Egyptian Ancient Dna from the Old and Middle Kingdoms

New abstract just published:

Genetic study of ancient Egyptian human remains dating from the Predynastic Period to the early Islamic Period (ca. 4000 cal. BCE - 800 cal. CE)

Abstract:

"Due to high-throughput sequencing and targeted enrichment methods, ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis is emerging as a valuable tool for the investigation of ancient Egypt’s demographic history. However, the recovery of aDNA from Egyptian human remains is challenging due to poor DNA preservation and a high contamination risk. Thus, so far, less than five ancient Egyptian genome-wide datasets have been published. In addition, mitochondrial genomes are almost exclusively limited to a timespan ranging from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period (1550 BCE - 395 CE) as well as to a single archaeological site (Abusir el-Meleq). To extend the pool of ancient Egyptian genome datasets, both mitochondrial and genome-wide, we report the results of a genetic study of 100 ancient Egyptian human remains. Overall, these individuals exhibit an endogenous human DNA content between 0.01% and 40.84%. Using an enrichment capture targeting the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we were able to reconstruct complete mitogenomes for 25 individuals dating from the Predynastic Period to the Coptic Period (ca. 3500 cal. BCE - 650 cal. CE) and encompassing the archaeological sites of Asyut, Akhmim, Deir el-Bahari, Deir el-Medina, Thebes, the Valley of the Queens, and Gebelein. These genomes exhibit a mtDNA haplogroup diversity similar to ancient Egyptian haplogroup profiles published by Schuenemann, et al. Nat. Comm. 2017. This provides further evidence for shared maternal ancestries between western Eurasian or northern African populations and ancient Egyptians during and after the New Kingdom. In addition, we also found western Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in individuals dated to periods prior to the New Kingdom. Furthermore, we performed a whole-genome enrichment capture on seven individuals to test these findings also on a genome-wide scale. Overall, this study provides further insights into the demographic history of ancient Egyptians considering a broader geographical context and the older periods of Egypt’s past."


Speaker: Alexandra Mussauer, Eurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Italy; Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Germany. Co-authors: Christina Wurst, Alice Paladin, Valentina Coia, Frank Maixner, Albert Zink

Study to be presented at ISBA10 (10th Meeting of the International Society for Biomolecular Archaeology), Estonian National Museum, Tartu, Estonia, 13-16th September 2023

- Programme - ISBA 10

- ISBA10 Abstract Book, p.222
 
Discussions here

Thanks!

From that thread: "During the 1st Intermediate Period it seems like a massive influx of Levantine and a smaller amount of Bell Beaker ancestry affected Egypt, or at least affected the elites."

Wow! I put forward the theory that Bell Beaker ancestry came into Egypt in the 1st intermediate period on Anthrogenica years ago!
 
Thanks!

From that thread: "During the 1st Intermediate Period it seems like a massive influx of Levantine and a smaller amount of Bell Beaker ancestry affected Egypt, or at least affected the elites."

Wow! I put forward the theory that Bell Beaker ancestry came into Egypt in the 1st intermediate period on Anthrogenica years ago!
Do mind sharing the details of that theory? I have no idea how Italian Bell Beaker could end up in ancient Egyptians.
 
Thanks!

From that thread: "During the 1st Intermediate Period it seems like a massive influx of Levantine and a smaller amount of Bell Beaker ancestry affected Egypt, or at least affected the elites."

Wow! I put forward the theory that Bell Beaker ancestry came into Egypt in the 1st intermediate period on Anthrogenica years ago!
Let me guess: your assumptions were mocked, dismissed, and brushed aside. You were most likely accused of trying to Europeanize or whitewash ancient Egypt. Right?
 
Bell Beakers certainly got around the Mediterranean rather early. I'm still skeptical though.

Somewhat of a tangent but the "Shekelesh" Sea People tribe noted by the Egyptians seem connected with the Siculi (Sicels), who in turn were probably a Ligurian-related people inhabiting Latium before many were driven out and migrated to Sicily.

Some maritime Beakers could have gotten around as traders, pirates and mercenaries in the Eastern Mediterranean since well before that.
 
Leaked information about Egypt:

"This is what it looks like happened.

1: Epipaleolithic Egyptians were similar to Epipaleolithic Levantines. Very Natufian enriched. The most similar modern population to both groups would be Yemenis. There was a smooth cline of ANA affinity the further you go south in Egypt, and a cline of IBM ancestry the more you go west but the distinctions weren’t massive.

2: EpiP Egypt turns into Neolithic Egypt when they receive some Neolithic Levantine ancestry. Neo Levantines were ~ 70% Natufian + 30% Anatolian Farmer (in terms of distance to moderns, Neo Levantines genetically were in the space between Yemenis and Samaritans but a bit closer to the former). By the time of the Old Kingdom this ancestry had mostly dissipated.

3: During the predynastic era something strange occurs. We see a change from Neolithic Egyptians that points to Mesopotamia. Sumerian ancestry? Unknown for now but it’s possible the Dynastic Race Theory may have been correct after all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_race_theory

So predynastic Egypt (and old kingdom right after it) seem to exist on another cline, of increasing-decreasing Sumerian(?) ancestry depending on location (sparse sampling seems to suggest more Sumerian ancestry the further south you go?) and plausibly based on class as well (the more elite had more of this ancestry)

Those with little Sumerian (or call it Mesopotamian ancestry to be more broad) looked more like Neolithic Egyptians (closest to modern Yemenis) and those with the most Sumerian ancestry (basically Neolithic Egyptian + Sumerian) look closest to modern day Copt Egyptians. The Sumerians themselves (we don’t have their genomes yet) possibly looked closest to modern Mandaen Iraqis.

4: During the 1st Intermediate Period and the collapse of the Old Kingdom, there is a massive influx of Bronze Age Levantine ancestry (MBA and LBA Levantines are similar to modern day Palestinian Christians, Samaritans, and Lebanese Christians, in that order; EBA southern Levantines we have so far are closest to Saudis)

There is also a curious profile in the Djeuhtynakht genome from the early Middle Kingdom / end of the 1st Intermediate Period. In addition to large amounts of BA Levantine admixture, they also show a small amount of possible Italian Bell Beaker ancestry (?). About 15% it seems.

This elite is about 50% Old Kingdom + 35% Levant Bronze Age + 15% Italian Bell Beaker (these BBs are a bit more ‘southern’ than modern Southern Euros as they have quite a lot less steppe ancestry). For years people talked about European uniparental lineages in New Kingdom royalty. Well it seems to have arrived much earlier, in the Middle Kingdom. This sample is closest to Palestinian Muslims, 15% Italian Bell Beaker (about 2% steppe ancestry total) doesn’t cause him to plot far away from the Middle East, especially considering the presence of European or European-like ancestry in many Middle Eastern groups today (5-10% of this ancestry in many places).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dje...ified with Djehutynakht,21st-20th century BCE).



It doesn’t get much more elite than him, as only the Pharaoh and the Royal Family would be considered higher up.

I suspect many Pharaohs and their family will look similar to him during the 1st IM and early Middle Kingdom.

5: it seems this ancestry continued to exist throughout Egypt even as far south as the samples we have from Thebes, and deep into the New Kingdom. At some point during the New Kingdom or right after it, people from somewhere deep in upper Egypt with Old Kingdom genetic structure became the majority across Egypt

So far the most sub-Saharan African ancestry found throughout these periods up until and through Antiquity (‘black’ ancestry) is ~5-6%, about the same as Copts of today but half that of Muslim Egyptians. Much of this could be damage as only a few samples score this, and DNA damage is known to show up as SSA ancestry. We’ll need many more samples to confirm it. Still 5-6% is quite low and exists only in a minority of samples. The majority are between 0-2% SSA ancestry."
 
Someone posted G25 distances in this topic : https://genarchivist.freeforums.net/post/4425
As they don't want to share the G25s, I inverted the G25 coordinates from the distance list using markov-chains (yeah, I know, I'm nasty ... but if they don't want to share ... don't give me dataset that I can invert :) ).
With around ~40 distances to estimate the 25 coordinates (basic triangulation in a 25-dimensions space), the following estimates should be close enough from the one used by the peoples having the data in hand.
The results with the highest level of uncertainty is for the Old_Kingdom (EOK:I6409, due to relative locations of reference populations with known genetic distance and the concerned data sample). Still, the estimates should be decent enough and suitable for 1st order admixture modelling.

Enjoy (disclaimer : distance values to modern pops have been copied by hand, and therefore some copy-mistake might also slightly increase the uncertainty of the following estimates):

EOK:I6409_est, 0.029665247,0.13868540,-0.047587444,-0.14426329,-0.0022221347,-0.063518622,-0.014261081,-0.013556098,0.087986490,0.0041161682,-0.0028172711,-0.019512651,0.055365686,0.0068209691,0.0071103512,0.014172621,-0.0011899901,-0.019799603,-0.021658496,0.032836460,-0.0024145371,-0.010472191,-0.0046426664,-0.0034683108,0.0029676763

EOMK:I10020_est, 0.011530275,0.13728656,-0.049170061,-0.11359996,0.00099127203,-0.049440638,-0.020387999,-0.0026683728,0.062675346,-0.0081175666,0.0020009024,-0.011293133,0.028314321,0.020438082,0.0095046032,0.0088030027,-0.017175880,-0.0096735594,-0.0038784026,0.00068539449,0.0029141859,-0.015338366,-0.0043286787,-0.0012691466,0.0014364105

EMK:I6130_est, 0.053504150,0.13702279,-0.042256778,-0.088577892,0.0016483012,-0.037922341,-0.014478379,-0.0022917330,0.032911256,0.0051009809,0.0091531458,-0.013376381,0.026522487,0.0012096728,-0.0043573045,-0.0011185066,-0.021307803,6.0763451e-05,0.0033831153,0.0024352202,0.0013931869,-0.0017261886,0.0014597641,0.0049339092,0.0086866961
 
Do mind sharing the details of that theory? I have no idea how Italian Bell Beaker could end up in ancient Egyptians.

I suggested that Bell Beaker ancestry could have arrived in the First Intermediate period with 'Libyans' from the west.

I've been thinking/reading some more about it, and that might actually be the explanation. A migration from Italy into North Africa then eastwards into Egypt.

Some authors have suggested that the First Intermediate Period Heracleopolitan kings (9th-10th dynasties) were invaders of western, Libyan, and possibly European origin.

The Heracleopolitan kings were associated with the nomarchs of the Hare nome, to which Djehutynakht belonged (the one with Bell Beaker ancestry, Y-DNA G2a2a and mtDNA U5b2b5).

-----------

Bell Beakers in North Africa:

"It seems that although the center of the Bell Beaker occurrence in North Africa was along the Atlantic coast of Morocco, there was a spread of the Beaker style also along the Mediterranean coast all the way to Tunisia. ... In the case of Tunisia we can certainly consider also the possible contacts with Sicily and the Apennine peninsula, from where the Bell Beaker influences might have come."

- Turek, J. (2013), Echoes and traditions of the Bell Beaker phenomenon

The Heracleopolitan kings:

“The natural result of weakness and disorganization [in the 6th dynasty], which lasted for a generation, was the permanent infiltration by the Libyans of the Nile valley. The city of Heracleopolis, seat of the temple and cult of Horus, just south of the Fayyum, restored order by triumphing over the weak Memphite 7th Dynasty. ... On this understanding, the supremacy of Heracleopolis between the 7th and 9th Dynasties was in reality a Libyan occupation of Middle Egypt. ... To the Egyptians, Libya was part of the vague area described as the 'west'. … Terms such as 'barbarians' were used to designate the people in the oases, tribes of foreign men who were possibly of European origin and entered through the western frontiers of Egypt.”

- El-Mosallamy, A.H.S (1984), Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt, published in: Libya Antiqua (UNESCO 1984), p.51–56

“it has been surmised that the [Heracleopolitan] line was of western origin (Libyan?), and invaded Egypt by way of the Fayum province. Such a line of advance would make Herakleopolis a natural capital for the invaders”

- Baikie, J. (1929), History Of Egypt: From The Earliest Times To The End Of The 18th Dynasty Vol.1, p.221–222

“Sometime after the obscure reign of the Seventh and Eighth Dynasty kings a group of rulers arose in Heracleopolis in Lower Egypt. These kings comprise the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, each with nineteen listed rulers. The Heracleopolitan kings are conjectured to have overwhelmed the weak Memphite rulers to create the Ninth Dynasty”

- First Intermediate Period of Egypt - Wikipedia

“Meryhathor or Meryt-Hathor, was a pharaoh of the 10th Dynasty of Egypt, during the First Intermediate Period. Regarded as the founder of the dynasty, Meryhathor should have begun his reign in c. 2130 BCE. His name is not mentioned in the Turin King List but Djehutynakht II, a nomarch of the Hare nome residing in Hermopolis, ordered an ink graffito mentioning Meryhathor in the alabaster quarries at Hatnub: this is so far the only attestation of this king.”

1695296026064.png


^ Drawing of an ancient Egyptian graffito depicting the ancient Egyptian "Nomarch of the Hare nome, Djehutynakht (II), son of Djehutynakht". At the far right, the cartouche of the otherwise unknown pharaoh Meryhathor of the 10th Dynasty. From Hatnub, First Intermediate Period.

- Meryhathor - Wikipedia

1695305444590.png


^ Depiction from Djehutynakht's coffin

1695305548506.png

^ mtDNA U5b2b5

- GenArchivist - Ancient Egyptians G25

Ancient U5b2b5 samples:

1695307527808.png
 
Last edited:
If you recall ZAP002 was non-local to El Argar but was 60% Sicilian Beaker 40% Bavarian Beaker and 10% Iberomaurisian. My expectation is that Tut's line was P312+ or something like DF27+ or U152 and was marrying local elites in the southern Levant for many generations. Obviously was not the only one.
 
Old-Middle Kingdom:

J F1826 DER
J F3119 DER
J F3176 DER
J FGC1599 DER
J1 CTS1138 DER
J1 PF4659 DER
J1 PF4667 DER
J1 F4320 DER
J1a PF4772 DER


Middle Kingdom (Djehutynakht):

G2a F2529 DER
G2a P15 DER
G2a2a PF3159 DER
G2a2a PF3167 DER
G2a2a PF3168 DER


Dynastic:

E1b1b1 CTS3637 DER

E1b1b1 CTS6298 DER

E1b1b1 M5322 DER

E1b1b1 M5360 DER

E1b1b1b2 PF1961 DER

E1b1b1b2 CTS11781 DER



p.s
nice to see e-z830 hope those leaks are correct💪
 
Last edited:
3: During the predynastic era something strange occurs. We see a change from Neolithic Egyptians that points to Mesopotamia. Sumerian ancestry? Unknown for now but it’s possible the Dynastic Race Theory may have been correct after all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_race_theory
the more elite had more of this ancestry



4: During the 1st Intermediate Period and the collapse of the Old Kingdom, there is a massive influx of Bronze Age Levantine ancestry (MBA and LBA Levantines are similar to modern day Palestinian Christians, Samaritans, and Lebanese Christians, in that order; EBA southern Levantines we have so far are closest to Saudis)
1) I already thought that Sumerian (saggagi) were the creators of Egyptian civilization, it's good to confirm.

2) The Biblical story of Israelites in Egypt is kind of confirmed here, since the Middle Kingdom is between 1200-2200 BC.
2200 coincides with the moment of the Bronze Age male linaege expansions.
1200 coincides with the BA collapse and the coming of the Phillistines to the Levant.
 
Bell Beakers certainly got around the Mediterranean rather early. I'm still skeptical though.

Somewhat of a tangent but the "Shekelesh" Sea People tribe noted by the Egyptians seem connected with the Siculi (Sicels), who in turn were probably a Ligurian-related people inhabiting Latium before many were driven out and migrated to Sicily.

Some maritime Beakers could have gotten around as traders, pirates and mercenaries in the Eastern Mediterranean since well before that.
The middle kingdom period ended 400 years prior to the advent of the Sea Peoples. I'm more inclined to believe that any southern European ancestry appearing during this era would probably be more linked to Greek or Anatolian populations.

That being said, the Philistines are much likelier candidates for descendants from the sea peoples and actually do reflect heavy S. Euro introgression during the late bronze and early iron age. Even their pottery was heavily Mycenaean-like.
 
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.
:unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
1) I already thought that Sumerian (saggagi) were the creators of Egyptian civilization, it's good to confirm.

2) The Biblical story of Israelites in Egypt is kind of confirmed here, since the Middle Kingdom is between 1200-2200 BC.
2200 coincides with the moment of the Bronze Age male linaege expansions.
1200 coincides with the BA collapse and the coming of the Phillistines to the Levant.
I didn't think there were any Sumerian samples. It does make sense, alot of those Sumerian statues do look similar to Egyptian ones.
 
The middle kingdom period ended 400 years prior to the advent of the Sea Peoples. I'm more inclined to believe that any southern European ancestry appearing during this era would probably be more linked to Greek or Anatolian populations.

That being said, the Philistines are much likelier candidates for descendants from the sea peoples and actually do reflect heavy S. Euro introgression during the late bronze and early iron age. Even their pottery was heavily Mycenaean-like.
Ancient Greeks don't have any beaker ancestry so its going to have to have come from Italy. Excuse my ignorance here but isn't ancient Greek ancestry more akin to Anatolian whereas Southern European ancestry includes to the steppe component.
 
Ancient Greeks don't have any beaker ancestry so its going to have to have come from Italy. Excuse my ignorance here but isn't ancient Greek ancestry more akin to Anatolian whereas Southern European ancestry includes to the steppe component.
The bell beaker culture is not a homogenous ancestry profile but just a material culture. It was shared amongst a wide swath of Europeans who had varying genetic profiles during this time. Associating it with a particular type of genetic profile in Europe is erroneous as it was found all over.

"Ancient greek" ancestry and what it comprises depends entirely on the time period. As a rule of thumb Greeks took on more and more steppe and BA Anatolian ancestry as the bronze age continued and this has been demonstrated by aDNA. They by no means lacked steppe ancestry, although they certainly weren't steppe heavy like northern European populations were.
 
So these recent findings lend some credence as too why blue eyed ancient egyptian statues exist. I recall many ancient Jews had blue eyes aswell.
 

This thread has been viewed 27269 times.

Back
Top