Pharaohs and their descendants
UC
circa 1300 BC.
Is there any way to estimate:
1) How many descendants he has had
2) How many living descendants he has
Desertphile
Zero. Men do not have children.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mitchell Coffey
Since Ramesses II's mummy is in the Cairo museum, it would be possible
to obtain samples of his DNA, would would help estimation of both
issues. I suspect the number of his children makes less difference at
this date and time; anyone living 3300 years ago whose direct line
didn't die out in a few generations is most likely a direct ancestor
of virtually everyone whose recent ancestors are from the Middle East
- plus millions more elsewhere. A reason we might have for
speculating that his direct line /did/ die out might be that ancient
Egyptian Royal's consanguinary marriage practices (if I'm correct
about this custom; I know it was in effect a thousand years latter).
On the other hand, royalty has been know to get children outside
official channels, so I'd guess Ramesses propagated his kind via the
usual methods of bastardy. If so, DNA analysis might be the best
channel for estimating the number of his modern descendents.
Mitchell Coffey
fnord
Inez
3) Why they would name a condom after such a person.
John Harshman
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:36:10 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
>> circa 1300 BC.
>>
>> Is there any way to estimate:
>>
>> 1) How many descendants he has had
>>
>> 2) How many living descendants he has
>
> Zero. Men do not have children.
>
>
strange definition of "had children" that involves the necessity of
being pregnant, I'm pretty sure you can have descendants without going
through all that.
Klivo Lendon
> Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
> circa 1300 BC.
>
> Is there any way to estimate:
>
> 1) How many descendants he has had
Approximately 6.7 billion.
> 2) How many living descendants he has
Approximately 6.7 billion
Cleve
Greg G.
That's easy. Just subtract the number of people not descended from him
from the total population of the world.
The people not descended from him would be a few full-blooded
aborigines and a few full-blooded Native Americans.
It is really a question of how many times he is your ancestor. We are
talking huge numbers. Remember the story of one grain of wheat on the
first square of the chessboard, two on the second, four on the third,
eight on the fourth, and so on? When you reached the 64th square, it
would amount to the entire world's wheat supply for the next 200
years. Do that for another row and a half.
3300 years is about 84 generations. 84 generations back means a person
would have 2 to the 84th power ancestors from that generation. Since
there were less than a half billion people in the world, those that
left descendants would be the ancestor of everybody alive today an
average of 2 to the 75th power times.
Egypt was a hub of trade in the Mediterranean region for centuries so
the pharoah's descendants would be all over the north of Africa, the
south of Europe and Asia Minor. When the Silk Road opened about 2400
years ago, it is quite likely that a few of his descendants made their
way to India and the Far East. Being travelling salesmen, there would
likely be a few wild oats left in those areas, who would be among the
ancestors of all Asians 60 generations later, an average of more than
2 to the 50th times. Subsequent visits over the centuries by more of
his descendants would provide even more paths back to the pharoah.
So the pharoah has about 6 billion living descendants, each descended
from him through <cue Sagan> billions and billions </cue> of paths.
fnord
Greg G.
Kermit
> On Jun 11, 1:36 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
> > circa 1300 BC.
>
> > Is there any way to estimate:
>
> > 1) How many descendants he has had
>
> > 2) How many living descendants he has
>
> Since Ramesses II's mummy is in the Cairo museum, it would be possible
> to obtain samples of his DNA, would would help estimation of both
> issues. I suspect the number of his children makes less difference at
> this date and time; anyone living 3300 years ago whose direct line
> didn't die out in a few generations is most likely a direct ancestor
> of virtually everyone whose recent ancestors are from the Middle East
> - plus millions more elsewhere. A reason we might have for
> speculating that his direct line /did/ die out might be that ancient
> Egyptian Royal's consanguinary marriage practices (if I'm correct
> about this custom; I know it was in effect a thousand years latter).
Maybe official heirs; I don't know how the ancient Egyptians did that.
I'm sure that if he was married to his sister, she didn't bear him 80
children.
> On the other hand, royalty has been know to get children outside
> official channels, so I'd guess Ramesses propagated his kind via the
> usual methods of bastardy. If so, DNA analysis might be the best
> channel for estimating the number of his modern descendents.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
>
> fnord
Kermit
Greg G.
Apologies if this comes through multiple times. This is my third
attempt. The first time Google said it was accepted but I didn't
fnord. The second time, Google choked.
On Jun 11, 1:36 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's easy. Just subtract the number of people not descended from him
Greg G.
Apologies if this comes through multiple times. This is my fourth
attempt. The first time Google said it was accepted but I didn't
fnord. The second and third times, Google choked. I had tried to post
a few times the past couple of days but was unaware the new policy had
been implemented. I've used this account for several years. It should
have been white listed, unless it was something I punned.
On Jun 11, 1:36 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's easy. Just subtract the number of people not descended from him
Perplexed in Peoria
Good question. Chez Watt quality, in fact. But perhaps
the condom is named after Ramses III - a later pharoah.
This picture may explain the choice.
http://ascendingpassage.com/Rameses-III-ISIS.jpg
Or, a look at the conspiracy section of the wikipedia
article on the third Ramses will illustrate why Egyptian
Pharoahs really ought to have used condoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III
Walter Bushell
<13df45c3-7e83-4f1d...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's easy. Just subtract the number of people not descended from him
> from the total population of the world.
cf "count the legs and divide by 4"
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:36:10 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
> > circa 1300 BC.
>
> > Is there any way to estimate:
>
> > 1) How many descendants he has had
>
> > 2) How many living descendants he has
>
> Zero. Men do not have children.
Your father will be keen to learn this.
But I suppose you could have been misled by a preponderance of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis in your family tree.
Socks
Will in New Haven
Given that he and all of his descendants are apes, I think it is
possible to perform that calculation.
--
Will in New Haven
Greg G.
Apologies if this comes through multiple times. This is my fifth
attempt. The first time Google said it was accepted but I didn't
fnord. The second and third times, Google choked. it's been almost 11
hours since the fourth attempt so here it goes again. I had tried to
post a few times the past couple of days but was unaware the new
policy had been implemented. I've used this account for several years.
It should have been white listed, unless it was something I punned.
That's easy. Just subtract the number of people not descended from him
from the total population of the world.
Kermit
I'll bet quite a few aboriginal Americans and Australians do not. Five
and a half billion, tops.
Kermit
Ernest Major
<42a4f1fc-148a-48e8...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
that the most recent common ancestor of living humans lived rather more
recently that Ramesses II.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
Impossible.
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
Without inbreeding, in a static population, it would take under 1000
years to get back to a common ancestor for the current population (8
billion = 2^33, so that's 33 generations). Correcting for a growing
population would reduce the time.
Correcting for inbreeding and population structure is harder, so I would
be skeptical of estimates based on models of such, but I don't find the
results obviously impossible. For example, it only takes one person
crossing the Torres Straits 1000 years ago to bring the Australian
aborigines into the web, even if the last 300 years of contact hasn't.
(Note - one might have very little genetic contribution, if any, from
this common ancestor - without recombination (on average) more than half
of your descendants would lack any of your genes within 6 generations.
Recombination slows this down.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
I believe the skepticism was caused by a confusion over the meaning of
"common ancestor". Mitochondrial Eve is one sort, and this 1000-year
person would be another sort, and in neither case are we talking about a
bottleneck in the population or an ancestor of your entire genome, which
would be yet another sort.
To clarify: in the 1000-year case we're talking about a person who is
one of a great many ancestors to everybody currently living. Since the
number of ancestors doubles with every generation you go back, we very
quickly reach a point at which, without inbreeding, the number of your
great(n)-grandparents would exceed the world's population. Of course
there is inbreeding, and some of your ancestors appear more than once in
your pedigree, so the calculation becomes more difficult.
Walter Bushell
Really all the Hottentots and all the Eskimos, natives of Australia and
those small forrest dwellers in r? Surely there is some African tribe
somewhere that has not gene mixed with outsiders. It would be hard to
determine because the ancestor's marking genes may have been overlain
with others. New Guinea's interior highlands was almost isolated until
lik1934 when the first overflight.
