posted
This guy is so insanely hilarious. More kooky Eurocentric versions of Marc or Clyde, which is why cassiteride feels in good company with the guy. This serves as proof that Eurocencentric kooks are the biggest inferiority complex nutjobs out there over all others they accuse of snatching up stuff they have no affiliations with.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
King Tut could never, never, ever, be European!!!!. Only the illiterate will even suggest something as illogical and nonsensical as that. Not even the Eurocentric Egyptologist will suggest something like that. What they would do is word play. Ie Caucasoid, Meditnid (?). they know Egypt is home grown so what they will do is try to carve Egypt(and the rest of the indig populations of North Africa) out of Africa by using loose terms as dark Caucasoids under that umbrella.
Egypt is African and Black African at that with origins is the Sudan and the Sahara.. Here is what some of the experts say. Does matter what BS, fake genetic study they fudge Tut and the AEians could not possible be of European lineage.
“Looney Tunes”!!!
. . . NOW GET TO READING!!!!!!!
S.Abbas and Mohammed-Ali, The Neolithic Period in the Sudan: c.6000-2500 B.C., Cambridge: BAR International Seies 139. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 6. W.Y.Adams 1987, 'Three Prespectives of the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian, and the Prehistorian', Nubian Culture. Past and Present, Stockholm: 285-291. Adamson, A. D. 1982, 'The Integrated Nile'. In: A Land between Two Niles. (ed.) Williams, M. A and Adamson, D. A., Balkema/ Rotterdam. 221-234. D.Adamson, J.D.Clark and M.A.Williams 1974, 'Barbed bone points from central Sudan and the age of the "Early Khartoum" tradition'. Nature 249 (5453). M.Arioti 1994, 'Ethnological Contribution to the Study of Prehistoic Pastoralism in the Khartoum Province: Report on Field-Work (1987-1990)'. in: Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès International d’Ėtudes Nubiennes 3-8 septembre 1990. vol.II, Ch.Bonnet (ed.), Genève. A.J.Arkell 1949, Early Khartoum. Oxford. .Caneva 1986(a), 'Recent fieldworks in the northern Khartoum province'. Nyame Akuma 27: 42-3. I.Caneva 1987, 'Recent research in central Sudan'. Nyame Akuma 29: 52-5. I.Caneva 1987(a), 'Pottery Decoration in Prehistoric Sahara and Upper Nile: a new perspective'. in: Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara,B.E.Barich (ed.) Oxford. [Full Text] I.Caneva 1987(b), 'Textiles from southern Nubia'. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter J.D.Clark 1980, 'Human Populations and Cultural Adaptation in the Sahara and the Nile During Prehistoric Times'. In: The Sahara and the Nile, Williams and Faure (eds.), Rotterdam. J.D.Clark 1984, 'Prehistoric Cultural Continuity and Economic Change in the Central Sudan in the Early Holocene'. In: From Hunters to Farmers. Berkeley, J.D.Clark and S.A.Brandt (eds.), Los Angeles,London Davis, Whitney 1984, The Earliest art in the Nile Valley. In: Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. (eds): Lech Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz, M. Poznan Museum. 82-94. W.V.Davies (ed) 1991, Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London. P.De Paepe 1986, 'Ceramics mineralogique et chimique de la céramique Néolithique d'el Kadada et ses implications archéologiques', Archéologie du Nil Moyen 1. P.De Paepe 1991, 'Ceramics from Shaqadud studied by physical methods'. in: The Late Prehistory of the Eastern Sahel. The Mesolithic and Neolithic of Shaqadud, Sudan, A.E.Marks and M.A.Abbas (eds.): Dallas
Etc etc etc etc
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [ And Clyde only helps in propagating the myth, by accepting it and trying to build explanations around it.
So goes the saying: If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the "truth".
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Reposting for those who may not read earlier pages]
iGENEA is not a science research lab. iGENEA is a for profit corporation. iGENEA is hustling DNA analysis sales.
iGENEA's alleles for TUT are exactly the same ones worked out by RealDealT lacking only the "data" for DYS635. See here.
Running this haplotype against YHRD's extensive database yielded no matches. Reducing the haplotype to 13 STRs gave 3 matches, one Afro-Caribbean and one mestizo (both of whom hail from Isla de San Andrés, Colombia), and one citizen from the USA of European extraction. See here.
But a credentialed geneticist, Thomas Krahn, challenges the amateur analysis of RealDealT which iGENEA uses without crediting him at all nor heeding the caveat of the professional. See here and here.
Also, STR haplotype is not a haplogroup. While haplotype is a fairly indicative of haplogroup, only a test of UEPs can accurately determine haplogroup as any legitimate DNA testing company will tell its customers but iGENEA fails to do so. See here and here.
iGENEA is suckering people into buying a Match King Tut's DNA kit with refund for any European matches. See here.
iGENEA knows there will be no such matches or, at very best, only a pitiful handfull.
iGENEA stands to make a windfall profit off of suckers due to King Tut enthusiasm and hype thanks to Reuter's shoddy (in this case) sensationalist journalism.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I have to say on the topic. Did Sammy or Neal put the thread starter up to this to get traffic.
It is always about money. Why hasn't King Tuts results beeen released? Perpetuate the myth that he is "Cacausoid" ie European and keep those delusion MFers coming to spend their dollars.
Quote by the Sage: "iGENEA stands to make a windfall profit off of suckers due to King Tut enthusiasm and hype thanks to Reuter's shoddy (in this case) sensationalist journalism." Quote:
ROCK PICTURES IN NORTHERN DARFUR. B y . 4 . J . Arkell, M.B.E., rU1.C. (I'LATES SIV-SXII). I. AT BIERBOI N TAGIIRO. (IIuman beings, cattle, rllinoceros, elephant. giraffe and anteIope.)
'Ihey are all silhouette.; in red or brown pigment. The red and brown ones are evenly distributed, and pve thc impression of being all of approximately the >ame age, although they appear to be the work of several artist;.
In the second group (Plate XV) we appcar to have a herd of cattle being driven out of an enclosure or village by men. The cattle appear to bc of two types, one with horns wllicll are wide and almost circular, and remind one of the cattle on the prcdynastic palettes of ancient Egypt, while the other has horns which .grow forward and downward in a remarkable way. The cattle are not so life-1il;c as the antelope or even the rhinoceros (see below), but the general style in which they are drawn seems to be related to the rough designs of animals on predynastic pottery, especially in that thc lcngth of leg, the cloven hoof, and in some cajes the knee joint, are all exaggerated.
dthougli this peculiality does riot prevent them from grazing in the normal mariner ; and it is not improbable that they are survivors of the old Garamantian stock, examplcs of which were owned by the people who made the rock paintings at Merbo.
Among the cattle, depicted at Rferbo, a woman with long hair appears to be dancing. By her side stand a girl and a small boy. It has been suggested to me that for a certain obvious reason this figure must be that of a man, but I take it that the fcature in question is a strip of cloth hanging between the legs, akin to what is L-own as the kanfils in Darfur
The impression I get from these dra\vings is that they are t ery old, and possibly the oldest trace of man that has been yet found m Darfur, apart from certain stone implements Indeed I should not be surprised if they were not connected In some way vLa the Libyan desert with the artlsts of prerlynast~cE ~ p
Ihe site of the legendary palace of Namadu (iln trrtzd~cI n thc Bcrt~la nguage me Lns the red k~ng) less than ten mile? north west of these rock paintlngs ncar the 3Iabo wells in the main pas-,Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I revisited the ISOGG website, and as it turns out, hg R1b1b2, you know the aforementioned Neolithic expanding R markers, has just been renamed hg R1b1a2 as of 21 March 2011. These things can change fast, so its best to keep checking as frequently as possible.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: 2nd that. Get your head together Clyde.
King Tut could never, never, ever, be European!!!!. Only the illiterate will even suggest something as illogical and nonsensical as that. Not even the Eurocentric Egyptologist will suggest something like that. What they would do is word play. Ie Caucasoid, Meditnid (?). they know Egypt is home grown so what they will do is try to carve Egypt(and the rest of the indig populations of North Africa) out of Africa by using loose terms as dark Caucasoids under that umbrella.
Egypt is African and Black African at that with origins is the Sudan and the Sahara.. Here is what some of the experts say. Does matter what BS, fake genetic study they fudge Tut and the AEians could not possible be of European lineage.
“Looney Tunes”!!!
. . . NOW GET TO READING!!!!!!!
S.Abbas and Mohammed-Ali, The Neolithic Period in the Sudan: c.6000-2500 B.C., Cambridge: BAR International Seies 139. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 6. W.Y.Adams 1987, 'Three Prespectives of the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian, and the Prehistorian', Nubian Culture. Past and Present, Stockholm: 285-291. Adamson, A. D. 1982, 'The Integrated Nile'. In: A Land between Two Niles. (ed.) Williams, M. A and Adamson, D. A., Balkema/ Rotterdam. 221-234. D.Adamson, J.D.Clark and M.A.Williams 1974, 'Barbed bone points from central Sudan and the age of the "Early Khartoum" tradition'. Nature 249 (5453). M.Arioti 1994, 'Ethnological Contribution to the Study of Prehistoic Pastoralism in the Khartoum Province: Report on Field-Work (1987-1990)'. in: Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès International d’Ėtudes Nubiennes 3-8 septembre 1990. vol.II, Ch.Bonnet (ed.), Genève. A.J.Arkell 1949, Early Khartoum. Oxford. .Caneva 1986(a), 'Recent fieldworks in the northern Khartoum province'. Nyame Akuma 27: 42-3. I.Caneva 1987, 'Recent research in central Sudan'. Nyame Akuma 29: 52-5. I.Caneva 1987(a), 'Pottery Decoration in Prehistoric Sahara and Upper Nile: a new perspective'. in: Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara,B.E.Barich (ed.) Oxford. [Full Text] I.Caneva 1987(b), 'Textiles from southern Nubia'. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter J.D.Clark 1980, 'Human Populations and Cultural Adaptation in the Sahara and the Nile During Prehistoric Times'. In: The Sahara and the Nile, Williams and Faure (eds.), Rotterdam. J.D.Clark 1984, 'Prehistoric Cultural Continuity and Economic Change in the Central Sudan in the Early Holocene'. In: From Hunters to Farmers. Berkeley, J.D.Clark and S.A.Brandt (eds.), Los Angeles,London Davis, Whitney 1984, The Earliest art in the Nile Valley. In: Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. (eds): Lech Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz, M. Poznan Museum. 82-94. W.V.Davies (ed) 1991, Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London. P.De Paepe 1986, 'Ceramics mineralogique et chimique de la céramique Néolithique d'el Kadada et ses implications archéologiques', Archéologie du Nil Moyen 1. P.De Paepe 1991, 'Ceramics from Shaqadud studied by physical methods'. in: The Late Prehistory of the Eastern Sahel. The Mesolithic and Neolithic of Shaqadud, Sudan, A.E.Marks and M.A.Abbas (eds.): Dallas
Etc etc etc etc
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [ And Clyde only helps in propagating the myth, by accepting it and trying to build explanations around it.
