posted
Thanks for posting more excerpts from this publication. I'd seen only a piece of it before. What are we told about the individual samples involved in the other African groups, including the so-called "Nubian". This would be useful to know, given the descriptives in "quotes", a tacit acknowledgment of the non-scientific and subjective nature of these monikers.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I suspected, at least from the said dendrogram, specimens from west Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa [sans Eastern Africa] are relatively modest and geographically fragmented.
I can't help but notice in the dendrogram above, that though the Egyptian specimens cluster closely with and link to other African samples, they show relatively shorter distances with the likes of "Near East", "Anatolia" and "Greece" than they do with the "Africa ("Negroid")" bunch, and even the "Africa ("Ethiopic")".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Not sure what "distinctly Unegyptian" entails here, but not all the dynasties between the 26th through the 30th Dynasty are of royalty of foreign extraction; for example, the 28 through to 30 Dynasty are all of native rulers. The last native Egyptian pharaoh being Nectanebo II of the 30th dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
As I suspected, at least from the said dendrogram, specimens from west Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa [sans Eastern Africa] are relatively modest and geographically fragmented.
I can't help but notice in the dendrogram above, that though the Egyptian specimens cluster closely with and link to other African samples, they show relatively shorter distances with the likes of "Near East", "Anatolia" and "Greece" than they do with the "Africa ("Negroid")" bunch, and even the "Africa ("Ethiopic")".
Any other thoughts about the said dendrograms?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As I suspected, at least from the said dendrogram, specimens from west Africa and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa [sans Eastern Africa] are relatively modest and geographically fragmented.
I can't help but notice in the dendrogram above, that though the Egyptian specimens cluster closely with and link to other African samples, they show relatively shorter distances with the likes of "Near East", "Anatolia" and "Greece" than they do with the "Africa ("Negroid")" bunch, and even the "Africa ("Ethiopic")".
Could this possibly be the influence from the Sahara, specifically Egypt?
as noted...
quote:“The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians) , previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards. Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated their regionally distinctive branches.”
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote: Prehistoric contacts over the Straits of Gibraltar indicated by genetic analysis of Iberian Bronze Age cattle
Previously, the appearance of the Late Atlantic Neolithic culture had been placed at a significantly later date than the Egyptian culture, and this chronology and the cultural similarity were interpreted as implying that Egypt was the original source (14). However, more accurate radiocarbon dates obtained from Late Atlantic Neolithic culture sites subsequently redated the origin of this culture to being approximately the same as that of the predynastic Badarian Egyptian culture (15), leading to the hypothesis that these two cultures might derive from a common area, perhaps through pastoral groups living in the Sahara. The culture linked to the Late Atlantic Neolithic period is known to have been dedicated almost exclusively to cattle breeding, secondarily complemented by sheep and goat breeding (14), suggesting that an investigation of the origin of Iberian cattle may offer further insight into early Iberian–African cultural contacts.
[/qb]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, what can be said for sure about the said dendrogram, is its relative limitations in covering 'evolutionary gradients' that provide the precise relationships between populations; in this case, the dendrogram is able to note an apparent 'familial link' that clusters the Egyptian, the so-called Nubian and the Africa ("Ethiopic") samples, but fails to show the sort of link with the other African groups that would have otherwise been immediately apparent from DNA samplings. And then, of course, the "extent of comprehensiveness" of the author(s)'s sampling choices in the African candidates [as indicated in the pooled geographically-patchy "African ("Negroid")"] also affects their results, as I have noted with regards to at least one of the African samples. So, the said relative shorter distances indicate that there may well be select morphological tendencies in the aforementioned African samples of the Egyptian and so-called Nubian that coincide with or show parallels with those displayed by the mentioned non-African groups, but that the test which was used to generate the dendrogram was unable to show that these coincidences were anything more than chance occurrence; however, the dendrogram was able to at least pick up or get a sense that there was more to the said clustered Africans, i.e. the one including the Egyptian sample, than mere coincidence, i.e. to say -- a 'familial link'. So, here, we see what the dendrogram is able to do and what not. Now of course, a detailed look at the testing procedures for generating the said dendrogram, will provide a comprehensive insight into the said morphological relationships displayed.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: in this case, the dendrogram is able to note an apparent 'familial link' that clusters the Egyptian, the so-called Nubian and the Africa ("Ethiopic") samples, but fails to show the sort of link with the other African groups that would have otherwise been immediately apparent from DNA samplings. And then, of course, the "extent of comprehensiveness" of the author(s)'s sampling choices in the African candidates [as indicated in the pooled geographically-patchy "African ("Negroid")"] also affects their results, as I have noted with regards to at least one of the African samples.
Indeed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course upon the already noted fact of the limb proportions grouping with tropical Africans, rather than with cold adapted Europeans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course upon the already noted fact of the limb proportions grouping with tropical Africans, rather than with cold adapted Europeans.
That may well have certainly impacted clustering tendencies, if considered. I know it has been noted in the publication in question, though not sure which or if any diagram has been generated to demonstrate relationships taking this physiological aspect into consideration.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course upon the already noted fact of the limb proportions grouping with tropical Africans, rather than with cold adapted Europeans.
That may well have certainly impacted clustering tendencies.
Of course.
Limb proportions are a precisely clear determinant on where a population comes from; and there is no way of misinterpreting such data. As there is with a cranio-facial analysis.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Interesting how modern Egyptians, despite claims that they're mostly "light-skinned North African Caucasoids" still cluster closer to other NE Africans.
I'm not sure if that dendrogram is much of a rebuttal to the "Egyptians weren't black" position though. Yes, it does show Egyptians clustering closer to NE Africans than to West Eurasians, but it also shows NE Africans as being more related to West Eurasians than to "Negroid" Africans. People like Dienekes, Evil Euro, and Mathilda who think NE Africans should be linked with West Eurasians instead of other Africans would quickly jump on this dendrogram as confirmation of their beliefs.
Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The dendogram is based on cranial features, so considering features like long faces and narrow noses then of course Egyptians and northeast Africans cluster closer with western Eurasians. However, so would West African groups in the Sahel such as the Fulani and so would a few groups farther south in Kenya and Tanzania.
This is why some dimwits are quick to say that northeast Africans and other Africans who have such features are cacazoid, and things like Somalis being genetically close to Norweigans! LOLPosts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dienekes, Evil Euro, and Mathilda will jump on people like Frank Yurco who thinks the ancient Egyptians weren't black either but thinks a comparison with the more "mixed" African Americans is appropriate. This is so because, according to him, like those AA, the AE were also "mixed" as a result of "a slow process lasting thousands of years, as far back into prehistory as can be gauged."
Echoes of the Hamitic theory?
In fact he has an interesting color gradient schema going on reminiscent of the Hamitic theorist Junker. [see Ampim's essay in Egypt: Child of Africa] He claims that a color schema can be seen along the Nile with lighter starting at the top (or bottom) and getting "darker" as we travel further down (or up), "the peoples of the Nile Valley present a continuum, from the lighter northern Egyptians to the browner Upper Egyptians to the still browner Nubians and Kushites and to the ultra-dark brown Nilotic peoples."
In fact he can't even bring himself to see the Nubians and Egyptians as the same people, typical of Eurocentrism. He says among the foreigners they were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. Is this why some on this forum tried to slip this classic Eurocentric line when they tried to differentiate between "Kushites" and the Egyptians? Hmm...spreading misinformation, like the ture negro false dichotmoy between the Egyptians and Kushites, seems to be how these undercover Eurocentrics operate. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Interesting how modern Egyptians, despite claims that they're mostly "light-skinned North African Caucasoids" still cluster closer to other NE Africans.
I'm not sure if that dendrogram is much of a rebuttal to the "Egyptians weren't black" position though. Yes, it does show Egyptians clustering closer to NE Africans than to West Eurasians, but it also shows NE Africans as being more related to West Eurasians than to "Negroid" Africans. People like Dienekes, Evil Euro, and Mathilda who think NE Africans should be linked with West Eurasians instead of other Africans would quickly jump on this dendrogram as confirmation of their beliefs. [/QB]
No matter where they "jump" they will still come up short. One nice thing about Barry Kemp's book is that he actually takes some time to add some balance to the picture. On one of the dendrograms for example he points out that the "clustering" for 'Egyptians' is based on sampling bias. Researchers took samples from the far north, near the Mediterranean and used that sample as "representative" of all Egypt, carefully excluding historic sites further south. Naturally such "representative" samples serve to airbrush the "darker" south out of the picture. Quote:
"If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt."
Next, Kemp again to his credit, takes the time to note the accuracy of limb proportion studies as overcoming many of the limitation of cranial cluster studies, where small samples, individual differences and general similarities between human beings can skew results. He looked at the far north, supposedly a hotbed of "Caucasoid" settlement. Alack and alas.. Those "troubling" negroes still seemed to be entrenched in place..
Quote:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." pg. 54
Nor is this unusual. Limb studies of northern Egyptians show they link more closely with tropically adapted people like US Blacks than white Europeans or Americans.
Kemp also shows that indeed the Egyptians were closer to Africans than to Europeans or "Middle Easterners." Trying to pull the "sub-Saharan" dodge won't work because people like Ethiopians and Somalians are themselves "Sub saharan".
Their last hope is Brace's 'Clines and Clusters' study- 1993. Alas.. that too falls flat..
and so it goes...
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
No matter where they "jump" they will still come up short. One nice thing about Barry Kemp's book is that he actually takes some time to add some balance to the picture. On one of the dendrograms for example he points out that the "clustering" for 'Egyptians' is based on sampling bias. Researchers took samples from the far north, near the Mediterranean and used that sample as "representative" of all Egypt, carefully excluding historic sites further south. Naturally such "representative" samples serve to airbrush the "darker" south out of the picture.
Now of course, given the limb ratios, one can extrapolate that predynastic "Northern" specimens were likely those of considerably pigmented groups, though precisely how dark that could have been, cannot be adjudged from stature alone. At any rate, point above is taken; it depends on sampling choices -- see for example:
In most cases, the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania clearly fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation. If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation (Broad to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African." In other words, the baseline definition of biological African has to take in the entire range of tropical African variability, including fossil and subfossil data, and not be based on the baised (for whatever reason) misusing of race theorists from the earlier part of this century. - Keita
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic