← Previous revision | Revision as of 21:03, 8 May 2024 |
| Line 15: | Line 15: |
| ===2017 DNA study of Mummies at Abusir el-Meleq=== | ===2017 DNA study of Mummies at Abusir el-Meleq=== |
| A study published in 2017 by Schuenemann et al. extracted DNA from 151 Egyptian mummies, whose remains were recovered from Abusir el-Meleq in Middle Egypt. The samples are from the time periods: Late [[New Kingdom of Egypt|New Kingdom]], Ptolemaic, and [[Egypt (Roman province)|Roman]]. Complete [[Mitochondrial DNA|mtDNA]] sequences from 90 samples as well as [[genome]]-wide data from three ancient Egyptian individuals were successfully obtained and were compared with other ancient and modern datasets. The study used 135 modern Egyptian samples. The ancient Egyptian individuals in their own dataset possessed highly similar mtDNA haplogroup profiles, and cluster together, supporting genetic continuity across the 1,300-year transect. Modern Egyptians shared this mtDNA haplogroup profile, but also carried 8% more African component. A wide range of mtDNA haplogroups were found including clades of J, U, H, HV, M, R0, R2, K, T, L, I, N, X and W. In addition three ancient Egyptian individuals were analysed for [[Y-DNA]], two were assigned to [[Middle East]]ern haplogroup [[Haplogroup J (Y-DNA)|J]] and one to haplogroup [[Haplogroup E (Y-DNA)|E1b1b1a1b2]]. Both of these haplogroups are carried by modern Egyptians, and also common among [[Afroasiatic languages|Afroasiatic speakers]] in Northern Africa, Eastern Africa and the Middle East. The researchers cautioned that the examined ancient Egyptian specimens may not be representative of those of all ancient Egyptians since they were from a single archaeological site from the northern part of Egypt.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The analyses revealed that Ancient Egyptians had higher affinities with Near Eastern and European populations than do modern Egyptians, likely due to the 8% increase in the African component found in modern Egyptians.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> However, comparative data from a contemporary population under [[Classical Anatolia#Roman period|Roman rule in Anatolia]], did not reveal a closer relationship to the ancient Egyptians from the Roman period.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> "Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out despite this more recent sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians is not supported".<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> | A study published in 2017 by Schuenemann et al. extracted DNA from 151 Egyptian mummies, whose remains were recovered from Abusir el-Meleq in Middle Egypt. The samples are from the time periods: Late [[New Kingdom of Egypt|New Kingdom]], Ptolemaic, and [[Egypt (Roman province)|Roman]]. Complete [[Mitochondrial DNA|mtDNA]] sequences from 90 samples as well as [[genome]]-wide data from three ancient Egyptian individuals were successfully obtained and were compared with other ancient and modern datasets. The study used 135 modern Egyptian samples. The ancient Egyptian individuals in their own dataset possessed highly similar mtDNA haplogroup profiles, and cluster together, supporting genetic continuity across the 1,300-year transect. Modern Egyptians shared this mtDNA haplogroup profile, but also carried 8% more African component. A wide range of mtDNA haplogroups were found including clades of J, U, H, HV, M, R0, R2, K, T, L, I, N, X and W. In addition three ancient Egyptian individuals were analysed for [[Y-DNA]], two were assigned to [[Middle East]]ern haplogroup [[Haplogroup J (Y-DNA)|J]] and one to haplogroup [[Haplogroup E (Y-DNA)|E1b1b1a1b2]]. Both of these haplogroups are carried by modern Egyptians, and also common among [[Afroasiatic languages|Afroasiatic speakers]] in Northern Africa, Eastern Africa and the Middle East. The researchers cautioned that the examined ancient Egyptian specimens may not be representative of those of all ancient Egyptians since they were from a single archaeological site from the northern part of Egypt.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The analyses revealed that Ancient Egyptians had higher affinities with Near Eastern and European populations than modern Egyptians do, likely due to the 8% increase in the African component found in modern Egyptians.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> However, comparative data from a contemporary population under [[Classical Anatolia#Roman period|Roman rule in Anatolia]], did not reveal a closer relationship to the ancient Egyptians from the Roman period.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> "Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out despite this more recent sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians is not supported".<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> |
| The absolute estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry in these three ancient Egyptian individuals ranged from 6 to 15%, and the absolute estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 135 modern Egyptian samples ranged from 14 to 21%, which show an 8% increase in African component. The age of the ancient Egyptian samples suggests that this 8% increase in African component occurred predominantly within the last 2000 years.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The 135 modern Egyptian samples were: 100 from modern Egyptians taken from a study by Pagani et al., and 35 from el-Hayez Western Desert Oasis taken from a study by Kujanova et al.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The 35 samples from el-Hayez Western Desert Oasis, whose population is described by the Kujanova et al. study as a mixed, relatively isolated, demographically small but autochthonous population, were already known from that study to have a relatively high sub-Saharan African component,<ref name="Near eastern neolithic genetic inpu">{{cite journal | vauthors = Kujanová M, Pereira L, Fernandes V, Pereira JB, Cerný V | title = Near eastern neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert | journal = American Journal of Physical Anthropology | volume = 140 | issue = 2 | pages = 336–46 | date = October 2009 | pmid = 19425100 | doi = 10.1002/ajpa.21078 }}</ref> which is more than 11% higher than the African component in the 100 modern Egyptian samples.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pagani |first1=Luca |last2=Schiffels |first2=Stephan |last3=Gurdasani |first3=Deepti |last4=Danecek |first4=Petr |last5=Scally |first5=Aylwyn |last6=Chen |first6=Yuan |last7=Xue |first7=Yali |last8=Haber |first8=Marc |last9=Ekong |first9=Rosemary |last10=Oljira |first10=Tamiru |last11=Mekonnen |first11=Ephrem |date=2015-06-04 |title=Tracing the route of modern humans out of Africa by using 225 human genome sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians |journal=American Journal of Human Genetics |volume=96 |issue=6 |pages=986–991 |doi=10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.04.019 |issn=1537-6605 |pmc=4457944 |pmid=26027499}}</ref> | The absolute estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry in these three ancient Egyptian individuals ranged from 6 to 15%, and the absolute estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 135 modern Egyptian samples ranged from 14 to 21%, which show an 8% increase in African component. The age of the ancient Egyptian samples suggests that this 8% increase in African component occurred predominantly within the last 2000 years.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The 135 modern Egyptian samples were: 100 from modern Egyptians taken from a study by Pagani et al., and 35 from el-Hayez Western Desert Oasis taken from a study by Kujanova et al.<ref name="Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes sugg">{{cite journal |last1=Schuenemann |first1=Verena |last2=Krause |first2=Johannes |display-authors=etal|title=Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=15694 |doi=10.1038/ncomms15694 |pmc=5459999 |pmid=28556824 |bibcode=2017NatCo...815694S}}</ref> The 35 samples from el-Hayez Western Desert Oasis, whose population is described by the Kujanova et al. study as a mixed, relatively isolated, demographically small but autochthonous population, were already known from that study to have a relatively high sub-Saharan African component,<ref name="Near eastern neolithic genetic inpu">{{cite journal | vauthors = Kujanová M, Pereira L, Fernandes V, Pereira JB, Cerný V | title = Near eastern neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert | journal = American Journal of Physical Anthropology | volume = 140 | issue = 2 | pages = 336–46 | date = October 2009 | pmid = 19425100 | doi = 10.1002/ajpa.21078 }}</ref> which is more than 11% higher than the African component in the 100 modern Egyptian samples.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pagani |first1=Luca |last2=Schiffels |first2=Stephan |last3=Gurdasani |first3=Deepti |last4=Danecek |first4=Petr |last5=Scally |first5=Aylwyn |last6=Chen |first6=Yuan |last7=Xue |first7=Yali |last8=Haber |first8=Marc |last9=Ekong |first9=Rosemary |last10=Oljira |first10=Tamiru |last11=Mekonnen |first11=Ephrem |date=2015-06-04 |title=Tracing the route of modern humans out of Africa by using 225 human genome sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians |journal=American Journal of Human Genetics |volume=96 |issue=6 |pages=986–991 |doi=10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.04.019 |issn=1537-6605 |pmc=4457944 |pmid=26027499}}</ref> |
| Line 27: | Line 27: |
| The 2017 study has generated academic responses from scholars from other related disciplines, remarking on the conclusions of the study from a [[interdisciplinarity|multi-disciplinary]] approach. | The 2017 study has generated academic responses from scholars from other related disciplines, remarking on the conclusions of the study from a [[interdisciplinarity|multi-disciplinary]] approach. |
| In 2021, Gourdine et al disputed Scheunemann et al's claim, in an unpublished article, that the increase in the sub-Saharan component in the modern Egyptian samples resulted from the trans-Saharan slave trade. Instead they argued that the sub-Saharan "genetic affinities" may be attributed to "early settlers" and "the relevant sub-Saharan genetic markers" do not correspond with the geography of known trade routes".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Eltis |first1=David |last2=Bradley |first2=Keith R. |last3=Perry |first3=Craig |last4=Engerman |first4=Stanley L. |last5=Cartledge |first5=Paul |last6=Richardson |first6=David |title=The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 2, AD 500-AD 1420 |date=12 August 2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-84067-5 |page=150 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DskwEAAAQBAJ&dq=gourdine+critique+their+methods&pg=PA150 |language=en}}</ref> | In 2021, Gourdine et al disputed Scheunemann et al's claim, in an unpublished article, that the increase in the sub-Saharan component in the modern Egyptian samples resulted from the trans-Saharan slave trade. Instead they argued that the sub-Saharan "genetic affinities" may be attributed to "early settlers" and "the relevant sub-Saharan genetic markers do not correspond with the geography of known trade routes".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Eltis |first1=David |last2=Bradley |first2=Keith R. |last3=Perry |first3=Craig |last4=Engerman |first4=Stanley L. |last5=Cartledge |first5=Paul |last6=Richardson |first6=David |title=The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 2, AD 500-AD 1420 |date=12 August 2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-84067-5 |page=150 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DskwEAAAQBAJ&dq=gourdine+critique+their+methods&pg=PA150 |language=en}}</ref> |
| In 2022, biological anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita argued that there were problems with the study's approaches and conclusions such as over-generalizations and a failure to consider alternative explanations. Particularly, he raised issues with the comparative samples from West Africa as a proxy group and generalisations about geographical Egypt and population origins from the sample results. He also drew attention to the fact that the authors draw inference on migrations in line with their [[Bayesian inference|Bayesian]] statistical approach rather than integrate other data into their explanations about the population history.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Keita Shomarka.|title="Ancient Egyptian "Origins and "Identity" In Ancient Egyptian society : challenging assumptions, exploring approaches |date=2022 |location=Abingdon, Oxon |isbn=978-0367434632 |pages=111–122}}</ref> | In 2022, biological anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita argued that there were problems with the study's approaches and conclusions such as over-generalizations and a failure to consider alternative explanations. Particularly, he raised issues with the comparative samples from West Africa as a proxy group and generalisations about geographical Egypt and population origins from the sample results. He also drew attention to the fact that the authors draw inference on migrations in line with their [[Bayesian inference|Bayesian]] statistical approach rather than integrate other data into their explanations about the population history.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Keita Shomarka.|title="Ancient Egyptian "Origins and "Identity" In Ancient Egyptian society : challenging assumptions, exploring approaches |date=2022 |location=Abingdon, Oxon |isbn=978-0367434632 |pages=111–122}}</ref> |
| Line 73: | Line 73: |
| In a comment on Hawas et al. (2010<ref name="Hawas2010">{{cite journal |url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393 |journal=JAMA |volume=303 |issue=7 |date=2010 |title=Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun's family |last1=Hawass |first1=Zahi |pages=638–647 |doi=10.1001/jama.2010.121 |pmid=20159872 |access-date=21 March 2023 |archive-date=14 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200414083346/https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393 |url-status=live }}</ref>& 2012<ref name="Hawass, Zahi 2012 e8268"/>), the anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita pointed out, based on inserting the data into the PopAffiliator online calculator, which only calculates affinity to East Asia, Eurasia, and sub-Saharan Africa, but not to North Africa or the Near East, for instance,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pereira |first1=Luísa |last2=Alshamali |first2=Farida |last3=Andreassen |first3=Rune |last4=Ballard |first4=Ruth |last5=Chantratita |first5=Wasun |last6=Cho |first6=Nam Soo |last7=Coudray |first7=Clotilde |last8=Dugoujon |first8=Jean-Michel |last9=Espinoza |first9=Marta |last10=González-Andrade |first10=Fabricio |last11=Hadi |first11=Sibte |last12=Immel |first12=Uta-Dorothee |last13=Marian |first13=Catalin |last14=Gonzalez-Martin |first14=Antonio |last15=Mertens |first15=Gerhard |date=2011-09-01 |title=PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype profile |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 |journal=International Journal of Legal Medicine |language=en |volume=125 |issue=5 |pages=629–636 |doi=10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 |pmid=20552217 |hdl=10642/472 |s2cid=11740334 |issn=1437-1596|hdl-access=free }}</ref> that Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed "an affinity with sub-Saharan Africans in one affinity analysis, which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations — an important point that typological thinking obscures. Also, different data and algorithms might give different results, which would illustrate the complexity of biological heritage and its interpretation."<ref name="Keita Ideas about Race">"Analysis of the short tandem repeat (STR) data published on Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed a majority to have an affinity with | In a comment on Hawas et al. (2010<ref name="Hawas2010">{{cite journal |url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393 |journal=JAMA |volume=303 |issue=7 |date=2010 |title=Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun's family |last1=Hawass |first1=Zahi |pages=638–647 |doi=10.1001/jama.2010.121 |pmid=20159872 |access-date=21 March 2023 |archive-date=14 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200414083346/https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393 |url-status=live }}</ref>& 2012<ref name="Hawass, Zahi 2012 e8268"/>), the anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita pointed out, based on inserting the data into the PopAffiliator online calculator, which only calculates affinity to East Asia, Eurasia, and sub-Saharan Africa, but not to North Africa or the Near East, for instance,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pereira |first1=Luísa |last2=Alshamali |first2=Farida |last3=Andreassen |first3=Rune |last4=Ballard |first4=Ruth |last5=Chantratita |first5=Wasun |last6=Cho |first6=Nam Soo |last7=Coudray |first7=Clotilde |last8=Dugoujon |first8=Jean-Michel |last9=Espinoza |first9=Marta |last10=González-Andrade |first10=Fabricio |last11=Hadi |first11=Sibte |last12=Immel |first12=Uta-Dorothee |last13=Marian |first13=Catalin |last14=Gonzalez-Martin |first14=Antonio |last15=Mertens |first15=Gerhard |date=2011-09-01 |title=PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype profile |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 |journal=International Journal of Legal Medicine |language=en |volume=125 |issue=5 |pages=629–636 |doi=10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 |pmid=20552217 |hdl=10642/472 |s2cid=11740334 |issn=1437-1596|hdl-access=free }}</ref> that Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed "an affinity with sub-Saharan Africans in one affinity analysis, which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations — an important point that typological thinking obscures. Also, different data and algorithms might give different results, which would illustrate the complexity of biological heritage and its interpretation."<ref name="Keita Ideas about Race">"Analysis of the short tandem repeat (STR) data published on Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed a majority to have an affinity with |
| “sub-Saharan” Africans in one affinity analysis, which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations—an important point that typological thinking obscures".{{Cite web |last=Keita |first=S. O. Y. |title=Ideas about "Race" in Nile Valley Histories: A Consideration of "Racial" Paradigms in Recent Presentations on Nile Valley Africa, from "Black Pharaohs" to Mummy Genomest |url=https://egyptianexpedition.org/arti...ns-on-nile-valley-africa-from-black-pharaohs/ |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections |date=September 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref> | "sub-Saharan" Africans in one affinity analysis, which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations—an important point that typological thinking obscures".{{Cite web |last=Keita |first=S. O. Y. |title=Ideas about "Race" in Nile Valley Histories: A Consideration of "Racial" Paradigms in Recent Presentations on Nile Valley Africa, from "Black Pharaohs" to Mummy Genomest |url=https://egyptianexpedition.org/arti...ns-on-nile-valley-africa-from-black-pharaohs/ |access-date=2023-05-11 |website=Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections |date=September 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref> |
| ==Genetic studies on modern Egyptians== | ==Genetic studies on modern Egyptians== |
Okumaya devam et...