User Tag List

Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 176

Thread: 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes Study - Officially Refuted381 days old

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-07-22 @ 17:18
    Join Date
    2018-10-01
    Posts
    26
    Gender

    Default 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes Study - Officially Refuted

    A couple of Weeks ago an official peer reviewed debunking of took place by leading authority of the Bio-Cultural Origins of Ancient "Egypt" S.O.Y. Keita and others. The graphic below highlights the most pivotal points of this epic debunking, and the subsequently to the Mayonnaise party that has been thrown. The length that some Caucasians and their lapdogs go through to try to steal the history of ancient Africa from the hands of the real black Africans of the land is a testament to how little they have actually contributed this World. For 200 years now they have presenting bogus studies and making ridiculous claims (such as a racial distinction or distinction period between Nubia and Kemet when it was really a continuous river valley civilization) to present themselves as ancient Africans, and more importantly to them make sure that our people's memory of our ancestry has been tainted. They need to stop, and accept the truth. The problem is that they have an ideology of genetically recessive superiority over genetically dominant populations, and acknowledging the fact that the springboard for World civilizations were created by the original genetically dominant melaninated African people would leave them out of place.

    FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt



    Quotes from the study

    Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trades:
    QUOTES: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub- Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion..” There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.” Tiny sample sizes: “The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.”

    Other DNA data show substantial African affinity:Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

    Arbitrary definition of some DNA haplogroups as ‘Asian’ problematic: “Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” .. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa.

    So called “sub-Saharan” patterns in place from the beginning in Egypt and are not merely the product of the ‘slave trade.’ “Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.”

    Definition of ‘African’ stereotypical, even as strangely, authors exclude many actual African samples near Egypt from the data
    “Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.”




    Before this refutation was issued, people with good common sense had already put the foolery of the mentioned study on full blast as shown by the sister below.

    The Egyptian DNA case : truth and lies
    On May 31st 2017, all the media of the Western world announced that the DNA of 90 Egyptian mummies has just been finally deciphered. They all seem to be of Middle Eastern and European origin. The information goes around the world, delights the supporters of a white Egypt and shakes the Africans and the African diaspora, who had already taken ownership of this civilization. We have got into possession this study and we will demonstrate here that it is dishonest from the beginning to the end, and that the Egyptian civilization belongs – if proof still needed – strictly to the Black African world.


    Queen Ndjemt, daughter of Pharaoh Ramesu Kha-m-Waset (Ramesses XI) and wife of pharaoh-priest Heri Horo. Her father was one of the last pharaohs of the great indigenous Egyptian dynasties, around 1070 BC. As you can see, she was undoubtedly African. Most likely her hair had been involuntarily straightened during the mummification process, as we have shown here.

    How to determine which people are at the origin of a civilization?
    The choice of sites

    Imagine today that the French civilization has disappeared and that in 2000 years we try to determine which people were at its origin. The first thing we should do is to consult the documents of the time period to find out what were the important places of this ancient territory. Then we would realize that the greatest people of France were buried in royal tombs in the Parisian Region and also at the Panthéon in Paris. After excavating the remains it would be easy to determine that the French civilization was the work of the white people.

    If, on the other hand, one were to go to Marseilles in the south, so many Berbers and Arabs would be found in the cemeteries, and one would falsely conclude that France was the work of the Berbers and the Arabs. It is the same with the American civilization today. You would have to go to the Arlington Cemetery in Virginia and not to any cemetery in Miami filled with Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans etc…

    The choice of the Time Period

    In the same way, the historical documents would show that there was an influx of Arabs and Berbers in the city of Marseilles during the middle of the 20th century. If we insist on knowing who were the founders of the city, the older remains, those of the lower antiquity in particular, would be indicative.

    Therefore, in order to determine the people at the origin of a civilization, everything we should begin with the historical documentation, in order to know which sites to search and what time period to take into account.

    What do the Egyptian historical documents say?

    They say this :

    4000 BC: birth, between Sudan and southern Egypt, of the very first dynasty; which will eventually conquer the whole north around 3300 BC.

    • From 3300 BC to 1730 BC ruled only these dynasties originating from southern Egypt and Sudan.
    • Between 1730 BC and 1540 BC, a dynasty of invaders, called Hyksos, probably white, conquered the north of Egypt. The indigenous kings withdrew to their original bastion, the south.
    • Between 1540 BC and 1070 BC, the indigenous dynasties conquered the north and ruled over the whole kingdom again.
    • Between 1070 BC and 663 BC, black Libyans associated with Whites ruled over the north, the indigenous authority retreating, once again, to the south. Then the Sudanese came and ruled over the whole territory.
    • Between 663 BC and 332 BC, a chaotic succession of white Persian invaders and Egyptians ruled the country.
    • From 332 BC to 641 AD, the Greeks and the Romans, who entered by the north, dominated.
    • And from 641 AD to the present day we have an Arab domination, with Turkish and British intervals.


    What does that mean? It means that if we want to accurately genetically determine who the ancient Egyptians were, we should take the remains of the Kings from the south, at the Valley of the Kings, in Luxor. And top priority should be given to the remains that dated between 4000 BC and 1730 BC and those dated between 1540 BC and 1070 BC. This has already been done.

    What do the previous genetic researches say about the ancient Egyptians?

    The main study dates from 2012 and was conducted by the US laboratory DNA Tribes. It dealt with three of the most famous Pharaohs: Amenhotep III, Tutankhamen and another Pharaoh, whose identity is uncertain. It should be Smenkaré or Akhenaten. Moreover the maternal grandparents of Akhenaton, the influential priests Yuya and Tuya have been included in the study. These kings ruled around 1400 BC, so in the reliable period. The result is unquestionable: they come from Africa, south of Sahara.



    DNA Tribes Results : Index of genetic compatibility of 326 with Southern Africa, 323 with Great Lakes and 83 with Central Africa and West Africa. This study is the absolute reference in genetics to ancient Egyptians. For comparison, the Semitic whites, European or Berbers are between 3 and 7 of compatibility.

    In addition to that, in 2012 a study conducted by Zahi Hawass and al. published in the BMJ showed that the pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) – who ruled around 1200 BC, carries the E1b1a gene, which is an African gene. This gene is quasi-specific to populations of Africa south of Sahara and to Africans in the Americas. It is maximal among Angolans for example. The Westerners have remained silent on these two studies, which contrasts with today’s media hustle and bustle. They pretend that the present study is the first.

    In 2013, DNA Tribes went further with the DNA of Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramses III) and his son Pentawret. The results are similar : they are related to the peoples of the Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Central Africa/West Africa, and the horn of Africa.




    On the left Tutankhamen and his wife Queen Ankh-Sen-Imana, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti ; On the right the great pharaoh Imanahotep Hekawaset (Amenhotep III), father of Akhenaten.


    Pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) at the left
    Pharaoh Akhenaten with his African features at the right

    What has actually done the study that makes so much noise today?

    The study by Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute in Germany pre-selected 91 mummies found in one (1) cemetery in northern Egypt. It is a single site. Was Professor Johannes Krause afraid to fetch the Egyptians in the South, where they are crowded?


    Here is, in north of Egypt, the place where the mummies of Johannes Krause come from. This image comes from his own paper. Look far at the bottom right, it is Luxor, where the Pharaohs are buried. Even when the pharaoh died to the north, his body was taken to the south, just as today, people still prefer to be buried in their villages. The Egyptians knew perfectly well that they came from the south.

    But that’s not all. Of these 91 mummies, how many are dated in the time periods we are interested in (4000-1730, 1540-1070)? Well! simple answer: 4. 4 mummies out of the 91 selected date from the great periods of ruling by native Egyptians. Only 4 mummies date from the time period before 1070 BC. All the others are recent. And how many of these 91 date from the domination of the Greek and Roman whites? 48! i.e most of them. This sample is then invalid and cannot determine the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Should we continue our critic of this study? We can stop here. But let’s be kind and continue.

    Of the 91 mummies how many were actually genetically analyzed to determine who the ancient Egyptians were? Get this : 3. Johannes Krause begins by saying: “Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies”. The study that makes so much noise all over the world today and which is supposed to have determined who the Egyptians were is based on only 3 mummies. 3 !!!!!!

    Of these 3 mummies, how many date from the great ruling by the native Egyptians? Simple answer: 0. The mummy JK2134 dates from between 776 BC and 669 BC, the mummy JK2911 dates from 769-560 BC. The mummy JK2888 dates from 97-2 BC. All these mummies date from the time when Egypt in the north was dominated by white foreigners or had a large white immigrant population. These mummies cannot, in any way, be representative of the people or the kings of ancient Egypt.


    This is a summary image of the study in question. 3 mummies!

    In short the mummies supposed to say that the Egyptians were white:

    • Come from a single and irrelevant site.
    • Were taken in the north of Egypt which was repeatedly under the rule of white foreigners and partly populated by white immigrants.
    • Are only 3, which is ridiculously small.
    • Do not date, for any of them, from the ruling of the great indigenous Egyptians.
    • All of them date from the late period, that is a period of decline and occupation, where the whites had infiltrated from the north.


    This sample has therefore zero value. And there’s no point in continuing to discuss it. So do the Westerners want to pride themselves on the fact that they found 3 whites out of 10 million ancient Egyptians? They can have those them. We are not stingy. According to their heretical logic, in 2000 years Jamaicans will be found in the British tombs and it will then be concluded that Queen Elizabeth II and the English were black. In 2000 years, Indian people will be found in the Tanzanian tombs. It will also be concluded that Julius Nyerere and the Tanzanians were Indian.

    Moreover, the University of Tübingen, in Germany, to which is attached Mr Krause, has been talked about recently. They pretended that a European monkey with premolars tied is the first hominid in the world, meaning that humanity was not born in Africa. We are therefore dealing here with racist ideologists.

    The West really thought we were going to stop at the sensational title of this study and not go deep into it. This is terrible misjudgment of the new African generation Cheikh Anta Diop has created. We want to say that nothing and no one will ever put us back in the mental condition of eternal slave again. With science, we will have no concession and no pity, with those who dare to put themselves through our indestructible bond with our glorious ancestors. Our determination is total.

    Black Africans are the civilizers of humanity and they will never come down from this historic pedestal anymore. They invented civilization, in Africa, and introduced it to Asia, America and Europe. Everyone will learn to get back to his place in history. It is with this new pride, this infinite confidence in our capacities, that we will rebuild Africa.

    That being said, considering the shock wave this study has created in the black communities, we believe that the maximum number of Africans must acquire solid scientific knowledge in order to be able to decipher the lies contained in the scientific literature. But above all it is also urgent that we control our media space in order to make our voice heard; it is the voice of truth.

    Life, Health and Strength to the Energies of Our Ancestors!

    Hotep !

    By : Lisapo ya Kama

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Sho Nuff For This Useful Post:

    upyours (2018-10-14)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,715
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Where's the study? I'm only going to ask this once. Post abstract and link, or GTFO.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    alistair (2018-10-05)

  6. #3
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 17:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,830
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    There is no refuting the 2017 study. The data is irrefutable. These Egyptians are dozens of times closer to West Eurasians (Especially Near Easterners) than to any present Sub-Saharan group.






    The study can only be 'critiqued', not refuted. Which the authors themselves do and don't jump to major conclusions. Yes, we know these are late genomes and can't be used as a definitive exemplar or prototype of the Old Kingdom/Early Dynastic Egyptians. The Jury is still out on older Egyptians.

    But honestly, how likely is it that the Old Kingdom Egyptians will be just vastly different? Even if these Egyptian genomes had say only 50% continuity with the Old Kingdom Egyptians..then there will be no denying that the Old Kingdom Egyptians were still much closer to Near Eastern and West Eurasian groups than to Sub-Saharan Africans.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Where's the study? I'm only going to ask this once. Post abstract and link, or GTFO.
    The 'study' the OP is talking about itself is just a critique by Keita, not a new genome study with actual new data. When the Afrocentrists have full genome wide sequencing mummies coming out like modern Blacks then i'll believe in them.

    In addition to that, in 2012 a study conducted by Zahi Hawass and al. published in the BMJ showed that the pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) – who ruled around 1200 BC, carries the E1b1a gene, which is an African gene. This gene is quasi-specific to populations of Africa south of Sahara and to Africans in the Americas. It is maximal among Angolans for example. The Westerners have remained silent on these two studies, which contrasts with today’s media hustle and bustle. They pretend that the present study is the first.
    So what if he carried E1b1a. The best that tells us is that he had at least 1 Central or West African ancestor. Doesn't tell us anything about his overall ancestral affiliation. Remember The King Tut carrying R1b thing? You're making the same mistake they did.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-10-02 at 20:45.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

    alistair (2018-10-05), Longbowman (2018-10-03), Semitic Duwa (2018-10-07)

  8. #4
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 21:27
    Join Date
    2010-01-07
    Posts
    5,273
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a8*
    mtDNA
    L0a1a2
    Ethnicity
    "Black"
    Politics
    Praise the Sun
    Religion
    Sun Worship
    African Union(OAS) United States

    Default

    Too long. Didnt read. The data is what it is. You can refute it. Interpretation is a different issue.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to beyoku For This Useful Post:

    Longbowman (2018-10-03), pgbk87 (2018-10-04), Semitic Duwa (2018-10-07)

  10. #5
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-07-22 @ 17:18
    Join Date
    2018-10-01
    Posts
    26
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Where's the study? I'm only going to ask this once. Post abstract and link, or GTFO.
    https://osf.io/ecwf3

    BOOM Eh Heh

  11. #6
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-07-22 @ 17:18
    Join Date
    2018-10-01
    Posts
    26
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    There is no refuting the 2017 study. The date is irrefutable. These Egyptians are dozens of times closer to West Eurasians (Especially Near Easterners) than to any present Sub-Saharan group.






    The study can only be 'critiqued', not refuted. Which the authors themselves do... Yes, we know these are late genomes and can't be used as a definitive exemplar or prototype of the Old Kingdom/Early Dynastic Egyptians. The Jury is still out on older Egyptians.

    But honestly, how likely is it that the Old Kingdom Egyptians will be just vastly different? Even if these Egyptian genomes had say only 50% continuity with the Old Kingdom Egyptians..then there will be no denying that the Old Kingdom Egyptians were still much closer to Near Eastern and West Eurasian groups than to Sub-Saharan Africans.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The 'study' the OP is talking about itself is just a critique by Keita, not a new genome study with actual new data. When the Afrocentrists have full genome wide sequencing mummies coming out like modern Blacks then i'll believe in them.
    Actually the entire mechanism that lead to the conclusion of that 2017 study has been debunked, and not only by Keita as you should be able to see. Instead the conclusions of DNAtribes, which proved that the ancient Kemites were most closely related to Central, West, and Southern African populations were actually verified by this peer reviewed analysis with the same STR profiles. See;

    Other DNA data show substantial African affinity: “Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

    https://osf.io/ecwf3

    See they were indigenous melaninated Africans after all! This is what consistent evidence from multiple scientific disciplines have concluded. Only desperate people would actually think that one outlying genetic study could possibly overturn centuries of verified research. It's crazy, and it's a sign of a desperate people.

    "There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." ...."must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)

  12. #7
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2019-10-14 @ 00:47
    Join Date
    2018-01-27
    Posts
    1,202
    Gender

    Default

    We wuz melanin space gods an sheeit

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reason1234 For This Useful Post:

    Longbowman (2018-10-03), MnM (2018-10-06)

  14. #8
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-07-22 @ 17:18
    Join Date
    2018-10-01
    Posts
    26
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    But honestly, how likely is it that the Old Kingdom Egyptians will be just vastly different? Even if these Egyptian genomes had say only 50% continuity with the Old Kingdom Egyptians ..then there will be no denying that the Old Kingdom Egyptians were still much closer to Near Eastern and West Eurasian groups than to Sub-Saharan Africans.
    The original populace of Kemet were various of Africoid peoples, and everyone was melaninated. This remained the case until the Hyksos invasion (who were a Set worshiping Kushite faction who was previously expelled by Narmer who had interbred with nomadic Caucasians and became SEMItic goat hoarders. They were also the first non fully melaninated people mentioned in history) and their expulsion ushering in the New Kingdom. For over 1,000 years after their expulsion Caucasoid hoards (under various usurped titles and identities) attempted unsuccessfully to infiltrate and control the civilization particularly in the North. Well they eventually came through with the Persians around the 6th century AD. The original "Negroid" populace who dominated the region of Upper Kemet and Lower Nubia moved either further south into Kush's new capitol of Meroe and or directly into interior regions of Africa.

    "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

    Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

    -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528


    and

    "Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404."

    So what if he carried E1b1a. The best that tells us is that he had at least 1 Central or West African ancestor. Doesn't tell us anything about his overall ancestral affiliation.
    No it's actually most likely that he was entirely of a "Niger-Congo", West, Central, Southern African stock;

    "These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa..A previous issue of DNA Tribes Digest identified African related ancestry for King Tut and other royal mummies from the Amarna Period. 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


    link

    Remember The King Tut carrying R1b thing? You're making the same mistake they did.
    Don't compare a peer reviewed refutation to that politically driven bunk study, to a group of desperate white supremacist who took a screenshot of a television program, and assumed that the data on the TV was Tut's DNA. They took that assumption, and ran it to get their desperate yet desired results. DNAtribes took the actual (not assumed like desperate white supremacist) STR profiles of the Amarna period pharaohs from that same TV airing, and subsequently refuted their wishful thinking. So no that's not going to happen..!

    Context!

