Recent advances in genetics studies have shown that there was no sub-saharan genes until the Islamic invasion in the 700's. Now there is around 8 percent sub-saharan genes.
None whatsoever? That's difficult to believe, since the Nubians conquered and ruled Egypt from 747 - 646 BC. Surely there must've been some mixing. Another thing that makes me wonder are the statues of Ramses II, they depict him with a round face and flared nostrils, like a subsaharan, yet we know that this isn't the case. It makes me think that the Egyptian commoners were more subsaharan looking, but were secretly ruled by Middle Easterners. This wouldn't have been too difficult to pull off back then.
I was surprised as well, but the article stated that even the researchers were surprised, as well, with so many conquering armies coming and going. But that was their findings. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html
The dna report is limited. If you believe a civilization on the continent of Africa had no native influence (dna or culturally) then I have Unicorn Meat to sell to you:
SURPRISING SCIENCE (source)
"published in the journal Nature Communications. The influx of sub-Saharan genes only occurred within the last 1,500 years. This could be attributed to the trans-Saharan slave trade or just from regular, long distance trade between the two regions. Improved mobility on the Nile during this period increased trade with the interior, researchers claim." https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci...-Saharan,with the interior, researchers claim.
I'm not talking about those portraits. I'm talking about the latest genome studies.@ topic yes, those people depicted were not Ancient Egyptians. Those are Fayum Protraits. Those are Roman peoples indeed.
Fayum mummy portraits - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Only a clown would believe anything that wyt people say especially when they can easily do thing and change things to fit their own narrative. I remember watching wyt people scrub pictures in Egypt of BLK ppl lighting their skin to makes them look wyt. Again only a clown would believe these lies.
Ramses III dna results indicate E1b1a Ydna. There are Africans with his phenotype. Not every African has a wide nose, sir. You do know that right? Lol. And for the record Africans (the natives) lived in North Africa while it was tropical and they still live there post desertification.Whatever those portraits depict, the ancient Egyptian rulers were certainly not subsaharan. We know because we have the mummies. Take Ramses II, here's his mummy along with some computer reconstructions. Now I'm not saying that the Egyptians had no subsaharan DNA, as mummies were not commoners. We only know what the Egyptian rulers looked like. Ramses II and his son definitely look like they came from north of Egypt somewhere, as so do most of the mummies we've discovered.
This is the same information found in the previous link you posted. I literally posted a quote from the source himself who stated that their findings are incomplete. You can try but the artifacts indicate a direct relationship with the interior of the continent.
Apparently we are supposed to believe Eurocentric humans in 2023 and not what the ancient Egyptians left behind depicting themselves to look like. Africans today still have practices and even traditional wear almost identical to those of the ancient Nile Valley civilizations but we are to believe there is no relationship.
I rest my case. I don't listen to anyone who is wyt. They are known liars.
The dna was taking from one site and consisted 90 mummies. I don't believe all the mummies, by a long shot, were royalty. What they found was fact the other point is conjecture with the operative words like "maybe" and "possibly". Time will tell, but it's more than likely the results will be very similar, all over Egypt, From the pre-6th century, of course. Also other dna studies on bodies of workers have shown they were not slaves but laborers with the same dna.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram