posted
The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals belongs to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia.
posted
The usual trickery and research dishonesty to fool the gullible. Modus Operandi: find a Roman period skeleton or mummy with Greek or West Asian DNA and claim that it represents the AEs.
Antidote: Just believe your truthful eyes as you gaze on all those murals with groups of generic AEs. It's time the charlatan Euronuts be put out to pasture.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Chosen1 aka megatroll, aka ''Afrocentric Liars Exposed'', this trivial, late dynastic, lower Egyptian finding was already discussed.
I'm not at all surprised. The fool tried to get sympathy for his thread that talks of reverse racism (which is a problem in the West) though reverse racism still pales in comparison to the original white supremacist racism that afflicts people of color especially blacks but also Asians and others as well.
Now his attempt to white-wash ancient Egyptians by citing a DNA study on a Roman era Egyptians is just pathetic. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the third intermediate are already known as foreign dynasties but it's very exciting that more DNA studies of mummies may be upcoming. I'm particularly interested in royalty of indigenous dynasties.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals belongs to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia.
I noticed that they didn't say anything about any of the other mummies.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^The Article says its ONE Mummy of many, stupid Illiterate Indo-European people sitting behind their computers obviously can't comprehend their own Germanic Language/grammar.
How many years have they, the Germanic Indo European-centrics been trying to steal Km.t?? what 10...15 yrs. Don't these people have no shame. Why are they not dedicating this time and energy to the Celts or the Hittites..??
When will they accept all archeology, linguistic, etc evidence points to Egypt being exlusively African in origin?? When? They read the same stuff we do, so when?
I mean how on Gods green earth does this stupid arsed article change an iota of facts that Km.t's origins lie in the South among black Nilotic Africans.?? Please.
Stop wasting our time.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This article, like the Henn et al. article being spammed all over the net, just proves what we have being saying all along, that Modern Egypt is Mixed which began by the late Dynastic periods.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Previous thread:
"It's impossible to be completely objective. We're all human, and every article is subjective to some degree. Every decision you make – what to write about, who to talk to, what quotes to include – gives a piece a certain perspective, which would be different if someone else had written it.
That said, there's a scale. Some articles are more objective than others. If you want to write a polemic, that's fine as long as it's clear to readers what you're doing, but generally I'd recommend aiming for balance. That means being honest with yourself about your own preconceptions and prejudices, and doing your best to puncture them."
posted
"It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,"says Pusch,"Where did they come from?Where did they go?"Are there still traces of ancestral dna in today's Egypt?"What inference could be reasonably deduced from Pusch's seemingly rhetorical questions, especially the last one.
Posts: 121 | From: Guyana | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: "It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,"says Pusch,"Where did they come from?Where did they go?"Are there still traces of ancestral dna in today's Egypt?"What inference could be reasonably deduced from Pusch's seemingly rhetorical questions, especially the last one.
Ponsford - when dealing with issues of race, especially ancient populations, there are certain "Rules-of-thumb" that you must always be aware of, chief of which is that the Albinos lie. Thankfully, Blacks are increasingly using media to expose those lies.
Wiki title: DNA history of Egypt
THE LIE:
Scientists at a Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, in a in Discovery Channel documentary 2011 claimed that Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50% of European men, but less than 1% of modern-day Egyptians belong to.
THE TRUTH:
But the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published and DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not belong to the Pharaoh. According to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." Ponsford did you get that part: The Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published!!!!
R1b does show up in parts of northern Africa, particularly some regions in Algeria, where tests have found it in 11.8% of subjects. It is also found in central Africa around Chad and Cameroon, but the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88).
ANOTHER TRUTH:
Ramesses III
A 2012 study done on the mummified remains of Ramesses III determined that the pharaoh's y-chromosome belonged to Haplogroup E1b1a (Y-DNA). The pharaoh's y-chromosome belongs to the most frequent haplogroup among Sub-Saharan African y-chromosomes.
Ramesses III's father was his immediate predecessor, a relatively unknown king named Setnakhte However, though the originator of what Egyptologists refer to as the 20th Dynasty, he may actually have been a grandson of the famous Ramesses II.
Tut Bio:
Tutankhamun (King Tut), was not a major player in Egypt’s Pharaohic history, or at least in comparison with other pharaohs. In fact, prior to Howard Carter's discovery of his tomb, almost nothing was known of him and interestingly, the one disappointment in Carter's discovery, was that there was little in the way of documentation found within his tomb.
Therefore, we still know relatively little about Tutankhamun. For example, even who his father was remains a topic of some debate. But that has not prevented writers from producing volumes of material on the Pharaoh. We believe Tutankhamun ruled Egypt between 1334 and 1325 B.C. He was probably the 12th ruler of Egypt's 18th Dynasty. Tutankamun was not given this name at birth, but rather Tutankhaten (meaning "Living Image of the Aten), squarely placing him in the line of pharaohs following Akhenaten, the heretic pharaoh, who was most likely his father.
His mother was probably Kiya, though this too is in question. He changed his name in year two of his rule to Tutankhamun (or heqa-iunu-shema, which means "Living Image of Amun, Ruler of Upper Egyptian Thebes", which is actually a reference to Karnak, a seat of the old religion prior to Akhenaten's upheaval. Even so, this did not prevent his name from being omitted from the classic kings lists of Abydos and Karnak. We may also find his named spelled Tutankhamen or Tutankhamon, among other variations. His throne name was Neb-Kheperu-re, which means "Lord of Manifestations is Re. We do know that he spent his early years in Amarna, probably in the North Palace. He evidently even started a tomb at Amarna. At age nine he was married to Ankhesenpaaten, his half sister, and later Ankhesenamun. We believe Ankhesenpaaten was older then Tutankhamun because she was probably of child-bearing age, seemingly already having had a child by her father, Akhenaten.
It is possible also, that Ankhesenamun had been married to Tutankhamun's predecessor. It seems he did not succeed Akhenaten directly as ruler of Egypt, but either an older brother or his uncle Smenkhkare, (keeping in mind that there is much controversy surrounding this king). We believe Tutankhamun probably had two daughters later, but no sons. At the end of Akhenaten's reign, Ay and Horemheb, both senior members of that king’s court, probably came to the realization that the heresy of their king could not continue.
Upon the death of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, they had the young king who was nine years old, crowned in the old secular capital of Memphis. And since the young pharaoh had no living female relatives old enough, he was probably under the care of Ay or Horemheb or both, they would have actually been the factual ruler of Egypt. We know of a number of other officials during the reign of Tutankhamun, two of which include Nakhtmin, who was a military officer under Horemheb and a relative of Ay (perhaps his son) and Maya, who was Tutankhamun's Treasurer and Overseer of the Place of Eternity (the royal necropolis). Others included Usermontju and Pentu his two viziers of upper and lower Egypt, as well as Huy, the Viceroy of Nubia.
Immediately after becoming king, and probably under the direction of Ay and Horemheb, a move was made to return to Egypt's traditional ancient religion. By year two of his reign, he changed his, as well as Ankhesenpaaten's name, removing the "Aten" and replaced it with "Amun".
One reason why Tutankhamun was not listed on the classical king lists is probably because Horemheb, the last ruler of the 18th Dynasty, usurped most of the boy-king's work, including a restoration stele that records the reinstallation of the old religion of Amun and the reopening and rebuilding of the temples. The ownership inscriptions of other reliefs and statues were likewise changed to that of Horemheb, though the image of the young king himself remains obvious.
Even Tutankhamun's extensive building projects carried out at the temples of Karnak and Luxor were claimed by Horemheb. Of course, we must also remember that little of the statues, reliefs and building projects were actually ordered by Tutankhamun himself, but rather his caretakers, Ay and Horemheb.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This article, like the Henn et al. article being spammed all over the net, just proves what we have being saying all along, that Modern Egypt is Mixed which began by the late Dynastic periods.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Previous thread:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The usual trickery and research dishonesty to fool the gullible. Modus Operandi: find a Roman period skeleton or mummy with Greek or West Asian DNA and claim that it represents the AEs.
Antidote: Just believe your truthful eyes as you gaze on all those murals with groups of generic AEs. It's time the charlatan Euronuts be put out to pasture.
Cosign to the fullest!
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: "It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,"says Pusch,"Where did they come from?Where did they go?"Are there still traces of ancestral dna in today's Egypt?"What inference could be reasonably deduced from Pusch's seemingly rhetorical questions, especially the last one.
Ponsford - when dealing with issues of race, especially ancient populations, there are certain "Rules-of-thumb" that you must always be aware of, chief of which is that the Albinos lie. Thankfully, Blacks are increasingly using media to expose those lies.
Wiki title: DNA history of Egypt
THE LIE:
Scientists at a Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, in a in Discovery Channel documentary 2011 claimed that Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50% of European men, but less than 1% of modern-day Egyptians belong to.
THE TRUTH:
But the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published and DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not belong to the Pharaoh. According to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." Ponsford did you get that part: The Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published!!!!
R1b does show up in parts of northern Africa, particularly some regions in Algeria, where tests have found it in 11.8% of subjects. It is also found in central Africa around Chad and Cameroon, but the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88).
If that was truly the case and honest truth, then why isn't 50% of European man diagnosed with the sickle-cell disease!? lol
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria
King Tutankhamun died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria, say experts. A team from Hamburg's Bernhard Noct Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) claim the disease is a far likelier cause of death than the combination of bone disorders and malaria put forward by Egyptian experts earlier this year.
The BNI team argues that theories offered by Egyptian experts, led by antiquities tsar Zahi Hawass, are based on data that can be interpreted otherwise. They say further analysis of the data will confirm or deny their work. Hawass' claim, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this February, and followed by a swarm of accompanying television shows, claimed King Tut suffered from Kohler's disease, a bone disorder prohibiting blood flow, before succumbing to malaria.
Multiple bone disorders, including one in Tutankhamun's left foot, led to the Kohler's diagnosis, while segments of a malarial parasite were found via DNA testing. Yet the BNI team claims the latter results are incorrect. “Malaria in combination with Köhler's disease causing Tutankhamun's early death seems unlikely to us,” say Prof Christian Meyer and Dr Christian Timmann.
Instead the BNI team feels sickle-cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder, is a more likely reason for the Pharaoh's death aged just 19. The disease occurs in 9 to 22 per cent of people living in the Egyptian oases, and gives a better chance of surviving malaria; the infestation halted by sickled cells.
They say the disease occurs frequently in malarial regions like the River Nile, and that it would account for the bone defects found on his body.
“The genetic predisposition for (SCD) can be found in regions where malaria frequently occurs, including ancient and modern Egypt.” says Meyer. “The disease can only manifest itself when a sickle cell trait is inherited from both parents: it is a so-called 'recessive inheritance'.” A family tree for the Pharaoh suggested by Hawass himself appears to back the BNI team's case.
The relatively old age of Tutankhamun's parents and relatives – up to 50 years – means they could very well have carried sickle-cell traits, and could therefore have been highly resistant to malaria. The high likelihood that King Tut's parents were siblings means he could have inherited the sickle cell trait from both and suffered from SCD.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
King Tut's young demise has long been a source of speculation. As well as malaria, recent decades have seen scholars argue that he was murdered, and that he died from infection caused by a broken leg.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic