egypt (there will probably still be almost purely Natufian samples in the Old Kingdom period), these 4th millenium BC inflows will come to dominate the Ancient Egyptian gene pool. The Late Period mummies from the 2017 study look like they would derive most of their ancestry from those relatively late (post-Neolithic) arrivals from the Fertile Crescent.

There won't be anything like this. Naqada had high ANA and their profile was like the Old Kingdom samples minus Levant EBA from pastoralists that entered c. 3700 BC

People keep referring to Natufian because they dont realize there is another population in Egypt, which in part gave birth to Natufians. They are called Nile HG or Nile Hunter Gatherers.

Similar to Natufians but much higher ANA
James100 likes this post
Reply
#34
We have two leaks on Old Kingdom Egypt, and they are almost all E-M35, we are yet to see if they are E-M78 or Natufian E-M34 or whatever subclade they were. I rather think they should have been E-M78.

And it's true that Natufians were like Dzudzuana + ANA in autosomal, ANA was minor on them but came through paternal side attested in their E-M35 Y-DNA.
Reply
#35
(05-09-2024, 11:56 AM)Southpaw Wrote: We have two leaks on Old Kingdom Egypt, and they are almost all E-M35, we are yet to see if they are E-M78 or Natufian E-M34 or whatever subclade they were. I rather think they should have been E-M78.

And it's true that Natufians were like Dzudzuana + ANA in autosomal, ANA was minor on them but came through paternal side attested in their E-M35 Y-DNA.

One of the OK samples is indeed E-M78, we'll have to see if we can find something more specific when the data comes out.
Southpaw likes this post
Reply
#36
The dynastic Ancient Egyptians whose Y-DNA haplogroups were released/leaked so far have been all over the place. Nakht-Ankh was reported as Y-DNA H2, Djehutynakht as the European G2a (if that's not contamination), those two late period mummies from the 2017 study were both J's, Tutankhamun and the other members of his dynasty were R1b, Ramesses III as E1b1a (although that was back in 2012 and needs to be retested).

So far only the Hellenistic era sample from the same 2017 study was the (presumably dominant) E1b1b.
parasar likes this post
Reply
#37
(05-09-2024, 06:14 PM)Woz Wrote: The dynastic Ancient Egyptians whose Y-DNA haplogroups were released/leaked so far have been all over the place. Nakht-Ankh was reported as Y-DNA H2, Djehutynakht  as the European G2a (if that's not contamination), those two late period mummies from the 2017 study were both J's, Tutankhamun and the other members of his dynasty were R1b, Ramesses III as E1b1a (although that was back in 2012 and needs to be retested).

So far only the Hellenistic era sample from the same 2017 study was the (presumably dominant) E1b1b.

If I recall correctly, the E1b1a assignment came from a YHRD comparison and even that was quite distant to all existing haplotypes from my recollection. I don't see why seeing G2a or R1b would be strange in the Bronze Age, given that the former came from Anatolia, and the latter was clearly dominant in southern Europe during the Bronze Age. Not to mention the fact R1b has been found in the Levant during the BA outside the Egyptian context. Steppe ancestry was already quite low in southern Europe, after a few generations it could disappear like we saw with the Phillistines at Ashkelon.
Reply
#38
(05-09-2024, 11:56 AM)Southpaw Wrote: We have two leaks on Old Kingdom Egypt, and they are almost all E-M35, we are yet to see if they are E-M78 or Natufian E-M34 or whatever subclade they were. I rather think they should have been E-M78.

And it's true that Natufians were like Dzudzuana + ANA in autosomal, ANA was minor on them but came through paternal side attested in their E-M35 Y-DNA.

I wouldn't call it minor, not the greatest model but still...
Natufian 
Anatolia_Epipaleolithic 0.678425 0.0298102 22.7581
Taforalt                0.321575 0.0298102 10.7874
Tail: 0.05
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'ZlatyKun.SG', 'Ust_Ishim.DG', 'BachoKiro_IUP', 'China_UP', 'Kostenki14', 'Muierii1', 'GoyetQ116_1', 'Gravettian_KremsVestonice', 'Sunghir.SG', 'Yana_UP.SG', 'MA1.SG', 'Kotias_UP.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE
old europe, Psynome, Southpaw And 1 others like this post
Reply
#39
(05-11-2024, 07:05 PM)Kale Wrote:
(05-09-2024, 11:56 AM)Southpaw Wrote: We have two leaks on Old Kingdom Egypt, and they are almost all E-M35, we are yet to see if they are E-M78 or Natufian E-M34 or whatever subclade they were. I rather think they should have been E-M78.

And it's true that Natufians were like Dzudzuana + ANA in autosomal, ANA was minor on them but came through paternal side attested in their E-M35 Y-DNA.

I wouldn't call it minor, not the greatest model but still...
Natufian 
Anatolia_Epipaleolithic 0.678425 0.0298102 22.7581
Taforalt                0.321575 0.0298102 10.7874
Tail: 0.05
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'ZlatyKun.SG', 'Ust_Ishim.DG', 'BachoKiro_IUP', 'China_UP', 'Kostenki14', 'Muierii1', 'GoyetQ116_1', 'Gravettian_KremsVestonice', 'Sunghir.SG', 'Yana_UP.SG', 'MA1.SG', 'Kotias_UP.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE


I wasn't sure about the percentage, but Taforalt was like ANA + Dzudzuana admixed himself, something like 40/60 or 60/40 ratio. So, if you take in consideration that Taforalt was almost 50/50 admixed then Natufians were like ~16% ANA.
Psynome and old europe like this post
Reply
#40
(05-09-2024, 04:07 AM)ilabv Wrote: Naqada had high ANA

Like how much?
Reply
#41
(05-11-2024, 07:40 PM)Southpaw Wrote:
(05-11-2024, 07:05 PM)Kale Wrote:
(05-09-2024, 11:56 AM)Southpaw Wrote: We have two leaks on Old Kingdom Egypt, and they are almost all E-M35, we are yet to see if they are E-M78 or Natufian E-M34 or whatever subclade they were. I rather think they should have been E-M78.

And it's true that Natufians were like Dzudzuana + ANA in autosomal, ANA was minor on them but came through paternal side attested in their E-M35 Y-DNA.

I wouldn't call it minor, not the greatest model but still...
Natufian 
Anatolia_Epipaleolithic 0.678425 0.0298102 22.7581
Taforalt                0.321575 0.0298102 10.7874
Tail: 0.05
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'ZlatyKun.SG', 'Ust_Ishim.DG', 'BachoKiro_IUP', 'China_UP', 'Kostenki14', 'Muierii1', 'GoyetQ116_1', 'Gravettian_KremsVestonice', 'Sunghir.SG', 'Yana_UP.SG', 'MA1.SG', 'Kotias_UP.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Botai.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE


I wasn't sure about the percentage, but Taforalt was like ANA + Dzudzuana admixed himself, something like 40/60 or 60/40 ratio. So, if you take in consideration that Taforalt was almost 50/50 admixed then Natufians were like ~16% ANA.

Its seems to me oub002 it's more basic in admixture ANA than TAF
Target: CapsianWGS_scaled
Distance: 1.2510% / 0.01251049
37.2 Iberomaurusian
36.8 Early_European_Farmer
12.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
8.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.8 SSA
0.4 Iran_Neolithic
FTDNA : 91% North Africa +<2% Bedouin + <2  Southern-Levantinfo + <1 Sephardic Jewish + 3% Malta +  3%  Iberian Peninsula
23andME :  100% North Africa

WGS ( Y-DNA and mtDNA)
Y-DNA: E-A30032< A30480 ~1610 CE
mtDNA: V25b 800CE ? ( age mtDNA not accurate )
Reply
#42
Does anyone know the Dzudzuana-like vs ANA ratio in Naqada?
Really curious about this as it is unlikely the Egyptian genome project harbor genuine predynastic samples. We’re still kept in the dark.
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)