posted
Some researchers claim to have analysed DNA from Egyptian mummies. Others say that's impossible. Could new sequencing methods bridge the divide?
Cameras roll as ancient-DNA experts Carsten Pusch and Albert Zink scrutinize a row of coloured peaks on their computer screen. There is a dramatic pause. "My god!" whispers Pusch, the words muffled by his surgical mask. Then the two hug and shake hands, accompanied by the laughter and applause of their Egyptian colleagues. They have every right to be pleased with themselves. After months of painstaking work, they have finally completed their analysis of 3,300-year-old DNA from the mummy of King Tutankhamun.
Featured in the Discovery Channel documentary King Tut Unwrapped last year and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)1, their analysis — of Tutankhamun and ten of his relatives — was the latest in a string of studies reporting the analysis of DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies. Apparently revealing the mummies' family relationships as well as their afflictions, such as tuberculosis and malaria, the work seems to be providing unprecedented insight into the lives and health of ancient Egyptians and is ushering in a new era of 'molecular Egyptology'. Except that half of the researchers in the field challenge every word of it.
Enter the world of ancient Egyptian DNA and you are asked to choose between two alternate realities: one in which DNA analysis is routine, and the other in which it is impossible. "The ancient-DNA field is split absolutely in half," says Tom Gilbert, who heads two research groups at the Center for GeoGenetics in Copenhagen, one of the world's foremost ancient-DNA labs.
Pusch says. "This is pioneering work." He and Zink say that they are sequencing DNA from the mitochondria and Y chromosomes of the mummies, and plan to publish these results this year.
. . . .
... there is concern, says Zink, that such work might yield politically sensitive information about the genetic origin of the pharaohs, and whether any of their descendants are alive today. "This goes right to their history."
posted
^ Gee I wonder what is so "politically sensitive" about the findings. We have historical evidence via the Egyptians' own writings and others about their ancestry, cultural evidence via archaeology, and bio-anthropological evidence via analyses of the bodies and skulls-- ALL point to indigenous African origins. The DNA will just be the final nail to the coffin.
Once it is revealed their DNA is African as well the only argument left for the Euronuts (and their ass-kissing lackeys) is that they were indigenous "African caca-soids". LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neferet - I don't know if you are playing devils advocate, or if you really don't understand.
Tuts dna work was done long ago, but never published.
The reason it was never published, is because as one would expect, it confirms Black dna.
However, that is in conflict with the delusional world of the Albinos, who would like to believe that all people of historical note, were likewise, defective Albinos.
So one can only assume that this casting dispersions on the testing methods, can only be a preemptive strike against the eminent release of results from the long ago testing.
The Albino logic being that as long as there is doubt, they can continue to claim that Egyptians were White people.
In the delusional world of the Albino, the fact that many studies have already been done confirming Black Egyptians, is of no consequence.
As long a they have just that one piece of fabricated doubt, they have something to hang their hats on.
Have you ever read Mindless's posts on Albinism?
In case that you really do live a sheltered life, be advise:
Nature, discovery, and other such outlets, have no interest in fact or science, their interest and money comes from satisfying the delusional hopes and beliefs of their Albino audience.
Try this for science.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Gee I wonder what is so "politically sensitive" about the findings. We have historical evidence via the Egyptians' own writings and others about their ancestry, cultural evidence via archaeology, and bio-anthropological evidence via analyses of the bodies and skulls-- ALL point to indigenous African origins. The DNA will just be the final nail to the coffin.
Which is exactly why Hawass et al are terrified of these kinds of studies.
Anyway, looking forward to seeing this DNA sequenced!
Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am really looking forward to see if they will publish the results. I'm positive the DNA is of "African" extraction, and people like Zahi, and his people of his ilk, don't want the truth to be told or seen.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Neferet - I don't know if you are playing devils advocate, or if you really don't understand.
Tuts dna work was done long ago, but never published.
The reason it was never published, is because as one would expect, it confirms Black dna.
However, that is in conflict with the delusional world of the Albinos, who would like to believe that all people of historical note, were likewise, defective Albinos.
So one can only assume that this casting dispersions on the testing methods, can only be a preemptive strike against the eminent release of results from the long ago testing.
The Albino logic being that as long as there is doubt, they can continue to claim that Egyptians were White people.
In the delusional world of the Albino, the fact that many studies have already been done confirming Black Egyptians, is of no consequence.
As long a they have just that one piece of fabricated doubt, they have something to hang their hats on.
Have you ever read Mindless's posts on Albinism?
In case that you really do live a sheltered life, be advise:
Nature, discovery, and other such outlets, have no interest in fact or science, their interest and money comes from satisfying the delusional hopes and beliefs of their Albino audience.
Try this for science.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
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."
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The genetic evidence could point to an Indo-European origin for some of the Pharoahs as well.
Remember, to be scientific you have to keep an open mind.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
My opinion is they would be much more upset if they found some Cohen[Jewish] Dna thingy than Africans south or west the desert which while upsetting is not to be sooo unexpected ,after all other Africans are hardly looked on as a security threat but Israel?? there is your boggyman right there. But who knows all we can go is wait for the release.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
F-king stupidity, How the F-k are they Indo European?? When the Modern Arab Delta and Cirian Egyptians are Semetic as well as African, Upper Egyptians are African and the Siwa Berbers are Africans genetically and not "Indo-Europeans"?? Where did these Indo Europeans go??
F-ing absurd, but then again look who it coming from...
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The genetic evidence could point to an Indo-European origin for some of the Pharoahs as well.
Remember, to be scientific you have to keep an open mind.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Brada is on to something, My bet is there is some connection between the A. Egyptians and the Jews, which of all things might undermine Islamic law or teachings. Why would a nation with so much Muslim following consider A. DNA politically sensitive if not it had something to do with Israel.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol... I remember pointing out the exact same things to somebody making claims about Tut's DNA. Can't wait for the study in th OP to be released, will probably be more informative than Paabo's study. Maybe put to rest the R1b claims. if it's "politically" sensitive it suggests that they expect African lineages.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Evergreen posted this a while ago but no one responded to his thread:
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."
posted
How is having African lineage "Politically Sensitive" considering that Modern Egyptians even the Cairian's and Delta Egyptians have Signifigant share of African DNA?? Even people like MAthilda admit Egyptians are mostly African genetically, all they would do is say that the Egyptians were "Caucasian or Hamitic Africans" or continue to say the A. Egyptians resemble the Delta Modern Egyptians phenotypically. That makes no sense, the Arab Muslims aint worried about Africans, Africans would lick the Arab's sandals clean and Pray to their Rock 20 times a day if they could.
My opinion is that the DNA might link to ancient Hebrews like the Lacinsh Remains. Anythin Politically sensitive in a Muslim society has to do with the Jews. Giving them a "Legitimate" claim to Israel, as many Egyptians to this day deny ancient Israel even existed.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree. It is absurd that African lineages for ancient inhabitants of an AFRICAN country would be considered "politically sensitive". Then again many 'Arabs' have been so affected by Western racial ideology, that I don't think it would be so sensitive if European lineages were found. LOL
As for the whole "Jewish" thing. Exactly what lineages could be associated with Jews other than hg J which is considered Southwest Asian and is also typical of Arabs, as well as hg E which although is of African origin did spread into Eurasia via the Levant and is also found among Arabs.
I mean seriously what lineages separates Jews from Arabs?? Even the mythologies of both peoples claim origins from a common ancestor??
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: How is having African lineage "Politically Sensitive" considering that Modern Egyptians even the Cairian's and Delta Egyptians have Signifigant share of African DNA??
And how many people are aware of this? Most people think of Egyptians as Mediterranean or something, that's just what they learn. Anyways, most people are not aware of the biographical origins of the ancient Egyptians, and as they mention "genetic origins of the pharaohs" I highly doubt it will suggest non-African genetic origins.
quote:That makes no sense, the Arab Muslims aint worried about Africans, Africans would lick the Arab's sandals clean and Pray to their Rock 20 times a day if they could.
In Robert Bauval's book, he mentions that it (his book) was to be published as an article, but the Egyptians refused according to him, offended perhaps. It seems like this stuff they just don't want to hear. Assuming Hawass et al. actually successfully extracted Tut's mtDNA and yDNA, one has to wonder why they didn't release it.
quote:My opinion is that the DNA might link to ancient Hebrews like the Lacinsh Remains.
I somewhat doubt this.... if anything, the exact opposite seems more likely
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Its not a fact of seperating "Arabs" from "Jews" its the fact that many Egyptians to this day DO NOT CONSIDER Israel both modern and ancient LEgitimate. Many Egyptians deny A. Israel existed. On a History Channel Program about the Hyksos I think some of the researchers were talking about how the discovery and excavation of Avaris a sensitive subject because of Israel.
Lets be Honest the Jews created a celebration that Ritually mocked the gods of Egypt, and Egyptians have always resented the Jews, look at Manetho.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Jeri I remember that they had to essentially lie to the authorities about what they were doing.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And how many people are aware of this? Most people think of Egyptians as Mediterranean or something, that's just what they learn. Anyways, most people are not aware of the biographical origins of the ancient Egyptians, and as they mention "genetic origins of the pharaohs" I highly doubt it will suggest non-African genetic origins.
Im not denying that most people see the Egyptians as "Mediterranian" or Arabs, but this does not change the fact that the DNA of A. Egyptians being African is "Politically sensitive"...
I mean seriously If as you claim most people don't know about the Biological origins of the Egyptians and Most people don't know than even Modern Delta Egyptians and Cairian Egyptians have signifigant share of African DNA what makes you think they will hear about of learn about the A. Egyptians DNA after the study is released..?? Even if the study claims A. Egyptians were the blackest people on Earth, people would still be unaware and still consider Egypt non black.
I still fail to see how that is Politically Sensitive. Egyptians are majority African Already, Zahi and all the Egyptian Intellegencia know this.
In Robert Bauval's book, he mentions that it (his book) was to be published as an article, but the Egyptians refused according to him, offended perhaps. It seems like this stuff they just don't want to hear.
Are you sure it was not because of Rober Bovaul and his personal beliefs. If that is true why do people like Ahmed Selah and other Egyptians say publically that A. Egyptians were Africans. If Im not mistaken from what Im told from so called Nubians majority of Egyptians KNOW that the Nubians were and are the "Original Egyptians"..even the Muktaba Troll admitted the Nubians were the Innocent doves of A. Egypt to Aswani in Arabic.
I somewhat doubt this.... if anything, the exact opposite seems more likely
It doesnt matter really either way its a sensitive subject just like Avaris and the Hyksos. Any sort of linking Egyptians to "Jews" would further validate proof of A. Israel.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just Call me Jari: Im not denying that most people see the Egyptians as "Mediterranian" or Arabs, but this does not change the fact that the DNA of A. Egyptians being African is "Politically sensitive"...
It's not that, that would be politically sensitive, but genetic origins. Last I checked, most Egyptians know they're African, but don't like sub-Saharan's that much. This study may just confirm others that the genetic origins of the Egyptians lie in sub-Saharan Africa. And here we even have the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt suggesting a Middle Eastern origin
quote:I mean seriously If as you claim most people don't know about the Biological origins of the Egyptians and Most people don't know than even Modern Delta Egyptians and Cairian Egyptians have signifigant share of African DNA what makes you think they will hear about of learn about the A. Egyptians DNA after the study is released..??
If you would notice, these types of studies usually garner huge amounts of attention. Studies detailing the modern population's genetic profile are interesting, but extracting ancient DNA? That's big news. Just look at Hawass's research on Discovery Channel...
quote:Even if the study claims A. Egyptians were the blackest people on Earth, people would still be unaware and still consider Egypt non black.
Which is why this study may be in stark contrast to what is being taught and what people *think* they know.
quote:I still fail to see how that is Politically Sensitive. Egyptians are majority African Already, Zahi and all the Egyptian Intellegencia know this.
See above
quote:Are you sure it was not because of Rober Bovaul and his personal beliefs. If that is true why do people like Ahmed Selah and other Egyptians say publically that A. Egyptians were Africans. If Im not mistaken from what Im told from so called Nubians majority of Egyptians KNOW that the Nubians were and are the "Original Egyptians"..even the Muktaba Troll admitted the Nubians were the Innocent doves of A. Egypt to Aswani in Arabic.
As I said, them being "African" in and of itself isn't the issue, but their genetic origins would be. I may have worded my original statement badly.
quote:It doesnt matter really either way its a sensitive subject just like Avaris and the Hyksos. Any sort of linking Egyptians to "Jews" would further validate proof of A. Israel.
OK.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Does anyone have any input about this movie. Also to stay on topic, I believe we will see AE being linked with Africans and that probably is the reason why it is not be shown because they can no longer deny the links with Africans.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I felt curious as to whether Zink et al plan to study the Egyptians' genetic relationships, I just sent them the following e-mail:
quote:Dear Professors Zink and Pusch,
I am a student of biological anthropology who has read of your recent genetic studies on Egyptian mummies. As someone who is especially interested in the Egyptians' biological relationships, I wish to ask you if you intend at some point to compare the mummies' genome with those of contemporary populations from around the world to determine whom they were most closely related to. For example, were ancient Egyptians most closely related to Southwest Asians (so-called "Middle Easterners"), Northeast Africans (e.g. Sudanese, Ethiopians, Somalis, etc.), or some other population? I think such research would shed a lot of light on the Egyptians' origins.
posted
Nope, I think an Indo-European thing would be upsetting. The idea that Whites originated their civilization. This would be similar to the Chinese mummies and pyramids.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
^ Fat chance of European origins for such things happening. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': And how many people are aware of this? Most people think of Egyptians as Mediterranean or something, that's just what they learn. Anyways, most people are not aware of the biographical origins of the ancient Egyptians, and as they mention "genetic origins of the pharaohs" I highly doubt it will suggest non-African genetic origins.
Agreed. Modern Egyptians know they are African but they've been so brainwashed by centuries of Eurocentrism that I doubt they even know that the Sub-Sahara vs. North Africa dichotomy is an utter lie.
quote:In Robert Bauval's book, he mentions that it (his book) was to be published as an article, but the Egyptians refused according to him, offended perhaps. It seems like this stuff they just don't want to hear. Assuming Hawass et al. actually successfully extracted Tut's mtDNA and yDNA, one has to wonder why they didn't release it.
This is as pathetically stupid and futile as the Mexican government trying to suppress info showing the ancient Aztec and Maya were Native Americans as opposed to Spanish. It is absurd! If this is truly the Egyptian government at work, they like the Soviets and all totalitarian style governments cannot hide the truth for long if they even ever could in this Information Age.
Speaking of pathetically stupid and futile...
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: ^^^^ Its not a fact of seperating "Arabs" from "Jews" its the fact that many Egyptians to this day DO NOT CONSIDER Israel both modern and ancient LEgitimate. Many Egyptians deny A. Israel existed. On a History Channel Program about the Hyksos I think some of the researchers were talking about how the discovery and excavation of Avaris a sensitive subject because of Israel.
Lets be Honest the Jews created a celebration that Ritually mocked the gods of Egypt, and Egyptians have always resented the Jews, look at Manetho.
You realize this mess has NOTHING to do with Egyptian nationalism rather than Judaphobic Islamic mentality. Denying the modern nation of Israel's right to exist is one thing but when you are denying the existence of an ancient historical kingdom that has been verified both by archaeology as well as historical documents is just plain psychotic. This is no different from folks hatred of blacks making them deny the existence of any civilization in Africa by blacks not including Egypt.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why would Arabs want to deny that "Indo-Europeans" built Egypt? Remember what happened in Unesco when Diop and Obenga called out all those that believed in a "White" Egypt. The other people were europeans and Middle Easterners who claimed that Egypt was a Euro Asian civi. It was only after the trouncing by Diop and Obenga that those people were forced to stop the Euro Asian Egyptian Civi. Also Hawass has for years claimed AE as North African Caucasoids....I would believe they the leaders of Egypt would be happy for this if Egypt was Indo Euro.
The truth is that for years Hawass and others have denied anything African for Egypt. Look at Bob Brier who Kalonji finally schooled in his Video on Youtube. Showing that AE was African would be a Death blow to eurocentrism and the next would be the pure Greece nonsense. Truth always comes out no matter how much covered up it is.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I agree that they (Egyptians) probably wouldn't be all too upset. As DJ said, they have been so brainwashed by Euro-centrism. Did the Pharaohs take Asiatic wives?
Svante Paabo in his molecular cloning of Ancient Egyptian DNA actually said that future research could do exactly what the new article is doing, lol
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant to say was how frequently, I know that they took Asiatic wives in any case. But how common was this? Anyways, Zakrzewski and Dabbs (2011) found that the inhabitants of Armana came from throughout Egypt and not from outside Egypt.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course pharaohs incorporated Asiatic wives into their harems. This is a well known fact! The question is whether the children of such wives were considered legitimate heirs to the throne? The answer is a big NO. Only those of Egyptian or at least Nile Valley ancestry (including Nubian) could lay claim to the throne. Legitimacy depended largely upon the females as a remnant of older matrilineage. What ignorant Mike doesn't know is that the Amarna Letters that he cites shows a double standard wherein Egyptian kings were able to marry foreign women but Egyptian royal women were not allowed to marry foreign men. This was because the Egyptians did NOT want a foreigner as king since such would become so solely by marrying an Egyptian princess who passed the throne on to her husband. This tendency towards endogamy was so great as to have the practice of royal incest between brother and sister, cousins, uncle and niece, even father and daughter. So find foreign ancestry among actual kings and their chief wives is highly unlikely!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes 12th DYN Pharaohs Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he will join the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns) Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt
Trurhcentric
quote:Has there ever been a case of an Egyptian with Nubian ancestry becoming Pharaoh?
posted
You are mistaken if you think only the 12th dynasty was from Ta-Seti. As far back as the 5th, and 6th Dynasties.
The Fifth Dynasty of Egypt is considered part of the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt. Manetho writes that these kings ruled from Elephantine, but archeologists have found evidence clearly showing that their palaces were still located at Ineb-hedj ("White Walls") aka Menphis.
Despite the Heliopolitan origin of the dynasty, Manetho maintained that it stemmed from Elephantine, which is difficult to reconcile with the few known facts. -Chronicle of the Pharohs Peter A Clayton Pg. 60
We believe that Unas probably pursued a policy of diplomatic contact both with Byblos and Nubia. He also apparently was also responsible for building activities at Elephantine near modern Aswan, as well as Saqqara.
I wonder if this has anything to do with Uah-ka and the 12th Dynasty origin(Amenemhet's Elephantine Mother)
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Yes 12th DYN Pharaohs Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he will join the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns) Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt
Trurhcentric
quote:Has there ever been a case of an Egyptian with Nubian ancestry becoming Pharaoh?
Also as far as the Prophecy of Neferti is concerned, it was not meant to say he was from Ta-Seti but to legitmize Amennemhet's non royal blood, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - Well at least you understood why I told Calabooz' to read the Armada letters - he still has no clue. You can take a mule to water....
But Djehuti, if you're such a bright boy, why didn't you mention that ALL Egyptian kings after Ahmose II, who was probably the 5th ruler of Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, were LIBYAN or some other foreigner!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Let's not forget the 17th dynasty founded by Sekenenra Tao I and the 18th dynasty founded by his granddaughter Ahmose-Nefertari. It was remarked by many who've studied his skull that Sekenenra's features were Nubian. It was the 17th dynasty who allied themselves with the Medjay Nubians and the 18th dynasty who adopted Nubian customs such as the queen-mother's power and God's Wife of Amun as well as the particular 'Nubian' wig associated with the 18th dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: But Djehuti, if you're such a bright boy, why didn't you mention that ALL Egyptian kings after Ahmose II, who was probably the 5th ruler of Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, were LIBYAN or some other foreigner!
Actually the last native pharaoh was Psamtik III who was the 6th ruler of the 26th dynasty until Egypt was conquered by the Persians. Note the key word I used was legitimate ruler. Thus once Egypt was conquered by foreigners the rulers were never recognized as truly legitimate.
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: You are mistaken if you think only the 12th dynasty was from Ta-Seti. As far back as the 5th, and 6th Dynasties.
The Fifth Dynasty of Egypt is considered part of the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt. Manetho writes that these kings ruled from Elephantine, but archeologists have found evidence clearly showing that their palaces were still located at Ineb-hedj ("White Walls") aka Menphis.
Despite the Heliopolitan origin of the dynasty, Manetho maintained that it stemmed from Elephantine, which is difficult to reconcile with the few known facts. -Chronicle of the Pharohs Peter A Clayton Pg. 60
We believe that Unas probably pursued a policy of diplomatic contact both with Byblos and Nubia. He also apparently was also responsible for building activities at Elephantine near modern Aswan, as well as Saqqara.
I wonder if this has anything to do with Uah-ka and the 12th Dynasty origin(Amenemhet's Elephantine Mother)
Let's not forget the 'Pyramid building' 3rd and 4th dynasties and even the proto-dynastic 1st to 2nd. All of which craniometrically were described as no different from the Kushite 25th dynasty. Hell, even dynasty zero and before in Naqada Upper Egypt!
T. Prowse, and N. Lovell "Concordance of Cranial and Dental Morphological Traits and Evidence for Endogamy in Ancient Egypt," American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1996, vol. 101, no2, pp.237-246 (2 p.1/4)
A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at Predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently non-elite cemeteries and that the non-elite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.
This is the reason why the 'Prophecy of Neferti' was conceived in the first place-- because the Egyptians knew that their original kings came from the south. And this is why scholars like Barry Kemp call pharaonic culture "a Sudanese transplant".
And no doubt all this is the reason why the DNA of the pharaohs may well be a "curse" indeed on those who are don't look to kindly on Africa to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Has there ever been a case of an Egyptian with Nubian ancestry becoming Pharaoh?
All the above was explained in this forum many times before. I wonder if you were even present during whenever such information was presented.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know DJ I have came to this same conclusion, I think once Dynastic Egypt conquered A group Egypt they incorporated their Royalty into their own Royal house and took control of Lower Nubia. That is my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This is the reason why the 'Prophecy of Neferti' was conceived in the first place-- because the Egyptians knew that their original kings came from the south. And this is why scholars like Barry Kemp call pharaonic culture "a Sudanese transplant".
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why would Arabs want to deny that "Indo-Europeans" built Egypt? Remember what happened in Unesco when Diop and Obenga called out all those that believed in a "White" Egypt. The other people were europeans and Middle Easterners who claimed that Egypt was a Euro Asian civi. It was only after the trouncing by Diop and Obenga that those people were forced to stop the Euro Asian Egyptian Civi. Also Hawass has for years claimed AE as North African Caucasoids....I would believe they the leaders of Egypt would be happy for this if Egypt was Indo Euro.
The truth is that for years Hawass and others have denied anything African for Egypt. Look at Bob Brier who Kalonji finally schooled in his Video on Youtube. Showing that AE was African would be a Death blow to eurocentrism and the next would be the pure Greece nonsense. Truth always comes out no matter how much covered up it is.
Peace
North African Caucasoid does not equate to European. A master race theory is not in the best interest of modern Egyptian people. Hawass believes in an indigenous development of Egypt not foreign Aryan invasion theories.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What evidence of mixing with Indo-Europeans do we even have? I'm guessing there is none, so that isn't a concern of mine. Plus, I don't see how this would mean whites founding AE civilization if this is the New Kingdom...
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What evidence of mixing with Indo-Europeans do we even have? I'm guessing there is none, so that isn't a concern of mine. Plus, I don't see how this would mean whites founding AE civilization if this is the New Kingdom...
Again it is not Whites but North African Caucasoids.
Indo-Europeans? Perhaps Hittites fall into the category.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What the hell is a North African Caucasoid?
There may have been mixing with the Hittites, but didn't a King from the south reunite Egypt and start the next dynasty (the Hittites restricted to Lower Egypt?)
Plus, this was waaaay after state formation so it wouldn't mean "whites originated their civilization"
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ North African Caucasoids are indigenous North Africans who share some features similar to Europeans due to in situ evolution called convergence.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
--- testing on Mummies so far have been mostly New kingdom specimens. I suspect some Hittite infiltration by this time. Such genetic results may cause unnecessary harm to the study of Egyptian history. Claims of Aryan invasion and Nordic Egyptians would be hard to stop.
-------------------- 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: ^ North African Caucasoids are indigenous North Africans who share some features similar to Europeans due to in situ evolution called convergence.
What the hell?! Even though comparison of allele frequencies show north Africans and Europeans to have high divergence values?
What about sub-Saharan Africans with more narrow features, are they gonna be called sub-Saharan Caucasians now?
You can't classify two populations together based on things they developed independently of each other.
In the case of northwest Africans, their phenotype may have been influenced by "Eurasians" to some extent given their genetic structure. But what you're doing is no different from Euro-nuts claiming narrow featured Africans to be Caucasoid based on phenotype, even though narrow features evolved independent of non-African influence.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I am just explaining the difference between White and North African Caucasoid. I am not doing anything other than clarifying. As a description of facial features it is marginally useful but is pointless when trying to classify groups of people, relatedness, etc.
Caucasoid simply put would be narrow features but doesn't mean relatedness. Convergent evolution doesn't require relatedness just similar diet and climate.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Osirion is just applying old late 19th early 20th century physical anthropology terms to peoples.
Negro meant the black skins of Africa and Oceana Caucasian meant the white skins of Europe Mongol meant the yellow skins of East Asia
Negroid meant like a negro in any set of features Caucasoid meant like a caucasian in any set of features Mongoloid meant like a mongol in any set of features
The -oid terms never neccessarily indicated descent or relatedness to the race types without the suffix except as noted below.
Thus a negroid could be a white of Europe or a yellow of Asia or anyone displaying some features but short of the full characteristic set of the negro whether of negro parentage or not.
The same definition pattern did not quite hold true for caucasoid. Peoples who displayed some features common to the caucasian were usually deemed to have some degree of white European ancestry.
But white Europeans with negroid characteristics were never thought to have got them from negro ancestors. Dixon was clear about that only allowing it for some Portuguese. But white Europeans with mongoloid features were admitted to be partial Mongol.
From the start physical anthropology was about racial hierarchy. While not a racist, Blumenbach did regard a skull in his collection from the Caucasus as the most beautiful. So he theorized all other types were degenerate from that original woman as he dubbed the Caucasian.
These -oid suffix designations are about as useless as a shoe without a sole because all humans are related and of one ancestry and do not descend from any kind of pure archetype with imagined pure racial features where deviation would indicated admixture.
There's no way to update the -oid terminology and thus no practical application for the terms today that would be devoid of the pure race typology inherent in their very definitions and implications.
It seems that only the East Asians have successfully escaped this old race typology since no one dare label them either as the yellow race or mongoloid (now only used for sufferers of Down's syndrome).
This should be a tip to the wise.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ oids mostly useless. It is so missed used that I understand the issue quite clearly.
Facial features do not equate to RACE. But the oids conjure up such connections.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
^ I believe you have been visiting this forum far longer than Truthcentric, Osirion, which is why I am more baffled as to why you cling to such debunked terms.
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: You know DJ I have came to this same conclusion, I think once Dynastic Egypt conquered A group Egypt they incorporated their Royalty into their own Royal house and took control of Lower Nubia. That is my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This is the reason why the 'Prophecy of Neferti' was conceived in the first place-- because the Egyptians knew that their original kings came from the south. And this is why scholars like Barry Kemp call pharaonic culture "a Sudanese transplant".
If you noticed the evidence I cited, the Egyptians it seems have incorporated Nubian royalty long before the unification of Egypt let alone the conquest of Ta Seti itself. Which begs the question what was the reason for such a conquest or conflict to begin with?? Was there some rival dynastic struggle between rival families? These questions were asked and discussed in detail in several past threads. Who knows the answer. The point beings is that when Ta-Seti was conquered it was NOT depopulated as was once thought and even in Egyptian records Ta-Seti became known as the 1st nome in all of Kemet.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic