Jump to content

Genava55

Community Historians
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.067

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Genava55

  1. Amerindian

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    https://phys.org/news/2021-09-evidence-idea-america-civilization-sophisticated.html#!

     

    New evidence supports idea that America's first civilization was made up of 'sophisticated' engineers

    The Native Americans who occupied the area known as Poverty Point in northern Louisiana more than 3,000 years ago long have been believed to be simple hunters and gatherers. But new Washington University in St. Louis archaeological findings paint a drastically different picture of America's first civilization.

     

    Far from the simplicity of life sometimes portrayed in anthropology books, these early Indigenous people were highly skilled engineers capable of building massive earthen structures in a matter of months—possibly even weeks—that withstood the test of times, the findings show.

    "We as a research community—and population as a whole—have undervalued native people and their ability to do this work and to do it quickly in the ways they did," said Tristram R. "T.R." Kidder, lead author and the Edward S. and Tedi Macias Professor of Anthropology in Arts & Sciences.

    "One of the most remarkable things is that these earthworks have held together for more than 3,000 years with no failure or major erosion. By comparison, modern bridges, highways and dams fail with amazing regularity because building things out of dirt is more complicated than you would think. They really were incredible engineers with very sophisticated technical knowledge."

    The findings were published in Southeastern Archaeology on September, 1, 2021. Washington University's Kai Su, Seth B. Grooms, along with graduates Edward R. Henry (Colorado State) and Kelly Ervin (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) also contributed to the paper.

    The Poverty Point World Heritage site consists of a massive 72-foot-tall earthen mound and concentric half circle ridges. The structures were constructed by hunter-gatherers approximately 3,400 years ago from nearly 2 million cubic yards of soil. Amazingly, this was done without the luxury of modern tools, domesticated animals or even wheeled carts.

    • Like 1

  5. Suggestion: Add Judea as a Faction

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, Lightning38 said:

    Judea could be unique with a new house mechanic.

    Judea is the name of the Roman province. There were the Hasmonean Kingdom or the Herodian Kingdom as independent states. Or else it should be a generic Judeans.

    28 minutes ago, Lightning38 said:

    Every house gets to randomly become a house of one of the 12 tribes of Jacob.

    I am not sure if this is historical for this time period. The twelves tribes are mostly a founding myth more than a reality. It could have a random tribal system but maybe not as a strict reference to the myth.

    5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    I think there is already a thread somewhere about Judeans and there have been some wild ideas, like making a Jesus hero.

    I want Jesus as a hero and I want a special death animation for him.

  7. Current climate change

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Genava55

    5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    That's why I said the one created by humans, I don't remember what name it has.

    The fact that the current climate change is caused by humans is also supported by Earth Sciences. I mean, CO2 is known for a long time as an important driver of Earth's climate:

    (this is geologist Richard Alley invited at the National Academy of Sciences (US) for a presentation)

    • Like 2

  10. Current climate change

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    If history teaches something, it is that we always hit the worst case scenario concerning climate change.

    Something called committed warming makes me think we only see the tip of the iceberg. I think we keep following the worst case scenario for at least a decade. That's a decade of wasted potential.

    We are not exactly on the worst case scenario but it is still a bad outcome if we continue like this:

    https://i2.wp.com/redgreenandblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/screen_shot_2020-01-29_at_5.39.57_pm.png?resize=768%2C872

  11. Current climate change

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Genava55

    21 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

    I wonder how many travel hours, CPU power etc. were used to create such reports. ;)

    Shooting the messenger is a tempting fallacy, but most of the impact from an individual comes from its daily transportation, the energy-source for heating its home and what the individual eats regularly. Not taking a flight time-to-time nor using a computer.

    https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sector-%E2%80%93-pie-charts.png

    • Thanks 1

  12. Current climate change

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Genava55

    The IPCC will release this Monday a new report from its Working Group I (the group working on the physical science review), so I think this should be a good opportunity to open a new thread and to talk about it (and about climate change more generally).

    A few articles about the new report and the IPCC:

    234 scientists read 14,000+ research papers to write the upcoming IPCC climate report – here’s what you need to know and why it’s a big deal https://theconversation.com/234-scientists-read-14-000-research-papers-to-write-the-upcoming-ipcc-climate-report-heres-what-you-need-to-know-and-why-its-a-big-deal-165587

    Spoiler

    234 scientists read 14,000+ research papers to write the upcoming IPCC climate report – here’s what you need to know and why it’s a big deal

    This week, hundreds of scientists from around the world are finalizing a report that assesses the state of the global climate. It’s a big deal. The report is used by governments and industries everywhere to understand the threats ahead.

    So who are these scientists, and what goes into this important assessment?

    Get ready for some acronyms. We’re going to explore the upcoming IPCC report and some of the terms you’ll be hearing when it’s released on Aug. 9, 2021.

    What is the IPCC?

    IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It’s the United Nations’ climate-science-focused organization. It’s been around since 1988, and it has 195 member countries.

    Every seven years or so, the IPCC releases a report – essentially a “state of the climate” – summarizing the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed research on the science of climate change, its effects and ways to adapt to and mitigate it.

    The purpose of these reports is to provide everyone, particularly governing bodies, with the information they need to make important decisions regarding climate change. The IPCC essentially provides governments with a CliffsNotes version of thousands of papers published regarding the science, risks, and social and economic components of climate change.

    There are two important things to understand:

    1. The IPCC reports are nonpartisan. Every IPCC country can nominate scientists to participate in the report-writing process, and there is an intense and transparent review process.

    2. The IPCC doesn’t tell governments what to do. Its goal is to provide the latest knowledge on climate change, its future risks and options for reducing the rate of warming.

    Why is this report such a big deal?

    The last big IPCC assessment was released in 2013. A lot can change in eight years.

    Not only has computer speed and climate modeling greatly improved, but each year scientists understand more and more about Earth’s climate system and the ways specific regions and people around the globe are changing and vulnerable to climate change.

    Where does the research come from?

    The IPCC doesn’t conduct its own climate-science research. Instead, it summarizes everyone else’s. Think: ridiculously impressive research paper.

    The upcoming report was authored by 234 scientists nominated by IPCC member governments around the world. These scientists are leading Earth and climate science experts.

    This report – the first of four that make up the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report – looks at the physical science behind climate change and its impacts. It alone will contain over 14,000 citations to existing research. The scientists looked at all of the climate-science-related research published through Jan. 31, 2021.

    These scientists, who are not compensated for their time and effort, volunteered to read those 14,000-plus papers so you don’t have to. Instead, you can read their shorter chapters on the scientific consensus on topics like extreme weather or regional changes in sea-level rise.

    The IPCC is also transparent about its review process, and that process is extensive. Drafts of the report are shared with other scientists, as well as with governments, for comments. Before publication, the 234 authors will have had to address over 75,000 comments on their work.

    Government input to these bigger reports, like the one being released on Aug. 9, 2021, is solely limited to commenting on report drafts. However, governments do have a much stronger say in the shorter summary for policymakers that accompanies these reports, as they have to agree by consensus and typically get into detailed negotiations on the wording.

    Climate explained: how the IPCC reaches scientific consensus on climate change https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-the-ipcc-reaches-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-162600

    Spoiler

    When we say there’s a scientific consensus that human-produced greenhouse gases are causing climate change, what does that mean? What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and what do they do?

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the world’s most authoritative scientific assessments on climate change. It provides policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and risks, and options for cutting emissions and adapting to impacts we can no longer avoid.

    The IPCC has already released five assessment reports and is currently completing its Sixth Assessment (AR6), with the release of the first part of the report, on the physical science of climate change, expected on August 9.

    Each assessment cycle brings together scientists from around the world and many disciplines. The current cycle involves 721 scientists from 90 countries, in three working groups covering the physical science basis (WGI), impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (WGII) and mitigation of climate change (WGIII).

    In each assessment round, the IPCC identifies where the scientific community agrees, where there are differences of opinion and where further research is needed.

    IPCC reports are timed to inform international policy developments such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (First Assessment, 1990), the Kyoto Protocol (Second Assessment, 1995) and the Paris Agreement (Fifth Assessment, 2013-2014). The first AR6 report (WGI) will be released in August this year, and its approval meeting is set to take place virtually, for the first time in the IPCC’s 30-year history.

    This will be followed by WGII and WGIII reports in February and March 2022, and the Synthesis Report in September 2022 — in time for the first UNFCCC Global Stocktake when countries will review progress towards the goal of the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2℃.

    During the AR6 cycle, the IPCC also published three special reports:

    How the IPCC reaches consensus

    IPCC authors come from academia, industry, government and non-governmental organisations. All authors go through a rigorous selection process — they must be leading experts in their fields, with a strong publishing record and international reputation.

    Author teams usually meet in person four times throughout the writing cycle. This is essential to enable (sometimes heated) discussion and exchange across cultures to build a truly global perspective. During the AR6 assessment cycle, lead author meetings (LAMs) for Working Group 1 were not disrupted by COVID-19, but the final WGII and WGIII meetings were held remotely, bringing challenges of different time zones, patchy internet access and more difficult communication.

    The IPCC’s reports go through an extensive peer review process. Each chapter undergoes two rounds of scientific review and revision, first by expert reviewers and then by government representatives and experts.

    This review process is among the most exhaustive for any scientific document — AR6 WGI alone generated 74,849 review comments from hundreds of reviewers, representing a range of disciplines and scientific perspectives. For comparison, a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is reviewed by only two or three experts.

    The role of governments

    The term intergovernmental reflects the fact that IPCC reports are created on behalf of the 193 governments in the United Nations. The processes around the review and the agreement of the wording of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) make it difficult for governments to dismiss a report they have helped shape and approved during political negotiations.

    Importantly, the involvement of governments happens at the review stage, so they are not able to dictate what goes into the reports. But they participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the SPM at a plenary session where every piece of text must be agreed on, word for word.

    Acceptance in this context means that governments agree the documents are a comprehensive and balanced scientific review of the subject matter, not whether they like the content.

    The role of government delegates in the plenary is to ensure their respective governments are satisfied with the assessment, and that the assessment is policy relevant without being policy prescriptive. Government representatives can try to influence the SPM wording to support their negotiating positions, but the other government representatives and experts in the session ensure the language adheres to the evidence.

    Climate deniers claim IPCC reports are politically motivated and one-sided. But given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are involved, this is difficult to defend. Authors are required to record all scientifically or technically valid perspectives, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view, to represent each aspect of the scientific debate.

    The role of the IPCC is pivotal in bringing the international science community together to assess the science, weighing up whether it is good science and should be considered as part of the body of evidence.

    Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming + https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Spoiler

    No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times and that human activity is the most significant factor. 

    Consensus of experts

    The United States' foremost scientific agencies and organizations have recognized global warming as a human-caused problem that should be addressed. The U.S. Global Change Research Program has published a series of scientific reports documenting the causes and impacts of global climate change. NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, and the Environmental Protection Agency have all published reports and fact sheets stating that Earth is warming mainly due to the increase in human-produced heat-trapping gases.

    On their climate home page, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines says, "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions," and that "Climate change is increasingly affecting people’s lives." 

    The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement: "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)

    The American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued this position statement: "Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate observed over the last 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Reaffirmed in November 2019)

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) What We Know site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."

    Consensus of evidence

    These scientific organizations have not issued statements in a void; they echo the findings of individual papers published in refereed scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains a database of over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals, and multiple studies of this database show evidence of overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes published the results of her examination of the ISI database in the journal Science. She reviewed 928 abstracts published between 1993 and 2003 related to human activities warming the Earth's surface, and stated, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

    This finding hasn't changed with time. In 2016, a review paper summarized the results of several independent studies on peer-reviewed research related to climate. The authors found results consistent with a 97-percent consensus that human activity is causing climate change.

    Probably the most definitive assessments of global climate science come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Founded by the United Nations in 1988, the IPCC releases periodic reports, and each major release includes three volumes: one on the science, one on impacts, and one on mitigation. Each volume is authored by a separate team of experts, who reviews, evaluates, and summarizes relevant research published since the prior report. Each IPCC report undergoes several iterations of expert and government review. The 2007 IPCC report, for instance, received some 90,000 comments, and each comment received an individual response.

    The IPCC does not involve just a few scientists, or even just dozens of scientists. An IPCC factsheet explains: "Hundreds of leading experts in the different areas covered by IPCC reports volunteer their time and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors to produce these assessments. Many hundreds more are involved in drafting specific contributions as Contributing Authors and commenting on chapters as Expert Reviewers."

    Governments and climate experts across the globe nominate scientists for IPCC authorship, and the IPCC works to find a mix of authors, from developed and developing countries, among men and women, and among authors who are experienced with the IPCC and new to the process. Published in 2014, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) involved 831 experts selected from 3,598 nominations. In other words, the IPCC reports themselves are a comprehensive, consensus statement on the state climate science.

    The report states:

    The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4 . Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

    About the IPCC itself:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.

    The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

    Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations. The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

    Working Groups and Task Force

    The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Working Group II with Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III with Mitigation of Climate Change. The main objective of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Alongside the Working Groups and the Task Force, other Task Groups may be established by the Panel for a set time period to consider a specific topic or question. One example is the decision at the 47th Session of the IPCC in Paris in March 2018 to establish a Task Group to improve gender balance and address gender-related issues within the IPCC.

    Where to find the previous reports? Here:

    https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

    https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

     

    If I can suggest you a good start, I recommend the first chapter of the Third Assessment Report (2007) - The Physical Science Basis (Working Group 1), it deals about the history of climate science and the discovery of the current issue (aka global warming):

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

    Direct link to the PDF of the chapter: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

    -----

    A good introduction on the topic:

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  13. iberia en general

    in Applications and Contributions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Saatamia said:

    Es la elección de los desarrolladores, prefirieron a los íberos a los lusitanos. Si quieres, otro hizo una facción lusitana. 

     Here : For a New Faction: Lusitanian.

    Originally, it seems the Iberians were designed to represent all the tribes from the Iberian peninsula. This is why Viriathus is a playable hero of the Iberians. Here an interview from a pioneer of 0AD who sadly passed away:

    https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/

     

    • Like 2

  15. The Kingdom of Kush: A proper introduction [Illustrated]

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    27 minutes ago, Mentuhotep said:

    @Genava55Attacking me at the very end, knowing I am not going to be making further post is low....

    It is your own decision to flee

    28 minutes ago, Mentuhotep said:

    I will admit I sometimes will not respond to something knowing its redundancy and simply leave it to myself - to explain the nuance of genetic testing in the new kingdom requires the prerequisites which I am not obliged to give (it is assumed knowledge) it is very lengthy...

    I gave you an article about a genetic study on 90 individuals, from which 44 are pre-ptolemaic.

    You made the following unintelligent reply:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:44 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    So your assumed knowledge is simply fact-proof, blindness and bad faith. You even said you read it several times. Please leave the forum, this thread was excellent before your arrival and your BS.

    • Like 1

  16. The Kingdom of Kush: A proper introduction [Illustrated]

    in Official tasks

    Posted · Edited by Genava55

     You made the following bold claim:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:36 AM, Mentuhotep said:

    But the overwhelming evidence of the "Blackness" of the OLD and Middle Kingdom is soo overwhelming only willfull ignorance can ignore it. 

    I gave you this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 9:32 AM, Genava55 said:

    Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

    You replied this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 12:44 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    and this:

    On 20/07/2021 at 4:56 PM, Mentuhotep said:

    Yes I  read it, not my first time as well.

    Simply from those replies, I know you are a fanatical and lying person. You haven't read nor tried to understand the study. You cannot handle contradiction nor listen to opposite arguments. Remove your posts and leave, we absolutely don't care. We are talking about facts, not about imaginary tales you are making up in your mind.

    • Like 1

  17. Ancient Egypt Genomes and Human Features

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    None of those 3 older mummies had full genome sequences because the DNA was too degraded.

    Full genome sequence is not the same thing than genome wide sequencing. In archeology, full genome sequencing is very rare. However, genome wide sequencing is common now. The difference is that with genome wide sequencing you take various markers at various positions of the genome. 

    I don't see this as an issue, this is far enough for a comparison study.

    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    And all the mumies came from a single location 100 km south of the Delta,

    Abusir el-Meleq is a great choice I think. It wasn't a unconnected and remote location in Egypt. It had ties with religious and political powers. I don't think the sample is not representative of the average Egyptian, although they are maybe missing local input from foreign population like it could have been in the South or in the North-East.

    3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    The study involved genetic material from only 3 mummies from the New Kingdom, out of 90 mummies. The other 87 were from later periods, post-New Kingdom.

    True, they put all the 44 Pre-Ptolemaic samples in the same group and New Kingdom is only a small part. Good point. 

    2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    I honestly wouldn't have suspected any common ancestry using the proxies they used...

    Because you are clever and not following ideologies. Listening to the claims of some Black nationalists/supremacists, I have the feelings they believe Egypt was mostly black (aka Sub-Saharan) until very recently. Which is at least contradicted by this study.

    3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    Perhaps this illustration will emphasize the pointlessness of a "black vs white Egypt"-debate, which isn't only completely anachronistic, as those modern categories meant next to nothing to ancient Nile populations, but also because Ancient Egyptian identity wasn't a racial identity in the first place but a cultural, religious, linguistic and political one. Egypt has always been a crossroads between North Africa and the broader Mediterranean, the Levant and the Middle East in general, and Nubia and Subsaharan Africa.

    I entirely agree. This labeling is pure ideology. Ancient Egypt is an African civilization that's all. Even if they weren't as dark of skin as modern subsaharan, they weren't white. And they were dark skinned Egyptians as they were also light skinned Egyptians as well since Egypt is a culture, not a race.

    • Like 1

  19. Ancient Egypt Genomes and Human Features

    in Official tasks

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Mentuhotep said:

    Yes I  read it, not my first time as well. Ancient Egypt is over 3000 years of history and people want to make their claims during THE LAST dynasty? Doesn't make sense, generally we are talking about the pyramid builders, well that report is fixated on a time 2 thousand years later. You will find many times the information that is dazzling in the limelight on mainstream is usually redundant. For example Gebelain man, when there are literal kings just kept on the shelf (but I digress).

    Still the article says explicitly that Post-Roman Egypt got more gene flows from Sub-Saharan populations and that New Kingdom Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt were less close to the genome of Sub-Saharan populations than Post-Roman Egypt.

  20. Ancient Egypt Genomes and Human Features

    in Official tasks

    Posted · Edited by Genava55

    3 hours ago, Mentuhotep said:

    Soo you want to send me an article saying they found 3 individuals dated to the roman era of ancient egypt (the very end of ancient Egypt) and compared it to modern Egyptians as a means to disprove the Blackness of ancient Egypt? Surely you can do better mate. 

    Read the article. 

     

    Quote

    Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...