The King's Monologue

Introduction to the Genetic Study

A recent study undertaken by the German Research Foundation claimed that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with near easterners than present-day Egyptians and Africans. The study took genetic samples from pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman era mummies suggesting there is genetic continuity between the ancient Egyptians and modern Eastern Mediterraneans, the Turkish and modern near Eastern populations. To the uninformed general public, the study seemed conclusive however as is too often the case in Egyptology, not all was as it seemed.

Issues with the Sample Source

The study failed to reference that the ethnicity of the mummies irrefutably biased the results of the test. In fact the outcomes given the origin of the sample material should not have been a surprise at all for the samples used in this study were taken exclusively from a Fayuum burial ground in abusir El Malik. It was alleged by the research team that this choice would provide a fair snapshot of the ancient Egyptian population yet the choice of location and date of the mummies guaranteed the probability of having genuine Egyptians in the sample group to be virtually zero as it is common knowledge amongst historians that these tombs had been under exclusive foreign occupation for centuries.

Historical Context of the Region

An article from UCL (university College London) confirms this. It states, “in the Ptolemaic period the Fayuum was one of the main regions where Greek settled.” Encyclopedia Britannica in support of this rights, “Greek settlers were brought to the area creating prosperous Hellenistic communities.” Historical researcher Joanna Willimovska states, “statistical analysis revealed that Greek settlers constituted about 30% of the total population of the Fayuum in the mid-third century BC” (bear in mind this constitutes the very start of the Ptolemaic era and thus would have significantly risen over time ancient). Origins writes, “it is known that the Fayuum population exploded During the Ptolemaic period (332-30BC) by the settling of numerous Greek veteran soldiers there.” The district of Fayuum was a known immigration settlement since the second intermediary period under Hyksos rule and became the most significant settlement for Greek immigrants during the Ptolemy period.

Settlement Policies of the Ptolemaic Dynasty

The world history encyclopedia writes, “Ptolemy the first and his immediate successor Ptolemy II devoted significant attention to the Fayuum, repairing and renovating The Monuments, temples canals and administrative buildings which had fallen into Decay. Ptolemy allocated lots of this fertile region to Greek and Macedonian veterans.” So it is unanimous that in that particular region although situated in middle Egypt, was in all likelihood the least native settlement in all of Kemet.

Burial Chambers and Usurped Tombs

But what of the burial Chambers themselves? Of the specific burial Chambers in Abusir-el-meleq the World Monuments Fund States, “the cemetery continued to be used for Centuries with earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek Roman and Islamic periods thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use.” This confirms that not only were the Ptolemaic mummies tested definitely not native but also the tombs which were carbon dated as pre-Ptolemaic tombs were likely usurped by hellenized settlers to the region. It is likely none of the mummies tested were Native Egyptians.

Critique of Study Intentions and Methodology

Indeed the selection of this tomb in this District of Egypt was not born from an effort to obtain a sample set representative of the kemetic population but rather it was a cynical attempt to obtain the least native and most European DNA available and pass it off to the obliging media as proof of ancient Egyptian Affinity to modern Europe.

Study’s Disclaimers and Public Misrepresentation

As a disclaimer to the seemingly obvious foreign origin of the samples used for this study the authors simply stated a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analyzed in this study were lost over time yet throughout the paper they have with gusto classified said individuals as ancient Egyptians. Confident in the knowledge that a majority of the general public do not possess the patients or the reading comprehension to challenge such a claim.

Misleading Conclusions in the Study

It seems now in Egyptology that total ambiguity is an acceptable variable when making such outlandish claims as to the ethnic origins of an entire civilization. This is proven by the leading premise of the study that was aimed to force their fallacious interpretation of this data in the way it was being presented. The opening paragraph States, “our analysis reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with near easterners than present-day Egyptians who received additional sub-Saharan mixture in more recent times. “

Implications of the Study’s Narrative

This is not an exercise in objective exploration but rather, an attempt to lead the unsuspecting public towards support of the foreign rather than indigenous origin of ancient Egyptian people. In the end, the study provided no representation for the possibility of an indigenous origin and seemed to suggest there was no indigenous material that made up ancient and modern Egyptians. They are all simply the result of either Levantine or Mediterranean settlers. This robs not only Africa but also ancient and present Egyptians of an entirely African accomplishment.

Modern Egyptian Affinity to Ancient Greek Settlers

However in their attempt to hastily manipulate the Public’s trust and general lack of insight towards their own agenda, the researchers inadvertently uncovered two massive confirmations of support to the ancient model that corroborates that a purely African population inhabited ancient Egypt.

The first Factor they’ve unwittingly exposed is the confirmation of modern Egyptians genetic similarity to ancient Greeks particularly in the North. Something that is increasingly being denied in an attempt to sell the modern Egyptian phenotype as an isolated and differentiated phenomenon independent from “sub-Saharan Africa”. Yet in reality it is well known that in excess of two million Greeks migrated into Egypt during the Ptolemaic period and it is clear from the Fayuum portraits that they share a very close phenotype with modern Egyptians.

For this reason it is logical to assume that modern Northern Egyptians are a result of considerable genetic contribution from this multi-century occupation. A fact that was formally widely acknowledged but since the Modern Trend is to at all costs exclude Africa from kemetic history, modern Egyptians now lean towards the argument that they have never mixed with Outsiders or other Africans despite the Limitless anthropological evidence proving this to be hugely improbable now. However, following the confirmation of continuity between the Fayuum mummies and modern Egyptian populations we can helpfully consider this claim to be corroborated with genetic evidence that modern Egyptians are in fact largely Greek and Leventine. Not in origin but as a result of admixture from foreign settlers.

I must caveat that this does not exclude them from being direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians. This is not a supported claim as cultural diffusion is a much more likely scenario than population replacement or genocide which is not corroborated by history.

Sub-Saharan DNA: Evidence of Native Egyptian Retention

The second major factor uncovered by this study actually provides critical confirmation that in fact, it’s somewhat of a Smoking Gun in terms of the origin of ancient Egyptian DNA the study reports an alleged influx of sub-Saharan DNA. Their way of describing the difference between modern Egyptians and the mummies that they sampled. It is stated, “modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations… A substantially larger sub-Saharan African component found primarily in West African Yoruba is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples… We find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above.” Since we have already proven Beyond doubt that ancient Greek Roman and near Eastern settlers were the focus of the sample set and not ancient Egyptians as is being claimed, we therefore need to reassess this alleged influx. Indeed, this entirely revises this ridiculous conjecture since we now know this DNA represents the differentiation between modern Egyptians and settling foreign populations, we can only conclude that it reflects the retention of native Egyptian DNA. This DNA is not linked to slavery but conversely it represents the native Egyptian contribution and it is reflected across Continental Africa.

This fact has been proven by the following study: In February 2010 a research team led by Dr Hawass conducted an autosomal DNA analysis of several New Kingdom mummies in an effort to discover the ancestry and pathology of King Tutankhamen’s family. The mummies included Tut, Thuya, Amenhotep III, Yuya, other Armana mummies and some mummies from the Ramicide Dynasty in the Pharaonic lineage.

Autosomal STR vs. mtDNA and Y-DNA

Autosomal profiling of eight pairs of STR were used to obtain this data and published. The Reason autosomal STR profiling is a much more powerful tool in Cross-sectional analysis against phenotype is because race and phenotype quite often have a more direct correlation with Biology, immunity and other physiological traits determined by autosomal DNA analysis. The only DNA analysis that takes the entire genome into consideration. The is why autosomal STR profiling is used exclusively as the method for forensic and medical analysis. By contrast Y-DNA paternal and mitochondrial DNA maternal analysis can only trace ancestral links to a single historical ancestor but are almost useless in finding the level of relation between two individuals.

However, autosomal DNA analysis takes the entire genome into account and so can cluster relation probabilities via matching algorithms against STR profile databases. Put simply, certain groups will often form traits and patterns that permeate across the ethnicity and culture. These are reflected in the genome. Think about allergies and Immunity as simple examples.

Genetic Affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans

In 2014, independent researchers utilized the matching algorithms of existing STR databases to conduct an analysis on the autosomal DNA results published by Dr Harris in February 2010. The results were definite and conclusive. All of the pharaonic mummies clustered incontrovertibly close to Modern sub-Saharan Africans at a rate of 70 to 94 percent genetic Affinity whereas modern eurasian’s genetic Affinity was just 5 to 31 percent and modern Asians just 0 to 1.5 percent. On average, the pharaonic mummies were 10 to 20 times more likely to be related to Modern Continental Africans than modern near Eastern or Eurasian populations. Showing the closest Affinity by some degree to Southern Africans followed by Africans of the Great Lakes region followed by West Africans.

Additional Methodological and Historiographical Critiques

The study by Schuenemann et al. can be further questioned on its representativeness of Egypt in terms of size, spatio-temporal, and socio-cultural aspects. All of the samples are from the northern half of Egypt, from one nome which is 2.4% (1/42) of ancient Egyptian nomes. Ancient Egyptian culture originated in southern Upper Egypt, yet the study ignores this critical geographical bias. The socio-cultural dynamics are not fully considered: the information on the origin and social status of the mummies is incomplete or unknowable. The mummies are clearly assumed to be representative of the local population based on an incomplete archaeological report, despite historical information about northern Egypt’s interaction with the Near East since the Predynastic, and the known settlements of Greeks and others in northern Egypt in later periods.

The timeline of the study is not representative of ancient Egyptian history, as ~3,000 years are missing (e.g., Predynastic, Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom). The samples cannot convincingly represent true breeding populations or those that integrate historical information. The authors use Bayesian reconstruction of population size changes through time with BEAST (Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis by Sampling Trees) for which there is generally a discrepancy between the marginal prior and the original prior distribution. The available information on the comparison between original and marginal priors, and on prior and posterior distributions, does not consider possible population substructure.

Sex-biased sampling (mtDNA) cannot recover the population demography of the whole country unless the sample size is large enough and representative in terms of chronology, regional variation, “ethnicities” (including the foreign presence), class, and geography. It suffers from many biases that can affect the assessment of the effective population size: population size changes, mutation bias, and natural selection. The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.

Alternative Historical Explanations for Near Eastern Input

The authors do not consider explanations based on historical narrative, although they present historical information. Near Eastern input in ancient Egypt could also be explained by old mercantile relationships with Lower Egypt (e.g., Maadi-Buto complex ~4,000 BC), Egyptianized Asiatic rulers and migrants (e.g., Hyksos ~1,650 BC), Near Eastern prisoners of war (e.g., from Thutmose III’s military campaign in the Near East ~1,490 BC), and diplomatic marriages (e.g., Amenhotep III and Mitanni princess, Gilukhipa ~1,380 BC)[1,2].

Dismissal of PCR Methods and STR Evidence

The authors completely dismiss the results of PCR methods used on ancient Egyptian remains. As Habicht et al. states, PCR-based methods were used successfully on mummified Egyptian cats and crocodiles without creating extensive debate. Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies (1,300 BC) and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC). Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage. Analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator based on the same published data indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of sub-Saharan African affinities; most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “sub-Saharan Africa,” which is not the only way to be “African”—a point worth repeating[1,5,6].

Philosophical and Definitional Issues

Conceptually, what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” needs discussion; and of what “defines” Africa as well. For example, the E1b1b (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa but is also well represented in eastern Africa and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene. E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian,” which is problematic. Gene history is not population history: ultimate “origins” and later sources to a specific region/population are conceptually different. Gene history is also not ethnic or linguistic history. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples predate Islam and are abundant in sub-Saharan African groups, particularly in East Africa. Furthermore, sub-Saharan African groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented, as sub-Saharan African groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “sub-Saharan” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. Sub-Saharan affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir el-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers, as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”—deemed a sub-Saharan African trait—in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “sub-Saharan” groups.

Conclusion: African Identity of Kemet

So in spite of the current phenotype of modern Egyptians it seems conclusive that their relation to the ancient Egyptian population lies in their plus 20% genetic association with Continental Africa. So much for the slavery Spike. Rather than be ashamed of this, modern Egyptians should be proud of the direct lineage that they have retained with their ancient Egyptian forebears in spite of the multiple occupations of the land. This DNA links us together as a single continent and provides the evidence that Kemet was an African achievement and not the result of some foreign incursion and their ancestors were in fact the same as other native Continental Africans just as they depicted themselves. The modern North Egyptian phenotype is nothing more than the result of cultural diffusion. A natural occurrence for a nation with Egypt’s foreign history after the fall of the New Kingdom. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans are the cousins of modern Continental Africans and this fact is being suppressed in an attempt to pit us against each other whilst Europeans claim The Spoils of our histories.

Disingenuous European research groups like the German Research Foundation whose Origins date back to hyper-arianism in Germany are attempting to steal African history and not discreetly. Even in this study they are already making the claim that Mediterraneans are more related to the ancient Egyptians than even modern Egyptians. This is an egregious theft of monumental proportions but this can only exist if they keep the general public ignorant of the truth and succeed in driving a political wedge between the modern population of Egypt and other Africans.

Phenotype and race are modern constructs that can change dramatically in as little as two generations but we don’t need to allow this tool of the elites to separate us from what we know to be true. Ancient Kemet is the achievement of Africans. This fact is why this is the most important article regarding ancient Egypt that every African and diaspora African, north, east, south, and west of the continent needs to read. DNA uniquely unites the continent and this is a fact that all Africans should be proud of regardless of race.

References

1. Schuenemann, V. J. et al. Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. Nat. Commun. 8, 15694 (2017).
2. Agut-Labordere, D. & Garcia, J. C. M. L’Egypte des pharaons: de Narmer a Diocletien : 3150 av. J.C.- 284 apr. J.-C. (Belin, 2016).
3. Teeter, E. Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. (Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2011).
4. Habicht, M. E., Bouwman, A. S. & Ruhli, F. J. Identifications of ancient Egyptian royal mummies from the 18th Dynasty reconsidered. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 159, S216-31 (2016).
5. Hawass, Z. et al. Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family. JAMA 303, 638-647 (2010).
6. Hawass, Z. et al. Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ 345, e8268 (2012).
7. Rowold, D. et al. At the southeast fringe of the Bantu expansion: genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships to other sub-Saharan tribes. Meta Gene 2, 670-685 (2014).
8. Pereira, L. et al. PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype profile. Int. J. Legal Med. 125, 629-636 (2011).
9. Crubezy, E. Le peuplement de la vallée du Nil. Archéo-Nil 20, 25-42 (2010).
10. Pennarun, E. et al. Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 234 (2012).
11. Lovejoy, P. E. Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
12. Busby, G. B. et al. Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa. Elife 5, (2016).
13. Anselin, A. Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which Emerged the Egyptian Civilisation. in Egypt in its African Context. Proceedings of the Conference held at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester (ed. Exell, K.) 43-53 (Oxford, BAR International, 2009).
14. Wengrow, D., Dee, M., Foster, S., Stevenson, A. & Ramsey, C. B. Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt’s place in Africa. Antiquity 88, 95-111 (2014).
15. Takács, G. Chapter III: Some problems of Egyptian’s position within Afro-Asiatic and among African languages. in Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian: Volume I: A Phonological Introduction. 35-48. (Leiden, Brill 1999).