The Old Kingdom's genetics

After the unification of Egypt, a man was buried along the Nile. His genome is now published, and is continuous with modern Egyptians (especially Copts)... given historical introgressions since. We'll get into those, later.

The burial is dynasty III or IV, backed up with radiocarbon admittedly vague. That is early Old Kingdom, so Pyramid-era perhaps immediately pre-Cheops. He was a shortie at slightly under 160 cm. He seems to have been a potter, earning enough in the end to get his upper-middle-class burial. One hopes he rested in peace since his work injuries rendered him stooped and arthritic.

The genome is under 80% Moroccan, with 20%... Mesopotamian. There isn't any Kushite here; although - supposedly - our man was dark skinned. Both contributors seem far from upper Egypt; presumably the African DNA is what darkened him as much, but also hey - this climate selects for that. His male lineage was E1b1b1b2b; female was I (=N1a1b2). I do not find in his paternity Levantine J, but the mix overall may hold a little Levantine.

The Levantine, the paper argues, came later. Instead came earlier, a "Neolithic package" of agriculture, in Egypt 6000 BC. I recall this follows that nasty 6200 BC frigidity which, in the Sahara, would have been an aridity.

The paper further evaluates how the genome changed from the Late Bronze through the "Third Intermediate". Egyptologists since Herodotus have accepted Saite propaganda that the dynasty XXVI Pharaoh Psammetichus was Magnus, and forget he started as an Assyrian stooge. This paper picks a burial from 787–544 "BCE". Anyway, this king's Egypt was now a sight more Levantine than was Cheops' Egypt. They got BLEACHED.

This paper, then, presents the baseline for the Old Egyptian people, therefore culture and language. It should assist in constraining models for the Tamazight and Semitic languages as well.

We still have some millennia between this burial and the Saites (meaning, Assyrians). How did that BLEACHing occur? I understand we do own some Pharaonic DNA but the paper doesn't bring it. They might not represent the common riverside potter. King Tut / dynasty XVIII was R1b (I still don't know if my sort, or Chad's V88 sort); Rameses II and III were more-natively E-V22 downstream of E1b1a / V38. The pharaonic DNA seems corrupted and incomplete.