...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
18th dynast were haplogroup R1b/K?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by lioness,: [qb] What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign?[/qb] [QUOTE][qb]Originally posted by Djehuti: [/qb] If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?[/QUOTE][qb]So Amenhotep, Tutankhamun and Akhenaten were foreigners?[/qb][/QUOTE]I thought we made it clear to your dishonest self that it hasn't been verified that those Amarna royals carry R-V88 or U5 since it is only a guess based on STRs?! Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the hgs in Europe! ;) [/qb][/QUOTE]You just said if the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. R1b-V88 is clade whose parent originated outside Africa before R1b existed there was only R1 and R2 before R1 and R2 there was only R and in addition the mtDNA of Tutankhamun, Akenhaten and other males and females was determined by this analysis as being of mtDNA haplogroup K. That is considered by geneticists to be West Asian Haplogroup K, found in the remains of three individuals from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site of Tell Ramad, Syria, dating from c. 6000 BC.[16] The clade was also discovered in skeletons of early farmers in Central Europe dated to around 5500-5300 BC, at percentages that were nearly double the percentage present in modern Europe. Analysis of the mtDNA of Ötzi, the frozen mummy from 3300 BC found on the Austrian-Italian border, has shown that Ötzi belongs to the K1 subclade. ___________________ please don't get wise about this the logic you propose is very clear and when we follow through on it one could come to the conclusion that the Amarana were a foreign dynasty You just don't want to be the one that would propose that as a possibility, but keyword, possibility and keep in mind that the only reason that we know about the Amarna is that their tombs were discovered The Egyptians afterward rejected them and did not include them on the king's list nor wrote about them. We just know about them from writing (glyphs) in their own tombs So what is the probability that the Amarna were foreign? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3