SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A team consisting of people from the University of Tübingen, the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, the University of Cambridge, the Museum and Institute of Zoology (Polish Academy of Sciences), the Berlin Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory and the University of Adelaide has recently published a very interesting genetic study of ancient Egyptian mummies in Nature.
According to the authors, previous studies suffered from possible contamination due to the type of method used: direct PCR and it was generally believed that the climate and mode of mummification destroyed any chance of finding good human DNA.
The authors studied 150 mummified individuals using a high-throughput DNA sequencing method and selecting 90 individuals for further study. The samples obtained span around 1,300 years of Ancient Egypt, namely the Pre-Ptolemaic (New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period), Ptolemaic and Roman periods.
The authors’ conclusion was:
We find that all three ancient Egyptian groups cluster together, supporting genetic continuity across our 1,300-year transect. Both analyses reveal higher affinities with modern populations from the Near East and the Levant compared to modern Egyptians.
One interesting note is: 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.
Basically, if the population studied is representative of the all of the people in Ancient Egypt, the conclusion is that they were not Africans and that modern Egyptians share more genes with African populations than their ancestors.
(Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday July 01 2017, @08:35AM (30 children)
I wonder, but not too long or to hard, whether our editors are able to recognize the racist dogwhistles that cross the transom of SoylentNews on occasion.
Of course Egyptians were not Africans, since they must have been white to actually do things like Pyramids and Geometry and inventing Beer. Or, perhaps the precious whiteness of the Teutons is missplaced, that this is why we cannot have white supremecy, because the Germans, as a race, are too stupid to ever be superior. Well, it is that or: "Identity Christians"! Another great product of inferior Teutonic minds, though mostly American Christians in Prisons. Jews are vastly smarter than whites, which should not be the case. But even worse, as a young child said to me when I happened to mention that Jesus was a Jew, "Mommy, is that true? Jesus was a Jew?" Oh the irony, the superior race has to follow a God incarnate that was the member of the inferior race! Solution? Jews of today are not the real Jews, but are Palestinian Arabs pretending to be Jews, and the real Jews were Aryans, and thus we have "white Jesus". Do we see how far SoylentNews has sunk up the anus or white supremacists by even posting this not-so-Fine Article? Be more careful in the future, or the real Jewish God may have to just smite your asses a bit more, and the donkeys have done nothing to deserve the punishment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @08:59AM
... science is now neo-nazi? stop drinking the libtard koolaid my man, because you come off as straight up braindamaged.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:04AM
I would encourage you to try to gain some degree of introspection if you think science proving an unsupported presumption as false can ever be racist. Ignorance is not bliss.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:14AM
You have to be ware that attitudes like the one that you're demonstrating is precisely how societies regress. The Arab world was once a center of education and learning. Now you'd struggle to find any redeeming quality to the region. The main thing that happened was religion. If certain facts or discoveries are found to run contrary to the ideals of a religion, zealots will toss the science aside in favor of their ideology. But this does not apply just to religion, but to any belief or ideology that's supports itself based on itself. If that's not clear, I mean to say that there is really nothing you could ever do to 'prove' a true believer wrong. Their belief is not based on evidence or facts, but on a blind and purely faithful interpretation of their ideology as absolutely correct. Like you might declare facts as racist, a zealot might declare them to be heretical. Different words, but the effect is the same - dismiss things that do not fit the ideology.
Our views should be shaped by facts instead of seeking to shape facts to fit our views.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:21AM
I was never in to that stuff, but if the alternative is to resist science when it breaks the liberal narrative... fuck it, sign me up for the KKK. I like science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:54AM
posting from prison [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by inertnet on Saturday July 01 2017, @11:38AM
No, the irony is that you complain about people that rewrite history to their liking, while complaining about a piece of history that you don't like.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday July 01 2017, @12:22PM (13 children)
I have several reactions to this. First, yes, as written, this comment is trollish.
On the other hand, Aristarchus brings up an important point -- the race of the Ancient Egyptians has been a subject of a long-standing controversy [wikipedia.org] which frequently has had racist overtones.
Back on the other hand, though, that doesn't mean ANY genetic study of Egyptians is necessarily "Neo-Nazi science." This is a reputable study published in Nature.
On the other hand, the wording of this story as posted here is different from the Nature article. The title of TFA is: "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods"
Note: "sub-Saharan African ancestry," NOT "African ancestry." The title of the submission here is somewhat odd. The Ancient Egyptians lived in Africa for thousands of years. Claiming that they are "not African" is really weird and frankly DOES play into the old racist tropes of the controversy regarding the Ancient Egyptians. There is also nothing in the Science article claiming the Egyptians were "not African" -- merely that they genetically shared more with Middle Eastern populations in ancient times and gradually have mixed more with sub-Saharan genes (i.e., often implies "Black").
But there's nothing unusual about any of this. It's been well-known for many years that there were lighter and darker skinned people living around ancient Egypt, which we know from actual historical portraits, including somewhat realistic ones from the Roman period. It seems that it's our MODERN obsession with racial categories that leads to such controversies -- the ancient Egyptians themselves seem less obsessed with reporting the details of skin color at every turn. (That doesn't mean it wasn't ever mentioned, but it's mentioned so infrequently as to lead to the controversy mentioned above due to lack of clear evidence.)
So, Aristarchus is being a bit over-the-top (as usual). But there's a legitimate point here. Why entitle this "Ancient Egyptians not African" when that's not what TFA says? Really, what this title is trying to say is "Ancient Egyptians not Black" -- they were undoubtedly African. But of course racial categories from modern genetic studies have shown to be more fluid than our historical views of race, so even that "Black" headline is inaccurate. Hence the actual Nature article's discussion of "sub-Saharan" populations instead of coding it in the language of race.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 01 2017, @12:56PM (3 children)
Not fluid enough to invalidate the old divisions. For example, one can distinguish between normal Irish and "Irish travellers" on a genetic basis (the latter used to be a gypsy-like ethnic group).
The use of "African" comes directly from the researchers:
My view is that genetics does serve to unite and divide us. We all have enormous things in common, but the obsession over visible and cultural differences which in turn correlate with genetic differences indicates to me that there was/are evolutionary forces at play to enforce such behaviors.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:37PM (2 children)
It depends on what your rational for "division" is. Yes, there are genetic markers that can mostly differentiate races according to skin color. But in general there's a lot more genetic diversity intrarace than there is interrace. One could also identify genetic markers that "divide" people according to hair color or eye color or whatever. But are such divisions the best way of categorizing humans into historical or geographically-based groups?
True, though I just did a text search for "African" in TFA, though in many (if not most) cases it is qualified by terms like "sub-Sarahan" or other regional qualifiers. It seems the adjective "African" then gets used later in the article as a shortcut, since the researchers are mostly contrasting sub-Saharan African genes with Middle Eastern sources.
Regardless, the research STILL doesn't claim the "Ancient Egyptians were not African." I didn't read through all of this (and don't have the background in geographical historical genetics to get all the details), but the gist seems to be that ancient Egyptians had a mixture of genes, but were closer related to Middle Eastern genetic groups than sub-Saharan ones. The mixture grew to include more sub-Saharan genes over the past 2000 years or so. North Africa in general has been populated by such mixed groups for millennia. Saying they aren't "African" is just weird unless you're trying to make some sort of racial point. Saying that TFA suggests Ancient Egyptians may have had a stronger ancestry from migrations from the Middle East or whatever is more accurate.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday July 01 2017, @03:18PM
During the Egyptian era Nubian (south of Egypt) women were considered exceptionally beautiful, I believe some made it to queen or female Pharaoh. So there was mixing going on already more than 2000 years ago.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Saturday July 01 2017, @07:30PM
To answer your question, racism divisions don't have to be the best way, they merely needs to be effective enough to distinguish ethnicity or culture. Now, let's consider your middle portion:
My view is that there probably has been heavy selection for people who look a certain way, say the local standard of beauty for that culture. But genes affect a lot more than just exterior appearance. We wouldn't expect genes for internal body organs or the immune system to be similarly affected by bias towards certain appearances. This will result in heavy selection for genes that affect exterior appearance while only affecting indirectly genes that don't (for example, if the gene happens to be riding on a chromosome with appearance relevant genes, or is dependent on a common protein).
So you can end up with the situation that sure, there is more intrarace genetic diversity, but that diversity goes way down once it gets to appearance-affecting gene combinations. It's not just skin, eye, and hair genes. Genes also have subtle effects on height, build, and other exterior morphological characteristics (even if we looked at photos that are altered to be, say gray-scale with all skin, eye, and hair tones the same color, we'd still be able to strongly guess at the heritage of the person. I suspect in some cases to find out that it has an effect on personality and intellect as well.
Something is going on here because we do see cultures of people with inheritable common appearance and physical characteristics. And these cultures tend to be surprisingly durable.
Or echoing the same verbal short cut that the researchers made. For what it's worth, my assumptions of what "Africa" meant were accurate, but it's reasonable to expect that not everyone reading the SN summary would understand the distinctions made.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 01 2017, @01:39PM (7 children)
" Why entitle this "Ancient Egyptians not African""
Actually, I thought this was going to turn into a 'Chariots of the Gods' story. The Egyptians are truly alien, and they only came to earth a few thousand years ago. Nope, not African, but ill-freakin-legal aliens.
Alas, my suspicions haven't been proven by this article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @08:30PM (6 children)
This surprises no one, I am sure, Runaway. Isn't that on right after "Fox and Friends"? Truly astounding are the things that Runaway thinks! Astounding!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 02 2017, @12:05AM (5 children)
Don't strain your little brain. Just sit in the corner and drool on yourself, like you usually do. And, no, you can't have a copy of the book - you'll just drool on it, then anyone who touches it will be infected with your brain eating bacteria.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @02:02AM (4 children)
Runaway! Say it ain't so! You are a germophobe as well as an islamophobe? Is there nothing you are not afraid of?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 02 2017, @02:34AM (3 children)
Not afraid of poking AC with a few barbs here and there. And, you always come back for more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @12:37PM (2 children)
OK, Runaway smartypants, tell us again why Egyptians are not Africans. Why is this important? Surely there is some monument to knockover or club to shoot up, there in the Great State of Arkansas (which is not American, by the way).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 02 2017, @02:18PM (1 child)
I was making a JOKE, you dummy. The Chariots of the Gods. Have you ever read it? Have you ever read any related material? It's kinda like a big conspiracy theory thing, but even bigger than that infamous 'vast right wing conspiracy'. You may wish to google for it. Here, let me help - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chariots+of+the+gods [lmgtfy.com]
Now, I'm not making any claims that the joke was good, or mediocre, or anywhere in between. Don't like the joke? Tell me the joke sucks. That's cool. Just get that big goddamned stick our of your ass, and stop acting stupid. Joke, dumbass - get it? Or do I really need to explain all this shit for you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @10:30PM
It does seem like you cannot stop. Please stop, Runaway! Do not respond to this comment, please? I know it seems like the entire world waits in suspense until you have had your say, but for once, forebear, Runaway! Forebear!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @04:56PM
When black racists (what? that's impossible! string him up!) try to claim that Egyptians were Sub-Saharan African because "we waz kings and queens and shit", you should expect an equal but opposite reaction of "you were all monkeys eating ants with sticks". The truth may be more complicated that that.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 01 2017, @01:34PM
What a bitter little man you are. You're not really Greek, are you? And, you're not really geek, either. You do seem to hate white people though.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:02PM
It can (or will) totally be a dog whistle, or just an easy way to spot the morons (or, since this is the Internet, shitposters). But they'll just make stuff up anyway. Trying to avoid that is like trying to avoid any news that might look like a gov't conspiracy.
It's once of the best ways we've got for backing into historical migration/culture flow though. Knowing when trans-sahara trade strengthened enough to show in the genetic record is a useful historical puzzle piece.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:08PM (1 child)
Haha, I'd forgotten that the Christian Identity movement not only believes that whites are some lost tribe of Israel and thus god's Chosen People, but that modern Jews are somehow ethnically different from ancient Jews.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 02 2017, @03:03AM
"Sephardim? I barely even KNOW 'im!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:56PM (3 children)
There is actually a long-term, someone nasty debate over the race of the ancient Egyptians. Were they black people? Now we know: Definitely not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 02 2017, @02:11AM (2 children)
Kind of my point. The "someone nasty" were Nazis, and Neo's are carrying the same torch of racist science. Nazi Germany funded lots of research to "prove" the superiority of the Aryan race, but if you know what you are looking for before you start, you are trying to bolster ideology, not engaging in actual science. Not saying this is what the authors of this were doing, but as we have seen here, it certainly can be interpreted that way. That was my only point.
[And did you know the pyramid builders in America were actually white people, too? It's all right there in the Book of Morons. Lost tribe of Israel, actually, but more or less white. Native Americans descended from them, by falling away from God, who then turned them, um, somewhat darker skinned. Just explains sooo much, when you are a racist!]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @04:28AM (1 child)
As you say, "if you know what you are looking for before you start, you are trying to bolster ideology, not engaging in actual science", but that applies equally well to modern leftist anti-white sentiment.
If you decide before you start that you will reject scientific results that happen to show white superiority, then you also aren't doing science. If you refuse to fund a study that might show such results, then you aren't even pretending to be doing science.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 02 2017, @04:35AM
OMG! It's White Science Genocide! Told ya! No, we don't fund these kinds of studies the same reason we do not invest in Peter Thiel ventures: they are not interesting questions, and even where they might be, the glombing on to them be racists destroys all scientific value. I would much rather fund studies that show that white supremacists, on average, are less literate, less intelligent, and more prone the domestic violence and criminal behavior, than a study like this! Well, actually not, we already have the facts on that question.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday July 01 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
I fucking love Poe Slaw.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @04:37AM
And Slavic Poetry! It's counter Teutonic!