So goes the saying: If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the "truth".
Would have been interested in reading "The Neolithic period in the Sudan, c. 6000-2500 B.C" but it seems it's out of print
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. My head is together. My goal is to discuss Black History using archaeogentics.
Right now Europeans are attempting to deny the numerous exits from Africa and spread of mtDNA M and N, and y-chromosome R into the Americas and Eurasia by Africans.
Because many people here have not read the founders of the Black ancient history curriculum: DuBois, J.A. Rogers and etc., they subscribe to a single OOA event 60kya.
Once you accept that R1-M173 is of African origin Tut's dna profile does nothing to deny his African ancestry. This is hard for you to understand because you guys don't publish work.
As a result, you can't understand that researchers take data to analyze and make conclusions based on the evidence. Since you guys don't publish you only comment on data based solely on the researchers conclusion--instead of making your own hypotheses and reaching your own conclusion.
If you understood hypotheses testing and research you would have no problems in seeing the reality of Tut's African ancestry no matter what his genetic profile. The major Afrocentric paradigm is that the Egyptians were Black. Thus we have the hypothesis: The ancient Egyptians were Black. If the ancient Egyptians were Black we can make hypotheses two (2): The genetic profile of the ancient Egyptians is Black African. This was confirmed in the case of Tut, based on the greatest diversity of R1-M173 in Africa and the demic diffusion of this haplogroup into Eurasia first with the Kushites, and later the West African Moors; and into the Americas probably with the spread of Abubakari's expeditionary force into the Americas.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: 2nd that. Get your head together Clyde.
King Tut could never, never, ever, be European!!!!. Only the illiterate will even suggest something as illogical and nonsensical as that. Not even the Eurocentric Egyptologist will suggest something like that. What they would do is word play. Ie Caucasoid, Meditnid (?). they know Egypt is home grown so what they will do is try to carve Egypt(and the rest of the indig populations of North Africa) out of Africa by using loose terms as dark Caucasoids under that umbrella.
Egypt is African and Black African at that with origins is the Sudan and the Sahara.. Here is what some of the experts say. Does matter what BS, fake genetic study they fudge Tut and the AEians could not possible be of European lineage.
“Looney Tunes”!!!
. . . NOW GET TO READING!!!!!!!
S.Abbas and Mohammed-Ali, The Neolithic Period in the Sudan: c.6000-2500 B.C., Cambridge: BAR International Seies 139. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 6. W.Y.Adams 1987, 'Three Prespectives of the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian, and the Prehistorian', Nubian Culture. Past and Present, Stockholm: 285-291. Adamson, A. D. 1982, 'The Integrated Nile'. In: A Land between Two Niles. (ed.) Williams, M. A and Adamson, D. A., Balkema/ Rotterdam. 221-234. D.Adamson, J.D.Clark and M.A.Williams 1974, 'Barbed bone points from central Sudan and the age of the "Early Khartoum" tradition'. Nature 249 (5453). M.Arioti 1994, 'Ethnological Contribution to the Study of Prehistoic Pastoralism in the Khartoum Province: Report on Field-Work (1987-1990)'. in: Études nubiennes. Conférence de Genève. Actes du VIIe Congrès International d’Ėtudes Nubiennes 3-8 septembre 1990. vol.II, Ch.Bonnet (ed.), Genève. A.J.Arkell 1949, Early Khartoum. Oxford. .Caneva 1986(a), 'Recent fieldworks in the northern Khartoum province'. Nyame Akuma 27: 42-3. I.Caneva 1987, 'Recent research in central Sudan'. Nyame Akuma 29: 52-5. I.Caneva 1987(a), 'Pottery Decoration in Prehistoric Sahara and Upper Nile: a new perspective'. in: Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara,B.E.Barich (ed.) Oxford. [Full Text] I.Caneva 1987(b), 'Textiles from southern Nubia'. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter J.D.Clark 1980, 'Human Populations and Cultural Adaptation in the Sahara and the Nile During Prehistoric Times'. In: The Sahara and the Nile, Williams and Faure (eds.), Rotterdam. J.D.Clark 1984, 'Prehistoric Cultural Continuity and Economic Change in the Central Sudan in the Early Holocene'. In: From Hunters to Farmers. Berkeley, J.D.Clark and S.A.Brandt (eds.), Los Angeles,London Davis, Whitney 1984, The Earliest art in the Nile Valley. In: Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. (eds): Lech Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz, M. Poznan Museum. 82-94. W.V.Davies (ed) 1991, Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London. P.De Paepe 1986, 'Ceramics mineralogique et chimique de la céramique Néolithique d'el Kadada et ses implications archéologiques', Archéologie du Nil Moyen 1. P.De Paepe 1991, 'Ceramics from Shaqadud studied by physical methods'. in: The Late Prehistory of the Eastern Sahel. The Mesolithic and Neolithic of Shaqadud, Sudan, A.E.Marks and M.A.Abbas (eds.): Dallas
Etc etc etc etc
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [ And Clyde only helps in propagating the myth, by accepting it and trying to build explanations around it.
So goes the saying: If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the "truth".
instead of making your own hypotheses and reaching your own conclusion.
This is a figment of your imagination, and disingenuous. What little you know about genetics, some of us taught you, and this is how you repay us.
The issue here is not whether hg R is African. The issue is that Tut's Y-DNA profile has not been released. This would be true, even if someone reconstructed his Y-DNA profile as a hg E1b1b1a1 marker by guessing from that video screen shot.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Clyde. I don’t want to lengthen this useless thread but. . . I am not here to play the game of who is smarter than whom or who has published more. The fact is I came here to learn. . .and learn I did. Now I believe I have surpassed some who were here long before me.
You are preaching to the converted. I said from day one, read all these genetic studies, for and against. They always screw up in the conclusion and/or inferences section. They can’t help it. Prejudice does that. (Black or white). No sensible person will ever conclude Tut and his people is anything other than African. That debate is long dead (per C Bass)
As the Explorer reminded us the official study on Tut was never released. See JAMA study I posted about 1.5ya. See also Hawass’s website.
But getting back to R1b1b(2009?) issue. I am the first here to show the flaws of the Refugium Theory. It does not make sense. I proved that in my 35page confuffle with Rasol. R* downstream lineage entered Western Europe through Gibralta, just as U6 and E1b1b1. Most likely when Africa and Europe was one land mass ie after/during LGM. Remember it is only few miles of sea that separate the two lands. During the LGM there was no sea. As I thought Lioness (Timeline and Method, Timeline and Method))
Agreed they are playing games with their new found toy. . . genetics. But we, the smarter ones should be able to see through their BS. And fortunately there are some honest white people who are geneticist. Africans carry the gene for blue eye (Wasserman et al) Africans carry the genes for white skin (Mekova, Kittles et al). Europeans are cold adapted just as much as the Eskimos. Allen-Begerman rule (Holliday et al). Europeans are NOT indigenous to Africa. (Holliday) All Medit Civilizations have their roots in people of the Sahara(Sergi, Evans, Smith etc ) Persians and the Indus Valley civilization and maybe all of Southern Eurasia had a substantial African influence up to about 1500BC(Ayoub et al). . . . . . . .
I don’t rely solely on pictures like some of the dunce around here
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ the simplest answer is usually right. King Tut was likely part White. Ramses II was likely a White Red headed European. Sea People likely made their way into the royal line.
Being part White does not mean the person is not Black.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer is usually right. King Tut was likely part White. Ramses II was likely a White Red headed European. Sea People likely made their way into the royal line.
Being part White does not mean the person is not Black.
based on what exactly?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Comprehension skill remain low on this site. Sad how little any of you retain information..
Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III,based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.
This is based off the Discovery Channel leak, This was already addressed, the so called "Leak" that was popular last year was NOT King Tut's DNA but the DNA of an American control sample.
iGENEA is not a science research lab. iGENEA is a for profit corporation. iGENEA is hustling DNA analysis sales.
iGENEA's alleles for TUT are exactly the same ones worked out by RealDealT lacking only the "data" for DYS635.
But a credentialed geneticist, Thomas Krahn, challenges the amateur analysis of RealDealT which iGENEA uses without crediting him at all nor heeding the caveat of the professional.
Thomas Krahn is an employee of FTDNA (FamilyTreeDNA) yet another profit genetic testing website similar to iGENEA
FTDNA is not a science research lab. FTDNA is a for profit corporation. FTDNA is hustling DNA analysis sales.
Thomas Krahn made no public statement he merely posted in a genealogy forum the following
_____________________
At 1 minute and 18 seconds they show apparently a full set of (blue, green, black, red) traces which is most likely a control sample from haplogroup R.
_____________________
^^^this deals with the part of the video that occurs at 1 minute 18 seconds. alTakruri presents this as
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It is neither Tut, his father, nor an admixture. It is some unknown recent citizen in the West.
Thomas Krahn, an industry professional, says the data most likely is just a calibrating sample that comes with the kit.
Yet if we look at the rest of the quote from this unknown lab employee Thomas Krahn (no job title given) he talks about another portion of the video
more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces from the mummies.
what a scam you guys are perpetuating. His remarks about a "control sample" obviously don't apply to other parts of the video
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer
From a simple mind. . .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
R1-M269 does not indicate that King Tut was caucasoid. It is further confirmation of the African origin of King Tut given the greatest diversity of R1-M173 in Africa.
Y-chromosome V88 (R1b1a) has its highest frequency among Chadic speakers, while the carriers of V88 among Niger-Congo speakers (predominately Bantu people) range between 2-66% ( Cruciani et al, 2010; Bernielle-Lee et al, 2009). Haplogroup V88 includes the mutations M18, V35 and V7. Cruciani et al (2010) revealed that R-V88 is also carried by Eurasians including the distinctive mutations M18, V35 and V7.
R1b1-P25 is found in Western Eurasia. Haplogroup R1b1* is found in Africa at various frequencies. Berniell-Lee et al (2009) found in their study that 5.2% carried Rb1*. The frequency of R1b1* among the Bantu ranged from 2-20. The bearers of R1b1* among the Pygmy populations ranged from 1-25% (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009). The frequency of R1b1 among Guinea-Bissau populations was 12% (Carvalho et al,2010).
Y-Chromosome R1-M173 was probably spread in Western Europe first by African Roman soldiers, and later by African Muslims when they conquered Western Europe as Moors. This would explain why 60-70% French and Spanish males carry this y-haplogroup.
Around 0.1 of Sub Saharan Africans carry R1b1b2. Wood et al (2009) found that Khoisan (2.2%) and Niger-Congo (0.4%) speakers carried the R-M269 y-chromosome. The Niger-Congo speakers formed a significant population in the nomes of Upper Egypt, where the founders of the 18th dynasty originated.
Haplogroup R1b1b2 was probably taken to Europe by African Roman soldiers. Africans were first recorded in the Western Europe 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall. There was a skeleton African Roman soilder recently found in Britain.
Other Africans were found in Britain including the Rich African women called the bangled lady.
These skeletons show how heavily integrated Africans were in western Europe. This would explain the widespread nature of y-chromosome R1-M173 in Europe.
In addition to R1-M173 in western Europe, the African y-chromosome haplogroup A1 was also recently found in Britain.
.
Where is the fight in you, man? You concede way too much ground. Even IF "R1-M269 does not indicate that King Tut was caucasoid", this regurgitated nonsense of a news report doesn't indicate that Tut was R1-M269.
So just Stop it!
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Can we be sure which mummy was the daddy? When a state-of-the-art DNA analysis of Tutankhamun and other ancient Egyptian royals was published last year, its authors hailed it as "the final word" on the pharaoh's family tree. But others are now voicing doubts.
The analysis of 11 royal mummies dating from around 1300 BC was carried out by an Egyptian team led by Egypt's chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass. The project was overseen by two foreign consultants, Albert Zink of the EURAC Institute for Mummies and the Iceman in Bolzano, Italy, and Carsten Pusch of the University of Tübingen, Germany.
The researchers used the DNA data to construct a family tree of Tutankhamun and his immediate relatives. The study, published last February in the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 303, p 638), concluded that Tutankhamun's father was the pharaoh Akhenaten, that his parents were brother and sister, and that two mummified foetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb were probably his stillborn daughters – conclusions that have since become received wisdom.
But many geneticists complain that the team used inappropriate analysis techniques. Far from being definitive, the study is "not seen as rigorous or convincing", says Eline Lorenzen of the Center for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum in Copenhagen, Denmark. "Many of us in the DNA community are surprised that this has been published."
Degraded DNA
Ian Barnes, a molecular palaeobiologist at Royal Holloway, University of London, is also concerned. "In my experience it is not very easy to get these results," he says. "I can't do it, and I've spent a long time trying."
Zink and his colleagues used a genetic fingerprinting approach that involves testing variable regions of the genome called microsatellites, which are made up of short sequence repeats. The numbers of repeats vary between individuals, and by comparing the number of repeats across several microsatellites it is possible to work out whether or not individuals are related.
However, researchers rarely attempt this approach with ancient samples because the original DNA is likely to be degraded, and dwarfed by modern contamination. It's more common to sequence mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) – cells contain around a thousand times more copies of mtDNA than of genomic DNA, improving chances of finding large intact samples.
Zink and Pusch defend their choice, saying that they took extensive precautions to guard against contamination. For instance, they extracted samples from deep inside the mummies' bones, and genotyped lab staff to rule out contamination.
Not deep enough
But others doubt the precautions were sufficiently rigorous. Robert Connolly of the University of Liverpool, UK, who carried out blood typing of Tutankhamun's mummy in the 1960s, argues that it would be difficult to reach deep enough inside Tutankhamun's thin, fragile bones – or those of the two fetuses – to reach uncontaminated material.
Lorenzen adds that many people – not just the Hawass team – have handled the mummies since they were first unwrapped. The authors should have tested non-human samples from the tombs as negative controls, she says.
To judge the quality of the team's results, Lorenzen and others are asking for access to raw data not included in the Journal of the American Medical Association paper – but Zink is reluctant to oblige, fearing the data would spark "a lot of arguing" over technicalities.
However, Zink, Pusch and colleagues insist that they will soon be able to put any doubts to rest. They say they have also extracted the mtDNA that Lorenzen and others consider necessary for rigorous genetic analysis and are still working on the data. They hope to publish the results this year.
But the critics are still advising caution. "When working with samples that are so well-known, it is important to convince readers that you have the right data," says Lorenzen. "I am not convinced."
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Another thread on a subject already adressed on E.S. and already debunked, but the unlearned and illiterate will never learn.
Yet, you idiots search in vain for a Published study when they very article you site says they based their findings off a leaked snap shot from a discovery channel Documentary.
This is funny because if that screenshot would have shown the dna to be African, you would have been all over it like black spots on a leopard. And we would have never of heard the end of it.lol
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer
From a simple mind. . .
Yes. Simple minded rather than the religious zealots of the Eurocentric and Afrocentric ilk.
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut. Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race. But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage. I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
With that said, some of the forensic reconstructions of male Pharoahs do not appear African whereas most of the Women do. Though I know that many Africans look like Ramses II, the fact remains I doubt he was a black African and would not be surprised if he was a European Sea Person who became a general and usurped the throne.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Another thread on a subject already adressed on E.S. and already debunked, but the unlearned and illiterate will never learn.
Yet, you idiots search in vain for a Published study when they very article you site says they based their findings off a leaked snap shot from a discovery channel Documentary.
This is funny because if that screenshot would have shown the dna to be African, you would have been all over it like black spots on a leopard. And we would have never of heard the end of it.lol
I think even you are surprised by a R1b Tut, right?
Never heard you preach Aryan invasion theories.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer
From a simple mind. . .
.. f the politics of race. European People made it into the royal lineage. . . . many Africans look like Ramses II, he was a black African . . .European Sea Person
Stop looking at pictures man, and do some research, I listed few books to get started. Jeeze!!!! I am out.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Another thread on a subject already adressed on E.S. and already debunked, but the unlearned and illiterate will never learn.
Yet, you idiots search in vain for a Published study when they very article you site says they based their findings off a leaked snap shot from a discovery channel Documentary.
This is funny because if that screenshot would have shown the dna to be African, you would have been all over it like black spots on a leopard. And we would have never of heard the end of it.lol
I think even you are surprised by a R1b Tut, right?
Never heard you preach Aryan invasion theories.
I'm not really surprised by it because I'm not sure it is true to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some European ancestry, but I would be surprised if he was completely so.
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Do you listen to yourself?
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer
From a simple mind. . .
.. f the politics of race. European People made it into the royal lineage. . . . many Africans look like Ramses II, he was a black African . . .European Sea Person
Stop looking at pictures man, and do some research, I listed few books to get started. Jeeze!!!! I am out.
I just don't think Ramses II was Egyptian.
I have read many books and like religion, you get a lot of conflicting positions.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^this deals with the part of the video that occurs at 1 minute 18 seconds. alTakruri presents this as
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It is neither Tut, his father, nor an admixture. It is some unknown recent citizen in the West.
Thomas Krahn, an industry professional, says the data most likely is just a calibrating sample that comes with the kit.
Yet if we look at the rest of the quote from this unknown lab employee Thomas Krahn (no job title given) he talks about another portion of the video
more interesting scene starts at 1:22 where a couple of black traces are compared with each other. This could possibly be the real traces from the mummies.
what a scam you guys are perpetuating. His remarks about a "control sample" obviously don't apply to other parts of the video
1) The comment about "a couple of black traces" is pure speculation, and presented as forth.
2) The guy couldn't read what these "black traces" mean from a nucleotide standpoint, just from looking at the screenshot, unless the associated data was specifically identified and supplied to him by the geneticists on duty.
3) They guy clearly identifies the STR info on the screen shots, you know -- the actual items with which several individuals have sought to 'reconstruct' the most likely clade, as likely a calibrating sample that was included in the DNA sequencing kit.
4) Cross-referencing STR information with several Ancestry information supplying concerns on the net, who provide free trial tools for identifying one's ancestry through STR information, showed that the "control sample" information actually did not specifically match any known specific haplotype. So, any identification of this information with a particular known haplogroup, would have to have been based on identifying the video screen shot STR info with the nearest match, not the exact match! All this had been noted the very day news about release of the Tut videos broke.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is funny because if that screenshot would have shown the dna to be African, you would have been all over it like black spots on a leopard. And we would have never of heard the end of it.lol
Actually, some posters across the net have tried their hand in using tools offered by Ancestry Information Supplying organizations, in reconstructing STR information on the video screen shots, and came to a different conclusion from those who reckon they are seeing some kind of a hg R marker, coming up with a hg E1b1b1 marker instead. That did not prevent myself and others from saying it like it is, and on record, should you care to verify for yourself: that the DNA reports had not been released, and that there is no proof that the video screen shots reveal the actual thing. So, your supposition is without ground.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes. Simple minded rather than the religious zealots of the Eurocentric and Afrocentric ilk.
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut.
Actually, this comment is suggestive of the religious zealotry that you are scorning, because it is not grounded on any fact, other than your faith-based instinct.
quote: Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race.
There is no finding to be astonished about, since said finding is not grounded on officially released/published report. The only thing astonishing here is your astonishment.
quote: But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage.
Your speculation does not even have historical merit to it, let alone expecting a genetic one. What link does archaeological evidence produce between the 18th Dynasty and "European Sea People"?
quote: I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
Saying that something is simply "possible" in absence of evidence doesn't make it "true". Anything can be possible, if the mind can perceive it. That doesn't mean 'that anything' is just as practical in the real world.
quote: With that said, some of the forensic reconstructions of male Pharoahs do not appear African whereas most of the Women do.
This has no basis to it.
quote: Though I know that many Africans look like Ramses II, the fact remains I doubt he was a black African and would not be surprised if he was a European Sea Person who became a general and usurped the throne.
