Egyptian mummies yield genetic secrets

Lol omg of course there WOULD be ridiculous afrocentric nonsense in replies

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Lol omg of course there WOULD be ridiculous afrocentric nonsense in replies

Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.

The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. They also retrieved genetic material from the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis, and from a range of plants that includes fir and pine — both thought to be components of embalming resins — as well as castor, linseed, olive, almond and lotus.

You have one mummified remains that carried an ancestor gene from west Asia that appeared late in Kemetian history and that is enough for you but multiple genetic traces from areas in the Nile Valley and the surrounding areas is deemed ridiculous Afrocentric nonsense replies, like I always said folks who don't like certain evidence drop terns like Afrocentric instead of dealing with evidence presented.

Originally posted by Spider879

You have one mummified remains that carried an ancestor gene from west Asia that appeared late in Kemetian history and that is enough for you but multiple genetic traces from areas in the Nile Valley and the surrounding areas is deemed ridiculous Afrocentric nonsense replies, like I always said folks who don't like certain evidence drop terns like Afrocentric instead of dealing with evidence presented.

No actually we don't, there is proof that Caucasians have been living in Egypt even before the pyramids were built. Now the problem with afrocentrists is that when they hear the word Caucasian they are only able in their mind to see the Nordic or British type yet they are the very same people who keep pointing out that black people come in a wide range of skin tones lol

The scientific study of mummies reveals interesting and surprising things about the ancient peoples. At the site of ancient Nekhen, for example, archaeologists of the Hierakonpolis Expedition have discovered many well preserved bodies, with hair intact. This hair is being studied by Dr. Joann Fletcher. Most of the hair samples are cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid). Though most hair found is a natural dark brown and wavy, one ancient man had curly, naturally red hair.

www.rom.on.ca...





Above pharaoh khafre, builder of the second pyramid and it is his face some say was carved on the sphinx!

reply to post by LUXUS

No actually we don't, there is proof that Caucasians have been living in Egypt even before the pyramids were built. Now the problem with afrocentrists is that when they hear the word Caucasian they are only able in their mind to see the Nordic or British type yet they are the very same people who keep pointing out that black people come in a wide range of skin tones lol

And the problem with Eurocentrist is they think in terms of racial typology,that certain features seen on the continent could not possibly evolved there for anyone not the deepest hue of black and have wavy to straight hair is due to migrants, not saying Eurasian back migration did not occur but you would be hard pressed to tell what they looked like when they back migrated.

Ancient and modern


The above are native Africans.


Above are Eurasians



Except the first guy the rest are technically West Eurasian although Nile Valley genetic influence can't be ruled out.
What I am saying you can't draw conclusions based on eyeballing and assigned your subjects to a type,I used to be guilty of that and I know how hard it was to divorce myself from that view because it seems counter intuitive.

And no it's not in the nose either.the fellow above is a Masai.

reply to post by Spider879


I have been to Egypt three times and can tell you that they look nothing like any of those people you posted....you however have a real need to believe they do or did

You do know also that dna analysis of the modern population in Egypt compared with ancient graves concluded that there are MORE subsaharans in Egypt today then there were in antiquity...there goes your theory that the modern egyptians drove your people out of Egypt!

the thing is luxus

you live in america

the black people there are mostly west african

i dont think you can comprehend an east african, or north east.

emperor salasi
the pharonic line
the nedja and the cults

were all nubian in some vague way

nub means gold
kanuzi means gold

gold was the blood of the sun...


those kenyans are "nubian"
so are the pharaohs


peace dude

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Spider879

 

I have been to Egypt three times and can tell you that they look nothing like any of those people you posted....you however have a real need to believe they do or did

You do know also that dna analysis of the modern population in Egypt compared with ancient graves concluded that there are MORE subsaharans in Egypt today then there were in antiquity...there goes your theory that the modern egyptians drove your people out of Egypt!

Luxus you posted that vid clip before it is simply not useful it threw some colors on a pie chart and said red is north African blue is Eurasian and black is Sub Saharan there are no markers of any type STRs no Hyplotypes and no where in any of my post did I mentioned modern Egyptians drove my people out of Egypt for my people are primarily Jamaicans of African most likely Akan decent with a touch of South Indian,subsequently extended into African American,Scottish, East Asian (Japanese) members.

This is what a pie chart should look like

Posted this before perhaps needed re-posting..

reply to post by Spider879


Yes I can imagine you find it "not very useful" because it shows that the ONLY mass migration into Egypt over the last few thousand years has been by subsaharans, talk about a spanner in the works of the afrocentrics agenda, they are always on about how egyptians used to be darker back in the day which is totally opposite to the dna findings.

Here is another vid you wont find very useful because it shows that modern Egyptians are the descendents of the ancient egyptians and therefore not invaders.

reply to post by LUXUS

Yes I can imagine you find it "not very useful" because it shows that the ONLY mass migration into Egypt over the last few thousand years has been by subsaharans, talk about a spanner in the works of the afrocentrics agenda, they are always on about how egyptians used to be darker back in the day which is totally opposite to the dna findings. Here is another vid you wont find very useful because it shows that modern Egyptians are the descendents of the ancient egyptians and therefore not invaders.

Yes Egyptians carries much of the same Dna as their fore-bearers but that has nothing to do with phenotype and color if you listened to Moamena Kamel carefully she said they are from the Nile valley,a valley which stretches 4000 thousand miles deep into Africa and flushes out into the Med.for rest assured they shared Dna with other Africans through E and their sub clades.below is a link with a no nonsense 33 min. vid that explains it all.plus text to go along with it, if you are truly about learning then do not put this on ignore btw E is also known as M so don't get confused by this.
Learn about Y-DNA Haplogroup E
www.genebase.com...

The talk about Afrocentric agenda and Egypt is trite, for Egypt or Kemet is in Africa built on African foundations in my view it's all about cutting off Egypt from the rest of Africa and bringing it inline with Eurasia but geography history,language,culture and not to mention bio anthropology is stubborn like that.

Originally posted by Spider879


Yes Egyptians carries much of the same Dna as their fore-bearers but that has nothing to do with phenotype and color

Exactly as I thought you do want to say the original egyptians were darker and due to the ingress of others they have become lighter skinned. You wish to assert this despite the dna showing that there are more subsaharans in Egypt today then there was in antiquity thus if anything Egyptians are darker today then they were in the past. Plus the ancient quotes I presented to you which said the egyptians had a medium skin tone, they looked most like north Indians and that Egyptians where lighter skinned then nubians who in turn were lighter skinned then Ethiopians!

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by Spider879


Yes Egyptians carries much of the same Dna as their fore-bearers but that has nothing to do with phenotype and color

Exactly as I thought you do want to say the original egyptians were darker and due to the ingress of others they have become lighter skinned. You wish to assert this despite the dna showing that there are more subsaharans in Egypt today then there was in antiquity thus if anything Egyptians are darker today then they were in the past. Plus the ancient quotes I presented to you which said the egyptians had a medium skin tone, they looked most like north Indians and that Egyptians where lighter skinned then nubians who in turn were lighter skinned then Ethiopians!

Before 5000yrs ago there was no such thing as a Sub-Saharan Africa or African as before that it was the wet phase so there was no Sahara to sub there was only Savannah kinda like certain parts of Kenya today ,but due to climate change the the wet phase ended and communities moved to greater bodies of water mainly the Nile and the Niger, these communities shared certain cultural, biological and at times linguistic affinities and that's why at it's core Kemet was fundamentally an African civilization.

This series deserves be seen in it's entirety but for the purpose of this thread this is only a teaser true it's a lil bit dated but still not disputed by academia...RIP Basil Davidson little did you know that the science of dna mapping and bio-anthropology would confirm your findings .

The was septer of ancient kemet and the Hangool of modern Somalia or the Wako staff of Ethiopia

The following is a "North Saharan" — from "Kargur Talh" in particular — rendition dating to ca. 6ky to 7ky BP; it notably sports a male figure holding what appears to be a staff, reminiscent of the Was scepter..

Above, we have an early and a rather simple rendition dating back to ca. 3500 BC, found in the Hierakonpolis tomb 100, sporting several individuals holding what appear to be Was scepter
exploring-africa.blogspot.jp...

These were early symbols of king or chieftainship in Africa even before the rise of Nile valley civilization


www.joanlansberry.com...
And much later in dynastic kemet itself.keep in mind that this is only item that found right across Africa that connects the nile valley and other Africans outside the Valley.
so yell at so-called Afrocentricst as you like but in the matter of ancient they are closer on point.

Originally posted by Spider879

Luxus you posted that vid clip before it is simply not useful it threw some colors on a pie chart and said red is north African blue is Eurasian and black is Sub Saharan there are no markers of any type STRs no Hyplotypes and no where in any of my post did I mentioned modern Egyptians drove my people out of Egypt for my people are primarily Jamaicans of African most likely Akan decent with a touch of South Indian,subsequently extended into African American,Scottish, East Asian (Japanese) members.

This is what a pie chart should look like

Posted this before perhaps needed re-posting..

LOL, are you honestly THAT mentally deficient? The "pie chart" that you are showing IS in fact what a pie chart should look like, you're right, as you'll notice, it has the paternal (Y) haplogroup, I, which the remains of the discovered mummies had, as being in Europe, not in Africa, not in "your people", "Jamaicans of Africa of Akan 'decent' with a touch of South Indian" (whatever in handicapped hell that is).

Now, try to take a look at the pie chart again.. See how the magenta stands for I? See how I is only shown as being in European populations in the little circles? Learn how to 'read' a pie chart before you plan to use one as 'evidence' for your 'argument' and end up supporting further evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Spider879

Before 5000yrs ago there was no such thing as a Sub-Saharan Africa or African as before that it was the wet phase so there was no Sahara to sub there was only Savannah kinda like certain parts of Kenya today ,but due to climate change the the wet phase ended and communities moved to greater bodies of water mainly the Nile and the Niger, these communities shared certain cultural, biological and at times linguistic affinities and that's why at it's core Kemet was fundamentally an African civilization.

LOL, WHAT?! Where are you getting this?! You're #ing hilarious dude.
So let me get this straight.. There was no such thing as... most of Africa (easily 80% of it), nor were there any blacks aka (sub saharans)? Black Africans ARE sub saharan, the sub sahara is where they descend from. There's evidence of "homo sapiens" living there 150,000 years ago, these "homo sapiens" being blacks, of course. Lol, are you trolling or something? You can't be serious..

The following is a "North Saharan" — from "Kargur Talh" in particular — rendition dating to ca. 6ky to 7ky BP; it notably sports a male figure holding what appears to be a staff, reminiscent of the Was scepter..

Above, we have an early and a rather simple rendition dating back to ca. 3500 BC, found in the Hierakonpolis tomb 100, sporting several individuals holding what appear to be Was scepter
exploring-africa.blogspot.jp...

These were early symbols of king or chieftainship in Africa even before the rise of Nile valley civilization

www.joanlansberry.com...
And much later in dynastic kemet itself.keep in mind that this is only item that found right across Africa that connects the nile valley and other Africans outside the Valley.
so yell at so-called Afrocentricst as you like but in the matter of ancient they are closer on point.

Errrrrr... Once again you're a tad bit off there and in your own interesting world.. Your entertaining little rock paintings are not representative of ANYTHING but the fact that your ancestors were able to draw on rocks, literally that's all.. Sure, even if these were representational of 'chieftainship', that would be valid, as in the animal kingdom, most species that travel in packs will have a "head" or "chiefton".. How any of this shows that ancient Egypt was reigned by blacks, I have ABSOLUTELY no idea.. But, as I said, you seem to have your own unique, special little world where sad fantasies can apparently become realities and that's what seems to be going on here, once again..

You're hilarious, dude.

reply to post by TheIceQueen


"Sigh" IceQueen really is there a real argument here?? you don't have to believe a word Spider said matter of fact I prefer you don't, but why don't you just Goole wet phase Sahara and Green Phase Sahara or better yet go here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Errrrrr... Once again you're a tad bit off there and in your own interesting world.. Your entertaining little rock paintings are not representative of ANYTHING but the fact that your ancestors were able to draw on rocks, literally that's all.. Sure, even if these were representational of 'chieftainship', that would be valid, as in the animal kingdom, most species that travel in packs will have a "head" or "chiefton".. How any of this shows that ancient Egypt was reigned by blacks, I have ABSOLUTELY no idea.. But, as I said, you seem to have your own unique, special little world where sad fantasies can apparently become realities and that's what seems to be going on here, once again.. You're hilarious, dude.

Yeah more than just drawing on rocks as that symbol of chieftainship later became part of Kemet's royal insignia carried by Gods and Pharaohs to be found nowhere else out side of Africa unless as a part of clear diffusion, humans were Ra's sacred herd now if those rock drawing first found their origins in the wet phase Sahara and later in Kemet itself and much later in dynastic Kemet can you not see it's trail??...and if there was no Sahara desert prior to 5kyrs B.C then there was no separation of what you consider north of the desert and 80% of Africa so jokes on you

Humans of 150kyrs ago are not under discussion here as more than likely they/we would be living in East or South East Africa before journeying to the rest of the world and Africa how and what they worship we can only guess but scroll back up and look at the the dates of the drawings again pls...if you haven't done so pls kilk the links provided as I am not just talking outta my derriere..

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Lol omg of course there WOULD be ridiculous afrocentric nonsense in replies

Most of them talk in their sleep, Egypt was Black, they were black, they were black, black...its OK darling you were just having another nightmare, go back to sleep now

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Lol omg of course there WOULD be ridiculous afrocentric nonsense in replies

Most of them talk in their sleep, Egypt was Black, they were black, they were black, black...its OK darling you were just having another nightmare, go back to sleep now

edit on 18-6-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

Gotta lov it debate by ridicule..

Originally posted by Spider879
reply to post by LUXUS

 

No actually we don't, there is proof that Caucasians have been living in Egypt even before the pyramids were built. Now the problem with afrocentrists is that when they hear the word Caucasian they are only able in their mind to see the Nordic or British type yet they are the very same people who keep pointing out that black people come in a wide range of skin tones lol

And the problem with Eurocentrist is they think in terms of racial typology,that certain features seen on the continent could not possibly evolved there for anyone not the deepest hue of black and have wavy to straight hair is due to migrants, not saying Eurasian back migration did not occur but you would be hard pressed to tell what they looked like when they back migrated.

Ancient and modern

There is a reason for the European features in your pics!

“On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation

reply to post by LUXUS

On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation

Oh yes the 1998 Passarino study old and beaten to death, one thing you can't have a Caucasoid or a Negroid gene for that matter for.. OID terms to describe genetic variation among humans?? there is no such animal that is only a clumsy way of defining features,but yes J pops up in Ethiopia especially among the Amhara however that does not mean any back migrants looked like what you consider Caucasoid 30kyrs ago Below is some pic I posted on the last page

Not one of the above are of African decent..not more so than this ex-prime minister of Japan in any case they are all Eurasians from mainland Asia and the Isles of the Pacific. the blacks could have gotten liter with angular features and loose hair and reacquire earlier looks on their long march form Africa or they remained in the coastal tropical areas and not loose them. see Nina Jablonski www.nytimes.com...

The first modern European: Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35,000 years ago
But what could back migrating Eurasian looked 30kyrs ago?? well they could very well looked liked this in his case he was a European
www.dailymail.co.uk...
My point is nearly all the features you see in the world was/is present in Africa it is more likely Eurasians got certain features from Africans than the other way around.
www.genebase.com...
earn about Y-DNA Haplogroup E
O Btw did you bother checking out the link I gave you on Dna for this concerned the ancient Kemites who are Es rather than incoming Js

reply to post by Spider879


Old and beaten to death...no not quite but then again Afrocentrists say that about anything they dont like yet some of their favorite quotes are old and beaten to death such as tropical body plan, Herodotus and the "woolly" hair etc

There have been several studies which show that Ethiopians,Somalians have Caucasoid input so no it was not one study that was beaten to death it is a fact for example 2004 study (was that also beaten to death?www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As for the images you posted and claimed have zero African input we would just have to take your word for that as you cant possibly know that

reply to post by Spider879


As much as people try to deny it there are subtle differences in skeletal morhpology and dentition between the "races".
The r reconstruction of the "European", misleading at best, or an outright fallacy at worst.
By the time they attribute the reconstruction to the European populations already have distinct skeletal features that differ from "Africans". The shape of the orbits is different how the skull sits sand it shape are very different.
They have very different dentions, with africsnd being tuarodonts, while Europeans had become very generalized in dental trait
I think the reconstructor is playing politcal shenanigans with that reconstruction, unless it's from one of the monte carlo skeletons, which were infact Africans.
Also what had been miscast as "African" in Paleolithic skeletons should be more correctly
labeled as archaic humans.