Talk:Genetic history of Egypt

The 2017 DNA study

The 2017 DNA study found that Ancient Egyptians had a genetic profile similar to that of modern Egyptians and had a high affinity with the population of the modern Near East is flawed and should not be listed in the overview as fact. The study took DNA samples from a single graveyard and tried to apply the findings to all of Egypt. This study has been criticized by other scholars for its sample bias. 213.114.159.171 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The study indeed has been criticised for sample bias but it doesn't follow from that that it is flawed and cannot be used. This is how science works, someone does research, others find shortcomings and do follow-up research etc. We should report on the current state of the topic and update the article when new information is available. Looking at the other studies mentioned in the article, it seems to be the best from the sample size and time span point of view. The study was reported on by Science [1] and Max Planck Institute of Anthropology [2]. Finally, we should include all notable views published in RS but I do not see any opposing views on the genetic relationship between modern and ancient Egyptians. Alaexis_¿question? 09:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"The study indeed has been criticised for sample bias but it doesn't follow from that that it is flawed and cannot be used."

Not just sample bias - see the comments from professor Stuart Tyson Smith below. Did anyone read the peer review? Anyway, we're being sold the agenda that the Ancient Egyptians rather than Hamites (Genesis 10) were modern day Jews. Parabon took a closer look at the dna of the 3 whole genome mummies, Moe, Joe and Curly, and found that they were Mizrahi Jews. One even had a considerable dna component from Central Asia. None had more than a trace of 'Northeast Africa' dna.

Parabon: "The Snapshot ancestry database of subjects with known ancestry was searched for the subjects with the most similar admixture proportions to each individual. They were found to be Jewish individuals from Yemen, Morocco, and Tunisia, respectively."

Source: (PARABON NANOLABS) DNA Phenotyping on Ancient DNA from Egyptian Mummies

Janet Cady, Mark Wilson, and Ellen Greytak*

Parabon NanoLabs, Inc.

Yet they crowned these individuals the 'true Ancient Egyptians', and condemn Ancient Egyptian, now Sub-Saharan African, dna in Modern Egyptians as resulting from the medieval/18th and 19th century slave trade. Even though this SSA component is widespread throughout the Middle East, including in Iran and Turkey, which itself points to an ancient origin in the Middle East. However, it was also found among ancient individuals long before the Islamic slave trade.

Source: (NATURE) Bioarchaeological evidence of one of the earliest Islamic burials in the Levant

Megha Srigyan, et al

Fig. 3: Model-based clustering of ancient and modern populations.

and

:: YRI/Yoruba medium blue in the Iranian population, and more:

Fig 4. C ADMIXTURE inference of Iranian ethnic groups

(PLOS Genetics) Distinct genetic variation and heterogeneity of the Iranian population, authors Zohreh Mehrjoo ... Michael Nothnagel

The problem is this: Schuenemannn and Krause are the only ones who identify the 1st millennium BC Abusir-el-Meleq mummies near the Fayoum complex as 'Ancient Egyptians'. Egyptologists don't, because they know they're Greeks, Romans, Jews, etc.

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Omission of E1b1a from Ancient Egypt's Genetic Narrative

Tripling of the population sizes in c. 500 AD (Arabian Peninsula, Syria/Labanon/Jordan/Israel/Iraq, Turkey, Iran) is evidence is consistent with the origin of e1b1b in the Arabian peninsula, not elsewhere in the middle east and not in the continent of Africa. A finer point is to look at where Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken today.  Arabic is a language from the Arab Arabian peninsula that belongs to the Afro-Asiatic language family, there’s an overlap linguistically and genetically that is evidence that E1B1b originated at least going back to the 600’s ad in the Arabian peninsula and is no surprise that modern Egypt has Arabic as a language and that it’s dominantly Muslim.  Should we expect anything different for the genetics of modern Egyptians to be dominated by something that came out of Arabia.  Definitively it came out of Arabia, not Africa.  Egyptian Hieroglyphs and language are wholly African derived and developed, not Semitic/Mesopotamian; which isn’t the end of the story.  Going back beyond the 600’s AD with E1b1b starting around 700 BC to 400 BC takes you over to the a branch labeled E1b1a of the E1b1 family’s common ancestor.  E1b1a is one of the most dominant lineages in Sub-Saharan Africa; with its origins in West Africa following the Bantu language migration/expansion to the east and south on the continent around the 1500’s, 1400’s BC strictly on the continent of Africa.  There are multiple lines of evidence of E1b1b that points towards its origins in Arabia yet somehow these two branches (E1b1a/E1b1b) were once the same. They shared a common ancestor up until the 700’s to 400’s BC.  Going back before both of these, you have the kingdom of Aksum/Axum that connects northeast Africa and the Arabian peninsula; which seems to fit and imply an origin of E1b1b and E1b1a the ancestors to them somewhere over here geographically in Africa ending up in the Arabian peninsula.  This given that Africa is surrounded by water and the Saharan desert kept invaders out, points to the origin for entry into Africa from the outside is down through northeastern Africa.  All that to say the data seems to put these people, the ancestors to these groups in northeastern Africa and then something happens apparently in the 700’s to 400’s BC that sends them on their separate ways.  This time frame overlaps the period of Egyptian history in which the Pharaohs were of Nubian origin (modern Sudan) up to the 25^th Dynasty (approx. 720’s to 650’s BC) were dark-skinned.  This aligns with the dates of the invasions by the Assyrians that sacked Egypt and drove-out the Nubian Pharaohs.  To summarize E1b1, the ancestor of E1b1a and E1b1b appears to have been in the first millennium BC and later on split into these two groups with E1b1b as the dominant Egyptian male going back 1600-1400 years.  Arabs themselves at least in-part appear to have originated from a north east African group who themselves may have sat on the throne of Ancient Egypt.  I write this to condemn efforts to erase African/Sub-Saharan contributions and aboriginal populations to and of Ancient Egypt. Imhotep40 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia. I doubt that anything from Answers in Genesis would be accepted as a source in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 23:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion board, not a sourced article for publishing? I was merely looking for someone to offer a counter perspective for something to refute the statements presented. Imhotep40 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. You can refer to sources when discussing potential changes to the article, but this is not the place to critique material that is not intended as a source for the article. BTW, has the material you posted below been published anywhere else? If it has, that it will have to deleted unless it is in the public domain or has been released under an appropriate free license. Donald Albury 21:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Donald AlburyThe Geographical Origin of the E1B1 Genetic Population: A Comprehensive Investigation

Abstract: The E1B1 genetic population, a widespread and diverse Y-chromosomal haplogroup, has intrigued researchers studying human genetic history. This research paper aims to explore the geographical origins and dispersal patterns of the E1B1 haplogroup. By conducting a thorough analysis of available genetic data, archaeological evidence, and linguistic research, we aim to shed light on the early migratory events that shaped the distribution of the E1B1 genetic population.

Introduction: The E1B1 haplogroup is among the most prevalent Y-chromosomal haplogroups found in Africa and is also observed at lower frequencies in parts of the Middle East and Europe. Understanding the geographical origin of the E1B1 genetic population is crucial for unraveling the ancient migratory pathways of human populations. This research paper provides an in-depth analysis of existing literature and presents a synthesis of genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence to identify the probable origin and dispersal patterns of the E1B1 haplogroup.

Methodology: To accomplish our research objectives, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature and academic databases focusing on studies published up until September 2021. Our data collection encompassed genetic studies, population genetics databases, archaeological findings, and linguistic research. Integrating these various sources allowed us to draw comprehensive insights into the geographic origins and historical migrations of the E1B1 genetic population.

Genetic Diversity and Distribution of E1B1: The E1B1 haplogroup is predominantly found in African populations. Notable frequencies are observed in North, West, and Central Africa. However, it is also present at lower frequencies in parts of the Middle East and Europe, suggesting past migratory events involving African populations.

Geographic Origins: Genetic research indicates that the E1B1 haplogroup likely originated in East Africa, with the highest diversity and frequency found in the Horn of Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Somalia. This hypothesis is supported by the coalescent age estimates of E1B1 lineages in these regions and the presence of ancient human settlements and cultures in East Africa.

A new topology of the human Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) revealed through the use of newly characterized binary polymorphisms. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e16073.

Migration and Dispersal Patterns: The migration of the E1B1 genetic population from East Africa to other regions likely occurred through several dispersal events. Key migration routes include movements along the Nile River towards North Africa, across the Sahara Desert into West Africa, and possibly via coastal routes connecting East Africa to the Middle East and Europe.

Linguistic and Archaeological Correlations: Linguistic research suggests that the distribution of the E1B1 haplogroup is associated with Afroasiatic-speaking populations, supporting the idea of ancient human migrations along language and cultural lines. Archaeological evidence from early human settlements in East Africa further supports the hypothesis of the region as the probable geographical origin of the E1B1 genetic population.

Conclusion: Based on the comprehensive analysis of genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data, our research points to East Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Somalia, as the likely geographical origin of the E1B1 genetic population. Further studies utilizing ancient DNA analysis and improved genomic techniques will continue to enhance our understanding of the complex migratory history that contributed to the distribution of this significant Y-chromosomal haplogroup. Imhotep40 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources:

Cruciani, F., Trombetta, B., Sellitto, D., Massaia, A., Destro-Bisol, G., Watson, E., ... & Semino, O. (2010). Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(7), 800-807.

Hassan, H. Y., Underhill, P. A., Lu, J. J., Dagher-Kharrat, M. B., El Hajj, G., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Lebanese men. Heredity, 102(5), 456-463.

Semino, O., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. S., Falaschi, F., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Underhill, P. A., & Scozzari, R. (2002). Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 70(1), 265-268.

Trombetta, B., Cruciani, F., Sellitto, D., Scozzari, R., & Cruciani, F. (2011). Imhotep40 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Genetic studies show that E1b1b came to NE and E africa about 12,000 years ago, brought by the Natufians, hand in hand with mtDNA U5/6. There is no argument that the upstream clade is DE. The Natufians also brought husbandry, pastoralists, agriculture, metallurgy, and Afro

Asiatic language. The E1b1a/E1b1b split did not have to occur in one place in time or location. The accepted mechanics are that during the YD Eurasians migrated to Africa escaping advancing ice fields and glaciers. The findings at Iwo Eleru, Asselar Man and the Mbu tribe support the evolution of E1b1a near the present day Nigerian Cameroons border. This is further supported by rare samples of near basal DE in coastal Yoruba populations. The 25th dynasty pharaohs never ruled from within Egypt, they ruled via indigenous Egyptian administrators, for 96 years. To date, no genetic signal has been found of these Nubians. If you look at a haplogroup map of E1b1a, there is zero signal in NE and E africa. This is readily available online. The first archeological evidence of sub saharan Bantu in AE occurs in the 18th dynasty, they are depicted in chains, shackles, neck roped and paying tribute to AE royalty. The argument over where E1b1b and E1b1a arose is meaningless. The models that academics use can be described as linear thinking, in that ancient people didn't wander around but all went to one area at one time to change their haplogroups through some sort of admixture or genetic pressure. Evidence supports E1b1a being an introgression between DE and an unknown obviously female archaic hominin. That there are 2 or 3 "Ghost" hominins in the sub saharan mix is popularized but no one mentions that DE is a sub clade of CT M168, which delivered Neanderthal DNA via Eurasian Caucasian yDNA. The NEVGEN haplogroup predictor shows that Ramses III is E1b1b, this can be easily determined by looking at STRs available online and simply plugging them in to the NEVGEN haplogroup predictor. The original determination of Ramses IIIs haplogroup is an embarrassment to science. The results that they were getting were inconsistent so the committee voted on what it should be. Hard to believe that was the standard then. Those who believe that an obvious Caucasian mummy was E1b1a are Hotep hanger ons. 65.95.156.36 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, all of this will need to be supported by secondary reliable sources before it can be considerd for inclusion in the article. This page is for discussing improvements to the article and is not a forum for general discussions about the topic. Donald Albury 12:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Two statements from Ehret that are not really a criticism

The two statements are the second two statements that are added from Ehret's "History of Africa" book, which are inserted in the article (by the user WikiUser4020 of course) as a criticism of Schuenemann et al.; neither of them is really criticizing anything. These two statements are: The statement: "Ehret also criticised the study for asserting that there was 'no sub-Saharan' component in the Egyptian population." And the statement: "Ehret cited other genetic evidence which had identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker 'M35 /215' Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant."

Ehret says in the appendix in his book, p.167: "The assertion in a recent such article, for example, that there is 'no sub-Saharan' component in the Egyptian population betrays an unexamined assumption that traces back to racist, early twentieth-century scholarship—that there was something like a 'true Negro' type, and that this pure type was represented by certain coastal West African populations." By "such article" he means Schuenemann et al.

The first statement is just weird, since Schuenemann et al. does give us the percentage of this so-called "sub-Saharan" component in both the ancient and modern Egyptian samples. So, what is this even a criticism of? To include this we have to counter it, which is redundant and needless to begin with, and will enlarge the overall presentation of Schuenemann et al. even more. Others will needlessly try to counter this, which will be counterproductive and a bloat. (Side remark: the genetic make-up of the Egyptians, or any bias in any study about the Egyptians, concerns the Egyptians only, it doesn't, and shouldn't, concern sub-Saharans in anyway, particularly not some sub-Saharan in the UK or the US. It seems that this is tough for some to understand.)

The second statement about the origin of M35 and M215 is just picked from Ehret, p.97, and inserted here as a criticism! Criticism of what? Ehret is neither presenting this as a criticism of anything, nor is he saying anything new about the origin of M35 and M215. And, as I said in my edit summary, these two clades are not themselves the clades that are majorly found in Egyptians, their subclades are. This statement is not criticizing anything either, nor is it a criticism to begin with.

I tried to remove this, and explained clearly in the edit summary, but my edit was reverted by the user (WikiUser4020) who added these statements of course. So, once again, additions from this specific user trying to insert the word "sub-Saharan" in the article as many times as possible to push his/her ill Afrocentric/Blackcentric ideology across many articles about Egypt. Also, this user always reverts and never resorts to the talk page until others do. Masrialltheway (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think one could argue about the first statement but I agree with you regarding the second statement and I think that it should go. Alaexis_¿question? 08:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Good, the second statement really has no place here. Regarding the first statement, it is stated by Ehret as a criticism indeed, but the problem is that the 2017 study clearly gives us the estimates of this component in both the ancient and modern Egyptian samples, so it doesn't make sense to include this "criticism" only for other editors to counter it later, for the reasons I mentioned above. I will wait for a while for other editors to hopefully chime in. Masrialltheway (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

“Two statements from Ehret that are not really a criticism” - This is your own personal viewpoint. There is no cited sources for this view. Ehret explicitly cites the 2017 study and highlights specific issues with their sampling and the fact they overlook data which shows that genetic data from Sub-Saharan Africa was a significant component of the early population.

This user has merely repeated accusations of “Black-centric” ideology which is arguably a reflection of his prejudices and outlook. Indeed, one could assume this is a projection to mask his intention to omit and hide information which conflict with his POV.

I have provided several reliable sources which have improved the quality and depth of detail for several articles. In fact I have cited mainstream Western scholars from the fields of linguistics, archaeology, biological anthropology, genetics and Egyptology. Your criticisms are not sourced in an objective evaluation of the source material but your own personal prejudices and assumptions of my edits.

"The first statement is just weird, since Schuenemann et al. does give us the percentage of this so-called "sub-Saharan" component in both the ancient and modern Egyptian samples. So, what is this even a criticism of? To include this we have to counter it, which is redundant and needless to begin with, and will enlarge the overall presentation of Schuenemann et al. even more. Others will needlessly try to counter this, which will be counterproductive and a bloat" - Wikipedia Editors are to provide the information and reliable sources not to add our own personal, non-professional assessment of the sources. Ehret has expressed his view on the 2017 study explicitly and I have included it in the main article as he clearly states.

“The second statement about the origin of M35 and M215 is just picked from Ehret, p.97, and inserted here as a criticism! Criticism of what? Ehret is neither presenting this as a criticism of anything, nor is he saying anything new about the origin of M35 and M215. And, as I said in my edit summary, these two clades are not themselves the clades that are majorly found in Egyptians, their subclades are. This statement is not criticizing anything either, nor is it a criticism to begin with.”

The second statement is referenced in the appendix section about the genetic data which you failed to list. Ehret states explicitly (p167-168):

“But the Horn of Africa, of course, is also entirely south of the South, and, as noted in chapter 5, scholars have already identified a genetic marker of a significant population component moving north from that region, spreading not just into Egypt, but beyond there to the Levant (where early Semitic was spoken and across North Africa and the Sahara (among Amazigh speakers). So the assertion that there is no-Sub-Saharan genetic component in Egypt is nonsense.

Ehret referenced page 97 which is in chapter 5 in his appendix as he cited this genetic evidence (this is the only genetic study mentioned in the fifth chapter and it discusses the movement of population through the Horn of Africa into Egypt and the Levant) to criticise the "assertion that there is no Sub-Saharan genetic component in Egypt".

Ehret is critical of the 2017 study and this is explicitly clear in the specified pages and cited references. You have not provided any cited, reliable sources which dispute Ehret’s view points.

Ehret did not state the clades were the majority which are found among Egyptians but that they are a significant component. Please read the pages carefully.

Your comments

“(Side remark: the genetic make-up of the Egyptians, or any bias in any study about the Egyptians, concerns the Egyptians only, it doesn't, and shouldn't, concern sub-Saharans in anyway, particularly not some sub-Saharan in the UK or the US. It seems that this is tough for some to understand.)”

This highlights your ignorance and prejudices perfectly.

You have conflated nationality (Egypt) with a ethnographical concept (Sub-Saharan Africa).

1. There are ethnic groups such as the Beja and Nubian populations which are indigenous to Egypt and the wider north-eastern African region.

2. The term Sub-Saharan is even a contested concept among academics as the Sahara desert because 1) it is viewed by some scholars as a colonial construct to divide regions into arbitrary sections and 2) The desert was not always a fixed barrier with populations across Africa moving north and south across several thousands of years. Wikipedia pages and articles can be edited by anyone and not to exclude :“some Sub-Saharan in the UK or the US”.

I would seriously recommend you stop editing articles if you cannot refrain from showcasing your prejudices.. Overall, I think the statements should be included as Ehret is a reliable source who is making a criticism of sampling methods and provides counter-vailing genetic evidence as part of his assessment of the 2017 study. This information does not need to be omitted or hidden due to unsourced, personal views/dislikes of a prejudiced user.

An alternative solution is to amended the title of the section from "criticism" to "responses" to the 2017 study. This would save us time debating the issue back and forth as has been the case with previous threads. There is no issue with Ehret being cited as he references opposing genetic evidence in evaluating the study. WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiUser4020, Masrialltheway, let's try to be more concise as it's impossible to follow the discussion otherwise. Also WP:NPA is a policy and making ad hominem attacks will only get yourself blocked.

Re the second statement Ehret also criticised the study for asserting that there was “no sub-Saharan genetic component” in the Egyptian population and cited genetic evidence which had already identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker “M35 /215” Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant, the main problem here is synthesis. Ehret mentions Scheunemann's article on pp. 83-84 and then again on page 167. There is no mention of this article on page 97, so adding this information to the article constitutes a synthesis by the editor who wrote it. Again, please be concise and civil in the replies and let's focus on this statement without going off tangent. Alaexis_¿question? 18:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis I disagree that this constitutes as synthesis as Ehret references the genetic evidence on page 167 with the statement:

“But the Horn of Africa, of course, is also entirely south of the South, and, as :noted in chapter 5, scholars have already identified a genetic marker of a significant population component moving north from that region, spreading not just into Egypt, but beyond there to the Levant (where early Semitic was spoken and across North Africa and the Sahara (among Amazigh speakers). So the assertion that there is no-Sub-Saharan genetic component in Egypt is nonsense". - He is referencing the study on the Y chromosome in early Egyptian populations which moved from the Horn of Africa to Egypt as evidence to counter the claims of Scheunemann. This study is explained in page 97 which is in the fifth chapter that is referenced in the appendix.

I will include this statement to provide more context and make it clear to the readers. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I agree again with you, Alaexis, on the second statement, it is criticizing nothing in Schuenemann et al. (same for the first statement as well), and on Wikipedia we can assess the sources and how they should be used, and they have to be questioned whenever something seems out of place. If this is to stay, then it should be clear what the 2017 study is actually saying. Therefore I will proceed to add a short counter-statement, because it seems that WikiUser4020 is not really getting what I'm saying about the heavy weight Schuenemann et al. already has, and is making it have more weight without even knowing. So, okay then. We have to be clear about the actual results of the 2017 study and not let a "response/criticism" make it seem like it is saying something that it is not saying.

Therefore, I will add the following short counter-statement with the sources for it, including Schuenemann et al. and another study on ancient Egyptians and other several studies that show the subclades that are actually found in Egypt:
"However, the M35/M215 clades are not themselves the clades that are found neither in Egyptians from Schuenemann et al. nor in Egyptians from other studies, their subclades are the ones found, which did not originate in the Horn of Africa or East Africa, and which originated in North Africa (including Egypt), the Near East, and possibly one subclade either in Southeastern Europe or in the Near East." With the sources cited at the end.

This is essential, as this "response/criticism" is making the study seem like it is saying something that it is not saying, we have to neutralize this before it gets out of hand with others countering it in the wrong way. The guidelines recommend aiming for article stability, and I want to achieve this for this article. Masrialltheway (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis@Masrialltheway “Therefore, I will add the following short counter-statement with the sources for it, including Schuenemann et al. and another study on ancient Egyptians and other several studies that show the subclades that are actually found in Egypt” - This seems more like original research than a counter-argument. The other papers are not directly relevant to responses on the Schuenemann paper or disputing the points raised by Ehret.

Your point on “questioning” the sources seems highly contentious and subjective.

Ehret is simply pointing out that those clades would have been significant among the early populations traveling from the Horn of Africa into Egypt during the pre-agricultural era. He did not discuss the dominant sub-clades among modern Egyptians.

Also, Schuenemann et al did not explicitly discuss the clades of the E1b haplogroup. They just identified this haplogroup and said it was common to North Africa. Ehret points the parent haplogroup was already carried from early groups from the Horn of Africa migrating into Egypt 17,000 years ago. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: There is no original research in any way here, I have told you before to try to properly understand the Wikipedia guidelines before throwing them around, specially OR. OR does not apply to statements on the talk page, OR applies to the content of the article in their relation to the sources. The content added to the article has no OR whatsoever, they are direct corroborated statements from the cited studies. The statements are clear and the genetic studies cited for what subclades were found in ancient Egyptians (Two studies: Schuenemann et al. and Yatsishina et al.), which are not M35/M215 themselves. And, no, Schuenemann et al. does indeed give us the exact precise subclade, I'm done holding your hand.

The other cited genetic studies discuss the subclades and the origins in pre-historic times thousands and thousands of years before the Egyptians civilization and in the Paleolithic, as well as the Holocene, not just their predominance in modern Egyptians, these genetic studies are doing extensive work and very technical analysis and reach their very cogent conclusions, and are not simply reciting the subclades predominance in modern Egyptians (but that is very important too). I already know that you don't really have a good grasp on this. So stop making unscrupulous edits saying it is merely about modern Egyptians, because now I have to correct this. Wait for others to respond, and be prepared to move on as I have moved on before from other things. The same balancing and countering will be done with any "reponse/criticisim" that seems contentious or out of place in any way.

My point in questioning Ehret is stated above, I have state exactly why his statement is problematic, and all you can give me is that I'm being "highly contentious and subjective", for which I will not repeat myself. Ehret points out what Ehret points out and you already added this to the article. The reader on the other hand must receive a clear picture when what is "pointed out" is not really cogent and imprecise as to what he is "responding" to, and I already stated the reasons, and the reader must receive a clear picture of what subclades are found and their origin, because, again, as I have already said this above, this "response/criticism" is making the study seem like it is saying something that it is not saying.

Final point, you added the word "suggest" to the statements. We can vacuously say "suggest" about anything said in any study about any subclade, including the markers that Ehret is talking about. The cited genetic studies are not merely "suggesting", they are doing extensive genetic work and very technical analysis and reach very cogent conclusions. Therefore, just as you are citing your Ehret with full force, the genetic studies are to be cited in full force without any such vacuous words. I will correct the use of the word "suggest" here. Stop making these kinds of "tweaks". Masrialltheway (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway Stop witht the personal attacks about "unscrupulous edits" and your presumptions about my level of knowledge on the subject matter. @Alaexis has already warned you about this.

"I already know that you don't really have a good grasp on this" - That is your assertion as you clearly do not know me. Your personal disagreements with the use of the cited sources does not mean others lacked an informed view on the subject. :You have already confused basic national identity (Egypt) with ethnogeographic concepts (Sub-Sahara) in the previous post. Your inability to discern these basic concepts raises concerns about your competency and level of neutrality as an editor.

Emphasising the technical analysis produced by the sources does not detract from the point:

1) Those studies do not comment on the results of Schuenemann et al or Ehret's comments. This is solely based on your personal judgement and interpretation of their results. You are simply asserting that Ehret (professional, distinguished scholar) is "making the study seem like it is saying something that is it not saying". The test samples from the other studies derives from modern Egyptians and are not stating that the M35/M215 as "are not themselves the clades that are found neither in Egyptians from the 2017 Schuenemann et al. study nor in Egyptians from other studies". The latter part is not accurate. The cited studies do mention M35/M215 but at a marginal rate.

Scheunemannet al's comments

1) There is not a explicit discussion of the Eb1b haplogroup as I previously stated. Other authors can see the comments from the actual paper and supplementary paper. They simply state that it has been assigned to this sub-clade "haplogroup E1b1b1a1b2" but state it is unclear from their view about the paternal origins. Ehret is in turn critical of their wider assertions about the Sub-Saharan component and its relative recency or association with slave trade routes when older haplogroup genetic marker existed which crossed from the Horn of Africa into Egypt 17,000 years.

Analysis of mitochondrial genomes (section): "The affinity to the Middle East finds further support by the Y-chromosome haplogroups of the three individuals for which genome-wide data was obtained, two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa".

Supplementary paper (Note 6: Y-chromosomal & phenotypic analysis): "The current distribution of E1b1b1 in North Africa could also be caused by the back migration from the Near East to Africa that have already been proposed by several authors (77-79). The high frequencies of haplogroup R1-M173 in Cameroon also suppported the back migration from Eurasia to Africa (80).Since it's still unclear whether E1b1b evolved in Northeast Africa or the Near East, we were deciding against attempting to conclude whether the two haplogroups provide information about different paternal origin information in our three mummy samples".

Concerns about neutrality and consensus vote

2) :Please do not invoke guidelines incorrectly to dispute any serious concerns raise about your personal comments i.e. "Blackcentric" or "some Sub-Saharan" and ability to present information in an objective manner.

3) Several of the studies explicitly use the term "suggest" in their abstract summary of their results. I could list each statement throughout each of the paper if other users request.

4) Yes, I think other users should reach a consenus judgement in a civil manner. Unfortunately, you will continue with the personal attacks which make any constructive discussion incredibly difficult.

5) :Hence, my proposition to the other users to reach a consenus vote on 1) Ehret's second statement remaining in the main page article and 2) The inclusion of other articles which (in my opinion) are irrelevant to the responses/commentary on the Schuenemann et al article in that sub-section.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: Ever since I told you before that Wikipedia states that "competency is required (CIR)" based on your mistakes, you are trying so hard to throw this back at me. It won't work. Also, you have made that silly comment about "nationality vs. ethnicity" before to Austronesier. I can tell you with almost absolute certainty that no one here is conflating them. Austronesier wasn't and neither am I. You are heedlessly spewing the typical Afrocentric/Blackcentric talking points. I'm utterly uninterested, that's why I didn't respond to what you were saying about that above, I might but I don't think I will.

As to the content, which is what I'm concerned with here, I will respond to your 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the same order:
1) If you are talking about this talk page discussion, then we are allowed to discuss, but if you are talking about the article's content, then don't use words like "interpretation" because they mean something specific on Wikipedia, which is not done here in any way. Again, and I won't keep repeating myself to you, the first two studies (Schuenemann et al. and Yatsishina et al.) show what subclades are found in ancient Egyptians, they are not M35/M215, their subclades are, as stated. So, yes, it is accurate. The other studies do not merely cite the presence and predominance in modern Egyptians, nor are they about modern Egyptians only, they are doing extensive technical genetic analysis on several populations to trace the origins of the subclades, TMRCA, and their precise time of dispersal and distribution, etc., that is why, along with other such earlier blunders, I'm saying that I, and doubtless other editors, know that you don't have a grasp on this; let me give you a simple hint: modern Egyptians, and modern populations in general, did not pop into existence yesterday out of thin air, they have a genome/DNA that traces back to the beginning of our species itself, and geneticist can use these genetic data from several populations in a very technical extensive analysis to estimate TMRCA and origins, time of dispersal, and trace back human migration, etc. That is also how the origins of the markers that Ehret is talking about were determined (surprise, I know). You don't even know how others can tell that you don't have a grasp on what you are on about. You think this is about modern Egyptian (not to mention the several modern populations in these studies) as if they just popped into existence yesterday out of thin air. Just stop with this already, because I hate repetition, it is very counterproductive.

2) Nothing worth responding to here, and it is not about the content, your ill Afrocentric/Blackcentric ideology is clear as day in all your edits, and I told you before that I will bring it up every time I see you pushing it on any article about Egypt, because I want others to notice and be alert to this.

3) Human movement have been happening for tens of thousands of years, by and large everyone is associated with everyone in one way or another depending on how far back you want to go. The issue at hand is specific, and is addressed. So, nothing worth responding to here as well.

4) This is not about the content either, but no one has attacked "your person", only the ill Afrocentric/Blackcentric ideology. I have told you before what my views are when you started speculating, I told you that I'm an Egyptian and I abhor the black-white dichotomy fights over Egypt, this nonsense has nothing to do with Egypt, and I simply don't want the Egyptians to be misrepresented in this particular article (or any article), specially by Afrocentrist/Blackcentrists and their ill ideology, and given the nature of this article, "not misrepresenting the Egyptians" means precisely "not misrepresenting the studies about them in anyway", so you can stop acting like my views are a mystery as you are doing above, I'm proud enough to state my views clearly, you can deny yours as much as you want, they are obvious from your edits. And, I didn't invent the term "Blackcentrism", that is what Egyptians here in Egypt are calling the ill Afrocentrism ideology, with disgust (ethnic erasure of an entire people, which is tacit in your "nationality vs. ethnicity" comment, warrants disgust, and is not lost on anyone). Egyptians call it "Blackcentrism" because that's what it is.

5) I addressed everything thoroughly, and if your Ehret's "criticism/reponse", which is making the study seem like it is saying something that it is not saying, is to stay, then the balancing statement about what the results from the actual genetic studies are must stay as well, to give the reader the correct picture, and to keep the article stable. At this point, nothing is to change whatsoever without consensus here first, because we are going to chase our tails, I initially wanted Ehret's two statements to be removed, but I can't do this since there is a dispute and I respected this from the beginning, and you must be held to the same standard as well. Attempts at edit-warring "tweaks" to change the content are not acceptable in any way. Input from other editors and establishing consensus here is the way to go, if other editors so wish. Masrialltheway (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@MasriallthewayYou stated in the previous post that you would prefer to leave the discussion to other editors for a consensus decision and would prefer if we moved from this discussion. However, you continue with your personal attacks and presumptions about my edits.

You are not a recognised, professional authority on this subject matter. Invoking your personal background is irrelevant to the source material. These are attacks on perceived motives rather than the actual source content provided. I have previously explained that I do not adhere to a “Black-centric” ideology but you have clearly not understood or taken the time to read my comments carefully. Your personal comments are becoming increasingly unacceptable as they show your personal prejudices and attitudes will shape your presentation of the sources to the wider public. Neutrality takes precedence not ad hominim attacks. That is a poor ground for any constructive discussion.

I never raised old, black-white dichotomy in regards to discussions around Ehret. You have again misrepresented my view on this specific discussion point. You continue to flag your Egyptian nationality. This does not excuse your ad hominem attacks or accusations on several grounds:

a) :You do not represent the perspective of all Egyptians as Egypt is a modern nation which encompasses various ethnic groups. Anti-black prejudice is widely documented in modern Egypt along with nationalist currents throughout its recent history. Social exclusion and discrimination against Sudanese and Nubian ethnic groups has been widely documented in the country for decades across the press. Racism is a universal problem and not the reserve of Western societies. A key example has been the former Secretary General, Zahi Hawass who has himself been criticised for a number of anti-semitic and anti-black comments over recent years.

b) I have presented various sources from Western scholars across several fields including genetics and made them accessible for all public readers.

c) You are not a recognised authority and clearly seem to think you know more about the matter. Your opinion and interpretation of the sources does not carry greater weight than any other users. You have shown your inability to discern between "nationality" and "ethnogeography".

d) Please do not invoke other users as @SarahSchneiderCH greatly disputed your interpretation of the actual sources. I am also sharing this view and finding your accusations, ad hominim attacks and interpretations of the source a serious area of concern.

e) Another issue is your interpretation of the sources. Not all the sources stated that no M315/215 clades were found in Egyptians. That is not accurate. :An example is the Luis et al (2004) paper which explicitly states:

"The percentage of these M35 haplogroups is >35% in Tanzania and Egypt, whereas it is less than half of that value in Oman and Kenya".

"A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al 2001). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman” .

"In Egypt, known M35 derivatives are present at polymorphic levels and there is a near absence of undifferentiated M35”.

f) Appeals/claims to anecdotal stories of “Black centrism” in your location again does not excuse your personal attacks and disruptive editing.

g) You are again adding your own interpretation with the suggestion that Ehret is “making the study seem like it is saying something that it is not saying”. Ehret never stated the M35/M215 were found in the Schuenemann study. He is not criticising them on the basis of which clades were identified in the study. He is criticising the wider assertion about Sub-Saharan genetic components and their suggestion this emerged among recent Egyptians. Ehret points to the fact that genetic evidence already exists which show the associated Sub-Saharan genetic markers had travelled through to Egypt at a much earlier period. I have explained that repeatedly and you seem to (1) fail to understand Ehret’s point or (2) misrepresent the point that is made. This is the area of dispute. Ehret is clear unless you believe yourself to be more academically distinguished than the scholar on this matter.

Finally, I would strongly suggest you defer to other editors for a final consensus vote rather than continuing with these ad hominim attacks on my efforts to improve the quality of the pages with reliable sources. You are wasting both of our time as we have both presented our arguments and should leave it for the other users to decide on the matter with a consensus vote. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: There is not a single ad hominem attack here, no one attacked your hominem, only your views. I'm not flagging that I'm an Egyptian, but you are speculating about my views with very thin-veiled suggestions of racism, typical, hence I'm simply stating my views to make things clear to other editors, I don't care if it's clear to you, certain specific cards will never work on people like us. I know what is current in my country, we do have our own perspective on things, to your dismay. Egypt is not a modern nation, Egypt is a modern state. Egypt doesn't "encompass various ethnic groups", Egypt has a few ethnic minorities (very small in size), but the sweeping majority of Egypt are ethnically Egyptians. That is a typical non-Egyptian perspective with the "anti-black" remark ("black" what in Egypt exactly?). I advise you to stay away from talking about these irrelevant topics here, because that is where I will tell you with absolute confidence that you know nothing about us, but you can keep reading the newspapers. Not only do I know what Egyptians think, I know how they think. You are starting to reveal yourself more and more, good. And, again, try to learn what "interpretation" is on Wikipedia; let me make it simple for you, in the format of interpreter-to-interpreted relation: it is a content-to-source relation, not an editor-to-content relation. Content means content of the Wikipedia article.

Now, to the actual thing that matters here. Luis et al. state: "The percentage of these M35 haplogroups is >35% in Tanzania and Egypt, whereas it is less than half of that value in Oman and Kenya." And then state that out of M35: "Nearly all of the E3b-M35 chromosomes in Egypt (92%) and Oman (100%) collections harbor downstream mutations (E3b1-M78, E3b2-M81, and E3b3-M123), which are absent in the sub-Saharan populations." You will never achieve anything by trying to quote the study carelessly. I can go into as much details about this as necessary, as well as from the other studies, so be careful. The problem is that you still think that this is merely about modern Egyptians in these studies, even after all the explanation I gave you in my previous replies. Both of us already stated that we are going to leave it to other editors to see if a consensus can be established (also, things don't work on the talk page through a vote, they work through discussion and consensus), but you always feel the need to have the last word, and I will reply, at will, to whatever you say whenever I think a reply should be put forth. Masrialltheway (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway You continue with these personal accusations and attacks. The issue is now resolved and I am no longer debating you on the matter. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

WikiUser4020, you can find some relationship between any two parts of any book. We should not and cannot cite the whole book here and the policy is clear about the inferences made by editors. I've been bold and removed the whole discussion of the clades - I can't see how it helps the reader. You are welcome to seek outside opinion, for example via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Alaexis_¿question? 18:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis In that case, yes we can remove reference to the specific clades and only retain the explicit reference to the 2017 article that Ehret originally criticised. That is fine and we can move on from this discussion. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I'm happy to see you here. Note that there has been a lot of tendentious editing from both sides. See the grotesque text which I have just reverted[3] (Responses to the 2017 DNA study from other related non-genetic interdisciplinary fields: The 2017 study has generated academic responses from scholars from other related, non-genetic disciplines, such as biological anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and history. The following are the responses from scholars from these other related, non-genetic disciplines. These following commentaries are not genetic studies themselves...). Add some coughs, and we get the conciseness of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. –Austronesier (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier I do support the title changes and summary of the information. Hopefully, the matter can be closed now. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I have no qualms about this. The amount of pointless off-topic replies and repetitiveness above is what took more time than it should have. Masrialltheway (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Austronesier: I initially added this very concise sentence: "These are responses from scholars from other non-genetic disciplines, they are not genetic studies themselves." Followed by the titles of the books (diff). But of course WikiUser4020 kept trying to make "tweaks", and I had no choice but to keep his/her "tweaks" along with what I initially added, because I stay away from edit warring, which turned it into a bloat, which I keep telling WikiUser4020 to stop bloating everything. Of course I will not try to dispute you heavily on this, but I believe firmly that "non-genetic" is essential here, since that subsection is getting bloated with responses that are all directed in a one single direction. So please keep in mind that I was trying to neutralize something rampant in every single response added, which is better done through a lead statement, because the additions in this direction seem endless. I believe my initial sentence is fair and reflects the sources and the most important aspect about these responses here (i.e., not being genetic studies themselves), given the nature of this article, which may impress something on the reader. I'm not going to dispute the removal of the titles of the books at all, but I think the sentence I initially added should be restored in place of "The 2017 study has generated academic responses from scholars from other related disciplines". The reason is that I think these responses will probably keep getting added in the very same direction. Masrialltheway (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Help me to believe (I'm struggling to do so after reading your unpleasant "side remark" in the discussion above) that you're genuinely concerned about tendentious editing from all sides, and help me to remove things like in my last edit[4], or on an earlier occasion[5]. It's not all about WikiUser4020. –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier I think you have done a decent job cleaning everything up. I would support you leaving the section as it stands. All of the sources links are readily accessible to the public and users can easily google the background details of each cited author.

The current, opening sentence is sufficient in stating that these sources are examining the 2017 article from a multi-disciplinary view. The public can clearly see that scholars such as Ehret specialize in other disciplines. Their occupations are also listed i.e. Keita (biological anthropologist) and Candelora (archaeologist) Ehret even has his own linked Wikipedia page. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I see nothing unpleasant in any way about my side remark. And I firmly stand by it, through and through. Any genetic component in the Egyptians, ancient and modern, is part of their genetic makeup, their genetic makeup, theirs, and no one else's, they are beings that do exist and did exist, not to be treated as some clump of components for whoever wants to appropriate/steal their history and heritage. Just as they have been regarded as clumps of other things in the past, different approach, same attitude. How does that work exactly? The bigger the component clump, the bigger the chunk of their history and heritage someone is to take? You even got told before in vague terms that "ancient Egyptians" are not an ethnicity. I was happy that you were readily recognizing what that was actually about. To give another example which is based in the same ideology is the statement from the same user that Afrocentrism "did correctly highlight the African origins of the Egyptian civilization". Well, nothing is correct about this, there is no such thing as the "African origins of the Egyptian civilization", there is only the "Egyptian origin of Egyptian civilization", it originated in Egypt and by the hands of Egyptians, this of course will make people who adhere to that ideology ill at ease and they will fight it so hard, because we all know what they mean by "African". Egypt for them can only be "African" by proxy of some relation to what is implicit in "African" as a current association (these associations are near impossible to change), and we all know what is implicit there (hint: it is not the geography).

There is a difference between prehistoric human movement on the one hand and civilization on the other; like any other population on the planet, Egyptians have a common ancestor with their neighbors from several directions, and the circle gets wider the farther back we go, but Egyptian civilization is Egyptian and Egyptian only. Egypt is not some modern bordered invention, Egypt, km.t, has always been delineated from its neighbors by the Egyptians, and the Egyptians, rmṯ n km.t, made sharp distinction between themselves and their neighbors, they fought those neighbors in the south and in the north(east), took captives from those Kushitic enemies in the south and Asiatic enemies in the northeast, depicted them with sharp distinction from themselves, and even drew them on their footwear, which is symbolically obvious and some consider it bigotry (which has its justification), and it is also, methinks, a form of Egyptian humor. Egyptians also used all kinds of fun expressions to describe these foreigners/foreign enemies.

It is not all about this user, it is not at all about this user, it is about the ill Afrocentric/Blackcentric ideology itself. I'm avoiding this user actually, but every time I make an edit this user jumps at it to revert immediately, sometimes in a matter of seconds actually, or to "tweak" it to fundamentally change it, or to make things bloated to the point of heavily taxing the reader. I just simply want this article to be a good presentation of the genetic history of Egypt, that can be read to learn smoothly about the major scientific work done in that regard, including being read particularly by Egyptians themselves to learn about the scientific work without having to suffer through "the controversy". I believe that this is not lost on you Austronesier, but perhaps I wasn't very detailed in that side remark.

At any rate, does what I'm saying about the lead statement that I want to restore sound valid to you? Is there a chance to restore it, as I believe it is clearer? Or perhaps we can simply append the short sentence "These responses are not genetic studies themselves" to the end of the current lead statement. I just want this particular point about the "responses" to be clear. Masrialltheway (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier This is off topic but several Western scholars would disagree that with the view that the Egyptian civilization did not derive from an African origin.

Joseph Vogel: “The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant”

Stuart Tyson Smith regarded The African Origin of Civilization, published in 1974 as "A highly influential work that rightly points out the African origins of Egyptian civilization, but reinforces the methodological and theoretical foundations of colonialist theories of history, embracing racialist thinking and simply reversing the flow of diffusionist models.

David Wengrow, Michael Dee, Sarah Foster, Alice Stevenson& Chris Bronk Ramsey (2014): “The African origins of Egyptian civilizations lie in an important cultural horizon, the ‘primary pastoral community’, which emerged in both the Egyptian and Sudanese parts of the Nile Valley in the fifth millennium BC”.

Concept introduction from the upcoming UNESCO international scientific committee set to be published in Autumn 2023 - Book 1 Volume IX will include “archaeology and anthropology of African peoples” in relation to the first civilizations (Egypt and Nubia)

I could cite more scholars making the same point.

Those are the views of professional scholars and hold greater weight than our personal, views. Your point on Egypt being an Egyptian civilization is problematic on several grounds.

1) Egypt as a nation state did not exist 10,000 or 6,000 years. Fixed borders did not of course exist. The geographical landscape was drastically different during the period of the Green Sahara. The region would have experienced movement and migration from populations across the continent, primarily the Sahara and Sudanese communities.

2) Egypt is part of local, regional, continental and world history. Hence, it should not be considered to have a specific “owner” as several groups have migrated/settled in the region at different points from its prehistoric era to the colonial periods.

3) I would rather steer away from the rehashed discussions on the ethnicity/origins of the Egyptian civilization. However, the point above that Egypt did not have African origins is rejected by the consensus view. The international consensus (UNESCO) was Egypt was an African civilization but the population was ethnically “mixed” although the consensus position is to be likely updated in light of recent evidence with the forthcoming UNESCO publication.

On the topic of the M35/215 genetic marker

This is just a point of clarification. Ehret in reference to the “significant component” of M35/215 genetic markers among early Egyptian populations. He cited an article written by Keita, "History in the interpretation of the pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y‐chromosome variation in Egypt: A consideration of multiple lines of evidence" on page 180.

Keita stated in the cited article that: “Haplotype V is associated with the M35/215 (or 215/ M35) subclade, as is XI (in Africa)” (p562)

Keita includes the genetic data from the Lucotte and Mercer (2003) study which shows that Haplotype V and XI appear among a rate of Egyptians at 39.4% and 18.9%.

The table data which cited the Lucotte and Mercer (2002) data shows this varies across regions:

Lower Egyptians V Haplotype: 51.9% VI Haplotype: 11.7%

Upper Egyptians V Haplotype: 24.2% VI Haplotype: 28.8%

The pdf article is available here:

Keita in another article, “Geography, selected Afro-Asiatic families, and Y Chromosome lineage variation: An exploration in linguistics and phylogeography” cites several genetic studies which show a significant amount of M35 among Egyptians.

Hammer 1999 - M35 is identified at a rate of 54.4% among a sample of 58.

Scozzari et al 1999- M35 is identified at 60% among Northern Egyptians and 38.3% among Southern Egyptians.

Luis et al 2004. - M35 is identified among 36 out of the 147 samples. The M35 count does not seem to be recorded on the Wikipedia table section on modern Egyptians.

Keita stated in the final summary(p13): "It is of interest that the M35 and M2 lineages are united by a mutation - the PN2 transition. This PN2 defined clade originated in East Africa, where various populations have a notable frequency of its underived state. This would suggest that an ancient population in East Africa, or more correctly its males, form the basis of the ancestors of all African upper Paleolithic populations - and their subsequent descendants in the present day".

Link accessible here: (p3-15)

WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So what exactly do you propose to add to the article (and to where exactly)? The article already has the percentages of M35 subclade (if I'm reading it correctly) among various modern Egyptian populations and discusses Keita's conclusions in the section Genetic_history_of_Egypt#Genetic_studies_on_modern_Egyptians? Alaexis_¿question? 14:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis It is merely a point of clarification. I think we can leave the article as it stands. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

On Sudanese pastoralists: who? The prehistoric populations of Northeastern Africa and Europe were both genetically similar to contemporary Sardinians.47.152.116.179 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Wizard, exposed IP

@Alaexis@MasriallthewayI dont know why you administrators dont block these afrocentrist nuts. Its OBVIOUS that @WikiUser4020Wiki4020 has a racial axe to grind. It's gotten so bad, tha5 groups he sites from, claim they're the first Jews, Eyptians, the orginal (insert any SUCCESSFUL KNOWN society/empire)

It's the most embaressing thing I've ever seen. And im 45 years old. Its a disgrace the Wikipedia entertains these misinformation hacks. Are you going to allow flat earther rhetoric on descriptions of the earth? With a "dispute/controversy" tag?

Come on y'all!! 63.143.136.111 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. u:WikiUser4020 made no edits to this article since January. What exactly do you propose to change in the article? Alaexis_¿question? 14:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion Of The Study By DNA Tribes

This is the best evidence - it is from the Valley Of The Kings, and it is the most detailed. If anyone can spell out why it should not be included, feel free. Under the title: Genetic studies on ancient Egyptians, should be included:

2012 DNA Tribes

In 2012, DNA Tribes found that the dna of the 2nd millennium BC Amarna Dynasty is most like people today living in the African Great Lakes region and Southern Africa, who are mainly Eastern Bantu and descended from the 2nd Bantu Expansion. This study includes the dna of Tutankhamun, Ramses III, Amenhotep III, Thuya, Yuya, and possibly Pentawer and Tiye. In their Conclusion, DNA Tribes state: "Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa."

The same results were found for Ramses III and Unknown Man E, possibly Pentawer.

DNA Tribes: "A previous issue of DNA Tribes Digest identified African related ancestry for King Tut and other royal mummies from the Amarna Period.1 In this issue, results indicate that the later pharaoh Ramesses III also inherited alleles that are most frequent in present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This provides additional, independent evidence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (possibly among several ancestral components) for pharaonic families of ancient Egypt."

In another study, DNA Tribes found that Neolithic dna ancestral to current Sub-Saharan Africans was found in the Arabian Peninsula. “In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations.”

I included it before, however it was removed on unclear grounds. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unclear grounds"? WP:reliable sources is a crystal-clear requirement for inclusion. DNA Tribes articles are not "studies" on par with peer-reviewed scholarly publications that are needed for this topic. –Austronesier (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me quote the Wikipedia Reliable Sources page:

'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

DNA Tribes is: reliable - their results were repeated by Keita, Anselin et al - published and I'm sure all views within it were taken into account. In fact there is no dispute within the paper on what is in it. It is a DNA testing company based in Arlington, VA. This is what they found. This is also what, with less detail, SOY Keita, Alain Anselin et al found.

If you can spell out why the DNA Tribes study does not comply with the WP:reliable sources rule, then you should do so. Keita:

"data suggest main sub-Saharan affinities of pharaonic mummies from the 18th and 20th dynasty (circa 1,300 BC)..."

SSA = Sub-Saharan African, EA = Eurasian, A = Asian

Tutankhamun: SSA 93.9%, EA: 4.6%, A: 1.5%

Ramesses III: SSA 93.5%, EA: 6.1%, A: 0.3%

Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion

AUTHORS Jean-Philippe Gourdine, Shomarka Keita, Jean-Luc Gourdine, and Alain Anselin

Table 1: Geographical region affinities of Amarna and Ramesside mummies based on popAffiliator 18 analysis of 8 pairs of STR

And another thing - the reason DNA Tribes and S.O.Y. Keita made the same findings, is that they both looked at the same dna - the best dna. Not an obscure graveyard south of Cairo like Abusir-el-Meleq, from the 1st millennium BC and later. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:109A:476A:FE7A:C8DB (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

DNA Tribes is not reliable. Those are blog-like posts in a commercial website that haven't undergone any peer-review process. Quality sources are unnegiotiable for Wikipedia, see: WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Scientific topics require peer-reviewed academic publications, ideally secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Those are blog-like posts in a commercial website that haven't undergone any peer-review process." Show me where in WP:Reliable Sources it states that submissions to Wikipedia have to be from peer reviewed journals only. In fact, before invoking WP:reliable sources, you might want to quote specifically which text is relevant and explain why. Also... they're true. There's that. Also... "blog-like posts in a commercial website" is diminishing and discrediting language. DNA Tribes is a dna testing company, not a random fan blog. Oh and by the way... peer reviewed BMJ found that Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a - most common today in 'Sub-Saharan Africans'. In fact, if you search the BMJ for E1b1a, only one article comes up:

(BMJ) Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study

In fact, all the above data is based on that 2012 study, published in the BMJ by Zahi Hawass. That E1b1a today is nearly exclusively found in Sub-Saharan Africa is a fact that is already included on Wikipedia.

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:109A:476A:FE7A:C8DB (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources specifically warns: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. and, Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. That a source may agree with something that is in Wikipedia does not make it reliable, as, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Donald Albury 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. and, Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires."

DNA Tribes, a dna testing company from Arlington,VA, does not violate any of the above statements. Their findings are not "widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." After all, it is a dna testing company.

"Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires."

Explain how this applies to DNA Tribes.

That a source may agree with something that is in Wikipedia does not make it reliable, as, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.

Are you 'discrediting' Wikipedia itself now? There is no dispute in the real world where E1b1a is located or who has it. Or that Ramses III has it. If it was in the BMJ, you'd start questioning whether they're peer reviewed too. (Happened before.) Why don't you just admit you're throwing up possible problems, without linking those problems to DNA Tribes, because you're objecting to what they found? You don't like the results. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is referred to as "a feeble argument". That's the only real objection you have with it, no matter how true - or rather because it is true. Also... the dna from the Valley Of The Kings is the best dna. It is identified by name and pharaoh, unlike the nameless remains (many aren't mummies) from Abusir-el-Meleq. And it is from the 2nd millennium BC, the highpoint of the New Kingdom empire, where Abusir-el-Meleq is from the 1st millennium BC, near the Fayoum complex. So, this is the best dna. And you're excluding it from Wikipedia, and have been doing so for 12 years. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment From Professor Stuart Tyson Smith

And it is withering:

"This bias was illustrated in the modern scientific context by a recent dna study in Nature Communications, that received a great deal of press, unfortunately. They concluded that the foundational population of Ancient Egypt was related not to other Africans, but rather to Middle Eastern peoples, contradicting modern genetic studies of contemporary Egyptians.

They go on to posit that modern genetic ties between Egyptians came with the medieval Arab slave trade. Nature's own publicity for this piece, reflects how deeply embedded this assumption is, even in the academy, and... here we have someone saying that 'how nice it is that this study now provided empirical evidence for this assumption at the genetic level, without even realizing that this completely begs the question.

The study was fundamentally flawed.

The authors overgeneralized all of the Egyptian, all of Egyptian history from a sample of only 90 individuals, from a single, poorly documented cemetery in Northern Egypt. Only three with a full genome.

The burials date to the latest periods of Egyptian history, so how you extrapolate them back to the very dawn of Egyptian civilization, is puzzling at best. All but 3 or 4 individuals came from after 1000 BCE.

They did not include any individuals from Southern Egypt or Nubia, something they admit as a weakness only at the very end of the article.

They also conflate Sub-Saharan African and Africa, as well as assuming a haplotype that is normally regarded as African, is really Middle Eastern. Haplotypes are groups of genes that tend to be inherited from parent to children and indicate population affinities. This was called out in peer review comments, but never adequately addressed by the authors.

Additionally, they are oblivious to the fact that the mouth of the Fayoum Oasis, where the sample was located, is well known, through historical documents, as an area where Middle Eastern people, like the Sherden, were settled as a reward for military service, during the late New Kingdom, about 1300 to 1070 BCE. This provides a far more likely explanation for any stronger affinity to Middle Eastern populations, and weaker ties to Sub-Saharan populations than modern Egyptians in their sample, but was not even considered.

Even worse, they were completely oblivious to the long history of racism, centered around the question like Petrie's Dynastic Race and the Hamitic Hypothesis.

So to conclude, the question of race in Ancient Egypt is of great importance in modern society, because of egyptology's central and profoundly disturbing role in the creation of a theory of scientific racism, that justified the worst kinds of discrimination, especially in America. Egyptologists might object that many Egyptians, like you see here on the left here, Nubians on the right, would disagree with this conclusion, and that's correct, but my point here is about American and European constructions of race, by modern American systems of racial classification, the ancient and modern Egyptians would both fall into the category of Black African.

As Ann Roth and Bruce Williams pointed out years ago, an Ancient Egyptian transported to the American South in the days of segregation, would not be allowed to sit at a Woolworth's bar, would have to go to the back of the bus, would be barred from facilities reserved for Whites. The same applies to most of the Modern Egyptians and Nubians I know and have worked with, even though they might not self-identify that way, all the evidence points to a broad continuity of both groups as Northeast African populations.

And yet I am the only person in these photographs who would be welcome at a lunch counter at Woolworth's or be allowed to sit at the front of the bus and not have to surrender my seat to a white person. The power of acknowledging both Nubia and Egypt as African civilizations, is that it destroys the logic of racism. Especially American racism, with it's strongly polarizing view of blackness and whiteness drawn from slavery.

Young observes perceptively, and I quote: "Egypt is the earliest civilization, developed in Africa, clearly represented the major potential stumbling block, for the permanent inferiority of the Black race, which it was alleged, had never created or produced anything of value." Similarly, Trafton points out that this debate lies at the heart of the often polarizing back and forth between mainstream and Afrocentric Egyptology.

A hierarchy of race, like that developed by Morton, Nott and Gliddon, and still deployed today by white supremacists, cannot be sustained if not one, but two great Black civilizations arose in Africa, at the dawn of history. It is therefore entirely appropriate and even necessary to confront constructions of race for Nubia and Egypt in the recent past, and acknowledge both cilivilizations as African and Black. Dispelling the myth of racial classification and ranking, which have their genesis with Gliddon, and the beginnings of American Egyptology. Thank you."

References