posted                      

quote:

---

Hello XXXXX

I hope everything is well with you.

Following on from last week's e-mail, do you think it's a coincidence that both the mummy reconstructions - which are informed by cranial morphology - and the 2010 JAMA/population affiliator results, seem to indicate sub-Saharan African ancestry?

---

quote:

---

It is difficult to comment on this. The skin color in the mummy reconstructions are a matter of artistic interpretation and not based on cranial morphology. The affiliate results indicate an African origin, but this cannot be regarded as a final proof.

Best,
XXXXX

---

quote:

---

Hi XXXXX

Thanks a lot for this.

Your quick replies are always really appreciated.

I suppose with the skin colour it's impossible to tell what the exact shade would have been. So I agree, it is based on artistic interpretation.

Just wanted to ask, with the affiliate results and cranial morphology indicating African origin, do you think it was reasonable that the reconstruction artist decided to use a dark skin colour?

---

quote:

---

Using the dark skin color is as reasonable as using a lighter skin color.
Best,
XXXXX

---

quote:

---

Hi XXXXXX.

Thanks again.

By lighter, do you mean a lighter shade within the range of skin colour that we would see in African populations?

Or do you mean it would be as reasonable to use a lighter skin colour that we would most commonly associate with the peoples of say, Europe?

---

quote:

---

We cannot assign Tut to African or (early) European origins. For this, we will need further genetic studies.
Therefore we cannot say how his skin color was.

---

quote:

---

Just a little confused. I'll explain why.

Earlier it was mentioned that the affiliates indicate an African origin. The cranial morphology also shows African origin.

The conclusion you gave was that skin colour was a matter of artistic representation. So following what you explained about the affiliates and what the skeletal evidence shows, I then asked whether it was reasonable for the artist to assume darker skin colour. (I'd asked this before.)

You then said that using the dark skin colour was as reasonable as using a "lighter" skin colour.

I then hoped you'd clarify by explaining whether lighter meant a lighter shade within the range of skin colour that we would see in African populations; or whether your use of light described skin tone that we would most commonly associate with the peoples of, for example, Europe.

You then replied that "we cannot assign Tut to African or (early) European origins. For this, we will need further genetic studies. Therefore we cannot say how his skin color was."

The reason I'm confused is because your response didn't seem to answer whether you meant "lighter" within the range of skin colour that we would see in African populations, or a lighter skin colour that we would most commonly associate with the peoples of, for example, Europe.

Hope this makes sense.

---

quote:

---

I've meant lighter skin colour that we would associate with peoples of Europe.
Best
XXXXX

---

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

I have to commend you Claus. Nice work. Not sure why you guys have this on-going beef. But, Judging from your correspondence with the “academic” it is clear he doesn’t want to assign an African origin to the AEians. When you “back him into a corner” his true feeling came through. Good work. Nevertheless it is time we stop asking for European “academics” to sanctify the fact the AEians are indigenous Africans in ALL respects. The came from inner Africa. The thousands of pictures on their tombs show they were BLACK in skin tone. They were definitely not white. In fact it is physiologically impossible for them to be anything as close to Europeans in skin tone since they were in their natural environment. The genetic STR pop affinity clearly align them exactly where they should be with tropical Africans.
The lineage (haplogroup) show they are clearly aligned with West Africans and other Central and southern Africans. There is no further proof needed.

Even if future pigmentation profile show AEians carry derived SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, regardless of the pictures on the tombs that will NOT make them Europeans because indigenous Africans carry the profile also. The FACT is, Europeans(nor modern Levantines) never back-migrated to create the AEian civilization.

They will like to continue to steal African history but science is exposing them for what they are. They are so delusion and mental they ahve the audacity will even try to perpetuate that lie.

Neverthelss. Good work.

---

Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged |