PDA

View Full Version : 12th Dynasty Egyptian mummies



Angela
02-01-18, 22:30
See: Konstantina Drosou

The kinship of two 12th Dynasty mummies revealed by ancient DNA sequencing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X17305631


"
We resolve a longstanding question regarding the kinship of two high-status Egyptians from the 12th Dynasty, Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht, whose mummies were discovered in 1907 by Egyptian workmen directed by Flinders Petrie and Ernest Mackay. Although their coffin inscriptions indicate that Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht were brothers, when the mummies were unwrapped in 1908 the skeletal morphologies were found to be quite different, suggesting an absence of family relationship. We extracted ancient DNA from the teeth of the two mummies and, following hybridization capture of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome fractions, sequenced the DNA by a next generation method. Analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms showed that both Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht belonged to mitochondrial haplotype M1a1, suggesting a maternal relationship. The Y chromosome sequences were less complete but showed variations between the two mummies, indicating that Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht had different fathers. Our study emphasizes the importance of kinship in ancient Egypt, and represents the first successful typing of both mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA in Egyptian mummies."

Unfortunately, nothing on the y in this abstract, although they got some results, and nothing on the autosomes.

Does anyone have access?

I1a3_Young
04-01-18, 17:47
I will rage if they have Y results but don't publish them for nationalistic identity reasons.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Angela
04-01-18, 18:04
I will rage if they have Y results but don't publish them for nationalistic identity reasons.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It seems that this is a European group using a sample from a European museum, so I can't imagine there would be those kinds of concerns.

Jovialis
04-01-18, 21:46
I will rage if they have Y results but don't publish them for nationalistic identity reasons.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I guess they know people are particularly curious about the Y-chromosome, and thus it's a great way to sell access to the paper. I've been looking all over the internet, and have found nothing. I figured someone by now would have read the full-text and wrote about it in a news article.

Jovialis
16-01-18, 16:45
The paper is now accessible, but I haven't read yet.

Angela
16-01-18, 17:18
"The SNP identities were consistent with mtDNA haplogroup M1a1 with 88.05–91.27% degree of confidence, thus confirming the African origins of the two individuals."

The Y seems unresolved, although there's enough to suggest they're not paternally related.

I'll read it more carefully later.

davef
16-01-18, 17:47
Why cant they test their autosomes??

Angela
16-01-18, 19:24
There are very few genetics labs around the world that can handle that. What they should have done is approached one of them and done a collaboration. Or, since they couldn't even get yDna, the material may be too degraded.

davef
16-01-18, 21:13
Well we need to hurry up with figuring out what the ancient Greeks (the classic ones) , Egyptians etc were like before they rot away; it would at least keep the t-rolls away with their stupid theories

Ygorcs
16-01-18, 22:15
"The SNP identities were consistent with mtDNA haplogroup M1a1 with 88.05–91.27% degree of confidence, thus confirming the African origins of the two individuals."

OMG, we'll have to deal with EVEN MORE revisionist pseudo-history from the Afrocentrics. Last I heard from them they are somewhat in doubt whether Ancient Egyptians were the ancestors of all West Africans or the heirs of the Ethiopian cultures... But to them what matters is that these people were all black, i.e. dark-skinned. So, even if eventually we find that Egyptians were dark, but Middle Eastern dark like many Yemenites and Saudis, they will still say "I told you, they were Africans!". LOL

Last week one of them even told me that Australian Aboriginals and all other dark-skinned people are obviously black too and it doesn't matter what their DNA say. I find it SOOOOOO curious, but also saddening, that these people took all the concepts of outdated racist with them in such an ingrained way that they don't even notice that equating all people with darker skin as a generic "black/negro people" without any specific history and evolution for each group/cluster is exactly another heritage of Jim Crow-style racism.

Angela
16-01-18, 22:32
These Afro-centrists, if that's the term, are indeed just as misguided as Neo-Nazis. Dark skin indeed doesn't equate to SSA.

There are South Asians who are darker than most African Americans. Does that make them African too, in the sense of SSA?

It really is very sad. They've learned nothing of importance.

bicicleur
16-01-18, 22:38
There are very few genetics labs around the world that can handle that. What they should have done is approached one of them and done a collaboration. Or, since they couldn't even get yDna, the material may be too degraded.

most museum samples are contaminated

Angela
16-01-18, 22:43
most museum samples are contaminated

Indeed, but it's my understanding that there are programs and algorithms to filter that out. If the levels are too high they don't use the samples, yes?

Ygorcs
16-01-18, 23:57
Can someone explain to me why the authors are so sure about the African origins of the Mt-DNA of the 2 mummies? I've tried to read more about the Mt haplogroup M1a1 and found this study that, by the way, unlike others supports an African origin of haplogroup M (not a back-migration). According to a 2006 study mentioned in it, 33% of a sample of East Africans belonged to M1a, but also 20% of the Near Eastern samples belong to M1a. Do they have more specific (and geographically restrictive) data about this haplogroup?

Angela
17-01-18, 00:05
Can someone explain to me why the authors are so sure about the African origins of the Mt-DNA of the 2 mummies? I've tried to read more about the Mt haplogroup M1a1 and found this study that, by the way, unlike others supports an African origin of haplogroup M (not a back-migration). According to a 2006 study mentioned in it, 33% of a sample of East Africans belonged to M1a, but also 20% of the Near Eastern samples belong to M1a. Do they have more specific (and geographically restrictive) data about this haplogroup?

I wondered about that too, but concluded that was just sloppy phrasing. What they probably meant was that there's a lot of it in NorthEast Africa in general. It doesn't seem that they did a lot of subclade work in terms of Near Easern vs. Northeast Africa clades.

Think about mtDna U6. It started out probably as "European", but if found in North African samples, someone could say generally that it fits with North African, not European origins.

Angela
17-01-18, 17:26
Archaeology Magazine has reported on it.

See:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/6279-180116-egypt-two-brothers

"MANCHESTER, ENGLAND—According to a Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dna-solves-mystery-how-these-mummies-were-related) report, a study of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA obtained from two ancient Egyptian mummies known as the Two Brothers has revealed that they shared a mother, but had different fathers. The 12th-Dynasty mummies were found next to each other in the same tomb in 1907. Inscriptions on their coffins mention Khnum-Aa as the mother of both of the men. The inscriptions also list an unnamed local governor as their father, but it was unclear whether the men were supposed to be full brothers. An earlier analysis of the mummies’ mitochondrial DNA, obtained from liver and intestinal samples, suggested one or both of them did not have Khnum-Aa as a mother. Scholars also noted differences in the mens' features that could indicate that they were not biologically related. So, archaeogeneticist Konstantina Drosou of the University of Manchester and her colleagues obtained more reliable samples from the mummies’ teeth for the new study. The researchers note that the results reflect the importance of the maternal line of descent to the Egyptians."

For the researchers to be so suspicious of their relationship based on facial features, the difference was perhaps racial. Have things gotten so absurd that they couldn't say that?

That's a good point they make about the inscription showing that the maternal line of descent was important to the Egyptians. Don't hold me to it, but I think the same was true of the Etruscans. Pastoral societies in both Europe and the Near East were different, I think, being all about the paternal line of descent.

I wonder if the father knew he wasn't the biological father of one of the boys? That's one thing that genetic testing does very well, and that's to determine familial relationships. Someone should do a book on the upheaval caused in a lot of families by commercial testing results. ​

O Neill
17-01-18, 19:19
They were 20 years apart. The mother re married because hubby 1 must have died. very common.
One father Nubian the other is Foreigner. This proves they were there before the 14th dynasty.
In fact it was noted these same differences around 6000 bc in both egypts and Mesopotamia, canaan and Lebanon when there was a culture shift.
They arrived in egypt and started mass producing bricks and stopped building houses from reads.
Says all there lands were flooded out and they couldent grow anything. Boats and trade was not new to these people.

I dont think it was any old female line that was important to the egyptians but a specific one that made you Great Royal Queen.
Im not sure that all of them could claim this at all times.
Id like to see Dna tests done on any great royal queen from egypt, up to Roman times with the cleopatras and maybe some of the client state
queens also like this woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene
I bet theres a great royal line of queens. it seems they thought it better to marry your sister then lose it.

Angela
17-01-18, 20:14
Perhaps you missed it: The inscriptions on the coffins said he was the father of both boys.

I don't understand the relevance of the rest of that material. The father was a governor of a province. It has nothing to do with royalty.

Jovialis
17-01-18, 20:57
I dont think it was any old female line that was important to the egyptians but a specific one that made you Great Royal Queen.


Actually, all landed property was given from mother to daughter, because maternity was seen as a way of assessing legitimacy. Angela is right about maternity being important to Egyptian society.




All landed property descended in the female line, from mother to daughter, on the assumption, perhaps, that maternity is a matter of fact

https://www.ancient.eu/article/623/women-in-ancient-egypt/
(https://www.ancient.eu/article/623/women-in-ancient-egypt/)

O Neill
18-01-18, 01:52
Perhaps you missed it: The inscriptions on the coffins said he was the father of both boys.

I don't understand the relevance of the rest of that material. The father was a governor of a province. It has nothing to do with royalty.

says Mother

Angela
18-01-18, 02:00
says Mother

If I understand you correctly, the mother told the father they were both his when in fact they weren't? It wouldn't be the first time in human history but it's not as common as people think.

Given that they may have had very distinctive and different facial features I just wonder how the "father" could have been fooled enough to allow the inscription. On the other hand, archaeologists have been mistaken in their conclusions about physical appearance before. Oh wait, maybe he was already dead. The plot thickens. :)

O Neill
18-01-18, 02:37
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dna-solves-mystery-how-these-mummies-were-related

O Neill
18-01-18, 03:03
What im trying to point out is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inykhnum

See this guy, 2nd dynasty another Khnum another high ranking person.
His name what does it mean. means khnum is my father. Is it a god ? or really is his dad.
Maybe theres hereditary lines that lasted 1000s of years Through priesthoods like this.
They still use this system now. Its a common custom in Ethiopia today.

Carlos
18-01-18, 11:03
Probably the father took care of the son that was not his and that the woman contributed to the marriage.

I1a3_Young
18-01-18, 20:32
Motherhood was important for ancient Jews as well. They considered the child of any Jewish woman a Jew, but not so for fathers. Not bad logic as paternity is the questionable source of DNA.