Egyptian Mummified DNA Shows Ancestry Akin to the Middle East

[megas30]

[QUOTE=JimRaynor;18161168]

I haven't watched the video, so I cannot accurately comment on her responses, or the energy of the room.

Then you are just as guilty as her

I'd need to see some links of evidence to support this claim, and not links that date back to around WWII.

Here is a link. If you read the entire thing. They are qualifying their conclusion in the event they were to be exposed. They were found to have racial specimens up until the 1990s when they claimed to have destroyed them.

https://ce399eugenics.wordpress.com/...lanck-society/

Revisionist history

You are a passive-aggressive personality. One minute you don't care what colour Egypt was, but then you flatly deny a black Egypt.

Ok that's fair, they took what they discovered and the tests came back positive for prominently middle eastern DNA.

No, they had those samples from 90 years ago. They are experimenting on old samples taken from a specific spot.

I don't recall anything being said about Ethiopians in the study.

Obvious you saw the title and get wet. I should stop here, because if you never had read the study, why are you defending it?

You were making the claim that Egypt was over ran and intermixed during its New Kingdom period, which was incorrect. New Kingdom had long ended before Egypt began being successfully invaded.

Yes, it was. Many times in history. You listed it yourself as well.

Ok you listed off exactly what I listed off, all of these invasions happened after the new Kingdom.



From the year 1300-700 there were no "caucasoid" invasions. I don't know why you keep thinking that the foreign soldiers remained in Egypt to impregnate their women. It doesn't work like that.

It is to point out to you that invasions happened exactly within the span of the new kingdom. Sorry, you didn't grasped that.

I don't think it was a conspiracy, they just worked with what they had.

They themselves pointed out that experiment may be bias depends on the conclusion you want to draw. For example, if you want draw a conclusion about race of the ancient you need a more comprehensive study. However, the study on gene continuation during the invasion period made a broad claim on the native population since Kemet's inception.

This is ridiculous, and something that only black afrocentrists believe. No serious scholar or white person believes white people founded Egypt. White people mark the beginning of their civilization with Greece, which came into existence well after Egypt.

You cannot appeal to ignorance here, my friend. Wasn't there a study that said King Tut shared DNA with 50% of Europeans? Wasn't there some sensationalism that Ramses had red hair and was Irish?

Can't call it a fact when Native Egyptians themselves dispute that claim.

Who are these native Egyptians?

America and Egypt are two very different scenarios. You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no record indicating that Egyptians ever saw a mass immigration into their land voluntarily or from war conquests. And that's because their land aside from the Nile region is pretty much desert and undesirable for habitation.


Maybe Roman and Greek small military posts spent 600 years in Egypt collecting taxes and tribute, not their whole population. Referring to my previous point Egypt is not and was not some desirable land to remain in, it is mostly desert with majority of folks residing in the sliver of land by the Nile River.

Read what Cambridge had to say about the dispersement.

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept...tualkemet/faq/

In that article 400k foreign children were fathered over a span of 45 years in Germany. Germanys general population is 80 million, was roughly 70 million post WWII. That means on average 9,000 kids per year were fathered by occupants, or roughly 0.005% of Germanys total native population. Wouldn't even consider this a dent on Germany's populations general DNA.

World war didn't last for 45 years. The two wars together amount to about 10 years give and take. I am starting to suspect you only read titles.

But let's use your argument. European nations conquered and colonized most of Africa for hundreds of years, how many of those countries look even remotely white, aside from South Africa which had apartheid.

Two different scenario. And let's not start with embellishment. Europe started colonizing Africa in the 19th century. They didn't want to stay there, so they set up a system of government, used locals to oversee their operation and had a few representatives who travelled back and forth. The quality of like there was poor compared to Europe. Kemet was a different situation at the time, it was the beacon of the ancient world like America is today of the modern world. Life was better in Egypt for the invaders and their families.

The conclusion wasnt that the DNA was European, the conclusion was that Egyptians had more in common with Middle Easterners (who are not considered white/caucosoid) than they did sub hara Africa.

It said "Eastern Mediterranean Europeans". However, from racial taxonomy we already know mediterranean are considered "caucasoids".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race

I don't know where you're getting that whites consider Arab their brethren? Europe still hasn't accepted Turkey as European even though people of Turkey historically had a lot in common with Europeans, from trade to the wars they fought dating back all the way to Troy. Arabs are Arabs, Europeans are Europeans, that's that.

This is a straw man argument, as i never said they consider them their brethren, but rather that Arabs and mediterranean are considered a stock of the caucasian race.

Im yet to find a white person who believes he had something to do with Egypt. I expect the only European DNA that'd be found in Egypt would be from the royalty/nobility but even then I'd expect it to be a small fraction.

No, they just felt the caucasian race did.

[JimRaynor]

Here is a link. If you read the entire thing. They are qualifying their conclusion in the event they were to be exposed. They were found to have racial specimens up until the 1990s when they claimed to have destroyed them.

https://ce399eugenics.wordpress.com/...lanck-society/

I ask you for an article that doesn't focus on WWII, so you provide an article that focuses mostly on WWII. Whatever was preserved up until the 1990's doesn't automatically discredit a genetic study done in 2017. You're reaching hard as every to try and deny the overwhelming middle eastern connection of Ancient Egyptians.

You are a passive-aggressive personality. One minute you don't care what colour Egypt was, but then you flatly deny a black Egypt.

I don't care what color they were, that doesn't mean I am just going to go along with your or any other afrocentrist's presentation of what and who the Egyptians were.

No, they had those samples from 90 years ago. They are experimenting on old samples taken from a specific spot.

Obvious you saw the title and get wet. I should stop here, because if you never had read the study, why are you defending it?

I read the study, and the study said that Ancient Egyptians share more DNA with Middle Easterners than Sub Haran Africans.

It is to point out to you that invasions happened exactly within the span of the new kingdom. Sorry, you didn't grasped that.

The New Kingdom ended at 700BC, the invasions began at 671BC. I think you're the one that has the problem grasping historical dates.

They themselves pointed out that experiment may be bias depends on the conclusion you want to draw. For example, if you want draw a conclusion about race of the ancient you need a more comprehensive study. However, the study on gene continuation during the invasion period made a broad claim on the native population since Kemet's inception.

That's fine, there might be some bias, but its a start and tells us that mummies tested were related to middle eastern DNA.

You cannot appeal to ignorance here, my friend. Wasn't there a study that said King Tut shared DNA with 50% of Europeans? Wasn't there some sensationalism that Ramses had red hair and was Irish?

Im not sure but I believe that study was debunked, unlike the one I posted.

Who are these native Egyptians?

People living in Egypt, I'm sorry in the Arab Republic of Egypt today.

Read what Cambridge had to say about the dispersement.

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept...tualkemet/faq/

Interesting read.

World war didn't last for 45 years. The two wars together amount to about 10 years give and take. I am starting to suspect you only read titles.

From your link

German-language book whose title translates as "Bastards, the children of occupation in Germany after 1945" found that at least 300,000 children were fathered by occupying Soviet Red Army soldiers."

I think it's you who just reads the titles. Germany was partitioned into 4 parts, those births happened with the men stationed in Germany over the whole duration of the Cold War, which contributed to about .005% of the total population

Two different scenario. And let's not start with embellishment. Europe started colonizing Africa in the 19th century. They didn't want to stay there, so they set up a system of government, used locals to oversee their operation and had a few representatives who travelled back and forth. The quality of like there was poor compared to Europe. Kemet was a different situation at the time, it was the beacon of the ancient world like America is today of the modern world. Life was better in Egypt for the invaders and their families.

No, exactly the same scenario happened, because it happened virtually everywhere throughout history. Egypt was just as much of a colony of Rome or Greece as Morocco was of France. By the time Egypt was conquered it long seized to be the influential power it once was. They had a nice library, and Ceasar visited from time to time to bang Cleopatra, but that's about it. No one was looking to live in those desert lands. It doesn't even make sense on a common sense level. Why would say the Romans who ruled the known world, want to live in Egypt and not Rome.

It said "Eastern Mediterranean Europeans". However, from racial taxonomy we already know mediterranean are considered "caucasoids".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race


This is a straw man argument, as i never said they consider them their brethren, but rather that Arabs and mediterranean are considered a stock of the caucasian race.

You're making **** up, North Africans are Mediterranean but no one considers them European. Neither does anyone consider Middle Easterners European.

Definition of
Caucasian: "a white person; a person of European origin."

[devildg]

Remember when white people tried to say they were "here first"? Because a reconstructed skull looked "European"...lol



Kennowick Man was proven to be Native American:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ial-180958947/


i put this nonsense in the same category, modern people trying to "claim" ancient people LOL

[megas30]

I ask you for an article that doesn't focus on WWII, so you provide an article that focuses mostly on WWII. Whatever was preserved up until the 1990's doesn't automatically discredit a genetic study done in 2017. You're reaching hard as every to try and deny the overwhelming middle eastern connection of Ancient Egyptians.

Why disqualified WWII? The article is to show you why people are skeptical of the universities involved not to discredit them.

Again, straw man argument, because i didn't denied a middle Eastern connection, but rather pointed out the builders of the civilization was black africans. As any civilization, there will always be new comers.

I don't care what color they were, that doesn't mean I am just going to go along with your or any other afrocentrist's presentation of what and who the Egyptians were.

I read the study, and the study said that Ancient Egyptians share more DNA with Middle Easterners than Sub Haran Africans.

Yes, but it also said the modern Egyptian shares more DNA with Subsaharan than the Ancient ones do. This is a problem and they admitted it by first stating all the test samples came from one site and that the only comparative model was a sample size of 100 Ethiopians DNA.

The New Kingdom ended at 700BC, the invasions began at 671BC. I think you're the one that has the problem grasping historical dates.

So, if not for invasion and conquest, what exactly did the Hyskos (palestinians) do in 16th Century B.C....took out a lease for 108 years? What did the Assyrians and Persians do? The same? Moreover, the samples they tested go all the way to 5th century A.D. You need to honest in your representation of the facts.

That's fine, there might be some bias, but its a start and tells us that mummies tested were related to middle eastern DNA.

Of course, you will find samples that cluster with Middle Easterners and other Horners, but the issue lies with the conclusion that "Ancient Egyptians" were middle Easterners when you know you have limited and selective samples.

Im not sure but I believe that study was debunked, unlike the one I posted.

Not sure what you are talking about.

People living in Egypt, I'm sorry in the Arab Republic of Egypt today.

Sorry, but it is well noted the Arabs came in 622 A.D

Interesting read.

I am sure it was/

From your link

German-language book whose title translates as "Bastards, the children of occupation in Germany after 1945" found that at least 300,000 children were fathered by occupying Soviet Red Army soldiers."

You claim the kids were over a "45 year" occupation period. Allied forces didn't occupied Germany that long. The occupation ended 1952. I will provide a link below.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/107189.htm

You missed the point, because the point was to show you that within that short span of time, 400, 000 kids were produced. Imagine hundredth of years?

I think it's you who just reads the titles. Germany was partitioned into 4 parts, those births happened with the men stationed in Germany over the whole duration of the Cold War, which contributed to about .005% of the total population

Now that i provided you with the link, this piece above is irrelevant, but i won't erase you writings.

No, exactly the same scenario happened, because it happened virtually everywhere throughout history. Egypt was just as much of a colony of Rome or Greece as Morocco was of France. By the time Egypt was conquered it long seized to be the influential power it once was. They had a nice library, and Ceasar visited from time to time to bang Cleopatra, but that's about it. No one was looking to live in those desert lands. It doesn't even make sense on a common sense level. Why would say the Romans who ruled the known world, want to live in Egypt and not Rome.

The Cambridge link i provided speak of the exact opposite but you claimed it to be an "interesting read", then came with this opinion piece?

You're making **** up, North Africans are Mediterranean but no one considers them European. Neither does anyone consider Middle Easterners European.

Strawman alert. I never said they were Europeans, i specifically stated in racial taxonomy, they were classified as "caucasoid".

Making **** up? Of course you would say this, because you don't read the links i provided. Anyway, Look what you have written above. I provided you links and you side step them or just read the title, then accuse me of making stuff up. Weren't you the one using Mary lefkowitz work when she admitted to her failure and shortcomings and that the Egyptians were black africans?

Definition of
Caucasian: "a white person; a person of European origin.

Historically, there are three racial classifications, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mangoloid, sometimes, four, if you put in Australoid. These were based on cranial features. People of the mediterranean stock were classified as Caucasoid. Even today, America still classify them as caucasians on it census.


I have provide you with a link. Please scroll down and look under the white category, and you will see North Africa and The Middle East.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/...OD-15-089.html

[JimRaynor]

Why disqualified WWII? The article is to show you why people are skeptical of the universities involved not to discredit them.

Again, straw man argument, because i didn't denied a middle Eastern connection, but rather pointed out the builders of the civilization was black africans. As any civilization, there will always be new comers.

I don't care what color they were, that doesn't mean I am just going to go along with your or any other afrocentrist's presentation of what and who the Egyptians were.




Yes, but it also said the modern Egyptian shares more DNA with Subsaharan than the Ancient ones do. This is a problem and they admitted it by first stating all the test samples came from one site and that the only comparative model was a sample size of 100 Ethiopians DNA.




So, if not for invasion and conquest, what exactly did the Hyskos (palestinians) do in 16th Century B.C....took out a lease for 108 years? What did the Assyrians and Persians do? The same? Moreover, the samples they tested go all the way to 5th century A.D. You need to honest in your representation of the facts.

Of course, you will find samples that cluster with Middle Easterners and other Horners, but the issue lies with the conclusion that "Ancient Egyptians" were middle Easterners when you know you have limited and selective samples.

You're looking to discredit the results of the study, but there is no discrediting it. Perhaps if more mummies are found and more tests are done different results will appear. As for now the mummies tested from 1300BC to yes 400AD, show what they show.

Sorry, but it is well noted the Arabs came in 622 A.D

Yeah, and they did little to integrate themselves.


"To the mass of inhabitants, the conquest must have made little practical difference, because the Muslim rulers, in the beginning at least, left them alone as long as they paid their taxes; if anything, their lot may have been slightly easier, because Byzantine religious persecution had ended. (See Melchite, monophysite, Council of Chalcedon.) Moreover, the Arabs deliberately isolated themselves from the native population, according to ʿUmar’s decree that no Arab could own land outside the Arabian Peninsula; this policy aimed at preventing the Arab tribal armies from dispersing and at ensuring a steady revenue from agriculture, on the assumption that the former landowners would make better farmers than would the Arab nomads."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Egy...nquest-to-1250

You claim the kids were over a "45 year" occupation period. Allied forces didn't occupied Germany that long. The occupation ended 1952. I will provide a link below.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/107189.htm

You missed the point, because the point was to show you that within that short span of time, 400, 000 kids were produced. Imagine hundredth of years?

Ok first you said these 400k births happened during the war and that was incorrect, article stated they happened after. Now you still haven't even bothered to read either of your own articles where it states that the Soviet occupation of Germany, which did last until the late 1980's resulted in 300K of those 400K children. Allied forces left in 1952, Soviets remained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

But lets amuse ourselves and say that all the 400K children were born from 1945-1952. So that would mean that's 400K foreign children born every 7 years, if that rate continued for 100 years, that means roughly 5 million children would've been produced, to go along with Germany's already much larger native growing population. In other words even after 100 years at the rate of 57,000 foreign born children per year, the total would still only equal to about 5% of the total German population. Not to mention these kids would be half German, who would later marry full Germans, and eventually extinguish the foreign DNA anyways.

Now that i provided you with the link, this piece above is irrelevant, but i won't erase you writings.



The Cambridge link i provided speak of the exact opposite but you claimed it to be an "interesting read", then came with this opinion piece?

What more do you want me to say, its an interesting article with a heavy bias. The question "Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same groups of people who live Egypt today?" Was asked twice, which in imo signals an agenda. I also don't have the interviewees name or qualification.

You provided one link, from a very liberal institution. Here are links claiming the opposite.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.0a198cf4ad05

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoB...onceptions.pdf

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/wer...tists-now-know

Strawman alert. I never said they were Europeans, i specifically stated in racial taxonomy, they were classified as "caucasoid".

They had "caucasoid" features? Some Mexicans have East Asian features, but they aren't East Asian. And I don't think anyone would attribute Chinese accomplishments to Mexicans or vice versa because they share certain features.

I reiterate, no real scholar considers Arabs to be European, even if they do have certain Caucasoid features.

Making **** up? Of course you would say this, because you don't read the links i provided. Anyway, Look what you have written above. I provided you links and you side step them or just read the title, then accuse me of making stuff up. Weren't you the one using Mary lefkowitz work when she admitted to her failure and shortcomings and that the Egyptians were black africans?

Correction, you don't read the links you provide. You provided one link in which you claimed 400k babies were born during the second World War, the link explicitly states they were born after the War. Then you provided another link in which you tried to claim that the 400k babies were born during the Allied occupancy of Germany from 1945 to 1952, which was also incorrect since 300K of those babies were born from Soviet occupation and the Soviets remained in Germany until the 1980's.

Historically, there are three racial classifications, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mangoloid, sometimes, four, if you put in Australoid. These were based on cranial features. People of the mediterranean stock were classified as Caucasoid. Even today, America still classify them as caucasians on it census.
I have provide you with a link. Please scroll down and look under the white category, and you will see North Africa and The Middle East.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/...OD-15-089.html

Yeah America classifies Arabs and Latinos as white, but white to me and any historical scholar refers to Europe. And since we are discussing history, we should stick to that terminology dont you think.

[Chollo Vista]

And this is a first hand look on how white Europeans re-write history

[megas30]

You're looking to discredit the results of the study, but there is no discrediting it. Perhaps if more mummies are found and more tests are done different results will appear. As for now the mummies tested from 1300BC to yes 400AD, show what they show.

No, i said on Egyptsearch, the people with experience in genetic research are skeptical because of the history of the university.

Yeah, and they did little to integrate themselves.


"To the mass of inhabitants, the conquest must have made little practical difference, because the Muslim rulers, in the beginning at least, left them alone as long as they paid their taxes; if anything, their lot may have been slightly easier, because Byzantine religious persecution had ended. (See Melchite, monophysite, Council of Chalcedon.) Moreover, the Arabs deliberately isolated themselves from the native population, according to ʿUmar’s decree that no Arab could own land outside the Arabian Peninsula; this policy aimed at preventing the Arab tribal armies from dispersing and at ensuring a steady revenue from agriculture, on the assumption that the former landowners would make better farmers than would the Arab nomads."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Egy...nquest-to-1250

Then explained why today Egypt is a muslim country?

Ok first you said these 400k births happened during the war and that was incorrect, article stated they happened after. Now you still haven't even bothered to read either of your own articles where it states that the Soviet occupation of Germany, which did last until the late 1980's resulted in 300K of those 400K children. Allied forces left in 1952, Soviets remained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

I never said that. I specially state during the occupation.

But lets amuse ourselves and say that all the 400K children were born from 1945-1952. So that would mean that's 400K foreign children born every 7 years, if that rate continued for 100 years, that means roughly 5 million children would've been produced, to go along with Germany's already much larger native growing population. In other words even after 100 years at the rate of 57,000 foreign born children per year, the total would still only equal to about 5% of the total German population. Not to mention these kids would be half German, who would later marry full Germans, and eventually extinguish the foreign DNA anyways.

This is faulty logic. What about interbreeding? What about the subsequent invasions by different groups and their sojournment?

What more do you want me to say, its an interesting article with a heavy bias. The question "Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same groups of people who live Egypt today?" Was asked twice, which in imo signals an agenda. I also don't have the interviewees name or qualification.

This ancient Kemet army from the new Kingdom. Do you see any caucasoid?

You provided one link, from a very liberal institution. Here are links claiming the opposite.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.0a198cf4ad05

Here is a pic of Ramses ii attacking the semites---your Middle Easterners: Notice the complexion difference?

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoB...onceptions.pdf

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/wer...tists-now-know

They had "caucasoid" features? Some Mexicans have East Asian features, but they aren't East Asian. And I don't think anyone would attribute Chinese accomplishments to Mexicans or vice versa because they share certain features.

I reiterate, no real scholar considers Arabs to be European, even if they do have certain Caucasoid features.

I guess the bold means you will determine their classification based on what suits your narrative? Also, please stop trying to change your argument. Your argument was that nobody considered Middle Easterners white and i gave you an example. I even gave you a link that shows that America still consider them white, even today. You bore me with your dishonest reasoning.

Correction, you don't read the links you provide. You provided one link in which you claimed 400k babies were born during the second World War, the link explicitly states they were born after the War. Then you provided another link in which you tried to claim that the 400k babies were born during the Allied occupancy of Germany from 1945 to 1952, which was also incorrect since 300K of those babies were born from Soviet occupation and the Soviets remained in Germany until the 1980's.

Again, stop being dishonest, for i specially stated it happen during the occupation period, but carry-on.

Yeah America classifies Arabs and Latinos as white, but white to me and any historical scholar refers to Europe. And since we are discussing history, we should stick to that terminology dont you think.

But, you said no one considers Middle Easterners white/caucasian and i proved you wrong. Why can't you admit to being wrong rather than creating new argument? No, we are not sticking to what suits your narrative. Your argument was predicated on middle easterners not being classified as caucasian. So, admit you were wrong.

[Fists_of_Fury]

Who the hell considers an Arab to be white!? They are far from white. Afrocentrics... smh We wuz kangz and sheeit supposedly .

[Fists_of_Fury]

Enslaved themselves but seem to only blame whitey for buying them. Can't enunciate and use Ebonics. All major black populated cities are crime ridden and/or are turning to ****. Black IQ scores globally are below the mental ******ation level. Black run countries are almost all 3rd world ****holes today. But we're suppose to believe there were black scholars that taught the world. That a black ran nation was the pinnacle of civilization during a certain time? I mean come on... what have they really given to the world that's made it a better place. Does anyone besides an afrocentric believe all this kangz and scholar sheeit?

[Chollo Vista]

Who the hell considers an Arab to be white!? They are far from white. Afrocentrics... smh We wuz kangz and sheeit supposedly .

Enslaved themselves but seem to only blame whitey for buying them. Can't enunciate and use Ebonics. All major black populated cities are crime ridden and/or are turning to ****. Black IQ scores globally are below the mental ******ation level. Black run countries are almost all 3rd world ****holes today. But we're suppose to believe there were black scholars that taught the world. That a black ran nation was the pinnacle of civilization during a certain time? I mean come on... what have they really given to the world that's made it a better place. Does anyone besides an afrocentric believe all this kangz and scholar sheeit?

Sheer clownery