Join us on this Tuesday, April 7th as we have a conversation with Dr Shomarka Keita, biological anthropologist and medical doctor , formerly Senior Research Associate of Howard University Genome Center. We will discuss his life's work in the field of bio-anthropology in relation to ancient Egypt; genetics; research methodology, and the future of Africana Studies. We will also be taking questions from the audience. If you haven't yet, hit the subscribe button as well as the bell to receive the notification for when we go live. This is a discussion that you don't want to miss.
This was open to audience participation and you shared this after the fact?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Did ES get the snub? What other community out there knows as much about Keita's research to ask the right questions?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"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!
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
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.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
Maybe I would remember if my posts for shows I do weren't often deleted or moved by moderators. And the book is also advertised in this post as well as Dr. Keita aided in its completion.
Maybe next time. . .
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.
Posted by Abza2 (Member # 17210) on :
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.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
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.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
I don't know you, but you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. XYZ is claiming that a 65 year old PhD in biological anthropology is plagiarizing him, an internet social media poster, a comment he made concerning white people probably originating in Africa. He wasn't talking about me. So at least get the conversation straight.
I wonder why he would make that comment, when this was proposed 3 years ago, 2017, in a Science Journal article? Unless XYZman is one of the authors.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Loci associated with skin pigmentation identified in African populations
Nicholas G. Crawford1, Derek E. Kelly1,2,*, Matthew E. B. Hansen1,*, Marcia H. Beltrame1,*, Shaohua Fan1,*, Shanna L. Bowman3,4,*, Ethan Jewett5,6,*, Alessia Ranciaro1, Simon Thompson1, Yancy Lo1, Susanne P. Pfeifer7, Jeffrey D. Jensen7, Michael C. Campbell1,8, William Beggs1, Farhad Hormozdiari9,10, Sununguko Wata Mpoloka11, Gaonyadiwe George Mokone12, Thomas Nyambo13, Dawit Wolde Meskel14, Gurja Belay14, Jake Haut1, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program†, Harriet Rothschild15, Leonard Zon15,16, Yi Zhou15,17, Michael A. Kovacs18, Mai Xu18, Tongwu Zhang18, Kevin Bishop19, Jason Sinclair19, Cecilia Rivas20, Eugene Elliot20, Jiyeon Choi18, Shengchao A. Li21,22, Belynda Hicks21,22, Shawn Burgess19, Christian Abnet21, Dawn E. Watkins-Chow20, Elena Oceana23, Yun S. Song5,6,24,25,26, Eleazar Eskin27, Kevin M. Brown18, Michael S. Marks3,4,‡, Stacie K. Loftus20,‡, William J. Pavan20,‡, Meredith Yeager21,22,‡, Stephen Chanock21,‡, Sarah A. Tishkoff1,25,§
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.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^ 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.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That's right. Listening to him I swore I heard my echo.
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]
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
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.”
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.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
SMH. No Asar. 3 were used to align with modern "Near East"....autosomally. Initial Afrocentric critique was the numerous mtDNA of "Eurasian" origin. That is where Keita tripped up.
Nevertheless.
The autosomal pattern was consistent with IBD when Southern Africans were included.
Also why were the CODIS STR loci removed(ala Amarnas)? Absolutely none was revealed. There were many lines of arguments Keita could of chosen instead the Jungle fever , black men white women, argument.
In short I am suspicious of him...and/or his actions.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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.
For everyone else, the discussion concerning the women weavers begins at about 1:37:00 into the video.
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.
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.”
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
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.”
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.
OK. He does discuss the stuff I mentioned. Most of the video discusses the exact same topics I mentioned, right including the sensational headline. 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.
But it was a good video and had a lot of points in common with mine(as you would expect).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
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.
Posted by Abza2 (Member # 17210) on :
Y’all contradicting some of the things up there earlier said. You yourself a lay person, and spend most of your time hanging out with white racists on forumbiodiversity most of who are also lay persons. When you say up above that ‘its your job to break complicated information down to laypeople’, but you don’t do that yourself. You often come across as if its ‘below your pay grade’ and don’t contribute much to Africana websites. The white nationalist and racist forums you spend most of your time in, you are benefiting them, adding content, building up their click and hit rates and enabling them to earn more revenue. So if you neglect engaging Africana communities much, how is information to be broken down for lay people?
1174 Users have visited the forum. 13 members and 1161 guests Baradi, beyoku, Durcherrs, Garibald, Landry95, NassBean, Rugevit, ThirdTerm, ZephyrousMandaru Forumbiodiversity.com
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
Greetings Beyoku
Thank you for watching the video and for your commentary. Below are my prepared responses.
1) We have to keep in mind that this is my Youtube channel and I do what I want on my own channel as I know my audience and what I want to do on my channel. If you would like things done differently, you create your own channel and run it how you like to run it. This is how this 'problem' of yours is solved.
2) Related to number 1), Dr. Keita and I have already planned on doing a series of interviews where the subsequent interviews will be on more narrow topics where he can go in-depth on the subject matter. If you paid attention to the interview, he even says this in the discussion. If you pay attention to my channel, this is what I do all of the time. For example, Here is a series of videos with Jean-Claude Mboli. The first video is just an introduction of him, his work, and ideas.
3) Not only do we have planned more interviews for the future, we are planning his website design (as I am an Africana-Studies researcher as well as a software engineer) that will be a depository of his works, which would include videos and workshops. Dr. Keita is 65 years old and my interview was his introduction to social media and getting him used to the platform.
4) In terms of the more detailed 'stuff', if one is already familiar with the subject, just read his works. And for a serious researcher, it is not hard to find such studies based off the little information talked about. We've gotten lazy these days.
Lastly, never ignore the lay person. A matter of fact, that's exactly what he wanted to do: i.e., to have the conversation with the general public. Part of his mission is get more African-Americans into the sciences like biological anthropology and history so that he is not the only one in the field, on a professional level, doing this work. He hinted to this at a conference we attended in 2018, for which I uploaded his presentation to my channel that can be viewed here:
Thus, never tell people what they 'should' be doing on their own platforms, especially if you don't know what is going and what is in the works. Stop being lazy and do the work yourself if you're serious about the subject. Because it doesn't matter what he thinks about any subject. What is of concern is your competency in regards to evaluating primary evidence and coming to your own conclusions. That's what this forum lacks. As long as many people have been on this forum making circular arguments for years about the same subjects, these same folks could have been publishing works and/or getting degrees in the fields they argue. But too many of us do not want to advance. Our claim to fame is posting on a forum we don't own with poor moderationship. We have to do better.
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.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You do realize Beyoku is a fraud. Pretending to be what he is not.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The only thing Lay people want to know is did the AE come from "Near Eastern" populations in Pre-history? Or did they come from waves of migrations in later eras which displaced the indigenous populations.
This is the crux of the whole issue. Because if the answer to both of the above is no, then the Abusir paper is nonsense.
Some "objective" folks don't want to simply call it that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Abusir el-Meleq article has genetic data in it, mtDNA for 90 mummies with many different haplogroups and full genome for 3 of them. The interpretation of the data is a separate issue and debatable
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
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?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@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?
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
So there was a location 15 km from Abusir el Meleq that had Asiatic weavers? Does this area have a name that we can further research? Does the book Asar provided touch on this location and the time period of the data found to support this? I know some people don't like the idea that Africans would mix with Asiatics, but the data is there. That genetic material didn't fall from the sky. The question is how it got there. Abusir wasn't very populated until later times, so it's important to understand how the initial populations that came back to serve as the initial gene pool for that local area came to be.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This is a bit laughable, yeah we did'nt have Moderators back in the day but at the same time we as a community were putting out stuff that would never have been possible on Biodiversity sites that had moderation, many times in favor of Eurocentric ideas.
Then again a lot of the work here was random and sloppy.
I think its funny though that ES is fine for book shilling...
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?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I mean you're not wrong, it takes a lot of time and devotion to make a living off any history, let alone African history.
Also, lets be honest if African isnt the feel-good same old repeated stuff one can find on a google search then some folks are'nt gonna be interested. Folks aint trying to hear about a Natufian and MOTA.
90% of the most veiwed and monetized history videos on YT are re-hashing of the same stuff..
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?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Anyway, some people see the game being played and aren't ashamed to call it out for what it is:
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.
Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion
Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4*
1Oregon Health & Science University, 2Smithsonian Institution, 3National Institute of Agricultural Research, France (Guadeloupe), 4Ankhou/Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie (Guadeloupe, Martinique), *corresponding author:
Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion.” In spite of the implied generalization about ‘origins’ the authors do offer the caveat that their findings may have been different if samples had been used from southern Egypt, and this is a significant admission. Their conclusions deserve further discussion from multiple perspectives which cannot be fully developed due to space limitations.
There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.
Sampling and methodological strategy
The samples can be questioned as to their representativeness of Egypt in terms of size, spatio-temporal and socio-cultural aspects.
All of the samples are from the northern half of Egypt, from one nome which is 2.4% (1/42) of AE nomes. Ancient Egyptian culture originated southern Upper Egypt2.
The socio-cultural dynamics are not fully considered: the information on the origin and social status is incomplete, or unknowable in fact. The mummies are clearly assumed to be representative of the local population based on an incomplete archaeological report, in spite
of the historical information provided about northern Egypt’s interaction with the Near East since the Predynastic, and the known settlements of Greeks, and others, in northern Egypt in later periods.
The timeline is not representative of AE history ~ 3,000 years is missing (e.g. Predynastic, Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom2).
The samples cannot be convincingly said to represent true breeding populations or those that truly integrate historical information.
The authors use Bayesian reconstruction of population size changes through time with BEAST, for which there is generally a discrepancy between the marginal prior and the original prior distribution. The available information on the comparison between original and marginal priors, and on prior and posterior distributions, does not consider possible population substructure.
Sex-biased sampling (mtDNA) cannot recover population demography of the whole country unless the sample size is large enough and representative in terms of chronology, regional variation, “ethnicities” (including the foreign presence), class and geography. It suffers from many biases that can affect the assessment of the effective population size: population size changes, mutation bias, and natural selection.
The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.
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.
The authors completely dismiss the results of PCR methods used on AE remains. As a Habicht et al.4 states, PCR based methods were used successfully on mummified Egyptian cats and crocodiles without creating extensive debate. Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African” a point worth repeating.
There are some philosophical issues as well for which space does not permit a full discussion. Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” needs discussion--and of what “defines” Africa as well. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa
7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. Gene history is not population history: ultimate “origins” and later sources to a specific region/population are conceptually different. Gene history is not also ethnic or linguistic history. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa. Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC9 from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima9 and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.
On the Definition of African
Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.
Conclusion
The paleolithic past has to be distinguished from the biocultural emergence in the Holocene of any society, including Europe. Egypt long before the pyramids was culturally and linguistically African as evidenced by numerous studies
3,13,14 based on standard research which accept Egypt’s place in the Nile corridor as having local origins. The symbolism found in the Badarian or Naqadan graves, etc. nor the pyramids were brought from Asia (Near East). The Egyptian Neolithic cannot be shown as an entity to have come from Asia, although some domesticates were borrowed on local terms into a system of indigenous foraging in the Fayum2. Historical linguistics shows ancient Egyptian to be Afroasiatic with borrowings from other African language phyla15. Archaeological data would seem to indicate an early integration of the eastern delta, in northern Egypt, by early Upper Egyptian rulers since Iry Hor from Abydos (~3,250 BC), who already wrote royal inscriptions in Egyptian2 in a script and symbolic system that used African flora and fauna3,13. This region of Egypt, and northern Egypt had long had social intercourse with the Near East. The ancient Egyptians in “origin” were not settler colonists akin to the European colonists in Africa. Schuenemann et al.1 study is best seen as a contribution to understanding a local population history in northern Egypt as opposed to a population history of all Egypt from its inception.
Table 1: Geographical region affinities of Amarna and Ramesside mummies based on popAffiliator 1 analysis of 8 pairs of STR
8/13 pairs of STR from Combined DNA Index System were used by Hawass et al.,
nevertheless, data suggest main sub-Saharan affinities of pharaonic mummies from the 18th and 20th dynasty (circa 1,300 BC), far in the past before Islamic slave trade. Disclaimer: The geographical regions affinities were defined according to popAffiliator, we acknowledge there might be problems with any type of classification. (* data from Hawass et al. available here )
Contributions
J-P.G and S.O.Y Keita performed the PopAffialiator analysis, drew tables, wrote and reviewed the main genetic, statistical, anthropological and Egyptology portions of the article. J-L. G wrote and review the statistical portion. A.A wrote and reviewed Egyptological/linguistics portion.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests
About the authors:
Jean-Philippe Gourdine, Ph.D is a metabolomics and glycomics data analyst at Oregon Health & Science University and member of editorial board of the Ankhou/Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie.
Email:
SOY Keita, MD, D.Phil is a research affiliate of the department of anthropology, Smithsonian Institution and member of editorial board of the Ankhou Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie.
Email:
Jean-Luc Gourdine, Ph.D, is a researcher in quantitative genetics at the National Institute of Agricultural Research, France (Guadeloupe)
Email:
Alain Anselin, Ph.D was the editor of the peer reviewed Egyptological journals Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie & electronic papyrus i-Medjat (), and director of the research group Ankhou. Dr. Alain Anselin passed away May, 16th 2019. This updated version is dedicated to his memory.
References
Schuenemann, V. J. et al. Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods. Nat. Commun. 8, 15694 (2017).
Agut-Labordère, D. & García, J. C. M. L’Égypte des pharaons: de Narmer à Dioclétien : 3150 av. J.C.- 284 apr. J.-C. (Belin, 2016).
Teeter, E. Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. (Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 2011).
Habicht, M. E., Bouwman, A. S. & Rühli, F. J. Identifications of ancient Egyptian royal mummies from the 18th Dynasty reconsidered. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 159, S216–31 (2016).
Hawass, Z. et al. Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family. JAMA 303, 638–647 (2010).
Hawass, Z. et al. Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ 345, e8268 (2012).
Rowold, D. et al. At the southeast fringe of the Bantu expansion: genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships to other sub-Saharan tribes. Meta Gene 2, 670–685 (2014).
Pereira, L. et al. PopAffiliator: online calculator for individual affiliation to a major population group based on 17 autosomal short tandem repeat genotype profile. Int. J. Legal Med. 125, 629–636 (2011).
Crubézy, E. Le peuplement de la vallée du Nil. Archéo-Nil 20, 25–42 (2010).
Pennarun, E. et al. Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 234 (2012).
Lovejoy, P. E. Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Busby, G. B. et al. Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa. Elife 5, (2016).
Anselin, A. Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which Emerged the Egyptian Civilisation. in Egypt in its African Context. Proceedings of the Conference held at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester (ed. Exell, K.) 43–53 (Oxford, BAR International, 2009).
Wengrow, D., Dee, M., Foster, S., Stevenson, A. & Ramsey, C. B. Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt’s place in Africa. Antiquity 88, 95–111 (2014).
Takács, G. Chapter III: Some problems of Egyptian’s position within Afro-Asiatic and among African languages. in Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian: Volume 1: A Phonological Introduction. 35-48. (Leiden, Brill 1999).
Posted by One Third African (Member # 3735) on :
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.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
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?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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?
type the word "weavers" in the search at link
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Wow... I missed quite a bit lol
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.
Y'know... In public or elsewhere I often get into discussions that'll get into these arenas regarding history and biology. But 90% of the time I stay away from initiating these discussions because I'd end up doing a lot of talking... So what happens is, someone will mention something relevant; accurate or inaccurate, and I'd either give them corrections or references to hint that I know what I'm talking about. And then from there these people will start asking questions, and I'll answer what I could.
...basically, I become a frame of reference to folks. I make the information digestible but I don't dumb it down or omit much. Stuff will fly over peoples heads but some things won't and they'll begin to ask questions about it. This allowed me to notice something important.
People actually give a fuck about these things
I, as an source of information, I and assume most others on here who have done which ever amount of reading/research as well, should take on the responsibility as serving as a conduit for people who haven't devoted their time into reading and discussing these things. And the most important way to do so is to get people asking questions, not any questions but the RIGHT questions. So in a way I agree with beyoku in concept, at least mention certain things to get gears turning in the viewers heads. I agree that there aren't many people capable of having the desired in-depth conversation with keita outside of the bioanthro community on-line, but I wholeheartedly disagree about the lack of interest and/or curiosity.
@Ausar: I'd suggest the next interview be more targeted, so that the time is managed better and to allow for a build up from a entry level topics into more insightful topics. I share the same sentiment that beyoku does BUT also feel like what came from Keita was still too Meta or technical for lay people, so it feels like a lose-lose.
Other than that @ about the 1hr:44min mark Keita mentioned something very important about the in-cognizant preconceived ideas that floats around in modern researchers heads. Ehret touched on that recently in one of his talks it's needs to be repeated and echoed over and over again so people looking at African bio-history can get it.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
Great conversation, Asar. I look forward to more of this. Either from Dr. S.O.Y. Keita and other prominent people in the field that deal with ancient Egypt. Unfortunately I missed the live.
Dr. S.O.Y. Keita views on the Abu Sir paper is much revealing.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
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.
For those who don't know about ebookcentral.proquest.com. They have an extensive library with hundreds of thousands of academic books, articles etcetera. It's all for free, or for a very small fee. I've paid 10 euros (currently equals about 11 dollars) for the entire year. I don't know if it is accessible for everybody thou. If you can, I suggest you do it.
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?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
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..
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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.
They did have full genome on 3 of the mummies, 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?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
I recall this one:
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.
If the mtDNA is combined with geographic STRs then that changes the whole picture!!!
The narrative will be change dramatically. That will prove what I have been saying all along. These mtDNA are SSA!!!!! I have shown that most of these mtDNA are found deep south in Africa along the Nile. eg Kenya, Uganda etc.
Oh! Here is another point. Forget the uniparental markers results. These autosomal "Eurasian" SNP has been found in Malawi LSA populations(10kya!!!). As Skoglund has stated. It is quote possible these "Eurasian" SNP originated in Malawi, being indigenous. What? Keita is not well read?! He did not read Skoglunds ground breaking paper? Yeah! Keita is pandering..
I guess Late Stone Age Malawians were also fugking near East Concubines....eh weavers. lol! Some of you are so stupid. No not Keita.....but the rest of you.
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]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ 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
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
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
I assume the family rather keeps privacy. But this site has more images and info.
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?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I assume the family rather keeps privacy. But this site has more images and info.
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
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
I have shown that most of these mtDNA are found deep south in Africa along the Nile. eg Kenya, Uganda etc.
so why are you crying then?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
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)
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I assume the family rather keeps privacy. But this site has more images and info.
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.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Abusir el-Meleq mummies, earliest samples
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 )
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
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.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
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
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
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 Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
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
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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. 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.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
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.
Posted by Ase (Member # 19740) on :
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?
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
Yes you can.
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
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
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I assume the family rather keeps privacy. But this site has more images and info.
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)
^thanks, wanted to get your thoughts on it considering your linguistics background
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Please don't confuse Africanist for Afrocentric.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
Who is confused by the terms?
QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: Please don't confuse Africanist for Afrocentric. [/QUOTE]
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
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.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
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.