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Correcting for inbreeding and population structure is harder, so I would
> > be skeptical of estimates based on models of such, but I don't find the
> > results obviously impossible. For example, it only takes one person
> > crossing the Torres Straits 1000 years ago to bring the Australian
> > aborigines into the web, even if the last 300 years of contact hasn't.
> >
Who actually leaves ancestors to this day. Most genetic lines die out
and the current population is descended from a small subset of those
living in say 950 BP..
John Harshman
There are no such marking genes. You are in fact unlikely to share any
genes (by descent, at least) with this common ancestor.
> New Guinea's interior highlands was almost isolated until
> lik1934 when the first overflight.
There was always some exchange between adjacent valleys. By such means
descent trickled to the most remote interior valleys.
Ernest Major
<pr...@panix.com> writes
>In article <zSjYP9KT...@meden.invalid>,
> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <42a4f1fc-148a-48e8...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >On Jun 12, 6:48 pm, Klivo Lendon <indr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 12, 2:36 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
>> >> > circa 1300 BC.
>> >>
>> >> > Is there any way to estimate:
>> >>
>> >> > 1) How many descendants he has had
>> >>
>> >> Approximately 6.7 billion.
>> >>
>> >> > 2) How many living descendants he has
>> >>
>> >> Approximately 6.7 billion
>> >>
>> >> Cleve
>> >
>> >I'll bet quite a few aboriginal Americans and Australians do not. Five
>> >and a half billion, tops.
>> >
>> >Kermit
>> >
>> There was a paper a few years back which, if I recall correct, estimated
>> that the most recent common ancestor of living humans lived rather more
>> recently that Ramesses II.
>
>Really all the Hottentots and all the Eskimos, natives of Australia and
>those small forrest dwellers in r?
The only human population that might have been isolated for an extended
period of time (was there really absolutely no contact over the Bass
Strait?) was the Tasmanians, but all their surviving descendants have a
hefty mix of European ancestry.
>Surely there is some African tribe
>somewhere that has not gene mixed with outsiders.
Surely not. All populations in Africa have neighbours.
> It would be hard to
>determine because the ancestor's marking genes may have been overlain
>with others. New Guinea's interior highlands was almost isolated until
>lik1934 when the first overflight.
>
Almost is insufficient.
How rapidly ancestry diffuses is an open question. Hence I don't insist
that the paper is correct. And it's possible that my recollection of a
2,500 year period is incorrect. But marking genes are irrelevant - we're
taking about the descendants of an individual, not the set of people who
inherit any genes from that individual (which I suspect is a much
smaller set). (You're descended from Charlemagne, but that doesn't mean
that you have any of his genes.)
I
--
Alias Ernest Major
Robert Grumbine
about that term instead of most recent common?) ancestor being only
ca. 2000-3000 years ago, I've had the thought of running my own
simulations. (The original was a computer model.)
One of the things which isn't clear to me is how far down the
road you need to go in a lineage before it is essentially 'unkillable'.
That is, if it makes it to generation N, that the probability of getting
to N+1 is >> 0.99. Clearly if someone has only 1 descendent, chances
of getting to the next generation are not impressive, vs. having
27 (iirc, the number of children Charlemagne is known to have had).
If global population were essentially static, this becomes a
sharper question. If it were declining, then it can be overwhelmingly
important.
But, as population has been growing, ... not clear. In any case, I'm
not at all sure that your conclusion of most genetic lines having died
out, and today's people being descended from a small subset of those
alive ca. 1000 AD, holds. Also not sure it doesn't. Do you have anything
behind it beyond the fact that it seems reasonable to you?
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
John Harshman
the ancestry of particular sites in the genome. And I'm still not sure
this is clear. People can easily have descendants that share none of
their DNA.
Walter Bushell
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> Do you have anything
> behind it beyond the fact that it seems reasonable to you?
No. Personal incredulity is no arguement, still I'd like to see more
evidence for the assertion.
Ron O
> Pharaoh Ramesses II was supposed to have had 80-100 children. He lived
> circa 1300 BC.
>
> Is there any way to estimate:
>
> 1) How many descendants he has had
>
Genghis Khan had a whole lot of children and he set up his sons in
little sub kingdoms. 0.5% of the world's men may have his Y
chromosome.
Not billions and billions, but millions and millions.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12592608
Ron Okimoto
fnord the fnording
Nic
> In article <D_KdnU3WufECpqfXRVn_...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Correcting for inbreeding and population structure is harder, so I would
> > > be skeptical of estimates based on models of such, but I don't find the
> > > results obviously impossible. For example, it only takes one person
> > > crossing the Torres Straits 1000 years ago to bring the Australian
> > > aborigines into the web, even if the last 300 years of contact hasn't.
>
> Who actually leaves ancestors to this day. Most genetic lines die out
> and the current population is descended from a small subset of those
> living in say 950 BP..
But not necessarily their genes. There is a single mitochondrial
genotype, and a single Y chromosome leg genotype which, not too many
hundreds of generations back must be universally ancestral. However,
nuclear autosomal information need have no 'bottleneck' for ever, at
least not for mathematical reasons.
It is tempting to assume that the out-of-control nature of human
history makes a severe population bottleneck in the past more
probable. I don't think genomics supports that idea. Of course, it
could still be probable in the future.
John Harshman
> On 19 June, 00:08, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <D_KdnU3WufECpqfXRVn_...@giganews.com>,
>> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Correcting for inbreeding and population structure is harder, so I would
>>>> be skeptical of estimates based on models of such, but I don't find the
>>>> results obviously impossible. For example, it only takes one person
>>>> crossing the Torres Straits 1000 years ago to bring the Australian
>>>> aborigines into the web, even if the last 300 years of contact hasn't.
>> Who actually leaves ancestors to this day. Most genetic lines die out
>> and the current population is descended from a small subset of those
>> living in say 950 BP..
>
> But not necessarily their genes. There is a single mitochondrial
> genotype, and a single Y chromosome leg genotype which, not too many
> hundreds of generations back must be universally ancestral. However,
> nuclear autosomal information need have no 'bottleneck' for ever, at
> least not for mathematical reasons.
Yes, it does. In the absence of selection favoring diversity, every
little piece of a nuclear autosome also will coalesce in the same way
mitochondria and Y chromosomes do. It's just that different bits of the
same chromosome can have different ancestors. So in addition to mt-Eve
and Y-Adam, we have this-little-section-of-Chromosome-12 Bob, and that-
little-piece-of-chromosome-3 Carol, and a-little-part-of-Chromosome-12-
but-not-the-same-little-part-as-Bob Wally, etc.
> It is tempting to assume that the out-of-control nature of human
> history makes a severe population bottleneck in the past more
> probable. I don't think genomics supports that idea. Of course, it
> could still be probable in the future.
Bottlenecks are not necessary for coalescence.
Robert Grumbine
Walter:
If you do encounter any evidence one way or the other, please
do post it here.
John:
Wasn't there some discussion here, including you and R. Norman?, about
it not being accurate to take number of genes, divide by 2^N, and
estimate that as the genetic contribution of your N generations back
ancestor? If it _is_ reasonable, then with ca. 23,000 genes, 15 generations
is sufficient to make the expected number of genes contributed by
a given ancestor back then less than 1. And 15 generations is only
ca. 450 years. On the other hand, at 15 generations, pedigree collapse
is starting to take hold, and the same person (and genes) could
well be quite a lot more than 1 of your ancestors. Go out to
40 generations and it's unavoidable.
These considerations, though, do put me in mind of drift being a
much bigger player than I'd previously thought.
Walter Bushell
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>
> Walter:
> If you do encounter any evidence one way or the other, please
> do post it here.
Make that anyone. It's a probalitic argument at best. In the Many World
intepretation of quantum mechanics the world splits on every quantum
"decision". Perhaps when the difference between the worlds are
undetectable the worlds merge. In which case the answer could be
indeterminate, that is in some histories we have a current ancestor of
all living at 3K years BP and others it's 5 or 6K years or more.
cp9...@gmail.com
erik simpson
> I am a spitting image of Ramesses II, mostly of African descent. His haplogroup is E-V38/E1b1a. Look at the geographical distribution of that gene group.
What have you been doing these last nine years?
Ernest Major
Y-haplotype.
--
alias Ernest Major