Is there a scientific basis to your doubt and "expectation", or is it just another faith-based instinct?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't be surprised if he had some European ancestry
Why wouldn't you be surprised if Tut had some European ancestry. Nothing has crossed my mind that makes it apparent that he must have European ancestry. If you know something that makes it apparent, then what is it?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting to see how "The Explorer" LOOOOOOOOOL, AlTakuri, and Just Call Me Jari get so defensive and riled up about Ancient Egypt when none of them are Egyptians. They don't do this most of the time for other Africans. Often they let it go or join the trolls in the propaganda. Again we see from these individuals a prime example of what I have said many times about their belief in anti-African propaganda as long as it is not agains ajunct ejupt.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also interesting to not how once again "The Explorer" is humble and docile when he engages white posters. A behaviour that is sorely missing when he engages posters whom he deems as black.
Explorer...................
Can you explain why?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easy. They act miles away more like a human being than you will ever attain, and they don't think of me as the first thing they can think of the moment they wake up, and the first thing that they have to psychologically satisfy by logging onto the internet. Does that answer it for you, argyria impotent dick?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
argyria impotent dick, it's ironic you should say that, considering that I at the very least, can speak my indigenous African language, while you are reduced to only speaking your slave masta's language. Looks like the white man has you on a greater leash.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has become apparent that though having given the link showing the credentials of Thomas Krahn I must copy the information here in full so as to gainsay wilful dissembling by a detractor. And in so doing, I invite all to search the names Thomas Krahn and Roman C. Scholz for yourselves to ascertain each man's trustworthiness in the matter of the alleged 16 STR haplotype of King Tut and which man and his company of affiliation is using sensationalism based on said pharaoh for the profit of his associated concern.
Contrary to the conscious and deliberate outright lie by an earlier poster, Krahn is no "unknown lab employee" with "(no job title given)." Here, as I posted them a year and a half ago, are his vitals:
quote: Thomas Krahn FTDNA's Genomics Research Center
Thomas Krahn is a Member of FTDNA's Scientific Advisory Board. Thomas is the Technical Laboratory Manager of FTDNA's Genomics Research Center in Houston. Graduated from the Technical University of Berlin with an MSC (Dipl. Ing.) in biotechnology and genetics. Thomas specializes in complex kinship testing and family reconstructions. He is an expert in developing new molecular biological methods and assays to resolve questions of biological heritage.
Family Tree DNA is in conjunction with Nat'l Geo, IBM, and Spencer Wells on the Genographic Project. Apparently Family Tree DNA does the actual lab analysis that iGENEA customers are paying for.
iGENEA is anonymous, offering no who's who page. I can find no academic nor science credentials for Roman C. Scholz managing director of iGENEA and addressed by no honored title than herr (i.e., Mr). As of this writing, no geneticist attaches his name, reputation, and credibility to the purely speculative announcement of Tut being R-M269.Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes. Simple minded rather than the religious zealots of the Eurocentric and Afrocentric ilk.
I would say this appears to be a score for Eurocentrics since they can at least claim R1b Tut.
Actually, this comment is suggestive of the religious zealotry that you are scorning, because it is not grounded on any fact, other than your faith-based instinct.
quote: Frankly I am astonished by this finding. However, a European lineage doesn't mean much in terms of the politics of race.
There is no finding to be astonished about, since said finding is not grounded on officially released/published report. The only thing astonishing here is your astonishment.
quote: But it does mean that somewhere, some how, European Sea People made it into the royal lineage.
Your speculation does not even have historical merit to it, let alone expecting a genetic one. What link does archaeological evidence produce between the 18th Dynasty and "European Sea People"?
quote: I don't think that is a big deal frankly. If one checks the lineage of European royalty it is likely you will find African heritage in many. Doesn't mean they were Black any more than Tut was White.
Saying that something is simply "possible" in absence of evidence doesn't make it "true". Anything can be possible, if the mind can perceive it. That doesn't mean 'that anything' is just as practical in the real world.
quote: With that said, some of the forensic reconstructions of male Pharoahs do not appear African whereas most of the Women do.
This has no basis to it.
quote: Though I know that many Africans look like Ramses II, the fact remains I doubt he was a black African and would not be surprised if he was a European Sea Person who became a general and usurped the throne.
Is there a scientific basis to your doubt and "expectation", or is it just another faith-based instinct?
Throwing faith-based argument back at me?
That's not going to work. I already said I am astonished by the talk of a R1b Tut. If that is true then it doesn't really change my position: Egypt was what I call a politically Black society.
As for Ramses II, the guys profile simply looks like a Celtic person but definitely not Nordic. That's all there is to it really. Red hair and that Celtic looking profile makes me doubt he was a Black African. Perhaps mixed but not like most Egyptians.
posted
So if king tut was genetically European does that mean he is not related to modern day Egyptians?
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I'm not sure why you even bother citing my followup reply to you at all, basically filled with requests to substantiate your claims, if you've decided that you are going to runaway from answering the calls. Perhaps, as a decorative spam-filler?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Throwing faith-based argument back at me?
That's not going to work.
Can you identify these "faith-based" arguments that are supposedly being thrown back at you, and why they aren't going to work, short of you running away from them?
quote: I already said I am astonished by the talk of a R1b Tut.
Correction: You said you were astonished by the "finding", which according to your rationale, is the supposed "finding that Tut is hg R1b". You can't be honest long enough to even own up to your own claims.
quote: As for Ramses II, the guys profile simply looks like a Celtic person but definitely not Nordic.
What profile?
quote: That's all there is to it really. Red hair and that Celtic looking profile makes me doubt he was a Black African. Perhaps mixed but not like most Egyptians.
Identify the "Celtic looking profile" you see about the mummy's cranium. The "red hair" thing has been put to bed a long time ago; but then again, it takes you a while to catch onto developments.
Let's tackle 'first thing' first, which revolves around your claims that Tut has been found to carry hg R1b. Where's the official published report of this by the responsible geneticists, that you are relying on?
And if you are just going to cite this post without addressing its specifics, then don't even bother replying. After all, why waste space with a non-responsive spam-filler!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I recognized right away that it wasn't credible and that they were basing their research on that stupid screen capture from that documentary not a real analysis of Tut's DNA.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
----------------------------------------- It is interesting to see how "The Explorer" LOOOOOOOOOL, AlTakuri, and Just Call Me Jari get so defensive and riled up about Ancient Egypt when none of them are Egyptians. They don't do this most of the time for other Africans. Often they let it go or join the trolls in the propaganda. Again we see from these individuals a prime example of what I have said many times about their belief in anti-African propaganda as long as it is not agains ajunct ejupt.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I'm not sure why you even bother citing my followup reply to you at all, basically filled with requests to substantiate your claims, if you've decided that you are going to runaway from answering the calls. Perhaps, as a decorative spam-filler?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Throwing faith-based argument back at me?
That's not going to work.
Can you identify these "faith-based" arguments that are supposedly being thrown back at you, and why they aren't going to work, short of you running away from them?
quote: I already said I am astonished by the talk of a R1b Tut.
Correction: You said you were astonished by the "finding", which according to your rationale, is the supposed "finding that Tut is hg R1b". You can't be honest long enough to even own up to your own claims.
quote: As for Ramses II, the guys profile simply looks like a Celtic person but definitely not Nordic.
What profile?
quote: That's all there is to it really. Red hair and that Celtic looking profile makes me doubt he was a Black African. Perhaps mixed but not like most Egyptians.
Identify the "Celtic looking profile" you see about the mummy's cranium. The "red hair" thing has been put to bed a long time ago; but then again, it takes you a while to catch onto developments.
Let's tackle 'first thing' first, which revolves around your claims that Tut has been found to carry hg R1b. Where's the official published report of this by the responsible geneticists, that you are relying on?
And if you are just going to cite this post without addressing its specifics, then don't even bother replying. After all, why waste space with a non-responsive spam-filler!
Instead of debating semantics you could try to convince me of something. Oh but yeah, you don't have an answer either.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol @ Osirion, one of the only ones here who would say that his own use of a "Celtic looking profile" to describe Ramesses was an argument of semantics. The kid is nuts like I said before numerous times.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Instead of debating semantics you could try to convince me of something. Oh but yeah, you don't have an answer either.
You are pitiful [and quite predictable], running away from a slew of requests to corroborate your own positions, and hiding behind quack talk about "debating semantics".
Cut out the cowardice and man up to your own position. You spoke of a "finding that King Tut was of hg R1b" lineage:
Where's the official published report of this from the responsible geneticists, that you are basing your claim on?Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: It would be interesting to know what the maternal side was. I know that his mother and father were brother and sister, but how does that affect his maternal side?
I thought these DNA test are based off of the maternal line, using mitochondrial dna (which can only be passed down via the mother). If that is the case these results could simply mean they (ancient egyptians) started taking european slaves/concubines around that time or earlier and Tut is the result of such a union.
Well king Tut only had one grandmother. It's doubtful from looking at her mummy that she was black. It would still be interesting to know the maternal line of DNA.
The closest people in that region, who happen to carry the African variant of Rb1 up to 24% and look like the mummies features (grandmother) are members of the Siwa. These females too have long curly auburn hair, and the Siwa speak an Afroasiatic language.
If indeed we go by the theory of haplo-Rb1. This is indeed, which they actually took from a video-footage. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ the simplest answer is usually right. King Tut was likely part White. Ramses II was likely a White Red headed European. Sea People likely made their way into the royal line.
Being part White does not mean the person is not Black.
Funny is how we already have gone over this, but narcissist like yourself are very determined. Yes, indeed.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Lol @ Osirion, one of the only ones here who would say that his own use of a "Celtic looking profile" to describe Ramesses was an argument of semantics. The kid is nuts like I said before numerous times.
No, that is my opinion on Ramses and I am sticking to that. The semantic part is the discussion over a R1b Tut. I think the way I initially approached this discussion was based on the assumption that this is actually factual. I was actually trying not to sound bias and skeptical. Of course I am to some degree but lets say King Tut was R1b, what would that mean? Nothing. So why debate the issue? That was my point.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This guy is so insanely hilarious. More kooky Eurocentric versions of Marc or Clyde, which is why cassiteride feels in good company with the guy. This serves as proof that Eurocencentric kooks are the biggest inferiority complex nutjobs out there over all others they accuse of snatching up stuff they have no affiliations with.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic