posted
^ But Obama matching those groups says NOTHING ABOUT HIS RECENT ANCESTRY. Him matching those groups is OF NO USE TO HIM. Nor it it no use to YOU if you were working out some scenario regarding migration but USING Those results! You have to understand the groups can have VERY LITTLE TO NO RECENT relation to each other......so the test in this case is "Who is as mixed as me."
San Oromo Moroccans and Egyptians Jordanians and Bedouins
Have NOTHING to do with the recent Ancestry of Dominicans, Colombians, Puerto Ricans!
I was explaining DNA Tribes when they said this:
quote: For people with mixed ancestry, DNA matches can also identify populations where similar mixes have taken place.
I was then explaining this in the context of these mummies. Looking at results pointing at North Africans, Horners and khoisan are of LITTLE VALUE and actually misleading when you are hypothesizing the makeup of Columbians, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. These populations are not even made up of the SAME type of Admixtures. You seem to think for whatever reason that these Mummies did not have "Mixed" Ancestry.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And look at how wildly disparate the listed populations are among each other, with very little difference in distance to the tested individual. They're all roughly equidistant to that person (0.73-0.71). There is also zero ability to estimate admixture percentages. This is to be blamed squarely on the fact that its low resolution. The amount of STR alleles are not very discriminative so for their algorithm to really discern useful relationships, the STRs need to be increased way up until a certain threshold is reached and the algorithm is able to give you highly instructive data like Tishkoff (who used >1300 STRs + indels). Sikora et al say this threshold is at ~1000 for their battery of SNPs. The threshold may be somewhat higher or lower for STRs, depending on if the used STRs are more or less discriminative than the SNPs used by Sikora et al.
quote:Studies of large sets of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data have proven to be a powerful tool in the analysis of the genetic structure of human populations. In this work, we analyze genotyping data for 2841 SNPs in 12 sub-Saharan African populations, including a previously unsampled region of southeastern Africa (Mozambique). We show that robust results in a world-wide perspective can be obtained when analyzing only 1000 SNPs. Our main results both confirm the results of previous studies, and show new and interesting features in sub-Saharan African genetic complexity. There is a strong differentiation of Nilo-Saharans, much beyond what would be expected by geography. Hunter- gatherer populations (Khoisan and Pygmies) show a clear distinctiveness with very intrinsic Pygmy (and not only Khoisan) genetic features. Populations of the West Africa present an unexpected similarity among them, possibly the result of a population expansion. Finally, we find a strong differentiation of the southeastern Bantu population from Mozambique, which suggests an assimilation of a pre-Bantu substrate by Bantu speakers in the region
Going back to DNA Tribes Amarna study, you can see that the continent-wide higher matches in Africa represent peaks of shared generic African ancestry (likely due to less outside influences in the regions with the higher peaks), not that the regions high on the list have more non-generic (i.e. specific) ancestry in common with the Egyptians than regions that are lower on the list. In other words, almost every African population has individuals with mtDNA L3 (shared generic ancestry) but not every population has individuals with mtDNA L3e2a1b1 (highly specific). Just like the difference between mtDNA L3 and mtDNA L3e2a1b1 lies in resolution, the difference between what DNA Tribes does with their STR tests vs what Tishkoff 2009 did lies in resolution. It's a world of difference and it doesn't make sense to say that low resolution relationships are "a good thing".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ But Obama matching those groups says NOTHING ABOUT HIS RECENT ANCESTRY.
Granted. Those particular groups tell us about his ancient shared ancestry. The overall list by DNA Tribes of matching populations (and/or matching native populations), not only restricted to those groups, will tells us about **both*** recent and ancient ancestry.
Which is something good, since it represent a true picture of our full genome. Not only restricted to the period between lets say 1000 and 1900, but also by periods predating (and postdating like in America) that period. So periods like when Niger-Kordofanian speakers, for example, was only one population speaking one language called (proto) Niger-Kordofanian. Other periods, may be when Igbo and Yoruba formed only one populations and spoke one language, etc. Or even further back when Africans spoke only one Kongo-Saharan/Niger-Saharan or even before one Negro-Egyptian language.
quote: Him matching those groups is OF NO USE TO HIM. Nor it it no use to YOU if you were working out some scenario regarding migration but USING Those results! You have to understand the groups can have VERY LITTLE TO NO RECENT relation to each other......so the test in this case is "Who is as mixed as me."
Yes, the list of matching populations given by DNA Tribes after you perform a test with them , will show you among other things a list of populations which have about the same (possibly very ancient) admixture as yourself. But if you check the list, toward the top, it will also show you native populations like the Yoruba, Dinka, Kongo, etc which is what we are usually looking for. Usually, African-Americans due to their "unknowing" admixture between (at the very least) African ethnic groups since their arrival in America will show up as a mix of African native populations (as well as populations which have the same admixture as you). Some African-American also have some Native and European genes at low level.
quote:
San Oromo Moroccans and Egyptians Jordanians and Bedouins
Have NOTHING to do with the recent Ancestry of Dominicans, Colombians, Puerto Ricans!
You must look at the top of the list to see the native populations which you share most ("private") STR with. You show me a list that is between the 33th and 54th populations match. Which tend to show you, among other things, more ancient STR matches. If you check the list between 1 and 33, you will see African native populations (as well as diasporic populations and possibly populations with the same admixture as you). Since people taking the test usually don't care much about diasporic populations and similar admixed populations, people usually concentrate on native African populations on the list and mentally discard the other diasporic/admixed populations on the top of the list (well, some people may find that interesting too).
In general, when DNA Tribes does an analysis of with 27-STR markers. Some of the 27 markers:
1)Will act as a form of private alleles. Absent or rare in other populations. For example, some Yoruba private STR alleles, share by few populations beside the Yoruba. Those will help pinpoint which native ethnic groups composition you have.
2) Other STR alleles among the 27 markers, will relate to admixture within Africa which **predate** the differentiation of the current modern ethnic group such as Yoruba, Zulu, Dogon, Wolof, Somali but postdate the main Out of Africa migration (OOA). So alleles that are distinct to Africa but are rare or absent on other continent. We could find some alleles common to Niger-Kordofanian speakers for example (or even before that like the Negro-Egyptian family of Obenga, or after that like the Benue-Congo language sub-family of the Niger-Kordofanian family ).
3)Some of the STR alleles among the 27 markers, will relate to STR alleles that existed among all human before the main OOA migration and drifted and admixed at different level across time. So those alleles can even possibly match Natives Americans even if you're African, as well as other disparate populations on earth. Those are STR alleles common to all humans with different level of drift and frequency between different modern human populations.
So out of the 27 STR markers used to analyze the DNA of a person. Some appeared and spread at different times in human history. Some combination of private alleles and non-private are very frequent among certain populations but rare among others. Private alleles tend to have bigger "weight" when performing a calculation because of the gross difference between the proportion of those alleles in different populations. A population like Yoruba can have 20% of certain private alleles, but Eurasian, 0.001%. A proportion which increase the MLI scores toward the Yoruba in a big manner. Some alleles can be "private" to a larger groups like all Niger-Kordofanian speakers, or all African people (compared to other populations). Those alleles, for example, may indeed have first appeared when Niger-Kordofanian speakers were only one population, at one location, speaking one common language called proto-Niger-Kordofanian.
quote:I was then explaining this in the context of these mummies. Looking at results pointing at North Africans, Horners and khoisan are of LITTLE VALUE and actually misleading when you are hypothesizing the makeup of Columbians, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. These populations are not even made up of the SAME type of Admixtures.
It's probably the same type of admixture but from more ancient times. Before 1000 and 1900 BC. More ancient STR alleles than when Yoruba, for example, first started to separate and differentiate from other Niger-Kordofanian speakers. Alleles that very ancient African populations could have shared with other humans (or even before, when all humans lived in Africa. So alleles shared between all humans, but which drifted at different level depending on the populations).
quote: You seem to think for whatever reason that these Mummies did not have "Mixed" Ancestry.
*I* don't think these mummies did not have mixed ancestry? You must have misunderstood me. I strongly believe that, it's pretty clear that it's true with the aDNA analysis thus far. My first post on this thread is talking about confirming the theory that Ancient Egyptians were composed of many different African lineages and ethnic groups who settled along the Nile during the dessication of the Sahara . Unified under one state by Narmer. So I also strongly believe that Ancient Egyptians (and their mummies) are composed by an admixture of many different African populations and lineages.
Let's not forget what DNA Tribes said about the results of Ancient Egyptians mummies: Here's a passage from the DNA Tribes study about the 20th Dynasty royal mummies:
quote:Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.
So the alleles possessed by mummies while common among African people are rare or absent in other populations like Eurasian. So it makes those mummies distinctively like a admixture of African people with little foreign elements. It's an admixture of African people before the Yoruba, Wolof, Dogon, Tibu, Fur and multiple other sub-ethnic groups existed (but after Eurasians left Africa during the main OOA migration).
This graph comparing all the world regions in the world must be analyzed in comparison.
The only way this Euclidean distance tree make sense is when you compare the distance between African populations and then between other populations like Eurasian. The distance between African populations is much smaller than between those population and Eurasian. This relatively closeness of African people and the relative small distance between African people (labelled Sub-Saharan Africans in the image) and Eurasian, explain why the Ancient Egyptian mummies matches sub-Saharan populations more than anything.
So at the end of it, it doesn't matter which African population it matches most among and within the 4 main groups (Great Lakes, Sahelians,etc). Because all those 4 African genetic (autosomal STR) family are very close to each others. Which is evident for people who knows a bit about the history of African people marked by series of multiple migrations, interrelationship and admixtures in different directions and at different level throughout history.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's talk more about the genetic unity of African people (including Ancient Egyptians of course). Scholars like Diop, have made a great strides in showing us the cultural unity of African people (including Ancient Egypt). In the above post, I also show the genetic unity of African people using the World regions genetic tree based on Euclidean distance produced by DNA Tribes using autosomal STR data.
In that example, I used DNA Tribes STR data because it's the same data that show that Ancient Egyptians mummies aDNA (autosomal STR) are very close to so called Sub-Saharan African people (which could be called Sub-Coastal Africans imo) and far from other populations like other North Africans, Europeens, Eurasians, Native Americans, etc.
But many other genetic studies, also show the same thing.
For example consider those genetic distance/structure tree, and graph.
The graph, and the study, says it all but I can spell it out.
A graph: Here we have a neighbor-joining tree based on genetic distances using SNPs of various populations on earth. It's a bit similar to the DNA tribe genetic tree above.
We can see again that African people are genetically close and cluster with each others by comparing distance between the African group with other populations such North Europeans, etc. The map is on scale of course.
It's also interesting to note that people like Yoruba (YRI), Dogon, Nguni Bantu, even !Kung/Pygmy clusters with each others and clusters with "great lakes" population like the Alur.
So the Alur, mentioned in other posts above by Swenet and Beyoku, cluster with other African populations like Yoruba, Dogon, Bambaran and are relatively genetically very close to each others.
So we can see both phenomena. The structuring/differentiation of Yoruba, Alur, etc into distinct genetic groups, as well as the genetic closeness between those African ethnic groups measured by the genetic distance.
B graph: Here we have a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on the pairwise allele-sharing distances among all pairs of 850 individuals. Again we see that African individuals from Yoruba, Dogon, Pygmy, Alur and Luhya cluster with each others, are relatively genetically close to each other. So again, Alur individuals (labelled Great Lakes in one DNA tribes SNP study) are very genetically close to Yoruba and Bantu individuals for example.
C graph: Here we see the structuring and clustering of populations based on Admixture. This graph doesn't show information about the genetic distance, but we can see at K=4, that African people are close enough to form a distinct brown colored would-be ancestral populations clusters. At K=14, we can see structuring and differentiation among African populations, but there's no information about genetic distance from this graph presentation. Which is not a problem since we have such information in graph A and B.
Here's from another study, another genetic distance tree: I didn't analyze it, but I think it's based on SNPs too. It's on scale of course. Again we can see that African populations such as Yoruba, Bantu, Mandenka, Mbuti, San, etc are genetically close to each others. We can also note that Mozabite populations don't cluster much with other African people despite having some African genes (haplotype). They seem to be "mid" way between Africans and non-Africans. So it takes a lot and deep admixture to cluster with one another. Which is clear by observing relative genetic distances between populations.
So again, this show that the African history is a history of interrelationship among many African populations and lineages.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to mention that the graphs above, and other similar graphs in genetic literature, analyze genetic distance between populations, not between individuals within a population. That is the frequencies of different alleles are compared between populations (pop A have 15% of this specific allele, pop B only have 0.5%). It should be called *population* genetic distance. This is perfectly appropriate for the subject of this thread because we usually want to know to which modern populations Ancient Egyptians were closer. For example, we want to know if Ancient Egyptians were genetically closer to African people or European people or West Asian people. That is we want to know if Ancient Egyptians *are* Africans. So for example, if a sample of Ancient Egyptians mummies got the allele D21S11=35 at the frequency of 15% (or just got it for an individual mummy) and African people got it at the frequency of 10% while other populations only got it at between 0% or 0.01%, then obviously for this allele, Ancient Egyptians are closer to African people. One allele is usually not enough to analyze population genetic distance and proximity, we usually use more than one allele. DNA Tribes for example, used 27 STR markers (maybe approx: 27*20=540 alleles.). For those curious, since its unrelated to Ancient Egyptians origin or adna analysis, some studies say there's as much genetic differences between individuals from different populations that within a population. Although usually, with enough genetic information like SNPs we can correctly classify individuals within the correct population with a good level of probability. It's always a good idea to bring things into perspective. Humans are genetically very close to one another. Only 0.3% of SNPs are said to exist between humans in the whole genome (3 billion base pair). Also SNPs tend to be of higher frequency (density) in non-functional part of the genome. SNPs are mutations which are possessed by at least 1% of the population by definition. Since we're all born with between 60-100 new mutations each according to the latest studies about it (the exact number has no importance here). That is mutations not possessed by our parents. Although our parents did transmit part of their 60-100 new mutations, which are thus only restricted to the family, that is the individual parent and its children (and their own children later on). Personally, on the philosophical level, I like the idea that we're all mutants, or said more cleanly, that we all have genes/allele which are unique to us. This bring forward the idea of individuality and diversity. We are all (genetically) unique, not just a combination of our parents DNA, while at the same time related to all the other humans by shared DNA (shared ancestry).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my reply to this post was deleted at the same time of other posts on this site (and in this thread), so I will answer it again.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's cringing to still have to post this 2 years after the fact, but to know the amount of West, South and East African ancestry the sampled individuals from the 18th and 19th dynasty had, you need to see how many endemic haplotypes from each of these respective regions Egyptians had. The only thing these MLI scores show is the haplotypes West, South, East African and Ancient Egyptian regions have in common. There is big a difference due to the classic dilemma of whether population affinity between two given populations is due to 1) common ancestors or 2) gene-flow. Egyptians will not have haplotype contributions from African populations in the order described by DNA Tribes' MLI table, because these haplotypes clearly transcend individual African populations; they're ubiquitous in Africa. Don't take my word for it, this is what DNA Tribes keeps saying in their marketing materials. Anyone who has read these reports and/or has been around during the numerous discussions about what these results mean, and who still thinks at this point that the MLI scores mean that the Ancient Egyptians had more contributions from, say, a Zulu-like population than a Masai-like population, is definitely wilfully reaching at this point.
Frankly, I don't care about those things. Usually we just want to know if Ancient Egyptians were African people or not. Or said in another way, if Ancient Egyptians were genetically much closer to Africans than any other populations on earth like Europeans, West Asians, other North Africans, Native Americans, etc.
The aDNA analysis of Ancient Egyptian mummies thus far (Ramses III=E-M2/E1b1a, DNA Tribes/JAMA, DNA Tribes/BMJ, Beyoku's preview study) show that Ancient Egyptians were indeed Africans. They were genetically closer to African people more than any other populations on earth. They also possess African A, B and E haplotypes (according to Beyoku's preview of the study).
As I said above in this thread. Most of the shared origin between African people (including Ancient Egyptians) probably predates the formation of Ancient Egypt. We know that the genetic origin of most modern African people is somewhere in Eastern Africa (much after the common origin of all humans of course). For example, all E-P2 descendants like E-M2 and E-M215 carriers have their origin somewhere around East Africa (Sudan, Ethiopia, Southern Egypt, etc). Maybe the same thing could be said about many modern A and B carriers. Also, most modern African language groups also have their common origin in the same Eastern African regions. That is Niger-Kordofanian speakers, Nilo-Saharans, Khoisan and Cushitic/Chadic speakers. So both the linguistic and the genetic origin of modern African people can be found in Eastern Africa (same could be said about the origin of many other religious and cultural traits like headrests, divine kingship, etc, which can be found all over Africa). So during the Green Sahara period, which precedes the birth of Ancient Egypt, many African groups and lineages spread to the Sahara, developing the wavy-line pottery civilizations which extended from the Atlantic coast to Eastern Africa in the region now occupied by the Sahara desert and the Sahel. We can note than the oldest pottery found in Africa, was found in Mali. Pottery which later spread to the central Sahara and then to Eastern Africa (like Nabta Playa, Khartoum, etc). The wavy-line pottery culture of the Green Sahara is the culture from which Ancient Egyptians come from. This is where, imo, we can see the common origin of African people (in East Africa and the Green Sahara). So after the Green Sahara period, during the dessication of the Sahara, African groups later spread to other part of Africa in search of greener pasture, including West Africa, Oases, along the Nile (meeting and admixing with other people with whom they most of the time already shared a common genetic and linguistic origin somewhere in Eastern Africa and with whom they had continuous relations during the Green Sahara/Wavy-line pottery culture period). It is much later than West African people then spread to other part of Africa through the Bantu migration. So African location like West Africa and Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes were sparsely populated in the Green Sahara and Ancient Egyptian formation time. For example, we know that the greater part of modern South African ancestry was acquired much later than the Ancient Egyptian state formation during the Bantu migration. A Bantu migration which probably started in West Africa around the Nigeria and Cameroon border to, among other way, move toward the Great Lakes then toward Southern Africa. So I don't know if people can see clearly the constant interrelationship between African people. Niger-Kordofanian languages (including Bantu and Yoruba), Nilo Saharan and Khoisan languages, thus people, have their common origin in Eastern Africa. And then they met and admixed again during the Green Sahara period and then again during the Bantu migration which eventually reached the Great Lakes and Southern African regions. So, imo, most of the shared ancestry between modern African people and Ancient Egyptians predates the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state and in fact also predates the evolution of most modern African ethnic groups such Yoruba, Dogon, Wolof, Bantu, Nuer, Dinka, Khoisan, etc.
So this common origin of modern African people, much after the common origin of all humans, as well as subsequent interrelationships and admixtures between those same modern African people is the reason why Africans, including Ancient Egyptians, are relatively genetically close to each others compared to other population on earth. Africans share the same (high) diversity of genes.
So ultimately it doesn't matter, if for example, DNA Tribes find closer match with Great Lakes Africans and Southern Africans than lets say Sahelian Africans or Tropical West Africans. Because most of those groups and African people in general, are relatively genetically close to each others. Something we can see (again) in the genetic distance graphs I posted above.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I question how the results of the DNA findings are being misconstrued into stating that the Egyptians consisted of many ethnic groups or that these groups came from all over the continent. Haplogroups are NOT the same as ethnicities especially since many of these haplogroups predate the very linguistic groups one speaks of. Actual ethnic or cultural group can only be gleaned from archaeology and linguistics, specifically the former when it comes to predynastic times.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's a basic (low resolution) Y-DNA phylogenetic tree:
It's always good too keep that in mind when discussing haplogroups. At higher resolution you could see for example the F haplogroup further splitting into I, J, R, K haplogroups etc. Same for A, B and E haplogroups.
And again I question the exact split or division between 'African' and 'Out-of-African'. DNA Findings on African popultions in rural parts of the continent now cast doubts onto the simplistic theory that there were populations who just left Africa and diverged with no contact with their relatives who remained in Africa. The fact that there are Y lineages like F* in Sudan, K* in Kenya, T in Ethiopia, and R1* Cameroon shows that this is simply not the case and that there must have been migrations back-and-forth as to have maintained continuity between Africa and Eurasia at least up to a certain point.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ There's both cultural/historical and genetic unity among African people (including Ancient Egyptians). It's obvious.
You can see it in the DNA Tribes tree and other studies I posted above:
For example, you can see the Alur are relatively genetically close to other Africans while Mozabite are kind of in mid-way between Africans and non-Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
The NJ tree is on scale of course. Clearly we can see that African people are very close genetically to each other when you observe autosomal recombinant genes. I explained a bit why HERE in this thread. For example, in this genetic distance tree we can see that the Fulani are much more closer to other African populations than Europeans or Middle Easterners. We can also see the "Great Lakes" Bulala clustering with other African people.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's talk about more on the genetic closeness of African populations, true for other populations too like Europeans, East Asians and Native Americans. And try to explain why.
The great majority of Africans are E-P2(PN2) carriers. This what I call the common origin of most modern African people (somewhere in Eastern Africa). This common origin, obviously postdate (by a lot) the common origin of all humans. And postdate the main OOA migration (PN2s weren't part of the main OOA migration). If you consider that most modern African language phyla are also said to have originated in Eastern Africa, we can postulate that most downstream A and B haplogroups also originate in the same approximate location in Eastern Africa than their modern language family.
This bring me to the second point, to explain why most African populations are relatively genetically close to each other: extensive mixing. Again this extensive mixing, admixture, between various African populations at various point in history is another reason why most African populations are genetically close.
The third point explaining why most African populations are relatively genetically close to each other (in relation to other population) is because of the bottleneck effect when non-African left Africa during the main OOA migration. Reducing their gene diversity (with no extensive admixture with the group that stayed in Africa for many millennium), thus increasing their genetic distance.
So those 3 aspects, 1)Common Origin 2)Extensive Admixture 3)Bottleneck Effect during the main OOA (and the Bering Strait for Native Americans) explain why most African populations are relatively genetically close to each other.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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
posted
Beyoku made another post at forumbiodiversity where he said he has "learned they are in the process of publishing a new study on 18th Dynasty mtDNA". Hopefully this one doesn't get closed and deleted. And hopefully this study gets published for real this time.
quote:I have been in personal communication with an individual that published the last few articles with Hawass. This would include the 18th dynasty paper with JAMA as well as the BMJ article detailing Ramesses III's E1b1a lineage.
I have learned they are in the process of publishing a new study on 18th Dynasty mtDNA. This will include Tut's and possibly other members of the 18th dynasty. This was also detailed in the latest book from Zahi Hawass. It could be a total of 4 or 5 lineages depending on who is related to who. The paper may or may not contain Y-chomosome data.
[..]
There was a previous thread but at this point does anyone hypothesize what these lineages could be. Based on their own research, based on the frequency of mtDNA in Egypt and surrounding areas....or whatever reason. For simplicity I will keep a poll very limited. L= L0-L7. M= Mostly M1 but includes asian M's if that suits your fancy. N= Most Eurasian diversity.
I posted there and not here for a specific reason. If I dont post here why copy and paste my post from a different forum on here??? The most active person right now on this board (Lioness) is actually a TROLL....all yall "active users" should pretty much be ashamed.
Everyone on this board has access to the same material and the "same internet" and we post probably 20-30 articles for every new article that is posted here. This board is for the most part inactive....or active by the same members posting the same quotes over and over without the new analysis which includes updated information and data.
Everyday its just rehashing old stuff and beating a dead horse. Egyptsearch users are like anchors and this site is like a shoe. Its no moving anywhere. Even when you jack the post and put it here you dont even answer the question and contribute your hypothesis to the board?! Anyone could have contacted that researcher the same way we did. Nobody on the site has the will.
I dont own the internet....but If I choose not to post here I ask that you please respect my wishes. If folks want to to see that thread and are looking for a forum with more activity and moderation maybe they should join that one?
Maybe Egyptsearch should collectively get together and update Wikipedia articles on Egyptology, African studies and DNA? Collection of known fact seems to be the current forte of the site. Maybe this is something we can ALL contribute to?
Otherwise this site is DEAD. It is decomposing and the only thing we see now is maggots, ants and beetles scavenging off its corpse.
BTW Dont get mad.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another, he " said" piece of information. But, yeah, the site is dying.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote: 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
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.
I posted there and not here for a specific reason. If I dont post here why copy and paste my post from a different forum on here???
I understand you don't like this site, but I felt it was appropriate for this thread. I gave you authorship and posted a link to the forumbiodiversity thread. Since you indeed do not own the internet, I intent to copy paste whatever I like and find relevant to the subject of Ancient Egypt. Hopefully, you won't come here to see it next time.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't ever said I didn't like the site. I dont like the fact that the user base is passive to the point with the resident troll post more data than they do......COMBINED!
The Africana web community....the stuff that we talk about is actually not that large.....it is noticeable that a few individuals do a lot of the legwork and other folks just take and dont contribute anything of value.
@xyyman - Have you ever thought to reach out to these geneticists and ask them anything about anything? Try it sometime and discuss the correspondence here. Email the folks who's data you are waiting on.....maybe, just maybe you will get a response.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
go join beyoku on Forum Biodoversity a website owned by a white supremacist who calls himself "Reality Reality" and his white supremacist moderator "Crimson Guard"
this bitch beyoku chooses to post there rather than Egyptsearch Reloaded owned by a black dude. this bitch is so passive he left Egyptsearch to piggyback on Nazis
fvck that shyt
beyoku the next time I see you on the street I'm putting my foot up your ass, black power
posted
L....all yall "active users" should pretty much be ashamed. Sure "lioness" is trolling to build up post counts and maintain forum traffic, but several old time veterans who complain about trolls, are themselves replying to some of her posts.
posting the same quotes over and over without the new analysis which includes updated information and data.
Agreed that the forum has gone downhill and how over-weighted towards nonsense threads, albino "mutants" and troll accounts "replying" to themselves. Such has always been around from the early days of ES. And in reputed glory days, and even recently, there were the harsh, nasty, ugly, flame wars between old line established members, who could have better spent energy elsewhere.
But actually there is still a fair amount of new material posted here- from DNA tribes, to xyzman's roundup of new studies, to my own postings on mimicry re Neanderthal DNA, the long history of decrue or floodplain agriculture in Africa, to the new info TrollPatrol posts here ever so often. Even alTakuri/Tukler is on here replying to "lioness" with valid detail, and she herself" occasionally posts items of interest. The VOLUME of old users is not here as in the past and don't post as often, including myself. But that doesn't mean new info is not appearing here from time to time.
Its no moving anywhere. Even when you [AmunRa] jack the post and put it here you dont even answer the question and contribute your hypothesis to the board?! Anyone could have contacted that researcher the same way we did. Nobody on the site has the will.
I would have liked to see value added to the material jacked over. Copying such material is not a bad thing in itself. Bloggers do it all the time, though with attribution.
Also agreed its not moving anywhere, but then again, the more pristine Nilevalley-php, died its own death too. On there, only "serious" people posted. OK, well where are they all now? There was much lament that you cant get people to post on "serious" topics, but ironically, even the several "serious" people who had the numbers to keep it going, abandoned it. They themselves pulled out.
Furthermore there is a definite place for rehash and repeat. In fact it is a significant slice of of getting a more balanced picture of African bio-history- for 5 reasons:
1--the information is not as widely spread as it should be to the common man. It is all well and good to do the ivory tower thing, but on the street, too often, people have not moved beyond George James circa 1957, or Count Volney 1700 something, or Herodotus,, etc or have as their only reference, the sometimes skewed National Geographic. There is a crying need for clear exposition and concise summarization. If anything, there needs to be MORE repetition, and more ground level distribution of the data in terms the layman can understand.
2--This is even more imperative considering the deep networks of "HBD" and "biodiversity" types on the web distorting and falsifying the bio-history of Africa and Africans. Bass for years maintained a lonely outpost on Anthroscape confronting such people. They have been forced to concede several points, and their bogus claims of past years are now more muted but fundamentally they have not changed- and are busily distorting new studies to fit their old agendas. The only ay to counter their continual propaganda stream is to expand the base of data and keep recapping and repeating.
3- And repetition actually yields even more dividends. On the web, people like Morpheus, Djehuti, Bass, Slugger and others under various pseudonyms, have been rehashing and repeating extensively in forum after forum, and have contributed mightily to spreading data that would have remained buried in obscurity in "serious" forums only frequented by "serious" people.
4- Recap and Repetition has a quite salutary effect, in that new users can be exposed to up to date material, and get educated more quickly. This is exactly what is happening around the web, Which is why you find the data now not only well represented in Google, but appearing on sites from Nigeria to Thailand.
5- Finally the base of information on hand is not static, and never was. It is continualy being expanded and revised. The new DNATribes info for example is now part of the landscape. If things were "static" this would never have been the case. In fact new info is being brought to light monthly. Who says nothing is updated, as new data is assimilated by users?
Maybe Egyptsearch should collectively get together and update Wikipedia articles on Egyptology, African studies and DNA? Collection of known fact seems to be the current forte of the site. Maybe this is something we can ALL contribute to?
^^In a perfect world such a scenario would be nice. The reality is that Wikipedia is heavily infested with people who do not want a more balanced picture of African bio-history, and who, with Admin collaboration, either inadvertently or by design, work continuously to actively remove or distort the scholarship in the field. Where are all the "serious" people when a well documented good faith edit is sandbagged and blocked? Too often, nowhere to be found. That being said it is always good to foster more collaboration among users.
A very viable option is to create an alternative network to Wikipedia. This now substantially exists- there is a full database accurately cited for the most part. A web of sites- Egyptsearch, Reloaded, several independent blogs, Facebook pages, Youtube videos, plus the occasional hard-hitting forays in various web forums by Morpheus, Slugger, Djehuti etc. Taken together, this package offers much better coverage than Wikipedia, with excellent representation in Google, and info that is often MORE accurate and up to date. The information now being distorted or edited out on Wiki gets full representation. It is also mirrored several places, unable to be destroyed. So Wikipedia is nothing special to be rushing to. It plays a part, and of course, people from here, do use it and contribute to it- but it is nothing special anymore.
Otherwise this site is DEAD. It is decomposing and the only thing we see now is maggots, ants and beetles scavenging off its corpse.
Sure in part, which is why I myself am not on here as much as in the old days, for the volume of info and quality users has decreased. But it still has a role to play as noted above, as part of an open source network that end-runs Wikipedia and assorted "biodiversity" distorters.
lioness said: go join beyoku on Forum Biodoversity a website owned by a white supremacist who calls himself "Reality Reality" and his white supremacist moderator "Crimson Guard"
.. black power
lioness productions 2014
lol.. black power? sounds like you down with the "peeps".. So you are saying this Forum Biodiversity is an "HBD" supremacist/racialist site?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did communicate with one famous geneticist. She was willing to send published but hard to find papers. But was reluctant to discuss ongoing work...which is understandable.
I pried and she became very guarded. That was the end of that.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I haven't ever said I didn't like the site. I dont like the fact that the user base is passive to the point with the resident troll post more data than they do......COMBINED!
The Africana web community....the stuff that we talk about is actually not that large.....it is noticeable that a few individuals do a lot of the legwork and other folks just take and dont contribute anything of value.
@xyyman - Have you ever thought to reach out to these geneticists and ask them anything about anything? Try it sometime and discuss the correspondence here. Email the folks who's data you are waiting on.....maybe, just maybe you will get a response.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
lol.. black power? sounds like you down with the "peeps".. So you are saying this Forum Biodiversity is an "HBD" supremacist/racialist site?
of course my brotha, Forum Biodiversity is about HBD, not catfish not tree biodiversity or hamster biodiversity, but Human Biodversity my peeps already know
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.
I posted there and not here for a specific reason. If I dont post here why copy and paste my post from a different forum on here???
I understand you don't like this site, but I felt it was appropriate for this thread. I gave you authorship and posted a link to the forumbiodiversity thread. Since you indeed do not own the internet, I intent to copy paste whatever I like and find relevant to the subject of Ancient Egypt. Hopefully, you won't come here to see it next time.
Nothing wrong with copying and pasting stuff over- it has been done here for years by ES old hands. The Bass used to copy stuff over from Anthroscape and solicit comments for example, as has Truthcentric, as has Morpheus et al from elsewhere. You gave attribution- which is good enough. Its really not that big a deal.
OK, so now based on the limitations of DNATribes low resolution approach, how would you modify your initial comments? Would you qualify it to say- "the following relationships exist based on DNATribes level of resolution" - something along those lines? Or something different? Or no modification?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
OK, so now based on the limitations of DNATribes low resolution approach, how would you modify your initial comments? Would you qualify it to say- "the following relationships exist based on DNATribes level of resolution" - something along those lines? Or something different? Or no modification?
There's no need to qualify the DNA Tribes results in a special manner. The DNA Tribes results already got their own qualification: statistical numbers to tell us how strong or not the results are. We use the science of statistics to qualify such things. For example, they tell us statistically that King Tut's DNA profile can be seen 1300 times more in the Great Lakes regions than in all the genetic regions of the world. So we can compare each genetic regions MLI proportion and qualify the results with real statistical number not just hot air. With more STR those numbers would most probably be even higher, it's just basic mathematics and probability (the MLI is basically a product of proportion for each STR alleles, when you add one above zero, it increases in the number-the MLI). So if there was more STR alleles used, the number would be even higher.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Egyptsearch - DNA Tribes is not "New" information anymore.
@ Lioness - You are not even smart enough to differentiate "Anthroscape" and "forumbiodiversity". Two totally different boards with totally different admins that dont even intersect.
Pay attention the the last time I have posted at ABF, it was nearly a year ago...same time I gave up on E.S. I created this latest thread cause I am confident the data will be a further thorn in the side of select posters, as well as to recruit the remaining hold-out members into Facebook group. If our group has a number of people that correspond with those in the field....as well as the presence of person(s) that publish it will offer more that what we find at ES and ABF. Also I think it will be interesting to see what some new members have to offer in terms of Africana knowledge....so far not much.
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova ES is no longer productive on that outsiders can come here and get pertinent information. If you are new....you will learn ZERO. Case and point still nobody has commented on the question I asked in the post...LOL. When the results hit THEN everyone is going to work backwards and stuff their ideas into the boxes like they knew it all along...I know how this works.
@ Egyptsearch board - IN reference to Wikipedia I am not speaking on subjective matters that are open to interpretation. I am speaking of updating pages such as the "Nubia" page on Wikipedia. Or the E1b1a and Haplogroup B pages to include raw data and the latest facts. You cannot argue about the inclusion or exclusion of current information. Look how pitiful the A-Group page is:
Laughably pitiful. ON the A-Group page the word "Egypt" is listed 7 times. The word "Sudan" is NOT EVEN PRESENT ON PAGE!
Updating Wiki articles is something I promised not to do years ago. I may reverse that decision as the data present is dated and inaccurate. Collectively (Minus Lioness) is there anyone that would be willing to contribute time to edit articles? If so which ones. My suggestion is we start at Hap A and work down the alphabet. One page per month. One designated Editor. Anyone interested? Anyone interested in being the editor? If a number of people are interested we can create a thread on it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Updating Wiki articles is something I promised not to do years ago. I may reverse that decision as the data present is dated and inaccurate. Collectively (Minus Lioness) is there anyone that would be willing to contribute time to edit articles? If so which ones. My suggestion is we start at Hap A and work down the alphabet. One page per month. One designated Editor. Anyone interested? Anyone interested in being the editor? If a number of people are interested we can create a thread on it.
thanks, I'll get to work on the Nubia page shortly
I have some new László Török stuff to put in
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Updating Wiki articles is something I promised not to do years ago. I may reverse that decision as the data present is dated and inaccurate. Collectively (Minus Lioness) is there anyone that would be willing to contribute time to edit articles? If so which ones. My suggestion is we start at Hap A and work down the alphabet. One page per month. One designated Editor. Anyone interested? Anyone interested in being the editor? If a number of people are interested we can create a thread on it.
thanks, I'll get to work on the Nubia page shortly
I have some new László Török stuff to put in
Yeah you go ahead and do that lady.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] @ Egyptsearch - DNA Tribes is not "New" information anymore.
@ Lioness - You are not even smart enough to differentiate "Anthroscape" and "forumbiodiversity". Two totally different boards with totally different admins that dont even intersect.
My apologies I sometimes get these two websites confused.
beyoku's member name is "four" on anthroscape with the cute elephant avatar and Charlie Bass is "Game Theory"
anthroscape is a Human Biodiversity forum owned by a white supremacist named "Racial Reality" and moderated by Greek fascist "Crimson Guard"
-not to be confused with Forum Biodiversity which is a different site
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova ES is no longer productive on that outsiders can come here and get pertinent information. If you are new....you will learn ZERO. Case and point still nobody has commented on the question I asked in the post...LOL. When the results hit THEN everyone is going to work backwards and stuff their ideas into the boxes like they knew it all along...I know how this works.
lol, true in part. But I still think outsiders can come to ES and get great info. They just have to come via a Google search- on a specific topic which will jump into lesser active pages with real content not by going direct to the front page- which will typically be dominated by "albino mutants" and such as to the most recent topics. ES also has clear value as an initial content holder.
@ Egyptsearch board - IN reference to Wikipedia I am not speaking on subjective matters that are open to interpretation. I am speaking of updating pages such as the "Nubia" page on Wikipedia. Or the E1b1a and Haplogroup B pages to include raw data and the latest facts. You cannot argue about the inclusion or exclusion of current information. Look how pitiful the A-Group page is:
Laughably pitiful. ON the A-Group page the word "Egypt" is listed 7 times. The word "Sudan" is NOT EVEN PRESENT ON PAGE!
Fair enough. But even on pages that supposedly deal with straight fact, the moles are distorting and removing. Your example of the A-Group is also typical. Why would any credible editor leave out something so basic? They operate via distortion and stealth- making subtle but misleading changes, misrepresenting sources, even posting bogus citations. Another tactic is to "guard" or "protect" deliberately weak pages, including creation of bogus "vandalism" edits to provide cover. Once exposed they resort to ruthless sandbagging and edit warring. Why invest heavily in such a forum, pretending to objectivity, but laced with deception?
Updating Wiki articles is something I promised not to do years ago. I may reverse that decision as the data present is dated and inaccurate. Collectively (Minus Lioness) is there anyone that would be willing to contribute time to edit articles? If so which ones. My suggestion is we start at Hap A and work down the alphabet. One page per month. One designated Editor. Anyone interested? Anyone interested in being the editor? If a number of people are interested we can create a thread on it.
I have been burned before on this, but if you get 6-7 people to sign up, I will consider it. I would recommend though that the collaborators do their coordination via email- out of public view, so the enemies of African bio-history do not get a head start on their distortion tactics. Would also say that any members must be fighters, for their work will be removed time and time again. But is it worth it?
The problem with investing so much effort in Wikipedia is that all your work can be destroyed in a matter of seconds,' then you have to spend even more hours battling moles and their admin collaborators. About 10-15% of the quotes on the big text database I typed by hand. The rest copy and paste from what others have brought forward. It would be a pity if this collective, joint effort is focused on a forum where it can be destroyed or blockaded indefinitely. A much better, broader based option is to build up and fine- tune the alternative network that is now substantially in place. Such a network is redundant and the disappearance of one node means little as the info can be re-generated elsewhere. That network is:
1) ES- content dump. Once info is posted, it is available world wide to be mirrored elsewhere. Everybody wins. Lioness gets her post counts and traffic to sell stuff, and get paid. We get a content holding area.
2) Individual blogs, or fully owned Individual websites: Owners have full control over content and admin.
3) Web discussion forums: Owned by others but serve as outlets for debate and discussion- distributing content widely
4) Hosted forums- anyone can create a forum on many free hosted sites- like Reloaded. These also can be used as redundant content holders, but also carry much new information. Facebook can be an example of a hosted forum as well.
5) Picture galleries & youtube video - furnish the images and video needed- can beo n hosted forums or personal sites.
With the 5 types of nodes above, African information and education can prosper. ADVANTAGES:
--No central headquarters is needed just more collaboration.
--Individual bloggers or forum owners can do their own thing (errors will be exposed by others)
--Content cannot be "made to disappear"
--Your labor is your own- your investment will not vanish at the hands of some other
--Favorite "watering holes" and "clearing houses" will increasingly develop for debate and discussion. These will be run by people able to look at the big picture, spot growing trends, able to keep on top of new data, able to provide resource links. able to work out formulas to bring contending parties together. These places will develop naturally- people will gravitate towards them. They could be an individual blog, or a forum.
--A stable self-generating network means that education is enhanced. There is a crying need for updating in the African community. Too often on Black History Month, cats are still stuck on George James 1957, Van Sertima 1976, Ben-Jochanan 1972, etc etc. Pioneers in some ways, but the research has moved on.
An outline of this network is basically in place. It can certainly be intensified many times over and that would make it more useful. Wikipedia would just be one more stop in the web- nothing special. Useful for quick reference, added to and corrected certainly ( with corrections often removed by stealth), but it would not be a focus.
The network can be intensified now by members (individual blogs, forums, Facebook, etc linking to the sites of each other), then making the rounds of the member sites to comment, post material and discuss. "Clearing house" sites (or site) that have proven their worth naturally will generate more traffic on the network, but it will function quite nicely as all nodes contribute. In short-- an independent, more up to date, more accurate alternative to Wikipedia, much more under creator's individual authorship and control, while still allowing for broad expansion of knowledge.
@Egyptsearch Board I would argue to the ES board- do not invest heavily in Wikipedia. Use it, make corrections, but spent the bulk of time building up a better alternative network.
--Start saving as much good ES stuff as possible on your hard drive --Start your own personal blog or forum or Facebook --Harvest as much info as you can and put it on your personal site or blogs (naturally much will be of what interests you) --Put links to other network members on your blog or site or forum --Continue dumping as much content as possible on ES so that the content is locked in online, but.. (see below) --Summarize and provide context if possible to go with the info dump. --Harvest as much visual material as possible and plug it in galleries and sites
--Harvest info from multiple sources like Google books. This may involve some hand-typing --If you are working together to edit Wiki, communicate in private Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
-- Link up with other Africana forums like Destee.com and Racialicious.com to bring accurate data to these broader based but more general venues. This may mean a more extensive level of summarization and exposition for the layman, but will expand the reach of the data beneficially Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the same perspective on this than many people on this site.
For one, my main interest in relation to history, is African History. Ancient Egypt is a great civilization, very advanced, before its time, with the advantage of having written records but just one of the many civilizations of Africa. Most books related to history I have at home are books about the African history and "modern" culture of other Kingdoms and peoples of Africa. Most books I read currently are about other African people and kingdoms as well.
I know it may be hard to believe considering my posts on this forum, but if you look into it you will see it. I'm not here to claim AE as an African state if it isn't.
On a personal level I don't want to tell myself AE is African in every sense, if it's not the case. I like to study African history and culture by itself (including their relation with outsiders) not falsely claim AE to be African for no reason if it's not the case. It would be a bad analysis of African history because it would include stuff that are not African in any significant way. Something I don't want to do.
In the past I read some books about AE being African such as Diop, Obenga, Williams and many others. But I wasn't totally convinced. My interest was always toward African history not AE history only. It's really the ancient DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies which convinced me this theory may really be valid while of course more analysis are warranted.
I waited for aDNA because while analysis in the archaeological fields and other fields such as cultural, history, linguistic points to AE being an indigenous African state. Taken individually, none of those analysis provide enough discriminative power. Together maybe.
For example, here this recent research makes it clear AE was an indigenous African process: Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley. Got it from here: (www.) pave.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/033-Stock(2011HBTA)NileBiomechSize.pdf (you need to add the www. to the address, the forum doesn't allow me to post the full address)
Still, I don't want to claim AE to be African (in every sense) if it's not the case. I also don't want people to claim AE is not African if it's the case either. Combined together, instead of individually, all those non-genetic analysis make the African origin of AE stronger but still. Ancient DNA Genetic on the other hand, provide enough discriminative power by itself. For example, if AE aDNA are mostly from the Y-DNA A, B and E haplogroups and mtDNA L haplogroups they are African nobody can seriously deny it. Autosomally, it's also usually easy to analyse. On the other hand, if Ancient Egyptians are not mostly from the African Y-DNA A, B and E and MtDNA L haplogroups then they are not African. Thus genetics provide discriminative power by itself.
At the moment, I just have a very hard time to dismiss the aDNA results. I don't want to "fake" the Africanity of AE in any way (like playing with semantics and stupidity like that) but how can I dismiss ancient DNA? Swenet, Tukuler and Beyoku made some critics of it, but I truly don't think it's good critics, I already explained why. Added to the analysis of other fields and it thus seems Ancient Egyptians were truly in every way an African civilizations among many.
It's because of the ancient DNA results that I joined this forum. But my interest is in African history and culture in general.
So I won't go on a crusade to prove Ancient Egyptians are Africans. I do like to point out the current knowledge about it with an accent on analysis that prove its indigenous character which were of course wrongly dismissed without science or proof by colonial historians for political, propaganda and racist purpose. I'm just following the issue and spreading knowledge about what we know. Still most of my interests in history is about African history in general not just Ancient Egypt. I must say that I also like to read about Ancient Greece and other civilizations too (I don't have the time to analyze them deeply but I read and watch movies/tv shows about them with great interests and fun and many people took the time to analyze them deeply).
Amazon.com is very good for books about African history. Even about specific ethnic groups and kingdoms (which usually have much more depth than a book about African history in general like "The History of Africa").
This site is also very good and is easier to browse if you don't know what you're looking for and want to be inspired.
posted
@ Egypsearch and Amun Ra - I see a lot of talkers and no Doers. A lot takers and no givers. You copied the link from the different forum but have added ZERO value to the discussion by actually answering the question that was asked in the text you copied.
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova and ES Board. I dont know what type of edits you were making (If you could elaborate) but your current idea is very self defeatist. If you think that we will have that much trouble and opposition simply UPDATING a page with current info then they have already won. Possibly the "Fighters" you are speaking of belong to a group that you may not belong to.
Furthermore, there is no need at this point to create Egyptsearch alternatives. We have been there and done that. The most successful one there is - The troll proof Facebook group.....is a group you declined an invite to I believe.
The whole point in discussing the Edits HERE and out in the open is to create some clear transparency void of all the B.S. I want a person ("opposition" or not)looking at our Edits or prospective edits to see exactly WHY they are being made. The A-Group Nubian article exist the way it is because nobody has decided to update it............and when someone DID decide to update it they did not go to published articles but rather cut and pasted some data directly from an OLD website....one that has been use so much it is considered "Spam" and added to some type of Black list. The Hap A, B and E1b1a pages, as well as the mtDNA L pages exist as they do because the "opposition" that exist feel like they have no stake in those pages. OTOH look at the E1b1b page. Over the years I followed the E1b1b comments/talk/edits. You have people that work hard arguing with "Euroclowns" about E1b1b but dont take the time out to edit the other Haplogroup E pages.....pages that may be more pertinent to us and OUR ancestry. And then they add no value to the E1b1b page because they dont update it with KNOWN newer information.
Also, obviously if there are only 6 or 7 people that really post here you pretty much pre-exempt yourself if you request I gather 6 or 7 members before you even CONSIDER to contribute. You pretty much excluded yourself in classic ES fashion.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Egypsearch and Amun Ra - I see a lot of talkers and no Doers. A lot takers and no givers. You copied the link from the different forum but have added ZERO value to the discussion by actually answering the question that was asked in the text you copied.
You're still on about that? You're such a cry-baby too. Just like Swenet.
I didn't plan to answer your question or add any value to your post. I just wanted people to know about you claiming yet another upcoming study about Ancient Egyptian mtDNA. I can add something (again): I hope it is true and actually gets published this time around.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
**** dude...in order words you are looking to become mindlessly spoonfed and of all the facts you have gathered you cannot use them to synthesize some constructive comments PRIOR to the release of the information....LOL
Menwhile when they results drop as A1a/L1c1 or something you are going to come out of the woodwork stating exactly why it makes sense and its what you expected all along...LOL
What exactly is Egyptsearch FOR if nobody can comment on incoming information? All the snippets and quotes people suggest to save to your computers are things that should be known off the top of your heads. .
So I take it you will not be editing wikipedia then. So, so far we have Lioness.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: **** dude...in order words you are looking to become mindlessly spoonfed and of all the facts you have gathered you cannot use them to synthesize some constructive comments PRIOR to the release of the information....LOL
You're such cry-baby. Do you want me to hand over to you some kleenex because I didn't answer your question? I hope the study is true this time and actually gets published.
Do you have any time frame for its publication or is it like the other upcoming study and you don't know and may actually never be published?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote: 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
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This seems to confirm the theory that Ancient Egyptians were composed of many different African ethnic groups who settled along the Nile during the dessication of the Sahara. Unified under one state by Narmer. All African people seem represented here from Nilo-Saharan to Niger-Congo speakers passing by Khoisan and Cushitic/Chadic speakers.
but listed amoung the African clades
Is
R-173 J- M267 T-M184
and it's all Old or Middle Kingdom, nothing even NK or late
How did these Eurasian groups get in there?
Amun Ra could this be legit or is it something beyoku made up to try to slip in some Eurasians DNA in there?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote: 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
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This seems to confirm the theory that Ancient Egyptians were composed of many different African ethnic groups who settled along the Nile during the dessication of the Sahara. Unified under one state by Narmer. All African people seem represented here from Nilo-Saharan to Niger-Congo speakers passing by Khoisan and Cushitic/Chadic speakers.
but listed amoung the African clades
Is
R-173 J- M267 T-M184
and it's all Old or Middle Kingdom, nothing even NK or late
How did these Eurasian groups get in there?
Amun Ra could this be legit or is it something beyoku made up to try to slip in some Eurasians DNA in there?
No, it does seem pretty realistic, I must admit. Even if I just shared some doubt about their authenticity. There's always some minimal admixture between regions close to each others. We can note the MtDNA of those individuals is the African L haplogroup. Autosomally even those individuals probably lean toward Africans.
I must say the breakdown of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom haplogroups layed down by beyoku looks very realistic. I have hard time believing he made that up himself not because of the character but because I don't see any agenda or fun part or something like that in them. It seems to be made up mostly of various African haplogroups and lineages with some West Asian haplogroups (accompanied by the African L mtDNA). If he did made that up, it's a pretty clever distribution of haplogroups in that sense.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova and ES Board. I dont know what type of edits you were making (If you could elaborate) but your current idea is very self defeatist. If you think that we will have that much trouble and opposition simply UPDATING a page with current info then they have already won. Possibly the "Fighters" you are speaking of belong to a group that you may not belong to.
Defeatist- not at all. More like realistic as to where I invest huge amounts of time and energy. If you think it all boils down to "type of edits" you are rather naive.
Furthermore, there is no need at this point to create Egyptsearch alternatives. We have been there and done that. The most successful one there is - The troll proof Facebook group.....is a group you declined an invite to I believe.
What I said actually, is that an alternative network to WIKIPEDIA is already now substantially in place, as outlined above and it can be widened and deepened with more collaboration. I never said anything about creating Egyptsearch alternatives. The alternatives are already in place. . As to the Facebook page- I didn't "decline" an invite, I never received one.
The whole point in discussing the Edits HERE and out in the open is to create some clear transparency void of all the B.S. I want a person ("opposition" or not)looking at our Edits or prospective edits to see exactly WHY they are being made. The A-Group Nubian article exist the way it is because nobody has decided to update it.
Here again you show your naivete. Discussing such Wiki edits out in the open simply allows assorted Wiki moles plenty of advance notice to sandbag and blockade your work when you finally do update the Wiki pages. And A-Group Nubia is not much of a test case, as far as Egyptology articles go. They are not much concerned about things like A-Group per se. Its when you touch the core Egyptology articles, or the Archaeogenetics ones bearing on Egypt, or the PreDynastic (including links with Nubia, the Sahara, and further south), that the real test comes.
The Hap A, B and E1b1a pages, as well as the mtDNA L pages exist as they do because the "opposition" that exist feel like they have no stake in those pages.
You prove my point. Said "opposition" doesn't feel much stake in what they view as peripheral- like the A-group. You aren't really touching the bulk of Egyptology. They are more than happy to have you on the margins with A-Group. And more than happy to have you on E1b1a.
Over the years I followed the E1b1b comments/talk/edits. You have people that work hard arguing with "Euroclowns" about E1b1b but dont take the time out to edit the other Haplogroup E pages.....pages that may be more pertinent to us and OUR ancestry. And then they add no value to the E1b1b page because they dont update it with KNOWN newer information.
OK, but why should "OUR" people "gravitate" to the E1b1a pages? Both are African halogroups. Both deserve just as much attention. And the fact that E1b1b is not being updatred is that they want a weak article that leaves certain things in place.
Also, obviously if there are only 6 or 7 people that really post here you pretty much pre-exempt yourself if you request I gather 6 or 7 members before you even CONSIDER to contribute. You pretty much excluded yourself in classic ES fashion.
Wasn't talking about 6-7 people from only ES. But on your pristine Facebook page you should have no problem rounding up that number, eh? And based on what you say above- seems you yourself are engaged in "defeatism." The fact that you "gravitate" towards certain articles like A-Group Nubia and E1b1a, supposedly more "in touch" with "OUR" ancestry seem like you don't want to face the heavy lifting required to do updates outside these areas. Seems like you too have exempted yourself.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come one dude. How am I exempting myself if I brought up the idea in the first place and noted my opposition to wikipedia in the past? I wouldnt have brought the idea to the board....if I wasnt on board. Dont project since I called you on it. I spoke of the need for change and agreed to actually Make edits. You bowed out noticing your past difficulties and when pried for information still kept it vague on WHICH articles you were trying to edit. What was your editor tag? I will take a look a the talk pages, they are archived. As for the Facebook page I specifically remember you declining based on the fact that the page was closed off. The thread is gone now but I do remember it being the case....I could be wrong
I picked those specific pages because they are in DIRE need of updating as opposed to the Egypt pages. Also whether you think about it or not SUDAN and Nubia are more integral to the pre-history and population of Egypt than even "Egypt" is because that is where the humans migrated from. Furthermore Egypt is not the end all be all in Africa's history.
The Need for E1b1a edits is also there. I am an E1b1a carrier myself (U175*) along with the majority of new world people of African descent. I recognize the lack of data when researching my own lineage. The STR diversity and the SNP diversity indicates the lineage is very old, older than E1b1b and not well described, studied or sample as compared to E1b1b. There are still abstracts from Cruciani regarding E1b1a that have not been released in over 5 years regarding E1b1a diversity. In any case I suggested just starting with Hap A and working my way down. If you cannot understand why E1b1a is more important than E1b1b when "WE" are researching our own ancestry then I cannot help you.
Also if and when you take a genetic test....and your results are E1b1a and some random L lineage watch how fast you hit a brick wall when researching your lineages. The situation is even worse for those that have no history in African research....dont know where to start and are given some vague cookie cutter explanation for their lineages that 90% of the time involves "Slaves" and "Bantu".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Well I would not be too hard on Beyoku. The big picture is that we are all after the same thing- a more balanced, in-depth picture of African bio-history- all of it, Cape to Cairo, Marrakesh to Arusha, Horn to Namibia. What dampened the old Nilevalley Board some critics say is that it too often seemed cliquish- a select group "in the know" - talking mostly amongst themselves, in an isolated forum, and whomever was not "in the know" could go fend for themselves.
I don't buy that critique 100%. There will always be people with more knowledge who will talk it up at a more advanced level. Nothing wrong with that. But the knowledge needs to be expanded across a wide area.
I agree with you on Africa being the focus and have argued here and elsewhere that Egypt is no central quarters of civilization in Africa. Egypt is simple ONE CHILD of Africa- a spectacular one, but one among many. The starting point is always Africa- it is from Africa itself that people, the culture, the religion etc flowed into the Nile Valley, and also to other parts of the continent. This is a grassroots model- no central hegemon is needed. It is always Egypt, IN Africa.
As regards aDNA it is another line of evidence that must be weight against other data. I was convinced by the NON-DNA data, which as more comes to the scene, only adds icing to the cake. Naturally we should keep in mind that DNA data can be, and is being manipulated in academia to fulfill their own agendas. The more people that see it, the better the base for making judgments, exploring, evaluating, etc.
I would say you are on the right track. Keep on harvesting as much info as you can and bring it out of these other forums to ES. Who wants to comment can comment, or not. Sammy gets his post traffic so he wins as well. And the info posted is locked in online worldwide- and can't be "edited out," blockaded, or confined to a closed forum. This is a true, open source idea. Other venues can pick it up and run with it as they please. Keep on harvesting and accruing data, and adding to the general pool and database of knowledge. Link or cross post what you find on your own personal blog/forum and other venues. The more, the merrier.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
@zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova and ES Board. I dont know what type of edits you were making (If you could elaborate) but your current idea is very self defeatist. If you think that we will have that much trouble and opposition simply UPDATING a page with current info then they have already won. Possibly the "Fighters" you are speaking of belong to a group that you may not belong to.
Hey Beyoku! In Zarahan's defense, he has a point. I've spent hours and hours making tireless contributions to certain Egypt-themed wiki pages myself and it simply comes down to numbers. It isn't any one group, it is a general mentality coupled with a culturally-mediated (culture of wikipedia/mainstream society) aversion to things deemed "Afrocentric." I wouldn't call what he points out as self-defeatist more than it is realistic and an excellent summary of what goes on there. Look me up! I'm User:Taharqa on there. I was heavily involved with many of those articles consistently over the span of a few to several years, especially the "Ancient Egypt and Race" article. It will wear on you and unless you have an incredible amount of time on your hands, it almost isn't worth it in my opinion. But much power to you!
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata said: I've spent hours and hours making tireless contributions to certain Egypt-themed wiki pages myself and it simply comes down to numbers. It isn't any one group, it is a general mentality coupled with a culturally-mediated (culture of wikipedia/mainstream society) aversion to things deemed "Afrocentric." I wouldn't call what he points out as self-defeatist more than it is realistic and an excellent summary of what goes on there. Look me up! I'm User:Taharqa on there. I was heavily involved with many of those articles consistently over the span of a few to several years, especially the "Ancient Egypt and Race" article. It will wear on you and unless you have an incredible amount of time on your hands, it almost isn't worth it in my opinion. But much power to you!
Oh Yeah, I remember 'Taharqa.' I was on, actively trying to improve articles at a somewhat later timeframe than you. Yeah I remember coming along after you, and seeing how they cynically sandbagged and blockaded you, how they got the Admins to collaborate, how they operated in packs, how they tried to exhaust you with countless "appeals" and "admin processes." Reading the archives, often it was only you versus 4-5-6 dishonorable, deceptive people doing all in their power to block straight factual edits. Ran into the same problems myself and when I started going though the histories I saw the hit job they were doing on you. Saw the bogus "friendly" types pretend to "befriend" you so as to get advance notice of what you were thinking- hence making the blockade job easier. They also deleted your comments and explanations on the so-called "Page Discussison" section, so that people could not see their unsavory actics. I even tried to post some messages on your Talk Page only to have the racialist slugs delete it. I finally wised up and stopped being naive about "good faith."
But for all that they have failed miserably, for if they had let those legit edits stay, they would have remained obscure items of info, buried on obscure pages. But now the scholarship they sought to suppress is available in quality and quantity worldwide with excellent representation on Google. Wikipedia ain't nothing now on these topics- filled with bogus claims, doctored references and plain inaccuracies that continually undermine its credibility. Those who patted themselves on the back as "victorious" only succeeded in creating a monster- now a relentless engine with a powerful database, generating more accurate content, in a viable alternative network, or series of networks, now including Facebook. Who needs the Wikipedia pages they are "guarding" anymore?
Illustration- Google A-Group Nubia. The weak Wiki page comes up early as expected, but much more credible sources, filled with detailed content appear as high up in the rankings, including several credible scholarly references- Univ of Chicago, British Museum, Academic papers n academia.edu, a Thesis from Univ of Wisconsin and so on- all within the top ten, and even some independent websites within that top ten. Again, who needs the dubious Wiki page when these much more substantative sources are on tap? Vary the search wording slightly and Egyptsearch comes up along with Myra Wysinger's excellent site, even Reloaded further down. All those "page guard dogs" on Wiki are wasting their time if they think they can keep out credible, legit scholarship. So why some people rush to Wiki to give it substantial labor and energy? Now I am not saying don't make corrections and edits etc. Somebody has to do something, but this illustration just shows how utterly the laughable "protectionists" have failed.
In addition textbooks are already giving students in school a more accurate picture like the intro text for college students below: "Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." --Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. p. 10)
^All their bogus Wikipedia troll/mole tactics aren't preventing students from getting the info, and it is now in the database, with easy access- out in the open..
Furthermore the alternative content engine means a steady stream of newbies "disrupting" the shaky "guarded" pages- creating an endless workload of "watchlists" and "stealth" edits. Go ahead. Feel like you doing something important, "guarding" and "protecting" your laughably weak pages. Meanwhile real, more accurate content is being generated elsewhere.
Here's an idea. Follow in my boy's footsteps and create a website like this (or start contributing more to this one):
Good reference. I'll check it out. Looks like it has the potential to be yet another independent, alternative, content generating hub. Only question is, looks like anybody can edit it, meaning content can be easily distorted or removed, which could mean a repeat of the negative "mole" tactics above.
But anyway, there are some who think such hubs need massive numbers of hits to be "somebody" on the web. But this is not the case at all. The power is not in any one site, but in the network. 10 hits per day on 20 sites, in total, is a lot more than assorted individual Wikipedia pages are getting on these SPECIFIC topics. Wiki's E1b1b page for example is averaging 55 or so hits per day. A small 12 hub multi-spoke network, with pages on this specific topic that gets a mere 10 hits per hub per day, would be more than double the Wiki stats. Who needs big daily numbers to a single site to "be somebody"?
Sundjata I think maybe also you should start a more open Facebook group, or point to one. For example there is an E1b1b Facebook group- open access viewable - that comes up fairly quickly in Google. The enemies of accurate African bio-history already have a few "distortion" pages in operation. Perhaps people counter-attack in similar fashion? Facebook gives another hub alternative- with the best o both worlds- access to Facebook's more closed network, but with open access (at least viewable) so it appears in Google. Again, with such alternative frameworks in place and developing, (and they can be cross-linked and expanded with more collaboration) an independent, MORE ACCURATE Africana-Infosphere will continue taking shape- growing in power and influence, and without fearing assorted protectionists or needing any badges of approval from their ilk. Keep on expanding the base in whatever fashion.. Like the man said:
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyoku said: What exactly is Egyptsearch FOR if nobody can comment on incoming information? All the snippets and quotes people suggest to save to your computers are things that should be known off the top of your heads. .
Who says people can't comment on incoming information? When did this mysterious blackout start?
And who says you know information off the top of your head? To what specific sites was Barry Kemp referring for example when he noted CRANID results and what are the CRANID datasets in question? Can you answer that off the top of your head, and why such data is important? What is the proportion of E1b1a in Zulu samples as compared to Fulani, Amhara, and Tuareg samples? What might those be off the top of your head? You are into E1b1a and should know those percentages without consulting anything, and certainly not Wikipedia..
So I take it you will not be editing wikipedia then. So, so far we have Lioness.
Didn't you earlier speak disapprovingly of people people replying to 'lioness', and now she is a full fledged member of the Wikipedia cleansing brigade? QUOTE: "The most active person right now on this board (Lioness) is actually a TROLL....all yall "active users" should pretty much be ashamed."
^^lol, good luck with that..
-------------------------------------------
But all that being said, keep on expanding the knowledge base, wherever you do it. You are making good contributions.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the argument that editing Wikipedia is a tiresome exercise in futility. That said, I am ambivalent over whether creating an alternate webpage is the answer. Sure, providing the public with accurate information is our duty. On the other hand, as long as "Afrocentrism" is viewed as a fringe ideology, any website that could be construed as endorsing it will be dismissed out of hand.
I would advocate infiltrating mainstream academia if we want to bring about real change. I don't mean Black Studies or anything stereotypically associated with Afro-Diasporan culture, I mean mainstream anthropology or history circles that won't be written off as "Afrocentric". That's the reason I majored in Bio-Anthropology at UCSD in the first place.
A couple of days ago I submitted a paper on Egypt's African origins to an undergraduate history journal run by the University of Peninsula. Haven't heard back from them yet, but I'm hoping that if they do consider it, I'd have taken a small step in advancing our cause.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Dont project since I called you on it. I spoke of the need for change and agreed to actually Make edits. You bowed out noticing your past difficulties and when pried for information still kept it vague on WHICH articles you were trying to edit. What was your editor tag? I will take a look a the talk pages, they are archived. As for the Facebook page I specifically remember you declining based on the fact that the page was closed off. The thread is gone now but I do remember it being the case....I could be wrong
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic