Presenting Afrowiki! Need assistance with info!

[oshun]

Ok first things first~

here's a wiki I'm doing:

afro.wikia.com/wiki/Afro%20Wiki?wiki-welcome=1

The purpose is to increase discussion and awareness outside of these boards and to help organize information for the average individual.

I'm interested in starting on the race of the AE (or discussion on it really). Being that the subject of AEs and race/ethnicity is already on wikipedia (the most commonly viewed wiki), Its important I think that we discuss what Wikipedia's sources say and if we agree/disagree/already have info about it. Please address for example what UNESCO concluded and what they said in particular that makes or breaks their claims. I can't address specific claims made by wikipedia contributors on Afrowiki without specific claims being addressed.

In general, various DNA studies have found that the gene frequencies of modern North African populations are intermediate between those of the Horn of Africa and Eurasia,[26] though possessing a greater genetic affinity with the populations of Eurasia than they do with Africa. [27][28][29][30][31]

sources:


[30]Manni F, Leonardi P, Barakat A, Rouba H, Heyer E, Klintschar M, McElreavey K, Quintana-Murci L (2002). "Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt suggests a genetic regional continuity in Northeastern Africa.". Hum Biol 74 (5): 645–58. doi:10.1353/hub.2002.0054. PMID 12495079.


source: www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html

Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.

Source:Bogucki, Peter I. (1999). The origins of human society. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 355. ISBN 1-57718-112-3.

Current ES responses accounted for



Subject: DNA of Modern Egyptians

In general, various DNA studies have found that the gene frequencies of modern North African populations are intermediate between those of the Horn of Africa and Eurasia,[26] though possessing a greater genetic affinity with the populations of Eurasia than they do with Africa. [27][28][29][30][31]

[27]Source: Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


Response: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=662



[28]Bosch, E. et al. (1997). "Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers". Human Biology 69 (3): 295–311.




[29] Arredi B, Poloni E, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah D, Makrelouf M, Pascali V, Novelletto A, Tyler-Smith C (2004). "A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa.". Am J Hum Genet 75 (2): 338–45. doi:10.1086/423147. PMC 1216069. PMID 15202071.

You can read it here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/

Tunis, Mansoura, Tizi Ouzu and Algiers are all coastal North African cities, the only exception being Luxor which was among the least sampled of the populations and represents only ten percent of the sampled populations. Many other north African populations are ignored.


[30]^ Cavalli-Sforza. "Synthetic maps of Africa". The History and Geography of Human Genes. ISBN 0-691-08750-4.The present population of the Sahara is Caucasoid in the extreme north, with a fairly gradual increase of Negroid component as one goes south


He's saying that a "Caucasoid" component is present in the EXTREME north. This may also debunk his previous studies in 1994 because he selected his samples from the extreme north and didn't represent more inland populations. Also worth noting that the Egyptian dynasties came from Southern/Upper Egypt.

Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants.

source: Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. pp. 62–100


According to ES, Yurco says no such thing

www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006903



books.google.com/books?id=97jwg1Xwpj0C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=%22Certainly+there+was+some+foreign+admixture%22&source=bl&ots=

pg 65, Frank Yurco,
Black Athena Revisited
Edited by Mary R. Lefkowitz, Guy MacLean Rogers

What wikipedia says..



images taken from Lionese from ES.

A study by Krings et al. from 1999 on mitochondrial DNA clines along the Nile Valley found that a Eurasian cline runs from Northern Egypt to [[Southern Sudan] and a Sub-Saharan cline from [[Southern Sudan] to Northern Egypt.

source: Kings, T; Salem, AE; Bauer, K; Geisert, H; Malek, AK; Chaix, L; Simon, C; Welsby, D et al (1992). "mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?". Am J Hum Genet. 64 (5): 1116–76. doi:10.1086/302314. PMC 1377841. PMID 10090902

Potential ES response(s):

www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005743

An mtDNA study of modern Egyptians from the Gurna region near Thebes in Southern Egypt revealed that Eurasian Out of Africa haplogroups represented 79.4% of the population, with the remainder 20.6% being of Sub-Saharan origin.

source:Stevanovitch, A.; Gilles, A.; Bouzaid, E.; Kefi, R.; Paris, F.; Gayraud, R. P.; Spadoni, J. L.; El-Chenawi, F. et al (2004). "Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt". Annals of Human Genetics 68 (Pt 1): 23–39.



ES Responses

www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006902

www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006907

ES mention of Stevanovitch (dunno if it's a refutation or anything but I'll keep it here for the moment).

DNA of some modern Egyptians found a genetic
ancestral heritage to East Africa:
"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58
individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34
individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an
ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing
the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP
markers. This sedentary population presented
similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and
L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the
West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H
to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency
(17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and
phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna
population with other Egyptian, Near East and
sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and
Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that
the Gurna population was not isolated from
neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that
the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an
ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East
African population, characterized by a high M1
haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the
Egyptian population may be the result of further
influence of neighboring populations on this
ancestral population."

(Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004)
Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary
population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt
1):23-39.)


www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006851

Got other fun facts too I'll need to return to that.

It is now largely agreed that Dynastic Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile area. About 5,000 years ago the Sahara area dried out, and part of the indigenous Saharan population retreated East towards the Nile Valley. In addition Neolithic farmers from the Near East are known to have entered the Nile Valley, bringing with them their food crops, sheep, goats and cattle.

Source(s):

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Ancient_Egypt <-- Skimmed it. The same source SEEMS to suggest against a mass migration and influence.

Ahhyep! This is what Keita says.

"Linguistics and writing can give some clues to migration or major cultural interactions. Semitic and perhaps Sumerian speakers in the Near East developed agriculture some 2,000 years before it emerged in the Nile Valley. If Egypt had been peopled by a mass migration of farmers from the Near East, ancient Egyptians would have spoken either a Semitic language or Sumerian (considered a language isolate, meaning that it has no obvious close relatives). Although certain major domesticated species used in Egypt came from the Near East, it is interesting to note that the words for these in Egyptian were not borrowed from any members of the Semitic family whose common ancestor had terms for them. They are all Egyptian."


So basically they are through choice of word choice over-exaggerating the level of influence from the Near East.

wikipedia said:

UNESCO convened the "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974. At that forum the "Black Egyptian" theory was rejected by 90% of delegates

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000328/032875eo.pdf

ES Response:

^^The only thing wrong with this "fact" is that it
is completely bogus. There is no "90 percent" "rejection"
anywhere in the report. In fact, most participants, using
classic "racial" categories hold that "Negroes" (in
the stereotypical 'true negro' sense) made up a
substantial proportion of the population. QUOTE:

There is a contradiction here: all the anthropologists agree in stressing the
sizable proportions of the Negroid element—almost a third and sometimes
more—in the ethnic mixture of the ancient Egyptian population; but nobody
has yet defined what is meant by the term 'Negroid', nor has any explanation
been proferred as to how this Negroid element, by mingling with a 'Mediterranean'
component often present in smaller proportions, could be assimilated
into a purely Caucasoid race."
-- UNESCO 1981. The Peopling ancient Egypt..

The claimed "90% rejection" is sheer Wikipedia bullshiit,
protected from correction by dishonest administrators.
But that ain't nothing new... Hence the importance of
ES and Reloaded to give people the actual facts and let
them verify for themselves.

[truthteacher2007]

In my estimation the whole question of a Black or not Black Egypt is flawed because the question is based on a flawed paradigm which doesn't really exist in reality.

This question is based on certain assumptions, #1: there is a definate physical type and or features that represent "authentic Africanity".
#2: That if a certain physical type or set of features do not conform to the notion of "the authentic" African, it must not be African
#3: the assumption that if two people or populations do not share the same set of physical features they must then belong to separate unrelated groups.

I'd like us to consider the fact that the concept of race as we understand it today, our system of classification and the concept of who is related to whom are all based on a world view that grew out of the Eurocentric experience. The need for some people to validate the notion that we are all inheritantly different and unrelated and that external appearances will tell you who is part of a family group and who isn't and that physical apperances trump other considerations such as nationality, culture, language and kinshio ties. Therefore at its heart, even the need to prove a "Black" Egypt itself is flawed because it is a question that exists withing the Eurocentric paradigm.

I think we should consider for a second, as people of the African diaspora, the realities of our own communities and families. Who we are, who we are related to, who we identify with are realities that cut across lines of skin color and physical features. If any of us were to apply the logic of Eurcentric anthropology to our own families, then our mothers and fathers, even our borothers and sisters often times could not be our relatives. How absured would it seem to us if someone suggested to us that our brothers and sisters were not of the same groups as us because of difference in skin color and hair form. And yet we do exactly that when we buy into these notions of race. Not only that, but we contradict ourselves by insisting that there are such things as races and insist that people with radically different features, skin colors etc actually do belong to the same race, for example someone "looking white", but really being black.

The truth is right infront of our faces, but we are frustrated at every turn because we insist on trying to bend reality to fit that which we created in our minds to fit what we think reality should be.

The fact is that #1: we are all part of the same group. Its only a matter of how close one population is to another, are we brothers or distant cousins? Isn't it possible that many of the physical traits we identify as non African are in fact native adaptations to specific environments? I would argue that this is for the most part the case with Africa and Egypt in particular.

#1:There were several physical types found within the boarders of what is now Egypt, they were all native African, but they did not all have black skin. #2: dark skinned Africans are often related to light skinned Africans in ways that cut deeper than physical appearances.
#3: People feel the greatest sense of affinity with those they share ties of kinship, culture, nationality and language. These are the factors that defined identity for all African peoples, including Egyptians and still does today, not neccessarily skin color. Furthermore, shared similarities in skin color and features between groups do not guarantee feelings of kinship.

May 13, 2012 11:28:16 GMT -5 oshun said:

Ok first things first~

here's a wiki I'm doing:

afro.wikia.com/wiki/Afro%20Wiki?wiki-welcome=1

The purpose is to increase discussion and awareness outside of these boards and to help organize information for the average individual.

I'm interested in starting on the race of the AE (or discussion on it really). Being that the subject of AEs and race/ethnicity is already on wikipedia (the most commonly viewed wiki), Its important I think that we discuss what Wikipedia's sources say and if we agree/disagree/already have info about it. Please address for example what UNESCO concluded and what they said in particular that makes or breaks their claims. I can't address specific claims made by wikipedia contributors on Afrowiki without specific claims being addressed.

UNESCO convened the "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974. At that forum the "Black Egyptian" theory was rejected by 90% of delegates

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000328/032875eo.pdf

-- what scientific basis did the symposium have, and is there any evidence today that responds to it?


source: Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. pp. 62–100


Source(s):

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Ancient_Egypt <-- Skimmed it. The same source SEEMS to suggest against a mass migration and influence.


www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html

Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.

Source:Bogucki, Peter I. (1999). The origins of human society. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 355. ISBN 1-57718-112-3.

[oshun]

While "race" is a social construct is invented by Europeans, the reality it has real-life implications for the potential of those from Africa which has been why Egypt has been a centerpiece in discussion. My point isn't necessarily to validate concepts of race, but to if possible dispel notions that Egyptians were unrelated to other Africans through the use of "true negro" stereotyping etc. I specifically picked quotes from wikipedia that subtly try to make Egypt distinct from the rest of Africa. There is the clear implication that near Eastern populations largely influenced Egypt and that modern Egyptians (the result of many foreign invasions) are 90% identical to the AE population. The implication is that Africa (or rather "true Africans") couldn't produce something like Egypt without a lot of help from Near Easterners or other foreigners.

[nebsen]

What a brilliant Idea !! just this month I have been feeling that the African diaspora need to collectively come to together to create a firewall around ancient Kemet ( Egypt) moving forward into the 21century to correct racist misconception about ancient Egypt & also add the latest salient information that puts to sleep( death) the white Egyptian myth or any other combination that denies Africa's people & cultural contribution in the formation of Ancient Egypt. This forum could use in my estimation ,some focus on a project such as your, that you have outlined.Their are other forums, boards, projects, that I hope you get the attention of, because I feel your idea warrants it ! Their are many fine minds here on ESR & else where, along with sometimes over sized ego's that could be put to use in something bigger than themselves such as your project. Believe me that the status quo altho seems to be in hibernation , are just re- grouping to defend their turf with more sophisticated tricks & sophistry, even using DNA to lay claim to a ancient Egypt that is false. But we have allies now like never before who are of European descent. I would love to help in your efforts altho my computer & skills are not up to date ! Your idea will help so many !

[truthteacher2007]

And what I'm suggesting is that the whole way of looking at the issue is flawed. The fact that the findings state that Modern Egyptians are 90% identical to the ancients means nothing to me. The reason being that for the most part, Modern Egyptians are of a physical type that was and still is consideed non white=racially inferior=people who would have been relegated to sitting in the back of the bus and the colored section.

Yes there has been mixing, but hasn't thete been mixing in the Afro American communities as well? My father is almost white by appearance, yet his Y DNA identifies him as being identical to Central Africans. DNA and physical appearance do not always match up and this is what I mean by the fact that within our own families, relationships cut across color and physical features. The same is true of Egypt past and present.

All Ancient Egyptians were not dark skinned. Looking at the remains of some of the arliest mummies we can see that they were not dark skinned. However, often times they show stereotypically African characteristics such as prognethism and curly hair. People have interprited this as evidence of race mixing. What I am suggesting is that this was not the result of mixing in every case, but evidence of in built African diversity that came about due to micro evolution. Therefore, it should not be assumed that light skin and straighter hair is automatically a sign of non African mixture or invasion because light skin and straighter hair textures ae features found in several African populations.

It should also be noted that DNA has shown that Modern Egyptians haplotypes show they are also 90% African specific. That is much higher than many Afro Americans such as Henry Louis Gates who is 50% African and Condolesa Rice who is only 45% African according to their DNA.

Furthermore, having traveled to Egypt steadily since 1988 my conclusion is that the Modern population on the whole, only makes sense in an African context. They do not as a whole fit in with Jordanians, Palestinians or Lebanese. About 50% of the population is in fact quite dark. Their bone structures, regardless of skin color are also quite distinct from any of the nearby populations in the Eastern Mediterranean or Arabia, except those individuals who are of East African origins. When you take the average Modern Egyptian and ask, would this person blend in in Turkey, Greece, Syria, or Lebanon the answer is no, they don't. But do they blend in with peoples found in the African diaspora the answer is yes, they do. I think when you take this into consideration with the fact that the closest genetic relatives of Modern Egyptians are in fact the Nubians, it is clear that assumptions based on physical apperarance alone is part of a European world view, not an African reality.

May 13, 2012 13:18:00 GMT -5 oshun said:

While "race" is a social construct is invented by Europeans, the reality it has real-life implications for the potential of those from Africa which has been why Egypt has been a centerpiece in discussion. My point isn't necessarily to validate concepts of race, but to if possible dispel notions that Egyptians were unrelated to other Africans through the use of "true negro" stereotyping etc. I specifically picked quotes from wikipedia that subtly try to make Egypt distinct from the rest of Africa. There is the clear implication that near Eastern populations largely influenced Egypt and that modern Egyptians (the result of many foreign invasions) are 90% identical to the AE population. The implication is that Africa (or rather "true Africans") couldn't produce something like Egypt without a lot of help from Near Easterners or other foreigners.

[oshun]

Again cause I'm making a wiki I wanna address sources and claims made by wikipedia. The first being that DNA tests reveal affinities to Eurasian populations before African

According to wikipedia here are it's sources suggest this.

Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bosch, E. et al. (1997). "Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers". Human Biology 69 (3): 295–311.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/?tool=pmcentrez

muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5manni.html


And another that says:

A 2009 study on modern Upper (Southern) Egyptians using comparisons based on frequency and molecular data found that :[36]
“ No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared, or with Egyptian Coptic Christians from Cairo…Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.

source:Omran GA, et al: "Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians"

A study by Krings et al. from 1999 on mitochondrial DNA clines along the Nile Valley found that a Eurasian cline runs from Northern Egypt to [[Southern Sudan] and a Sub-Saharan cline from [[Southern Sudan] to Northern Egypt.

source:An mtDNA study of modern Egyptians from the Gurna region near Thebes in Southern Egypt revealed that Eurasian Out of Africa haplogroups represented 79.4% of the population, with the remainder 20.6% being of Sub-Saharan origin.

An mtDNA study of modern Egyptians from the Gurna region near Thebes in Southern Egypt revealed that Eurasian Out of Africa haplogroups represented 79.4% of the population, with the remainder 20.6% being of Sub-Saharan origin.

source:Stevanovitch, A.; Gilles, A.; Bouzaid, E.; Kefi, R.; Paris, F.; Gayraud, R. P.; Spadoni, J. L.; El-Chenawi, F. et al (2004). "Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt". Annals of Human Genetics 68 (Pt 1): 23–39.

It should also be noted that DNA has shown that Modern Egyptians haplotypes show they are also 90% African specific.

Do you have a source for that?

[nebsen]

mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/egyptian-y-dna-and-mt-dna-reference/ I found this blog that could give some information . It's called Mathilda's Anthropology Blog. I found another blog THAT I WILL POST LINK LATER!

[nebsen]

dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/01/king-tutunkhamuns-dna-in-doubt.html

Here is the other blog Dienekes Anthropology Blog. I found it interesting that he questions the DNA that was done on King Tutunkhamuns mummy ! So i felt I needed to include this blog which had a lots of interesting comments !

[nebsen]

Oshun, I see you have a very lively debate going on at egyptsearch esp. between Troll Patrol & Crush Black Lies. I think I'm going to hang out there so i can learn more about this subject of Ancient Egyptians & DNA. I hate that ESR is so dam quiet so much so that you can hear the crickets ! Does it take hateful racist trolls to get things moving ? It just seems so much more is going on with this subject at egyptsearch. Come On people !

[oshun]

I'm a little disappointed I cant get many responses on stuff I can use to the wiki. On the plus side I did some web searchin today and found potential responses to some of the wikipedia citations already!

[nebsen]

That great ! How long before you have info. up ? Did the links I post help ?

[oshun]

May 15, 2012 14:41:25 GMT -5 nebsen said:

dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/01/king-tutunkhamuns-dna-in-doubt.html

Here is the other blog Dienekes Anthropology Blog. I found it interesting that he questions the DNA that was done on King Tutunkhamuns mummy ! So i felt I needed to include this blog which had a lots of interesting comments !

People on ES have also been questioning Tut's DNA findings as a result of contamination. So the tricky part will be more finding info on why (hopefully with some hard science) I guess.

[anansi]

Feel free to use any of my post if you find the them worthy, you may need to dress them in more scientific language though.

[zarahan]

May 15, 2012 15:14:53 GMT -5 nebsen said:

Oshun, I see you have a very lively debate going on at egyptsearch esp. between Troll Patrol & Crush Black Lies. I think I'm going to hang out there so i can learn more about this subject of Ancient Egyptians & DNA. I hate that ESR is so dam quiet so much so that you can hear the crickets ! Does it take hateful racist trolls to get things moving ? It just seems so much more is going on with this subject at egyptsearch. Come On people !

Definitely folks should transfer more of the ES stuff over to Reloaded, if only to create a duplicate archive, as you never know when ES will disappear. And they should start posting original material or original thread starts as well. But Reloaded in time I think will emerge into its own. It is one of the most accurate repositories of data on Africans, Africa, the Nile Valley, evolution etc on the web, rivaling well financed forums like Skadi, zetaboards, stormfront, only much more balanced and accurate. Between ES and Reloaded there is good representation in Google. I ran across a THAI website of all places the other day posting Reloaded/ES data- Thailand of all places. People are finding the info (more people is obviously better) and are appreciating that they can go to credible research citations and verify things for themselves, and make up their own minds, quite unlike the bogus "stealth" gamesmanship of Wikipedia. People don't have to agree with a thing. See the citation for yourself. It will not be "reverted" or "disappear" during the next bogus "edit". Another thing we can do is to start linking back to Reloaded articles as we traverse blogs and forums on the web.

Unfortunately troll battles will always generate more activity. Even the old ES going back to the early 2000s had a lot of battles with Evil Euro, "Hammer" etc, but out of those came mounds of valuable data that would have remained buried in obscurity. Conflict and combat can be beneficial at times. Its a mixed bag. One way to bridge the gap is to go SOME threads (they could be a minority of them) that lists an erroneous or dubious idea re Africa or its peoples, and then for the rest of that thread, debunk the idea. These would not be the main line of threads but they would help bridge the gap.

Another benefit of doing this is that it forces people to summarize, summarize, summarize and do so concisely- main points- supporting data - rather than just copy, paste/dump. There is a great need to break info down, so it can be quickly accessed, grasped and used by the masses, and by interested people. I see too many Black History Month presentations where guys are presenting old National Geographic stuff from the early 1980s, or even further back, Diop circa 1974 (useful in some contexts- but not as the be all and end all of info) rather than the up-to-date data out there. Some of the current data actually confirms Diop but you would never think the field has progressed beyond 1974 in some of these presentations.