Groundbreaking research reveals that ancient Egyptians are more European than African - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14946496
We wuz not kings?

Study finds Ancient Egyptians to be genetically more Arab/European

The material they found was ground-breaking. The researchers discovered that the genetic make-up was more closely relatable to those of ancient populations in modern day Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon as well as some European populations. Hach, leader of the Max Planch Institute, stated that this community did not undergo any major genetic change during the 1300-year timespan they examined, suggesting little to no change by foreign colonization and rule.

https://theblogroom.com/ancient-egyptia ... n-african/
#14946498
Schuenemann et al. (2017) only analysed mummified remains excavated at Abusir el-Meleq. These ancient individuals are mostly high-ranking officials of the Old Kingdom belonging exclusively to a group of prosperous inhabitants in the ancient community in Abusir el-Meleq, which explains why they have less African admixture compared to the general modern Egyptian population. Slaves with sub-Saharan African ancestry were not mummified and buried in Ancient Egypt. Moreover, African ancestry in the ancient Egyptians ranges from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% (Schuenemann et al. 2017). The difference is only 6-8%, which could be due to the high social status of the three ancient samples, while the authors presumed that the additional African component was added to the modern Egyptian population after the Roman Period.

Image
(a) Principal Component Analysis-based genome-wide SNP data of three ancient Egyptians, 2,367 modern individuals and 294 previously published ancient genomes, (b) subset of the full ADMIXTURE analysis.

By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues16. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.

The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.

Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town's population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one's ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree55. Additional genetic studies on ancient human remains from Egypt are needed with extensive geographical, social and chronological spread in order to expand our current picture in variety, accuracy and detail.

However, our results revise previous scepticism towards the DNA preservation in ancient Egyptian mummies due to climate conditions or mummification procedures8. The methodology presented here opens up promising avenues for future genetic research and can greatly contribute towards a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt's population history.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5459999/
#14946501
@Igor Antunov

This is some major clickbait considering that most of the genetic makeup comes from the Middle East and only some Mediterranean countries (of which have mixed heavily with Middle Easterners in the first place) and the fact that we already know all of this. This isn't groundbreaking in the field at all unless you're some alt-right neckbeard who thinks that leftists control scientific research.

To prove that it's even less groundbreaking, that most of the mummies found in Egypt are from the Ptolemaic era. The Ptolemaic ruling class were, after Alexander's conquests, predominantly Greek so it's obvious that they would come from areas such as Greece, Italy, and other areas that hug the Mediterranean. This does not mean that Egyptians were European from the beginning (which is what you are pretending the article says) and such a claim is ridiculous and anachronistic.

I still can't get over the fact that you would post click bait on forum. What did you think you'd get out of that?
#14946505
Thank you @ThirdTerm
You regularly post highly specialised genetic studies, I suppose you work in that field.

ThirdTerm wrote: Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.

Many research results include a sentence like that. It actually means "Keep on giving more funds for research", especially to the author.

Also, thank you for making me look up that unfamiliar word "apodictic". I had not come across it before. The lengths authors of scientific papers will go to distance themselves from the normal population is remarkable.
#14946513
@Ter

Those terms exist for a reason. They’re there to shorthandedly explain a complex concept that is common in the academic field but uncommon in everyday life.

While I agree that academia need to be more relevant to the average everyday guy, distance is there because the concepts and ideas used in academia have no bearing on the individual, the genetics of ancient Egypt don’t effect anyone and is a pursuit of purely academic curiousity, The genetics of modern populations also have no bearing on the individual (given how genetics already has issues with properly identifying the genes of an individual let alone an entire population), and IQ of most of the population has no bearing on the individual (IQ tests only identifies a very, VERY narrow definition of intelligence and it’s not our conventional idea of what “intelligence”).

Academia needs to go more out of its way to connect to the general population but changing the names of terms won’t do it. You need to break down concepts into chunks relevant to people not rename them. Furthermore, I personally think that there is some worth in thinking about the grand scheme of things and sitting in ivory towers. Humans need to think about this stuff as it allows us to better understand ourselves and our futures. Academia doesn’t need to be preoccupied with current issues.
#14947587
Oxymandias wrote:@Igor Antunov
This isn't groundbreaking in the field at all unless you're some alt-right neckbeard who thinks that leftists control scientific research.

Err ... theres nothing alt-right about believing that scientists are mostly left-wing. Thats just a well known fact.

Intelligent people are statistically more likely to be left-wing. In any country, at any time.
#14947591
Negotiator wrote:Intelligent people are statistically more likely to be left-wing. In any country, at any time.


This correct; though "right-wing" people are statistically correlated with more "evolutionary viable" lifestyles or what might be commonly called "common-sense."
#14947638
@Suntzu

Nope, they were mostly composed of Arabs. :)

@Negotiator

Except that scientists focus on objectivity and not implementing political biases. If they were, such a study wouldn't come up in the first place.

@Victoribus Spolia

It's common sense to think that blacks are inferior to whites? Most white supremacists (who identify with "evolutionary viable" lifestyles) either have very irrational and emotional reasons for why they dislike blacks or use the same scientific arguments and research done by those with non-evolutionary viable lifestyles. This flies in the face of common sense (which is poorly defined anyways and isn't used by a majority of conservative users in PoFo).
#14947641
Oxymandias wrote:@Suntzu

Nope, they were mostly composed of Arabs. :)

@Negotiator

Except that scientists focus on objectivity and not implementing political biases. If they were, such a study wouldn't come up in the first place.

@Victoribus Spolia

It's common sense to think that blacks are inferior to whites? Most white supremacists (who identify with "evolutionary viable" lifestyles) either have very irrational and emotional reasons for why they dislike blacks or use the same scientific arguments and research done by those with non-evolutionary viable lifestyles. This flies in the face of common sense (which is poorly defined anyways and isn't used by a majority of conservative users in PoFo).


So ancient Egyptians pretty much look like modern Egyptians! :p
#14947646
@Oxymandias,

I was specifically addressing Negotiator's remarks about leftists being more intelligent, I was not speaking to race specifically.

I only qualified his remarks with the notion that conservatives have greater evolutionary viable lifestlyes.

This has been argued quite well by Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa in his book; "The Intelligence Paradox"

Image

The thesis, is that "intelligence" as scored based on actual IQ tests is evolutionary novel and is thriving under modern conditions which are likewise quite different from our primitive origins.

He also points out to other correlations that confirm this; high IQ people have lower birth rates, are less religious, exhibit less sexual dimorphism, have poorer sense of direction, have more evolutionarily novel sleep patterns, are more likely to experiment with drugs, are more egalitarian, are less fiscally responsible, and more like to support liberal political parties.

Dr. Kanazawa's point is that the "intelligent choice" isn't always the "smart one"

His argument is that people with high IQs tend to do things that are really DUMB from a "survival of the species" perspective.

This is also well understood among the working class who have known plenty of young doctoral students who "couldn't turn a wrench, raise a kid, or hunt his own food."

Indeed, it is a common quip among working folks in America to describe many college grads as "So smart they became dumb."

Likewise, I would contend your jumping straight to the white supremacist straw-man, because technically, most of the leading figures in the white supremacy movement technically have high IQs.

Rather, I am speaking more about working class conservative types, the average joe that is more religious, conservative, and blue collar contra the university professor that is irreligious, liberal, and white collar et al.

However, emotionalism can be far more attributed to the SJWs which are not only far more numerous that "white supremacists" but are on the whole almost all college educated. What this seems to indicate is that irrational emotionalism is more of a common attribute among higher IQ leftists, which is not surprising. Behaviors that are not as viable in a state of nature are common among intelligent libertines.
#14947660
@Victoribus Spolia

I was just correlating certain practices amongst common sense conservatives that are irrational and emotional. The intellectual white supremacists who justify white supremacy on a philosophical and scientific basis (i.e. the guys I mentioned in my post) have high IQs but a vast majority of white supremacists aren't like this. Whataboutism won't get you anywhere. Furthermore, your argument doesn't consider scientists who have higher IQs than SJWs and SJWs are often teenagers and thus have undeveloped brains. I only jumped to white supremacism since it's the most irrational well-known conservative ideology to Westerners (i.e. you!).

I have my own issues with the intelligence paradox but since I have to cover the entire book, it would take too much time, and I don't have the motivation for it, I won't do that. It's off-topic anyways.
#14947663
Oxymandias wrote:I was just correlating certain practices amongst common sense conservatives that are irrational and emotional.


There are always exceptions when we generalize, thats why they are called generalizations; however, exceptions do not undermine the rule if the rule is not claimed to be absolute. Clearly in a field like evolutionary anthropology no one is going to argue in absolute terms (or at least they shouldn't). Of course, I don't even believe in evolution so this is all purely sci-fi fun for me anyway. :lol:

Oxymandias wrote:I only jumped to white supremacism since it's the most irrational well-known conservative ideology to Westerners


Yes, that is an easy straw-man to beat up, congrats.

Oxymandias wrote:I have my own issues with the intelligence paradox but since I have to cover the entire book, it would take too much time, and I don't have the motivation for it, I won't do that. It's off-topic anyways.


As do I also, but likely for different reasons.
#14947668
@Victoribus Spolia

I mean, if conservatives are immune to emotional or irrational thinking, then white supremacism shouldn't exist. You claimed that I couldn't possibly make a straw man in the first place. Conservatives are also really prone to paranoia (which isn't common sense in the first place since paranoia hinders cooperation).
#14947672
Oxymandias wrote:f conservatives are immune to emotional or irrational thinking


Didn't I just state that generalizations allow for exceptions?

I never said that conservatives are immune from anything anymore than leftists are immune from low IQs, there are plenty of low IQ leftists, but as a generalization, higher IQs can be correlated with leftist beliefs just as more evolutionary viable lifestyles can be correlated with Right-wing beliefs (all things being equal).

Likewise, paranoia hinders cooperation unless the paranoia is indicative of the group itself, in which case its part of the intra-tribal cohesion.

Indeed, the Right's paranoia about leftist oppression is part of what causes them to cooperate. Your point is only valid if conservatives are seen as members of a larger tribe instead of being a tribe themselves.
#14947801
Negotiator wrote:Err ... theres nothing alt-right about believing that scientists are mostly left-wing. Thats just a well known fact.

Intelligent people are statistically more likely to be left-wing. In any country, at any time.


I think it's more like...

... Of the top 25% of intelligent people, a significant amount of them are more likely to be left wing, but of the top 5% of intelligent people, there are probably more right wingers than left wingers as they have moved beyond the normal second option bias and shallow cosmopolitanism that the left embraces.

So much of the low hanging left is reveling in the fact that they kind of know what socialism is and they kind of know a little bit about geopolitics while Uncle Frank only knows the local football team and he's ignorant.

Too many leftists end up being 40 years old and still boasting about how they are smart by picking on the slightly dimmer uncle they had.

Moreover, academia is increasingly colonized by a specific type of perosn who only invites others of a specific type.

Honestly, just listen to the New Books Network and you will get to hear super qualified academics all the time go on and talk...

Less than half of them come off as real intellectuals; the othe rhalf come off as work horse researchers who have some concept of applying a method. Particularly, listen to "Asian studies," "Jewish studies," Gender studies, etc., and you will be dumbfounded at how low level this stuff can be.
#14947837
Ter wrote:Thank you @ThirdTerm
You regularly post highly specialised genetic studies, I suppose you work in that field.


Many research results include a sentence like that. It actually means "Keep on giving more funds for research", especially to the author.

Also, thank you for making me look up that unfamiliar word "apodictic". I had not come across it before. The lengths authors of scientific papers will go to distance themselves from the normal population is remarkable.



IMHO, such terms run counter to the 'scientific method', seemingly designed to place any questions of validity out of reach, that's why it should not be included in scientific papers subject to peer review. :peace:
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]