Sharon Begley A study being published this afternoon trumpets an analysis supposedly revealing how the boy pharaoh, King Tutankhamen, died, but for my money the study’s conclusion about how he looked is more intriguing.
Both results emerge from what the researchers call “molecular Egyptology,” in this case an analysis of DNA extracted from the bones of 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom. The scientists took two to four DNA samples from each mummy, including Tut, who died at age 19 in about 1324 B.C., the 10th year of his reign. Comparing the genetic fingerprints allowed them to identify one previously unknown mummy as Queen Tiye, mother of the pharaoh Akhenaten and grandmother of Tutankhamen, another as Akhenaten (Tut’s father) himself, and a third as Tutankhamen’s mother, the researchers are reporting in tomorrow’s issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
The DNA analysis also turned up genes specific to Plasmodium falciparum, the malaria parasite, in Tut and three other mummies. The scientists, led by the colorful and controversial Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, infer that Tut suffered from avascular bone necrosis, a condition in which poor blood supply weakens or destroys an area of bone, plus malaria—a fatal combination. Tut’s tomb contained canes and what the scientists call “an afterlife pharmacy,” supporting the idea that he suffered from a condition that hobbled him.
Hawass has made headlines before for his theories of how Tut died, including (in 2006) a thigh fracture that became fatally infected, so the cause-of-death part of this research gives me a sense of déjà vu. (If you want more on this front, however, the Discovery Channel will air King Tut Unwrapped this coming Sunday, Feb. 21, and Monday, Feb. 22. I haven’t seen it, but be forewarned that some of Hawass’s previous TV productions have been more showmanship than scholarship.)
More interesting are the conclusions about the mummies’ appearance in life. Depictions of Tut and other royalty from this period show them as somewhat feminized, or at least androgynous. That led to speculation that the royal family tree was riddled with a hormonal disease that caused gynecomastia (excessive breast development in men), or Marfan syndrome, which causes patients to be tall and thin, with slender, graceful, tapering fingers—like several of the royals. But CT scans showed no signs of either. (Further evidence against a feminizing disorder—and here let me simply quote the paper— is that “the penis of Tutankhamen, which is no longer attached to the body, is well developed.”)
The feminized depictions are therefore likely to be what the researchers call “a royally decreed style most probably related to the religious reforms of Akhenaten. It is unlikely that either Tutankhamen or Akhenaten actually displayed a significantly bizarre or feminine physique.” In other words, the faces and forms so familiar to museumgoers and amateur Egyptologists may be no more than artistic license.Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well it looks that way. It was in 2006 that scientists presented findings that the cause of his death was an infection due to a broken bone that became systemic. I really want to know if Tut and his family were carriers of the disease Marfan syndrome or if his father Akhenaton had it. Also, I notice they never mentioned any genetics concerning population affinities.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a series of articles on the National Geo web site. In one of those articles they stated that none of them had Marfan syndrome, nor did they resemble the statues that represented them as feminine.
They did not mention population affinities because it is not an issue. Hawass was correct that the younger lady was Tut's mother and that the red headed elder lady was in fact Queen tiye.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: There is a series of articles on the National Geo web site. In one of those articles they stated that none of them had Marfan syndrome, nor did they resemble the statues that represented them as feminine.
Interesting. So there was no Marfan syndrome meaning I was correct then that the elongated facial features of Akhenaton are just typical elongated Africans.
quote:They did not mention population affinities because it is not an issue. Hawass was correct that the younger lady was Tut's mother and that the red headed elder lady was in fact Queen tiye.
Of course population affinities is not an issue at all those who have no problem with Egypt's African identity, but it may be for others like yourself. If the younger lady is indeed Tut's mother then that would maker her Kiya. And apparently the elder lady is verified to be Tiye. By the way, even Hawass scoffs at the idea that she was a "redhead" in life. It was explained to you many times that the original hair pigment is lost after the embalming process and thousands of years under arid conditions.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW, it's funny to see these desperate Eurocentrics still hollering about red hair this, and red hair that! Even Hawass knows that argument is ludicrous... I'm sure they even try to attribute red hair to Ramses... the pharaoah who lived to his ripe old 90's! LOL, show me a single white man with ANY hair colour at the age of 60! Give it a break hammer... no pun intended... Why Egypt is officially R.I.P... If I was you, I'd align myself with 'brown' Egypt like the intelligent Eurocentrics... this is the closest claim to African glory you're gonna get... that and 'Night at the Museum'....
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: There is a series of articles on the National Geo web site. In one of those articles they stated that none of them had Marfan syndrome, nor did they resemble the statues that represented them as feminine.
Interesting. So there was no Marfan syndrome meaning I was correct then that the elongated facial features of Akhenaton are just typical elongated Africans.
quote:They did not mention population affinities because it is not an issue. Hawass was correct that the younger lady was Tut's mother and that the red headed elder lady was in fact Queen tiye.
Of course population affinities is not an issue at all those who have no problem with Egypt's African identity, but it may be for others like yourself. If the younger lady is indeed Tut's mother then that would maker her Kiya. And apparently the elder lady is verified to be Tiye. By the way, even Hawass scoffs at the idea that she was a "redhead" in life. It was explained to you many times that the original hair pigment is lost after the embalming process and thousands of years under arid conditions.
posted
Djehuti, According to the article there were no elongated features thus you were not correct.
Hawass dies not scoff at her red hair, he is the one who announced it on the Discovery channel special last year.
You know Djehuti, shrinks offer help for ideologues who have cultish inclinations.
You position about Tiye's hair is little more than a lie, you simply say it so many times you actually start to believe it.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: There is a series of articles on the National Geo web site. In one of those articles they stated that none of them had Marfan syndrome, nor did they resemble the statues that represented them as feminine.
The feminine features are not only postulated from his statues, but also in his body, if KV55 is really him of course. There is still doubt because of the young appearance of this skull, it doesn't match with akhenatons long reign.
KV55 below
features of KV55:
quote: Later re-examinations of the remains confirmed Smith's original identification of the mummy as belonging to a young male (although with feminine trends) but pushed the estimated age of death back to around 20 years
and:
quote: But when anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith examined the skull and bones in Cairo a few months later he concluded that they were those of a young male, with wide hips ,
But also
quote:Reconstruction of the facial features of the skull Kv55 also indicated that there was no resemblance with Akhenaten's representation on his monuments . It must be remembered though, that Akhenaten's representation's are highly stylised.
Reconstruction of KV55 Seems to me like a far cry from Akh. Whoever he was, he was a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, that's for sure.
posted
^So what are you saying, that they can distill from the dna of a skeleton what his name was?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can check it out. Several sites carry the article. Perhaps they got DNA from a tooth.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Please tell me you're joking Hammer, names are not extracted from DNA. They found out that KV55 was the descendant of Tiye and Amenhotep III, and that king Tut was the son of KV55. That only eliminates the theory that Tut is the son of Amenhotep III. The posibillity that KV55 = Smenkare or another son of Amenhotep III is according to my knowledge still liable.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Smenkhkare and his wife Princess Meritaten, note the similarities with the reconstruction + the fact that he is walking with a walking aid, just like king Tut, according to the recent dna study.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: I'm sure they even try to attribute red hair to Ramses... the pharaoah who lived to his ripe old 90's! LOL, show me a single white man with ANY hair colour at the age of 60!
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Djehuti, According to the article there were no elongated features thus you were not correct.
LOL The article never said Akhenaton didn't have elongated features. It merely mentioned that Marfan syndrome hypothesis was raised based on features like tall, thin, slender, with tapering fingers. However such features are elongated features common to Africans which the Egyptians were!
quote:Hawass does not scoff at her red hair, he is the one who announced it on the Discovery channel special last year.
Really. I never heard Hawass say anything about any ancient Egyptian let alone royal that was a redhead when living. In fact, I recall him complaining about the notion that Egyptians would be redhead or blonde when they obviously are not of European descent.
quote:You know Djehuti, shrinks offer help for ideologues who have cultish inclinations.
They sure do, which is why I recommended one to YOU! Remember?
quote:You position about Tiye's hair is little more than a lie, you simply say it so many times you actually start to believe it.
LOL Nope. My position was supported many times in this forum with evidence that I grow tired of showing you unless you want to believe that Celtic looking people were the royals of an African nation. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Smenkhkare and his wife Princess Meritaten, note the similarities with the reconstruction + the fact that he is walking with a walking aid, just like king Tut, according to the recent dna study.
Smenkhkare and his wife Princess Meritaten, note the similarities with the reconstruction + the fact that he is walking with a walking aid, just like king Tut, according to the recent dna study.
Kalonji
Never even noticed the walking cane before..Wow. So Tut suffered from Club foot...interesting.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, Go back and read the article again. This is what you people do. You start altering facts to suit your cultish ideology. The article said that the Amarna males were not N O T not feminine and elongated.
You never offered any evidence about Tiy' red hair...I did. You are not going to read the Ion microscope data because it shatters your cultish illusions.
You live in a dream world and have a sack over your head that filters everything through an afrocentric maze.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji, Obviouly the Hawass team disagrees with you. They have tabbed KV55 as Akhenaten. Whu don't you take it up with them afroloon.
Look, It is a reasonable poition to take. If he is the father of tut and the son of Tiye and Amenhotep III and there is no other male that can occupy that position then KV55 is Akhenaten.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^^^ Cant the Mods in this Forum Ban this Troll?? Is Altakruri a Mod?? Who ever the Mod is Ban Hammer already?? This B.S is getting ridiculous...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets ban Jari. He makes zero contribution to the conversation. He has never presented a properly sourced response to any topic since I have been here. The lights are on in Jari's head but nobody is home.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: Kalonji, Obviouly the Hawass team disagrees with you. They have tabbed KV55 as Akhenaten. Whu don't you take it up with them afroloon.
Let's just take a look at the table then, can you point out to me where you can read akhenaton? Why didn't they say Akhenaton instead of KV55, like they did for instance with Amenhotep III, Thuya and Yuya? Or let me guess, the table is made up by Afroloons too, huh?
Let's also take a look at what your master who you keep referring to all the time has said:
quote: In support of this lineage, the DNA study also traces a direct line from Tutankhamun through the KV 55 mummy to Akhenaten’s father Amenhotep III.
and
quote:Tutankhamun’s father was the “heretic” king, Akhenaten, whose body is now almost certainly identified with the mummy from KV 55 in the Valley of the Kings, said Hawass, secretary general of Supreme Council of Antiquities.
Who is the loon now?
Even when talking Egyptology, you still can't make a valid contribution. Extracted DNA can only tell relations with other extracted DNA and since the ancient Egyptians ambiguously called the descendants of the pharao: son of God, you know Tut is royal, but not what the name of his father is specifically. The fact that you seem to think that dna will resolve this issue by extracting Dna from KV55 tooth, says alot about you.
We are not talking skeletal studies, and still your comprehension skills are lacking. No context now to use his ''lack of context'' excuses. Poor thing. I guess we can again add your ignorance to the stinking heap of lies, distortions and ignorance I compiled ealier. LOL you have no relevance here whatsoever, except for debunking purposes that is. How does it feel to literally be used as a piñata by everyone? You get smacked around, smacked around, and when you run off like you usually do, al the lurkers and learners can reap the rewards, which is: learning, and seeing that whatever is anti-hammer, is usually the truth.
quote: Originally posted by Jari Ankhamun: Never even noticed the walking cane before..Wow. So Tut suffered from Club foot...interesting.
I noticed it unconciously, but I never paid the attention to it it deserves. Thats why this was the first images that came to mind when I read the Dna study that was talking about Tut's walking difficulties.
posted
So Kalonji, I have the choice of taking the word of an afroloon or the hawass team? Is that my choice?
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
I could give two flying mummy toes about what you make of what I posted, piñata. I have already told you that your master doesn't hold that position. I guess its more likely a choice between being Hammer vs being capable of understanding what I and your master have said.
posted
Go read the articles. I find it interesting that you are trying to be so exact on this when you never use proper research to back up your points.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Talking to a robot would be easier than trying to communicate with you. My question remains because you are uneducated and refuse to learn. What I am asking of you is what ANY liberal arts or Science department would ask if you were in their program. When you do research use current scholarship from top scholars in that field to make your case.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: I'm sure they even try to attribute red hair to Ramses... the pharaoah who lived to his ripe old 90's! LOL, show me a single white man with ANY hair colour at the age of 60!
LOL
Ramses was the main one of the Pharaohs they used to point to as having red hair. Wonder if it was Hammer's "Ion microscope". That's hilarious if he truly was 90 when he died! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not a mod. You can get a moderator by clicking the icon at the bottom of each post or by going to the EGYPTOLOGY homepage and clicking either of the mods named at the top left. Anyway, afaik, it's impossible to ban someone.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: ^^^^^^^ Cant the Mods in this Forum Ban this Troll?? Is Altakruri a Mod?? Who ever the Mod is Ban Hammer already?? This B.S is getting ridiculous...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by commander flamboyant: Well, Talking to a robot would be easier than trying to communicate with you.
You mean robotically saying the same irrelevant things allows you to ignore research, pretend to not have suffered scholarly beatdowns etc. even when its happening right in front of you? You said Hawass was certain, I quoted him above as saying that he is almost certain. How our exchange (that seems to never have accessed rge tiny content in your skull), and more specifically, my citations, gels with ''never doing proper research'' is only understood in you spacey redneck head, Commander Flamboyant.
quote:Originally posted by commander flamboyant: My question remains because you are uneducated and refuse to learn.
Your question remains because your world view is distorted enough to not let the answer in. If your question cannot be answered when its right in front of you, I don't know what will. Also, this is not an issue of learning, KV55 could be Akhenaton, I'm keeping my options open while I'm waiting for conclusive evidence, that is what this is about. And a father/son relationship with KV55 and Tut + a father/son relationship with Amenhotep III and KV55 is not conclusive evidence that KV55 is Akhenaton. You know, people get more children, the thing they call brothers and sisters, ever heard of that?
quote:Originally posted by commander flamboyant: What I am asking of you is what ANY liberal arts or Science department would ask if you were in their program. When you do research use current scholarship from top scholars in that field to make your case.
You know what I read when you said that? uidliscldisuhclushasldjlcduli ;h;uhohsaohoas;jnsjnlsadncjas
Because what you say is jibberish and has nothing to do with the fact that KV55 is still KV55. And that the only thing that is 100% certain, is that KV55 was the product of Amenhotep III and Tiye, and that Tut was the product of KV55. Expert speculation before this DNA test that Tut could've been the son of AmenhotepIII and the brother of Akhenaton is the only scenario that is 100% eliminated by this DNA test. The table does not say Akhenaton, and neither does his DNA contain his name as you previously implied.
quote:Originally posted by commander flamboyant: is what I understand from you
You understand nothing, douchebag, you can't even read that table, nor do you understand what your master Hawass has said:
quote: Tutankhamun’s father was the “heretic” king, Akhenaten, whose body is now almost certainly identified with the mummy from KV 55 in the Valley of the Kings, said Hawass, secretary general of Supreme Council of Antiquities.
quote: Originally posted by Commander Flamboyant: "almost certainly" That does not leave much room for doubt.
There you have it, he is finally starting to get it even though I said the exact same thing earlier. For your information, another son of AmenhotepIII fits exactly within that window of doubt.
Just walk away while you still can have a tiny schred of dignity, and let the 50th scholarly beatdown that you just experienced by the hands of an ''Afroloon'' sink in.
posted
acording to his 16 str he is probably r1b so the european gook win again we just need the auther to confirmed that or denay it but thats what other forums points to that he was r1b maybe back migration from wester asia maybe the same type like found in cameroon regards e1b1b1c1
posted
When I read you post, I couldn't help but to burst out another apocalypse-like chuckle.
Anyone who used to watch the x-men animated series knows that those kind of elongated, low pitched, spine backwards stretching laughs are only reserved for the must rediculous sentiments
First Hawass is your revered scholar and ultimate source from where you base al your assumptions on, and now when he disagrees with you, all of a sudden my quotation directly from his mouth is ''non-sourced crap''?
Hammer, you are a joke and nothing more. A mere amusement and an example for everyone serious in learning how NOT to think/reason. Keep responding and get your behind spanked even more
posted
^ Indeed, inconsistency is an obvious sign of irrationality. A quote from Hawass was also posted here before showing that Hawass like virtually all Egyptologists states the idea of any Egyptian being a redhead or blonde is ridiculous!
quote:Originally posted by Hammered-brains: Djehuti, Go back and read the article again. This is what you people do. You start altering facts to suit your cultish ideology. The article said that the Amarna males were not N O T not feminine and elongated.
Correction. The article stated that the Amarna males were not feminine! It didn't say they weren't elongated! The same DNA tests as you cited state that they didn't have Marfan syndrome either, meaning that their elongated features have nothing to do with any genetic disorder, supporting my logical claim that such features are simply consistent with elongated African types!
quote:You never offered any evidence about Tiye' red hair...I did. You are not going to read the Ion microscope data because it shatters your cultish illusions.
And when have you ever offered evidence of ANYTHING??! And last time I checked, the ion microscopy results were for Ramasses NOT Tiye, whose results by the way NEVER said he was a 'red-head' but only that phaelomelanin was present, which doesn't mean much as phaelomelanin is present in minimal amounts in many dark-haired peoples including black Africans! You still have offered nothing to refute the evidence I and others put forth that embalming chemicals of mummification plus long term exposure in arid environments can alter hair color and/or texture.
Unless of course you want to make the case that these ancient Native American mummies below were redheads in life.
quote:You live in a dream world and have a sack over your head that filters everything through an afrocentric maze.
LOL Actually that described YOU to a tee with the exception being of course that it is a eurocentric maze!
Now unless you can find anything to refute any of what I said above, I suggest you get involved in anymore logical conversations until you are both sober and psychologically treated with your racist delusions. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's been stated that the geneticists used nuclear DNA to establish familial relationships.
So who have they identified as Akhenaton?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Let's just take a look at the table then, can you point out to me where you can read akhenaton? Why didn't they say Akhenaton instead of KV55, like they did for instance with Amenhotep III, Thuya and Yuya? Or let me guess, the table is made up by Afroloons too, huh?
Let's also take a look at what your master who you keep referring to all the time has said:
quote: In support of this lineage, the DNA study also traces a direct line from Tutankhamun through the KV 55 mummy to Akhenaten’s father Amenhotep III.
and
quote:Tutankhamun’s father was the “heretic” king, Akhenaten, whose body is now almost certainly identified with the mummy from KV 55 in the Valley of the Kings, said Hawass, secretary general of Supreme Council of Antiquities.
Who is the loon now?
Even when talking Egyptology, you still can't make a valid contribution. Extracted DNA can only tell relations with other extracted DNA and since the ancient Egyptians ambiguously called the descendants of the pharao: son of God, you know Tut is royal, but not what the name of his father is specifically. The fact that you seem to think that dna will resolve this issue by extracting Dna from KV55 tooth, says alot about you.
We are not talking skeletal studies, and still your comprehension skills are lacking. No context now to use his ''lack of context'' excuses. Poor thing. I guess we can again add your ignorance to the stinking heap of lies, distortions and ignorance I compiled ealier. LOL you have no relevance here whatsoever, except for debunking purposes that is. How does it feel to literally be used as a piñata by everyone? You get smacked around, smacked around, and when you run off like you usually do, al the lurkers and learners can reap the rewards, which is: learning, and seeing that whatever is anti-hammer, is usually the truth.
Kalonji
Is it possible the body of KV55 considered too young to be Akhenaton is Smenkare?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Reconstruction of KV55 Seems to me like a far cry from Akh. Whoever he was, he was a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, that's for sure.
Kalonji
Actually, he does bear a striking resemblance to the depictions of Akhenaton, suggesting it is either him OR a close relative.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's been stated that the geneticists used nuclear DNA to establish familial relationships.
So who have they identified as Akhenaton?
No one. Altough they suspect that KV55 is Akhenaten.
quote: Previously, speculations about Tutankhamun's parents were abundant because of the piecemeal evidence available before DNA testing. Tutankhamun had been thought to be the son of his grandparents, Amenhotep III and his Great Royal Wife Queen Tiye. Others claimed that he may have been a son of Amenhotep III, although not by Queen Tiye since she would have been around 50 at the time of his birth. Professor James Allen argued that Tutankhamun was more likely to be a son of the short-lived king Smenkhkare rather than Akhenaten.[11][12]
^If they didn't know the specific name of Tuts father before the 2010 DNA study, they still don't know it now. The only thing they DO know, and what was indeed revealed by the tests, is that KV55 was Tuts father. There is all sorts of back and forth arguing going on about whether or not KV55 is skeletally old enough to be Akhenaton and there is no conclusive evidence.
KV55 and King Tut reconstructions VERY similar. Now we know why.
posted
Ha! Ha! Ha! King are you a smoker. . .of Canabis?
Using the shape of a skull to determine parentage. You guys are hilarious. I have seen sibling(3) with 3 different shape of heads. BTW same parents.
You guys are funny!!!!!!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not going to answer that. "paternity through skull shape" Gaaaaad!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
the Back of the head of Tut and KV55 look similar.
It seems this guy is Tuts Father
Peace
Not only the backs of their heads look similar, NG (or was it DC?) showed that their crania have very similar dimensions when their profiles are superimposed on eachother. This caused them to believe that KV55 and Tut were either brothers or father/son, even before the recent DNA results.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am not going to answer that. "paternity through skull shape" Gaaaaad!!
My boy!!! I have to disagree with you for once here.. Sometimes the skullshape is so similar between father/son it's unmistakeable...
I know a man with four sons and only one of them actually looks like him and the one that does look like him detests him even though he's practically his clone!!! Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Hammer: The DNA is out there on a few sites. It is R1b.
Hammer, extracting DNA is not proper research, it doesn't provide the crucial historical context. I have already told you how to do proper research. You have to cite at least 5 different Egyptian historians that make the same claims and then cite the opposing views. Markers tell us nothing about history. We don't know how many people were involved. All you do is google up different snippets, you have to do proper research. You don't post research. Your research is not properly done and your points arent supported by the research you posted. You must let the data talk for itself and stop tying your own conclusions to it
^Hammer in a nutshell Bwahahhahhwhahahah Notice how he thinks its ok to do all of the above when the R1b claim isn't even made by scientists. Hammer you seriously are a total irrelevant fruitcake, and by subscribing to the premature unsubstatiated R1b claim, you've destroyed yourself and everything you stand for, (which is not much by the way). Everything you stand for, and everything you have propagated while being here is summed up above, and by subscribing to the R1b claim you've totally abondoned your own values and codes. And in doing so, (letting the true Hammer come out) you've also confirmed my suspicion that those ''values'' were really just a smokescreen to not have to look at research posted here. I told you to stop running your mouth, yet you had to give your little irrelevant 2cents again. So here you go, another butt spanking by an ''Afroloon''.
posted
^ Please tell me you didn't notice this until now!-- Hammered-brains' hypocrisy that is!! LMAO
True how whenever we discuss genetic markers he always dismisses it as something irrelevant to history even though they are the actual lineages of populations and thus their history! Now when there is just hearsay about Tut possessing a lineage associated with Europeans, the fool now shouts about it!
This is just like his argument that it is silly to suggest that blacks or people of black African descent were ever present in Europe (Greece), yet he denies that the Egyptians who ARE Africans were black!! Rationality is obviously not his strong point, but then again, racism is a mental disorder so there's nothing rational about it at all. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
icon at the bottom of each post![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And when have you ever offered evidence of ANYTHING??! And last time I checked, the ion microscopy results were for Ramasses NOT Tiye, whose results by the way NEVER said he was a 'red-head' but only that phaelomelanin was present, which doesn't mean much as phaelomelanin is present in minimal amounts in many dark-haired peoples including black Africans! You still have offered nothing to refute the evidence I and others put forth that embalming chemicals of mummification plus long term exposure in arid environments can alter hair color and/or texture.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic