PDA

View Full Version : Egyptian Ancient Dna from the Old and Middle Kingdoms



T101
29-07-13, 15:32
*Caution* As reported by Beyoku at Forum Biodiversity in a soon to be published report.

Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BCE)

ySNP, mtDna

A-M13, L3f
A-M13, L0a1
B-M150, L3d
E-M2, L3e5
E-M2, L2a1
E-M123, L5a1
E-M35, R0a
E-M41, L2a1
E-M41, L1b1a
E-M75, M1
E-M78, L4b
J-M267,L3i
R-M173, L2
T-M184, L0a

Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BCE)

ySNP, mtDna

A-M13, L3x
E-M75, L2a1
E-M78, L3e5
E-M78, M1a
E-M96, L4a
E-V6, L3
B-M112, L0b

Maciamo
30-07-13, 17:51
If that is true that is great news as we finally have plenty of Y-DNA from ancient Egypt. There is a surprisingly high percentage of haplogroup A and B compared to modern Egyptians, and that practically all the maternal lineages are African.

Also unexpected to find a J1 sample so long before any invasion from the Arabian peninsula.

If all these samples were tested for deep subclade (a big 'if'), then the R1* sample is somewhat astonishing as I would have expected to find R1* in Central Asia, not in Africa. It doesn't mean much though since the Ice Age R1* were hunter-gatherers and could have travelled all the way from Central Asia to the Middle East, and perhaps only reached Egypt during the Neolithic.

Kardu
30-07-13, 20:59
Hope they will release Tutankhamen's results as well.
And I wonder whose dna is this? Rulers or common folk.

Maciamo
30-07-13, 22:15
Hope they will release Tutankhamen's results as well.


I have seen a documentary a few days ago in which they explained that they had tested the DNA of several mummies to verify Tutankhamun's family tree. They managed to identify his parents, grand-parents and paternal great-grand-parents. All of them had their DNA successfully tested. They didn't mention what was tested, but based on what they showed on the screen it looked like the typical autosomal STR used in forensics or paternity tests. They might have tested the Y-DNA and mtDNA too to verify the paternal and maternal lines. Unfortunately nothing more has been revealed to date.



And I wonder whose dna is this? Rulers or common folk.

Probably from mummies, so not common folk, but not necessarily rulers.

Goga
31-07-13, 00:59
If all these samples were tested for deep subclade (a big 'if'), then the R1* sample is somewhat astonishing as I would have expected to find R1* in Central Asia, not in Africa. It doesn't mean much though since the Ice Age R1* were hunter-gatherers and could have travelled all the way from Central Asia to the Middle East, and perhaps only reached Egypt during the Neolithic.Maybe R1b was in Europe much, much earlier that you think!

Nobody1
31-07-13, 07:20
Maybe R1b was in Europe much, much earlier that you think!

Dont get it;

1.) Its not R1b its R-M173 (which branches out into R1a & R1b)
2.) Its the Old Kingdom = 3rd milenium BC - that means contemporary with Corded Ware & Bell Beaker in Europe

There is R1b in Bell Beaker (Kromsdorf) and R1a in Corded Ware (Eulau)
- so its already in Europe during that time;

Maciamo
31-07-13, 09:41
Dont get it;

1.) Its not R1b its R-M173 (which branches out into R1a & R1b)
2.) Its the Old Kingdom = 3rd milenium BC - that means contemporary with Corded Ware & Bell Beaker in Europe

There is R1b in Bell Beaker (Kromsdorf) and R1a in Corded Ware (Eulau)
- so its already in Europe during that time;

Thanks for taking time to explain the obvious to Goga, because frankly I think I wouldn't have bothered with him anymore.

Goga
31-07-13, 15:11
Dont get it;

1.) Its not R1b its R-M173 (which branches out into R1a & R1b)
2.) Its the Old Kingdom = 3rd milenium BC - that means contemporary with Corded Ware & Bell Beaker in Europe

There is R1b in Bell Beaker (Kromsdorf) and R1a in Corded Ware (Eulau)
- so its already in Europe during that time;
Thanks. So, Bell Beaker folks were Indo-European (Centum or proto-Centum) speakers after all. What fascinates me is that there is no J2a & G2a in Egypt at that time!

Goga
31-07-13, 15:14
Thanks for taking time to explain the obvious to Goga, because frankly I think I wouldn't have bothered with him anymore.
I like you too, so no hard feelings. I just do my best to understand this and find out what exactly happened!

ebAmerican
31-07-13, 20:36
I have not seen any of the ancient Egyptian data for the R-M173 that is supposedly going to be released. This seems very familiar to old African R-M173* studies (prior to 2010) that were redefined to V88 in newer studies. I would guess that if it was tested for SNP V88 it would be positive and negative for any R1a SNPs. This would make a lot more sense than some R1 running around Africa 2500BC. Until the research paper containing the results is released it's all speculation.

Alan
25-09-15, 02:25
If that is true that is great news as we finally have plenty of Y-DNA from ancient Egypt. There is a surprisingly high percentage of haplogroup A and B compared to modern Egyptians, and that practically all the maternal lineages are African.

Also unexpected to find a J1 sample so long before any invasion from the Arabian peninsula.

If all these samples were tested for deep subclade (a big 'if'), then the R1* sample is somewhat astonishing as I would have expected to find R1* in Central Asia, not in Africa. It doesn't mean much though since the Ice Age R1* were hunter-gatherers and could have travelled all the way from Central Asia to the Middle East, and perhaps only reached Egypt during the Neolithic.

And again my comment on Eurogenes was proven. As I said by Neolithic already Haplogroups of R would have been widespred all around +Eurasia. How could even someone believe that such old Haplogroups like R could not reach other parts of the world. Going by this result. R1* could only have reached from a nearby Eurasian region which is most likely Western Asia ultimately proving that R was there before the Indo European expansion and could have even emerged there or South_Central Asia.

More interesting will be the autosomal results to see. We had already Haplogroups such as C appearing of which we thought being totally East Eurasian before. In ancient DNA anything is possibly. It looks like it might even be possible that E is indeed a backmigration into Africa of DE, while A and B represent original SSA African yDNA. By the way isn't L3 (including M) the only of the L mtDNA which is rather Eurafrican (EastAfrican/Arabian), I mean at the end of the day all Eurasian mtDNA descend of L3.

What seems to show here is a very Eurafrican (Afro_Asiatic group) with additional admixture from Sub Saharan Africa and Western Asia.

Also interesting would be to know from which region the samples were taken exactly and if they are real and reliable at all.

Maciamo
25-09-15, 09:02
And again my comment on Eurogenes was proven. As I said by Neolithic already Haplogroups of R would have been widespred all around West Eurasia. How could even someone believe that such old Haplogroups like R could not reach other parts of the world. Going by this result. R1* could only have reached from a nearby Eurasian region which is most likely Western Asia ultimately proving that R was there before the Indo European expansion and could have even emerged there or South_Central Asia.

I think you are discussing a very different issue from the one I was referring to above.

Ever since I got interested in population genetics and created the section on Eupedia I placed the origin of haplogroup R1* in Central Asia, but had R1b migrated to West Asia (around Kurdistan) around 15,000 years ago. The Neolithic domestication of cattle would cause the diffusion of R1b cattle herders in several directions, including the Levant and North Africa (R1b-V88).

I don't know how accurate the Old Kingdom DNA tests above are. It could be that the R1-M173 is in fact R1b-V88 but that they didn't test all SNPs. That would be completely in line with my cattle farmer theory. What I was calling unexpected was to find an actual R1* who was negative for the M343 mutation defining R1b. Now that couldn't be explained with Neolithic farmers otherwise R1* would be far more common today. I am not even sure it still exists. Plenty of Mesolithic or Early Neolithic Y-DNA lineages have gone extinct or become exceedingly rare. But these are only 4100 to 4600 years old samples.

Anyway this data was posted over two years ago on Forum Biodiversity and I have never seen the actual paper from which it supposedly came. Jean Manco didn't list them in her list of ancient DNA samples either. So I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of these "results". Could it be that someone just made them up ?

Alan
25-09-15, 13:29
Anyway this data was posted over two years ago on Forum Biodiversity and I have never seen the actual paper from which it supposedly came. Jean Manco didn't list them in her list of ancient DNA samples either. So I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of these "results". Could it be that someone just made them up ?

I investigated this a little bit. It seems like these results were posted by a user called Beyoku on Forumbiodiversity. Who is also active on "Egyptsearch.com" which main purpose is to prove the "Black-ness" or let's say African-ness of Egypt.

At first I didn't pay attention to it's date. But than I saw it's over two years old. And if it wasn't yet published the news could be bogus.

Anyhow that doesn't change my theory to begin with. And I didn't adress that on you but simply took your comment since it was the first I saw commenting on this R1* individual.

I know that you think that R1b reached Kurdistan by 15000 BC. I was trying to explain on Eurogenes that before Neolithic already R lineages might have reached various corners of the Eurasian continent. But some people didn't seem to agree with that. And if this result turned out to be real. That would have been the ultimative proof.

Ownstyler
11-05-18, 12:03
*Caution* As reported by Beyoku at Forum Biodiversity in a soon to be published report.

Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BCE)

ySNP, mtDna

A-M13, L3f
A-M13, L0a1
B-M150, L3d
E-M2, L3e5
E-M2, L2a1
E-M123, L5a1
E-M35, R0a
E-M41, L2a1
E-M41, L1b1a
E-M75, M1
E-M78, L4b
J-M267,L3i
R-M173, L2
T-M184, L0a

Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 BCE)

ySNP, mtDna

A-M13, L3x
E-M75, L2a1
E-M78, L3e5
E-M78, M1a
E-M96, L4a
E-V6, L3
B-M112, L0b

So have these results been published yet? What is the source?

ToBeOrNotToBe
11-05-18, 15:38
So have these results been published yet? What is the source?

It’s bullshit basically, the ancient Egyptian DNA paper from last year showed they more or less entirely lacked the SSA that modern Egyptians have about 10% of.

The ancient Egyptians most resembled Anatolian EEF and Levantine ENF. I can’t remember if there was an Iranian farmer component though, I suspect there was.

uguns90
12-05-18, 17:46
It’s bullshit basically, the ancient Egyptian DNA paper from last year showed they more or less entirely lacked the SSA that modern Egyptians have about 10% of.

The ancient Egyptians most resembled Anatolian EEF and Levantine ENF. I can’t remember if there was an Iranian farmer component though, I suspect there was.

These are weird results indeed and based on modern Egyptians and the ancient Egyptians we have so far, this doesn't look remotely Egyptian nor North African in general. Not even the much more African Bejas, Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis have an almost fully African mtdna profile.
Maybe these are results of ancient [post-Neolithic] Nubians, as the appearance of y-dna haplogroup B might suggest, or even Western desert dwellers. That or it's bullshit.

That being said, the ancient Egyptians we have so far might be partially of recent foreign ancestry as they are barely African (unlike Copts) and are highly Anatolian-like compared to the neighbouring Levant.
And yes, they do have Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry, that most likely came partially in the Early Bronze Age.

Alyan
13-05-18, 14:11
It's obvious that the founding stock of Egypt was a Neolithic Levantine (Anatolian and Natufian with just a bit of Iranian) or similar population in Egypt that traveled down the Nile. They were diluted by foreigners and slaves, especially slaves brought in during Islam.