posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This was open to audience participation and you shared this after the fact?

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
It was kind of last minute and I forgot about this forum until after the fact. He'll be on again in the future. So I will make sure there is enough time for me to advertise here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This was open to audience participation and you shared this after the fact?

---

---

You dont forget about this forum when you be hawking them books though.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
It was kind of last minute and I forgot about this forum until after the fact. He'll be on again in the future. So I will make sure there is enough time for me to advertise here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This was open to audience participation and you shared this after the fact?

---

---

You dont forget about this forum when you be hawking them books though.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

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!

---

Posts: 27 | From: Birmingham's Black Country | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
It was kind of last minute and I forgot about this forum until after the fact. He'll be on again in the future. So I will make sure there is enough time for me to advertise here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This was open to audience participation and you shared this after the fact?

---

---

You dont forget about this forum when you be hawking them books though.

---

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abza2:

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!

---

What stuff he's plagiarizing from you? Looks like he's leaching a lot of stuff from the other site at Egyptsearchrelaoded, which he hasn't even bothered to share the video with even though he is sure to post ads for his books over there.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abza2:
[Q]

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[q] "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! [/q]

---

What stuff he's plagiarizing from you? Looks like he's leaching a lot of stuff from the other site at Egyptsearchrelaoded, which he hasn't even bothered to share the video with even though he is sure to post ads for his books over there. [/Q]

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
^ I not going to get into it with you. Not worth my time. Believe what you may. And I made that claim since 2007 not 2017.

Anyways - I don't think he handled the Abusir question adequately which makes me think he is hedging or pandering.

His argument should be a deep dive on the mtDNA haplogroups proving an African origin(eg PhyloTree) rather than "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines". BS pandering by Keita.


He mentioned "3". Most people here did not understand it was only 3 samples they used to make their conjecture until I made that point.

Is Keita another conman? Plagiarism ? Maybe. Also He was partly educated at Oxford? Unusual. hmmm.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
If you read what I actually said I did not say that YOU made the claim in 2017, I stated that this notion of a pale-skin gene has been published at least three years ago in a scientific journal, which he reads. So did the people in the Science journal plagiarize you also? Can you point us to your non-egyptsearch.com website posting on the matter, where everyone who has published on this finding got their information from you?

Secondly, this interview was a general interview, an introduction of him to my audience. It wasn't meant to be a deep dive into anything as the conversation would be 5 hours long trying to explain everything to the lay person. As I stated in a previous post, this was sort of last minute. We decided to do this on Sunday for Tuesday morning. So there was no time to put presentations together to have an in-depth conversation about any particular topic.

The "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines" was in the context of explaining how the "near eastern" markers got into that area, because it is a known weaver's town. Those of us who actually read mdw-nTr texts and study this history knows this. But this is not known to the general public. This I discuss as well in Aaluja Vol. II (2020), last chapter. It was enough to make the point for the general lay audience.

And regarding the three samples, do you really think that it took you, of all people, to point out that it was only three samples? You have lost your mind. We all read the primary article and came to the same conclusion, not because it took great analytical skills, because they said so directly in the paper. Doesn't take a genius. I belong to several different circles and we all knew this, and discussed this on several different platforms, without any engagement from you. You place more value on your egyptsearch conversations than there really is. If you want to be taken seriously, go publish somewhere in a journal and defend your position against people in the field. No one is going to cite egyptsearch for a conversation in which you are simply reciting other scholar's published arguments any way. Get over yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
^ I not going to get into it with you. Not worth my time. Believe what you may. And I made that claim since 2007 not 2017.

Anyways - I don't think he handled the Abusir question adequately which makes me think he is hedging or pandering.

His argument should be a deep dive on the mtDNA haplogroups proving an African origin(eg PhyloTree) rather than "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines". BS pandering by Keita.


He mentioned "3". Most people here did not understand it was only 3 samples they used to make their conjecture until I made that point.

Is Keita another conman? Plagiarism ? Maybe. Also He was partly educated at Oxford? Unusual. hmmm.

---

---

quote:

---

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

---

quote:

---

The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Archaeological discoveries and historical documents suggest close ties between Egypt and the Middle East, but “it is very nice that this study has now provided empirical evidence for this at the genetic level”, says evolutionary anthropologist Omer Gokcumen of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

The new data can’t explain why the ancient Egyptians were so tightly aligned with people from the Middle East. Was it the result of migration, or were the Stone Age hunter-gatherers of northern Africa genetically similar to those of the Levant? It’s too early to tell, Krause says, but there’s a better chance now of getting answers. “This is the first glimpse of the genetic history of Egypt,” he says. “But it’s really just the start.”

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
If you read what I actually said I did not say that YOU made the claim in 2017, I stated that this notion of a pale-skin gene has been published at least three years ago in a scientific journal, which he reads. So did the people in the Science journal plagiarize you also? Can you point us to your non-egyptsearch.com website posting on the matter, where everyone who has published on this finding got their information from you?

Secondly, this interview was a general interview, an introduction of him to my audience. It wasn't meant to be a deep dive into anything as the conversation would be 5 hours long trying to explain everything to the lay person. As I stated in a previous post, this was sort of last minute. We decided to do this on Sunday for Tuesday morning. So there was no time to put presentations together to have an in-depth conversation about any particular topic.

The "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines" was in the context of explaining how the "near eastern" markers got into that area, because it is a known weaver's town. Those of us who actually read mdw-nTr texts and study this history knows this. But this is not known to the general public. This I discuss as well in Aaluja Vol. II (2020), last chapter. It was enough to make the point for the general lay audience.

And regarding the three samples, do you really think that it took you, of all people, to point out that it was only three samples? You have lost your mind. We all read the primary article and came to the same conclusion, not because it took great analytical skills, because they said so directly in the paper. Doesn't take a genius. I belong to several different circles and we all knew this, and discussed this on several different platforms, without any engagement from you. You place more value on your egyptsearch conversations than there really is. If you want to be taken seriously, go publish somewhere in a journal and defend your position against people in the field. No one is going to cite egyptsearch for a conversation in which you are simply reciting other scholar's published arguments any way. Get over yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
^ I not going to get into it with you. Not worth my time. Believe what you may. And I made that claim since 2007 not 2017.

Anyways - I don't think he handled the Abusir question adequately which makes me think he is hedging or pandering.

His argument should be a deep dive on the mtDNA haplogroups proving an African origin(eg PhyloTree) rather than "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines". BS pandering by Keita.


He mentioned "3". Most people here did not understand it was only 3 samples they used to make their conjecture until I made that point.

Is Keita another conman? Plagiarism ? Maybe. Also He was partly educated at Oxford? Unusual. hmmm.

---

---

Actually the problem with "concubines" is that it completely misses the point. North Africa is next to the "Near East" and in many cases Egypt is considered as part of the "Near East" in the first place. Regardless if you feel that is an accurate label or not, it is still a fact that North Africa being next to the Levant and Arabia means there has to be some genetic relationship between the two. So the question to the geneticists and anthropologists is simple: do the "Near Easterners" have a deep shared history with North Africa because of African ancestry or vice versa? And second, how do you disentangle the long history of migrations both ways to determine the root ancestral relationships between the two?

My argument is that papers like the Abusir one are designed to obfuscate that relationship rather than clarify it. Hence, claiming that Ancient Egyptians close DNA relationship to "Near Easterners" comes from concubines is ridiculous because you would expect that relationship to be ancestral, meaning going back to a common ancestor thousands of years in the past. The problem becomes the idea of "reverse migrations" as justification for claiming that the AE were "Near Easterners" in the first place, which muddies the waters. But yet this is exactly what these same geneticists are claiming in other papers from the same institutions. So if that is true wouldn't the AE DNA profile already have "Near Eastern" markers then? But that scenario is still problematic because it still doesn't explain the origin of "Near Eastern" DNA in Africa and these bogus "missing links" and "black holes" commonly called "EEF" just points to flaws in the models vs the truth of the relationship.

If you believe in genetics and anthropology then at some point logic would tell you that ancient North Africans are ancestral to "Near Easterners" and Eurasians. But somehow modern geneticists have a hard time phrasing their papers in such a way to establish this because they seem more interested in proposing a back wash of Near Eastern DNA in ancient times that turned things backwards.

Also the title of said study shows that the wording they used was simply to reinfoced old notions of a "racial" distinction between the AE and other Africans even if they don't say so directly. Which means it is designed to support internet trolls more than anything else. Using concubines as the justification for this is not something you would expect from a PHD who deals in anthropology and genetics.

quote:

---

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

quote:

---

The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Archaeological discoveries and historical documents suggest close ties between Egypt and the Middle East, but “it is very nice that this study has now provided empirical evidence for this at the genetic level”, says evolutionary anthropologist Omer Gokcumen of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

The new data can’t explain why the ancient Egyptians were so tightly aligned with people from the Middle East. Was it the result of migration, or were the Stone Age hunter-gatherers of northern Africa genetically similar to those of the Levant? It’s too early to tell, Krause says, but there’s a better chance now of getting answers. “This is the first glimpse of the genetic history of Egypt,” he says. “But it’s really just the start.”

---

https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069


Note how neither of these papers conclude that the AE had "Near Eastern" DNA because of concubines. Their conclusion is that that "Near Eastern" profile was always there and different from "central Africans"...... Which is misleading and contradictory if you go by the points I mentioned above.

Also the whole point of the papers was to show that they had a better method of extracting DNA from mummies than was previously available. Which means more mummy DNA from earlier periods along with DNA from neighboring populations in Africa and the "Near East" should also be forthcoming..... But as it stands they aren't going to actually do that because.... well common sense will tell you why. 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.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
1) It is clear you didn't watch the video
2) You must have the same reading comprehension problem that XYZman has.

Why? Because neither Keita or I made the claim that the "Near Eastern" clines you see in the Abusir study was the result of "concubines." If you actually read our texts, or at least have the decency to watch the video, you know we discussed that particular town was one of many weaver's town where a lot of Semitic speaking women were imported to do labor in the garment district. Some may have been Egyptian wives, most probably not. The point is that there was a large flux of Asiatics who created settlements in Egypt, like the East Asians created "China Towns" in New York, San Fransisco, and Houston.

If you understand this bit of history, which I discuss in Aaluja VOl. II (last chapter), you'd understand why that study was flawed from the beginning.

But this is why I rarely post any more on this forum. Too many people who don't read have long arguments about nothing and irrelevant points the principle arguers never made. It's tiresome. Geesh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
If you read what I actually said I did not say that YOU made the claim in 2017, I stated that this notion of a pale-skin gene has been published at least three years ago in a scientific journal, which he reads. So did the people in the Science journal plagiarize you also? Can you point us to your non-egyptsearch.com website posting on the matter, where everyone who has published on this finding got their information from you?

Secondly, this interview was a general interview, an introduction of him to my audience. It wasn't meant to be a deep dive into anything as the conversation would be 5 hours long trying to explain everything to the lay person. As I stated in a previous post, this was sort of last minute. We decided to do this on Sunday for Tuesday morning. So there was no time to put presentations together to have an in-depth conversation about any particular topic.

The "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines" was in the context of explaining how the "near eastern" markers got into that area, because it is a known weaver's town. Those of us who actually read mdw-nTr texts and study this history knows this. But this is not known to the general public. This I discuss as well in Aaluja Vol. II (2020), last chapter. It was enough to make the point for the general lay audience.

And regarding the three samples, do you really think that it took you, of all people, to point out that it was only three samples? You have lost your mind. We all read the primary article and came to the same conclusion, not because it took great analytical skills, because they said so directly in the paper. Doesn't take a genius. I belong to several different circles and we all knew this, and discussed this on several different platforms, without any engagement from you. You place more value on your egyptsearch conversations than there really is. If you want to be taken seriously, go publish somewhere in a journal and defend your position against people in the field. No one is going to cite egyptsearch for a conversation in which you are simply reciting other scholar's published arguments any way. Get over yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
^ I not going to get into it with you. Not worth my time. Believe what you may. And I made that claim since 2007 not 2017.

Anyways - I don't think he handled the Abusir question adequately which makes me think he is hedging or pandering.

His argument should be a deep dive on the mtDNA haplogroups proving an African origin(eg PhyloTree) rather than "Africans took near Easterners as Concubines". BS pandering by Keita.


He mentioned "3". Most people here did not understand it was only 3 samples they used to make their conjecture until I made that point.

Is Keita another conman? Plagiarism ? Maybe. Also He was partly educated at Oxford? Unusual. hmmm.

---

---

Actually the problem with "concubines" is that it completely misses the point. North Africa is next to the "Near East" and in many cases Egypt is considered as part of the "Near East" in the first place. Regardless if you feel that is an accurate label or not, it is still a fact that North Africa being next to the Levant and Arabia means there has to be some genetic relationship between the two. So the question to the geneticists and anthropologists is simple: do the "Near Easterners" have a deep shared history with North Africa because of African ancestry or vice versa? And second, how do you disentangle the long history of migrations both ways to determine the root ancestral relationships between the two?

My argument is that papers like the Abusir one are designed to obfuscate that relationship rather than clarify it. Hence, claiming that Ancient Egyptians close DNA relationship to "Near Easterners" comes from concubines is ridiculous because you would expect that relationship to be ancestral, meaning going back to a common ancestor thousands of years in the past. The problem becomes the idea of "reverse migrations" as justification for claiming that the AE were "Near Easterners" in the first place, which muddies the waters. But yet this is exactly what these same geneticists are claiming in other papers from the same institutions. So if that is true wouldn't the AE DNA profile already have "Near Eastern" markers then? But that scenario is still problematic because it still doesn't explain the origin of "Near Eastern" DNA in Africa and these bogus "missing links" and "black holes" commonly called "EEF" just points to flaws in the models vs the truth of the relationship.

If you believe in genetics and anthropology then at some point logic would tell you that ancient North Africans are ancestral to "Near Easterners" and Eurasians. But somehow modern geneticists have a hard time phrasing their papers in such a way to establish this because they seem more interested in proposing a back wash of Near Eastern DNA in ancient times that turned things backwards.

Also the title of said study shows that the wording they used was simply to reinfoced old notions of a "racial" distinction between the AE and other Africans even if they don't say so directly. Which means it is designed to support internet trolls more than anything else. Using concubines as the justification for this is not something you would expect from a PHD who deals in anthropology and genetics.

quote:

---

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies. The samples recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

quote:

---

The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

Archaeological discoveries and historical documents suggest close ties between Egypt and the Middle East, but “it is very nice that this study has now provided empirical evidence for this at the genetic level”, says evolutionary anthropologist Omer Gokcumen of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

The new data can’t explain why the ancient Egyptians were so tightly aligned with people from the Middle East. Was it the result of migration, or were the Stone Age hunter-gatherers of northern Africa genetically similar to those of the Levant? It’s too early to tell, Krause says, but there’s a better chance now of getting answers. “This is the first glimpse of the genetic history of Egypt,” he says. “But it’s really just the start.”

---

https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069


Note how neither of these papers conclude that the AE had "Near Eastern" DNA because of concubines. Their conclusion is that that "Near Eastern" profile was always there and different from "central Africans"...... Which is misleading and contradictory if you go by the points I mentioned above.

Also the whole point of the papers was to show that they had a better method of extracting DNA from mummies than was previously available. Which means more mummy DNA from earlier periods along with DNA from neighboring populations in Africa and the "Near East" should also be forthcoming..... But as it stands they aren't going to actually do that because.... well common sense will tell you why. 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.

---

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

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.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
[QB]
Secondly, this interview was a general interview, an introduction of him to my audience. It wasn't meant to be a deep dive into anything as the conversation would be 5 hours long trying to explain everything to the lay person. As I stated in a previous post, this was sort of last minute. We decided to do this on Sunday for Tuesday morning. So there was no time to put presentations together to have an in-depth conversation about any particular topic.

---

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
[QB]
Secondly, this interview was a general interview, an introduction of him to my audience. It wasn't meant to be a deep dive into anything as the conversation would be 5 hours long trying to explain everything to the lay person. As I stated in a previous post, this was sort of last minute. We decided to do this on Sunday for Tuesday morning. So there was no time to put presentations together to have an in-depth conversation about any particular topic.

---

If i can suggest something for the next study.

IGNORE LAY PEOPLE ALL TOGETHER.

Have a very specific series of questions laid out that are very technical that require very technical responses that are over lay peoples head. A scholar to scholar discussion with an audience of other armature researchers as the focus would be much better than wasting time introducing Keita to lay folks that will ask pretty remedial questions like those asked at the end of the video.

No Questions about wavy line pottery? Nothing of specific migrations of uni-parental markers? Basal Eurasian, Taforalt, Takarkori, Natufian, IAM, E1b1a, MOTA, recently published Kenyan and Tanzanian ancient DNA...........all these subjects were missing in action.

What we...........or rather what I am looking for is an Kieta's interpretation of these findings based on his own research and history and any other private communication or private samples he could have knowledge on. You didn't even press him on the "Primary Pastoral Community" he brought up as Egyptian cultural ancestors.

Where are the links to the studies he talked about? The one on crania and pigmentation?
When should always get some type of keyword so we can look this data up.

IMO its your job to break complicated information down to laypeople. If not its a waste of time, its like having Nikola Tesla on the line and asking grade school questions.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Per Asar Imhotep:

"Our claim to fame is posting on a forum we don't own with poor moderationship. We have to do better."

You all are going to have to make up your minds. On one hand I get complaints that the mods/admins are "too aggressive", but let Asar tell it the moderation is poor. Which is it?

---

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
@Abza2 most of the folks on here are not "lay People" in terms of the regular youtube audience. We know what a non metric trait and a SNP is. We know what Natufian, Taf and MOTA means. If your account is from 2009....you are different from Regular youtube folks. But Ausar is correct, he knows his audience, i cant tell him how to run his channel nor what questions to ask. FYI, there are no Africana Websites. Most of my forumbio activity is about money and politics. I ceased creating africana thread there YEARS ago. I have my own site, i post there when i want. I have an audience of about 4 people and i am fine with that. The closest thing to an Africana site was the hidden facebook group we created. Too bad to those that didnt get an invite. My Africana studies time is limited as most of my freetime is devoted to researching FINANCE. I have spent too much time on a hobby that does not pay and i refuse to monetize African studies......going back to my stock broker roots.

@Ausaur, note taken. I will be on the look out for future work.

@XYYMAN - I BEEN a fraud. You didnt know?

---

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Mummies, it seems, are always in the news. Just days after a British team claimed, somewhat dubiously, that they had synthesized the voice of a 3,000-year-old mummy of the priest Nesyamun, a second group of British researchers announced their own study about a 2,600-year-old mummy of a woman named Takabuti in the Ulster Museum. Like the earlier study, this announcement made news headlines around the world. Using CT scans and DNA analysis, the researchers made a number of new findings about Takabuti’s life (they found that she had an extra tooth, for instance), violent death (she had been stabbed in the back), and mummification.

The news stories also announced that Takabuti’s DNA suggested her ancestry was closer to modern Europeans than Arabs. This last finding stands out for many reasons. For one thing, when we look at the details of the claim, it begins to fall apart. The geneticist involved in the study (Konstantina Drosou of the University of Manchester) refers to the mummy’s “genetic footprint,” H4a1, a reference to a specific mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) ancestry or haplogroup. Yet mitochondrial DNA represents just a single ancestral lineage — a single data point — among all of the tens of thousands for any individual. Mitochondrial DNA is passed along from mother to child. This means that, as a pointer to distant ancestry, it points to the genes of a single female ancestor out of many. For instance, take any person living today and trace their ancestry back 500 years. They would have had tens if not hundreds of thousands of ancestors living at that time. Mitochondrial DNA analysis, if successful, will identify the genes of just one of those tens of thousands of people. It is a huge leap to move from a single lineage to broad conclusions about ancestry being “European” or “Arab,” especially when these terms are used as monolithic ancestral groups — failing to take into account movements of individuals and groups throughout the last few thousand years.

That is not the only problem. Proving the European ancestry of ancient Egyptians — particularly of Egyptian royalty — has been a running goal of research on mummies for some 200 years. A century or two ago it was determined by measuring skulls and comparing physical features; now it is done through ancient DNA (aDNA). Throughout all of this, the methods have been scientifically questionable. Problems with aDNA studies are legion: small sample sizes, broad claims made from individual data points, and (not surprisingly) contradictory results. The failures of past race science should give researchers pause in the present, to consider that our current assumptions might also be flawed and troubled. And researchers should stop and ask why this question of European ancestry continues to be such a focus of primarily European research on mummies. After 200 years, the public would be forgiven for thinking that researchers really want ancient Egyptians to have been European, or even that researchers think Africans would not have been capable of producing the great monuments of the Egyptian past.

....

If we listen to scholars, we often hear that the sensationalism and factual errors in popular understanding of history are the fault of the media. They suggest that journalists distort the findings of scholarship or aren’t interested in ethical issues. Yet, in the cases of the two recent mummy announcements — as in many others — we see that these problems start with the scholarship itself.

When I first saw the headline “Shocking truth behind Takabuti’s death revealed” circulating online I thought it was from a British tabloid, maybe the Express or the Daily Mail, not from a university press release. It is no wonder that news outlets focus on sensational aspects of scholarship or amplify dubious claims.

The vocal tract study was of dubious scientific value, adding nothing to our knowledge of ancient Egyptians: we did not need to this study to show that ancient Egyptians could produce the vowel sound “a” or “e,” and in any case (because of the changes in the mummy’s vocal tract after death and mummification) the study was not even successful in proving this. The Takabuti study, while adding to our knowledge of an ancient Egyptian, involved questionable race science. The truth is that scholars, publicists, and journalists all collaborate in providing poor understandings of the past and how we study it to the public.

These examples also raise another troubling question: Do scholars tailor their work to get media attention? This wouldn’t exactly be surprising, given the temptations for publicity and funding, but it would be a major problem. Scholars should publicize issues like ethics because they are important and shape our understanding of how we use the past; this shouldn’t depend on whether the media care. When we fail to discuss these issues, we teach readers and viewers that news stories about mummies are supposed to be lurid and sensationalist. When it comes to ethics, we tell them not to care.

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
If i can suggest something for the next study.

IGNORE LAY PEOPLE ALL TOGETHER.

Have a very specific series of questions laid out that are very technical that require very technical responses that are over lay peoples head. A scholar to scholar discussion with an audience of other armature researchers as the focus would be much better than wasting time introducing Keita to lay folks that will ask pretty remedial questions like those asked at the end of the video.

No Questions about wavy line pottery? Nothing of specific migrations of uni-parental markers? Basal Eurasian, Taforalt, Takarkori, Natufian, IAM, E1b1a, MOTA, recently published Kenyan and Tanzanian ancient DNA...........all these subjects were missing in action.

What we...........or rather what I am looking for is an Kieta's interpretation of these findings based on his own research and history and any other private communication or private samples he could have knowledge on. You didn't even press him on the "Primary Pastoral Community" he brought up as Egyptian cultural ancestors.

Where are the links to the studies he talked about? The one on crania and pigmentation?
When should always get some type of keyword so we can look this data up.

IMO its your job to break complicated information down to laypeople. If not its a waste of time, its like having Nikola Tesla on the line and asking grade school questions.

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

You'd be surprised at what I know and what conversations he and I have on a regular basis regarding this stuff. I don't post the stuff here because most of it is irrelevant to Egyptology and most people don't have the science background to properly evaluate the material and to know what critical questions to ask.

This is the reason for all of the circular arguments that goes on in this forum in the modern day. One of the reasons for, and major themes running throughout the interview above, is the importance of learning intimately research methodology and science. Without that background, no matter what someone reads, one will not have the tools to evaluate and critique properly the material. And when it comes to ancient Km.t, 98% of the people on this forum can't even read the sS-md.w-nTr (hieroglyphs) to even find out what the Egyptians tell you about their own history. If they could, in a discussion like this, they would be able to tell you the names of the foreigners who created large settlements in the Delta, for example, as the Egyptians say so in their texts.

What really needs to happen, and this is something I am setting up for the future, is to have Keita and other bio-anthropologists or geneticists have a discourse live about the subject. It is my belief that we can gain much more from a discussion like that than a mere interview Q&A. But that is something I am building to.

For those interested in the actual methodology of science and how to use it in studies pertaining to ancient Km.t, and don't mind shelling out some bucks for the book, I highly recommend the following text, which I reference often.

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:
FWIW, I feel you'll be in a better position to interview Keita on that sort of stuff than Asar. You are the one who keeps up with all this aDNA and other anthropology stuff.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to me that the overlap between people with an "Afrocentric" perspective on ancient Egypt and people who are interested in aDNA or other facets of biological anthropology is that large to begin with. You can find some people who fit into that overlap here on ES as well as certain other fora like Forumbiodiversity and Anthrogenica, but even on those sites they're not in the majority. There are only so many people like us who would be qualified to have an in-depth discussion on these topics with a guy like Keita.

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

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?

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
If i can suggest something for the next study.

IGNORE LAY PEOPLE ALL TOGETHER.

Have a very specific series of questions laid out that are very technical that require very technical responses that are over lay peoples head. A scholar to scholar discussion with an audience of other armature researchers as the focus would be much better than wasting time introducing Keita to lay folks that will ask pretty remedial questions like those asked at the end of the video.

No Questions about wavy line pottery? Nothing of specific migrations of uni-parental markers? Basal Eurasian, Taforalt, Takarkori, Natufian, IAM, E1b1a, MOTA, recently published Kenyan and Tanzanian ancient DNA...........all these subjects were missing in action.

What we...........or rather what I am looking for is an Kieta's interpretation of these findings based on his own research and history and any other private communication or private samples he could have knowledge on. You didn't even press him on the "Primary Pastoral Community" he brought up as Egyptian cultural ancestors.

Where are the links to the studies he talked about? The one on crania and pigmentation?
When should always get some type of keyword so we can look this data up.

IMO its your job to break complicated information down to laypeople. If not its a waste of time, its like having Nikola Tesla on the line and asking grade school questions.

---

FWIW, I feel you'll be in a better position to interview Keita on that sort of stuff than Asar. You are the one who keeps up with all this aDNA and other anthropology stuff.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to me that the overlap between people with an "Afrocentric" perspective on ancient Egypt and people who are interested in aDNA or other facets of biological anthropology is that large to begin with. You can find some people who fit into that overlap here on ES as well as certain other fora like Forumbiodiversity and Anthrogenica, but even on those sites they're not in the majority. There are only so many people like us who would be qualified to have an in-depth discussion on these topics with a guy like Keita.

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:

For those interested in the actual methodology of science and how to use it in studies pertaining to ancient Km.t, and don't mind shelling out some bucks for the book, I highly recommend the following text, which I reference often.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

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?

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
You'd be surprised at what I know and what conversations he and I have on a regular basis regarding this stuff. I don't post the stuff here because most of it is irrelevant to Egyptology and most people don't have the science background to properly evaluate the material and to know what critical questions to ask.

This is the reason for all of the circular arguments that goes on in this forum in the modern day. One of the reasons for, and major themes running throughout the interview above, is the importance of learning intimately research methodology and science. Without that background, no matter what someone reads, one will not have the tools to evaluate and critique properly the material. And when it comes to ancient Km.t, 98% of the people on this forum can't even read the sS-md.w-nTr (hieroglyphs) to even find out what the Egyptians tell you about their own history. If they could, in a discussion like this, they would be able to tell you the names of the foreigners who created large settlements in the Delta, for example, as the Egyptians say so in their texts.

What really needs to happen, and this is something I am setting up for the future, is to have Keita and other bio-anthropologists or geneticists have a discourse live about the subject. It is my belief that we can gain much more from a discussion like that than a mere interview Q&A. But that is something I am building to.

For those interested in the actual methodology of science and how to use it in studies pertaining to ancient Km.t, and don't mind shelling out some bucks for the book, I highly recommend the following text, which I reference often.

---

I think its good you reached out to Keita. What I say below is criticism of book.
Keita has encouraged critical inquiry and the book has a number of problems,
like substantial missing data on limb proportions (strange in a book claiming
to be exploring biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians),
what seems to be s focus on narrow techniques sometimes not integrated
well into broader context, and strangely, even gratuitous tangential
comments about "Afrocentrism", as if using that to avoid discussing
certain things (like limb proportions for example).. That being said,
they do bring forward some advanced techniques like strontinum
analysis on remains etc.. DId not have library card to check out book
but of the pages examined, some items jumped out as noted on Reloaded
some time back (below)..

============================================================

Curiously the text or coauthors seem quite concerned about avoiding "Afrocentrism" and mention it twice. Strangely, they do not name Eurocentrism as a matter of concern, as can be seen in the statements below, where it is seems barely to exist. Apparently neither race or Afrocentrism is to be discussed. Fair enough, but why is it "race" and "Afrocentrism," and not race, "Eurocentrism" and "Afrocentrism"? And why is it "Afrocentrism and associated issues" but no mention is made of the massively more pernicious influence of Eurocentrism, which existed long before "Afrocentrism" showed up significantly in the 1960s? Subtly, it appears EUROCENTRISM is not a "problem" at all, but "Afrocentrism"?! - WHOA! Let's not discuss it... Interesting...


QUOTE:
"It is worth noting that biological and physical differences exist between humans on a global geographic scale (Howells 1973; 1989; 1995; Lahr 1996), and between groups within non-human species (Ridley 1993). Although some attention has been paid to physical and biological definitions of groups or populations for humans, this has been laden with racist overtones, particularly with regard to Egypt. This book is not a venue for a discussion either of race or the relative merits of Afrocentrism. It is, however, rather a discussion of aspects of human variation and diversity and their uses to inform as to population history and hence migration."
-pg 209

"Despite the past use of race and skin colouration within Egyptian archaeology and Egyptology, this volume is not the venue for a prolonged discussion of Afrocentrism and associated issues. By contrast, the concepts of ethnicity and population affinity are more useful for scientific analyses. Ethnicity is a personal construct, and hence is fluid and malleable in nature (Beck 1995; Lucy 2005). Population affinity is simply an evaluation of biological relatedness. It is clear that the ancient Egyptians constructed ethnic groupings as people from different geographic areas who were depicted and illustrated in different forms. For example, by the time of the New Kingdom, Puntite and Egyptian males were usually depicted in similarly reddish skins, whereas Nubians typically had darker skins and Libyans generally had light-coloured or yellowish skin (O’Connor & Reid 2003). It is unclear whether these matched biological reality, or were simply part of the Egyptian artistic canon. Viewing ethnicity as a category of social identity that may be either assigned or self-imposed permits the use of integrative contextual analysis, in the same manner as the social age groups noted above."
pg 220
--Sonia Zakrzewski, Andrew Shortland, Joanne Rowland. 2016. Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt. pg 209; 220




A bit unclear- they say:- quote:
For example, by the time of the New Kingdom, Puntite and Egyptian males were usually depicted in similarly reddish skins, whereas Nubians typically had darker skins and Libyans generally had light-coloured or yellowish skin (O’Connor & Reid 2003). It is unclear whether these matched biological reality, or were simply part of the Egyptian artistic canon.

What the authors say as to depiction is true, but- 5 points as to what they say is "unclear":

(a) it has been well established that the Egyptians often used the "red" and "yellow" artistic convention,
(O'connor and Reid 2003, Yurco 1989 et al).

(b) the Nubians themselves were variable in color (just like other Africans- Morkot 2005, 2000)
They didn't ALL look like CERTAIN peoples from the SUdanic area- i.e. Dinka etc. The authors
seem not to fully grasp the diversity of the peoples of Africa.

(c) Numerous Egyptians wall paintings ALSO show not simply "red" men, but realistic
Egyptians depicted with dark skin as well. Dark skin is not, and never was "foreign"
to Egypt. This was always the "biological reality" of Kemet.

(d) Climatic variation over time in the Nile Valley which stretches from cool Mediterranean
zone to hot tropical belt (even Egypt itself is partly in the tropical zone) makes it painfully
obvious that just on climatic factors alone, there would be the "Biological reality" of variation
in skin color over time and space. These variations have always been in place. It is strange that
the authors, who again, hold that new high tech tools can provide so much, seem "unclear"
about such basic facts.

(e) Dark skinned people were always a "biological reality" in ancient Egypt. For the authors to
claim "it is unclear" as they set up an either-or color dichtomy, suggests a degree of disingenousness,
or lack of up to date knowledge re the archaeology and anthropology of ancient Egypt. In a book purporting
to argue for greater scientific rigor and application in Ancient Egypt, this is another weakness.




Another flaw in the book is how the authors avoid significant discussion or coverage on limb proportions
even though these are one key component in determining population relationships in ancient Egypt, and indeed
have also been sometimes helpful in such things as estimating stature and sex.

This is strange in a book that in Chapter 3 says it is examining population, and mentions numerous other things,
like the use of Computed Tomography scans on crania, strontium isotopes, high tech chemical analysis of plant and
bone fragments to examine breast-feeding practices, etc, etc etc.. yet can't find much space for limb proportions-
a valid, well-established tool of analysis. Limb analysis primarily comes in in the context of bone changes,
bone disease, bone stress, etc etc.. Very curious...

It is also strange that the authors find time to mention "Afrocentrism" twice, but could not find space to significantly
mention the data and applications one of the key tools in analysis of ancient Egyptian populations- limb proportion
analysis. Such analysis is routinely mentioned in even beginning textbooks on physical anthropology. Obscured
in the book is published data on Ancient Egyptians on this variable, nor do even standard items such
as Allen's or Bergmann's Rule (which deal with limb and body proportions- again a routine matter). And yet the
goal of the book is purportedly to put the study of ancient Egypt on a more scientific footing- yet, ironically,
the very same book excludes solid science on Ancient Egypt. Whatever the issues of coverage, (or lack of, invoking
an "Afrocentrism" bogeyman seems a neat way to avoid a credible FULL discussion on population. Interesting...


UNCLEAR DISCUSSION BASED ON NEW TECHNIQUES

Shiny new techniques like use of strontium and oxygen isotopes on dental enamel at Tombos
for example brings the conclusion that a majority of population there was "non-local." But traditional
Egyptological excavations almost 20 years ago at TOmbos contradict this, and established that some
Egyptians were buried there, along with the remains of local Nubians, with intermixture between the
two groups in place. The final isotope conclusion is misleading. And it is difficult to see what substantial
added value the isotope analysis adds to the extensive archaeological data already done. It is admitted
that the isotope survey confirms the intermingling of the groups, but this is later contradicted
by the "non-local" claim, and seems to indicate that shiny new techniques, and themselves subject to
narrow interpretations, and may not yield the additional understanding the authors claim.
The official Tombos archaelogical Projects notes that the site is key in- quote:

"documenting the interaction and entanglement of Egyptian colonists and local Nubians
during these major sociopolitical changes in the region."

THis is a more accurate and richer understanding of the site, as opposed to narrow
techniques that do not seem to grasp the full picture.


Conclusion

In the book's introduction, the authors say their purpose is:
".. to develop and deepen our understanding of the past individuals, groups and communities
who inhabited Egypt and travelled through its deserts from the earliest times onwards."

Tangential issues aside, the book has a number of gaps that make it miss this standard. Rather it appears like a 'cookbook' of
techniques, that while impressive technically, seems to lack a broader understanding of the deep
archaeology and analysis of the traditional discipline. When a key data items such as limb proportions
is obscured for example, how does this illuminate understanding? Likewise the curious claim
of being "unclear" about skin color in Kemet..

--------------------
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                      

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?

---

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To those who don't get it!! Human CODIS STRs like those shown on the Amarnas are found at specific locations on the human genome. They are genetic coordinates so they can be found on any human and can be used to determine relationships.

There are typically 13 CODIS STRs used, Some countries use a few more or a few less.

For the Abusir ALL, yes, I said ALL of these locations on the genome that contains these CODIS STR was REMOVED!!!!


Why remove all. Because ONLY minimum 3 is needed to show affinity. See popAffliator Software. They had to remove all.

Where are they? The STRs. These are the questions Keita should asking. Not this lameass argument about Africans fugking white women.

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

When Angela Ihegboro first saw her newborn daughter, she was “speechless.”

“She’s a miracle baby,” the 35-year-old mother said yesterday. “But still, what on Earth happened here?”

What happened is that baby Nmachi is a blond, blue-eyed white baby born to two black Nigerian immigrant parents at a London hospital.

“The first thing I said was, ‘What the flip?’ ” said the father, Ben Ihegboro. “We both just sat there after the birth staring at her for ages — not saying anything.”

He quickly sought to dispel any speculation.

“Of course she is mine. My wife is true to me,” the 44-year-old customer service adviser said. “Even if she hadn’t been, the baby still wouldn’t look like that.”

Genetics experts don’t believe in miracles, but they didn’t have any simple answers to the mystery of baby Nmachi. Instead, they offered three theories:

• She’s the result of a gene mutation unique to her. If that is the case, Nmachi would pass the gene to her children — and they, too, would likely be white.
• She’s the product of long-dormant white genes, passed on to her by her parents, that might have been carried by their predecessors for generations without surfacing until now.
• While doctors have said Nmachi is not an outright albino, or lacking in all pigment, they added that the child may have some kind of mutated version of the genetic condition — and that her skin could darken over time.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[Q]

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[q] To those who don't get it!! Human CODIS STRs like those shown on the Amarnas are found at specific locations on the human genome. They are genetic coordinates so they can be found on any human and can be used to determine relationships.

There are typically 13 CODIS STRs used, Some countries use a few more or a few less.

For the Abusir ALL, yes, I said ALL of these locations on the genome that contains these CODIS STR was REMOVED!!!!


Why remove all. Because ONLY minimum 3 is needed to show affinity. See popAffliator Software. They had to remove all.

Where are they? The STRs. These are the questions Keita should asking. Not this lameass argument about Africans fugking white women. [/qb]

---

They did have full genome on 3 of the mummies, SNPs not STRs , two of them Hap J and one E1b1b1

Question, granted they did not do STRs for a more complete picture on the rest but what does the mtDNA of these 90 mummies show? [/QB]

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

He quickly sought to dispel any speculation.

“Of course she is mine. My wife is true to me,” the 44-year-old customer service adviser said. “Even if she hadn’t been, the baby still wouldn’t look like that.”

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ Genetics experts were asked for explanations
yet since 2010 no article stating the family was tested

quote:

---

He quickly sought to dispel any speculation.

“Of course she is mine. My wife is true to me,” the 44-year-old customer service adviser said. “Even if she hadn’t been, the baby still wouldn’t look like that.”

---

Had she been tested he would know

-and we would know if that baby was a product of either of them

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
We keep showing these 2 pictures. Any updated Photos?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ Genetics experts were asked for explanations
yet since 2010 no article stating the family was tested

quote:

---

He quickly sought to dispel any speculation.

“Of course she is mine. My wife is true to me,” the 44-year-old customer service adviser said. “Even if she hadn’t been, the baby still wouldn’t look like that.”

---

Had she been tested he would know

-and we would know if that baby was a product of either of them

---

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

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.

---

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)

---

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)

---

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?

---

---

---

Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged |