U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2013, 02:12 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,507,518 times
Reputation: 6752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
More on the difficulty in analyzing ancient DNA:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...he-Mummy-Code/


Those of us who are researching our own recent ancestors with the aid of DNA realize that Y-DNA tells only a small part of the story. It reveals only the direct male line. That is why it was so exciting when autosomal DNA testing became affordable.

So even if the tests described in the OP are confirmed and the Y chromosomal haplogroup is E1b1a, that does not mean that the individuals tested do not have other lines in common with Europeans. The amount of DNA tested is only a tiny fraction of the total genome.

I am not sure what the OP is determined to prove. Were the Egyptians African? Well, yes, I believe by definition they were African, since Egypt is in Africa. Were they black? From their art, as seanturner has demonstrated, they were all shades from beige to blue black. It seems pretty clear what they looked like.

It appears, however, that there is sufficient concern about the technical aspects of testing DNA from embalmed ancient subjects stored in a hot environment that have been handled outside a sterile laboratory to say the genetics of the mummies studied so far are not conclusive. It does look like that technology is advancing rapidly enough that it should be more clear in the future.

I think it is reasonable to suspect that ancient Egyptians probably did look very much like modern Egyptians, as cachibatches' post notes.

Far more intriguing, I think, will be comparative DNA studies between the ancients and those modern Egyptians. Will we find descendants of the Pharaohs? I suspect so.
Why thank you. And fortunately, these tests between ancients and moderns have also been performed, and also show that SirShawn/Asante/Unbreakable is misrepresenting (I have put these studies before him in this forum and others, so he is definitely misrepresenting). The Dakleh Oasis mummies show that SUB SAHARAN DNA increases in Egyptians over time due to the Arab slave trade- not Eurasian as he would have you believe (the DNA input of a few thousand invaders per army per empire over the centuries being nothing compared to that of the addition of millions of slaves over sustained decades). It is not that the Egyptians have become more Caucasian...they have become more sub-Saharan.

The "black" pictures that he is showing you represent a tiny minority of what you (personally, from viewing experience) know to be true. Also, some of them are falsified (darkened, showing Nubians or modern reconstructions, or representing pharaoh in the symbolic blackness of a god, etc.). The bottom line is that we all know that most are North African- brown with Caucasian features, some with blonde or red hair and blue eyes. They were a mixed people.

Many of the pictuess of modern Egyptians that he is going to show you ( we have been down this road before) that look "black" are due to modern input.

mod cut

Last edited by Beretta; 10-24-2013 at 06:05 PM.. Reason: deleted copyright which was copied and pasted erroneously and not formatted correctly

 
Old 10-20-2013, 07:08 PM
 
219 posts, read 721,282 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanturner View Post
Okay, I see your argument. I’m not sure that there are many researchers these days who are intentionally covering up evidence supporting a black Egyptian origin or anything like that.
I don't think that you really understand how deep this gets..:





Quote:
I do agree that the OP has some reports that are not conclusive or don’t prove his viewpoint, like the sickle cell occurrence that is also found in Saudi people.
That is a different strain of sickle cell that originated either in India or EASTERN Saudi Arabia, which is considered "mild" in relation to the Benin sickle cell (West African). The ancient Egyptian mummies (including Tut) who were found to have Sickle Cell had the Benin sickle cell strain that was "severe" and what those researchers believe caused the death of King Tut:

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2776/overtimevd9.gif

As you can see the Benin sickle is even the strain that is seen in WESTERN Arabia (do you see the green arrow stemming from Chad into Arabia), just like all of Africa, the Levant and southern Europe. This is consistent with other forms of biological evidence proving a migration of Sub Saharan Africans into those regions in the more recent past. Do you understand now?

Quote:
With that said, the OP has shown that there are many legitimate researchers who’ve found that the Ancient Egyptian people, or at least some of them at some points in time,
The research that I've presented specially proves that the early ancient Egyptians were described as "Negroid" in morphology, and that a change occurred during later periods due to foreign migration from various populations along the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Quote:
But I have read research that shows a clear West Asian influence on Egyptian genetics and culture. And obviously many North Africans both today and in the past were lighter-skinned and not black.
Such as?

Quote:
What no one knows for certain is how much this admixture was for all Egyptians, or for all regions of Egypt.
That is false:

Quote:
"Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006).” -Irish 2009. Dental_affinities_of_the_C-group_inhabitants.. Ec Hi Rev

Common sense tells people this:



These men represent one of the last groups/tribes of Africans who remained in the Lower Nile Valley after foreign incursion. Notice that almost of these types of Africans are themselves somewhat isolated from the "invaders" (as he called them) in the north.

Quote:
Outside groups from Lower (northern) Egypt and related to people of southwest Asia later mixed with them and things changed.
No the original Lower Egyptians were NOT from "foreign" (non African). They were Sahara "refugees" who fled to the northern Nile Valley, while most of the others settled in the Sudan. As you see however in the first phase the were ALL clustered along the Sudan:

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...006%29_F3.jpeg

With their Saharan pastoralist culture these Africans established TA-SETI, which as you stated is the "mother" of Egypt. The F-ed thing about the discovery of Ta-Seti, was that the person who discovered, never announced his findings instead he TOOK IT TO HIS GRAVE! He did so because it was indisputable evidence that ancient Egypt was originally BLACK....THAT'S HOW DEEP IT THE **** GOES!

Quote:
But the early roots of Ancient Egypt is black African. Not West African, but the northeast African variety of people you see in northern Sudan (like Nubian and Beja peoples) and the Horn of Africa.
You're funny! I used to think like you about this subject. So scared to point out the huge snumber of overtly "Negroid" statues or even point out that the largest damn statue on Earth and in Egypt is of broad feature "Negroid" individual, because some of our white brothers might feel type of way and call you an "Afrocentric extremist":

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...vn4ebf370d.jpg

Now common sense....why would a peoples who looked vastly different from this in general MAKE THIS THE FACE OF THEIR CIVILIZATION....? Now you mentioned that there was no "conspiracy" to hide this fact. What if I told you that they have already conducted genetic studies on Old Kingdom mummies...EVEN DECADES AGO..but won't release those findings. What if I showed you some recent unreleased results...:

OK A-M13 L3f
Ok A-M13 L0a1
OK B-M150 L3d
OK E-M2 L3e5
OK E-M2 L2a1
OK E-M123 L5a1
OK E-M35 R0a
OK E-M41 L2a1
OK E-M41 L1b1a
OK E-M75 M1
OK E-M78 L4b
OK J-M267 L3i
OK R-M173 L2
OK T-M184 L0a


MK A-M13 L3x
MK E-M75 L2a1
MK E-M78 L3e5
MK E-M78 M1a
MK E-M96 L4a
MK E-V6 L3
MK B-M112 L0b

Y-DNA on the left and Mtdna on the right. Old Kingdom in the first section and Middle Kingdom in the second. I just got my results back from 23andme and I have 6 lineages that match me (E2 and L1b1a) which extremely rare first of all and spread across Sub Saharan Africa (with peaks in East Africa then West Africa). Notice that West/Central African markers makes up over a third of those samples.

Quote:
So no, nothing is debunked, not by far. But the OP has put forth evidence by legitimate researchers that Ancient Egyptians were at least partly black.
But didn't you just admit that the evidence proves that the ancient Egypt was originally black? What is it that you think that I am arguing?

Last edited by Beretta; 10-24-2013 at 06:07 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
 
Old 10-20-2013, 07:17 PM
 
219 posts, read 721,282 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mach234 View Post
all the ancient egyptian pharaohs were black.
Truthfully...they had to have some sort of "black blood" in order to carry the throne (if you will). The ancient Egyptians believed that the pharaoh descended from Osiris (their God), so anybody could not just take the title pharaoh they have to be legitimate heirs ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. This is why some people question the racial affinity of late dynastic pharaohs like Cleopatra. Then you have to take into consideration that Cleopatra's only direct relative (HER SISTER) that has been examined was proven to have been a MULATTO (mean she had native black blood). Make no mistake the Egyptian people did not like how the Greeks did things when they took over, but they would NOT have stood for a illegitimate pharaoh (remember the Hyksos). That royal Egyptian blood line started with this "big lipped, wide nosed, high cheek boned" black man:

http://www.aldokkan.com/egypt/menes.jpg

Last edited by Beretta; 10-24-2013 at 06:08 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
 
Old 10-20-2013, 08:21 PM
 
219 posts, read 721,282 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanturner View Post
I've seen that the DNAtribes report has some flaws, because it is argued that their results are just an interpretation on data, and that geneticists who used the same data have come up with different results.
Such as who? The only intra-population analysis of the Amarna period pharaohs was conducted by BOTH Dnatribes and DNAconsultant and found the same Central and Western African matches. For some strange reason some people just keep trying to ignore that another independent genetic company (DNAconsultant) VERIFIED the findings of DNAtribes.

Quote:
So it's not clear how accurate their conclusion on E1b1a and the STR markers is.
You see you don't know exactly what you're talking...the finding of E1b1a was an independent peer reviewed study conducted last year on Ramses III and his son. See the results of that study here:

Quote:
Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a.
DNAtribes does not even assign haplogroups in those analysis! They just took the data that became available with the peer reviewed study above and ran it through their database, the same way they did the Amarna pharaohs. They found that the different royal families had ties to different types of Sub Saharan Africans.

Quote:
but later on it’s shown that it may not represent the full picture, and to me it also doesn't make sense that DNATribes could conclude egyptians are less related to Northeast Africans from the Horn who live in their area, and more to far away southern Africans; so I take it with a grain of salt....
What is with this fixation of the Horn of Africa? Archaeological evidence is now supporting that their northward migration into Egypt (which predated the Saharan migration) was pretty much restricted along the Red Sea rather than the Nile Valley. This would explain the long presence that the Beja Nubians of northeastern Sudan and Southeastern Egypt in that particular area. The Egyptian language though considered Afro-Asiatic, has indisputable significant overlapping with Nilo-Saharan and yes even Niger Congo speakers who all once inhabited the ancient Sahara, before desertification.

Quote:
Obviously it’s clear some dynasties like the 18th and 12th had rulers that were black. And without a doubt the pre-dynastic Egyptians were related to black groups like the Nubians and Beja of Northern Sudan and the Horn.
Funny Funny Funny...here is a new DNA analysis of pre-dynastic Egypto-Nubians on the Nile Valley:

Quote:
Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples....Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
link

So why is Egypt and northern Sudan (or Sudan) no longer dominated by the Nilotic A-M13, but rather E1b1? They dominated during "STATE FORMATION" or the pre-dynastic period. Where did those people go? Did they die out? No, like the OTHER TRIBES, they migrated away from the lower Nile Valley. Where is this haplogroup most prominent today?..IN SOUTH SUDAN and the "GREAT LAKES" along the UPPER NILE. These Nilotic people NOT SURPRISINGLY also have a culture that is identical to Pre-Dynastic Egyptian and Nubian culture:



Quote:
[SIZE=2]"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant." [/SIZE][SIZE=2]-(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )[/SIZE]
As you've even agreed upon, early southern Egyptian people and culture was nothing more than than a slightly northward migration from the northern Sudan to southern Egypt. There begins pre-dynastic "Egyptian" culture. Maria Gatto of Yale just recently reaffirmed this as fact:


Quote:
Conclusion
To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
link

Quote:
But not resembling West Africans, but with features resembling northern Nubians.
So far I've counted 3 "racial comparison" portraits (or table of nations) of the ancient Egyptians. The one that you site is often the most cited by Eurocentrics. The second most cited portrait shows 5 skin tones (rather than 4) and the Egyptian in that portrait is the second darkest. The last one however is also NEVER cited, but is an authentic representation of the ancient Egyptians compared to other peoples including black Africans:

http://manuampim.com/Images/Lepsius_4Groups.jpg

That's right and hieroglyphics read that the man on the far left is the representation of the "typical" ancient Egyptian. The third man is your "general" African folks. This is just as authentic as yours and genetic evidence supports this more than your implications.

Quote:
The fact that Ancient Egyptians portrayed generally themselves as darker than Nubians (the pitch-black picture of the Nubians, to me is of the more southern type I showed above,
Funny Funny Funny...so do tell who are these people below?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_wedding.jpg

They claim to be modern Nubians in Sudan, but they certainly don't look like these ancient northern Sudanese Nubians as depicted by the ancient Egyptians:

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.fil...an-tribute.jpg

These Nubians look more like modern day Nilotes in South Sudan:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eta,_Sudan.jpg

These people in South Sudan appear to be much "darker" than most Sub Saharan Africans, like these Zulu warriors below:

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/...Warriors-2.jpg

Who have the same skin tone and features as these ancient Egyptians soldiers:

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/...ynsoldiers.jpg

The ironic thing is that the Zulu in their oral tradition say THAT THEY CAME FROM ANCIENT EGYPT (look it up). And where exactly was the closest match for the Amarna pharaohs in total:

http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/...ankhamun-1.jpg

THAT'S RIGHT ZULU LAND BUDDY...southern Africa! The closest matches to Tut are South Africans, Great Lake Africans and West Africans above all else. Now this is RAW DNA....and it completely over turns the implications of subjective artwork. Problem with relying on that type of artwork for this inference is that Egyptology is a very sneaky field...Just about figurine and statue with big lips and wide noses are disfigured, while those who don't have broad features ARE NOT! There is no telling how many statues have been outright destroyed....there are documented instances of statues and portraits being repainted at a lighter skin tone and or using a chemicals that will lighten the color of the paint used on those portraits. Relying on "hair" samples are not that accurate either, as it has been scientifically proven that the chemicals used to embalm those individuals altered their hair color and texture (i.e blond mummies and the straightened hair of Tiye which is contrary to hair many portraits with black and proud Afros).

Now there is nothing wrong with being "cautious" as you are, but don't let these racist haters try to cheat you or any of us out of our history because of their own jealously, disbelief, or envy!

Last edited by Beretta; 10-24-2013 at 06:10 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
 
Old 10-20-2013, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,396 posts, read 28,226,906 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Now there is nothing wrong with being "cautious" as you are, but don't let these racist haters try to cheat you or any of us out of our history because of their own jealously, disbelief, or envy!
Why on earth would anyone want to "cheat" another person out of his "history"?

The genetic origins of the Egyptians are what they are. The technology may not yet be good enough to work out the details, but it's getting there.

If you personally are related to the ancient Egyptians, I am happy for you! That would be neat!

Just like the teacher who discovered he was related to "Cheddar Man."

The family link that reaches back 300 generations to a Cheddar cave - News - The Independent

By the way, there is no such thing as a "strain of sickle cell."
 
Old 10-20-2013, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,458,635 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Why on earth would anyone want to "cheat" another person out of his "history"?
Look no further than American history. A great example would be African Americans not being able to trace their ancestry to a specific country of origin.
 
Old 10-20-2013, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,396 posts, read 28,226,906 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Look no further than American history. A great example would be African Americans not being able to trace their ancestry to a specific country of origin.
My DNA says I am close to 100% European and I have ancestors I cannot trace to a specific country of origin, either.

The majority of adoptees do not even know where their parents came from.

Keep in mind that in the time frame in which Africans were brought as slaves to the Americas, the modern countries did not exist:

Africa between the 15th and 17th century

So what you are looking for is more of a region and perhaps a tribal affiliation than a "country."

See here:

Why Are So Many of Us Descended From West Africa? African Ancestry Blog

So American descendants of African slaves can look at the list of origins and have about as good an idea of their geographical origins as I can of some of my Europeans.

DNA testing will allow many people to discover their deeper ancestry, even if not the names of the actual individuals in their family trees, and perhaps even connect with living people in Africa to whom they are actually related by blood. That, however, will mean that modern Africans have to participate in testing, and it may be some time before that is financially feasible.

Why would anyone begrudge a person the opportunity to find those connections?
 
Old 10-21-2013, 12:55 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,507,518 times
Reputation: 6752
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
I don't think that you really understand how deep this gets..:





That is a different strain of sickle cell that originated either in India or EASTERN Saudi Arabia, which is considered "mild" in relation to the Benin sickle cell (West African). The ancient Egyptian mummies (including Tut) who were found to have Sickle Cell had the Benin sickle cell strain that was "severe" and what those researchers believe caused the death of King Tut:



As you can see the Benin sickle is even the strain that is seen in WESTERN Arabia (do you see the green arrow stemming from Chad into Arabia), just like all of Africa, the Levant and southern Europe. This is consistent with other forms of biological evidence proving a migration of Sub Saharan Africans into those regions in the more recent past. Do you understand now?

The research that I've presented specially proves that the early ancient Egyptians were described as "Negroid" in morphology, and that a change occurred during later periods due to foreign migration from various populations along the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Such as?

That is false:


Common sense tells people this:



These men represent one of the last groups/tribes of Africans who remained in the Lower Nile Valley after foreign incursion. Notice that almost of these types of Africans are themselves somewhat isolated from the "invaders" (as he called them) in the north.

No the original Lower Egyptians were NOT from "foreign" (non African). They were Sahara "refugees" who fled to the northern Nile Valley, while most of the others settled in the Sudan. As you see however in the first phase the were ALL clustered along the Sudan:



With their Saharan pastoralist culture these Africans established TA-SETI, which as you stated is the "mother" of Egypt. The F-ed thing about the discovery of Ta-Seti, was that the person who discovered, never announced his findings instead he TOOK IT TO HIS GRAVE! He did so because it was indisputable evidence that ancient Egypt was originally BLACK....THAT'S HOW DEEP IT THE **** GOES!

You're funny! I used to think like you about this subject. So scared to point out the huge snumber of overtly "Negroid" statues or even point out that the largest damn statue on Earth and in Egypt is of broad feature "Negroid" individual, because some of our white brothers might feel type of way and call you an "Afrocentric extremist":



Now common sense....why would a peoples who looked vastly different from this in general MAKE THIS THE FACE OF THEIR CIVILIZATION....? Now you mentioned that there was no "conspiracy" to hide this fact. What if I told you that they have already conducted genetic studies on Old Kingdom mummies...EVEN DECADES AGO..but won't release those findings. What if I showed you some recent unreleased results...:

OK A-M13 L3f
Ok A-M13 L0a1
OK B-M150 L3d
OK E-M2 L3e5
OK E-M2 L2a1
OK E-M123 L5a1
OK E-M35 R0a
OK E-M41 L2a1
OK E-M41 L1b1a
OK E-M75 M1
OK E-M78 L4b
OK J-M267 L3i
OK R-M173 L2
OK T-M184 L0a


MK A-M13 L3x
MK E-M75 L2a1
MK E-M78 L3e5
MK E-M78 M1a
MK E-M96 L4a
MK E-V6 L3
MK B-M112 L0b

Y-DNA on the left and Mtdna on the right. Old Kingdom in the first section and Middle Kingdom in the second. I just got my results back from 23andme and I have 6 lineages that match me (E2 and L1b1a) which extremely rare first of all and spread across Sub Saharan Africa (with peaks in East Africa then West Africa). Notice that West/Central African markers makes up over a third of those samples.

But didn't you just admit that the evidence proves that the ancient Egypt was originally black? What is it that you think that I am arguing?
Unbreakable- you are completely ignoring the fact that the DNA tribes evidence that this thread is based on had been completely debunked. POST 34. Please acknowledge.

Also, please acknowledge that I have shown real mummy studies that show sub-sahran DNA increasing over time with the Arab slave trade.

Also, you are running those phony baloney haplogroups from the biodiversity forum which were never linked to anything. Are you going to source them now, or are they just going to linger out there as a wish list?

Bauval and Van Sertima are cranks.

Arsinoe was not "proven" to be a mulatto, one crackpot anthropologist who was working off of measurements from a long lost skull that MIGHT HAVE BEEN Arsinoe, who MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE Cleopatra's full sister said that the skull measurements seem "A bit African." Thus far, no one has agreed with her, even if it was Arsinoe's measurements and Arsinoe is Cleopatra's full sister. We have accurate portraits of Cleo from her coins, and she had the hook nose so prominent in Macedonians that the Greeks had a word for it.

The picture that you have posted of Narmer is an Afrocentric distortion.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...W5wjGkY72vgYsd

The skeletal length evidence is nonsense, since Egyptians still have longer than European lengths are not "black" today. Keita agrees with me as I have shown. There is no reason for them to be anything other than the same people that they are today. Indeed, this is well known:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz50_nx8UDg

Do you have any other "evidence?"

Last edited by Beretta; 10-24-2013 at 06:13 PM..
 
Old 10-23-2013, 12:36 AM
 
219 posts, read 721,282 times
Reputation: 153
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top