Evypt old kingdom 2500 BCE
Eygpt old Middle Kingdom
Eygpt old Middle
Eygpt dynastic period
Does that mean ancient Egyptians closest people was semetic especially saudi and Mahri Yemeni ?
Egyptians historians come in here
- Thread starter niggaibnh
- Start date
Evypt old kingdom 2500 BCE
Eygpt old Middle Kingdom
Eygpt old Middle
Eygpt dynastic period
Does that mean ancient Egyptians closest people was semetic especially saudi and Mahri Yemeni ?
Step a side
VIP
Paternally speaking Egyptians are dominant with E-M78 like us Somalis but as whole autosomally speaking Ancient Egyptians especially old kingdom Egyptians are closest to Arabians because they both preserved their Natufian ancestry. Somalis has their Natufian diluted when they started mixing with Proto Nilotic SSA
I don’t want to sound like an ass but this is discussed in another thread.
As for Saudis and Yemenis, well, tl;Dr, it is all but confirmed their Natufian-like competent is Arabian_HG (Lazarisis et al. 2018) and not actually Natufian-proper from Jericho. Both these are further divergent from the Natufian-like component in Egypt which is similar if not the same as the Natufian-like material in Horn Africans (excluding historical Arabian input).
There was a French cranio-morphological study showing both pre and historical Upper-Lower Egyptians demonstrated appreciable craniometric (or non-metric) affinities with Bedouins.
Source: “Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne : l’apport de l’anthropobiologie”
ADD: “Haute” = “Upper” whereas “Basse” = “Lower”
But do remember often times Upper Egyptians and sometimes Lower Egyptians are grouped with Horners cranially. This is not surprising because of their shared ancestors.
“Noirs Egyptiens” refers to a group of modern skulls recovered near Aswan. Those are heavily negroid and was presented in a study by Kemp et al. too.
Source: “Affinités morphologiques entre anciennes populations d'Egypte et
de Nubie”
As for Saudis and Yemenis, well, tl;Dr, it is all but confirmed their Natufian-like competent is Arabian_HG (Lazarisis et al. 2018) and not actually Natufian-proper from Jericho. Both these are further divergent from the Natufian-like component in Egypt which is similar if not the same as the Natufian-like material in Horn Africans (excluding historical Arabian input).
There was a French cranio-morphological study showing both pre and historical Upper-Lower Egyptians demonstrated appreciable craniometric (or non-metric) affinities with Bedouins.
Source: “Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne : l’apport de l’anthropobiologie”
ADD: “Haute” = “Upper” whereas “Basse” = “Lower”
But do remember often times Upper Egyptians and sometimes Lower Egyptians are grouped with Horners cranially. This is not surprising because of their shared ancestors.
“Noirs Egyptiens” refers to a group of modern skulls recovered near Aswan. Those are heavily negroid and was presented in a study by Kemp et al. too.
Source: “Affinités morphologiques entre anciennes populations d'Egypte et
de Nubie”
Last edited:
Step a side
VIP
Why did that guy from the tweet push bell beaker European and Sumerian crap on the Ancient Egyptians
He also said something about ANA increases the further south you go while ibm increases the further west you go.
Step a side
VIP
@Cognitive no doubt our Natufian is similar to the Egyptians. We were geographically close to Egypt during pre dynastic times. What do you think?
Increasing of IBM in the further west should not be expected for oasis such as Kharga and Dakhla since both those are southern ones whereas IBMs were mostly a coastal population.Why did that guy from the tweet push bell beaker European and Sumerian crap on the Ancient Egyptians
He also said something about ANA increases the further south you go while ibm increases the further west you go.
Now for ancient Siwa? Probably.
I could be wrong though but I do not think I am. IBM-like remains were not discovered in Egypt last time I checked. The only possible candidates for this morphological pattern are 1)Merimdians in Lower Egypt 2)Tasians in Upper Egypt. But then again, their robust build could be a result of other factors. Not necessarily IBM.
Now for ANA I do think a similar ancestry will be revealed to have a more prevalent impact in the south. There are lithic industries matching Aterian patterns in Kharga, after all.
There are always Cushitic people in the Eastern Desert. Plus ultimately your “Natufian-like” component came from the same source.
Step a side
VIP
This stuff is really complicated. So ANA is different from Natufian and IBM. Are they all not the same thing with slight differences here and there similar to Danes and Norwegians? Both practically are mostly Germanic but as time went by they formed their own distinct genetic identities?
ANA is a very basal population that branched off the ancestors of “proto-Eurasians” (not to be confused with “basal Eurasians”) and stayed in North Africa. They are represented by the ~45% “SSA-like” ancestry in Iberomaurusians. Iberomaurusians (IBM) are a population who’s paternally ANA and maternally Dzudzuana-like (probably the ancestors of Ohalo II specimen). Autosomally they score about half of each.
Last, the Natufians are majorly the descendants of Ohalo II-like people who received archaic North African admixture in 30% that is similar but likely different from IBMs. This makes Natufians about ~14% ANA (or SSA-like).
ANA should be attributed to the Aterians. They are SSA-like on a genetic cline but they’re probably as distant to your average SSAs like how I (an East Asian) am different to a German. Or like how a Middle Eastern person is different from North Euros. Regardless, they are distinct due to genetic drifts. However, like I used to say, modern SSAs might have revived a large ANA profile due to the AHP as some Aterian industries were found in the Sahara (not just Kharga), and this is how “Yoruba” was modeled in Lazaridis et al. 2018.
Last, the Natufians are majorly the descendants of Ohalo II-like people who received archaic North African admixture in 30% that is similar but likely different from IBMs. This makes Natufians about ~14% ANA (or SSA-like).
ANA should be attributed to the Aterians. They are SSA-like on a genetic cline but they’re probably as distant to your average SSAs like how I (an East Asian) am different to a German. Or like how a Middle Eastern person is different from North Euros. Regardless, they are distinct due to genetic drifts. However, like I used to say, modern SSAs might have revived a large ANA profile due to the AHP as some Aterian industries were found in the Sahara (not just Kharga), and this is how “Yoruba” was modeled in Lazaridis et al. 2018.
Step a side
VIP
Thanks for the breakdown it makes more sense now. So our Natufian ancestry is mostly Ohalo II sourced with only 14% ANA right?
Do you think the A-group peoples (considered Nubian) were more similar to ancient Egyptians or were they more similar to the kadruka samples genetically?
The A-group peoples are certainly a mystery but they could’ve been a fully Eurasian/mostly Natufian like population who spoke Cushitic but they’re more culturally similar to other Nubian groups historically, maybe the verdict is still out with them
.Natufian-proper would have been that. Your Natufian should likely have more archaic North African components, regardless if it came from pure ANAs or IBM-like. Possibly some minor Mota-like as indicated by Shriner et al.
I think the A-Group Nubians would have less SSA-like ancestry compared to their C-Group, non-direct descendants. They could not be fully Eurasian because Natufians themselves are not fully Eurasian.Do you think the A-group peoples (considered Nubian) were more similar to ancient Egyptians or were they more similar to the kadruka samples genetically?
The A-group peoples are certainly a mystery but they could’ve been a fully Eurasian/mostly Natufian like population who spoke Cushitic but they’re more culturally similar to other Nubian groups historically, maybe the verdict is still out with them
I hypothesize they’d behave like some northern Horners (think some Eritreans) or even more northern shifted than them. But I doubt they’d behave like straight up EGs due to their non-metric dental patterns and their frequent visit to southern Western Desert as attested by the presence of their pottery near Gilf Kebir. The southern reaches of Western Desert hosted sub-Saharan-like peoples most likely ancestral to the Nilotics.
As for their linguistic affinities, they could’ve spoken a Cushitic language or an extinct branch of Afroasiatic language most similar to Cushitic. Or perhaps they were bilingual.
Last edited:
So Pre-dynastic Egyptians mixing with Proto-Nilotic as well as native hunger gatherer makes up Cushites?
Pre-Predynastic “Egyptians” mixed with proto-“Nilotics” (or call them proto-Omotics, as they were neither but contributed in significant amounts to both) and formed the first Cushitic-like people.
By the time of Badarians, Cushitic (or Cushitic-like) people were already a well-established community. The first admixture event likely happened in the late Epipaleolithic, where it created the Al-Khiday late Paleolithic people. Somewhat similar yet different from later Cushitics (presented as an outlier specimen on cluster analysis).
Pls remember this is a grossly simplified version. As we did not know which “early Cushitic-like people” from the far past eventually became the common ancestors of modern Cushitic-speakers. Could be the Al-Khiday chaps, could be not.
Last edited:
Step a side
VIP
Can’t wait for the paternal lineages. That’s the most important thing. I hope to see a lot of E-M78 especially E-V12’s
This is what I said in a discord and people laughed at me and I was called the N word several times by a Yemeni guy in there. All because I told him that Arabs don't have natufian ancestry it's a proxy for Arabian HG and that his not experienced enough to be using qpadm or giving any sort of opinion
Moreover, our model
172 predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-
173 related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African
174 source11; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West
175 Africans23. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component
176 in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-
177 Saharan sources.
I don't know if this helps but I'll try to find the full paper
Future sequencing on their HG remains will end Arabian wewuzzing for good.
^It's beyond ironic when this random guy may have looked like the man above.
Looks indistinguishable from your regular Saudi royals, right? I can't even tell the difference.
Trending
-
-
-
Madow talks about why athletes prefer caadan women over madow women- Started by Dibleyy
- Replies: 96
