Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA From Ancient Egyptian Mummies Reveals Their Ancestry (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the blast-from-the-past dept.

HanzoSpam quotes a report from Washington Post: Ancient Egyptians were an archaeologist's dream. They left behind intricate coffins, massive pyramids and gorgeous hieroglyphs, the pictorial writing code cracked in 1799. But there was one persistent hole in ancient Egyptian identity: their chromosomes. A study led by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Tubingen in Germany managed to plug some of those genetic gaps. Researchers wrung genetic material from 151 Egyptian mummies, radiocarbon dated between Egypt's New Kingdom (the oldest at 1388 B.C.) to the Roman Period (the youngest at 426 A.D.), as reported Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that "for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity." Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians -- the list goes on -- ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. "The other big surprise," Krause said, "was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry."

40 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Re:There was one major surprise found by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Unknown

    Goa'uld

    Pick one. ;)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  2. "we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Ancient Egyptians were always known to be Caucasian. Anyone saying anything else was engaging in bullshit and/or wishful thinking.

  3. This is going to a upend a lot of fiction. by Holammer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But the memes will live on.

    1. Re:This is going to a upend a lot of fiction. by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, poor black people trying to claim they were Egyptians.

      Why is it so bad to be whom they actually are?

    2. Re:This is going to a upend a lot of fiction. by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it so bad to be whom they actually are?

      Ethiopia and the other old African civilizations don't have the same level of public recognition that Egypt does.

      I'm not even sure what the other old African civilizations are, before I did a quick recheck to see what Ethiopia had been up to for the last 2000 years, all I could easily remember was that they were once respected trade partners with Egypt and Rome.

      Well, all the classic ones were North African and thus more mediterrainian or near east than sub-saharan black.

      Of the great black kingdoms, I can think of Mali and Songhai in West Africa (I think there was a couple more, these were the great black kingdoms capturing all the slaves Europeans bought and took to the new world). In the east there was Ethiopia and the rich merchant city of Zanzibar, and a large continous culture of Swahili speakers in between, though I don't think those were united.

    3. Re:This is going to a upend a lot of fiction. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Louis Farrakhan will be devastated. Or probably just reject it out of hand.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:This is going to a upend a lot of fiction. by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      What were they? Outside of Mansa Musi and the Kingdom of Mali (which engaged in the slave trade with Muslims as he was one himself), what do the remainder of Africa have to show for themselves? Nothing other than what they have now. Honestly without european technology the continent would still be how it was more millenia. Bereft of technology.

      So of course they want to be linked with egypt.

  4. Caste System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"

    However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

    1. Re:Caste System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      So the Pharaohs had black maids and yard workers. I guess not much has changed over the centuries.

    2. Re:Caste System by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      If you read the wikipedia entry on, say, Tutankhamun, it seems that there is a lot of evidence that the ruling class of ancient Egypt had a lot of inbreeding (the congenital issues of which quite possibly helped lead to Tutankhamun's early demise), with siblings and cousins often marrying. And remember, most Egyptian mummies are the wealthier members of society: wikipedia again states there are 3 documented methods of Egyptian mummification that is assumed to be based on price, the cheapest of which would be affordable by their equivalent of the middle class. So, in all likelihood most of the mummies that we find would be of the upper strata (or at least the upper half) of society and, as we all know, it is basically human nature that societal or class groups tend to try to keep themselves "pure". So they would probably be fairly homogenous. I am sure there were plenty of sub-Saharan and others in Egyptian society, but they were most likely slaves, laborers, or other members of the lower class that couldn't afford mummification.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Caste System by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      "What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds?"

      Actually, from what I remember of Egyptian marriages, they mostly married with people from noble families inside Egypt, their cousins and things like that. It would be more similar to the Japanese imperial court marriage system than anything else really.

    4. Re:Caste System by clovis · · Score: 1

      The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"

      However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      There were no mummies of pharaohs or royalty in this study.
      Mummification wasn't limited to royalty, and that should be obvious from the fact that over a million mummies have been found and it is estimated that the total number of mummies in Egypt is several tens of millions

      From the study:

      On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community (Fig. 1), 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 (cal. 1388BCE–426CE

      Although we only analysed mummified remains, there is little reason to believe that the burials Rubensohn excavated belonged exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants on the basis of the far published references to excavation diaries and Rubensohn’s preliminary reports that permit a basic reconstruction. Rather it seems arguable that the complete spectrum of society is represented, ranging from Late Period priests’ burials that stand out by virtue of their size and contents to simple inhumations that are buried with little to no grave goods2. The widespread mummification treatments in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods in particular, leading to a decline in standards and costs48 and the generally modest appearance of many burials further supports this assessment.

  5. A written history of inbreeding. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am not too surprised. As the Ancient Egyptians had a culture of inbreeding royalty(who would more likely be mummified) Outside of genetic test, there were many deformities from elongated heads and clubbed feet, that often happen from this. So I wouldn't be too surprised to see a lack of genetic diversity, in those who were mummified. I would be far more interested in the genetics of the average person vs. a dynastic rulers.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      The average people are probably about what they are today. Conquering foreign nations and rules come and go, but the common people tend to remain fairly fixed. There might be some influxes of other groups from time to time across history, but not on a massive population level where it's going to radically change the genetics of such a large ethnic group. It was just too prohibitively expensive to move large groups of people around and to do so in a timely fashion. Moses allegedly led the Jews out of Egypt and spent 40 years just getting to Israel. So unless your nomadic tribe outright kills a bunch of the other people living in the area and replaces them, there isn't going to be much of a change.

    2. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      The direct genetic chain was broken at least once; Ramesses I (approx 1292 BC) was of non-royal birth.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never happened.

      Also, would have been pretty amazing if the US Army had come to comprehend and weaponize germ theory decades before it was developed and accepted.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Outstanding link! thx

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never happened.

      Hard as it is to prove a negative, it is easy to show a positive. Because the distribution smallpox blankets as a means of infection? Actually happened.

      Even your own source mentioned it.

      Not sure why you limited yourself to the US Army. I could say the Swiss Army never committed a massacre in Nanking, but what would that prove?

      Also, would have been pretty amazing if the US Army had come to comprehend and weaponize germ theory decades before it was developed and accepted.

      Why? It is known that the practice of biological warfare predates the discovery of the Americas. In fact, the British Army expressly discussed it. So you're saying the US Army would be amazing because they knew what their predecessors knew?

      Am I amazing because I could read a book too? Or because my grandmother could teach me how to suck eggs?

      Now certainly you wouldn't say their knowledge was complete, but you don't need to understand the mechanisms of salicylic acid in order to drink willowbark tea.

    6. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The direct genetic chain was broken at least once; Ramesses I (approx 1292 BC) was of non-royal birth.

      At various times they had dynasties from Lybia and Nubia. Also, I think the Hyksos were from somewhere east of the delta.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:A written history of inbreeding. by clovis · · Score: 1

      Again, over a million mummies have been found in Egypt, and it's estimated that several tens of millions exist.
      So yes, it's more likely that royalty would be mummified than the average person, but the average mummy is an average person.

  6. Representative sample? by ardmhacha · · Score: 2

    I suspect that those Egyptians who were mummified and placed in pyramids or other expensive tombs would come from a very narrow sliver of Egyptian society.

    1. Re:Representative sample? by Megol · · Score: 1

      They were. Ordinary people was dumped into holes in the desert sand. One had to be very rich to be prepared for death (learning how to "survive" the kingdom of death), even richer to be mummified (it was a complicated long process needing expensive labor and substances) and incredibly rich to get some kind of structure around the mummified corpse.

    2. Re:Representative sample? by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the primary resident of each given tomb, certainly, but beside various treasures, there's also a lot of evidence that many pharoahs were accompanied to the afterlife with mumified servants and livestock (there are *many* examples of mummified cats in particular). As long as you are able to take DNA samples from a decent cross section of the available mummies in a given tomb, then you're going likely to get a much more representative sample of the population of a whole than just the Ancient Egyptian equivalent of the 1%. While that's not going to be a perfect cross section of the society, it should at least include a decent number of representatives from both the indigneous and immigrant labour pools.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Representative sample? by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      They were on top of the social pyramid.

  7. What I really want to know is.... by taintedhobbit · · Score: 1

    Did they find any trace of Goa'uld?

    1. Re:What I really want to know is.... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      No, but they did find this big round thing buried nearby. It's covered in cartouches no one can read.

  8. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does the Sphinx have an African face?

    Because you want it to be African.

    That doesn't make Egyptian Pharaohs anything but Caucasian.

  9. Re:Ouch for the by PPH · · Score: 1

    The people that were put on slave ships were of sub Saharan descent. The people that did the putting (selling) were largely from North Africa.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity." Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians -- the list goes on -- ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. "The other big surprise," Krause said, "was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry."

    Hmm...with no diversity, I guess by todays SJW standards, they'd be branded a racist, xenophobic, close minded civilization.....

    How dare they...!! No civilization can accomplish much with this type of closed minded thinking, I mean look at how little the Egyptians accomplish......ed.

    Errr.....ok, wait a minute.

    Ok, I guess they somehow overcame this....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  11. DNA studies confirm by tommeke100 · · Score: 3, Informative

    the mummies are dead.

    1. Re:DNA studies confirm by Dareth · · Score: 1

      But what about their telomere length of their DNA?

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  12. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Sphinx is a ruin with bits and pieces fallen off. If you look at a reconstruction or other sphinxes, they look typically Egyptian, not sub-Saharan.

  13. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by sheramil · · Score: 1

    Why does the Sphinx have an African face?

    It just looks that way, after a Sufi named Muhammad Sa'im al-Dahr chiseled the nose off in 1378.

  14. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, the earliest mummy they dated is from 1388 B.C., the Egyptian civilization dates from 3150 B.C. That is still 1700 years not yet covered. And there could be differences between the high classes and the common people.

    As for "always known", it is actually difficult to know and "common knowledge" is often wrong.

  15. Re:"we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancest by ausekilis · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the Egyptian caste system. More in-breeding within the ranks than fraternizing with the peasants.

  16. Re: "we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ances by will_die · · Score: 2

    TIL that Alexander the Great had cannons. ;)
    The story is with Napoleon, however there are drawings of the great sphinx that predate napoleon by years that are missing the nose.

  17. Re: "we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ances by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Agreed, I always just thought of Egyptians as "Mediterranean". Neither African, really (well, technically, they are), but certainly not Caucasian in the traditional sense.
    Fun(?) anecdote: Ages ago when I was a teenager, I used to work at a local dept store with an exchange student from Egypt. His name was Kamil, but I called him "Camel" now and then just to bust his stones for a laugh. He usually laughed it off but sometime he'd get upset...but he was a good sport and a good guy, so I stopped. I don't think anyone would've confused him for a black guy though. Mulatto, quite possibly, however. Now that I'm older, I wish I had asked him more questions about his country and culture.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  18. Re:Ouch for the by IMightB · · Score: 1

    You mean like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Jew loving South?

  19. Not surprising at all by jgfenix · · Score: 1

    There are a ton of archeological evidence. Well, this will change nothing. The defenders of the "black Egypt theory" had mostly questionable arguments.

  20. Re: "we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ances by butchersong · · Score: 1

    Well king tut (1341 bce) was I believe of the R1b1a2 haplogroup. The most common western european haplogroup.