Ramses II

Not sure how that's possible. There are breaks between the different dynasties and dynastic periods, and additionally there's probably adoptive relationships along the way.

I'm interested to hear more- Ramses II was E-M2 haplo- same as mine

Vous pouvez trouver ce rapport de 27 pages datant de 2001 sur le site :
erwan.gil.free.fr>freepages.pharaons>ramsesII Pdf
Merci de me donner votre avis sur cette légitimité.

Hi everyone, I have uploaded the PDF to the Descents from Antiquity project page- a quick glance over the document reveals there are a few N.N. entries, but I think there may be some things that can be worked with. Let me know what you all think!

I should also mention that this document connects St. Arnulf of Metz to Antiochus II Theos, so there should be some diligent reductio ad absurdum to prove whether this is a reputable document or not.

On page 13/14 I'm seeing "next" and "follows".

What should this be interpreted as? Tiridat[es] II was the father of Khusraw / Khosrov II so I'm not sure why that vocabulary is used rather than just "father of:" like in the rest.

Each one will need to be checked; some of those could be successors in office, not descendants of.

All of these ancient people who had enough offspring are basicly ancestors to "all" of us living now. Pure mathematics. I have had Ramses as my GG "here" several times, but as we check the lines, corrections has to be made and cut the line, when there are no real accurate source. So even if he would be an ancestor, there are no proven real line with accepted sources.

2017 new evidence came that turned old DNA studies upside down.

Many of the mummies were blonde and redheads and actually more connected to europeans, ofcourse there were Nubian Kingdom but that is different story. Modern Egyptians, by comparison, share much more DNA with sub-Saharan populations.

Egypt is very interesting. Ramses were also a redhead like me. Very same kind of silky hair like my fathers when he was older. There are many pictures of Ramses available.

"Previous DNA analysis of mummies has been treated with a necessary dose of skepticism, explains professor Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute.

"When you touch a bone, you probably leave more DNA on the bone than is inside (it)," he argued. "Contamination is a big issue. ... Only in the last five or six years has it become possible to actually study DNA from ancient humans, because we can now show whether DNA is ancient or not by (its) chemical properties."

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-g...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/ancient-egyp...

Ramses mummy: https://www.pinterest.cl/pin/828943875152870445/

I disagree with statement that "All of these ancient people who had enough offspring are basicly ancestors to "all" of us living now. Pure mathematics.".

In order to prove that everyone living now is descended from everyone who had "enough offspring" (whatever that means in pure mathematical terms) 10 thousand years ago, you must examine every existing settlement in the world and prove that it once in the last ten thousand years had someone not born there (but who was descended from "All of these ancient people who had enough offspring") entering the settlement and procreating so that eventually all residents were his or her descendants. Never mind the extremely high probability. If there is even a single current settlement - perhaps in outback Australia or the Amazon jungle - for which you cannot prove such an incomer, the statement fails. For most isolated settlements with no written or even complete oral history, such a proof is impossible.
A similar dismissal must be made of some people's claim that Charlemagne is an ancestor of every current resident of Europe. Maybe 99% of them, but it's impossible to be certain that all are his descendants. The claim would be clearly negated if, for example, a mere one pure-bred Australian Aboriginal were to be found in Europe.