    A generation ago in the early 90's the Western Caucasian scholars attempted to pull the same stunt only with the physical anthropology. The study used back then was Brace 1993 Clines and Clusters. The nonsense of that study has been thoroughly exposed on the old Egyptsearch forum, and further called out by Africanist scholars such as SOY Keita in 2005 for it's fallacies and ill intentions. The study used "Neolithic" "Eurasian" populations, instead of modern Eurasian inhabitants, because they are fully aware of the fact that the those ancient Eurasian populations were in fact "Negroid". They came from the Natufians (13,000 BC) who were "Negroid" Africans from Nubia according to consistent bio-cultural evidence.

    “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307

    and

    "They were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads." 1932 NY Times (Discovery of the Natufians)

    Here is archaeological evidence.

    "Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan."
    --Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.

    A recent study (and several older ones) has noted that Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) Nubians were identical to West African/Bantu populations ("Negroid") as opposed to contemporary "Cushitic" or "Nilotic" populations in the Sudan.

    "In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations." -- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")

    In fact there is even evidence of the Neolithic BEGINNING along the Nile Valley (where the Natufians came from) around 15,000 years ago, which would explain the Neolithic that was seen in the fertile Saharan African genesis (where all of the dynastic civilizations came from by the way). The Neolithic Europeans were found to be "Negroid" and of little relations (the little coming from the influxing Indo-Aryans from central Asia who absorbed them along with the hunter gathers who were also no Indo-Aryan in appearance...) to modern white people (in plain language)...

    The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa...Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used.
    (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.

    In essence these people were not "white", but rather their external anatomical features prove that they were melaninated migrating Africoid populations;



    This is why the Cheddar man reconstruction shows a melaninated person. They made that individual look like a dark skinned "Caucasian" (even with silky hair) simply to appease the white populace who would be the bulk of the audience receiving that news, In reality the features would have been overtly Negroid.

    Anywho.. Just like within the last year, back when this study came out Western Caucasians threw a mayonnaise party to celebrate temporarily before their lies caught up with them. The thing is, why is it so important that Caucasians lie about this? There is clearly something more at stake here than silly ego. There is a truth that they do not what uncovered, almost a biblical truth!

    "However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate "sub-Saharan African" or just simply "African" (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called "E" or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity." (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)



    Western scholars commenced this debunked study strictly in the name of "white supremacy". They did that in response to the profound affects of the Afrocentric movement between 70 and mid 90's that was kicked off by Cheikh Anta Diop and carried by Dr. John Henricke Clarke, Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. Ben J., Ashra Kwesi, Ronoko Rashidi etc etc,. Their dismantling of common white lies and dept knowledge on Africa sanctified in the black communities across the globe.



    This generation of Western white supremacist are trying to play the deny the Africanity of Kemet game with genetics rather than anthropology. The Caucasian (especially Western Europeans) does not have a long place in history contrary to propagated belief, and many of these attempts to attribute ancient civilizations of the lands that they clearly usurped during a period in history is all that's going on here.
    Last edited by Sho Nuff; 2018-10-03 at 00:31.

  15. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,715
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    The 'study' the OP is talking about itself is just a critique by Keita, not a new genome study with actual new data. When the Afrocentrists have full genome wide sequencing mummies coming out like modern Blacks then i'll believe in them.
    Yeah, I figured that much.

    By the way! I'm a big fan of Sho'nuff. That motherfucker was crazy, absolutely badass:

    The Last Dragon Sho'nuff Mashup:


    ^^ Me and an old school Swedish friend used to watch this film when we were kids. Great fucking movie. The Last Dragon is the 80s at its finest
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    MnM (2018-10-06)

  17. #10
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2019-10-14 @ 00:47
    Join Date
    2018-01-27
    Posts
    1,202
    Gender

    Default

    Have you figured out how to unlock your pineal melatonin superpowers yet?

    - - - Updated - - -

    "The original "Negroid" populace who dominated the region of Upper Kemet and Lower Nubia moved either further south into Kush's new capitol of Meroe and or directly into interior regions of Africa."

    And then they promptly forgot how to read and write, forgot how to build anything, forgot how to speak the egyptian language, and forgot how to make anything that looks remotely egyptian. Makes sense.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reason1234 For This Useful Post:

    MnM (2018-10-06), The American (2018-10-04)

Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 222
    Last Post: 2019-05-31, 01:54
  2. Replies: 1407
    Last Post: 2018-03-09, 18:23
  3. Poland is now officially Western European (since September 2017)
    By Litvin in forum Polskie Forum Dyskusyjne
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2017-11-29, 14:54
  4. Predynastic Egyptian mummy Gebelein man B
    By AlpArslan in forum Egyptology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2017-06-13, 00:02
  5. Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes
    By nee4speed111 in forum Africa
    Replies: 559
    Last Post: 2017-06-07, 01:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<