Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

DNA From Ancient Egyptian Mummies Reveals Their Ancestry (washingtonpost.com) 97

HanzoSpam quotes a report from Washington Post: Ancient Egyptians were an archaeologist's dream. They left behind intricate coffins, massive pyramids and gorgeous hieroglyphs, the pictorial writing code cracked in 1799. But there was one persistent hole in ancient Egyptian identity: their chromosomes. A study led by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Tubingen in Germany managed to plug some of those genetic gaps. Researchers wrung genetic material from 151 Egyptian mummies, radiocarbon dated between Egypt's New Kingdom (the oldest at 1388 B.C.) to the Roman Period (the youngest at 426 A.D.), as reported Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that "for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity." Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians -- the list goes on -- ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. "The other big surprise," Krause said, "was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNA From Ancient Egyptian Mummies Reveals Their Ancestry

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:11AM (#54517021)

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Ancient Egyptians were always known to be Caucasian. Anyone saying anything else was engaging in bullshit and/or wishful thinking.

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Everyone know Nubians were Caucasians... idiot.

    • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      No they are not.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      "for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity." Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians -- the list goes on -- ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. "The other big surprise," Krause said, "was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry."

      Hmm...with no diversity, I guess by todays SJW standards, they'd be branded a racist, xenophobic, close minded civilization.....

      How dare they...!! No civilization can accomplish much with this

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Well, the earliest mummy they dated is from 1388 B.C., the Egyptian civilization dates from 3150 B.C. That is still 1700 years not yet covered. And there could be differences between the high classes and the common people.

      As for "always known", it is actually difficult to know and "common knowledge" is often wrong.

    • Not to mention the Egyptian caste system [ushistory.org]. More in-breeding within the ranks than fraternizing with the peasants.

  • by Holammer ( 1217422 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:16AM (#54517047)

    But the memes will live on.

    • by aliquis ( 678370 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:19AM (#54517061)

      Yeah, poor black people trying to claim they were Egyptians.

      Why is it so bad to be whom they actually are?

      • What were they? Outside of Mansa Musi and the Kingdom of Mali (which engaged in the slave trade with Muslims as he was one himself), what do the remainder of Africa have to show for themselves? Nothing other than what they have now. Honestly without european technology the continent would still be how it was more millenia. Bereft of technology.

        So of course they want to be linked with egypt.

    • Louis Farrakhan will be devastated. Or probably just reject it out of hand.

  • Caste System (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:17AM (#54517051)

    The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"

    However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      So the Pharaohs had black maids and yard workers. I guess not much has changed over the centuries.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      If you read the wikipedia entry on, say, Tutankhamun, it seems that there is a lot of evidence that the ruling class of ancient Egypt had a lot of inbreeding (the congenital issues of which quite possibly helped lead to Tutankhamun's early demise), with siblings and cousins often marrying. And remember, most Egyptian mummies are the wealthier members of society: wikipedia again states there are 3 documented methods of Egyptian mummification that is assumed to be based on price, the cheapest of which would

    • "What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds?"

      Actually, from what I remember of Egyptian marriages, they mostly married with people from noble families inside Egypt, their cousins and things like that. It would be more similar to the Japanese imperial court m

    • by clovis ( 4684 )

      The article claims ancient Egyptians are more similar to people of Near East. "The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East"

      However, there is not enough sample data to make a universal assertion. What if Egyptian Pharos were a bit like European royalties, where the Austrian princess would marry the ruler of France or German royalty would marry the Russian Tzar. And these mummified people were prince or princes from Near East empires marrying into Egyptian royalty to forge political bonds? Perhaps the slave / worker / minstrel caste were Sub-Saharan Africans.

      There were no mummies of pharaohs or royalty in this study.
      Mummification wasn't limited to royalty, and that should be obvious from the fact that over a million mummies have been found and it is estimated that the total number of mummies in Egypt is several tens of millions

      From the study:

      On a more local scale, we aim to study changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of the Abusir el-Meleq community (Fig. 1), since all sampled remains derive from this community in Middle Egypt and have been radiocarbon dated to the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period (cal. 1388BCE–426CE

      Although we only analysed mummified remains, there is little reason to believe that the burials Rubensohn excavated belonged exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants on the basis of the far published references to excavation diaries and Rubensohn’s preliminary reports that permit a basic reconstruction. Rather it seems arguable that the complete spectrum of society is represented, ranging from Late Period priests’ burials that stand out by virtue of their size and contents to simple inhumations that are buried with little to no grave goods2. The widespread mummification treatments in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods in particular, leading to a decline in standards and costs48 and the generally modest appearance of many burials further supports this assessment.

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:22AM (#54517077)

    I am not too surprised. As the Ancient Egyptians had a culture of inbreeding royalty(who would more likely be mummified) Outside of genetic test, there were many deformities from elongated heads and clubbed feet, that often happen from this. So I wouldn't be too surprised to see a lack of genetic diversity, in those who were mummified. I would be far more interested in the genetics of the average person vs. a dynastic rulers.

    • The average people are probably about what they are today. Conquering foreign nations and rules come and go, but the common people tend to remain fairly fixed. There might be some influxes of other groups from time to time across history, but not on a massive population level where it's going to radically change the genetics of such a large ethnic group. It was just too prohibitively expensive to move large groups of people around and to do so in a timely fashion. Moses allegedly led the Jews out of Egypt a
    • The direct genetic chain was broken at least once; Ramesses I (approx 1292 BC) was of non-royal birth.
      • The direct genetic chain was broken at least once; Ramesses I (approx 1292 BC) was of non-royal birth.

        At various times they had dynasties from Lybia and Nubia. Also, I think the Hyksos were from somewhere east of the delta.

    • by clovis ( 4684 )

      Again, over a million mummies have been found in Egypt, and it's estimated that several tens of millions exist.
      So yes, it's more likely that royalty would be mummified than the average person, but the average mummy is an average person.

  • by ardmhacha ( 192482 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:35AM (#54517121)

    I suspect that those Egyptians who were mummified and placed in pyramids or other expensive tombs would come from a very narrow sliver of Egyptian society.

    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      They were. Ordinary people was dumped into holes in the desert sand. One had to be very rich to be prepared for death (learning how to "survive" the kingdom of death), even richer to be mummified (it was a complicated long process needing expensive labor and substances) and incredibly rich to get some kind of structure around the mummified corpse.

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @09:13AM (#54517355) Homepage
      For the primary resident of each given tomb, certainly, but beside various treasures, there's also a lot of evidence that many pharoahs were accompanied to the afterlife with mumified servants and livestock (there are *many* examples of mummified cats [wikipedia.org] in particular). As long as you are able to take DNA samples from a decent cross section of the available mummies in a given tomb, then you're going likely to get a much more representative sample of the population of a whole than just the Ancient Egyptian equivalent of the 1%. While that's not going to be a perfect cross section of the society, it should at least include a decent number of representatives from both the indigneous and immigrant labour pools.
    • They were on top of the social pyramid.
  • Did they find any trace of Goa'uld?
    • No, but they did find this big round thing buried nearby. It's covered in cartouches no one can read.
  • DNA studies confirm (Score:4, Informative)

    by tommeke100 ( 755660 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @09:11AM (#54517329)
    the mummies are dead.
  • There are a ton of archeological evidence. Well, this will change nothing. The defenders of the "black Egypt theory" had mostly questionable arguments.

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...