7 ms·

Whole-genome ancestry of an Old Kingdom Egyptian

149 points by A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

eddythompson80 1y ago
I'll have to bookmark it for later to spend more time than just skimming, but I find 2 things interesting. The lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. It's also the same you rarely find Egyptian archeologists/scholars on scientific papers. While this might be a matter of ancient history and science to everyone, it's a matter of current day politics for Egyptians and especially the Egyptian government. The "findings" of the paper has to agree with the narrative built and proposed by the ministry of antiquities or they will literally charge whoever publishes it with a national crime.
- appleaday1 1y ago
  source?
- prmph 1y ago
  And where did the Mesopotamians move from? If you don't see the political context of the science then too bad. Like, you know people till now take pride in the exploits and culture of their supposed ancient ancestors, never mind that for the the vast majority of people, there is no simple and direct line from some ancient illustrious people to them. The latent political context is the assumption driving the research, that Egyptian culture had to have come from somewhere else, so let's go look for it. You see the same thing when evidence of cultural achievements elsewhere in Africa is unearthed. Of course you will find a somewhere else, no matter how tenuous the connection, in which case my first sentence above comes into play: let's keep finding the somewhere else until we all get back to Africa, supposedly the birthplace of it all. EDIT: Since this is being misunderstood, this what I actually mean: For some reason, this finding somewhere else is not applied consistently. Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, or else stop with this nonsensical subtext that just because a culture has some roots from elsewhere, so therefore it cannot have made innovations by itself beyond its supposed origins.
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    That's exactly the brand of nonesense that is sold to people there as "progressive" and "anti-colonialism" while infact it's just pure nonesense. Of course every culture/society had to have come from some previous place/culture/society that changed over time due to an incredibly long and complex set of circumstances. The story one must believe to accept your view is that at a flick of the wrist, humans turned from Cave Men to some vague list of "root societies/civilizations" people moved around. Understanding how that movement happened 15 thousands years ago won't make the jews take over Egypt I promise.
    - jjtheblunt 1y ago
      i think you accidentally worded this in a way you might not have meant. you said a culture (singular) had to have come from another culture (singular), missing the possibility of blending, as worded.
      - eddythompson80 1y ago
        Yeah definitely meant to it plural
    - prmph 1y ago
      I think you misunderstand my point. You are kind of confirming my point. What I am saying is that for some reason, this finding somewhere else is not applied consistently. Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, or else stop with this nonsense that just because a culture has some roots from elsewhere, so therefore it cannot have made innovations by itself beyond its supposed origins.
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        > Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, I'm not a scientist, but as far as I can tell... do that? Half the interest in archeological type studies seems to be "ok, this the earliest history we know of, what came before that?" I agree that humans tend to get way too entitled about (maybe) sharing genes with someone who did something cool in past history, but learning about which populations migrated to egypt and from where and when, seems unrelated.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  Humanity routinely has a similar kind of ego that requires relevance. But fortunately we still have a distributed knowledge system that excises and corrects local folklore. I don’t think it is interesting that there aren’t Egyptian scholars on the topic, whether this national/cultural identity existed or not. I obviously don’t care if it bruises an ego, I would care if the lack of representation overlooks something though.
- NL807 1y ago
  >The lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. It seems like Egyptian archaeologists is a clique of academics that do not like to rock the apple cart and go against established ideas about Egyptian history. There is a lot of gate keeping going on, mostly in part of Zahi Hawass, a narcissist that likes to self insert into every research into the subject, and control publication of results, etc. Even worse, claim attribution for work he's not even part of. So, if you don't kiss the ring, or dare to challenge ideas without his blessing, you'll be pretty much become a pariah that will never access archaeological sites again. Because of this, research in the field seems to be stagnant.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    I think, as much or more than Hawass's ego, the fact that tourism to Egypt and specifically Giza amounts to nearly a tenth of Egypt's GDP: https://egyptianstreets.com/2024/12/09/tourism-contribution-to-egypts-gdp-rises-to-8-1-in-2024/ https://egyptianstreets.com/2024/12/09/tourism-contribution-... accounts for a lot of his behavior. It's big business, has been for almost 5,000 years, and keeping the mysteries alive keeps the money flowing to the cult of Kufu or the modern equivalent. History for Granite ( https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE ) touches on this powerful explanation for several observable aspects of these ancient sites that otherwise defy explanation. The top of The Great Pyramid was likely flattened so that rich visitors could pay to have an unforgettable picnic at the top. Many passages were filled up with sand and rubble because guides didn't enjoy the extra time and effort in hot dark bat infested areas that tourists demanded. And so on. Zahi is carrying on a long tradition.
    - NL807 1y ago
      Here's the thing, one can promote tourism while also being academically honest. Hawass just wants to be the top dog in the field and does not want to be wrong about some of the things he claimed in his publications.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      > It's big business, has been for almost 5,000 years I think you're confusing "Egyptian economic activity related to tourism" with "the existence of civilization in Egypt".
- jasonfarnon 1y ago
  The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". How do you conclude that from the fact that 1 man of the era had 20% of his genetic material from Mesopotamia?
  - cma 1y ago
    Kind of like checking one British royalty corpse for Danish ancestry.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      They actually studied the skeleton as well. > The body was placed in a large pottery vessel inside a rock-cut tomb (Fig. 1b and Extended Data Fig. 1). This treatment would have ordinarily been reserved for individuals of a higher social class relative to others at the site But, > This and various activity-induced musculoskeletal indicators of stress revealed that he experienced an extended period of physical labour, seemingly in contrast to his high-status tomb burial. > In this case, although circumstantial, they are not inconsistent with those of a potter, as depicted in ancient Egyptian imagery. Checking the corpses of nobility would be a bad idea because they are shipped around for diplomatic reasons. I guess a potter moves around less (though, as a skilled worker, probably moved around a bit?).
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    Actually, I think it’s wrong to say that this paper proves Egyptians moved from somewhere else. As with any research paper, it is part of a conversation and moving consensus. It is a journey. > Our knowledge of ancient Egyptians has increased through decades of bioarchaeological analyses including dental morphological studies on their relatedness to other populations in North Africa and West Asia There are other footsteps. The DNA is just a notable rock they’ve clambered over.
  - clw8 1y ago
    I believe they are basing that on the spread of genes from the Natufian culture that built the earliest settlements corresponding to the spread of Afroasiatic languages. Similar to how Turkish people have low levels of Turkic ancestry.
- jjtheblunt 1y ago
  > The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. there was no such conclusion that i saw having read this. they are talking of genetic admixture...so the person shared ancestors with someone else sequenced from the mesopotamian area...maybe they both were kids with a parent elsewhere, for example.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- dilawar 1y ago
  > Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. Same here in India. These ideas about civilization and racial purity/superiority are a scientific nonsense but very useful for getting people to hate each other.
  - beloch 1y ago
    Human populations almost never sat still in one place and avoided mixing with others. Go back far enough, and Europeans and Indians are related. Go back further, and they're both related to Native North Americans. Go back far enough and we're all related. Anyone making claims that their ethnic group is somehow "pure" is ignoring linguistics, genetics, archaeology, and basic human nature. We move around. We meet people. We make new people.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      Go back further still, and we're related to cyanobacteria.
      - thrzzza 1y ago
        [dead]
      - simonh 1y ago
        https://xkcd.com/2608/ https://xkcd.com/2608/
      - genghisjahn 1y ago
        “LET’S SET THE EXISTENCE-OF-GOD ISSUE ASIDE FOR A later volume, and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored.” Cryptonomicon. Page 24.
    - 1y ago
- vasco 1y ago
  Happens everywhere. Nationalism is hidden in every country's history curriculum. I learned my country was the first in the world to abolish slavery (actually had them til 1950s, documented) among a bunch of other lies I only discovered later. Most of them are embellishments of real things but others are just flat out wrong. If you want to see examples you don't even need my school books. Compare these chronological lists in both languages, in English wikipedia or Portuguese wikipedia: - https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronologia_da_aboli%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_escravid%C3%A3o_e_servid%C3%A3o https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronologia_da_aboli%C3%A7%C3... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_sla... Very different!
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  “…the Nuwayrat individual is predicted to have had brown eyes, brown hair and skin pigmentation ranging from dark to black skin, with a lower probability of intermediate skin colour”
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    The SI has much more information along these lines, including a facial reconstruction. Our Ancient Egyptian looks basically Arabian -- the closest match is a modern Bedouin. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-025-09195-5/MediaObjects/41586_2025_9195_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415... > Next, according to the CRANID nearest neighbour discriminant analysis, the individual cranium most like Nuwayrat is from a West Asian Bedouin male (Individual 2546 in CRANID database), with the following rounding out the top five: Egyptian 26th-30th Dynasty male (Ind 1034), Indian male (2576), Lachish male (2668), and another 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptian male (1031). > Thus, in line with the genetic results the Nuwayrat individual, subject to limitations imposed by the comparative samples available in the two program datasets (as above), appears most akin phenetically to: Western Eurasians rather than subSaharan Africans dentally and, more specifically, premodern West Asians, i.e., Lachish, based on craniometrics. It is secondarily most similar in craniometric dimensions to ancient Egyptians of a more recent time.
    - krisboyz781 1y ago
      [dead]
- KurSix 1y ago
  When your research has to align with a state-approved version of history, real collaboration becomes tricky
- n4r9 1y ago
  There are lots of replies to this already but I think it's worth simply copying out the relevant parts of the conclusion: > Although our analyses are limited to a single Egyptian individual who ... may not be representative of the general population, our results revealed ancestry links to earlier North African groups and populations of the eastern Fertile Crescent. ... The genetic links with the eastern Fertile Crescent also mirror previously documented cultural diffusion ... opening up the possibility of some settlement of people in Egypt during one or more of these periods.
  - DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
    This wording is definitely more circumspect than its headline version, "Breakthrough discovery REVEALS Egyptians are in fact MESOPOTAMIANS"
- vuxie 1y ago
  I think conclusion is a bit of a strong term to use here, as far as i can read its a possibility, but the only real conclusion is that there has been human movement between the regions, which might indicate mixing (that is, they didn't move there, at least, not all of them).
- DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
  > the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian Touch some grass, seriously. They looked at the DNA of 1 (in words: one) guy and now it's "hey in fact Egyptians all came from Mesopotamia"? You'd have to take many more samples to support such a broad claim, and it's not because of the Ministry of Antiquities suppressing ideas. Mankind likely did not originate in the Nile valley, hence the fact we find people there from some point in history means they migrated from somewhere else. If you subscribe to the single-origin story (which I think is plausible but not the only possible one, the alternative being various human populations that got separated and re-united in different parts of the world) and think, just for the sake of argument, of Lucy as 'the first human' then humans are immigrants almost everywhere (this will be hard to swallow for lots of people and we know from the historical record (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJF2RomfGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJF2RomfGE) that the Voth had problems with that, too, so it's very human). The narrower Nile valley must have been a relatively inhospitable place for a human during the African Wet Period. When that came to an end around ~7ky ago or so that change made the Nile valley rather suddenly more attractive to many thousands of people who used to roam the lands to the right and left of it. As desertification progressed, communities were forced to go someplace else with some ending up in the Nile valley. In a way, you can to this day see the echoes of that time in the ethnic and cultural diversity of Egyptian society which I think is more of a hallmark of this civilization than an imagined homogenized one-mold-fits-all view. And it's totally not out of place that some people with roots in Ancient Egypt should have an ancestry that came from the Levant or further from Anatolia or Mesopotamia. Egypt was a big place, rich in people, culture, food, arts and opportunity (and, not to forget, regular festivals with beer, wine and music at the cultural centers; today people cross continents for taking part in festivals with beer, wine and music). Egypt had trade, diplomatic relations and 'military exchanges' (war) with those far-flung places and captives were either maimed or indentured, so as a matter of course we find Egyptians with Mesopotamian admixtures, what did you think?
  - throwawayffffas 1y ago
    Additionally presence of certain genetic markers in two locations does not define the direction of travel.
  - 1y ago
- rayiner 1y ago
  The same is true for many people, e.g. the Japanese. You’re prohibited from digging up the bones of ancient empties and doing DNA testing to see if they’re korean.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  > . The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Finding some individuals to whom this applies "20% of his genetic ancestry can be traced to genomes representing the eastern Fertile Crescent" doesn't really prove that at all, though?
- hearsathought 1y ago
  > The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. What strong conclusion? You "skim" the article and feel justified making outlandish politicized statements? > They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. As does everyone else and which is true for the most part. Does anyone dispute ancient egypt's civilizational status? > While this might be a matter of ancient history and science to everyone It isn't a matter of ancient history and science to everyone. Ancient history, science and archaelogy are political for everyone. Egyptology as a field was created by europeans partly to justify taking over egypt. It literally was part of european colonialism. > It's also the same you rarely find Egyptian archeologists/scholars on scientific papers. You find it odd that egyptians aren't too keen on egyptology? > The "findings" of the paper has to agree with the narrative built and proposed by the ministry of antiquities or they will literally charge whoever publishes it with a national crime. I highly doubt that. Maybe if the "study" undermines egypt's attempt to get their stolen antiquities back. But even then your claim seems outlandish.
- sandworm101 1y ago
  >> lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. Politics. The egyption government is very sensitive about egyptology. They can make normal life difficult for people who rock the boat. Novel research or theories are activley discouraged. So it is hard for locals, and safer for outsiders, to make news. https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite (No, this isnt an ancient aliens crackpot channel. This guy is doing solid work and does discuss how egyptology is so locked down.)
- dsign 1y ago
  This is interesting. I wrote that trait about cultural censorship in a science fiction story (you can find it in a link in my profile), but I had filed it under the ‘fiction’ part. Now I need to go back and make some edits. However, it has to be said that many third-world nations are extremely jealous of their identity (and of the narrative around it), due to the perceived threat (or rather, historic record) of foreign interference.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
imadierich 1y ago
[dead]
imadierich 1y ago
[dead]
hbarka 1y ago
Can’t we think of it as just one large land mass? Maybe 5000 years ago the Sinai peninsula was more land, less sea—the Red Sea not as big, and the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba as we know it now was land mass. Then it wouldn’t be hard to imagine freedom of travel in all kinds of directions.
- KurSix 1y ago
  The key isn't shifting land masses, but the fact that even with the existing terrain, people were moving, trading, and mixing across these regions
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  The authors actually hypothesize that the Sinai desert was not the main migration path to Egypt here, that's speculative. That said, it's essentially how most people think of the Mediterranean basin by the middle bronze age, not too much later than this.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  > 5000 years ago the Sinai peninsula was more land, less sea—the Red Sea not as big, and the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba as we know it now was land mass. 5,000 is a split second in geological terms. We KNOW how Sinai and the Red Sea looks like 5000 or 20,000 years ago.
PKop 1y ago
How do we even know this person was upper class or some itinerant migrant worker that came from somewhere else? Even the citation claiming the burial method was associated with upper class raises doubts: following the link mentions "pot burial" which has commonly been associated with the poor. The problem with identifying bones with "population" is it often says what the common man was like but not the minority elite that ruled and had power if one isn't careful about who they think they're identifying or the demographic structure of society in these ancient cultures.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  Well, I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile. More generally, if what you're looking at is a cemetery for the poor, there should be a lot of remains, and there shouldn't be much in the way of decoration. If someone carved a tomb for the remains to be in ("The body was interred in a ceramic pot within a rock-cut tomb"), that already disqualifies them from being poor.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    > I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile. You are wrong to think that the majority of Egyptians’ corpses were disposed of in the Nile.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      Is that something I said?
      - mrangle 1y ago
        You implied that lower class burials were likely in the Nile. To advance the argument that a pot burial likely didn't indicate a poor burial.
  - throwawayffffas 1y ago
andsoitis 1y ago
> Ancient Egyptian society flourished for millennia, reaching its peak during the Dynastic Period (approximately 3150–30 BCE) Note, Ancient Egypt emerged from prehistoric times in 3150 BCE (it hadn’t existed for millennia then), with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.
KurSix 1y ago
How many other early genomes we've missed just due to preservation bias
rietta 1y ago
The article states that 'his genetic affinity is similar to the ancestry appearing in Anatolia and the Levant during the Neolithic and Bronze Age.' As a layperson, I don't think we would find this particularly shocking. It's well known from written sources that there was significant communication and movement between Egypt and those areas during the broader Bronze Age, even extending back into the Neolithic for some cultural exchanges. This even aligns with biblical narratives that describe individuals and families traveling to and from Egypt for periods of time.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  Worth noting for context that "Anatolia and the Levant" (better known perhaps as the Ancient Near East) also included plenty of darker-skinned folks in that time period, with an appearance that we might nowadays associate with Sub-Saharan Africa - and they were highly integrated in their societies, not just a servile underclass. This is also true of the ancient Mediterranean region as a whole. We're especially sure about this because of surviving pictorial/visual (e.g. from the Minoan civilization in Crete) and textual sources. So our Old-Kingdom Ancient Egyptian could well have looked quite "Sub-Saharan" in appearance, despite not originating anywhere south of present-day Sahara.
  - sivm 1y ago
    It didn’t. They clearly distinguished Nubians and Libyians from themselves in their art.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    Gonna need a source for your assertion since the Egyptians and Minoans always differentiated between themselves and Nubians/Libyans in art and literature... People from the ancient near East nearly always depicted themselves as somewhere between white and reddish/light brown and their modern populations fall within the same spectrum. There's no evidence for near Eastern populations having ever looked "Sub Saharan".
    - sivm 1y ago
dumbledoren 1y ago
Lower egypt always had Levantine genetic influence. Middle and Upper Egypt always had Kush/Sudanese genetic influence. The Ancient Egypt we know originated from Upper Egypt when Narmer conquered Lower Egypt and established the first dynasty.

149 points by A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

I'll have to bookmark it for later to spend more time than just skimming, but I find 2 things interesting. The lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. It's also the same you rarely find Egyptian archeologists/scholars on scientific papers. While this might be a matter of ancient history and science to everyone, it's a matter of current day politics for Egyptians and especially the Egyptian government. The "findings" of the paper has to agree with the narrative built and proposed by the ministry of antiquities or they will literally charge whoever publishes it with a national crime.

appleaday1 1y ago
source?
prmph 1y ago
And where did the Mesopotamians move from? If you don't see the political context of the science then too bad. Like, you know people till now take pride in the exploits and culture of their supposed ancient ancestors, never mind that for the the vast majority of people, there is no simple and direct line from some ancient illustrious people to them. The latent political context is the assumption driving the research, that Egyptian culture had to have come from somewhere else, so let's go look for it. You see the same thing when evidence of cultural achievements elsewhere in Africa is unearthed. Of course you will find a somewhere else, no matter how tenuous the connection, in which case my first sentence above comes into play: let's keep finding the somewhere else until we all get back to Africa, supposedly the birthplace of it all. EDIT: Since this is being misunderstood, this what I actually mean: For some reason, this finding somewhere else is not applied consistently. Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, or else stop with this nonsensical subtext that just because a culture has some roots from elsewhere, so therefore it cannot have made innovations by itself beyond its supposed origins.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  That's exactly the brand of nonesense that is sold to people there as "progressive" and "anti-colonialism" while infact it's just pure nonesense. Of course every culture/society had to have come from some previous place/culture/society that changed over time due to an incredibly long and complex set of circumstances. The story one must believe to accept your view is that at a flick of the wrist, humans turned from Cave Men to some vague list of "root societies/civilizations" people moved around. Understanding how that movement happened 15 thousands years ago won't make the jews take over Egypt I promise.
  - jjtheblunt 1y ago
    i think you accidentally worded this in a way you might not have meant. you said a culture (singular) had to have come from another culture (singular), missing the possibility of blending, as worded.
    - eddythompson80 1y ago
      Yeah definitely meant to it plural
  - prmph 1y ago
    I think you misunderstand my point. You are kind of confirming my point. What I am saying is that for some reason, this finding somewhere else is not applied consistently. Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, or else stop with this nonsense that just because a culture has some roots from elsewhere, so therefore it cannot have made innovations by itself beyond its supposed origins.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      > Either we should keep finding the somewhere else for all cultures for as far back as we can, I'm not a scientist, but as far as I can tell... do that? Half the interest in archeological type studies seems to be "ok, this the earliest history we know of, what came before that?" I agree that humans tend to get way too entitled about (maybe) sharing genes with someone who did something cool in past history, but learning about which populations migrated to egypt and from where and when, seems unrelated.
yieldcrv 1y ago
Humanity routinely has a similar kind of ego that requires relevance. But fortunately we still have a distributed knowledge system that excises and corrects local folklore. I don’t think it is interesting that there aren’t Egyptian scholars on the topic, whether this national/cultural identity existed or not. I obviously don’t care if it bruises an ego, I would care if the lack of representation overlooks something though.
NL807 1y ago
>The lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. It seems like Egyptian archaeologists is a clique of academics that do not like to rock the apple cart and go against established ideas about Egyptian history. There is a lot of gate keeping going on, mostly in part of Zahi Hawass, a narcissist that likes to self insert into every research into the subject, and control publication of results, etc. Even worse, claim attribution for work he's not even part of. So, if you don't kiss the ring, or dare to challenge ideas without his blessing, you'll be pretty much become a pariah that will never access archaeological sites again. Because of this, research in the field seems to be stagnant.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  I think, as much or more than Hawass's ego, the fact that tourism to Egypt and specifically Giza amounts to nearly a tenth of Egypt's GDP: https://egyptianstreets.com/2024/12/09/tourism-contribution-to-egypts-gdp-rises-to-8-1-in-2024/ https://egyptianstreets.com/2024/12/09/tourism-contribution-... accounts for a lot of his behavior. It's big business, has been for almost 5,000 years, and keeping the mysteries alive keeps the money flowing to the cult of Kufu or the modern equivalent. History for Granite ( https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryforGRANITE ) touches on this powerful explanation for several observable aspects of these ancient sites that otherwise defy explanation. The top of The Great Pyramid was likely flattened so that rich visitors could pay to have an unforgettable picnic at the top. Many passages were filled up with sand and rubble because guides didn't enjoy the extra time and effort in hot dark bat infested areas that tourists demanded. And so on. Zahi is carrying on a long tradition.
  - NL807 1y ago
    Here's the thing, one can promote tourism while also being academically honest. Hawass just wants to be the top dog in the field and does not want to be wrong about some of the things he claimed in his publications.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    > It's big business, has been for almost 5,000 years I think you're confusing "Egyptian economic activity related to tourism" with "the existence of civilization in Egypt".
jasonfarnon 1y ago
The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". How do you conclude that from the fact that 1 man of the era had 20% of his genetic material from Mesopotamia?
- cma 1y ago
  Kind of like checking one British royalty corpse for Danish ancestry.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    They actually studied the skeleton as well. > The body was placed in a large pottery vessel inside a rock-cut tomb (Fig. 1b and Extended Data Fig. 1). This treatment would have ordinarily been reserved for individuals of a higher social class relative to others at the site But, > This and various activity-induced musculoskeletal indicators of stress revealed that he experienced an extended period of physical labour, seemingly in contrast to his high-status tomb burial. > In this case, although circumstantial, they are not inconsistent with those of a potter, as depicted in ancient Egyptian imagery. Checking the corpses of nobility would be a bad idea because they are shipped around for diplomatic reasons. I guess a potter moves around less (though, as a skilled worker, probably moved around a bit?).
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Actually, I think it’s wrong to say that this paper proves Egyptians moved from somewhere else. As with any research paper, it is part of a conversation and moving consensus. It is a journey. > Our knowledge of ancient Egyptians has increased through decades of bioarchaeological analyses including dental morphological studies on their relatedness to other populations in North Africa and West Asia There are other footsteps. The DNA is just a notable rock they’ve clambered over.
- clw8 1y ago
  I believe they are basing that on the spread of genes from the Natufian culture that built the earliest settlements corresponding to the spread of Afroasiatic languages. Similar to how Turkish people have low levels of Turkic ancestry.
jjtheblunt 1y ago
> The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. there was no such conclusion that i saw having read this. they are talking of genetic admixture...so the person shared ancestors with someone else sequenced from the mesopotamian area...maybe they both were kids with a parent elsewhere, for example.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dilawar 1y ago
> Egyptians don't like the notion that "they moved there from somewhere". They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. Same here in India. These ideas about civilization and racial purity/superiority are a scientific nonsense but very useful for getting people to hate each other.
- beloch 1y ago
  Human populations almost never sat still in one place and avoided mixing with others. Go back far enough, and Europeans and Indians are related. Go back further, and they're both related to Native North Americans. Go back far enough and we're all related. Anyone making claims that their ethnic group is somehow "pure" is ignoring linguistics, genetics, archaeology, and basic human nature. We move around. We meet people. We make new people.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    Go back further still, and we're related to cyanobacteria.
    - thrzzza 1y ago
      [dead]
    - simonh 1y ago
      https://xkcd.com/2608/ https://xkcd.com/2608/
    - genghisjahn 1y ago
      “LET’S SET THE EXISTENCE-OF-GOD ISSUE ASIDE FOR A later volume, and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored.” Cryptonomicon. Page 24.
  - 1y ago
vasco 1y ago
Happens everywhere. Nationalism is hidden in every country's history curriculum. I learned my country was the first in the world to abolish slavery (actually had them til 1950s, documented) among a bunch of other lies I only discovered later. Most of them are embellishments of real things but others are just flat out wrong. If you want to see examples you don't even need my school books. Compare these chronological lists in both languages, in English wikipedia or Portuguese wikipedia: - https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronologia_da_aboli%C3%A7%C3%A3o_da_escravid%C3%A3o_e_servid%C3%A3o https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronologia_da_aboli%C3%A7%C3... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_sla... Very different!
dr_dshiv 1y ago
“…the Nuwayrat individual is predicted to have had brown eyes, brown hair and skin pigmentation ranging from dark to black skin, with a lower probability of intermediate skin colour”
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  The SI has much more information along these lines, including a facial reconstruction. Our Ancient Egyptian looks basically Arabian -- the closest match is a modern Bedouin. https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-025-09195-5/MediaObjects/41586_2025_9195_MOESM1_ESM.pdf https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415... > Next, according to the CRANID nearest neighbour discriminant analysis, the individual cranium most like Nuwayrat is from a West Asian Bedouin male (Individual 2546 in CRANID database), with the following rounding out the top five: Egyptian 26th-30th Dynasty male (Ind 1034), Indian male (2576), Lachish male (2668), and another 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptian male (1031). > Thus, in line with the genetic results the Nuwayrat individual, subject to limitations imposed by the comparative samples available in the two program datasets (as above), appears most akin phenetically to: Western Eurasians rather than subSaharan Africans dentally and, more specifically, premodern West Asians, i.e., Lachish, based on craniometrics. It is secondarily most similar in craniometric dimensions to ancient Egyptians of a more recent time.
  - krisboyz781 1y ago
    [dead]
KurSix 1y ago
When your research has to align with a state-approved version of history, real collaboration becomes tricky
n4r9 1y ago
There are lots of replies to this already but I think it's worth simply copying out the relevant parts of the conclusion: > Although our analyses are limited to a single Egyptian individual who ... may not be representative of the general population, our results revealed ancestry links to earlier North African groups and populations of the eastern Fertile Crescent. ... The genetic links with the eastern Fertile Crescent also mirror previously documented cultural diffusion ... opening up the possibility of some settlement of people in Egypt during one or more of these periods.
- DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
  This wording is definitely more circumspect than its headline version, "Breakthrough discovery REVEALS Egyptians are in fact MESOPOTAMIANS"
vuxie 1y ago
I think conclusion is a bit of a strong term to use here, as far as i can read its a possibility, but the only real conclusion is that there has been human movement between the regions, which might indicate mixing (that is, they didn't move there, at least, not all of them).
DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
> the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian Touch some grass, seriously. They looked at the DNA of 1 (in words: one) guy and now it's "hey in fact Egyptians all came from Mesopotamia"? You'd have to take many more samples to support such a broad claim, and it's not because of the Ministry of Antiquities suppressing ideas. Mankind likely did not originate in the Nile valley, hence the fact we find people there from some point in history means they migrated from somewhere else. If you subscribe to the single-origin story (which I think is plausible but not the only possible one, the alternative being various human populations that got separated and re-united in different parts of the world) and think, just for the sake of argument, of Lucy as 'the first human' then humans are immigrants almost everywhere (this will be hard to swallow for lots of people and we know from the historical record (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJF2RomfGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJF2RomfGE) that the Voth had problems with that, too, so it's very human). The narrower Nile valley must have been a relatively inhospitable place for a human during the African Wet Period. When that came to an end around ~7ky ago or so that change made the Nile valley rather suddenly more attractive to many thousands of people who used to roam the lands to the right and left of it. As desertification progressed, communities were forced to go someplace else with some ending up in the Nile valley. In a way, you can to this day see the echoes of that time in the ethnic and cultural diversity of Egyptian society which I think is more of a hallmark of this civilization than an imagined homogenized one-mold-fits-all view. And it's totally not out of place that some people with roots in Ancient Egypt should have an ancestry that came from the Levant or further from Anatolia or Mesopotamia. Egypt was a big place, rich in people, culture, food, arts and opportunity (and, not to forget, regular festivals with beer, wine and music at the cultural centers; today people cross continents for taking part in festivals with beer, wine and music). Egypt had trade, diplomatic relations and 'military exchanges' (war) with those far-flung places and captives were either maimed or indentured, so as a matter of course we find Egyptians with Mesopotamian admixtures, what did you think?
- throwawayffffas 1y ago
  Additionally presence of certain genetic markers in two locations does not define the direction of travel.
- 1y ago
rayiner 1y ago
The same is true for many people, e.g. the Japanese. You’re prohibited from digging up the bones of ancient empties and doing DNA testing to see if they’re korean.
pqtyw 1y ago
> . The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. Finding some individuals to whom this applies "20% of his genetic ancestry can be traced to genomes representing the eastern Fertile Crescent" doesn't really prove that at all, though?
hearsathought 1y ago
> The other is the seemingly strong conclusion that Ancient Egyptians did in fact move to Egypt from Mesopotamian which is pretty cool. What strong conclusion? You "skim" the article and feel justified making outlandish politicized statements? > They claim their own unique, uninterrupted, history and connection to the land as well as their civilizational independence from Mesopotamian, Asia Minor, Europe, and Africa. As does everyone else and which is true for the most part. Does anyone dispute ancient egypt's civilizational status? > While this might be a matter of ancient history and science to everyone It isn't a matter of ancient history and science to everyone. Ancient history, science and archaelogy are political for everyone. Egyptology as a field was created by europeans partly to justify taking over egypt. It literally was part of european colonialism. > It's also the same you rarely find Egyptian archeologists/scholars on scientific papers. You find it odd that egyptians aren't too keen on egyptology? > The "findings" of the paper has to agree with the narrative built and proposed by the ministry of antiquities or they will literally charge whoever publishes it with a national crime. I highly doubt that. Maybe if the "study" undermines egypt's attempt to get their stolen antiquities back. But even then your claim seems outlandish.
sandworm101 1y ago
>> lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one. Politics. The egyption government is very sensitive about egyptology. They can make normal life difficult for people who rock the boat. Novel research or theories are activley discouraged. So it is hard for locals, and safer for outsiders, to make news. https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite (No, this isnt an ancient aliens crackpot channel. This guy is doing solid work and does discuss how egyptology is so locked down.)
dsign 1y ago
This is interesting. I wrote that trait about cultural censorship in a science fiction story (you can find it in a link in my profile), but I had filed it under the ‘fiction’ part. Now I need to go back and make some edits. However, it has to be said that many third-world nations are extremely jealous of their identity (and of the narrative around it), due to the perceived threat (or rather, historic record) of foreign interference.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

imadierich 1y ago

[dead]

imadierich 1y ago

[dead]

hbarka 1y ago

Can’t we think of it as just one large land mass? Maybe 5000 years ago the Sinai peninsula was more land, less sea—the Red Sea not as big, and the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba as we know it now was land mass. Then it wouldn’t be hard to imagine freedom of travel in all kinds of directions.

KurSix 1y ago
The key isn't shifting land masses, but the fact that even with the existing terrain, people were moving, trading, and mixing across these regions
AlotOfReading 1y ago
The authors actually hypothesize that the Sinai desert was not the main migration path to Egypt here, that's speculative. That said, it's essentially how most people think of the Mediterranean basin by the middle bronze age, not too much later than this.
eddythompson80 1y ago
> 5000 years ago the Sinai peninsula was more land, less sea—the Red Sea not as big, and the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba as we know it now was land mass. 5,000 is a split second in geological terms. We KNOW how Sinai and the Red Sea looks like 5000 or 20,000 years ago.

PKop 1y ago

How do we even know this person was upper class or some itinerant migrant worker that came from somewhere else? Even the citation claiming the burial method was associated with upper class raises doubts: following the link mentions "pot burial" which has commonly been associated with the poor. The problem with identifying bones with "population" is it often says what the common man was like but not the minority elite that ruled and had power if one isn't careful about who they think they're identifying or the demographic structure of society in these ancient cultures.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
Well, I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile. More generally, if what you're looking at is a cemetery for the poor, there should be a lot of remains, and there shouldn't be much in the way of decoration. If someone carved a tomb for the remains to be in ("The body was interred in a ceramic pot within a rock-cut tomb"), that already disqualifies them from being poor.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > I assume the lowest-budget way to deal with a corpse in ancient Egypt is to toss it into the Nile. You are wrong to think that the majority of Egyptians’ corpses were disposed of in the Nile.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    Is that something I said?
    - mrangle 1y ago
      You implied that lower class burials were likely in the Nile. To advance the argument that a pot burial likely didn't indicate a poor burial.
- throwawayffffas 1y ago

andsoitis 1y ago

> Ancient Egyptian society flourished for millennia, reaching its peak during the Dynastic Period (approximately 3150–30 BCE) Note, Ancient Egypt emerged from prehistoric times in 3150 BCE (it hadn’t existed for millennia then), with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.

KurSix 1y ago

How many other early genomes we've missed just due to preservation bias

rietta 1y ago

The article states that 'his genetic affinity is similar to the ancestry appearing in Anatolia and the Levant during the Neolithic and Bronze Age.' As a layperson, I don't think we would find this particularly shocking. It's well known from written sources that there was significant communication and movement between Egypt and those areas during the broader Bronze Age, even extending back into the Neolithic for some cultural exchanges. This even aligns with biblical narratives that describe individuals and families traveling to and from Egypt for periods of time.

zozbot234 1y ago
Worth noting for context that "Anatolia and the Levant" (better known perhaps as the Ancient Near East) also included plenty of darker-skinned folks in that time period, with an appearance that we might nowadays associate with Sub-Saharan Africa - and they were highly integrated in their societies, not just a servile underclass. This is also true of the ancient Mediterranean region as a whole. We're especially sure about this because of surviving pictorial/visual (e.g. from the Minoan civilization in Crete) and textual sources. So our Old-Kingdom Ancient Egyptian could well have looked quite "Sub-Saharan" in appearance, despite not originating anywhere south of present-day Sahara.
- sivm 1y ago
  It didn’t. They clearly distinguished Nubians and Libyians from themselves in their art.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  Gonna need a source for your assertion since the Egyptians and Minoans always differentiated between themselves and Nubians/Libyans in art and literature... People from the ancient near East nearly always depicted themselves as somewhere between white and reddish/light brown and their modern populations fall within the same spectrum. There's no evidence for near Eastern populations having ever looked "Sub Saharan".
  - sivm 1y ago

dumbledoren 1y ago

Lower egypt always had Levantine genetic influence. Middle and Upper Egypt always had Kush/Sudanese genetic influence. The Ancient Egypt we know originated from Upper Egypt when Narmer conquered Lower Egypt and established the first dynasty.