Explain why black Americans have proportionately longer limbs than white Americans if genetics has nothing to do with limb proportions.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Explain why black Americans have proportionately longer limbs than white Americans if genetics has nothing to do with limb proportions.
I never stated that genetics had nothing to do with it. That's why I put my statement at the opening of my post.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Not sure what your point is. Limb Lengths ratios are the result of adaption to a hot dry climate, although genetics also plays a part.
The following I have already presented to you, and explains BOTH:
[QB]
quote:Originally posted by Simply Girl: Egyptian limb lengths don't necessarily have anything to do with people coming up from the south
Of course it does, if you will notice:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Egyptian body size and proportions: ecogeographic patterns in a mid-latitude population. MICHELLE H. RAXTER. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida. Ecogeographic patterning in body size and proportions can provide important information about adaptation and population movements. This study investigated patterns in body size and proportions in a mid-latitude population. Ancient Egyptians occupied a middle latitude region at 31-21 o North. It was predicted that Egyptians would be intermediate between higher and lower latitude populations in body size and limb length ratios. The skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 535 females, all adults from the Predynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom and Roman-Byzantine periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE – 600 CE. Egyptians were analyzed regionally by dividing the sample into northern and southern groups, as well as by comparison to Nubian groups. Egyptians were also assessed with respect to other populations in the world using anthropometrics from modern populations compiled by Ruff (1994) and skeletal measures from archaeologically-derived samples from Holliday (1995). Analysis of variance and Tukey’s post-hoc test were used to analyze differences among groups, while bivariate scatters were used to assess changes in measures with latitude. Results showed that region had no significant effect on male brachial index, however region did have a significant effect on female brachial index and on both male and female crural indices (p 5 \ 0.05). Nubians possessed slightly higher indices compared to ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptian limb length indices were more characteristic of tropical populations. Other indices such as body mass/stature and bi-iliac breadth/stature to stature were intermediate between higher latitude and lower latitude populations.
1)The authors predicted that the Egyptians would have intermediate limb-length ratios because Egypt is a sub-tropical environment.
2)The results do NOT support the Egyptians having intermediate body proportions
3)They had tropical limb length ratios.
What does this mean? This means that the ancient Egyptians were descended from recent migrants from a tropical place. Genetic studies also confirm this:
"Our findings are in accordance with other studies on Y-chromosome markers that have shown that the predominant Y-chromosome lineage in Berber communities is the subhaplogroup E1b1b1b (E-M81), which emerged in Africa, is specific to North African populations, and is almost absent in Europe, except in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and Sicily. Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001)"
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al., (2010)
Underhill et al., 2001:
"The expansion of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East into Europe is also represented in the NRY data, although suggesting a relatively localized area of impact. As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35}M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant (Fig. 3g)."
So yes, tropical limb ratios ARE indeed a sign of ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa. How else would you have tropical limb ratios in a supra-Saharan population?
Palaeoenvironment and Holocene land use of Djara, Western Desert of Egypt:
"Abstract The results of the interdisciplinary project ACACIA support the assumption of a more humid climate at Djara, on the Egyptian Limestone Plateau, which is a hyper-arid desert today, during the early and mid-Holocene. The ancient plant and animal inventories give new impetus for the suggestion of an interfingering of two climatic regimes, the winter rains from the north and west and the summer monsoonal rains from the south, on the latitude of Djara. A playa sediment sequence, the composition of plant and animal taxa as well as the reconstructed settlement patterns indicate a semi-arid climate with alternating more humid and drier conditions. The concentration of prehistoric sites in the Djara depression points to locally favourable conditions in contrast to the surrounding plateau surface. The widespread catchment and a distinct system of palaeochannels offered fresh water over a period of time due to the run-off from the plateau surface after rain events. Although the ecological conditions were better during the Holocene humid phase than they are today, a sedentary way of life was improbable. The hydrological constraints require altogether highly mobile subsistence strategies. Shells of the Nile bivalve Aspatharia sp (Spathopsis sp.) give evidence for contacts between Djara and the Nile Valley, which remains beside the Egyptian oases an important retreat area with perennially available water. The decrease of radiocarbon dates and related archaeological sites around 6300 BP (c. 5300 cal BC) indicate the depopulation of the Djara region as a consequence of the drying trend. While the drop off of the 14C-dates can also be observed in other desert research areas of the ACACIA-project, we date the end of the Holocene humid phase about 300 years earlier than previously suggested."
"2.1. Climate Today, the Western Desert of Egypt is part of the hyperarid Eastern Sahara (UNESCO, 1977) and belongs to the subtropical desert climate zone (Griffiths, 1987). High temperatures, low humidity and strong winds cause high potential evaporation rates in excess of 5000mm per year (Griffiths, 1972; Haynes 1982; Darius, 1989). In contrast, the interpolated annual precipitation sum is less than 5mm with sparse rain on only 1–5 days per year on average (New et al., 1999). Palaeoenvironmental observations have shown that the regional climate during the Holocene differed from the present situation (e.g. Ritchie et al., 1985; Kutzbach and Liu, 1997; Pachur and Hoelzmann, 2000). Due to oscillations in the Earth’s orbit, summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere rose to peak levels approximately 8% higher than today 11,000 years ago (Berger and Loutre, 1991; deMenocal et al., 2000; Tuenter et al., 2003). The insolation created an enhanced monsoonal summer precipitation in North Africa during the early and mid-Holocene (Holocene humid phase or humid optimum). Other studies postulate both an enhanced summer precipitation from the south, and increased mediterranean winter rains from the west and the north due to stronger westerlies with cyclonic disturbances, as well as an increase in the summer monsoonal rain (Nicholson and Flohn, 1980; Geb, 2000). On the basis of archaeobotanical remains from the Great Sand Sea and the Abu Ballas area Neumann (1989a, b) suggests a maximum precipitation amount of 100mm for the mid-Holocene humid phase. In summary, a generally arid environment with short humid intermediate stages can be deduced (e.g. Bubenzer and Hilgers, 2003)."
You do NOT get tropical body plans in that type of an environment Simple Girl Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
The study I have provided here proves that limb length is not necessarily determined by genetics only. It can also be determined in living individuals by the temperature of the enviroment in which they were raised. Read the study. I have school and need the sleep.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Basically, gene flow does account for tropical limb ratios observed in some populations. In Egypt's case, gene flow/migration accounted for their limb length ratios
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Notice that all the experiments done in the study were performed on mice instead of humans.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Simple-minded, you are missing the point. The body and limb-proportions of the ancient Egyptians is not reflective of a pattern expected of non-tropical or temperate latitudes. It is like having a population of "white" folks in the equatorial region. You'd have to realize that such a population in such a zone, would have had to have come about by way of migration from elsewhere. In other words, there is a genetic component to their origins outside of the equatorial region. These are things you should be able to deduce without guidance.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Notice that all the experiments done in the study were performed on mice instead of humans.
Generally experiments done to mice can also apply to humans. That's the main reason they use mice. The cellular structure between mice and humans is very similar.
Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: The study I have provided here proves that limb length is not necessarily determined by genetics only. It can also be determined in living individuals by the temperature of the enviroment in which they were raised. Read the study. I have school and need the sleep.
We've been through this many times on ES. Limb proportion includes diet and environment and the ability to metabolize calcium. Not only are African bones longer, but denser (up to 40%) than whites where the parents of both consumed the equivalent diets. Black woman, due to their high melanin concentrations, acquire/store/utilize calcium at higher levels than white women.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
The Egyptians were a mix of various people in the region
some had white features with black arm lenghts
Pharaoh Truthcentric II, Cairo Museum
others had black features:
and some didn't have tropical limb ratios:
Ramesses II
you're telling me any of yall have a drop of Egyptian ancestry anyway? what's the point
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^
quote:some had white features with black arm lenghts
We've shown peer reviewed research proving they had "tropical limb proportions", now show us a peer reviewed paper showing that "some had white features with black arm lengths" (name one person living who has such an odd mosaic). If admixture would have worked on the facial features it would have also worked on skin color and the body plan. Only a clueless amateur would paste random statues and simply declare that the person it represents was "white-looking" based on absolutely nothing but their own bias and wishful thinking. How does your science of picture spamming compare with directly measuring mummies?
quote:you're telling me any of yall have a drop of Egyptian ancestry anyway? what's the point
No, we are telling you the Egyptians had/have African ancestry, that's the point and limb ratios are proof of that. Why does the point need to be anymore profound than that?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: We've shown peer reviewed research proving they had "tropical limb proportions",
your "they" are a few certain remains in a few specific areas. I gave you the Ramesses II, he didn't have tropical limb ratios. What's up with that? He's the most famous Pharaoh of all time.
What do you mean he's "African" You got whites in South Africa that are African. What "African" is a race now?
they were African, we are African, Wow we must be pyramid geniuses. Egypt influenced Greece. Oh is that why we want to be them? Because North Africa is closer to Europe. Oh I see, get away from the West and try to get to that Africa place closest to leave still can't deal with the direct ancestry
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: We've shown peer reviewed research proving they had "tropical limb proportions",
your "they" are a few certain remains in a few specific areas.
What are you talking about? Zakrzewski and Raxter evaluated Egyptians from all periods and sub-regions, and Raxter for instance had over 1000 people in his combined sample! Stop speaking nonsense all the time.
quote:I gave you the Ramesses II, he didn't have tropical limb ratios. What's up with that? He's the most famous Pharaoh of all time.
Ramses II was taller than other pharaohs and are you serious anyways? 1 vs 1000? Who cares about him you hypocrite? Didn't you just criticize me for what you CLAIMED was a conclusion based on only a "few" remains? lol
quote:What do you mean he's "African" You got whites in South Africa that are African.
Those whites don't have African limb proportions. By African, I mean biologically African, in that their ethnogenesis and present biological traits/variants emerged in Africa. Used in same way when referring to African-Americans, who are called African-American, even though they have no cultural or geographic ties to the continent (not a part of any 'race', but "biologically African" in origin).
quote:they were African, we are African, Wow we must be pyramid geniuses. Egypt influenced Greece. Oh is that why we want to be them? Because North Africa is closer to Europe. Oh I see, get away from the West and try to get to that Africa place closest to leave still can't deal with the direct ancestry
Instead of going off on tangents and angry political rants how about just trying to address the facts? Thanks.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually it was proven in another thread that there is no such study saying Ramses did NOT have tropical limb proportions only that certain indices (I believe crural) were shorter compared to other pharaohs. This dos NOT mean overall he had no tropical porportions! LMAO Also, what does one mean by "white features" if features like narrow faces and noses are found among non-whites like many blacks in Africa for instance how are such features considered "white"?? Indeed we are dealing with a desperate dummy. Speaking of which...
The Simpleton author of this thread is also a desperate dummy. She speaks of adaptation vs. genetics as if the two are seperate! Individuals do not adapt POPULATIONS do! And adaptation is the result of GENETICS. Apparently she needs to read this:
Of course we are dealing with a girl who can't even properly comprehend a single paragraph so what good can a book do her?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:your "they" are a few certain remains in a few specific areas. I gave you the Ramesses II, he didn't have tropical limb ratios. What's up with that? He's the most famous Pharaoh of all time.
LOL! According to...? Look at the Pharaoh sample in Raxter et al., 2007:
WITH Ramses II, the values went UP.
"While ancient Egyptians have similar intralimb proportions to those of US blacks, limb length to stature proportions of Egyptians are intermediate between those of blacks and whites. There is no evidence for significant temporal or class related variation among ancient Egyptians in linear body proportions. Thus, the new equations may be broadly applicable to Egyptian archaeological samples"- Raxter et al., 2007
Measures for the pharaohs may have been affected by the Robins method used, if you will notice:
"Previously estimated intralimb indices for ancient Egyptians are generally quite similar to ours, and are more similar to US Blacks than to US Whites. The only exception is Robins and Shute's (1983) crural indices for Egyptian Pharaohs, which are lower, although these were derived using a different technique--radiography rather than direct measurement--which could account for the difference (alternatively, Pharaohs may have had slightly different body proportions than other Egyptians" - Raxter et al.
quote:What do you mean he's "African" You got whites in South Africa that are African. What "African" is a race now?
Whites in southern Africa are recent immigrants and are of European descent. Not African like the Egyptians
quote:they were African, we are African, Wow we must be pyramid geniuses. Egypt influenced Greece. Oh is that why we want to be them? Because North Africa is closer to Europe. Oh I see, get away from the West and try to get to that Africa place closest to leave still can't deal with the direct ancestry
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Actually it was proven in another thread that there is no such study saying Ramses did NOT have tropical limb proportions only that certain indices (I believe crural) were shorter compared to other pharaohs. This dos NOT mean overall he had no tropical porportions!
In addition to that, if we recall the following, then Rameses II's limb proportions would not have been directly measured...i.e. "radiography rather than direct measurement".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Exactly, which is why we call her lyingass. Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Notice that all the experiments done in the study were performed on mice instead of humans.
The effects that different temperatures have applies to mammals in general not just mice. Read the study.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ maybe you are closely related to mice but the rest of us aren't and don't think so simplistically.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LMAO @ the Simpleton Girl. Her poor little mind just cannot grasp this basic FACT of biology.
Does she mean to tell us that individuals can just change their skeletal structure all of a sudden to adapt to a new area?? So if I were take a short limb Inuit from Siberia and leave in equatorial Africa for a decade, he'll have limb lengths like a Sudanese??! LOL
This is the nonsense that I'm talking about. Evolutionary adaptation involves populations NOT individuals and it takes a long time depending on the adaptation. Skeletal structure for example takes generations even tens perhaps thousands of years. All humans were tropically adapted as they originally were from tropical Africa. As humans migrated, some left Africa for Eurasia. Those Eurasians who remained in the tropics still maintained tropical body plans and those that ventured farther north into colder latitudes slowly began to lose them.
If Egyptians by and large show a mean of extreme tropical builds it must mean they have recent ancestry from further south as Egypt is in the subtropics. Even populations adapted to subtropical North Africa would be no different in body plan to Khoisan of Southern Africa who are also adapted to subtropical areas. Either way you cut it, there is NO cold adaptation what so ever.
Simpleton is finished.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^What is the extreme for so-called tropically adapted limbs?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
In fact the study I presented seriously puts into question your claim that the Egyptians had to come from a tropical enviroment, and had to have a genetic basis for elongated limbs.
The term 'tropically' is misapplied to the actual reason limbs become elongated. The only thing necessary is high temperatures. So no the Egyptians did not have to be tropically adapted. Do you understand this? Do you not comprehend what the study is saying? Hello out there?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^^I cannot understand why you cannot comprehend my first post in this thread. I already gave you several sources, all of which all state the same thing- i.e., the Egyptians came from further south. Why you choose to ignore my posts, I will never know Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: In fact the study I presented seriously puts into question your claim that the Egyptians had to come from a tropical enviroment, and had to have a genetic basis for elongated limbs.
LOL How so??!!
quote:The term 'tropically' is misapplied to the actual reason limbs become elongated. The only thing necessary is high temperatures. So no the Egyptians did not have to be tropically adapted. Do you understand this? Do you not comprehend what the study is saying? Hello out there?
Okay, and what other natural environment other than a tropical one would high temperatures occur you f*cking idiot??! LMAO
Yes. We already know this based on the biological principle of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen's_rule]Allen's rule[/url]! Limb length growth is related to temperature and such growth has a genetic basis you idiot! We know this, but how does this refute the FACT that ancient Egyptian population origins lie in the tropics where the temperature is extremely HIGH and thus extremely elongated limbs??!
It's sad you don't realize how dumb you are. Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
You are the biggest idiot on this forum to think that high temperatures exist only in the tropical part of Africa. The surface temperatures of the Sahara in which Egypt is a part sometimes reaches 130 degrees you dimwit.
It is close to the surface temperature that humans are going to experience the most.
Your mother must have dropped you on your thimble sized head as a baby.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: You are the biggest idiot on this forum to think that high temperatures exist only in the tropical part of Africa. The surface temperatures of the Sahara in which Egypt is a part sometimes reaches 130 degrees you dimwit.
LOL Okay...
First of all, much of the Sahara STILL lies in the tropical part of Africa.
^ Even the southernmost part of Egypt lies in the tropics, you dumbass! Ironically this is the very area where pharoanic civilization developed.
2nd of all, the areas just outside the tropical zone --just north of the tropic of cancer and just south of the tropic of capricorn-- are known as the subtropics.
Of course the subtropics are hot. I never said otherwise, nitwit! It may not be as hot as actual tropical areas but they are still hot.
That's besides the point. The point is that Egyptians were found to have extreme tropical builds i.e. their limb proportions are more pronounced than even some Africans who actually live in the tropics, meaning they must have ancestry from there!
Even if they are indigenous to the subtropics, here is another African population indigenous to the Subtropics.
San
The San people above are aboriginal to southern Africa which is subtropical and even in the Cape Coast region whose climate is described MEDITERRANEAN.
Therefore subtropical adaptation is still tropical and does not exclude them being black!
quote:It is close to the surface temperature that humans are going to experience the most.
Yes, which is why they are still tropically adapted and NOT cold adapted you twit! LOL
quote:Your mother must have dropped you on your thimble sized head as a baby.
Nope. That must have happened to YOU.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^And all of this is supposed to counter my point in what way?
And please do answer my question. What is the upper limit for being tropically adapted? And while you're at it, what is the lower limit?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton b|tch: ^And all of this is supposed to counter my point in what way?
Yes. As I stated many times this is called Allen's Rule. It is still genetic of course as genetics determines phenotypic features though with influence from the environment.
The fact that population average for Egyptians is tropical only means that they adapted to such an environment!
quote: And please do answer my question. What is the upper limit for being tropically adapted? And while you're at it, what is the lower limit?
The upper limit is extreme or supra as exhibited by Saraho-Sahelian Africans like Malians, Mauritanians, Sudanese, and of course Egyptians etc. The lower limit of tropical adaptation would be peoples adapted to subtropics like the San bushmen or certain aboriginal groups in Eurasia.-- All of whom are still black.
By the way, have you been able to counter anything in my previous post above?? I don't think so! LOL Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton b|tch: ^And all of this is supposed to counter my point in what way?
Yes. As I stated many times this is called Allen's Rule.
Lol for the simpleton who doesn't quite yet understand what she posted is actually in support of limb proportions positively correlating with mean annual temperature.
Read the following, which is where you seem to be trying to make your point from;
^^Simpleton, the above implies Allens rule as noted in the study you linked to, and noted by others in this thread.
If that was your point, I.e., to inform us about Allens rule, well thanks but we already know about it.
Note the following which correlates with your linked report...
quote:Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans.
Abstract
Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature , such that high indices are found in tropical groups.
Now, let this all sink in, then remember that the ancient Egyptians exhibited extreme tropical adaptations. Not merely tropical, but the extreme.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Be careful Becky's brains might malfunction. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
simple-minded intention here is not to deny any temperature relation to the body plan; in fact, this is what she intents to make as the sole reason for the ancient Egyptian body plan, divorced from ancestry in the tropical regions of the continent.
Earlier when she was asking for "upper" and "lower" limits of "being tropically adapted", I take it that she was referring to the limb ratio indexes. It has to be seen in the context of the upper values and lower values of a particular study at hand, with higher indices generally relating to tropical attitudes and lower indices relating to areas outside of the tropics, whereby the respective cut-off upper and lower average values of the tropical and non-tropical groups should facilitate the deduction of the corresponding "upper" and "lower" limits of "being tropically adapted", but in reference to many studies, tropical limb ratios can range from a upper limit of ca. 85% to a lower limit of ca. 83%.
The ancient Egyptians always cluster with sub-Saharan tropical Africans, be it body and limb proportions or body linearity, and away from non-tropical groups like Europeans. This is a sign of genetic origin in the tropics of Africa.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Does she mean to tell us that individuals can just change their skeletal structure all of a sudden to adapt to a new area?? So if I were take a short limb Inuit from Siberia and leave in equatorial Africa for a decade, he'll have limb lengths like a Sudanese??! LOL
^^This is exactly what I see simpleton implying with this thread. Simpleton can step in and explain if this is not the case.
What's also noteworthy is that the Egyptian archaeological data implicates that there was a hiatus from 10ky-6ky B.C.E.
^This obviously means the Egyptians arrived from elsewhere, but from where?
Being that they were tropically adapted only further confirms to the simplest of minds that their arrival was from the tropics and not any place else.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Yup. Either in this thread or another, she even stated that it would be interesting to put a pair of twins in different environments and see how they adapted. She has no understanding of limb-length ratios. It has been demonstrated to her in this thread and others that the ancient Egyptians were descended from sub-Saharan Africans. Yet, she keeps on keeping on being simply a dumbass Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I think some of you here don't get it or just can't accept it. Allen's rule still applies, but it doesn't need a long term genetic basis for it to apply, as this study proves.
And one only has to be heat-adapted whether in be it a tropical enviroment or otherwise.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And exactly what do YOU mean by "adapted"?? Again, are you suggesting that if I were to take a baby of cold adapted origins like a Nordic or a Siberian and allow that child to grow up in a hot region like the Sahara then his or her limb proportions would end up like those of an Egyptian or Sudanese as in supra or extremely tropical?? Do you think Allen's Rule would apply to the point that an individual's entire proportions would be altered that much?? In other words, are you suggesting that a cold adapted people from outside Africa immigrated to the Nile Valley and then in a matter of a few generations exhibited the limb proportions of tropical Africans??
If you actually believe this, then you are dumber than I thought. LMAO Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Based on the highlighted portion of your statement. It has become apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution and adaption aren't happening overnight, it takes thousands, hundreds of thousand etc., years for this to happwn. You're not going to get long limb ratios simply by living in a hot dry climate. As pointed out to you herein, the Egyptians were descended from sub-Saharan Africans. Why you choose to ignore the studies provided, I don't know. Egypt is NOT a hot dry climate
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I think some of you here don't get it or just can't accept it. Allen's rule still applies, but it doesn't need a long term genetic basis for it to apply, as this study proves.
And one only has to be heat-adapted whether in be it a tropical enviroment or otherwise.
It does need a long term adaptive basis to apply. Or do you not comprehend that?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO Of course! But just to add, Egypt IS a hot dry climate however it is even hotter and drier in the SOUTH which IS in the tropical zone.
The Simpleton is TOAST and she knows it, and I don't think any modification of her limb lengths and skeletal structure could even help her! LOL
What a dumb b|tch! She must be the type that are being enslaved by the big kuffiyas of the Middle East. No doubt this was how the Fake Egyptian wannabe Sakaliba troll was born! LOL Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^But Egypt doesn't stay hot. That is, it cools down significantly and is sub-tropical. So, if the ancient Egyptians adapted to Egypt's climate as Simple Girl implies, you would expect intermediate limb-length ratios. But as Raxter (2011) pointed out, this was not the case.
Southern Egypt may be within the tropic of cancer, but Egypt still cools down.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
three things to keep in mind about limb indices
1) what is the location/s specifically of the sample?
2) in a given location how many individuals were sampled?
3) in a given location what time period/s were sampled and how many individuals in a given time period?
3) are there differences in limb indices between the general population and certain Pharaoh?
4) If Pharaohs were sampled for limb ratios which Pharaohs in particular were sampled?
If you cannot provide the specification in each of these area you cannot make a strong case and must rely on the opinion statement in a given researcher's conclusions
lioness productions
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: three things to keep in mind about limb indices
1) what is the location/s specifically of the sample?
Why does that matter really? Both lower and upper Egyptians had tropical limb ratios characteristic of tropical populations. Which, as Raxter (2011) pointed out was surprising as Egypt is sub-tropical (Listed in the studies)
quote:2) in a given location how many individuals were sampled?
Listed in the studies.
quote:3) in a given location what time period/s were sampled and how many individuals in a given time period?
Also listed in studies
quote:3) are there differences in limb indices between the general population and certain Pharaoh?
I see you chose to ignore most of the posts in this thread. According to Raxter (2007) there is no evidence for significant variation in linear limb-length ratios, and the new equations may be broadly applicable to new specimens (refer to my earlier post for exact quote). The values for the Pharaohs were lower presumably because they were not taken via direct measurement, but with radiography. They may have had slightly different limb length ratios however.
quote:4) If Pharaohs were sampled for limb ratios which Pharaohs in particular were sampled?
Read the study and the references LOL!
quote:If you cannot provide the specification in each of these area you cannot make a strong case and must rely on the opinion statement in a given researcher's conclusions
Everything you asked are explained in the studies.
quote:lioness productions
^Psycho Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': ^But Egypt doesn't stay hot. That is, it cools down significantly and is sub-tropical. So, if the ancient Egyptians adapted to Egypt's climate as Simple Girl implies, you would expect intermediate limb-length ratios. But as Raxter (2011) pointed out, this was not the case.
Southern Egypt may be within the tropic of cancer, but Egypt still cools down.
According to the source that you posted, the ancient Egyptians were basically intermediate in limb length between the two average upper and lower extremes for modern Africans. The upper and lower extremes is even cited by your source.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Are you unable to read? The source I posted states that they had limbs characteristic of African populations. The only thing "intermediate" is their stature, NOT limb-length ratios. Nowhere in any of my citations is it claimed that they are intermediate in limb ratios. Raxter et al., (2011) proved that wrong. You're too stupid
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
According to the source that you posted, the ancient Egyptians were basically intermediate in limb length between the two average upper and lower extremes for modern Africans. The upper and lower extremes is even cited by your source. [
As pointed out, you got it wrong. You are confusing 'limb proportions' with 'body linearity', which Raxter et al. claim is "somewhat" intermediate between those of American Black and American Whites.
However, to recap...
It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - by T.W. Holliday, Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope) versus Kodiak Island Inuit, 2009.
The Egyptians are mentioned here; reference to "ancient Egyptians"? In any event, what does this mean? The body linearity indirectly implies that the "Egyptians" body mass is in the same range as those of "sub-Saharan" Africans.
[Notice that the pgymies are an outlier amongst the "sub-Saharan" specimens. The likely reason for this, is that their small body stature is likely having an effect on the body mass at some level or another. Otherwise, as posted above, reports on limb-proportions indicate that the pygmy adhere to the tropical pattern.]
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Did you check the references? Maybe that will tell you whether ancient or modern Egyptians.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I only partially had access to the work in question. The samples used are supposed to be part of that very 2009 study, and so, would not have required references to a third party study or an earlier study.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': Are you unable to read? The source I posted states that they had limbs characteristic of African populations. The only thing "intermediate" is their stature, NOT limb-length ratios. Nowhere in any of my citations is it claimed that they are intermediate in limb ratios. Raxter et al., (2011) proved that wrong. You're too stupid
No I think it is you that is too stupid. Now I know i'm dealing with at least two thimble-sized heads. Hello out there? I wasn't talking about stature. Read my words carefully and maybe you can comprehend. The keyword isn't stature. Can you guess what the keyword is?
I think your mother also dropped you on your thimble and put a rather large dent in it.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by L': Are you unable to read? The source I posted states that they had limbs characteristic of African populations. The only thing "intermediate" is their stature, NOT limb-length ratios. Nowhere in any of my citations is it claimed that they are intermediate in limb ratios. Raxter et al., (2011) proved that wrong. You're too stupid
No I think it is you that is too stupid. Now I know i'm dealing with at least two thimble-sized heads. Hello out there? I wasn't talking about stature. Read my words carefully and maybe you can comprehend. The keyword isn't stature. Can you guess what the keyword is?
I think your mother also dropped you on your thimble and put a rather large dent in it.
OMFG! LOL! This is too funny. I know perfectly well what you were saying. You claimed that the authors claimed the Egyptians had "intermediate" limb-length ratios, and I responded by saying no, the authors did not say that. They said they were intermediate in stature, NOT limb-length ratios. I know perfectly well what you were saying you idiot, why don't you slowly read my post over again and try to comprehend.
Your post brings stupidity to an all new level
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
You may want to keep that certificate for yourself after you reread your little chart again, and realize the point i'm trying to jab into that thimble of yours.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:You may want to keep that certificate for yourself after you reread your little chart again, and realize the point i'm trying to jab into that thimble of yours.
Nowhere do the authors make the claim that the ancient Egyptians were intermediate in limb-length ratios. They state the exact opposite. What they actually say is that Egyptians are within the African range and that they have limb-length ratios characteristic of African populations. Learn to read the actual study, before trying to force your interpretation not supported by the actual data.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:You may want to keep that certificate for yourself after you reread your little chart again, and realize the point i'm trying to jab into that thimble of yours.
Nowhere do the authors make the claim that the ancient Egyptians were intermediate in limb-length ratios. They state the exact opposite. What they actually say is that Egyptians are within the African range and that they have limb-length ratios characteristic of African populations. Learn to read the actual study, before trying to force your interpretation not supported by the actual data.
The chart shows that the Egyptians were intermediate between the lower and upper extremes for being so-called tropically adapted. That is when they are compared to modern Africans.
In fact it shows that they were nowhere near the upper limit. Something that one would expect for a population that came from the south and, was so-called tropically adapted.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
opie in skirts (simple-minded), a thimble-sized head at least contains a gem of concrete in it, something that your fat-ass sized airhead could use. It will help you start understanding words that you choose to use, like say...
According to the source that you posted, the ancient Egyptians were basically intermediate in limb length between the two average upper and lower extremes for modern Africans. The upper and lower extremes is even cited by your source. - by opie in skirts
If you read carefully, would you say that you see the word "stature" above; do you even know the difference between "stature" and "limb length"?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:The chart shows that the Egyptians were intermediate between the lower and upper extremes for being so-called tropically adapted. That is when they are compared to modern Africans.
In fact it shows that they were nowhere near the upper limit. Something that one would expect for a population that came from the south and, was so-called tropically adapted.
Your point? To the contrary, they are not "intermediate" but have longer limbs than many African populations:
"The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).---Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2003)
Longer limbs than many African populations, how does that make them intermediate exactly?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^ To It's Imagined Brilliance.It's really sad for you that I haven't probably 1/100th the time in researching these studies, and I can actually comprehend them better than you.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Thank you. You have finally admitted it:
quote:Originally posted by simply a dumbass: I haven't probably 1/100th the time in researching these studies
Your lack of reading comprehension has actually been demonstrated in several threads thus far. Keep it up
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
There's just too many questions left open about the study in general.
What African populations are they comparing the ancient Egyptians to? Are they modern or ancient? Are they populations from throughout Africa or in concentrated areas?
The study doesn't clarify these things. It would help to know.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:There's just too many questions left open about the study in general.
What African populations are they comparing the ancient Egyptians to? Are they modern or ancient? Are they populations from throughout Africa or in concentrated areas?
The study doesn't clarify these things. It would help to know.
Here's a thought, go and read it. The populations being compared are from Ruff(1994) I suggest you read that too for better clarification.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
^ To It's Imagined Brilliance.It's really sad for you that I haven't probably 1/100th the time in researching these studies, and I can actually comprehend them better than you.lol
Farthead says that her inability to tell the difference between limb lengths and stature is a sign of her better comprehension skills.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Egyptian body size and proportions: ecogeographic patterns in a mid-latitude population. MICHELLE H. RAXTER.
indices such as body mass/stature and bi-iliac breadth/stature to stature were intermediate between higher latitude and lower latitude populations.
quote:Originally posted by L':
What we can take from the above:
2)The results do NOT support the Egyptians having intermediate body proportions
??????
What does this mean? This means that the ancient Egyptians were descended from recent migrants from a tropical place. Genetic studies also confirm this:
"Our findings are in accordance with other studies on Y-chromosome markers that have shown that the predominant Y-chromosome lineage in Berber communities is the subhaplogroup E1b1b1b (E-M81), which emerged in Africa, is specific to North African populations,
and is almost absent in Europe, except in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and Sicily.
Sicilian
[b]Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001)"
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al., (2010)
E1-M123's diversity is higher in Yemen than in Egypt
(E1b1b1c)
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Oh god, not this crap from you again. I'll make it simple
What is your point?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Loiness,
Your post is malarky. I posted elsewhere:
Luis et al. (2004) posted an internal variance of .41 for the Egyptian sample vs. the just .05 internal variance for the Omani sample, as it pertains to the E3b1c-M123 clade. Likewise, the internal variation of Egyptian J clades—J-12f2(xJ2-M172) and J*-12f2(xJ2-M172)—was .45 and .31 respectively, while those reported for the Omani sample were .40 and .27 respectively. There is apparently greater disparity between the reported values for the two samples in the case of the E-M123 marker than the J clades, but the common element here is the relative greater internal variation in the Egyptian sample vs. the Omani. On the other hand, Cadenas et al. (2007) report the following internal variance values for the following groups respectively: For UAE the value was .25 [E3b1c-M123] and .15 [ J1-M267], while for Yemeni, the values were .14 [E3b1c-M123] and .20 [J1-M267]. Qatar did not report for any E3b1c clades, but did have a value of .14 for J1-M267. The level of diversity described in Ethiopian [and Northern African] examples of E3b1c-M123 markers as reported by , is inconsistent with a south Arabian origin.
Lioness, how about doing some reading first, before you pull stuff out of your imaginations.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: opie in skirts (simple-minded), a thimble-sized head at least contains a gem of concrete in it, something that your fat-ass sized airhead could use. It will help you start understanding words that you choose to use, like say...
According to the source that you posted, the ancient Egyptians were basically intermediate in limb length between the two average upper and lower extremes for modern Africans. The upper and lower extremes is even cited by your source. - by opie in skirts
If you read carefully, would you say that you see the word "stature" above; do you even know the difference between "stature" and "limb length"?
Yes I know the difference between stature and limb length thimble nuts. Do you know the difference? Seeing as to how I made no reference at all to stature, you must be imagining things.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^New study basically saying that your study was a "god of the gaps" study.
quote:Although explanations for Allen’s rule are usually couched in evolutionary terms (selection against largerappendages in colder environments), observations of re-tardation of limb growth in colder environments has led to a recent suggestion of an ontogenetic mechanism that may explain Allen’s rule (Serrat et al. 2008) However,single-species observations of geographical and ontoge-netic variation in morphology make it difficult to support,or argue against, an evolutionary basis to the rule, but comparative studies across many species provide an op-portunity to test the rule in an explicit evolutionary frame-work.
and:
quote:Our analyses provide compelling evidence, across severalbird groups, supporting Allen’s rule and suggesting thatthermoregulatory constraints have been an evolutionaryforce shaping bird bill size. The pattern was strongly evi-dent in the analysis of all 214 species, in relation to bothlatitude and temperature.......There was strong evidence of bill lengths being shorterin colder temperatures (lower Tmin) within Australian par-rots, Canadian galliforms, penguins, and gulls. The lack ofrelationship in toucans and barbets is perhaps unsurprising,given that Tmin is estimated from latitudinal and longitu-dinal, rather than altitudinal, data. Terns showed no rela-tionship between Tmin and bill size, which is unexpectedgiven the latitudinal trend in the variable. However, ternsare famously known for their wide geographical ranges,which may make interpretation of Tmin problematic. The fact that these patterns are observed across species invites an evolutionary explanation.
^ I didn't read the whole study and didn't need to. It makes no comparison between any like species reared in differing latitudes from what I gathered. All the species were observed in their natural areas and compared to the other species.
This study has absolutely no bearing at all on members of the same species being reared in temperature different enviroments.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: [QB] ^ I didn't read the whole study and didn't need to. It makes no comparison between any like species reared in differing latitudes from what I gathered.
Hence, what you've "gathered" is a reflection of what you didn't understand. The mice study does not explain Allen's rule at all, it only explains variations in expression based on the range of plasticity allowed. For example, skin color is a plastic trait. In Europeans, when the sun is out they become tan. With a plastic phenotype you can predict the environment and adjust but only so much, which is why Europeans no matter what don't have tropical limb proportions (LONG TERM adaptation vs. plastic response). This is why after 500 years in America, African-Americans have more tropical bodies than Europeans. This is why ancient Egyptians have tropical body plans even though Egypt is not in the tropics.
As a matter of fact, you are clearly using your study out of context. The author would not argue what you are trying to argue as applied to differences between human populations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LMAO
L, I don't think this certificate above is good enough to properly show how dumb the Simpleton truly is!
To be fair, it's possible she isn't dumb at all but in severe state of psychotic delusion brought on by her racism and white supremacist notions. Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: [QB] ^ I didn't read the whole study and didn't need to. It makes no comparison between any like species reared in differing latitudes from what I gathered.
Hence, what you've "gathered" is a reflection of what you didn't understand. The mice study does not explain Allen's rule at all, it only explains variations in expression based on the range of plasticity allowed. For example, skin color is a plastic trait. In Europeans, when the sun is out they become tan. With a plastic phenotype you can predict the environment and adjust but only so much, which is why Europeans no matter what don't have tropical limb proportions (LONG TERM adaptation vs. plastic response). This is why after 500 years in America, African-Americans have more tropical bodies than Europeans. This is why ancient Egyptians have tropical body plans even though Egypt is not in the tropics.
As a matter of fact, you are clearly using your study out of context. The author would not argue what you are trying to argue as applied to differences between human populations.
The thing is , there is a part of Egypt that is still considered tropical ,and what isn't doesn't lay that much out of the tropical. Of course that doesn't matter since the limb extremities are only temperature sensitive and don't need tropical conditions to apply.
In fact the temperatures in Egypt can parallel or exceed anything in a tropical enviroment.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:The thing is , there is a part of Egypt that is still considered tropical ,and what isn't doesn't lay that much out of the tropical.
No part of Egypt is in the tropics. You are confusing the tropic of cancer with tropical Africa. You don't know what you're talking about.
"This study investigated patterns in body size and proportions in a mid-latitude population. Ancient Egyptians occupied a middle latitude region at 31-21 o North. It was predicted that Egyptians would be intermediate between higher and lower latitude populations in body size and limb length ratios.
[i]"Ancient Egyptian limb length indices were more characteristic of tropical populations".
--Raxter (2011)
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
The study I presented doesn't go against Allen's Rule in the least bit. In fact body mass itself between the groups doesn't reflect any difference. That simple fact in itself shows that Allen's Rule is effective for genetically based and enviromentally influenced subjects.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
It doesn't matter whether Egypt lies in the tropics or not, temperatures there can exceed anything in the tropics. Limb extremities are temperature sensitive, whether in desert climates or tropical climates.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: It doesn't matter whether Egypt lies in the tropics or not
Yes it does because you claimed that it did. Before I begin to even entertain any of the other weird claims you make you first need to substantiate this one:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Mind: there is a part of Egypt that is still considered tropical
and then explain why ancient Egyptian limb length indices defied the predictions of Raxter (2011).
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: The thing is , there is a part of Egypt that is still considered tropical ,and what isn't doesn't lay that much out of the tropical.
One thing I will never understand about Euronuts is that they make a big deal over Egypt lying not far from the tropics when the subject of limb proportions comes up, but when asked to explain why they don't think Egyptians were black, they say "because Egypt is not in the tropics". They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: and then explain why ancient Egyptian limb length indices defied the predictions of Raxter (2011). [/QB]
What predictions did Raxter make? Were the Egyptians super-negroid? Did they have extremities that reflected the upper range of being so-called tropically adapted? And what would that be in modern Africans? 85.8 or very close to it?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: and then explain why ancient Egyptian limb length indices defied the predictions of Raxter (2011).
What predictions did Raxter make? Were the Egyptians super-negroid? Did they have extremities that reflected the upper range of being so-called tropically adapted? And what would that be in modern Africans? 85.8 or very close to it? [/QB]
All of your posts are extremely moronic. The tropic of cancer has nothing to do with limb ratios. Limb ratios correlate with mean annual temperature and Egypt does NOT stay hot all day long. It gets as low as 40 degrees. So no simple girl, limb ratios do not appear in any place that gets hot, they appear in places that stay hot.
I've already answered your questions, YES the Egyptians had the "super-Negroid" body plan. I've already given you a source for that (which you ignored wonderfully)
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I doubt most of the ancient Egyptians spent most of their time outside at night when the desert was cool. The daytime temperatures can be extreme for any country. The surface temperatures definitely scorching hot.
Even given the cool down periods, it still correlates nicely with the given data on Egyptian limb ratios as well as latitude.
The limb ratio's approach nowhere near the maximum for being so-called tropically adapted.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I doubt most of the ancient Egyptians spent most of their time outside at night when the desert was cool.
It's not just night when Egypt is relatively cool. It also cools down during winter days. Furthermore, everyone tries to warm themselves up when it's cold, yet that doesn't lead to everyone having tropical limb proportions.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I doubt most of the ancient Egyptians spent most of their time outside at night when the desert was cool. The daytime temperatures can be extreme for any country. The surface temperatures definitely scorching hot.
Obviously you are too stupid to understand. Egyptians could not have adapted their limb ratios in Egypt because it doesn't stay hot.
quote:Even given the cool down periods, it still correlates nicely with the given data on Egyptian limb ratios as well as latitude.
No, no it does not. That is a very stupid comment. Especially because of the already given information on Egypt being sub-tropical and coming from the south. Why do you choose to ignore what is being told to you?
quote:The limb ratio's approach nowhere near the maximum for being so-called tropically adapted.
Yes they do, they are super-tropically adapted. I already posted this earlier:
""The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).---Sonia R. Zakrzewski (2003)
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^This is from the same source:
The MK material all derives from Gebelein. Evidence from stelae suggests that, by the MK, Gebelein had a colony of Nubian mercenaries who married into the local Egyptian population (Fischer, 1961). These stelae indicate that the Nubian mercenaries lived with and were buried near the Egyptian community they served, and that they were buried in an Egyptian manner. The sample included in this study may thus represent Nubians, Egyptians, or some of each group.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^What is your point?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I've said it before, and will say it again; Zakrzewski was speculating about the supposed exceptionalism of the "Nubian" element in the MK sample. The MK exhibits traits familiar in samples before the Old Kingdom. And the following seems to just confirm this...
"A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other.
A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.
Extract from: American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246.
BTW, the tropic of cancer is part of the tropics, just as the tropic of Capricorn.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
This also from your source:
This change was a relative decrease in the length of the humerus as compared with the ulna, suggesting the development of an increasingly African body plan with time. This may also be the result of Nubian mercenaries being included in the sample from Gebelein.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
And?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Also:
Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Opie in skirts, tell us something that we don't already know, or at least stop beating the bush and open your bloody mouth and say what's in your thimble headed skull. LOL
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Again, what is your point? If you want to debate my source than you should post what point you are trying to make first.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Edit: Never mind, I'm tired of arguing with this little girl (way too ignorant about the topic).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
to exclude Asia, a Middle Eastern/Levantine component from being a significant component of the foundations of ancient Egypt you have to show data of indigenous people of these regions not U.S. whites and compare it to the Egyptians.
It's a red herring to compare the ancient Egyptians white U.S. whites who are comprised of a lot of north West Europeans, English, German, Dutch etc.
In order for the limb ratio argument to be used to make a case that the ancient Egyptians were exclusively African the ratios of people indigenous to what is now called Jordan, Israel, Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq would have to be shown to be different enough to separate them from ancient Egyptians.
So you guys are not there yet. You are putting up studies that compare ancient Egyptians to North West Europeans and skipping over a lot of places in Eurasia on the way such as the Mid East. When that case gets made well I would be more convinced.
Whenever I see that study talking about ancient Egyptians compared to "U.S. Whites" and U.S. Blacks" it always seems weird that Americans would be the choice to set up comparisons with ancient Egyptians.
It is shown in many examples, in Egyptian art, in Table of Nations murals at various tombs Nehesy often represented as jet black an Egyptians as reddish brown.
You can maintain that these are two types of "black" people. But the darker skin should be a representation of the tropical adaptation and skin less dark would relate to sub tropical skin.
Book of Gates, tomb of Seti I
^^Syrian, sub tropical skin type___________^^Nehesy, tropical skin type
.
Book of Gates, tomb of Seti I (also) ____________^^Egyptians, sub tropical skin type
.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] to exclude Asia, a Middle Eastern/Levantine component from being a significant component of the foundations of ancient Egypt you have to show data of indigenous people of these regions not U.S. whites and compare it to the Egyptians.
Kemp (2006) compared lower Egyptians to Near Easterners and Raxter (2011) compared Egyptians in general to Near easterners (and also included Sudanese) and they still were revealed to be tropically adapted and more affiliated with the Africans. I and others have posted these references yet you ignore.
I'm done with you as well btw.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
In order for the limb ratio argument to be used to make a case that the ancient Egyptians were exclusively African the ratios of people indigenous to what is now called Jordan, Israel, Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq would have to be shown to be different enough to separate them from ancient Egyptians.
Lioness you have a fairly short span memory:
Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
Why don't you just embrace your white heritage, and stop trying to whitewash African history. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
This is a very odd statement it seems to be tainted with some sort of political correctness. Within the same paragraph where he was talking about Palestinians he concludes the paragraph talking about Europeans. Palestinians are not Europeans this makes no sense. You don't start a paragraph talking about examples comparing Egyptians to Near easterners and all of the sudden switch to Europeans as if you were talking about them. Where are the stats on the Palestinians/Byblos ratios instead of Kemp's opinions (he's not the primary researcher).
However I do find the the limb ratios argument somewhat convincing. But the problem is it does not match up with the Egyptians skin tone, the reddish brown, not the exclusive skin tone but by far the most common one. It's that reddish brown skin tone that is characteristic of the Mid East. A jet black skin tone is not common to depictions of Egyptians except in symbolic representation such as Osiris or other Gods in afterlife scenes. So if the Egyptians came form the South where is their jet black skin like you see in many representations of the Kushites?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
This is a very odd statement it seems to be tainted with some sort of political correctness. Within the same paragraph where he was talking about Palestinians he concludes the paragraph talking about Europeans. Palestinians are not Europeans this makes no sense.
That is because unlike Palestinians, there is no ambiguity about the Egyptian specimens grouping with Africans. Not an odd statement, and not a rocket science either.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. Palestine was historically known as being heterogeneous even in ancient times unlike Egypt which was more homogeneous (inhabited by predominantly by Africans).
I'm sure Lyingass forgot the ancient Greek sources cited many times which speak of Leuco-Syrians or WHITE Syrians.
quote:Originally posted by Explorer: Why don't you just embrace your white heritage, and stop trying to whitewash African history.
LOL She might as well.
I'm telling you these twisted sisters have lost their marbles, their motors are running but they aren't moving, lights are on but nobody's home etc. etc.
Yet we are suppose to "debate" with the likes of them??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: BTW, the tropic of cancer is part of the tropics, just as the tropic of Capricorn.
Correct, though it is in the very fringes or lower limits of tropical which begs the question as to why the ancient Egyptians were found to have supra-tropical physiques instead of merely moderate let alone minimally.
The twisted sisters keep dancing around it, but intelligent and clear thinking minds can see the answer.
By the way, the reason why the Sahara gets cool even cold at night is because like all deserts there is very little moisture to regulate temperature. That's why when the sun is up everything is heated up and when the sun goes away so does the heat. Though the further away from the equator an area is the less intensity sunlight. The Sahara ranges from tropical to subtropical zones but there is a desert in Africa that is strictly subtropical and that is the Kalahari Desert.
These are its indigenous inhabitants.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe these people are outliers in tropical adaptation both in complexion as well as physique. Yet these people are a far outcry from being "caucasians" (though that hasn't stop the old school [white] academics from calling them that ages ago) and these people are still by Western standards 'black'.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Correct, though it is in the very fringes or lower limits of tropical...
A portion of Egypt lies beyond this "lower limits"; that is to say, a portion of Egypt extends well into the tropics.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
all of this terminology "tropical" "sub tropical" "lower limits" "upper limits" is up for grabs in terms of morphology.
What is not up for grabs are specified limb ratios of ancient Egyptians and multiple nations in the Levant and Arabian peninsula. Comprehensive data to that effect may not be available at this time.
lioness prodcutions
____________________________________
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Does anyone have the book in question "Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization"? The citation corresponds to [73] in the bibliography yet the bib is not accessible from the google books preview. I ask because the exact study he referenced he almost quoted verbatim (thus, it had nothing to do with "politics", he was accurately quoting research, and the research also mentioned they were NOT similar to Palestinians). I know because I've found the study before on google scholar but can no longer seem to find it either there or on my computer anymore. The study I believe was from the mid 1990s but I forgot by whom.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
What exactly does the tropic of cancer have to do with body proportions?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: all of this terminology "tropical" "sub tropical" "lower limits" "upper limits" is up for grabs in terms of morphology.
What is not up for grabs are specified limb ratios of ancient Egyptians and multiple nations in the Levant and Arabian peninsula. Comprehensive data to that effect may not be available at this time.
Moving the goal post:
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion".
quote:Originally posted by L': What exactly does the tropic of cancer have to do with body proportions?
I have no idea either.
quote:Originally posted by TheExplorer: BTW, the tropic of cancer is part of the tropics, just as the tropic of Capricorn.......A portion of Egypt lies beyond this "lower limits"; that is to say, a portion of Egypt extends well into the tropics.
Just caught this. This is correct; my error.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Does anyone have the book in question "Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization"? The citation corresponds to [73] in the bibliography yet the bib is not accessible from the google books preview. I ask because the exact study he referenced he almost quoted verbatim (thus, it had nothing to do with "politics", he was accurately quoting research, and the research also mentioned they were NOT similar to Palestinians). I know because I've found the study before on google scholar but can no longer seem to find it either there or on my computer anymore. The study I believe was from the mid 1990s but I forgot by whom.
I do. I scanned some pages onto FaceBook a while ago (only the Denrograms though)/ I'll check the references
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Guys that Video is gonna have to wait further, Im super busy with School and other stuff right now. Im adding onto it slowly though!!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^@L'. So what is the reference that corresponds with citation [73] from page 54?
Another note, in a forensic case where identity is to be ascertained from body proportions, the AE would be identified as "Black" at a higher rate than "many African populations" according to Zakrsewski's data:
A new method for discriminating African-American from European-American skeletons using postcranial osteometrics reflective of body shape
quote:Abstract A discriminant function analysis based on seven postcranial measurements for the metric assessment of race is presented. A sample from the Terry Collection (NMNH) was used to create independent functions for African-American males and females, and European-American males and females. The functions were tested using known forensic cases from the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory. Based on the Terry Collection sample, correct classification of race for males was 87.0%, and for females 100.0%. For the independent test population, correct classification for males was 81.8%, and for females only 57.1%. The low classification for females is most likely due to sample bias.
---Holliday (1999)
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: all of this terminology "tropical" "sub tropical" "lower limits" "upper limits" is up for grabs in terms of morphology.
What is not up for grabs are specified limb ratios of ancient Egyptians and multiple nations in the Levant and Arabian peninsula. Comprehensive data to that effect may not be available at this time.
Moving the goal post:
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion".
LOL!
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Sundjata, I am unable to find what he is basing that statement on. The book I have just has notes, acknowledgments, etc., and I can't find it in the notes for chapter one...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
In order for the limb ratio argument to be used to make a case that the ancient Egyptians were exclusively African the ratios of people indigenous to what is now called Jordan, Israel, Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq would have to be shown to be different enough to separate them from ancient Egyptians.
Lioness you have a fairly short span memory:
Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
Why don't you just embrace your white heritage, and stop trying to whitewash African history.
"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide(CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1500, collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza) and dating from the 26th to 30th dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably, the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. 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 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."
p.55 Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
lol
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': Sundjata, I am unable to find what he is basing that statement on. The book I have just has notes, acknowledgments, etc., and I can't find it in the notes for chapter one...
Is there a bibliography in the back of the book? What is citation [73] supposed to correspond with?
Edit: No worries, found it! This is exactly what the now widely circulated Kemp piece is based on.
quote:"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
^No supplemental data.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
OK, see you found it. Great find
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
In order for the limb ratio argument to be used to make a case that the ancient Egyptians were exclusively African the ratios of people indigenous to what is now called Jordan, Israel, Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq would have to be shown to be different enough to separate them from ancient Egyptians.
Lioness you have a fairly short span memory:
Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
Why don't you just embrace your white heritage, and stop trying to whitewash African history.
"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide(CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1500, collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza) and dating from the 26th to 30th dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably, the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. 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 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."
p.55 Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
lol
I may be misunderstanding lioness, but what are you trying to prove here? That you can't read?
Kemp makes that statement to clarify one of the dendrograms presented in his book, where the Gizeh Egyptians are placed in the Mediterranean/European bloc. However, as he notes, they were either
1)Immigrant
2)SO long exposed to population mixing that they had a growing affinity to Europeans
In the unpooled dendrogram, the ancient Egyptians lie with Nubians, and other tropical Africans.
BTW Lioness, you highlighted the wrong portion Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I've updated my post, take a look at it.
Edit: We both posted at the same time. In any event, the original source is even more explicit than Kemp (or maybe just in a different way since it directly addresses lioness' petty complaint with: "African rather than Levantine affinity").
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Yeah. That article actually really helps for the current project I'm working on Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Guys that Video is gonna have to wait further, Im super busy with School and other stuff right now. Im adding onto it slowly though!!
OK, thats cool. I should be done editing by the end of the week. With all the information I have found since I finished the unedited videos, along with studies posted by others recently, the new ones will be much better.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Great find, Sundjata, though I didn't like having to tilt my head to read the paper (some pages need to be rotated).
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Yeah. That article actually really helps for the current project I'm working on
And what would that be?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Great find, Sundjata, though I didn't like having to tilt my head to read the paper (some pages need to be rotated).
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Yeah. That article actually really helps for the current project I'm working on
And what would that be?
The edited version of my videos. Hold on, I'll send you a link of where we're discussing it
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Great find, Sundjata, though I didn't like having to tilt my head to read the paper (some pages need to be rotated).
lol. Just change the setting in the PDF viewer when you get to that part. Go to top row and click view>rotate view>clockwise.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Some interesting dendrograms from Holliday (2010):
A weird explanation as to why some of the so-called "Nubians" cluster the way they do:
quote:These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)].
^Only PDF (no supplements).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I've read that before. I wonder what their basis is for these Nubians being immigrant groups. Could it be due to the FORDSIC analysis?
quote:Originally posted by L': OK, see you found it. Great find
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass:
"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide(CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1500, collected by Petrie in 1907 **from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza) and dating from the 26th to 30th dynasties.*** Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably, the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. 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 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."
p.55 Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
lol
I may be misunderstanding lioness, but what are you trying to prove here? That you can't read?
Kemp makes that statement to clarify one of the dendrograms presented in his book, where the Gizeh Egyptians are placed in the Mediterranean/European bloc. However, as he notes, they were either
1)Immigrant
2)SO long exposed to population mixing that they had a growing affinity to Europeans
In the unpooled dendrogram, the ancient Egyptians lie with Nubians, and other tropical Africans.
BTW Lioness, you highlighted the wrong portion
LOL I know, so I highlighted the portion the dumb liar missed. The remains dated from the LATE period of Egyptian history after the Delta received much influx of foreigners. Which is why Kemp and others have emphatically stated that this is the reason why these remains should NOT be used to represent native Egyptians! LOL Desperate lying twit. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
foreigners
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^@L'. So what is the reference that corresponds with citation [73] from page 54?
Another note, in a forensic case where identity is to be ascertained from body proportions, the AE would be identified as "Black" at a higher rate than "many African populations" according to Zakrsewski's data:
A new method for discriminating African-American from European-American skeletons using postcranial osteometrics reflective of body shape
quote:Abstract A discriminant function analysis based on seven postcranial measurements for the metric assessment of race is presented. A sample from the Terry Collection (NMNH) was used to create independent functions for African-American males and females, and European-American males and females. The functions were tested using known forensic cases from the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory. Based on the Terry Collection sample, correct classification of race for males was 87.0%, and for females 100.0%. For the independent test population, correct classification for males was 81.8%, and for females only 57.1%. The low classification for females is most likely due to sample bias.
---Holliday (1999)
^^Sun, did Zakrewski actually cite this study in her 2007 paper? What's the page/context?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe these people are outliers in tropical adaptation both in complexion as well as physique. Yet these people are a far outcry from being "caucasians" (though that hasn't stop the old school [white] academics from calling them that ages ago) and these people are still by Western standards 'black'.
The San are not outliers in terms of complexion. In fact, their skin color is a relic of their tropical adaptation. Yes, some relaxing of skin melanin may have taken place as the ancestors of San and Khoi groups penetrated further into the sub-tropical climes of the southern region of the continent. It should be pointed out that contemporary Kalahari San territory partially lies in the tropics as well. As far as "physique" goes, I take it that you are referring to limb proportions? If so, from the data that comes to mind, they were shy of the range exhibited in the tropical African counterparts of the study. In other aspects though, like say, the super tightly curled hair, again this is a relic of their tropical African ancestry. Steatopygia is also a common theme in tropical African female communities; amongst San groups, there are rather pronounced examples of this trait. Again, this trait is likely a carryover from their tropical African ancestry. Therefore, if it makes sense to call tropical Africans "black" in daily lingo, then it is reasonable to apply the same to San groups.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
What exactly does the tropic of cancer have to do with body proportions?
Well, it is part of the tropical continuum, which means climatic features around that zone will be consistent with climates in other tropical regions. We are, after all, discussing a feature of the body that is responsive to annual mean temperature of the environment.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:^^Sun, did Zakrewski actually cite this study in her 2007 paper? What's the page/context?
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the citation came directly from Zakrzewski, only that going by her data the above would have been a reasonable conclusion.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by L': What exactly does the tropic of cancer have to do with body proportions?
I have no idea either.
quote:Originally posted by TheExplorer: BTW, the tropic of cancer is part of the tropics, just as the tropic of Capricorn.......A portion of Egypt lies beyond this "lower limits"; that is to say, a portion of Egypt extends well into the tropics.
Just caught this. This is correct; my error.
Still not seeing how the tropic of cancer has anything to do with body proportions. Holiday (1999) pointed out that they correlate with mean annual temperature. And Egypt does cool down significantly, even in Aswan it gets as cool as 10 degrees celsius in June!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The tropic of cancer is part of the tropical clime. I really don't see what is so difficult to grasp about that.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The tropic of cancer is part of the tropical clime. I really don't see what is so difficult to grasp about that.
No kidding. My question was, what does it have to do with body proportions
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
You bet, no kidding. What does the tropical regions of Africa have to do with body proportions? Take a guess.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^@L. I wasn't trying to imply that the tropic of cancer its self had anything to do with limb-proportions (as opposed to how it relates to annual mean temperature), only that I was wrong in my assertion that Egypt does not lie in the tropics (as a part of it technically does). Though I see why you don't want to belabor that point.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You bet, no kidding. What does the tropical regions of Africa have to do with body proportions? Take a guess.
As I said, body proportions correlate with mean annual temperature. Egypt gets cold even in the south. It's not like the tropic of cancer is a magical line, where if you cross it, temperature will rise/drop 10 degrees.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^@L. I wasn't trying to imply that the tropic of cancer its self had anything to do with limb-proportions (as opposed to how it relates to annual mean temperature), only that I was wrong in my assertion that Egypt does not lie in the tropics (as a part of it technically does). Though I see why you don't want to belabor that point.
OK. I had asked because you said "my error", after you said: "I have no idea either" (in response to my initial question) which made me think that you had got an idea of what the tropic of cancer has to do with body proportions.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
As I said, body proportions correlate with mean annual temperature. Egypt gets cold even in the south. It's not like the tropic of cancer is a magical line, where if you cross it, temperature will rise/drop 10 degrees.
South of Egypt lies in the tropics -- basic geography.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
I would like you to show me where I denied that. Again, my question:
"What does the tropic of cancer have to do with body proportions?"
The tropic of cancer doesn't have anything to do with body proportions; mean annual temperature does. And as I stated, Egypt gets cold, even in Aswan where it gets cool as 10 degrees celsius in June, obviously getting much cooler than that in winter.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by L':
As I said, body proportions correlate with mean annual temperature. Egypt gets cold even in the south. It's not like the tropic of cancer is a magical line, where if you cross it, temperature will rise/drop 10 degrees.
South of Egypt lies in the tropics -- basic geography.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
You are asking a very strange question as to what the tropic of cancer has to do with body proportions, and I'm telling you it has to do with it the same way the tropics of Africa have to do with body proportions. What part of that is do you not get?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
So from WorldClimate.com we have the average annual mean temperature in Cairo at 69.0 degrees Fahrenheit, Luxor at 76.3, Aswan at 79.9 and Khartoum at 84.6. I want to cross-reference that citation to get a better understanding of the direct correlation between limg-length indices and annual mean temperature to see if perhaps we can make (or understand Raxter's) predictions concerning AE skeletal morphology with respect to their own environment.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:You are asking a very strange question as to what the tropic of cancer has to do with body proportions, and I'm telling you it has to do with it the same way the tropics of Africa have to do with body proportions. What part of that is do you not get?
The Beach on Naples Florida is a tropical climate, even though it lies in the subtropics. Which is why I asked. A tropical climate must reach a mean temperature of 18 degrees celsius all twelve months.
So now can you explain why an area in the subtropics in Florida has a tropical climate? Which is the reason I asked what the tropic of cancer has to do with body proportions.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Your question is illogical. This a better question, given your weird questions: Can you tell me why a tropical region of Egypt should not conform to climate typified by the tropics?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Your question is illogical
You would think that. Tell me, why did you even respond to a question directed at somebody else if you thought it "illogical"? I'm telling you, if a region in the subtropics can have a tropical climate, that should clue you in on how the tropic of cancer doesn't have anything to do with body proportions.
quote:This a better question, given your weird questions: Can you tell me why a tropical region of Egypt should not conform to climate typified by the tropics?
When did I say that it shouldn't conform to the to climates typified of the tropics? A question for you is: does it reach a mean temperature of 18 degrees Celsius all twelve months? If so, then sure, it's tropical. Doesn't change that the tropic of cancer really doesn't have anything to do with body proportions
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I only responded to the question to correct its premise. That's what I do; it is no mystery.
Get your basic geography straight. It is not called the sub-tropic of cancer; it is called the tropic of cancer. Do they have basic school in Boston for this sort of stuff? I mean, come on. How could you get something this basic so wrong?
Let's try this: Define tropics. Maybe by looking up its definition, it'll help you understand why your question is illogical.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I only responded to the question to correct its premise. That's what I do; it is no mystery.
You didn't correct anything so far. Body proportions correlate with mean annual temperature.
quote:Get your basic geography straight. It is not called the sub-tropic of cancer; it is called the tropic of cancer. Do they have basic school in Boston for this sort of stuff? I mean, come on. How could you get something this basic so wrong?
If subtropical regions can have tropical climates; then tropical regions may not always have tropical climates. Which is why the tropic of cancer has nothing to do with body proportions, but mean annual temperature DOES. Tropical climates being climates with a monthly mean temperature never less than 18 degrees Celsius.
Read:
quote:Regions within the tropics may well not have a tropical climate. There are alpine tundra and snow-capped peaks, including Mauna Kea, Mount Kilimanjaro, and the Andes as far south as the northernmost parts of Chile and Argentina. Under the Köppen climate classification, much of the area within the geographical tropics is classed not as "tropical" but as "dry" (arid or semi-arid) including the Sahara Desert, the Atacama Desert and Australian Outback.
Hey, you're the one who asked
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I asked for a definition. Know the difference between that and what you posted?
In the meantime, let me get this straight: So, you think that the living in the tropics has nothing to do with having "tropical" body plans? And by that token, you are of the mindset that researchers who use this term "tropical" body plans, don't know what they are talking about?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In the meantime, let me get this straight: So, you think that the living in the tropics has nothing to do with having "tropical" body plans?
What L' is getting at is that while there is a correlation between "tropical" climates and position within the geographic tropics, it is not perfect. It is possible for an area to have a "tropical" climate without lying in the geographic tropics (most of the world during the Mesozoic Era would be an example of this) and likewise it is possible for an area to lie within the tropics but not have a "tropical" climate (e.g. the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro).
"Tropical" body plans are adaptations to "tropical" climates (e.g. consistently high temperatures throughout the day and year), not necessarily position relative to either geographic tropic.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I asked for a definition. Know the difference between that and what you posted?
Read the page.
quote:In the meantime, let me get this straight: So, you think that the living in the tropics has nothing to do with having "tropical" body plans? And by that token, you are of the mindset that researchers who use this term "tropical" body plans, don't know what they are talking about?
Climate influences body plans, climate:
"Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement"--A. Gallaghera et al., 2009
"Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature-- Holiday (1999)
Tropical climate has to do with tropical body plans. Like I said, not every area in the tropics has a tropical climate:
quote:Regions within the tropics may well not have a tropical climate. There are alpine tundra and snow-capped peaks, including Mauna Kea, Mount Kilimanjaro, and the Andes as far south as the northernmost parts of Chile and Argentina. Under the Köppen climate classification, much of the area within the geographical tropics is classed not as "tropical" but as "dry" (arid or semi-arid) including the Sahara Desert, the Atacama Desert and Australian Outback.
So it's not just the tropics, it is the climate. When they use the term "tropical body plan" they are referring to a body plan that is adapted to a tropical climate. So living in the tropics really doesn't matter unless you are living in a tropical climate, which may or may not be in the "tropics", while every area in the "tropics" isn't tropical
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In the meantime, let me get this straight: So, you think that the living in the tropics has nothing to do with having "tropical" body plans?
What L' is getting at is that while there is a correlation between "tropical" climates and position within the geographic tropics, it is not perfect. It is possible for an area to have a "tropical" climate without lying in the geographic tropics (most of the world during the Mesozoic Era would be an example of this) and likewise it is possible for an area to lie within the tropics but not have a "tropical" climate (e.g. the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro).
"Tropical" body plans are adaptations to "tropical" climates (e.g. consistently high temperatures throughout the day and year), not necessarily position relative to either geographic tropic.
^Exactly
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I think the question shouldn't have to do with any ole' tropical climate anyhow but how a climate in the southern portion of upper Egypt will actually reflect body proportion trends based on mean annual temperature.
From L's source:
quote:much of the area within the geographical tropics is classed not as "tropical" but as "dry" (arid or semi-arid) including the Sahara Desert, the Atacama Desert and Australian Outback
^Not to mention that the southern borders of modern Egypt have expanded (the 'tropic of cancer' its self has moved over 44 miles south since Narmer) so if we take Elephantine or Syene as the ancient borders of the Egyptian state, then they were nearly completely outside of the torrid [tropic] zone anyhow.
Confirming that temperatures drop sharply at night due to "high radiation rate under cloudless skies", but also noting that these micro-climates are rapidly fluctuating themselves (what the whole post-Pleistocene dental reduction thing is about), Raxter (2011) who notes broad latitudinal trends may be the most relevant to this discussion. Besides, she predicted a skeletal morphology that wasn't actualized in Egyptian skeletons so we'd be better served searching for an answer to this in a "tropical climate" further south (as opposed to southern upper Egypt).
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Horn/East Africa, where the biological origins of the ancient Egyptian population lies
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^I think the question shouldn't have to do with any ole' tropical climate anyhow but how a climate in the southern portion of upper Egypt will actually reflect body proportion trends based on mean annual temperature.
From L's source:
quote:much of the area within the geographical tropics is classed not as "tropical" but as "dry" (arid or semi-arid) including the Sahara Desert, the Atacama Desert and Australian Outback
^Not to mention that the southern borders of modern Egypt have expanded (the 'tropic of cancer' its self has moved over 44 miles south since Narmer) so if we take Elephantine or Syene as the ancient borders of the Egyptian state, then they were nearly completely outside of the torrid [tropic] zone anyhow.
Confirming that temperatures drop sharply at night due to "high radiation rate under cloudless skies", but also noting that these micro-climates are rapidly fluctuating themselves (what the whole post-Pleistocene dental reduction thing is about), Raxter (2011) who notes broad latitudinal trends may be the most relevant to this discussion. Besides, she predicted a skeletal morphology that wasn't actualized in Egyptian skeletons so we'd be better served searching for an answer to this in a "tropical climate" further south (as opposed to southern upper Egypt).
I think we have to be careful re the Sahara. At least half of the Sahara lies within the tropical zone, including a slice of southern Egypt. "Tropics" can and does include deserts. Look at the map below for example. Furthermore there is substantial overlap between tropic and semi tropic zones in Egypt. The actual dividing line is not as important as the makeup of the people.
But no doubt we all agree that "tropical body plans" have to do with climate, and that said climate is most prevalent in tropical zones, which can and do include arid desert. A "Dry" area can be inside the tropics- nothing unusual. As most scholars now agree, the fundamental peopling of ancient Egypt is by people who came from such tropical zones.
so we'd be better served searching for an answer to this in a "tropical climate" further south (as opposed to southern upper Egypt).
^^YEs, fundamental peopling would be by people from a tropical climate, within striking distance of Egypt. You have a such an area to work with- from the Sudan into Chad, down to the Horn.
Interestingly enough, it appears that various Wikipedia moles have been taking biased or slanted Wikipedia articles denying the tropical data above, and converting them into e-books, and posting them on Google Books, trying in various ways to to deny or minimize the African context of ancient Egypt. Defeated in their attempts to suppress and "spin" scholarship by controlling certain Wiki articles, the lamers are now trying to create fake "citation bases" - referencing a "book" that purports to support their slanted views. But said "books" and "cited references" are themselves bogus compilations of Wikipedia articles they have slanted, keeping out legitimate scholarly data via edit warring and collaboration by assorted Wikipedia administrators.
Example- the bogus:
"Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt" below for example, tries to pass itself off as a credible scholarly reference.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: I think we have to be careful re the Sahara. At least half of the Sahara lies within the tropical zone, including a slice of southern Egypt. "Tropics" can and does include deserts. Look at the map below for example. Furthermore there is substantial overlap between tropic and semi tropic zones in Egypt. The actual dividing line is not as important as the makeup of the people.
I agree. I even caught myself claiming that modern Egypt did not fall within the tropics (torrid zone) based on a stereotyped connotation of 'tropical climate' though now I think the main thing is to emphasize how the 'arid' zone, or 'dry tropics' relate to mean annual temperatures. It would appear that the micro-climates of the lower Nile would work against the development of "tropical body plans", in the sense that the climate isn't reminiscent of the "tropics" year round. Hence, Keita in the Manchester tape was a bit surprised at finding tropically adapted Africans in copper age Algeria as well (which extends further south than Egypt).
quote:so we'd be better served searching for an answer to this in a "tropical climate" further south (as opposed to southern upper Egypt).
^^YEs, fundamental peopling would be by people from a tropical climate, within striking distance of Egypt. You have a such an area to work with- from the Sudan into Chad, down to the Horn.
Interestingly enough, it appears that various Wikipedia moles have been taking biased or slanted Wikipedia articles denying the tropical data above, and converting them into e-books, and posting them on Google Books, trying in various ways to to deny or minimize the African context of ancient Egypt. Defeated in their attempts to suppress and "spin" scholarship by controlling certain Wiki articles, the lamers are now trying to create fake "citation bases" - referencing a "book" that purports to support their slanted views. But said "books" and "cited references" are themselves bogus compilations of Wikipedia articles they have slanted, keeping out legitimate scholarly data via edit warring and collaboration by assorted Wikipedia administrators.
Example- the bogus:
"Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt" below for example, tries to pass itself off as a credible scholarly reference.
Indeed. and what the hell is that??! I remember the article when it was in that state exactly as me and about two other editors at the time were the only opposing forces who kept the article from going completely down the drain. Even then half of our efforts were tinkered with, manipulated, "blanked out", distorted or discredited by some questionable citation inserted directly proceeding ours. That was a touched-up version that didn't even last long and I recall the person who was most aggressive in having that version stay so I bet she's the one who had something to do with this bogus compilation.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Yep. But they will ultimately fail. Its pathetic that they have to resort to this subterfuge - lol at the pretentious title "Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt." Who is that fooling? They think protecting their little wiki rodent-hole means something, but it is too late. The hard data is all over the net, and Google brings it up nicely. Destruction of the Wiki articles or reversion by administrator collaborators doesn't mean anything. Shutdown of one site like Geocities doesn't mean anything either. The database is fully replicated elsewhere. Furthermore readers new to Wiki will notice the discrepancies when they compare scholars and will create a continual stream of turmoil for them, as they scurry like rats to maintain the facade. Ironically, said Wiki articles were getting very little traffic, compared to the traffic the real data gets now on EgyptSearch and elsewhere. I remember one guy on patrol every 3-4 hours, reverting changes on an article that was running 5 hits a day, and thought he was "winning." Alternative sites with full, balanced info however are getting 70-100 hits a day, even as the moles scurry to revert the latest change on their 5-hit article. Knock yoself out suckas... lmao..
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
The good news is that anyone who's received a decent education knows that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and therefore will take with a huge grain of salt any book that's just a bunch of Wikipedia articles cobbled together in print. Besides, nothing prevents us from writing our own books on the subject.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Where is the Simpleton? LOL Has she run out of stupid responses? Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
Read the page.
You posted an excerpt with some highlight in response to a request to define tropics, since you seem to be having trouble with understanding how the tropic of Cancer is relevant to the issue of body/limb proportions. That excerpt turned out to be irrelevant to the request, and now, you say I have to read the page? You mean that you are that much unsure of the definition of "tropics", that you need for me to sort it out myself? The point of the request is not for me to learn the definition, but rather, to gauge whether you know what the "tropics" means.
quote: Climate influences body plans, climate:
"Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement"--A. Gallaghera et al., 2009
"Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature-- Holiday (1999)
Tropical climate has to do with tropical body plans. Like I said, not every area in the tropics has a tropical climate...
We already know that temperature affects body/limb proportions. That's redundancy; we've been singing that tune here long before you started posting here.
Stop dodging the two-pronged question, which to itemize, was this:
In the meantime, let me get this straight:
1) So, you think that the living in the tropics has nothing to do with having "tropical" body plans?
2) And by that token, you are of the mindset that researchers who use this term "tropical" body plans, don't know what they are talking about?
quote:
So it's not just the tropics, it is the climate. When they use the term "tropical body plan" they are referring to a body plan that is adapted to a tropical climate. So living in the tropics really doesn't matter unless you are living in a tropical climate, which may or may not be in the "tropics", while every area in the "tropics" isn't tropical
Let me put it another way: So the zones between the equator and the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are just called the "tropics" for a cosmetic reason?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
What L' is getting at is that while there is a correlation between "tropical" climates and position within the geographic tropics, it is not perfect.
Whomever said it needs to be perfect? The point is that there is a strong correlation between being autochthonous to the tropics, and having "tropical" body proportions. That is because the tropics are the regions which are more directly exposed to the sun. Definition of tropics: Latitudes at which the sun appears directly overhead. Therefore the Sun UV radiation intensity is generally greater in these latitudes than the higher and much lower latitudes outside the tropics. I really do think L' is naive to think nobody here already knows that the limb and body proportions are a response annual mean temperature; we've been saying that around here like forever.
quote: It is possible for an area to have a "tropical" climate without lying in the geographic tropics (most of the world during the Mesozoic Era would be an example of this) and likewise it is possible for an area to lie within the tropics but not have a "tropical" climate (e.g. the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro).
That is immaterial in the general scheme of things. The point is that the tropic of cancer being part of the tropics, the uppermost boundary--if you will, is going to have climatic conditions that is more or less characteristic of the tropics. In this sense, it's environment too will be inclined to have the same correlation to body proportions as any other area of the tropics.
quote: "Tropical" body plans are adaptations to "tropical" climates (e.g. consistently high temperatures throughout the day and year), not necessarily position relative to either geographic tropic.
If we went by this rationale, then one cannot make the argument that the "tropical" body proportions of ancient Egyptians as a sign of their ancestry in the tropics of Africa is unequivocal. They could well have originated in a "tropical"-like climate in some temperate region, by that logic.
Temperatures for Abu Simbel area, which is much more within the tropical belt than Aswan [I don't know why Aswan was ever picked by L', since it is not in the tropics to begin with], close to the tropic of Cancer zone, has the following temperature pattern...
I was just looking at a map of annual UV radiation levels around the world, and I noticed that most of Egypt receives higher UV radiation than much of Central Africa. Wouldn't that mean that Egyptians should be just as black as Central Africans, recent ancestry from further south or not?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ According to this map, any population that is perfectly adapted to the Egyptian environment shouldn't be any lighter than honey-brown, which may not be the blackest skin tone but is still quite dark.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Truthcentric, I think this is more reflective of reality than the image in your link:
It's my understanding that very dark pigmentation is a selective trait requiring five specific gene expressions. It isn't just a result of UV rays. If one of the five genes is lost, so is the trait, and the result would be more like the pigmentation of Native Americans.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
OK Explorer, I'll give you this one. 1-1
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: It is noteworthy that the archaeological evidence indicates an occupation hiatus in the Egyptian Nile Valley between 10,000-6000 BCE (Midant-Reynes, 2000) [Keita, 2005, p. 564]
^^What we can take from the above is pretty simple, the Egyptians arrived from elsewhere, already with extreme tropical adaptations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Yet despite all this info, I take it the Simpleton is too proud to admit defeat. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^She's way to simpleminded to even understand defeat, to understand that this whole thread shows...well, her simple mind is out of her narrow range. She'll continue, as does Lyinass.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Does anybody have any info on tropical limb ratios in Horn/East Africa? I thought that the best place to look for super tropical limb ratios, but I couldn't find anything good. I could only find the following:
quote:This is a conservative estimate in terms of testing whether the Atapuerca specimen had relatively short limbs because East Africans have typically tropical proportions (long forearms)
--Ruff (2002)
quote:Two Pleistocene specimens from tropical regions are also included in Figure 3: KNM-WT 15000, a juvenile male H. ergaster/erectus (Walker & Leakey 1993), and Jebel Sahaba 26, a female from a terminal Pleistocene site in Nubia (Wendorf 1968). The juvenile status of KNM-WT 15000 should have relatively little effect on comparisons (Ruff & Walker 1993). Both specimens fall close to the average proportions for sex-matched modern individuals from East Africa.
-Ruff (2002)
I'm currently looking through some of his old articles:
American Journal of Physical Anthropology: Relative Variation in Human Proximal and Distal Limb Segment Lengths.
Journal of Human Evolution: Body mass, sexual dimorphism and femoral proportions of Proconsul from Rusinga and Mfangano islands, Kenya
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology: Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil hominids.
I'll post anything interesting I find upon reading the above articles
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions
Abstract
The limb proportions of 686 subjects (461 men and 225 women) from five ethnic groups (White, Inuit, Gurkha, Bantu, San) have been compared. Stature, limb and skeletal measurements were taken directly from the subjects by one observer. The brachial and crural indices of the Whites were markedly smaller (lower) than those of the other populations. The crural indices of the Inuit were similar to those of the two African populations, but this may be an artefact from relatively small numbers for the Inuit population. There is no sexual dimorphism for the brachial index, but men have larger (higher) crural indices than women, a finding which probably relates to the relatively broad pelvises and consequently long femurs of women. The two African populations have long limb lengths standardized for height compared to the Gurkha and Inuit populations, with the Whites intermediate. This finding is consistent with Bergmann's thermoregulatory rule. The correlations between distal abbreviation and limb abbreviation for both the upper and lower limbs are poor and negative. Relatively long limbs tend to have smaller distal segments than relatively short limbs and for the legs this may constitute a safeguard for the integrity of the medial and cruciate ligaments of the knee. For these five modern populations distal abbreviation cannot be used as a proxy for limb abbreviation and there is no justification for linking distal abbreviation with climatic selection. Skeletal data relating to nine Neanderthal and 25 early modern humans have also been analysed. The analysis confirms marked limb and distal abbreviation for the Neanderthals compared to early and contemporary modern humans, but this conclusion presupposes that the taxonomic classes are correct and that limb proportions were not used originally as a class discriminant. For these archaic populations there is a moderate positive correlation between lower limb abbreviation and distal abbreviation, but the numbers are small and the confidence intervals very wide. In view of the findings for modern populations, and until more relevant fossils are available, it is probably unwise to use the crural index as a proxy for limb abbreviation in archaic populations
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': Does anybody have any info on tropical limb ratios in Horn/East Africa?
Closest to what you asked for (wherein Hiernaux notes them as being Elongated Africans), for now...
quote:
Tutsi of Rwanda:
*[color=green]Stature: 176 cm * Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5[/color]
Masai:
[color=blue] * Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0[/color]
Galla(Oromo):
[color=red] * Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0[/color]
Sab Somali:
[color=gray] * Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8[/color]
Warsingali Somali:
[color=navy] * Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0[/color]
Source:
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa pg 142
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet despite all this info, I take it the Simpleton is too proud to admit defeat.
What defeat? You and any of the other ones haven't refuted anything cited in the study.lol....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO You are a dumber b|tch than I thought! If you hadn't noticed our point was never to refute that study but to show that the study SUPPORTS our claims!
As usual, the whole thing went over your thimble little head didn't it?! LOL Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LMAO You are a dumber b|tch than I thought! If you hadn't noticed our point was never to refute that study but to show that the study SUPPORTS our claims!
As usual, the whole thing went over your thimble little head didn't it?! LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes exactly. And? Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
And surely you are a joke.lol....The study supports your claims in what way your thimble headedness?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ According to this map, any population that is perfectly adapted to the Egyptian environment shouldn't be any lighter than honey-brown, which may not be the blackest skin tone but is still quite dark.
Skin color is a highly variable factor, much more so than more stable limb proportions. And the Saharan peoples are diverse in looks which means a range in skin colors- all part of indigenous African variability without the need for any "race mix" to explain why. The San peoples display almost yellowish skin, and did not need any "ancient Chinese migrants" to get it. Keep in mind too that Egypt has always had brown, dark brown and black skinned people as part of its NATIVE range, again, without needing any race mix to explain why.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: The study supports your claims in what way
Well, plain and simply the study you linked to does not in any way interfere with the fact that ancient Egyptians exhibited extremely tropically adapted limb proportions.
Let's get that clear.
What is it from the part above that you don't understand? If you feel the study did directly impose a dissenting question then quote directly what conflicts because I don't see it. Ok?
Now, as I noted in a post just above there was a occupation hiatus in the Egyptian Nile valley from about 10,000 to 6,000 B.C.E.
Of course the above would imply that the people who populated Egypt after this time period would have arrived from elsewhere, and whatever environment in which they were originally adapted would be exhibited through their limb proportions.
Being that the ancient Egyptians were shown to be tropically adapted it's only logical to interpret this as these people coming from a tropical area.
What needs to be noted here for you is that skeletons in Europe do not show a complete cold adapted pattern until the Mesolithic era.
This would imply one advancing that a population who stood in Europe from the Paleolithic until the Mesolithic era(increasingly becoming more cold adapted) would magically turn to being extremely tropically adapted.
Logically Europeans and those who match with up Europeans limb proportionally speaking, like many southwest Asians and geographically proximate populations in North Africa are ruled out.
So where then does that leave us? It leaves us to look where a people living would develop an extremely tropically adapted body plan.
The closest tropics around Egypt are to the south, logically implying that these people with an African culture were actually Africans.
Too hard to believe?
Not for mainstream anthropology, archaeology and biology, we're miles ahead of you simpleton.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
More detailed images
Source: Ruff (1994) This is the data Zakrzewski used in her 2003 paper. I'm still looking through it, as it is kind of long, but I'll post more images that are helpful if I Find any!
Edits:
^That's a good one
^^YEEAAAH! I conclude this edit
Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil hominids
Simple Girl, the article you posted supports what has been said all along:
quote:Our results are particularly intriguing because cold-dwelling humans, especially Neandertals, possess disproportionately shortened long bones (12). Moreover the crural index (tibia/femur length ratio) exhibits a strikingly positive correlation with mean annual temperature (tibias shorten relative to the femur with decreasing temperature) (12). This relationship is especially relevant because the tibia is directly exposed to ambient temperature by virtue of its immediately subcutaneous anterior surface and relatively poor blood supply (19). This results in the shank having markedly cooler temperatures than more proximal bones of the limb.
Our experiments, however, may not fully resolve the complex genetic basis of observed clines in mammalian limb length. Clearly the degree of genotype-environment interaction remains an unaddressed issue, and future experiments will be required to assess the effects of heritability. Studies that incorporate genomic screening in models such as those presented here may be particularly informative. In fact, environmentally-induced physiological changes are not limited to bone or cartilage. Temperature has been shown to have direct effects on skin pigmentation in rabbits (26), cell proliferation in turtle brains (27), tumor metastases (28), slime mold differentiation (29), plant leaf growth (30), mammalian hair growth (7), and invertebrate cell size (31). Indeed, temperature effects have been suggested to impact mutation rates (32), and thus molecular clocks based on them.
--Maria A. Serrat et al., (2008)
What we've been saying this entire thread. So tell us, per your own citation, humans dwelling in cold environments show shortened long bones, and the crural index is correlated with mean annual temperature. Egyptians therefore could not have been descended from cold adapted immigrants because they had extremely tropical limb ratios- ergo, they must have been descended from recent migrants from a tropical climate.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^ The fact is, it is you that has the poor comprehension of what the whole study was meant to show. And that is, mammals do not need a long term genetic basis to adapt to differing temperatures. That is the whole point of the study dimwit.
What do you think they did? Use genetically cold adapted mice and genetically heat adapted mice mr. dimwitty?
They used the same type of mice and showed that limb length can be varied by temperature. What part do you not understand? Hello in there. Is there anybody home?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
LOL. Your point being?
1)Limb ratios correlate with mean annual temperature
2)Limb ratios shorten on cold environments
3)Egyptians were super-tropically adapted, and ancient Egypt does not lie in the tropics. What does this mean? Easy, they had to have come somewhere else where the people were super-tropical, sub-Saharan Africa LOL
4)As noticed by Raxter (2011) Egypt's environment did have an effect on some of the limb proportions. Which should clue you in on how Egyptians did not adapt to Egypt's climate if it shortened the Egyptians limb instead of giving them longer limb-ratios.
Your study in no way contradicts a thing that has been said by any of us- it supports what we've been saying.
quote:limb length can be varied by temperature
Exactly what we've been saying this whole time. You fail to comprehend our argument properly
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ROTFLMAOH
This Simpleton b|tch is just too dumb to converse with let alone "debate". She thinks she is "debating" us, when really she is our own personal puppet of stupidity we use to entertain this forum.
All I gotta say is write dummy, write more! Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Most of her posts are irrelevancies that she cannot even explain in her own words LOL.
Did you notice that Mathilda largely relies upon the research here at ES and Myra's website? I've noticed that she cannot get full access to the studies she cites, but copies from what she's read here.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Egypt doesn't lay but just out of the tropics and the ancient Egyptians were not super-tropically adapted as you imply. In fact by your own source the ancient Egyptians don't even approach the extreme for even modern day Africans which is 85.8. Look again at your own sources.
In fact they lay less than halfway between the two extremes for modern day Africans.lol
Nothing you have posted has refuted the study I have posted. In fact your attempt to argue a mute point only exposes your desperation.lol
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: ^This is from the same source:
The MK material all derives from Gebelein. Evidence from stelae suggests that, by the MK, Gebelein had a colony of Nubian mercenaries who married into the local Egyptian population (Fischer, 1961). These stelae indicate that the Nubian mercenaries lived with and were buried near the Egyptian community they served, and that they were buried in an Egyptian manner. The sample included in this study may thus represent Nubians, Egyptians, or some of each group.
Here again by your own source the study you so proudly parade around suggests that there is a distinct difference between Nubians and the Egyptians. If there wasn't, then why would there be any necessity to comment in the study about Nubians being included in the samples?
That there is a distinct difference because of the Nubians being included becomes quite obvious.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
In fact it is very obvious that the skeletal examples studied must of had very obvious differences to even comment upon the Nubian extras in the study.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Why do you even bother to reply? It's obvious that you don't even have an argument. In fact you are just someone with a medium amount of intelligence if that.lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
Egypt doesn't lay but just out of the tropics and the ancient Egyptians were not super-tropically adapted as you imply.
Ok then, they were "super-negroid"; like that better?
quote: In fact by your own source the ancient Egyptians don't even approach the extreme for even modern day Africans which is 85.8. Look again at your own sources.
Silly, that is the index, not the morphology of the limbs. By morphology, they exhibit a "super-negroid" body plan, characterized by their longer distal segments of each limb relative to many other Africans.
Ps: And even going by index, Egyptian specimens have even outdone the 85.8 that you are talking about, going as far as reporting 87% crural index [Zakrzewski (2003), Table 3].
quote:Here again by your own source the study you so proudly parade around suggests that there is a distinct difference between Nubians and the Egyptians. If there wasn't, then why would there be any necessity to comment in the study about Nubians being included in the samples?
That there is a distinct difference because of the Nubians being included becomes quite obvious.
Easy. It is just an assumption, predicated on the greater variance in MK male than in the female counterparts. BUT going by that logic, then every Egyptian series preceding the Early Dynastic series would have had "Nubian" presence.
Opie in skirts, do this: Less talking, more learning.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
I really hate this. Does anybody else have trouble posting at times? I tried to post a reply but it would not load properly. Only time it does is when I make a shorter reply like this...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yeah, that happens to me as well on certain occasions. Must be glitch or something.
quote:Originally posted by L': Most of her posts are irrelevancies that she cannot even explain in her own words LOL.
Of course. She "talks" a lot yet says nothing at all.
quote:Did you notice that Mathilda largely relies upon the research here at ES and Myra's website? I've noticed that she cannot get full access to the studies she cites, but copies from what she's read here.
Since I never read Mathilda's garbage, no I haven't noticed. But since you pointed this out.. LMAO To think one who claims to be a student/wannabe anthropologist, one would at least try to get full access to papers before one cites let alone critiques them! Talk about the blind leading the blind. And no doubt Simpleton is one of Mathilda's followers. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
Egypt doesn't lay but just out of the tropics and the ancient Egyptians were not super-tropically adapted as you imply.
Ok then, they were "super-negroid"; like that better?
quote: In fact by your own source the ancient Egyptians don't even approach the extreme for even modern day Africans which is 85.8. Look again at your own sources.
Silly, that is the index, not the morphology of the limbs. By morphology, they exhibit a "super-negroid" body plan, characterized by their longer distal segments of each limb relative to many other Africans.
Ps: And even going by index, Egyptian specimens have even outdone the 85.8 that you are talking about, going as far as reporting 87% crural index [Zakrzewski (2003), Table 3].
quote:Here again by your own source the study you so proudly parade around suggests that there is a distinct difference between Nubians and the Egyptians. If there wasn't, then why would there be any necessity to comment in the study about Nubians being included in the samples?
That there is a distinct difference because of the Nubians being included becomes quite obvious.
Easy. It is just an assumption, predicated on the greater variance in MK male than in the female counterparts. BUT going by that logic, then every Egyptian series preceding the Early Dynastic series would have had "Nubian" presence.
Opie in skirts, do this: Less talking, more learning.
ROTFLMAO
How can she learn when she can't even properly read sentences let alone charts and graphs??
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I can read good enough to comprehend what this below is implying. And from your very own source at that.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Also:
Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Egypt doesn't lay but just out of the tropics and the ancient Egyptians were not super-tropically adapted as you imply. In fact by your own source the ancient Egyptians don't even approach the extreme for even modern day Africans which is 85.8. Look again at your own sources.
I didn't imply a thing; Zakrzewski results showed that the Egyptians had a super-tropical body plan. The Mean values for certain limbs doesn't mean effect the fact that their body plan was super-tropical, as Explorer said, their body morphology shows them to have the "super-Negroid" body plan.
quote:Nothing you have posted has refuted the study I have posted. In fact your attempt to argue a mute point only exposes your desperation.lol
Why should I try to refute a study that has nothing wrong with it? It supports what we've been saying this entire thread. The fact that you didn't properly address my posts, but instead go rambling off into this pathetic red herring shows you have nothing.
quote:Here again by your own source the study you so proudly parade around suggests that there is a distinct difference between Nubians and the Egyptians. If there wasn't, then why would there be any necessity to comment in the study about Nubians being included in the samples?
Read your citation again:
"The sample included in this study may thus represent Nubians, Egyptians, or some of each group."-Zakrzewski (2003)
That is only in the Materials and Methods portion of the study. The MK sample actually represented less well off individuals that preceding specimens. The only reason she speculated that there could have been Nubians was something about a reduction, the exact quote:
quote:A reduction in stature and long bone lengths was found through the Dynastic periods, although the decrease occurred most in the MK sample. If all samples studied were of similar social ranking and had similar access to resources, this would be unexpected. It is, however, possible that the earlier groups (i.e., the EDyn and OK samples) may represent higher ranked individuals than the (smaller) MK sample. The material from these groups was shown to be from cemeteries that are in proximity to royal cemeteries, such as the pyramids at Gizeh and Meidum, and hence may represent a favored group.
As explorer noted elsewhere, the MK sample shows a reversion of trends as opposed to totally new ones, so if the MK sample represented Nubians, you would have to expect other cemeteries with the same trends as the MK to also include Nubians!
She goes on to say later...
quote:The increase in stature with intensification of agriculture was predicted as a result of greater reliability of food production and the formation of social ranking. The later decrease in stature coincides with even greater social complexity, and is expected as it implies that the formation of social classes is allied to differential access to nutrition and healthcare, with the higher ranked individuals being preferentially treated and fed. This change in stature was much greater in males than in females. Long bone lengths also increased from the Badarian to the Early Dynastic periods more for males than for females, and again decreased to a greater extent through the OK and MK periods among males than females. This greater response to changes in socioeconomic status by males was previously described in modern children (Malina et al., 1985; Stinson, 1985). The present study thus supports the greater response to environmental stresses, including positive stresses, in males than in females.
--Zakrzewski 2003
The Gebelein cemeteries represented less well off individuals really. Her only justification for the Nubian speculation is that there was known Nubian presence in Gebelein during the MK
You can't ignore her statement though:
"Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."-Zakrzewski 2003
In her more recent article:
"If Nubians had been integrated into the Egyptian population in the MK but not in preceding periods, then one would expect to see higher phenotypic variance in the MK than in the EDyn and OK. This cannot be ascertained from the current analysis, but must remain a topic for future research."--Zakrzewski 2007
Of interest...
Raxter (2011) stated that Nubians only had slightly higher indices than ancient Egyptians, so your implications are unsupported.
quote:I can read good enough to comprehend what this below is implying. And from your very own source at that.
What are you trying to say, that the Badarian are cold adapted? Lol... That's funny. I'll go into a little detail of the Badarian:
"When Mahalanobis D2 was used, the Naqadan and Badarian Predynastic samples exhibited more similarity to Nubian, Tigrean, and some more southern series than to some mid- to late Dynastic series from northern Egypt (Mukherjee et al., 1955). The Badarian have been found to be very similar to a Kerma sample (Kushite Sudanese), using both the Penrose statistic (Nutter, 1958) and DFA of males alone (Keita, 1990). Furthermore, Keita considered that Badarian males had a southern modal phenotype, and that together with a Naqada sample, they formed a southern Egyptian cluster as tropical variants together with a sample from Kerma"
"The Badarian crania have been characterized by their small and gracile nature (Stoessiger, 1927; Morant, 1935; Strouhal, 1971; Gaballah et al., 1972), and their relatively high degree of facial prognathism (Stoessiger, 1927). The current study supports this description (being placed low on PC1 in Fig. 2, as a result of their short cranial vaults and narrow faces). Furthermore, their phenotypic homogeneity (Fig. 2, Table 5) has been demonstrated.[b] As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a[b]morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990)."--Zakrzewski 2007
So, the Badarian were homogeneous and formed morphological clusters with southern groups.
Then we have:
"The Mahalanobis distances between all of the series were unlikely to be due to chance at the 5% level, with nearly all having even lower probability values (usually p < .001). An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4)."--Keita, 2005
So basically we have a homogeneous group that clusters with tropical Africans-namely the Teita of Kenya.
Zakrzewski's results in her 2002 paper also support that the Badarian are a homogeneous group
"The results presented above indicate that distinct morphological differences exist between some of the temporal groups. The DFA results in table 3 indicate that the Badari are only misclassified as belonging to the time successive groups, the EPD, and thus can be considered to be relatively morphologically homogeneous."--Zakrzewski 2002: Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study
Incidentally, her results in that study suggest the MK sample to be very heterogeneous :/
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
I can read good enough to comprehend what this below is implying. And from your very own source at that.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
Also:
Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length
What does the above imply? Give us this demonstration of how good enough you can read.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, please do! LMAO
The fun just doesn't end with this simpleton twit!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I can read good enough to comprehend what this below is implying.
Simpleton, earn some points here and correct your sentence. Lol
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Is there anyone here that can actually refute the study? I see you're all down to personal attacks. Would that be an admission of defeat?lol
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
From the study:
Shortened extremities minimize heat loss by reducing surface area relative to volume and have long been viewed as genetically determined thermoregulatory adaptations. However, the heritability of extremity length is largely unknown, because similar phenotypes can be reproduced in laboratory mammals by modifying their ambient rearing temperature.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Simple Girl, if you have super-tropical body proportions in a people who occupy a mid-latitude region, then obviously gene flow or migration had to have been involved.
It was proven at the beginning of this thread that Egyptians were descended from sub-Saharan populations.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: From the study:
Shortened extremities minimize heat loss by reducing surface area relative to volume and have long been viewed as genetically determined thermoregulatory adaptations. However, the heritability of extremity length is largely unknown, because similar phenotypes can be reproduced in laboratory mammals by modifying their ambient rearing temperature.
I doubt most of the ancient Egyptians spent most of their time outside at night when the desert was cool. The daytime temperatures can be extreme for any country. The surface temperatures definitely scorching hot.
The debate comes down to this point. If you compare Egyptians to North West Europeans their cold adapted limb ratios will be obviously different. However what about the Near East?
Tropical advocates say that Middle Easterners and the climate of the upper part of North Africa get colder at night so that people indigenous to these areas would not have as long as limbs as the people who live in more parts of Africa south of the upper part of North Africa, basically 90% of Africa.
You said earlier "I doubt most of the ancient Egyptians spent most of their time outside at night when the desert was cool.The surface temperatures definitely scorching hot. Even given the cool down periods, it still correlates nicely with the given data on Egyptian limb ratios as well as latitude. The limb ratio's approach nowhere near the maximum for being so-called tropically adapted. "
Of course if you compare ancient Egyptians to North West Europeans the North West Europeans are going to have significantly shorter limbs. In order for the tropical advocates to win this debate they would have to prove with several examples of limb ratios in sub tropical regions in the Northern parts of Egypt and the Southern part of the Middle East, where there are colder temperatures at night that because of this you can distinguish them from longer supposed ratios of people that live in Southern Egypt and all parts of Africa South of it, most of Africa except North and South extremes. So far they have only attempted to show that group of Palestinians had different ratios than another group of Egyptians but I don't know if they posted the actual data measurements of those Palestinians. I think this case might be able to be made but there would have to be more data on Middle East limb ratios over a wide sample.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': ^Simple Girl, if you have super-tropical body proportions in a people who occupy a mid-latitude region, then obviously gene flow or migration had to have been involved.
It was proven at the beginning of this thread that Egyptians were descended from sub-Saharan populations.
You have yet to provide us simpletons a minimum indice by which tropically adapted should apply. And then from there we need a minimum in which super-tropically adapted should apply.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^Do you have some type of selective reading disorder? Explorer laid this out for you
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Silly, that is the index, not the morphology of the limbs. By morphology, they exhibit a "super-negroid" body plan, characterized by their longer distal segments of each limb relative to many other Africans.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
What is the minimum ratio of the distal segments to the upper segments for tropically and super-tropically adapted people? Do you not understand what I am asking. It's really simple. Can you answer the question?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I am going to have to object here the Egyptserach team has deemed the word "Negroid" to be racist and meaningless therefore the term "super Negroid body plan" may not be used
/close thread
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^The alternative is "super-tropical", or "extremely elongated".
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:What is the minimum ratio of the distal segments to the upper segments for tropically and super-tropically adapted people? Do you not understand what I am asking. It's really simple. Can you answer the question?
What you are asking is stupid. I'm not even sure you properly understand what is being said. Tropical African populations are characterized by longer distal segments of each limb. If you really wanted to know then you would look at Zakrzewski's references like everybody else and see what she based her statement on.
In the mean time, she stated clearly that they have the "super-Negroid" body plan, so I don't know what you are fussing about.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Now let's get this straight. You are tossing around terms like 'tropically adapted' and 'super-tropically adapted' and you don't even know what the minimun requirements for either are? Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
L' doesn't know, wait for Explorer.
it's a reasonable question. What is the numerical cut off point between tropically adapted and cold adapted limbs?
That should be answered rather than saying look at all the "peer reviewed studies I posted maybe it's in there somewhere"
We are only talking about one number, a cut off point.
Either you know or you don't know.
lioness productions
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
You will have to see Raxter (2007) for the values of modern African populations, of which the Egyptians fall within. This was already discussed Here in a thread you chose to run away from.
As mentioned aforesaid, tropical body plans are characterized by long distal segments relative to each limb, while the exact opposite is true for higher latitude populations:
quote:Although there is some overlap in the individual modern data points in figure 12, there is a clear difference between Recent high latitude and tropical samples, with East Africans having longer femora relative to femoral head sized. This distinction is especially clear between the very tall Nilotic sample and the North American samples. Thus, as predicted, comparison of bone length to articular size among modern populations produces geographic patterning consistent with variation in other measures of relative limb length (i.e., limb length is increased relative to body weight in tropical populations)
quote:“As shown in figure 12, recent equilateral populations do indeed longer tibae relative to femora than the higher latitude samples, consistent with relative limb lengthening in warmer climates among living humans. KNM-WT 15000 has a very long tibia relative to his femur length, indicating relatively long lower limbs (his ratio of radius to humeral length is similarly very high [Ruff and Walker 1993]). His juvenile status should not significantly affect this comparison (Ruff and Walker, 1993). Both Middle Eastern and European Neanderthals have very short relative tibia lengths, indicating relatively short lower limbs.”
Low latitude populations: Long distal segments of each limb
Higher latitude populations: the exact opposite
Ancient Egyptians: Longer distal segments of each limb relative to many other African populations, i.e., super-Tropical
quote:it's a reasonable question. What is the numerical cut off point between tropically adapted and cold adapted limbs?
I think you mean the range of modern African populations vs. modern populations not in the tropics. You'll have to see the thread I hyper linked earlier for the answer. But that is for indices
Not sure what is so complicated about tropical populations having long distal segments of each limb. Tropical = long limbs, non-tropical = short limbs (See Ruff, 1994)
Edit:
"In fact, modern tropical populations appear to have both relatively longer and absolutely narrower limbs than higher latitude populations (Eveleth and Tanner, 1976)"-Ruff (1994)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, if you twitted sisters payed attention, it was already explained to you what exactly entails tropical adaptation, you morons!
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: That there need not be a long-term genetic basis for determining growth in limb extremities was explained to you in this study:
Allen's Rule documents a century-old biological observation that strong positive correlations exist among latitude, ambient temperature, and limb length in mammals. Although genetic selection for thermoregulatory adaptation is frequently presumed to be the primary basis of this phenomenon, important but frequently overlooked research has shown that appendage outgrowth is also markedly influenced by environmental temperature.
We all know what Allen's rule is and we've known about it LONG before your dumb ass even found this study! But what is your point? Are you saying that cold adapted Eurasians could just move into a hot environment and just after several generations presto they have super-tropical body proportions??! As Sundjata said, this is the equivalent of a population of fair-skinned people who after moving into a sunny environment develop skin as black as Sudanese after several generations! It is ludicrous and makes no sense.
We are not dealing with temporal plasticity but long term population evolution, you stupid twit!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Only someone as slow as simple mind would ask you to assign an absolute value to a relative statement.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^That's what I thought, which is why I was confused lol...
quote:Originally posted by DJehuti: We all know what Allen's rule is and we've known about it LONG before your dumb ass even found this study! But what is your point? Are you saying that cold adapted Eurasians could just move into a hot environment and just after several generations presto they have super-tropical body proportions??! As Sundjata said, this is the equivalent of a population of fair-skinned people who after moving into a sunny environment develop skin as black as Sudanese after several generations! It is ludicrous and makes no sense. We are not dealing with temporal plasticity but long term population evolution, you stupid twit!
That seems to be what her argument is. Although, it has been explained to her time and time again that Egyptians occupying a mid-latitude region must have come from somewhere else to exhibit body proportions characteristic of low latitude populations
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I see no one has an answer. Of course I expected that. That's why I asked the question. Because I knew you intellectual giants couldn't deliver an answer further exposing your own ignorance of the subject. I really haven't even had to try. That's the funny part about it.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
^LOL. Our "ignorance"? You are the one who said:
quote:Originally posted by Simple Minded Fool: I haven't probably 1/100th the time in researching these studies
Obviously you are more ignorant than we could ever be
quote:I see no one has an answer.
Doesn't really matter what you see or don't see, the answer is as plain as day and has been provided in This thread as well as in this one. Just because you are too simple minded to understand the given answers doesn't change that they were provided
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Simple mind. Define the tropics and then answer this question.
How dark is dark?
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:^Simple mind. Define the tropics and then answer this question.
How dark is dark?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
And the argument that you people parade around proudly on how the ancient Egyptians cluster more to modern day African Americans, now that there is more telling of your ignorance of the subject. Or rather I should say, your very perceptions of what that all really implies. Here I am dealing with a bunch of college educated intellectual giants and, they don't even know that they're turning right around and kicking their ownself in the nuts.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:And the argument that you people use about how the ancient Egyptians cluster more to modern day African Americans, now that there is more telling of your ignorance of the subject
It can only be ignorant if it is wrong, and in contradiction with the results. However, it isn't wrong and it does not contradict the results provided in numerous studies.
quote:Or rather I should say, your very perceptions of what that all really implies.
OK, if it implies something other than Egyptians being descended from a population adapted to a tropical climate, then tell us what it is supposed to imply.
quote:Here I am dealing with a bunch of college educated intellectual giants, and they don't even know that they're turning right around and kicking their ownself in the nuts.lol
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by L':
Let's just say that when your source said that the ancient Egyptians lie somewhere between modern day American whites,and modern day African Americans, the whole thing became very telling at that point. You see, sometimes you have to leave the room to see what's going on outside.lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Let's just say that when your source said that the ancient Egyptians lie somewhere between modern day American whites,and modern day African Americans, the whole thing became very telling at that point. You see, sometimes you have to leave the room to see what's going on outside.lol
Which study states that? Nothing posted by me, or anybody else for that matter, has even suggested that the ancient Egyptians were intermediate in their limb-length ratios
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:Let's just say that when your source said that the ancient Egyptians lie somewhere between modern day American whites,and modern day African Americans, the whole thing became very telling at that point. You see, sometimes you have to leave the room to see what's going on outside.lol
Which study states that? Nothing posted by me, or anybody else for that matter, has even suggested that the ancient Egyptians were intermediate in their limb-length ratios
Who'talking specifically about limb-length ratios? Your source states the above very plainly. It's amazing no one but me noticed it from the start.
Look below:
Although ancient Egyptian linear body proportions are more similar to those of American blacks than they are to whites,they are not identical to American blacks, but rather are somewhat intermediate between blacks and whites.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Lol...
1)Their intralimb proportions are more similar to US blacks
2)Their limb length to stature proportions are intermediate.
In the mean time...
""These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)].""--Holiday TW (2010)
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^You really need to step up your game if you're going to win this argument. lol
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] LMAO! You liar. Here is what the study actually states:
1)Their intralimb proportions are more similar to US blacks
2)Their limb length to stature proportions are intermediate.
And as explained to lioness, intermediate in this case did not equate the mean of two extremes as they were still much closer to U.S. Blacks in limb length to stature proportions as well.
quote:"Egyptians and American Blacks. Table 5 summarizes ANCOVA results for regression of skeletal height on femurb and tibial lengths. Comparisons were carried out separately for Egyptians vs. Whites and Egyptians vs. Blacks, within sex. Slopes equivalent except in the Egyptian vs. Black comparison for the female tibia. Egyptians are highly significantly different in elevation than US Whites in all comparisons (P\ 0.001). However, Egyptians are also significantly different from US Blacks (P \ 0.05), although closer to Blacks than they are to Whites. Figures 3 and 4 show plots of skeletal stature to femurb and tibial lengths in males, demonstrating the intermediate proportions of Egyptians relative to those of Blacks and Whites.
"--Raxter (2007)
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^I'm an alien from outer space, and I know what's going on with Mother Earth better than you do.lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If you are an alien, then you by no means count as 'intelligent' life!
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: ^You really need to step up your game if you're going to win this argument. lol
Of course you are just too stupid to realize we won the argument right when it began.
quote:Originally posted by L':
quote:^Simple mind. Define the tropics and then answer this question.
How dark is dark?
LMAO Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^There it goes again, rearing its ugly thimble as usual. Nothing really intelligent to say, so we know it must be pissed off.lol
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] LMAO! You liar. Here is what the study actually states:
1)Their intralimb proportions are more similar to US blacks
2)Their limb length to stature proportions are intermediate.
And as explained to lioness, intermediate in this case did not equate the mean of two extremes as they were still much closer to U.S. Blacks in limb length to stature proportions as well.
quote:"Egyptians and American Blacks. Table 5 summarizes ANCOVA results for regression of skeletal height on femurb and tibial lengths. Comparisons were carried out separately for Egyptians vs. Whites and Egyptians vs. Blacks, within sex. Slopes equivalent except in the Egyptian vs. Black comparison for the female tibia. Egyptians are highly significantly different in elevation than US Whites in all comparisons (P\ 0.001). However, Egyptians are also significantly different from US Blacks (P \ 0.05), although closer to Blacks than they are to Whites. Figures 3 and 4 show plots of skeletal stature to femurb and tibial lengths in males, demonstrating the intermediate proportions of Egyptians relative to those of Blacks and Whites.
"--Raxter (2007)
The comparison is useless. Why are Americans being compared to ancient Egyptians? That's primary West Africans and North Europeans
How about comparing ancient Egyptians with Sudanese, Ethiopians, Sumerians, Arabs Babylonians,Canaanites? - modern people from these areas at least!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^We've been through this lioness and I'm not going over it again with you. Just look on page 3.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
full citations:
"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28
"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]."
--Holiday, T. (2010) Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data. AmerJrPhyAntrho, 142: 2. 287-302
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
.
You say that limb ratios of ancient Egyptians are not relative to the Egyptian latitude that they came from a more Southern latitude and did not live in long enough in Egypt for their limbs to adapt to colder nighttime temperatures.
Question: are there any indigenous North Africans who do have shorter limbs ratios as a result of colder nighttime temperatures?
.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents 2009
Oliver R. W. Pergams1,2,3*, Joshua J. Lawler4
1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, 2 Division of Mammals, Department of Zoology, Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, 3 Red Rock Institute, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 4 School of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Abstract
In general, rapid morphological change in mammals has been infrequently documented. Examples that do exist are almost exclusively of rodents on islands. Such changes are usually attributed to selective release or founder events related to restricted gene flow in island settings. Here we document rapid morphological changes in rodents in 20 of 28 museum series collected on four continents, including 15 of 23 mainland sites. Approximately 17,000 measurements were taken of 1302 rodents. Trends included both increases and decreases in the 15 morphological traits measured, but slightly more trends were towards larger size. Generalized linear models indicated that changes in several of the individual morphological traits were associated with changes in human population density, current temperature gradients, and/or trends in temperature and precipitation. When we restricted these analyses to samples taken in the US (where data on human population trends were presumed to be more accurate), we found changes in two additional traits to be positively correlated with changes in human population density. Principle component analysis revealed general trends in cranial and external size, but these general trends were uncorrelated with climate or human population density. Our results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and climate change.
Introduction
Humans are changing the global environment at unprecedented rates. Plants and animals can react to today's enormous environmental changes in one of three ways: they can move, they can adapt, or they can go extinct. Much attention has been focused on human-induced extinction, and some attention has been focused on movement of plants and animals in response to environmental change. However, relatively little research has addressed the ability of species to change either as a result of phenotypic plasticity or evolution in response to rapid environmental change.
Nonetheless, numerous instances of rapid morphological change have been documented. Most cases are thought to be caused either by pollution (e.g., industrial melanism in moths, heavy metal tolerance in plants) or by introductions of non-native organisms, usually with the introduced species itself evolving to meet the challenges of a new environment [1]. Changes in morphology and reproductive traits have been observed in a number of taxa, though these have been dominated by fishes (with changes resulting from fish stocking or selective fishing pressures) and birds [2]–[4].
In contrast to fishes and birds, rapid phenotypic change in mammals has been much more infrequently documented [1]–[2]. Although rapid change has been demonstrated in some other animals (e.g., selection, through hunting, for smaller bighorn sheep with smaller horns [5]), the great majority of changes have been in rodents on islands [6]. Such changes are usually attributed to selective release or founder events related to island settings [7]–[8], and are dependent on an island's size and its distance from the mainland [e.g. 6], [9]. However, recently Chicago-area white-footed mice also showed dramatic changes in morphology and mtDNA haplotype frequencies when invading urban environments [10]–[11]. Given complete genetic replacement, the morphological changes in these mice are best explained by population decline of one genotype and replacement (through migration) of another genotype better able to survive in local conditions. Movement or migration is a possible cause in some other cases of rapid morphological change, but most such cases do not have genetic components to help determine this.
Phenotypic plasticity, resulting from the behavioral and developmental responses of genotypes to environmental changes [12], may also cause rapid change. In a parallel example, high-altitude subspecies of deer mice were shown to genetically inherit higher oxygen-affinity hemoglobin, but these individuals also demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in the form of increased heart and lung size associated with increased oxygen consumption and increased gut size associated with energy uptake [13]. Maternal phenotypic effects (other than genetic effects) can also change fitness, and so alter phenotype frequencies [14]. Rapid selection of secondary sexual traits is also being documented more frequently, and usually involves changes in size, coloration, or courtship song [15].
There are a number of potential factors that could drive rapid morphological changes, whatever their mechanisms. Climate change has only recently begun to be implicated as a cause of rapid phenotypic change, but cases are now being documented with greater frequency [3], [15]. Microevolution for resistance to ozone pollution was documented in plantain [16], and rapid increase in growth rate in Arabidopsis in response to elevated atmospheric CO2 was demonstrated [17]. Rapid change in flowering time of turnips in response to variation in length in growing-season length has been documented [18]. Climate change has also caused rapid phenotypic change in butterflies [19] and birds [20]–[25]. A 47-year study of great tits in the UK showed a plastic shift in breeding date in response to climate [21]. Similarly, a study of red-billed gulls showed that while mean body mass increased with temperature there was no evidence of genetic change [25].
Urbanization is a second, major component of global change that has the potential to drive rapid morphological change. Obviously, increases in human population density are markers of increased anthropogenic effects of all kinds. For example, increasing human population density was hypothesized to cause loss of beak size bimodality in Darwin's finches [26]. Some anthropogenic effects, such as habitat loss and alteration, increase concurrently or near-concurrently with population density. Other anthropogenic effects, such as climate change, have substantially longer time lags.
To test the hypothesis that rapid morphological change is frequent in rodents on the mainland as well as on islands, and to investigate whether such change is being driven by either climate change specifically or increases in human populations generally, we sampled museum specimens of mammals collected over the last 100+ years. We measured 1302 specimens of 25 species in 28 museum series from 22 locations [Table 1], taking approximately 13,000 cranial measurements and recording some 4,000 external measurements. For each of the 28 series, we assessed local trends in climate and human population density over each of the collection periods. We then assessed whether and where change has occurred in rodent populations, and whether those changes were associated with either climate change or human population growth.
^What's the point of your rodent study? What are you trying to claim or imply? Let's see you do your own research and work. What relevant conclusions do you draw from your rodent study? And what have you found on the North Africans?
You say that limb ratios of ancient Egyptians are not relative to the Egyptian latitude that they came from a more Southern latitude and did not live in long enough in Egypt for their limbs to adapt to colder nighttime temperatures.
Question: are there any indigenous North Africans who do have shorter limbs ratios as a result of colder nighttime temperatures?
^Who said that nighttime temperatures determine cold adaptation? Egypt partially falls within the tropic zone, and there is substantial overlap of the tropics with that of the sub-tropics. And colder nightime temperatures can occur in the tropic zone, such as in mountainous areas or desert, and even forest. So even though heat is a primary factor, cooler night temperatures are nothing special. These are all ranges that occur within the tropic zone- and they don't change the fact the the zone remains tropical.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So what else is new? Certainly not Lyingass's and Simpeton's stupidity. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: ^There it goes again, rearing its ugly thimble as usual. Nothing really intelligent to say, so we know it must be pissed off.lol
LOL How am I pissed off when I'm here laughing at your dumb ass? How is nothing I say intelligent?? I merely point out to you have has been explained to you over and over again. Do you not realize the only unintelligent ones in here is you and your sister Lyingass. At least the liar makes an effort to learn by asking question, you just make presumptions based on.. what? The air between your ears??
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^You still don't even realize what your sources are saying.lol....That's the funny part about it. Everything you can read out of every study that seems to support your point of view, you jump on like a rabbit at an Easter convention. It's funny to sit here and watch this and slowly give you some clues.lol
Let's just say that the air between my ears, has alot more substance than the vacuum between the ears attached to your little dented thimble.lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simpleton: ^You still don't even realize what your sources are saying.lol....That's the funny part about it. Everything you can read out of every study that seems to support your point of view, you jump on like a rabbit at an Easter convention. It's funny to sit here and watch this and slowly give you some clues.lol
quote:Let's just say that the air between my ears, has alot more substance than the vacuum between the ears attached to your little dented thimble. lol
If that's so then you wouldn't have a difficult time being able to address everything I and others stated then. So go ahead be my guest. You like to call me a "thimble head" when it is YOU whose writing seems akin to the slow, senseless thinking of someone suffering from microcephaly! LOL Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^If I suffer from microcephaly, that means that you must be super-microcephalic. Is that a super-tropically adapted trait?lol....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course not since anyone can be born with it even cold adapted people like you.
Now explain to us again how a people like the Egyptians could have super-tropically body builds even though Egypt is in the subtropics. LOL
Don't take to long micro. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now explain to us again how a people like the Egyptians could have super-tropically body builds even though Egypt is in the subtropics. LOL
Don't take to long micro. [/QB]
This is a fair question. But in order to ask you will have define precisely what specific measurements fall into sub-tropical body plan as distinguished from measurements of a tropical body plan. And it is fair to make this a prerequisite of the question. These definitions should be stated clearly not just saying "well look at all the studies we posted it must be somewhere in there" If that is the case you should have a handle on the information and be able to locate it in particular bring it into the conversation. I don't think anyone here has a handle on these specifics. Otherwise you have no business implying a difference in a sub-tropical and tropical body plan but not able to define what it is before applying it to specific cases like ancient Egypt.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Shut up, and digest
quote:Early Neolithic Macedonia centered on a Dinaric-Mediterranean type F) average but with extremely broad nose, more prognathism, and a little more mouth tilt than expected(all perhaps from negroid development of the incisor region); besides the modal trend/quite comparable to later Lower Egypt Egyptians)...........Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid(beyond A2) early population (cf. Ferembach, 1962, Briggs, 1955), linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region(A2ß) (Ewing, 1966; Anderson, 1968), as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend(B2ß) in the gracile Badarians(Morant and Stoessiger quoted in Angel, 1951). -L.Angel
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
LOL. Lioness, people with a normal functioning brain should be able to put two and two together:
1) Lower latitude populations have long limbs
2) Higher latitude populations have short limbs
3) Mid-latitude populations have intermediate between the two (Raxter 2011)
4) Egyptians occupied a mid-latitude regions but had limb characteristic of low latitude populations.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Like Simpleton, Lyinass appears to be suffering from some kind of neural-degenerative disorder. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Excellent work L, Djehuti, Kal.. lmao..
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [IMG]
Not right Dj not right.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by L': LOL. Lioness, people with a normal functioning brain should be able to put two and two together:
1) Lower latitude populations have long limbs
2) Higher latitude populations have short limbs
3) Mid-latitude populations have intermediate between the two (Raxter 2011)
4) Egyptians occupied a mid-latitude regions but had limb characteristic of low latitude populations.
if you would like 4 categories you have to have a methodology which enables you to place a particular range of measurements in one of these four.
any of these categories would have to be defined with numerical measurements otherwise it's useless.
L.P.
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:any of these categories would have to be defined with numerical measurements otherwise it's useless.
Then I put the task to you to figure out a way to put the word "long" into numerical measurements.
Other than that, we know that they had limb-length ratios also characteristic of tropical populations.
Ancient Egyptians and Tropical populations had long limbs, even if all tropical populations don't have the same values, they all have long limbs.
Which is why you aren't making sense, so tell me how to put the word "long" into a numerical measurement.
Until then, accept the simple fact that they had long limbs characteristic of low latitude populations, not mid-latitude or high latitude populations (see my reference to Ruff, 1994)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, this is the equivalent of discussing Glogger's rule and someone wanting to put dark skin color in terms of 'numerical value'! LOL Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Although ancient Egyptian linear body proportions are more similar to those of American blacks than they are to whites, they are not identical to American blacks, but rather are somewhat intermediate between blacks and whites.
LMFAO You know you messed up right..? Do you realize you've just undermined your original assertion that limb proportions aren't genetic?
Simplistic, if limb proportions are determined by the environment in which a person develops from infant to adult, why is there a difference between US blacks and US whites? Why do African Americans, who have been living in a region that lies outside of the tropics for hundreds of years, differentiate themselves from US whites, and why do they (African Americans) have Bracial indices that are suggestive of Tropical regions?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So the Simpleton shot herself in the face. What's new? The microcephalic fool was toasted pages ago. Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Although ancient Egyptian linear body proportions are more similar to those of American blacks than they are to whites, they are not identical to American blacks, but rather are somewhat intermediate between blacks and whites.
LMFAO You know you messed up right..? Do you realize you've just undermined your original assertion that limb proportions aren't genetic?
Simplistic, if limb proportions are determined by the environment in which a person develops from infant to adult, why is there a difference between US blacks and US whites? Why do African Americans, who have been living in a region that lies outside of the tropics for hundreds of years, differentiate themselves from US whites, and why do they (African Americans) have Bracial indices that are suggestive of Tropical regions?
I don't even think you realize the signifigance of what you're saying here.lol That's the funny part about all this.
Let me laugh, while you backtrack upon your statements. lol
Posted by L' (Member # 18238) on :
Hide behind your 'lols' all you want. Fact of the matter is, you have been unable to address anything Kalonji just said.
quote:I don't even think you realize the signifigance of what you're saying here.lol That's the funny part about all this.
Pray tell, what do you think the significance of what he said is? Lets see if you have a fully functioning brain...
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^The whole idea behind that face saving post of hers is to verbally make it seem like she has not totally destroyed herself, by commenting on the matter in a cryptic way, implying that she has some sort of secret knowledge up her sleave about my post that is supposed to be self-defeating. Which is why its a good thing that you didn't take the bait (explaining why my post is correct), and simply asked her to elucidate.
The description above is a pattern in her reaction to posts forwarded to her. She reminds of an odd mix between Jivin' black knight (Explorer) and Hammer. The former because she refuses to admit defeat when it is apparent to everyone that they blundered and phucked up on a subject, and the latter because of her robotic repetitions of the same posts/debating methods over and over.
Notice how idiotic her response is, she says she will wait for me to backtrack on my response, when her post doesn't even include a counter point in any way shape or form. How retarded can one be?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Apparently very retarded. But that is just part of the condition of being a microcephalic.
Whining microcephalics have no place in an intelligent scientific discussion.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
More data:
Body proportions are immensely stable, and appear distinctly even in the fetal stage of life. Body shape is also more resistant to nutritional deficiency and disease. Even in migrant populations body proportions are conservative, and not very plastic. Hence ancient Egyptian proportions are long-standing, conservative, stable elements that characterize the ancient populations to a much greater extent than more changeable skin color or face shape.
QUOTE:
"Human body proportions also appear to have a substantial genetic component. Differences in body proportions between Eskimos and non-Eskimos, for example, appear early in ontogeny (Guilbeault & Morazain, 1965; Y’Edynak, 1978). The low sitting height/stature ratio of Australian aborigines is present early in development (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976). Schultz (1923, 1926) found significant differences between African–American and Euroamerican fetuses in brachial and crural indices, length of the legs relative to the trunk, and relative pelvic width. The fact that these ‘‘racial’’ features are manifested early in fetal life indicates strong genetic encoding of body and limb proportions.
In addition, body shape in human appears to be more resistant to nutritional deficiency or disease than is body size (Stini, 1975; Eveleth & Tanner, 1976; Frisancho & Housh, 1988; Martorell et al., 1988). Body proportions of human migrants, for example, are conservative; despite often exhibiting a marked increase in stature, children of migrants tend to retain the body proportions of their ancestral homeland, and do not develop the proportions of their new neighbors (Ito, 1942; Lasker, 1946; Trotter & Gleser, 1952, 1958; Greulich, 1957; Eveleth, 1966; Froehlich, 1970; Benoist, 1971, 1975; Hamill et al., 1973; Martorell et al., 1988; Feldesman et al., 1990). Also, while secular trends in body shape have been documented, they do not negate the value of body proportions as short-term phylogenetic markers. For example, in a long-term study of secular trends in body shape in Japan (Tanner et al., 1982), the authors note that nutritional differences alone cannot explain all of the global variability in body shape. Rather, they note that much of the difference seen today in body shape between broad geographic groups is genetically-driven.
Migration within a larger time framework took place ca. 15,000–18,000 BP, when the first Asian populations crossed the Bering Strait, ultimately founding the modern Amerindian population. Despite having as much as 18,000 years of selection in environments as diverse as those found in the Old World, body mass and proportion clines in the Americas are less steep than those in the Old World (Newman, 1953; Roberts, 1978). In fact, as Hulse (1960) pointed out, Amerindians, even in the tropics, tend to possess some ‘‘arctic’’ adaptations. Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992). This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term." --Holliday T. (1997). Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32: 423-447
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Zaharan: "Human body proportions also appear to have a substantial genetic component. Differences in body proportions between Eskimos and non-Eskimos, for example, appear early in ontogeny (Guilbeault & Morazain, 1965; Y’Edynak, 1978). The low sitting height/stature ratio of Australian aborigines is present early in development (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976). Schultz (1923, 1926) found significant differences between African–American and Euroamerican fetuses in brachial and crural indices, length of the legs relative to the trunk, and relative pelvic width. The fact that these ‘‘racial’’ features are manifested early in fetal life indicates strong genetic encoding of body and limb proportions.
And the slaughter continues!!
Of course, she already knew all of that, she was just waiting to see if we knew it!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: And the argument that you people parade around proudly on how the ancient Egyptians cluster more to modern day African Americans, now that there is more telling of your ignorance of the subject. Or rather I should say, your very perceptions of what that all really implies. Here I am dealing with a bunch of college educated intellectual giants and, they don't even know that they're turning right around and kicking their ownself in the nuts.lol
Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
1. Michelle H. Raxter1,*, 2. Christopher B. Ruff2, 3. Ayman Azab3, 4. Moushira Erfan3, 5. Muhammad Soliman3, 6. Aly El-Sawaf3
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks...brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I see no one has an answer. Of course I expected that. That's why I asked the question. Because I knew you intellectual giants couldn't deliver an answer further exposing your own ignorance of the subject. I really haven't even had to try. That's the funny part about it.lol
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of neriod origin."
Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: And the argument that you people parade around proudly on how the ancient Egyptians cluster more to modern day African Americans, now that there is more telling of your ignorance of the subject. Or rather I should say, your very perceptions of what that all really implies. Here I am dealing with a bunch of college educated intellectual giants and, they don't even know that they're turning right around and kicking their ownself in the nuts.lol
In addition to the above....posts^
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
bDepartment of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
This here shows more of the evolutionary process, and how it did not just pop out of thin air. Aa you appear to think, and support!!!lol
Wadi Kubbaniya (ca. 17,000–15,000 B.C.)
In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby. In Wadi Kubbaniya, a dried-up streambed cutting through the Western Desert to the floodplain northwest of Aswan in Upper Egypt, some interesting sites of the kind described above have been recorded. A cluster of Late Paleolithic camps was located in two different topographic zones: on the tops of dunes and the floor of the wadi (streambed) where it enters the valley. Although no signs of houses were found, diverse and sophisticated stone implements for hunting, fishing, and collecting and processing plants were discovered around hearths. Most tools were bladelets made from a local stone called chert that is widely used in tool fabrication. The bones of wild cattle, hartebeest, many types of fish and birds, as well as the occasional hippopotamus have been identified in the occupation layers. Charred remains of plants that the inhabitants consumed, especially tubers, have also been found.
It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
I guess now it's going back to the drawing table...."how" can we tweak this, alter this, falsify this...lie about this....it needs to be "caucasian"... It need to have this white connection....in one way or the other.....damn...we are superior after all.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Aa = as
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
Meredith F. Small*
Department of anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302, U.S.A.
Available online 5 April 2006.
Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Also, what does one mean by "white features" if features like narrow faces and noses are found among non-whites like many blacks in Africa for instance how are such features considered "white"?? Indeed we are dealing with a desperate dummy. Speaking of which...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That seems to be what her argument is. Although, it has been explained to her time and time again that Egyptians occupying a mid-latitude region must have come from somewhere else to exhibit body proportions characteristic of low latitude populations
