Ancient Egyptians on GEDmatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Martnen

Also, the Copts have preserved more traditional Egyptian culture and language than the Moslem, Arab Egyptians.

(Copts speak Arabic now, but still use Coptic for religious purposes)

---

True. I mean, the word "Copt" back in the day used to describe the native ethnic Egyptians. Now, it refers to the local Egyptian ethno-religious group. I have a Coptic friend here who's name is Oblivion, and her paternal family's Y-DNA is J1-P58 which belongs to the same clade as Arabians which suggests that there had been Arabs who had converted and assimilated to the Coptic faith back in the day. Remember, the Coptic church isn't a closed religion to outsiders as those found among Zoroastrians, Druze, Yazidis and etc, and people who convert to the Coptic faith become Coptic themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

True. I mean, the word "Copt" back in the day used to describe the native ethnic Egyptians. Now, it refers to the local Egyptian ethno-religious group. I have a Coptic friend here who's name is Oblivion, and her paternal family's Y-DNA is J1-P58 which belongs to the same clade as Arabians which suggests that there had been Arabs who had converted and assimilated to the Coptic faith back in the day. Remember, the Coptic church isn't a closed religion to outsiders as those found among Zoroastrians, Druze, Yazidis and etc, and people who convert to the Coptic faith become Coptic themselves.

---

Aren't a lot of Jews also J1-P58?

What's your Y-DNA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby Martnen

Aren't a lot of Jews also J1-P58?

What's your Y-DNA?

---

Yeah, but the one that is found among Jews isn't the same clades as those found in Arabians.

I don't know, and I'll do the testing once I get my first salary.

Three mummies are not well suited to study ancient Egypt as whole. However ancient Egypt was a mixed race society from the beginning.

I wish someone could reupload them or something. Such a shame that they had been deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toppo900

I wish someone could reupload them or something. Such a shame that they had been deleted.

---

I found this post in another forum and according to me he's right:

Quote:

---

I am rather skeptical about these remains being of pure, unadulterated Ancient Egyptians. Abusir el-Meleq is indeed a Hyksos site, plus AFAIK there's no archeological or any other evidence pointing at a pre-Canaanite/Hyksos presence in Egypt of the Iran_Neolithic component which seems to be present in the three individuals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Saying the ancient Egyptians had a lot of T1a doesn’t say much considering T1a is equally popular in most of West Eurasia(from Ireland to Iran). The T1a clades the ancient Egyptians belonged to: T1a7, T1a2, T1a5, T1a8, all are Near Eastern-specific. None of them belonged to European-SC Asian T1a1. Most of my modern T1a7 samples are from Egypt. All of my Egyptian T1a7 samples belong to an unclassified T1a7 clade, it’ll be interesting to see if these ancient Egyptians belonged to that clade.

---

Aaargh I wish I knew more about this subclade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf

I found this post in another forum and according to me he's right:

---

Yh, J1-YSC234 in these samples suggests Hyksos/Semitic input as the origin date of this clade is in line with the development of the first Semitic language in the Levant and can thus be linked with Semitic movements. Though the E1b1b guy could've been a native, i'm not sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelmendasi

Yh, J1-YSC234 in these samples suggests Hyksos/Semitic input as the origin date of this clade is in line with the development of the first Semitic language in the Levant and can thus be linked with Semitic movements. Though the E1b1b guy could've been a native, i'm not sure

---

That subclade of J1 is 5,800 years old. The back migration to Africa from the Middle East was in its last stages during this time. That’s still before dynastic Egypt began and at the beginning of pre-dynastic Egypt. So that allowed plenty enough time for it to be a subclade found among ancient Egyptians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajeje Brazorf

I found this post in another forum and according to me he's right:

---

Abusir El Meleq is not a Hyksos site. It was an area home to Osiris cult followers, as the Shuenemann et al. 2017 study points out. I seriously doubt the Hyksos were in an Osiris cult. As for Iran Neolithic component, well there is no other genome-wide DNA test results of any Egyptian mummy ever, so I don’t see how that assumption could be made.

These type of folks are only skeptical because the results do not correlate to their desires. People with bias and agenda are often guilty of this. These results are from three different time periods showing continuity among time periods.

In addition to this, two other DNA studies were released, one in 2017 and the other in 2018, which reveals haplogroups from tested ancient Egyptian mummies from the 11th and 12th dynasties (both of these dynasties were before any foreigners, this includes Hyksos) All three of these mummies had West Eurasian derived haplogroups, including two of them had an African adapted West Eurasian haplogroup, meaning a subclade formed inside of Africa which signals evidence of the back migration population into Africa from West Eurasia. All three of these mummies from these two studies have their haplogroups and even subclade represented among the haplogroups of the Abusir mummies, including one of the genome-wide mummies that tested as a West Eurasian.

I wouldn’t buy into those hypothetical fantasies from folks whose feelings have been hurt by modern science.