Was King Tut Black or Arabic?

Prince Cairo

Authentic
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
3,353
Reputation
1,095
Daps
9,643
Reppin
Cairo, Egypt
These data all purport that King Tut shared more in common with inland Africans than with others. Not contrary to what I said earlier, and their definition of African in am anthropological context is far more accurate than saying "black."

You can interpret data how you wish, especially a single study, but my point still stands.

Don't know why you all are leading me to say he was European either lol. Never once did I say that.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,512
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
goddamn it you beat me to it..


Hehehe....

But anyways. Most Eurocentric's try to deny the DNA Tribes and DNAConsulant results of King Tut and his family. Oblivious to them, both of those companies were not responsible for finding the STR's. Again to clarify, Hawass et al were the ones who actually obtained the STR values from the mummies. All DNA Tribes and DNAConsulant did was run this data through their software to determine population affinity. So they can't say anything.

But it gets worse. To put salt on their wounds.

J3xVHCg.png

Source:
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR... [Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Many of the STRs used in this study are the same ones that tied ancient Egyptians to sub-Saharan Africans in the DNA Tribes analysis.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,411
Reputation
15,449
Daps
246,373
These data all purport that King Tut shared more in common with inland Africans than with others. Not contrary to what I said earlier, and their definition of African in am anthropological context is far more accurate than saying "black."

You can interpret data how you wish, especially a single study, but my point still stands.

Don't know why you all are leading me to say he was European either lol. Never once did I say that.

Are you going to define Black or no?
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,512
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
These data all purport that King Tut shared more in common with inland Africans than with others. Not contrary to what I said earlier, and their definition of African in am anthropological context is far more accurate than saying "black."

You can interpret data how you wish, especially a single study, but my point still stands.

Don't know why you all are leading me to say he was European either lol. Never once did I say that.

Okay I don't get your stance or argument. But first off no one is interpreting those studies we see fit, we're SHOWING you what they mean.

IIRC you said the Ancient Egyptians/King Tut were distinct from other Africans. I posted studies saying the opposite. My argument is that the Ancient Egyptians were related to SURROUNDING Africans of the Nile Valley than Eurasians(which includes Europeans, Middle Easterns, Asians,etc). No one mentioned "Europeans" or "black". Or at least I didn't.

If you agree with the studies posted then you agree that the AE were genetically related to other Africans?
 

Im Kemet Rocky & I like penis

googling gay porn :ahh:
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
325
Reputation
-230
Daps
11,005
Reppin
gaygangbangs.com
These data all purport that King Tut shared more in common with inland Africans than with others. Not contrary to what I said earlier, and their definition of African in am anthropological context is far more accurate than saying "black."

You can interpret data how you wish, especially a single study, but my point still stands.

Don't know why you all are leading me to say he was European either lol. Never once did I say that.
lol what point..

all you said was that king tut and the ancient egyptians werent black..

no sources for your claim to be backed up whatsoever..
 

Prince Cairo

Authentic
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
3,353
Reputation
1,095
Daps
9,643
Reppin
Cairo, Egypt
he cant..

unless he defines black as an american social construct..
Nope, wrong again, but nice try.

I said black and African are not mutually inclusive, meaning you can be black and not African, or African and not black. A little confused why this is a difficult concept for you two.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,411
Reputation
15,449
Daps
246,373
Nope, wrong again, but nice try.

I said black and African are not mutually inclusive, meaning you can be black and not African, or African and not black. A little confused why this is a difficult concept for you two.

I don't think its possible to be INDIGENOUSLY African and not be Black, but yes, Black isn't just synonymous with Africa.

Now explain how an African be genetically indigenous to Africa and not be Black.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,512
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
Nope, wrong again, but nice try.

I said black and African are not mutually inclusive, meaning you can be black and not African, or African and not black. A little confused why this is a difficult concept for you two.

I actually agree with the bolded.

Yes you can be African and not black social wise. But in genetics/anthropology I disagree because of this:
"Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them."(S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
 

Prince Cairo

Authentic
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
3,353
Reputation
1,095
Daps
9,643
Reppin
Cairo, Egypt
Okay I don't get your stance or argument. But first off no one is interpreting those studies we see fit, we're SHOWING you what they mean.

IIRC you said the Ancient Egyptians/King Tut were distinct from other Africans. I posted studies saying the opposite. My argument is that the Ancient Egyptians were related to SURROUNDING Africans of the Nile Valley than Eurasians(which includes Europeans, Middle Easterns, Asians,etc). No one mentioned "Europeans" or "black". Or at least I didn't.

If you agree with the studies posted then you agree that the AE were genetically related to other Africans?

The word back is used in the title, that's why I brought it up. As far as African, I already agreed with you on this point and in fact a little earlier said it was "self-obvious" if you recall.
 
Top