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: 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.