First Genomes from Ancient Egypt

your the one that said it , it is embarrasing that you are trying to deflect it on me when you stated it

I questioned your silly comment ..............who told you this, Laz?
Let's try it agian. I said this:
(not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF)
Now you understand, that you didn't understand the first time? Though, not surprising for old members of Eupedia.

 
I agree that small pockets of Bedouins do look quite similar to Levant_Neolithic or Egyptians. But here is the problem. They are isolated pockets. When I speak of populations I mean them as a whole as average of a population. As the people we see when we come across a ethnic Saudi or Palestinian or whoever. On Average unfortunately there is no modern population that fits ancient once 100%.

As you also pointed out the best fit are still Palestinians, Jordanians without the small amount of SSA admixture and with less Iran_CHL like admixture.

While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%).

I hesitate to give more space to this, because we largely agree. However, I don't concur, going by the Admixture run, that Palestinians are the closest population. They have way too much Iran Chl. for that. Imo, the closest are either Saudis without SSA or Bedouin B. I have no idea if Bedouin B is more isolated or Bedouin A is more isolated. It looks to me as if perhaps Bedouin B is just those Bedouin without all that additional SSA.

For more definitive answers I think we'll have to wait for what other tools show. That may change my opinion.

As for the discussion between Harena and LeBroc, a lot of the problem with the hobbyist community is that they use pop. genetics terms way too loosely, confusing not only themselves but others. Anatolia Neolithic is about 10%? WHG. If you go around saying that Natufians were 50% WHG it's wrong and confusing to other people.

Plus, the point is that these populations were distinct from one another, just as Anatolia Neolithic was distinct from Iranian Neolithic no matter that they shared some "components" from thousands of years before the Neolithic.
 
Ok, if you are so anxious of digging a bigger hole, go ahead and post the chart you are referring to. And remember it has to agree with your statement.



Here is your last chance to come clean. Was your statement misleading or just wrong?


With pleasure, if you can pinpoint and quote the actual insults I got an infraction for in my previous post. Otherwise it's you the one who has to worry about coming out clean i'm afraid.
 
Let's try it agian. I said this:
(not Natufians, which lived 6-8 thousand years before EEF)
Now you understand, that you didn't understand the first time? Though, not surprising for old members of Eupedia.


And you know I told you for over 2 years that the fertile crescent and the bulk of the levant where populated from people north of the zargos mountains......I also stated the Natufians came via NE-Anatolia
 
And you know I told you for over 2 years that the fertile crescent and the bulk of the levant where populated from people north of the zargos mountains......I also stated the Natufians came via NE-Anatolia
:confused: Exactly my point. ...and you also travel through time in your time machine, and visit parallel universes.
Let's leave it like this.
 
With pleasure, if you can pinpoint and quote the actual insults I got an infraction for in my previous post. Otherwise it's you the one who has to worry about coming out clean i'm afraid.
Bla, bla, bla, where is the chart?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 103
Hey wait a minute, they have the internet on computers now? D'oh!
Can't post image...must be some way...d'oh!

Hey harena, my man, can you be a bro and post that chart?
 
I hesitate to give more space to this, because we largely agree. However, I don't concur, going by the Admixture run, that Palestinians are the closest population. They have way too much Iran Chl. for that. Imo, the closest are either Saudis without SSA or Bedouin B. I have no idea if Bedouin B is more isolated or Bedouin A is more isolated. It looks to me as if perhaps Bedouin B is just those Bedouin without all that additional SSA.

For more definitive answers I think we'll have to wait for what other tools show. That may change my opinion.

As for the discussion between Harena and LeBroc, a lot of the problem with the hobbyist community is that they use pop. genetics terms way too loosely, confusing not only themselves but others. Anatolia Neolithic is about 10%? WHG. If you go around saying that Natufians were 50% WHG it's wrong and confusing to other people.

Plus, the point is that these populations were distinct from one another, just as Anatolia Neolithic was distinct from Iranian Neolithic no matter that they shared some "components" from thousands of years before the Neolithic.

I just want to point out that I think Alan is absolutely correct when he says the following:

"While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%)"

It's the additional SSA that pulls modern Egyptians away from the ancient Egyptians in this sample. That's another reason why so much of the commentary in the press is so wrong.
 
Bla, bla, bla, where is the chart?

Still see no evidence of insults, I'm waiting..

Hey wait a minute, they have the internet on computers now? D'oh!
Can't post image...must be some way...d'oh!

Hey harena, my man, can you be a bro and post that chart?

No problem on my part, I do really want to share it and discuss but I cannot let Lebrok's infraction slip. I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.

Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.
 
.....I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.

Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.

I do not know what he did or for that matter what you, Harena, is talking about (and have no time to look for) but I want to see the explanation, because Moderators and admin in this sort of forums sometime forget that it should come with a responsibility (although not the style of Lebrok from what I have seen of him). Already got infractions that I do not understood why and just to see the same persons do the same or worst.
 
I just want to point out that I think Alan is absolutely correct when he says the following:

"While ancient Egyptians would still be best decribed as modern Egyptians + additional SSA (8%)"

It's the additional SSA that pulls modern Egyptians away from the ancient Egyptians in this sample. That's another reason why so much of the commentary in the press is so wrong.

And that is what so freakn furstrates me I have seen comments and articles saying even things like "ancient Egyptians closer to Europeans than to modern once" what the heck?
 
Still see no evidence of insults, I'm waiting..



No problem on my part, I do really want to share it and discuss but I cannot let Lebrok's infraction slip. I believe what he did is incompatible with his position of admin on this forum.

Either he apologizes, or I want him demoted from his role.

I do not know what he did or for that matter what you, Harena, is talking about (and have no time to look for) but I want to see the explanation, because Moderators and admin in this sort of forums sometime forget that it should come with a responsibility (although not the style of Lebrok from what I have seen of him). Already got infractions that I do not understood why and just to see the same persons do the same or worst.
Read the forum rules. If you still clueless why you got infractions, I can't help you.
 
And that is what so freakn furstrates me I have seen comments and articles saying even things like "ancient Egyptians closer to Europeans than to modern once" what the heck?

According to the chart posted by Angela and Hauteville in this thread, the Modern Egyptians have more SSA than the Ancient Egyptian samples of this study, so these samples might be closer to Europeans in the same way Palestinians are (lack of SSA). It's meaningless, really.

And if by "closer to european" they mean "Europeans are closer to ancient Egyptians than modern Levantines and North Africans" they're probably just disappointed with the outcome of this study and want to delude themselves. Anyone with half a brain and minute knowledge of ancient genetics can tell from the chart that a Tunisian minus a dash of SSA does not make a Swede... on the flip side, a Swede with a dash of SSA does not make a Tunisian.
 
The general conclusions to be taken from the paper are, I think, clear. When analyzing samples, all the results from the different tools have to be analyzed and put into a pattern. You can't just take one result showing more closeness to Europeans than to modern Egyptians and make outlandish claims. This is not new, however. It's done all the time in the amateur community to support one agenda or another.

All of that said, these samples have a tiny number of snps in common with modern gene arrays used in things like the gedmatch calculators. Any results by amateurs trying to compare these ancients to modern populations is not going to be accurate, whether it's going to be done by Egyptians, Copts, modern Levantines etc to see if they "descend" from them, or the Sikeliots of the world who would try to fit them into some sort of agenda.

We have to try to get a grip on how these tools work, and their limitations.

One heartening thing is that in this case, both the Nordicists and the Afro-Centrists have been discomfited. The marvels of ancient Egypt were largely created by people genetically similar to the people who created the marvels of the Near East, and no, they weren't very "Nordic like" or WHG, or steppe like either.
 
very interesting

I agree with you
 
Last edited:
According to the chart posted by Angela and Hauteville in this thread, the Modern Egyptians have more SSA than the Ancient Egyptian samples of this study, so these samples might be closer to Europeans in the same way Palestinians are (lack of SSA). It's meaningless, really.

And if by "closer to european" they mean "Europeans are closer to ancient Egyptians than modern Levantines and North Africans" they're probably just disappointed with the outcome of this study and want to delude themselves. Anyone with half a brain and minute knowledge of ancient genetics can tell from the chart that a Tunisian minus a dash of SSA does not make a Swede... on the flip side, a Swede with a dash of SSA does not make a Tunisian.

Thats the point some news outlets are misinterpreting the results. The paper clearly points out that modern Egypt = 92% ancient Egypt + 8% SSA.

The study also says ancient Egyptians were closer to Middle Easterners and Europeans than modern Egyptians are. Well the reason for that is not them having European ancestry, but Egyptians and Europeans sharing ancient West Asian/Near Eastern genes. Also this sentence is easy to "missinterpret" into ancient Egyptians are closer to Europeans than they are to modern Egyptians. It's one word changing it's position and the sentence gets a whole different meaning so it can fit in some peoples agendas.

Let me give an example. A Chinese with a Swedish great grandfather will be closer to Europeans than a 100% Chinese will be. But does that make the Chinese with a little Swedish ancestry closer to Europeans as to other fellow Chinese?
 
Last edited:
Ancient Egyptians are absolutely nothing like Europeans. EEF isn't even European really but my ancestors absorbed them thousands of years ago.
 

This thread has been viewed 94539 times.

Back
Top