posted
You seem to have a problem with nuances? Scratching my head.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: It's hard to have a serious conversation with you because just certain basic things you don't grasp either because you're not reading the material or you're not listening to the conversations. You are trying to make the argument that Dr. Keita is SOLELY arguing that the "Asiatic" markers found at Abusir is the result of weavers brought in from the Levant. You, not Keita, made the assumption that these weavers were concubines. You just made that up out of nowhere and just can't admit that it is your thoughts, not anyone elses.
Dr. Keita never put forth the argument of the Asiatic weavers as THE reason for the SW Asian markers. In the context of the 2017 study under discussion, Keita mentions the weavers as ONE of MANY explanations for the presence of Asiatics in the area. This is explecitely stated in his joint response to the 2017 article that I posted above. Here is the commentary again:
Keita, Gourdine, Anselin
quote: 2) Historiography and misinterpretation
The authors do not consider explanations based on historical narrative, although they present historical information. NE input in AE could also be explained by old mercantile relationships with Lower Egypt (e.g. Maadi-Buto complex ~4,000 BC3), Egyptianized Asiatic rulers and migrants (e.g. Hyksos ~1,650 BC), NE prisoners of war (e.g. from Thutmose III’s military campaign in NE ~ 1,490 BC), from diplomatic marriages2 (e.g. Amenhotep III and Mitanni princess, Gilukhipa ~ 1,380 BC), etc.
As we can see here, Keita et al. are providing a wide range of explanations for the presence of "Asiatics" in Kemet. I expand this discourse in Aaluja Vol. II (2020: 535) where I cite, for example, Agnieszka Ma̖czyńska, in her text Lower Egyptian Communities and their Interactions with Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC (2013)
quote:Originally they cultivated their own separate identity and traditions, but over time (layer Ib) the “strangers” assimilated with the locals and adopted Lower Egyptian cultural traditions. The assimilation process was so powerful that materials dated to phase II show no traces indicating the presence of foreign settlers in Buto. (Ma̖czyńska, 2013: 208)
She continues on to state:
quote: The arrival of Canaanite settlers to the Nile Delta in the middle of the 4th millennium BC could have been caused by the cultural and political situation in the contemporary Canaan. Possibly the migration was linked to economic recession. The first Levantine findings in the Delta are dated to the end of the Chalcolithic, when Southern Levantine cultural systems became unstable. The period in question saw a profound change in the settlement and economic systems. The underlying reasons are believed to include natural disasters (draughts, epidemics, earthquakes) and cultural factors (waves of migrants, economic changes) (see Chapter 3). Some Chalcolithic settlements were deserted and their inhabitants moved to higher regions. Human migrations were further intensified, and certain groups could have reached as far as to the Delta. Migration routes went through the northern Sinai, culturally linked to the Southern Levant at the time (Fig. 4).(Ma̖czyńska, 2013: 208)
In other words, Asiatics have been settling in Kemet since pre-dynastic times and building settlements in the North. As I stated previously, the Semitic speaking migrants, in many junctures, created their own "China Towns" in the Delta and surrounding areas. Others fully assimilated into Egyptian culture. Some people were prisoners of war. Others the descendants of intermarriages. This is the issue Keita et al. was having problems with the 2017 article because those markers could have been the result of a variety of social factors that the authors did not explore or rule out.
But instead of reading and/or listening to what Keita actually stated, you go on a non-sensical rant about an argument that no one is having except you in your head. This is not how scholarship is done. I hope you get your act together.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To those who did not get it. “Weavers/concubine/ Weavers/concubine/ Weavers/concubine/ Weavers/concubine”. "striper/college student/striper/college student". I used the word concubine to drive home my point.
Keita's spin is these African men were fugking the concubines...eh weavers, since I can't read the MtDUR{sp/}, ahem, that is why these near EAst mtDNA was present. Weak ass Fing argument.
The bottom-line is Keita is pandering. He is basically trying to explain away these “near east” mtDNA by the introduction of nearby women.....only. WHY?!
But Keita fugked up! Why? He did not attack the main issues for example. Why are the Abusir different from the Amarnas?...or are they?
“Why weren’t the CODIS STR released like the Armanas.?” Why only certain SNPs? I will tell you why. The CODIS STR can be rebuilt from specific SNPs locations. But guess what?. Those specific SNPs that can be used to rebuild the CODIS STR was removed from the datasets!!!! These fugkers knew what they were doing. They knew it was a scam. They knew if these specific SNPs were included the results would show the Abusir were just as the Amarnas, “Sub Saharan Africans”. Thoughts? Beyoku, ElMaestro, any other fraud? Lol!
Now why didn’t Keita ask these simply questions or challenge VJ Schuenemann . Because he was pandering?
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Indeed it does. But I am currently in Texas and not in my home in Philadelphia, where my text is located. So I can't refer you to pages and names at the moment.
But the settlement Dr. Keita was talking about is named Al-Lāhūn or Kahun (after Petrie). But in reality, Asiatic weavers were spread out throughout ancient Kemet.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Asar, does Ms. Saretta's book discuss the location of these weavers that Dr. Keita talks about in the interview? Nobody's interested in knowing the location 15 km away that was an Asiatic hub?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with talking about Asiatic Weavers in Egypt in a paper about Egyptian DNA should be obvious. You aren't discussing the DNA lineages indigenous to the ancient indigenous population.
So if you are going to talk about this holistically in terms of the overall DNA history of the Nile, starting with Asiatic Weavers makes no sense.
Nobody would accept a paper on the DNA history of Europe that only talked about Asiatic Weavers entering Europe 3 thousand years ago.
As a matter of fact, European DNA papers are much more comprehensive than the ones on Africa. They sample many more remains from different locations and time periods than they do in the Nile Valley.
So this paper should be treated as nothing more than a footnote on the ability to sample ancient DNA and not a comprehensive survey of ancient DNA in the Nile Valley. It is impossible as a scholar to claim to have concluded anything about the Nile Valley DNA history from one small footnote. But again, the paper was published with sensationalists titles claiming something that it cannot prove with a limited data set. So many have criticized the paper that I am surprised that Keita just didn't outright do so himself, given the arguments he himself made in a more general sense earlier in the video.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you actually read the response Keita et al. did for the Abusir paper? Or watch the video that initiated this thread? I'm going to assume no because nothing you've said is in alignment with the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem with talking about Asiatic Weavers in Egypt in a paper about Egyptian DNA should be obvious. You aren't discussing the DNA lineages indigenous to the ancient indigenous population.
So if you are going to talk about this holistically in terms of the overall DNA history of the Nile, starting with Asiatic Weavers makes no sense.
Nobody would accept a paper on the DNA history of Europe that only talked about Asiatic Weavers entering Europe 3 thousand years ago.
As a matter of fact, European DNA papers are much more comprehensive than the ones on Africa. They sample many more remains from different locations and time periods than they do in the Nile Valley.
So this paper should be treated as nothing more than a footnote on the ability to sample ancient DNA and not a comprehensive survey of ancient DNA in the Nile Valley. It is impossible as a scholar to claim to have concluded anything about the Nile Valley DNA history from one small footnote. But again, the paper was published with sensationalists titles claiming something that it cannot prove with a limited data set. So many have criticized the paper that I am surprised that Keita just didn't outright do so himself, given the arguments he himself made in a more general sense earlier in the video.
I think this art is too crude, near stick figures, to assume they were intending to depict skin tones (note, images not from book)
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The child is 10 years old now, so for the past 10 years no one has taken a picture of the child?
How about of the parents since 2010?
No scientists have written an article about a supposedly extremely rare genetic event?
all of the sudden they are concerned about privacy? I wonder if they were selling some of those baby pictures I wonder if the hair was even real
and it has no relevance to the topic
What does that matter? Respect the family and leave them alone, they done want to expose Emmanuel Ofor to the media. And what was so extraordinary about the hair, except for it being blonde?
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Did you actually read the response Keita et al. did for the Abusir paper? Or watch the video that initiated this thread? I'm going to assume no because nothing you've said is in alignment with the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem with talking about Asiatic Weavers in Egypt in a paper about Egyptian DNA should be obvious. You aren't discussing the DNA lineages indigenous to the ancient indigenous population.
So if you are going to talk about this holistically in terms of the overall DNA history of the Nile, starting with Asiatic Weavers makes no sense.
Nobody would accept a paper on the DNA history of Europe that only talked about Asiatic Weavers entering Europe 3 thousand years ago.
As a matter of fact, European DNA papers are much more comprehensive than the ones on Africa. They sample many more remains from different locations and time periods than they do in the Nile Valley.
So this paper should be treated as nothing more than a footnote on the ability to sample ancient DNA and not a comprehensive survey of ancient DNA in the Nile Valley. It is impossible as a scholar to claim to have concluded anything about the Nile Valley DNA history from one small footnote. But again, the paper was published with sensationalists titles claiming something that it cannot prove with a limited data set. So many have criticized the paper that I am surprised that Keita just didn't outright do so himself, given the arguments he himself made in a more general sense earlier in the video.
I did watch the video. Like I said, he did mention many of the criticisms in the first hour of the video but when it came to that paper specifically he did not really criticize it specifically for all the things mentioned earlier. Not saying that he had to be mean and nasty, but certainly this paper is not about "asiatic weavers" in Egypt. Because we all know the AE did not come from Asiatic weavers, so if we want to know the DNA profile of AE during the Dynastic era, it is ludicrous to start with Asiatic weavers.... Not sure why that would be a topic of discussion if the point is to understand the INDIGENOUS DNA of the AE people. At this point, almost all of these papers on North Africa and AE are trying to prove the existence of Eurasian DNA in ancient times versus trying to determine any indigenous DNA of any specific population in the region.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it's clear that you didn't read his response to the Abusir paper and you didn't comprehend what he said in the video. He simply mentioned the asiatic weavers as one possible alternative explanation for foreign DNA in Egypt at that time in history in that location. This was along other reasons which were suggested in his official preliminary response, which I posted in this thread. So you are not making any kind of sense at the moment because you are arguing against something out of context. At this point, I just have to leave you be on the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I did watch the video. Like I said, he did mention many of the criticisms in the first hour of the video but when it came to that paper specifically he did not really criticize it specifically for all the things mentioned earlier. Not saying that he had to be mean and nasty, but certainly this paper is not about "asiatic weavers" in Egypt. Because we all know the AE did not come from Asiatic weavers, so if we want to know the DNA profile of AE during the Dynastic era, it is ludicrous to start with Asiatic weavers.... Not sure why that would be a topic of discussion if the point is to understand the INDIGENOUS DNA of the AE people. At this point, almost all of these papers on North Africa and AE are trying to prove the existence of Eurasian DNA in ancient times versus trying to determine any indigenous DNA of any specific population in the region.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Again, it's clear that you didn't read his response to the Abusir paper and you didn't comprehend what he said in the video. He simply mentioned the asiatic weavers as one possible alternative explanation for foreign DNA in Egypt at that time in history in that location. This was along other reasons which were suggested in his official preliminary response, which I posted in this thread. So you are not making any kind of sense at the moment because you are arguing against something out of context. At this point, I just have to leave you be on the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I did watch the video. Like I said, he did mention many of the criticisms in the first hour of the video but when it came to that paper specifically he did not really criticize it specifically for all the things mentioned earlier. Not saying that he had to be mean and nasty, but certainly this paper is not about "asiatic weavers" in Egypt. Because we all know the AE did not come from Asiatic weavers, so if we want to know the DNA profile of AE during the Dynastic era, it is ludicrous to start with Asiatic weavers.... Not sure why that would be a topic of discussion if the point is to understand the INDIGENOUS DNA of the AE people. At this point, almost all of these papers on North Africa and AE are trying to prove the existence of Eurasian DNA in ancient times versus trying to determine any indigenous DNA of any specific population in the region.
Doug will argue any reason for that DNA being there, even if you give him material to read or watch. If you say there was Asiatic immigration he argues. Pre dynastics with Asiatic cultural affinity? He argues. And that by itself might not bother some people, but he has no answer when you ask for his opinion on how it got there. Maybe he'll rant that they don't matter and go on about how Egypt was born for the south, but that's not an explanation. It's almost as though he feels he can rant or argue the data out of existence.
We have no full certainty of the cultural origins of the people living there enough to complain that they all weren't "indigenous." Immigration or a northern predynastic origin are explanations that have enough plausibility in explaining the data to give reason not to take the data and assume no nuances across time and space. Certainly not at the level the media had. But more research needs to be done that can verify the situation. The Abusir paper says that Asiatic names were found in Abusir grave sites, which would make it plausible that immigration could at least a partially explain the data.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
This study is the only ancient Egyptian mtDNA, maternal DNA results published.
There are not many older mummies but a few
(note the R and J here are mtDNA R and J not the more commonly talked about Y DNA R and J )
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Genes for white skin originated in Africa". 1hr 1min.
Listening to him it seems like he is stealing my work. lol It is all good. "They are where they are (suppose to be)" 1hr 4min. He is plagiarizing my work . lol!
He was not stealing your work... Take it from someone who really does steal your work. Besides if he was stealing your work wouldn't he make the argument that Abu Sir is mostly indigenous and Homo Sapiens didn't breed with Neanderthals.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug said: If ancient so-called "Nubians" or Upper Egyptians from around Aswan and Northern Sudan have similar signatures in ancient times, then what? Central African DNA is not required for blacks in the ancient Nile Valley either way.
Indeed. as Keita himself said years ago, look at a broad range of evidence. "Central African" DNA is not needed to establish tropical Africans therein, or "blacks" if you will (a perfectly reasonable label in terms of modern social constructs per some Egyptologists). Many of the hoary old stereotypical tropes of the past, including the "true negro" Congoid/central African "type" have been moved over to DNA by some researchers and associated laymen.
However, he did not cover the fact that the overall ancestry of the AE could not be identified just by those samples from Abusir and he did not specifically say that the AE as North East Africans would have ancestral genomes shared with Near Easterners. He did talk about it generally but did not specifically apply it to the Abusir paper in a very obvious way. So talking about importing weavers from the Near East would not obviously explain that ancestral genetic relationship going back thousands of years, which the paper was trying to get at from the DNA samples in the first place. Not saying he didn't discuss it at all but he could have hammered the point home using the paper itself.
Given that the vid was an informal type conversation touching on many topics, an in-depth exposition of Abusir could not be covered. Keita does bring forward new info on the many Asiatic weavers as a possibly representation of outside infuence etc. But we have known about other sources for a long time, including war captives, nomads etc. It is somewhat difficult to see where Keita is "failing" to do this and that, when he and others already clearly critiqued the Abusir study over 2 years ago. Just the critique on sampling, and the stereotypical analysis categories suffices to expose weaknesses. See: --Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4* Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: For those wanting to know more about Asiatic settlements, and especially the women weavers imported from the Levant to run the textile industry, I highly recommend this text:
Asiatics In Middle Kingdom Egypt by Phillis Saretta
Description:
quote:The ancient Egyptians had very definite views about their neighbours, some positive, some negative. As one would expect, Egyptian perceptions of 'the other' were subject to change over time, especially in response to changing political, social and economic conditions. Thus, as Asiatics became a more familiar part of everyday life in Egypt, and their skills and goods became increasingly important, depictions of them took on more favourable aspects.
The investigation by necessity involves a multi-disciplined approach which seeks to combine and synthesize data from a wider variety of sources than drawn upon in earlier studies. By the same token, the book addresses the interests of, and has appeal to, a broad spectrum of scholars and general readers.
Interesting.. Many of the aforementioned weavers were concentrated in Kahun, a town also renowned for its brisk trade in hair, an important commodity alongside, gold, incense etc. It would be interesting to see if some of these & other imported females were delivering not only weaving product, but hair as well for the many wigs used by the Egyptians. The link below show a weaver receiving a wig as part of the marriage dowry, with the wig itself constituting one-third of the value of the dowry. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/18730/1/18730_Vol.1,_Chap_1-5.pdf
-------------------- 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
I already pointed this out for him and even posted Keita et al's preliminary response. So it is a wonder how he is coming to his conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug said: If ancient so-called "Nubians" or Upper Egyptians from around Aswan and Northern Sudan have similar signatures in ancient times, then what? Central African DNA is not required for blacks in the ancient Nile Valley either way.
Indeed. as Keita himself said years ago, look at a broad range of evidence. "Central African" DNA is not needed to establish tropical Africans therein, or "blacks" if you will (a perfectly reasonable label in terms of modern social constructs per some Egyptologists). Many of the hoary old stereotypical tropes of the past, including the "true negro" Congoid/central African "type" have been moved over to DNA by some researchers and associated laymen.
However, he did not cover the fact that the overall ancestry of the AE could not be identified just by those samples from Abusir and he did not specifically say that the AE as North East Africans would have ancestral genomes shared with Near Easterners. He did talk about it generally but did not specifically apply it to the Abusir paper in a very obvious way. So talking about importing weavers from the Near East would not obviously explain that ancestral genetic relationship going back thousands of years, which the paper was trying to get at from the DNA samples in the first place. Not saying he didn't discuss it at all but he could have hammered the point home using the paper itself.
Given that the vid was an informal type conversation touching on many topics, an in-depth exposition of Abusir could not be covered. Keita does bring forward new info on the many Asiatic weavers as a possibly representation of outside infuence etc. But we have known about other sources for a long time, including war captives, nomads etc. It is somewhat difficult to see where Keita is "failing" to do this and that, when he and others already clearly critiqued the Abusir study over 2 years ago. Just the critique on sampling, and the stereotypical analysis categories suffices to expose weaknesses. See: --Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4* Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion
Anyways. my take, Dr Keita is waffling about the Abusir. Come to think of it I am not sure what his point is on the Abusir. Are they indigenous or not. He implied the mtDNA is due the Asian concubines. So I guess he is leaning towards the Abusir is ...mulatoes.....I think ...lol! He is probably unsure himself. Maybe the opening poster can ask the question (sic)
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Genes for white skin originated in Africa". 1hr 1min.
Listening to him it seems like he is stealing my work. lol It is all good. "They are where they are (suppose to be)" 1hr 4min. He is plagiarizing my work . lol!
He was not stealing your work... Take it from someone who really does steal your work. Besides if he was stealing your work wouldn't he make the argument that Abu Sir is mostly indigenous and Homo Sapiens didn't breed with Neanderthals.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't imply there was one definite justification for the data. At most one can argue that he was discussing some historical variables that are plausible enough to explain some of that data so as not to jump the gun with the study. It shows that the study's implication that their results are representative of indigenous Egyptians across space and time (without thorough use of other disciplines) is bad science. They could be indigenous, but there's not enough data to confirm that. The southern samples don't have as many holes in establishing the context of the data. We have no idea the history of the remains found at Abusir and there are too many plausible explanations for the data that would make the media's broad assumptions laughable.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug said: If ancient so-called "Nubians" or Upper Egyptians from around Aswan and Northern Sudan have similar signatures in ancient times, then what? Central African DNA is not required for blacks in the ancient Nile Valley either way.
Indeed. as Keita himself said years ago, look at a broad range of evidence. "Central African" DNA is not needed to establish tropical Africans therein, or "blacks" if you will (a perfectly reasonable label in terms of modern social constructs per some Egyptologists). Many of the hoary old stereotypical tropes of the past, including the "true negro" Congoid/central African "type" have been moved over to DNA by some researchers and associated laymen.
However, he did not cover the fact that the overall ancestry of the AE could not be identified just by those samples from Abusir and he did not specifically say that the AE as North East Africans would have ancestral genomes shared with Near Easterners. He did talk about it generally but did not specifically apply it to the Abusir paper in a very obvious way. So talking about importing weavers from the Near East would not obviously explain that ancestral genetic relationship going back thousands of years, which the paper was trying to get at from the DNA samples in the first place. Not saying he didn't discuss it at all but he could have hammered the point home using the paper itself.
Given that the vid was an informal type conversation touching on many topics, an in-depth exposition of Abusir could not be covered. Keita does bring forward new info on the many Asiatic weavers as a possibly representation of outside infuence etc. But we have known about other sources for a long time, including war captives, nomads etc. It is somewhat difficult to see where Keita is "failing" to do this and that, when he and others already clearly critiqued the Abusir study over 2 years ago. Just the critique on sampling, and the stereotypical analysis categories suffices to expose weaknesses. See: --Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4* Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion
I am criticizing the paper on Abusir as pretending to be the comprehensive be all and end all answer on Ancient Egyptian DNA. This is the point. I do not expect any comprehensive survey of Ancient Egyptian DNA to be forthcoming anytime soon. This isn't about any theoretical models of migration into the Nile Valley from the Levant or elsewhere outside of Africa. The ultimate question is what was the baseline DNA profile for the indigenous population along the Nile going back 2k, 3k, 4k years or more and how do those overall profiles relate to surrounding contemporary populations in and outside Africa. That is a comprehensive rigorous method of undertanding ancient Egyptian DNA and North African DNA in its proper African context. The Abusir paper does not do this. And Max Planck and those other institutions doing the DNA research aren't going to do this because that is going against their agenda. They are going to present half truths and misleading data in order to support a narrative of Eurasian Ancient Egyptians and North Africans as long as they possibly can.
posted
And just for the record everyone, I will be interviewing Dr. Keita, again, on Saturday April 25th (a week from now) at 1PM Eastern Standard Time (United States). I will make a separate post for that discussion.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] I was speaking about light skin......etc
Anyways. my take, Dr Keita is waffling about the Abusir. Come to think of it I am not sure what his point is on the Abusir. Are they indigenous or not. He implied the mtDNA is due the Asian concubines. So I guess he is leaning towards the Abusir is ...mulatoes.....I think ...lol! He is probably unsure himself.
I don't know if you watched the entire conversation but he spoke about back migration, M1 and mixing with Neanderthals in a way that would suggest that he thinks anything that isn't L and M1 mutated in Asia and back migrated. I'm not sure if he could even theorize how Abu Sir might be mostly indigenous.
It took someone going to my youtube channel and showing me their 23andme test before I really looked at how homogeneous and old branched many of these 'Out of Africa' haplogroups are in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: And just for the record everyone, I will be interviewing Dr. Keita, again, on Saturday April 25th (a week from now) at 1PM Eastern Standard Time (United States). I will make a separate post for that discussion.
Can we post possible questions for those of us that can't make it?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: And just for the record everyone, I will be interviewing Dr. Keita, again, on Saturday April 25th (a week from now) at 1PM Eastern Standard Time (United States). I will make a separate post for that discussion.
Can we post possible questions for those of us that can't make it?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: A number of serious books are citing Egyptsearch's info and analysis. Footnote on this one discussed Saharan genesis. Kuper is a heavyweight guy in the area- see his 2006 article on the Sahara as a key motor of Africa's evolution
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The child is 10 years old now, so for the past 10 years no one has taken a picture of the child?
How about of the parents since 2010?
No scientists have written an article about a supposedly extremely rare genetic event?
all of the sudden they are concerned about privacy? I wonder if they were selling some of those baby pictures I wonder if the hair was even real
and it has no relevance to the topic
I recall this one.
quote: This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T).
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
~Carles Lalueza-Fox
Nature 507, 225–228 (13 March 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12960
Genomic Affinities of Two 7,000-Year-Old Iberian Hunter-Gatherers
quote:Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
Seems it was an 8 part series of articles focusing on correspondences/cognates between Aegyptian and other "Afroasiatic" languages, particularly focused on anatomy and numerology. I found most of the parts freely available online except parts 5 and 7. From what I could read the author noted a predominance of African correspondences in anatomological words and numerous correspondences in numerals(especially 2, 3, and 10)
I am not fully familiar with this series, but a quick glance and the paper from the link below, it is typical Africanist laziness. This is virtually useless as Takacs,and others like him, refuse to use the comparative method for any of their claims.
You are supposed to compare in each language, a series of sets of vocabulary (basic) to establish the sound laws and correspondences between the languages. Takacs never does this in any of his papers or books. Just a total waste of time.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: For Asar Imhotep:
Are you familiar with this set of articles? "Layers of the Oldest Egyptian Lexicon"
Seems it was an 8 part series of articles focusing on correspondences/cognates between Aegyptian and other "Afroasiatic" languages, particularly focused on anatomy and numerology. I found most of the parts freely available online except parts 5 and 7. From what I could read the author noted a predominance of African correspondences in anatomological words and numerous correspondences in numerals(especially 2, 3, and 10)
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Not to start something, but I just bumped into this old post. Posted on 03 May, 2016 19:50.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: A number of serious books are citing Egyptsearch's info and analysis. Footnote on this one discussed Saharan genesis. Kuper is a heavyweight guy in the area- see his 2006 article on the Sahara as a key motor of Africa's evolution
Yes. Serious folk have taken note of the huge amount of detailed content and citations on ES and Reloaded. But they are a secondary consideration compared to the info pool made available to a wide audience of informed laymen, and Google gives excellent search representation as a result. This helps defeat the bogus "stealth" edits and distortions of moles on Wikipedia trying to make legit scholarship "disappear." All their deception has ultimately failed. The data also enables successful confrontation with assorted racists and "hereditarian" types- hitting them hard when they retail their nonsense on various forums across the web.
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The general reading public may mistake lazy Africanist for media tripes against Afrocentrics, which obviously is not the case in your post. So take no offense.
Africanist has been mistaken for Afrocentric in ES's past as witnessed in posts by Djehuti.
Africanists are the main obstacle to Africana students seeing things independently from Afrikan perspectives or so I've been led to think by my readings of Doc Ben where he castigated white Africanists and their blunders.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic