An interesting article by Kanya Goode. I think it is a nice addition to her 2009 article which examined Nubian and Egyptian biological relationships (even though they do seem to contradict a little). Originally it was an abstract and I thought it would not be published, but I found it in a journal called: "International Journal of Osteoarchaeology", don't ask how I found it though, because I forgot lol. Anyways, here are her results:
Who were the Meroites? A biological investigation into the Nubian post-hiatus group
I recall in her 2009 study detailing the Ancient Egyptian and Nubian biological relationships, she said that the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated. Then her results show that it is supported in her study. Good read anyways. This article would also support the common adaption she mentioned in her first article
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I remember reading this. It also compliments Prowse and Lovell's work on A-group and C-group Sudanese.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^I thought Lovell argued for replacement in Nubia
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Biological continuity between the A- and C-groups in lower Nubia: Evidence from cranial non-metric traits:
quote:Data are presented on 45 cranial non-metric traits in skeletal samples of the Lower Nubian A-Group (ca. 3100–2500 BC) and C-Group (ca. 2000–1500 BC) cultural periods. Results, based on the mean measure of divergence statistic, reveal biological continuity, consistent with interpretations of in situ evolution as opposed to models of discontinuity resulting from gene flow. Any differences between the A-and C-Group cultural phases that may be evident in the archaeological record are therefore more likely the result of local cultural evolution, rather than the introduction of new ideas, customs, and materials through the migration of a new population into this area. The problem of small samples necessitates that our results be accepted cautiously.
-- Tracy Prowse and Nancy Lovell
^This was followed up by a dental study finding the same results.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^OK. That's interesting. Do you known if Nancy Lovell have any recent articles out on ancient Egyptians/Nubians? The ones I've seen don't.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
With the methodology they present, none of these examined groups can be interpreted as belonging to the same population, despite what these authors say, or what they take their data to mean. Using that type of thinking and methodology, Goodde might as well conclude from her previous study that that the population of Kerma sprang from the Badarians (or vice versa).
What comes to mind is the folks in modern day Sudan Eritrea Ethiopia etc, who might look indistinguishable anthropometrically, but who are distinct in most other ways of determining identity, eg culture, self-professed identity, apparel, values, religion, rites of passage etc.
Somewhat applicable:
quote:The results are not supportive of European agriculturalists colonizing el-Badari in the early- to mid-Holocene. The Badarian series evinces greater phenetic affinity with the tropical African comparative groups and, notably, the east African Teita. This affinity is relative and not to be taken as indicating identity. This finding can only be interpreted as showing a particular broad similarity in the morphometric space circumscribed by the particular groups used (...) Phenetic affinity assessed in the exploration of historical questions is best placed in context with other information that in toto indicates the likely probabilities of a bonafide historical connection (see Dutta, 1984; Harrison, 1984; Rouse, 1986).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^Exactly when did the projected hiatus take place? What's the time frame?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
The time interval is between the start of the Meroitic period and a millenia prior to it. You can find the study in the OP
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^@ Kalonji.
I believe that the biological evidence is simply a reaffirmation of the "archaeological and cultural evidence", as the retention of earlier Napatan traditions rooted in the renewed customs of the 25th dynasty are evident. Some have in the past, merely tried to argue that Meroe was simply an Egyptian implant, which of course is not true. I have no idea really why Godde found this necessary to address but it didn't hurt I guess.
@ Zarahan.
As far as the hiatus, as Kalonji wrote, the period in lower Nubia between 1000-100BC (according to Godde), however, what I don't understand about that is that it completely neglects the Napatan period from which directly sprang Meroitic culture. The link is right there and isn't even a part of the chronology she considers. For instance, in the paper she writes:
Yet, Adams (1968, 1977) presents cultural and linguistic evidence that show there were no abrupt changes after the hiatus. The only major difference appears to be the appearance of the Meroitic written language (Adams, 1968, 1977)........The biological evidence in conjunction with the archaeological and cultural evidence therefore suggests the Meroites are a Nubian group that returned to Lower Nubia and not a foreign people that migrated to the area. The sudden appearance of the Meroitic written language, that accompanied the return of the Meroites (Adams, 1968, 1977), most likely developed among Nubians during their hiatus from Lower Nubia.
^This was clearly developed over the Napatan period, and WITHIN "lower Nubia"!
Her archaeology is confusing me and why she relies so much on Adams (1968, 1977) is beyond me.
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': ^OK. That's interesting. Do you known if Nancy Lovell have any recent articles out on ancient Egyptians/Nubians? The ones I've seen don't.
No, but the recently bumped thread on "The Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt" is the latest I've heard from her on the subject.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: what I don't understand about that is that it completely neglects the Napatan period from which directly sprang Meroitic culture. The link is right there and isn't even a part of the chronology she considers. For instance, in the paper she writes:
Yet, Adams (1968, 1977) presents cultural and linguistic evidence that show there were no abrupt changes after the hiatus. The only major difference appears to be the appearance of the Meroitic written language (Adams, 1968, 1977)........The biological evidence in conjunction with the archaeological and cultural evidence therefore suggests the Meroites are a Nubian group that returned to Lower Nubia and not a foreign people that migrated to the area. The sudden appearance of the Meroitic written language, that accompanied the return of the Meroites (Adams, 1968, 1977), most likely developed among Nubians during their hiatus from Lower Nubia.
^You're right about that part.
It also seems that this odd treatment of the history of Kush and its successive periods is connected to her odd wording such as ''Meroites returned to Lower Nubia''.
Apparently, she thinks the Meroites were originally from Lower Nubia. Only then, one can make such remarks about the appearance of writing, and a ''return to Lower Nubia'' and not feel incongruent about making them.
Meroe is not in Lower Nubia, neither is Kerma or Napata. As you pointed out, and we all know, the three Kushite entities follow eachother. How can one then speak of ''a return of Meroites to Lower Nubia'', when Meroe was simply a city in Upper Nubia prior to and during the hiatus?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^@ Kalonji.
I believe that the biological evidence is simply a reaffirmation of the "archaeological and cultural evidence", as the retention of earlier Napatan traditions rooted in the renewed customs of the 25th dynasty are evident. Some have in the past, merely tried to argue that Meroe was simply an Egyptian implant, which of course is not true. I have no idea really why Godde found this necessary to address but it didn't hurt I guess.
Ok
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This is the exact type of info I was looking for, particularly for Kenndo who messaged me last year about a (Eurocentric) Nubiologist he conversed with who told Kenndo about his Fordisc run findings that show Nubians to be "mixed" with a white element among them! LMAO
I explained to him the defects and deficiencies of such a program and human phenotypic diversity, this this study by Godde is much better. Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It also seems that this odd treatment of the history of Kush and its successive periods is connected to her odd wording such as ''Meroites returned to Lower Nubia''.
Apparently, she thinks the Meroites were originally from Lower Nubia. Only then, one can make such remarks about the appearance of writing, and a ''return to Lower Nubia'' and not feel incongruent about making them.
Meroe is not in Lower Nubia, neither is Kerma or Napata. As you pointed out, and we all know, the three Kushite entities follow eachother. How can one then speak of ''a return of Meroites to Lower Nubia'', when Meroe was simply a city in Upper Nubia prior to and during the hiatus?
Good point. It seems her definition of "Nubia" is about as conflated as everyone else's. If not as a general description for 'Sudan', she seems to be using the term in the context of some wider cultural area within Sudan, perhaps to the west side of the Nile river. However, if biological and cultural continuity can indeed be demonstrated to have existed between A-group populations all the way to the Meroitic period (which the combined data of Prowse/Lovell and Godde seems to suggest), then Nubianet's definition of Nubia may indeed be appropriate if not for the fact that "Nubia" its self never described a cultural area, then because of the fact that a common people persisted in this general area and built kingdoms there during the periods studied.
She'd be better served to not talk about hiatuses and gaps in the archaeological record until she learns to pay closer attention to the actual archaeology she's looking to correlate her skeletal biology with. The study however, is a decent contribution in that it shows continuity in ancient Sudan over a longer period of time.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Good point. It seems her definition of "Nubia" is about as conflated as everyone else's. If not as a general description for 'Sudan', she seems to be using the term in the context of some wider cultural area within Sudan, perhaps to the west side of the Nile river.
^Yes similar to the way I used the term not too long ago, ie the same way ''Egyptian'' is used, for all archaeological entities above the 1st cataract, along the nile and including Western groups, although these Western groups were not always considered Egyptian proper evidenced by Middle Kingdom Egyptian documents.
This is also not an either/or question (ie either ''Nubia'' for every group or relying on the designations they left behind in Egyptian documents). One can use the term ''Nubian'' like an umbrella term (like ''Egyptian''), while still acknowledging that there were distinct entities within said grouping, with distinct kingdoms and mannerisms etc. In that way, ''Nubian'' would correspond with the Egyptian use of Nehesy ie, a broad umbrella term, with distinct and unique entities within eg Yam, Medjay, Irtjet etc.
The problem is that readers have no way of discerning what is meant by the term accross authors, because of the rampant associations it has aquired since it emerged. This is why the term remains problematic, and why I made the decision to stay away from it as much as I can.
quote:However, if biological and cultural continuity can indeed be demonstrated to have existed between A-group populations all the way to the Meroitic period (which the combined data of Prowse/Lovell and Godde seems to suggest), then Nubianet's definition of Nubia may indeed be appropriate if not for the fact that "Nubia" its self never described a cultural area, then because of the fact that a common people persisted in this general area and built kingdoms there during the periods studied.
^Out of curiousity, how would you suggest one distinguish biological continuity of two successive archaeological entities e.g. Napata >> Meroe from two archaeologial entities that have common origin, and who have retained their shared characteristics over time e.g. Kermatians and Badarians?
Another example would be Eritreans in Kemps elaborated dendogram, who cluster with Naqadans before any used Egyptian sample.
Can the relationships between the groups situated in between the 1st cataract and Kharthoum really be thought of as demonstrating biological continuity, given the earlier mentioned yields?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
You guys need to be wary of Kanya Goode, she's another one of those quacks who doesn't believe that Ethiopians are sub-Saharan Africans and narrowly defines sub-saharans as bantus and West Africans. This I know from e-mail exchanges with her. her are some of our exhanges:
Hi Charles,
In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during the 12th dynasty.
I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses. As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
The ancient linguistic evidence does not concur with your conclusions, below. The written language, and assumably the spoken language, of past Nubian groups was unique to Nubians and does not have a relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans. Any overlap of Sub-Saharan language is a result of later contact (post 1,000 A.D.).
I hope you find this information helpful. May I suggest a book on the subject? Adams, W.Y. 1970. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. It is out of print, but most libraries carry it. It is the most comprehensive volume on Nubian archaeology and it will guide you on many of the subjects you have brought up.
No comment needed, her reply shows her ignorance and lack of knowledge on African languages and history. Here another one of her replies:
quote:> In studies of Sub-Saharan linguistics, > there are varying peoples attributed to Sub-Saharan. > Mostly, Bantu speaking tribes, among others, are > considered Sub-Saharan, and -depending on the linguistic > groups included in the Sub-Saharan classification, > Ethiopians can be eliminated.
And I can't forget this too:
quote:Moreover, I worked with a > scholar who is not only Ethiopian (born on the border of > Nubia), but an expert in African history. He does not > teach that Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan, despite geographic > location, and he does not identify as such.
She's a quack, first rate.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Hi Charles,
In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during the 12th dynasty.
Judging by her seperation of Nubians and Ethiopians, is she talking about modern Ethiopians, as in, Abyssinian? If so, what the hell is she talking about, what horner ruled as king in the XIIth dynasty??
quote:I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses.
LOL, this one is so self defeating that I'm going to leave it alone.
quote:As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:The ancient linguistic evidence does not concur with your conclusions, below. The written language, and assumably the spoken language, of past Nubian groups was unique to Nubians and does not have a relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans. Any overlap of Sub-Saharan language is a result of later contact (post 1,000 A.D.).
, again, total lie and misinformation. Nehesy peoples did not speak a single language!
quote:I hope you find this information helpful. May I suggest a book on the subject? Adams, W.Y. 1970. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. It is out of print, but most libraries carry it. It is the most comprehensive volume on Nubian archaeology and it will guide you on many of the subjects you have brought up.
Lol, she thinks she is talking to a rookie, when she cleary is a rookie herself on the subject.
What was your response to this mail?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses.
Lol... obviously she is lacking in some research
quote:As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
The above is funny because Forment A. (2002) showed populations of Sudan prior to the Neolithic to have a growing resemblance to sub-Saharan Africans living in wet environments.
How Ethiopia can not be considered in sub-Saharan Africa when it is in sub-Saharan Africa is beyond me.
BTW, what was your original response?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
^I thought she was a student...
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
^Out of curiousity, how would you suggest one distinguish biological continuity of two successive archaeological entities e.g. Napata >> Meroe from two archaeologial entities that have common origin, and who have retained their shared characteristics over time e.g. Kermatians and Badarians?
Another example would be Eritreans in Kemps elaborated dendogram, who cluster with Naqadans before any used Egyptian sample.
Can the relationships between the groups situated in between the 1st cataract and Kharthoum really be thought of as demonstrating biological continuity, given the earlier mentioned yields?
There is biological affinity between Badari and Kerma but we can't necessarily call such a relationship "biological continuity" unless the biological characteristics of one group continues to persist in a descent group. The reason why Godde's idea of continuity may be applicable to "Nubia" is because it is demonstrated in conjunction with archaeological communities that are successive chronologically and who are supposedly representative of the same persisting population. Hence, strong affinities between A-group to C-group, C-group to Meroe (and by extension, Napata) suggest continuity. When the Badari splintered away from this successiveness, assuming for a moment that they are an early extraction of the early Khartoum Neolithic, as were the early A-group, then this divergence becomes the transition where we stop talking about 'continuity' as opposed to affinity or as Keita writes in the quote you posted, "broad similarity" (obviously rooted in common origin, but not direct lineal descent of cultural traits and progeny).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lol.. Ethiopia, Somalia, and huge parts of the Sudan are themselves located below the sahara, and are thus "sub-Saharan"... It is no surprise that Godde holds to certain obsolete models. Keita notes such in the academy in several of his writings. None can accuse her of being "Afrocentrist." However it can also be noted that a Eurocentric writer who uses such flawed models, STILL confirms the Nubians as being ethnically the closest to the Egyptians, a pattern long shown by other researchers. Even confirmed traditional Eurocentrists must admit the truth.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You guys need to be wary of Kanya Goode, she's another one of those quacks who doesn't believe that Ethiopians are sub-Saharan Africans and narrowly defines sub-saharans as bantus and West Africans. This I know from e-mail exchanges with her. her are some of our exhanges:
Hi Charles,
In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during the 12th dynasty.
I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses. As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
The ancient linguistic evidence does not concur with your conclusions, below. The written language, and assumably the spoken language, of past Nubian groups was unique to Nubians and does not have a relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans. Any overlap of Sub-Saharan language is a result of later contact (post 1,000 A.D.).
I hope you find this information helpful. May I suggest a book on the subject? Adams, W.Y. 1970. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. It is out of print, but most libraries carry it. It is the most comprehensive volume on Nubian archaeology and it will guide you on many of the subjects you have brought up.
No comment needed, her reply shows her ignorance and lack of knowledge on African languages and history. Here another one of her replies:
quote:> In studies of Sub-Saharan linguistics, > there are varying peoples attributed to Sub-Saharan. > Mostly, Bantu speaking tribes, among others, are > considered Sub-Saharan, and -depending on the linguistic > groups included in the Sub-Saharan classification, > Ethiopians can be eliminated.
And I can't forget this too:
quote:Moreover, I worked with a > scholar who is not only Ethiopian (born on the border of > Nubia), but an expert in African history. He does not > teach that Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan, despite geographic > location, and he does not identify as such.
She's a quack, first rate.
Oh, lordy! Here she brings up Adams again. As a matter of fact, this reference she keeps referring back to is likely the only piece of archaeology she's ever read on the Nile Valley, which is why she so constantly refers back to that source. She continuously relies on Adams (1968, 1970, 1977), when Adams (1970) was the same guy Fekri Hassan debunked after claiming that the A-group were simply migrant Egyptians.
She writes that the written languages of Nubia are not related to "sub-Saharan" languages when Meroitic was never even deciphered for anyone to evaluate that claim, even though the orthodoxy from the limited translations and comparisons indeed compare Meroitic to Nilo-Saharan, a language family spoken by people she'd quickly refer to as "sub-Saharan".
Most of all, it is ABSOLUTELY amazing that she cites van Gerven's post-Pleistocene dental hypothesis in her publication, yet turns around and cites Irish and Turner in her reply to you to show that "Nubians" weren't related to "sub-Saharans". The Van Gerven studies, which she prefers in her article, demonstrates continuity between Meesolithic/late Pleistocene and later "Nubians", with the former possessing affinities with West African material and changes being attributed to hyper-flux climate and rapid changes in diet corresponding with the Neolithic.
How can she say the material from the Pleistocene was too fragmentary when her entire introduction cites research that deals with Sudanese in the Pleistocene and why their subsequent descendants weren't invaders?! How do they not have a relationship with "sub-Saharans" if their ancestors did?
Are you sure she wrote this? This is generally more ignorant than some of the things that would be spewed on here by the average troll. Seriously, this is appalling for a so-called "scholar", she clearly doesn't READ any of the literature she cites.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Hi Charles,
In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during the 12th dynasty.
Judging by her seperation of Nubians and Ethiopians, is she talking about modern Ethiopians, as in, Abyssinian? If so, what the hell is she talking about, what horner ruled as king in the XIIth dynasty??
quote:I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses.
LOL, this one is so self defeating that I'm going to leave it alone.
quote:As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:The ancient linguistic evidence does not concur with your conclusions, below. The written language, and assumably the spoken language, of past Nubian groups was unique to Nubians and does not have a relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans. Any overlap of Sub-Saharan language is a result of later contact (post 1,000 A.D.).
, again, total lie and misinformation. Nehesy peoples did not speak a single language!
quote:I hope you find this information helpful. May I suggest a book on the subject? Adams, W.Y. 1970. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. It is out of print, but most libraries carry it. It is the most comprehensive volume on Nubian archaeology and it will guide you on many of the subjects you have brought up.
Lol, she thinks she is talking to a rookie, when she cleary is a rookie herself on the subject.
What was your response to this mail?
I emailed her a bunch of articles supporting my position as well as quotes from Keita debunking her characterization of what a "sub-Saharan" is. When I asked her about what constitutes a sub-Saharan this is what she said:
quote:Sorry for the slow response. It is my busiest time of year as I have advising on top of my normal course load. I haven't fully developed my opinion in relation to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians. There is little to nothing in the archaeological record or linguistic data that suggests contact between the two populations. However, Nubia was a major center for trade with Nilotic populations, which could have extended beyond those groups. I have data from Sub-Saharan Africans that I look forward to analyzing in conjunction with my Nubian and Egyptian data. I hope to be able to address this situation in a future publication. As for a definition of Sub-Saharan Africans, I have not worked enough with them to provide an adequate description of their population. However, the material I have read on the subject has given multiple ideas as to who exactly is incorporated in "Sub-Saharan Africans." I would suggest that self-identification of the people would be the first starting point to determining who Sub-Saharan Africans are.
Some of my response to her nonsense, lol:
> In studies of Sub-Saharan linguistics, > there are varying peoples attributed to Sub-Saharan. > Mostly, Bantu speaking tribes, among others, are > considered Sub-Saharan, and -depending on the linguistic > groups included in the Sub-Saharan classification, > Ethiopians can be eliminated.
This is the problem I have with position, linguistics cannot be used to deliniated between whose sub-Saharan and who's not, in Kenya for example, Afro-Asiatic, Bantu language and Nilo-Saharan languages are spoken, yet Kenya lies geographically in sub-Saharan Africa, the same with Nigeria, you will find languages from at least three of the languages families spoken in Africa. The same can also be said of Ethiopia, where Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages predominate.
Afro-Asiatic languages originated in the Horn of Africa or in the southeastern part of the Sahara and this language family is spoken inside and outside of Africa, but its speakers can't all be considered as "African."
Moreover, I worked with a > scholar who is not only Ethiopian (born on the border of > Nubia), but an expert in African history. He does not > teach that Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan, despite geographic > location, and he does not identify as such.
To the best of my knowledge, almost no Africans that I know identify themslves as "sub-Saharan," most identify with country of origin or their ewthnic group so I'm not shocked that the Ethiopian scholar doesn't identify as such. Then again, ethnicity in Africa is fluid, one example are Sudanese "Arabs" who for the most part are Arabized Africans and in many cases almost indistinguishable from Darfurians physically.
Also, use of the word dynasty has to be > carefully applied in relation to Nubians. Dynastic is > actually a derogatory term for Nubians.
This is news to me, Nubians being offended at being called "dynastic?" I wasn't aware of that one, lol, thanks for pointing that out.
> Krings et al. also has some biases dealing with > large long-term effective population size that are glossed > over.
I agree here on the point that Krings et al study has some biases, but none of those biases refute or rule out that Nubians have sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages that are still carried to this day in the modern Nubian populations.
Another DNA article is Fox et al. > Keita and Zakrzewski have addressed those > issues, as has Carlson and Van Gerven (1977), which is the > first article to toss out migration theories and focus on in > situ biological evolution. My dissertation reviews > this issue and concludes that biological evolution in > Nubians occurred as a combination of in situ evolution and > biological diffusion.
The problem I have with the C.L. Fox study was she presumed the original Nubian population to be "Caucasoids" and saw the sub-Saharan mtDNA lineages as being invasive. Also, she too, used the HpaI 3592 marker, which again is only useful for detecting L1 and L2 lineages, but not L3 which lacks this marker, so the actually amount of sub-Saharan specific mtDNA lineages could actuallt be higher, though I am sure that some non-subSaharan lineages were represented too.
Despite her mess ups and lack of knowledge on Africans which she admits, she made some valid points such as this one:
Gene flow wasn't necessarily > the main cause of evolution, but gene flow did have to occur > to some extent (not necessarily a large portion). Have > you read Relethford and Blangero's work on gene flow and > estimations of it using craniometric and anthropometric > data? I applied his model to nonmetric data and was > unable to find large levels of gene flow in Nubians, despite > the high level of variation that I estimated using Fst.
I have read Relethford's work and its an excellent model he uses and I state again I agree with you.
People, overall I say we have to be very careful about who we cite, Goode et al is a student or was a study when she published her paper but as we can see she has some serious flaws, especially when she's referencing that flawed study on meriotic Nubians by CL Fox.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You guys need to be wary of Kanya Goode, she's another one of those quacks who doesn't believe that Ethiopians are sub-Saharan Africans and narrowly defines sub-saharans as bantus and West Africans. This I know from e-mail exchanges with her. her are some of our exhanges:
Hi Charles,
In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during the 12th dynasty.
I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan affinities based on craniometric analyses. As far as I am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for craniometric analyses. However, I have read all of the dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
The ancient linguistic evidence does not concur with your conclusions, below. The written language, and assumably the spoken language, of past Nubian groups was unique to Nubians and does not have a relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans. Any overlap of Sub-Saharan language is a result of later contact (post 1,000 A.D.).
I hope you find this information helpful. May I suggest a book on the subject? Adams, W.Y. 1970. Nubia: Corridor to Africa. It is out of print, but most libraries carry it. It is the most comprehensive volume on Nubian archaeology and it will guide you on many of the subjects you have brought up.
No comment needed, her reply shows her ignorance and lack of knowledge on African languages and history. Here another one of her replies:
quote:> In studies of Sub-Saharan linguistics, > there are varying peoples attributed to Sub-Saharan. > Mostly, Bantu speaking tribes, among others, are > considered Sub-Saharan, and -depending on the linguistic > groups included in the Sub-Saharan classification, > Ethiopians can be eliminated.
And I can't forget this too:
quote:Moreover, I worked with a > scholar who is not only Ethiopian (born on the border of > Nubia), but an expert in African history. He does not > teach that Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan, despite geographic > location, and he does not identify as such.
She's a quack, first rate.
Oh, lordy! Here she brings up Adams again. As a matter of fact, this reference she keeps referring back to is likely the only piece of archaeology she's ever read on the Nile Valley, which is why she so constantly refers back to that source. Adams (1968, 1970, 1977), when Adams (1970) was the same guy Fekri Hassan debunked after claiming that the A-group were simply migrant Egyptians.
She writes that the written languages of Nubia are not related to "sub-Saharan" languages when Meroitic was never even deciphered for anyone to evaluate that claim, even though the orthodoxy from the limited translations and comparisons indeed compare Meroitic to Nilo-Saharan, a language family spoken by people she'd quickly refer to as "sub-Saharan".
Most of all, it is ABSOLUTELY amazing that she cites van Gerven's post-Pleistocene dental hypothesis in her publication, yet turns around and cites Irish and Turner in her reply to you to show that "Nubians" weren't related to "sub-Saharans". The Van Gerven studies, which she prefers in her article, demonstrates continuity between Meesolithic/late Pleistocene and later "Nubians", with the former possessing affinities with West African material and changes being attributed to hyper-flux climate and rapid changes in diet corresponding with the Neolithic.
How can she say the material from the Pleistocene was too fragmentary when her entire introduction cites research that deals with Sudanese in the Pleistocene and why their subsequent descendants weren't invaders?! How do they not have a relationship with "sub-Saharans" if their ancestors did?
Are you sure she wrote this? This is generally more ignorant than some of the things that would be spewed on here by the average troll. Seriously, this is appalling for a so-called "scholar", she clearly doesn't READ any of the literature she cites.
Dude, I certify that everything I posted in her responses was done by her, I kid you not. I was just as equally shocked as you guys were because we've frequently quoted her study, but its too bad that the results in here studies refute her own position.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Wow. No longer will I depend on the arguments of another author (only the data) as it seems people in academia can be just as obtuse as anyone else when it comes to fine-tuning interpretation or even basic reading comprehension.
No wonder! She's just a student like some of us, yet has enough course work, funding/capital, and support behind her to get published. This is making sense now.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Some more of my exchanges with Goode et al:
> > I have read some really early stuff on body proportions in > Nubians, but unfortunately, these studies were highly > biased, and thus I deemed them unreliable. I have not > seen more recent studies of ancient Nubian body proportions, > but would like to read them.
I'm curious, why were the earlier studies biased in your opinion?
> In reference to Sub-Saharan, I am excluding > Ethiopians. Nubians did have extensive contact with > Ethiopians, and in fact, an Ethiopian ruled as King during > the 12th dynasty.
Interesting, why would you exclude Ethiopians from being sub-Saharans? It should be noted that the "Ethiopian" king that ruled during the 12th Dynasty was actually a Nubian, not a migrant from what we call modern day Ethiopia. The Ethiopians of antiquity referred to all black-skinned inhabitant who lived south of Upper Egypt.
> I'm not sure what articles you are referring to that > conclude that Pleistocene Nubians have Sub-Saharan > affinities based on craniometric analyses. As far as I > am aware, the Pleistocene material is too fragmentary for > craniometric analyses.
I have attached one such study done in 1999 by Colin P. Groves and Alan Thorne which states that crania from Jebel Sahaba in Lower Nubia and Tushka in Upper Egypt though robust, had sub-Saharan affinities. Here's another quote from a book I used as a reference on my blog:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt Volume 4 of Egyptian prehistory monographs Author Pierre M. Vermeersch Editor Pierre M. Vermeersch Edition illustrated Publisher Leuven University Press, 2002
Note: Site 117 is Jebel Sahaba
However, I have read all of the > dental evidence on the subject (e.g. Irish 1998; Irish and > Turner 1990; Turner and Markowitz 1990) and those articles > do not conclude a relationship to Sub-Saharan Africans.
As far as I'm aware of, Joel Irish has proposed or stated that Mesolithic Nubians, ay least those from Jebel Sahaba have dental affinities with sub-Saharan Africans. In fact, one of the AAPA 2010 abstracts talks about a study on the body proportions of Jebel Sahaba having affinity with sub-Saharans which would lend support to Irish et al suggestion that Jebel Sahaba crania dentally had sub-Saharan affinity. Here's the abstract:
Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample.
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY1. 1Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000), who, using non-metric dental and osseous oral traits, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their contemporaries in other parts of North Africa. This study was funded in part by NSF (grant number SBR-9321339).
Note: I posted the exchanges out of order, after I cited Holliday's study on the Jebel Sahaba sample having body proportions similar to sub-Saharans, Goode et al's response as you see above was that she believes body proportion studies are biased and she offered no evidence to support her position, shortly after this exchange she ceased responding to my emails but not before asking for my credentials and getting heated, my guess is that she was mad and thought she was really dealing with some novice who was equally as ignorant and misinformed about Africans as she is.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I would suggest that self-identification of the people would be the first starting point to determining who Sub-Saharan Africans are.
lol... what a double standard. When it suits Eurocentric writers they quickly invoke the mantra of "sub Saharan" geographically to emphasize the distance between said "sub Saharans" and everyone else. Now its "self-identification"? How many Senegalese for example go around identifying themselves as "sub-Saharan"? Godde strikes me as confused and self-contradictory as Sundjata points out. However the fact remains that even her data, using models that obscure a balanced analysis of African diversity, STILL comes to the same conclusions of so many others. Hopefully in her subsequent writing she can correct certain weaknesses in her approach. Defensiveness is to be expected, but part of that educative process.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Dude, I certify that everything I posted in her responses was done by her, I kid you not. I was just as equally shocked as you guys were because we've frequently quoted her study, but its too bad that the results in here studies refute her own position.
Lol... Did you show her Froment (2002)? I wonder what her response would have been. In a strange way, she reminds me of Mathilda based on her replies
Funny is how she said she read all the dental material, but she didn't list Irish 2000 as one of the ones she read Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
after I cited Holliday's study on the Jebel Sahaba sample having body proportions similar to sub-Saharans, Goode et al's response as you see above was that she believes body proportion studies are biased and she offered no evidence to support her position..
lol.. Body proportion studies confirm each other in a long chain going back decades. These studies go back to the 1950s and even earlier. The overall bottom line results are the same. Recap for new readers:
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I would suggest that self-identification of the people would be the first starting point to determining who Sub-Saharan Africans are.
lol... what a double standard. When it suits Eurocentric writers they quickly invoke the mantra of "sub Saharan" geographically to emphasize the distance between said "sub Saharans" and everyone else. Now its "self-identification"? How many Senegalese for example go around identifying themselves as "sub-Saharan"? Godde strikes me as confused and self-contradictory as Sundjata points out. However the fact remains that even her data, using models that obscure a balanced analysis of African diversity, STILL comes to the same conclusions of so many others. Hopefully in her subsequent writing she can correct certain weaknesses in her approach. Defensiveness is to be expected, but part of that educative process.
LOL, when i specifically asked her if she has read any of Keita's studies she avoided responding, lol.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I would suggest that self-identification of the people would be the first starting point to determining who Sub-Saharan Africans are.
lol... what a double standard. When it suits Eurocentric writers they quickly invoke the mantra of "sub Saharan" geographically to emphasize the distance between said "sub Saharans" and everyone else. Now its "self-identification"? How many Senegalese for example go around identifying themselves as "sub-Saharan"? Godde strikes me as confused and self-contradictory as Sundjata points out. However the fact remains that even her data, using models that obscure a balanced analysis of African diversity, STILL comes to the same conclusions of so many others. Hopefully in her subsequent writing she can correct certain weaknesses in her approach. Defensiveness is to be expected, but part of that educative process.
That is ridiculous because it limits the options in which people can use to identify themselves. So in true survey style, you'd travel around the 2nd largest continental landmass in the world asking people if they are either "North African" or "sub-Saharan African", and however they identify is some kind of objective truth that can be extended to empirical scholarship? These people are crazy, man.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Gentlemen, gentlemen. I don't know why you are all shocked by what Godde et al. thinks. One would think with as much exposure you all get to academia at least via studies, you would know better than to have so much faith in these authors. To me academicians are somewhat like politicians. The only difference is that at least in their scientific work you get more honesty, but what their work reveals and what they themselves think could be two different things.
But getting back to the topic of 'Nubians', you guys should know by now that ever since the discovery that A-Group culture with its kingdom of Ta-Seti being antecedent to that of Egypt and the source of pharaonic culture, the Eurocentric slant in 'Nubiology' has shifted from the belief that 'Nubia' was a mere 2nd rate copy of Egyptian culture by "negroes" to now being the ancestors of Egyptians who are no longer "negro" but "caca-soid". We see it all the time here in this forum from so-called experts who examine Nubian remains, and I get the feeling that it is even worse with archaeologists, the so-called 'Nubiologists' themselves. I think that one Nubiologist that Kenndo spoke to perfect example. Frankly, I believe Kenndo is misguided to believe that we should focus on 'Nubia' as a black civilization and not Egypt which is more 'mixed'. He fails to realize that Egypt as a continuation of Nile Valley peoples were no more 'mixed' or "caca-soid" then their Nubian brethren which is exactly why Nubia too is being plagued and victimized by Eurocentric white-wash.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Good point. It seems her definition of "Nubia" is about as conflated as everyone else's. If not as a general description for 'Sudan', she seems to be using the term in the context of some wider cultural area within Sudan, perhaps to the west side of the Nile river.
^Yes similar to the way I used the term not too long ago, ie the same way ''Egyptian'' is used, for all archaeological entities above the 1st cataract, along the nile and including Western groups, although these Western groups were not always considered Egyptian proper evidenced by Middle Kingdom Egyptian documents.
This is also not an either/or question (ie either ''Nubia'' for every group or relying on the designations they left behind in Egyptian documents). One can use the term ''Nubian'' like an umbrella term (like ''Egyptian''), while still acknowledging that there were distinct entities within said grouping, with distinct kingdoms and mannerisms etc. In that way, ''Nubian'' would correspond with the Egyptian use of Nehesy ie, a broad umbrella term, with distinct and unique entities within eg Yam, Medjay, Irtjet etc.
The problem is that readers have no way of discerning what is meant by the term accross authors, because of the rampant associations it has aquired since it emerged. This is why the term remains problematic, and why I made the decision to stay away from it as much as I can.
quote:However, if biological and cultural continuity can indeed be demonstrated to have existed between A-group populations all the way to the Meroitic period (which the combined data of Prowse/Lovell and Godde seems to suggest), then Nubianet's definition of Nubia may indeed be appropriate if not for the fact that "Nubia" its self never described a cultural area, then because of the fact that a common people persisted in this general area and built kingdoms there during the periods studied.
^Out of curiousity, how would you suggest one distinguish biological continuity of two successive archaeological entities e.g. Napata >> Meroe from two archaeologial entities that have common origin, and who have retained their shared characteristics over time e.g. Kermatians and Badarians?
Another example would be Eritreans in Kemps elaborated dendogram, who cluster with Naqadans before any used Egyptian sample.
Can the relationships between the groups situated in between the 1st cataract and Kharthoum really be thought of as demonstrating biological continuity, given the earlier mentioned yields?
The problem is that 'Nubia' was just too diverse, likely more diverse than Egypt was before it became united. At least all the Egyptians spoke similar languages if not dialects of a single language and had similar cultures. The Nehesi consisted of disparate languages and culture. One expanding and imposing on one another when a kingdom rose. Take for example the Kushites alone. Their first capital was Kerma, yet judging from Egyptian records, this seemed to have sprung up suddenly in the area in place of another culture. Even when the capitals moved to Napata and then Meroe, there seems to be a juxtaposition on areas of other cultures. We know for example that when the Kushites moved their capital further south into Meroe at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, there was already a town there inhabited by the Saba people. Perhaps it was easy for the Kushites to do this since all these various Nehesi people were under their hegemony.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Gentlemen, gentlemen. I don't know why you are all shocked by what Godde et al. thinks. One would think with as much exposure you all get to academia at least via studies, you would know better than to have so much faith in these authors. To me academicians are somewhat like politicians. The only difference is that at least in their scientific work you get more honesty, but what their work reveals and what they themselves think could be two different things.
But getting back to the topic of 'Nubians', you guys should know by now that ever since the discovery that A-Group culture with its kingdom of Ta-Seti being antecedent to that of Egypt and the source of pharaonic culture, the Eurocentric slant in 'Nubiology' has shifted from the belief that 'Nubia' was a mere 2nd rate copy of Egyptian culture by "negroes" to now being the ancestors of Egyptians who are no longer "negro" but "caca-soid". We see it all the time here in this forum from so-called experts who examine Nubian remains, and I get the feeling that it is even worse with archaeologists, the so-called 'Nubiologists' themselves. I think that one Nubiologist that Kenndo spoke to perfect example. Frankly, I believe Kenndo is misguided to believe that we should focus on 'Nubia' as a black civilization and not Egypt which is more 'mixed'. He fails to realize that Egypt as a continuation of Nile Valley peoples were no more 'mixed' or "caca-soid" then their Nubian brethren which is exactly why Nubia too is being plagued and victimized by Eurocentric white-wash.
I second this, I believe the reason Goode et al is restricting "sub-Saharans" to mean Bantu[eventhough she admits she hasn't worked with and studied "sub-Saharan material] is because her studies sees little difference between so called Nubians and the ancient Egypt sample, perhaps pressure not to admit what is the obvious.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
I'm curious as to whether or not she will do a research article including sub-Saharan Africans as she suggested was a possibility. Even though I get a strange feeling that she will include Bantus or something, lol
It's obvious that the ancient Egyptians had affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace, 2005; Ricaut 2008) as well. As did the Sudanese. I feel as if she has a somewhat limited selection of studies, with some being kind of outdated
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
It's obvious that the ancient Egyptians had affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace, 2005; Ricaut 2008) as well. As did the Sudanese. Looking at her replies to you, I feel as if she has a somewhat limited selection of studies, with some being kind of outdated.
I read through the Adams (1968) study and he makes no allusion to her stated "hiatus" and in fact DOES include the Napatan period into his discussion. It boggles my mind that her paper was even published due to its abundance of basic errors. I SERIOUSLY even question if she's read most of the material she cited as opposed to skimming through it to beat some student deadline.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
But getting back to the topic of 'Nubians', you guys should know by now that ever since the discovery that A-Group culture with its kingdom of Ta-Seti being antecedent to that of Egypt and the source of pharaonic culture, the Eurocentric slant in 'Nubiology' has shifted from the belief that 'Nubia' was a mere 2nd rate copy of Egyptian culture by "negroes" to now being the ancestors of Egyptians who are no longer "negro" but "caca-soid". We see it all the time here in this forum from so-called experts who examine Nubian remains, and I get the feeling that it is even worse with archaeologists, the so-called 'Nubiologists' themselves.
I don't see it as bad in archaeology as it is with "race-studies". Archaeologists can acknowledge the Africanity of the Nile valley with out ever getting into "race" or biological affinity, it is simply clear to the archaeologists that the Egyptians and "Nubians" came from Africa. In fact, people like Godde depend on the archaeology, and it is the archaeology/linguistics that exposes their irrational attempts to separate Egypt/'Nubia' from Africa based on flawed identity concepts and bad biology.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
after I cited Holliday's study on the Jebel Sahaba sample having body proportions similar to sub-Saharans, Goode et al's response as you see above was that she believes body proportion studies are biased and she offered no evidence to support her position..
^^What "bias"? A suspicious mind might say that perhaps Godde was trying to snow the Bass. But let's allow the benefit of the doubt. There are problems with "bias" but these typically involve applying formulas derived from European population samples. Likewise use of tooth size to predict body mass in the hominin lineage is a common practice in primate paleontology, and also has its flaws. But none of these technical methodology considerations affect the bottom line of the tropically adapted Nile Valley Populations, who have been systematically studied for over 6 decades, with similar results replicated again and again. And in fact such tropical proportions are strongly genetically based. It is hilarious to hear hypocritical "biodiversity" types heatedly argue for the race concept, then suddenly change their tune to assert a "non racial" approach when the tropical limb proportion data is on the table. "Not race but climate selective" is the pious mantra. But the very climate "selected" for dark-skinned, tropical Africans not European or Middle Eastern colder-adapted types, exposing their bogus, and hypocritical approach.
----------------------------------------------------------- From Ruff 2002: None of the technical issues below change the bottom line... If a snow job was being run on the Bass, it failed..
----------------- "Methodological Considerations
Because body size reconstruction in the fossil record almost always depends on extrapolation from fragmentary remains, it is important to clearly understand the rationale behind different reconstruction methods. A purely statistical approach considers the relationship between body mass (or stature) and skeletal/dental features in a modern reference sample and applies resulting prediction equations to the fossil fragments, perhaps preferring those equations with the smallest estimation errors in the modern sample. The problem with such an approach is that it implicitly assumes equality proportional and/or functional between the reference sample and the individual to which it is applied, which may or may not be true. For example, equations for predicting stature from long bone lengths developed in European samples severely overestimate stature in East Africans because of their relatively longer limb-to-trunk lengths (Allbrook 1961). This result is predictable given known systematic differences in limb proportions among modern human populations (Roberts 1978). The same rationale applies to reconstruction of stature in the Homo erectus KNM-WT 15000, who also had apparently very long limbs (Ruff & Walker 1993). Another example would be the use of tooth size to predict body mass in the hominin lineage, a common practice in primate paleontology (e.g., Gingerich et al. 1982, Conroy 1987) but one that is obviously biased in this case because of temporal (and probably taxonomic) differences in relative tooth size among hominins (Pilbeam & Gould 1974, McHenry 1984, McHenry &Cof ng 2000, Teaford et al. 2002).
Another not-so-obvious example is the use of long-bone diaphyseal breadth to predict body mass in hominins, a commonly employed procedure in the past (McHenry 1976, Oleksiak 1986, Rightmire 1986, Hartwig-Scherer 1994). It is evident that long-bone diaphyses change their diameters in response to mechanical loading (Trinkaus et al. 1994) and that PlioPleistocene hominins had relatively thicker diaphyses than modern humans (Rufet al. 1993, 1994; Ruff 1998). Thus, use of diaphyseal cross-sectional dimensions and a modern reference sample will lead to systematic overestimates of body mass in fossil hominins. These examples illustrate the importance of considering the functional significance of skeletal/dental traits when using them for body size reconstruction. In many cases this will involve their mechanical signi cance because mechanical factors have such a pervasive in uence on skeletal form (see references above). The mechanics of weight-bearing in bipeds, in fact, argues for the use of lower limbbone dimensions for body mass reconstruction in hominins. "
--- Ruff. C. 2002. Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2002. 31:211-32.
ALSO FROM RUFF:
---------------------------
I read through the Adams (1968) study and he makes no allusion to her stated "hiatus" and in fact DOES include the Napatan period into his discussion.
Indeed. Well her 2009 paper confirms what numerous others have shown as to the close links between Nubians and Egyptians. In this sense, it has not told us anything new. PS: What do you have on Nubia as the precursors of the Dynastic Civ? I know of Williams 1980 and Bruce Trigger in the 1980s but looking for something more recent. Its probably already on ES but need a recap. What are the threads that lead from "Nubia" (so-called) to the Naqada and then Dynasty 1?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
ALSO FROM RUF:
[QUOTE]: "The transition in Europe from Neandertals to “early anatomically modern” (Late Paleolithic) humans 40,000 to 25,000 years ago and subsequent changes in morphology within the latter group, are especially interesting in that they may provide evidence of adaptation following migration to a new climatic zone if these populations were derived from farther south, as suggested by the preponderance of current evidence (Klein 1999). The lack of change between European Early and Late Paleolithic samples in distal-to-proximal limb length proportions (crural and brachial indices) was initially puzzling in this regard because a reduction would have been predicted if climatic adaptation were taking place (Trinkaus 1981).
However, more recent work has shown that relative to measures of trunk (vertebral column) height, limb length did decrease significantly within the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, beginning at proportions similar to those of sub-Saharan Africans and ending at proportions similar to those of modern Europeans (Holliday 1997a). Comparisons of long bone lengths to bi-iliac breadths in available European Upper Paleolithic specimens (nD15–19, about a third from the Early Upper Paleolithic) also indicate significant reductions in limb length to body breadth between the Early and Late Upper Paleolithic (unpublished results based on data given in Ruff et al. 1997, supplementary information). Thus, body shape did change significantly in Upper Paleolithic Europeans after exposure to colder climatic conditions, although the change was mosaic in nature, beginning with a general reduction in limb lengths followed by a reduction in distal-to-proximal limb element proportions." [ENDQUOTE]:
-- Ruff. C. 2002. Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2002. 31:211-32.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
^Out of curiousity, how would you suggest one distinguish biological continuity of two successive archaeological entities e.g. Napata >> Meroe from two archaeologial entities that have common origin, and who have retained their shared characteristics over time e.g. Kermatians and Badarians?
Another example would be Eritreans in Kemps elaborated dendogram, who cluster with Naqadans before any used Egyptian sample.
Can the relationships between the groups situated in between the 1st cataract and Kharthoum really be thought of as demonstrating biological continuity, given the earlier mentioned yields?
There is biological affinity between Badari and Kerma but we can't necessarily call such a relationship "biological continuity" unless the biological characteristics of one group continues to persist in a descent group. The reason why Godde's idea of continuity may be applicable to "Nubia" is because it is demonstrated in conjunction with archaeological communities that are successive chronologically and who are supposedly representative of the same persisting population. Hence, strong affinities between A-group to C-group, C-group to Meroe (and by extension, Napata) suggest continuity. When the Badari splintered away from this successiveness, assuming for a moment that they are an early extraction of the early Khartoum Neolithic, as were the early A-group, then this divergence becomes the transition where we stop talking about 'continuity' as opposed to affinity or as Keita writes in the quote you posted, "broad similarity" (obviously rooted in common origin, but not direct lineal descent of cultural traits and progeny).
Totally agree, but that is exactly where the problem lies.
You're right, no, we can't say that there is biological continuity between Kerma and Badari, because those groups are seperated temporally and spatially, and there is every reason to believe that the Badarians were absorbed by the surrounding (Egyptian) people, both culturally and otherwise.
What it does say, is that skeletal analysis can't discriminate between the various Nile Valley and Saharan peoples enough to be able to detect whether a return of peoples after a hiatus indicates the return of a previous population, or the return of a very similar looking other group
So for example, we have the A group and the C group populations, and Lovell preferred the interpretation of biologically continuation, but that bit of distance she detected, can just as easily reflect the distance between that earlier A group and another non-successive group, in this case, the C group.
That researchers clearly don't recognize earlier mentioned shortcomings of their methodology, is perhaps best reflected by the Goode in her 2010 study, where she preferred to interpret a return after a given exodus (just like Lovell and Prowse) as indicating continuity, but unlike the case of Nancy and Prowse, there is absolutely no basis for this, because the population she interprets as returning, was never even there in the first place.
Don't you think that blunder, ie seeing a return of Meroites to a location where there were never a stronghold of Meroites to begin with, is reflective of this earlier mentioned shortcoming in their methodology?
BTW, I have to correct a mistake I made earlier when I said that the hiatus occured from the start of the Meroitic period and a millenium prior to that. I missed the mentioned dates (1000bc - 100AD) and relied on her mention that written language was the only thing that seemed different after the hiatus.
Given that the Meroitic script is generally seen as developed during the Napatan period, but in full effect at the start of the Meroitic period, I assumed that the hiatus must have ended at the start of the Meroitic period (300bc).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I second this, I believe the reason Goode et al is restricting "sub-Saharans" to mean Bantu[eventhough she admits she hasn't worked with and studied "sub-Saharan material] is because her studies sees little difference between so called Nubians and the ancient Egypt sample, perhaps pressure not to admit what is the obvious.
No doubt a case of lying to herself. She knows the deal! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': I'm curious as to whether or not she will do a research article including sub-Saharan Africans as she suggested was a possibility. Even though I get a strange feeling that she will include Bantus or something, lol
It's obvious that the ancient Egyptians had affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace, 2005; Ricaut 2008) as well. As did the Sudanese. I feel as if she has a somewhat limited selection of studies, with some being kind of outdated
Reminds me of Brace's old papers. I wonder if Godde realizes that Sub-Saharans comprise of more than just Bantu. Will she utilize Nilotic peoples like the Teita whom Michael Crichton used or the Kalenjin, Acholi, hell even Maasai. What about other Niger-Congo speakers like the Fulani. Hell even some Bantu like the Tutsi of Rwanda and even some peopels in Zaire possess traits that are not so stereotypically "negroid". You would think as an anthropologist she would be somewhat familiar with the diversity of "Sub-Sahara" even if one were to exclude the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I don't see it as bad in archaeology as it is with "race-studies". Archaeologists can acknowledge the Africanity of the Nile valley with out ever getting into "race" or biological affinity, it is simply clear to the archaeologists that the Egyptians and "Nubians" came from Africa. In fact, people like Godde depend on the archaeology, and it is the archaeology/linguistics that exposes their irrational attempts to separate Egypt/'Nubia' from Africa based on flawed identity concepts and bad biology.
Maybe you're right, but I'm talking about those archaeologists who make conclusions that are beyond their discipline. Folk like Hawass.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
@Charlie
quote:I would suggest that self-identification of the people would be the first starting point to determining who Sub-Saharan Africans are.
Preposterous. It seems that Africa is some sort of fantasy world to them, where to get the chance to mess with the parameters of things considered normal behavior and normal thinking, and where they can allow themselves to open the gates of arbitrary emotional thinking. Where do they for example, use that standard in Europe? Do they ever say that asking Southern European groups, whether they agree that they live Southern Europe, is essential for determining that they are Southern Europeans?
quote:As for a definition of Sub-Saharan Africans, I have not worked enough with them to provide an adequate description of their population. However, the material I have read on the subject has given multiple ideas as to who exactly is incorporated in "Sub-Saharan Africans."
The same argument can be applied here That would be the same as saying that one need to work with Europeans to discern the geographical areas they inhabit. She is clearly running away from the geographical explanation, because it conflicts with her idea that Sub-Saharans are a some sort of race and abomination, that would would have to be asked permission to various ethnic groups whether they allow themselves to be called Sub-Saharan. She thinks Sub Saharans are totally incompatible with the likes of Nubians and Ethiopians, hence why she can’t get herself to conceive them as belonging in the same category, even if that category is purely geographical.
Here is another example, that proves my point about here conceptualisation of Sub Saharan Africa:
quote: I haven't fully developed my opinion in relation to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians. There is little to nothing in the archaeological record or linguistic data that suggests contact between the two populations.
quote:As for a definition of Sub-Saharan Africans, I have not worked enough with them to provide an adequate description of their population.
^She thinks that Sub Saharan Africans are a population on par with the population of Sudan.
quote:Moreover, I worked with a > scholar who is not only Ethiopian (born on the border of > Nubia), but an expert in African history. He does not > teach that Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan, despite geographic > location, and he does not identify as such.
^this is an argument I expect of people like Awlaad Berry, whose MO is using Fulani, Tuareg etc folk traditions for claiming their Arab origins. I expect people who engage in physical anthropology to avoid public opinions about self identified ‘’race’’ like the plague. This is extremely bad bad bad bad science, in fact, it is the very opposite.
I do think she knows that what she said in her mails to you is extremely bad science, because we do not encounter it in her work, at least not in the work I’ve seen so far, so we know she is filtering her beliefs from entering her papers.
The fact that she quotes Keita in her work, but stopped responded to you once you mentioned him, makes me think that she is putting up some sort of academic front in her papers.
quote:The predynastic samples were included because the Badari and Naqada crania have been reported to more closely resemble Nubians, among other populations ,rather than with contemporary Egyptian samples(e.g. Keita, 1990). -An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Notice that she references Keita and says that Badarian crania resemble Nubians more closely, among others, so she knows about insinuations of close relationships of Badarians with other Africans besides Nubians (Keita used Gabonese, Zulu, Teita and Khoisan when he evaluated his Badarian sample), which means that the same holds true for her ''Nubians'' as well.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
There is biological affinity between Badari and Kerma but we can't necessarily call such a relationship "biological continuity" unless the biological characteristics of one group continues to persist in a descent group. The reason why Godde's idea of continuity may be applicable to "Nubia" is because it is demonstrated in conjunction with archaeological communities that are successive chronologically and who are supposedly representative of the same persisting population. Hence, strong affinities between A-group to C-group, C-group to Meroe (and by extension, Napata) suggest continuity. When the Badari splintered away from this successiveness, assuming for a moment that they are an early extraction of the early Khartoum Neolithic, as were the early A-group, then this divergence becomes the transition where we stop talking about 'continuity' as opposed to affinity or as Keita writes in the quote you posted, "broad similarity" (obviously rooted in common origin, but not direct lineal descent of cultural traits and progeny).
Totally agree, but that is exactly where the problem lies.
You're right, no, we can't say that there is biological continuity between Kerma and Badari, because those groups are seperated temporally and spatially, and there is every reason to believe that the Badarians were absorbed by the surrounding (Egyptian) people, both culturally and otherwise.
What it does say, is that skeletal analysis can't discriminate between the various Nile Valley and Saharan peoples enough to be able to detect whether a return of peoples after a hiatus indicates the return of a previous population, or the return of a very similar looking other group
So for example, we have the A group and the C group populations, and Lovell preferred the interpretation of biologically continuation, but that bit of distance she detected, can just as easily reflect the distance between that earlier A group and another non-successive group, in this case, the C group.
That researchers clearly don't recognize earlier mentioned shortcomings of their methodology, is perhaps best reflected by the Goode in her 2010 study, where she preferred to interpret a return after a given exodus (just like Lovell and Prowse) as indicating continuity, but unlike the case of Nancy and Prowse, there is absolutely no basis for this, because the population she interprets as returning, was never even there in the first place.
Don't you think that blunder, ie seeing a return of Meroites to a location where there were never a stronghold of Meroites to begin with, is reflective of this earlier mentioned shortcoming in their methodology?
I see your point. Mine was mainly to emphasize how all of this is only enhanced by archaeology reinforcing a conclusion based on methodological flaws in skeletal biology but it can additionally be argued that this broad phenotypic similarity was also accompanied by a broad cultural similarity that can easily be disguised or misinterpreted as 'continuity'. Djehuti's point I believe would also speak to that.
quote:BTW, I have to correct a mistake I made earlier when I said that the hiatus occured from the start of the Meroitic period and a millenium prior to that. I missed the mentioned dates (1000bc - 100AD) and relied on her mention that written language was the only thing that seemed different after the hiatus.
Given that the Meroitic script is generally seen as developed during the Napatan period, but in full effect at the start of the Meroitic period, I assumed that the hiatus must have ended at the start of the Meroitic period (300bc).
No problem. Makes no difference with reference to Godde's overall blunders. I will note something I overlooked as well in that the Meroitic sample is from Semna South, which is actually considered "lower Nubia", so she does indeed seem to be referring to some hiatus that occurred in 'lower Nubia', however, as you say she is flawed in suggesting that they returned to a location they'd never actually settled (as far as can be demonstrated). Maybe she actually even skwirms around that by generalizing "Nubian" groups and suggesting that the return was by another "Nubian" group, thus, constituted an actual returning of the same people who went on hiatus. The former point had to be pointed out to me.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Not that I'm a fan of Joel Irish, but I take it that Godde et al has never seriously read any of his studies, but:
quote:And not surprisingly, Mesolithic Nubians are plotted in close proximity to the Sub-Saharan Africans; this dental affinity, which is discussed in detail elsewhere and may involve an ancestral relationship (Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993b), is supported by numerous cranial and other morphometric hard tissue studies (see Wendorf 1968; Charon etal, 1974; Hiernaux 1975; Petit-Maire 1979; Franciscus 1995, personal communication, 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).
Dental morphological affinities of Late Pleistocene through recent sub-Saharan and north African peoples In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Nouvelle Série, tome 10 fascicule 3-4, 1998. pp. 237-272.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
BTW, can anybody access these two dental studies by Joel D. Irish:
Population continuity versus discontinuity revisited: Dental affinities among Late Paleolithic through Christian era Nubians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 128: 520-535.
Homo. 2001;52(2):173-88. Canary islands-north African population affinities: measures of divergence based on dental morphology. Guatelli-Steinberg D, Irish JD, Lukacs JR. SourceOhio State University, Newark, OH, USA. guatelli-steinbe.1@osu.edu
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Check you PMs.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
BTW, can anybody access these two dental studies by Joel D. Irish:
Population continuity versus discontinuity revisited: Dental affinities among Late Paleolithic through Christian era Nubians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 128: 520-535.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Let's not forget that studies by Harris and Wente et. ales show dynastic Egyptian skulls to also resemble those of Mesolithic Nubians jaws and dental traits aside.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Preposterous. It seems that Africa is some sort of fantasy world to them, where to get the chance to mess with the parameters of things considered normal behavior and normal thinking, and where they can allow themselves to open the gates of arbitrary emotional thinking. Where do they for example, use that standard in Europe? Do they ever say that asking Southern European groups, whether they agree that they live Southern Europe, is essential for determining that they are Southern Europeans?
LOL Indeed. Their bias and double-speak is so blatant and obvious, I'm amazed they can get away with this sh|t. Even the very notion of North vs. Sub-Saharan division of the continent is obtuse considering that the Sahara did not always exist and even then was never a barrier to populations. When it is shown that Egypt's populace is indeed continuous with Sub-Saharan east Africa they try to separate the latter from the rest of Sub-Sahara now. LOL It is all a big joke. Moving on...
quote:The predynastic samples were included because the Badari and Naqada crania have been reported to more closely resemble Nubians, among other populations, rather than with contemporary Egyptian samples(e.g. Keita, 1990). -An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Notice that she references Keita and says that Badarian crania resemble Nubians more closely, among others, so she knows about insinuations of close relationships of Badarians with other Africans besides Nubians (Keita used Gabonese, Zulu, Teita and Khoisan when he evaluated his Badarian sample), which means that the same holds true for her ''Nubians'' as well.
About this. For those who don't know, the predominant Neolithic culture in Upper Egypt (contemporary to that of Merimda in Lower Egypt) was that of the Tasian culture which was followed by the Badarian culture and then Naqada. Here is what the archaeology shows:
The Badarian Culture is the earliest attestation of agriculture in Upper Egypt and was first identified in the region of Badari near Sohag. A large number of mainly small sites yielded a total of about 600 graves and 40 poorly documented settlements.
The chronological position of the Badarian Culture is still the subject of some debate. Its relative chronological position in relation to the more recent Naqada Culture was established some time ago through excavation at the stratified site of North Spur Hammamiya. The culture might have already existed by about 5000 BC but it can only be definitely confirmed to have spanned the period around 4400-4000 BC.
The existence of a still earlier culture called the Tasian (Deir Tasa) has been claimed. The culture would have been characterized by the presence of calcium beakers with incised designs which are also known from contexts of similar date in Neolithic Sudan. The existence however of the Tasian as a chronologically or culturally seperated unit has never been demonstrated beyond doubt. Although most scholars consider the Tasian to be simply part of the Badarian Culture it has also been argued that the Tasian represents the continuation of a Lower Egyptian tradition which would be the immediate predecessor of the Naqada I Culture. This seems however implausible first because similarities with the Lower Egyptian Neolithic cultures are not convincing and secondly because of the Tasian's obvious ceramic links with the Sudan. If the Tasian must be considered as a seperate cultural entity then it might represent a nomadic culture with a Sudanese background and which interacted with the Badarian Culture. Despite the existence of some excavated settlement sites the Badarian Culture is mainly known from cemeteries in the low desert. All graves are simply pit burials often incorporating a mat on which the body was placed. Bodies are normally in a loosely contracted position on the left side and with the head to the south looking west.
Analysis of Badarian grave goods and the placement of the wealthier graves in one part of the cemetery clearly seems to indicate social stratification which still seems limited at this point in Egyptian prehistory but which became increasingly important throughout the subsequent Naqada Period.
The pottery that accompanies the dead in their graves is the most characteristic element of the Badarian Culture. The rippled surface that is present on the finest pottery comes from the surface having been combed with an instrument and then afterwards polished to result in a very decorative effect.
The lithic industry is mainly known from settlement sites although the finest examples have been found in graves. It is principally a flake and blade industry to which a limited number of remarkable bifacial worked tools are added. Predominant tools are end-scrapers -- perforators -- retouched pieces. Bifacial tools consist mainly of axes -- bifacial sickles -- concave-base arrowheads. It should also be noted that the characteristic side-blow flakes were also present in the Western Desert.
For a long time it was thought that the Badarian Culture remained restricted to the Badari region. Characteristic Badari finds have however also been found much further to the south at Mahgar Dendera -- Armant-- Elkab -- Hierakonpolis and also to the east in the Wadi Hammamat.
Originally the Badarian Culture was considered a chronologically seperate unit out of which the Naqada Culture developed. However the situation is certainly far more complex. For instance the Naqada I Period seems to be poorly represented in the Badari region; therefore it has been suggested that the Badarian was largely contemporary with the Naqada I Culture in the area to the south of the Badari region. However since a limited number of Badarian or related artefacts have also been discovered south of Badari it might instead be argued that the Badarian Culture was present between at least the Badari region and Hierakonpolis.
Unfortunately most of these finds are very limited in number and a comparison with the lithic industry or the settlement ceramics from the Badari area is in most cases impossible or has not yet been published. The Badarian Culture may therefore have been characterised by regional differences with the unit in the Badari region itself being the only one that has so far been properly investigated or attested. On the other hand a more or less uniform Badarian Culture may have been represented over the whole area between Badari and Hierakonpolis but since the development of the Naqada Culture [also] took place more to the south it seems quite possible that the Badarian survived for a longer time in the Badari region itself.
The origins of the Badarian are equally problematic. It seems that the Badarian Culture did not appear from a single source although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one. On the other hand the provenance of domesticated plants remains controversial; an origin in the Levant via the Lower Egyptian Faiyum and Merimda Cultures might be possible.
Evidence from Badarian settlements shows that the economy of the culture was primarily based on agriculture and animal husbandry. Among the content of storage facilities wheat -- barley -- lentils -- tubers have been found. Furthermore fishing was certainly very important and may have been the principal economic activity during certain period of the year. Hunting on the other hand was apparently of marginal importance... ---Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2003)
The main difference between Tasian and Badarian is that the former is strictly neolithic while the latter is chalcolithic in that copper is used. It was once thought that copper working was introduced from Asia, but evidence shows it was actually present in Lower Nubia prior to Egypt. We know that the Tasian is of Sudanese descent not only from the chiseled calcium beakers but also from a secondary type of pottery known as the black-top which is predominantly found in the Sudan and is characteristic of the Qustul culture as well as subsequent 'Nubian' cultures like Kush etc. Though the Badarian culture seems to have strong roots in the Western desert (perhaps Kharga Oasis being an early center), some other aspects also point to the south such as Nile boat theme depicted on the sides of Badarian homes and on artifacts, and the motif is repeated even more extensively in the Naqada period. We know such a motif is found earliest in the Khartoum Mesolithic. Oh and of course while certain species of plants were adopted from the Levant for agricultural purposes, there is no evidence that people were acquired or that agriculture itself was introduced to the area. Also, the Naqada culture particularly Naqada I shares strong resemblance to the Qustul culture of Lower Egypt. So we have evidence of Libyan and Sudanese input that led to the culmination of pharaonic culture, particularly Sudanese. And you wonder why some so-called experts are no scrambling to separate the Sudan from Sub-Sahara as well. Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
From Harris and Wente, a quote that has not been posted here before:
"Thutmose has a much more rounded cranium (than Amenhotep), and prognathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as of the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of Nubians from the ancient cemetaries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II ( Appendix Table A1)"--Harris and Wente: An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
Checked it out a while ago...
Somebody else did an analysis of the same book, though I'm not too sure of his credentials:
^ Yes many of the royals from the 18th dynasty and especially those of the ancestral 17th dynasty show striking resemblance to 'Nubians' and this plus the close alliance with the Medjay along with certain customs have caused some Egyptologists to speculate that the 17th dynasty had some Nubian ancestry.
From the source you cited:
Professors Harris and Weeks, in their work "X-Raying the Pharaohs" stated this of Seqenenre Tao:
"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Seqenenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true."
By the way, that 'somebody' you speak in the link you cited is a guy named Paul Kekai Manansala who is also the founder of the Yahoo Group Ta-Seti and is apparently a Filipino! I myself have been mistaken for him in several occasions. He is actually a journalist who just happens to be a history enthusiast, and while his main expertise is on Filipino history, he apparently has an interest in Egyptian and Nile Valley studies as well.
By the way, what do you make of the Lovell study about the Naqada elite in Nekhen resembling Nubians more than the local Egyptians?
T. Prowse, and N. Lovell "Concordance of Cranial and Dental Morphological Traits and Evidence for Endogamy in Ancient Egypt" American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1996, vol. 101, no2, pp. 237-246 (2 p.1/4)
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 non-elite cemeteries and that the non-elite 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. Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:By the way, what do you make of the Lovell study about the Naqada elite in Nekhen resembling Nubians more than the local Egyptians?
Good study. She used quite a lot of traits as well, not like Brace et al. who try and use Nasal traits alone. Which is precisely why her 2nd study is better (the one you cited), as she mentions in the article how the first study may have been affected by the small number of dental traits. I like how she uses dental and cranial morphological traits as well.
The earlier studies by Lovell, Keita etc., are very good when it comes to biological relationships. I added Lovell's studies on the Uploaded Studies thread btw, also Keita's further studies on ancient crania from northern Africa
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Myself: Which is precisely why her 2nd study is better (the one you cited), as she mentions in the article how the first study may have been affected by the small number of dental traits.
She wrote two studies that is...
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
There is biological affinity between Badari and Kerma but we can't necessarily call such a relationship "biological continuity" unless the biological characteristics of one group continues to persist in a descent group. The reason why Godde's idea of continuity may be applicable to "Nubia" is because it is demonstrated in conjunction with archaeological communities that are successive chronologically and who are supposedly representative of the same persisting population. Hence, strong affinities between A-group to C-group, C-group to Meroe (and by extension, Napata) suggest continuity. When the Badari splintered away from this successiveness, assuming for a moment that they are an early extraction of the early Khartoum Neolithic, as were the early A-group, then this divergence becomes the transition where we stop talking about 'continuity' as opposed to affinity or as Keita writes in the quote you posted, "broad similarity" (obviously rooted in common origin, but not direct lineal descent of cultural traits and progeny).
Totally agree, but that is exactly where the problem lies.
You're right, no, we can't say that there is biological continuity between Kerma and Badari, because those groups are seperated temporally and spatially, and there is every reason to believe that the Badarians were absorbed by the surrounding (Egyptian) people, both culturally and otherwise.
What it does say, is that skeletal analysis can't discriminate between the various Nile Valley and Saharan peoples enough to be able to detect whether a return of peoples after a hiatus indicates the return of a previous population, or the return of a very similar looking other group
So for example, we have the A group and the C group populations, and Lovell preferred the interpretation of biologically continuation, but that bit of distance she detected, can just as easily reflect the distance between that earlier A group and another non-successive group, in this case, the C group.
That researchers clearly don't recognize earlier mentioned shortcomings of their methodology, is perhaps best reflected by the Goode in her 2010 study, where she preferred to interpret a return after a given exodus (just like Lovell and Prowse) as indicating continuity, but unlike the case of Nancy and Prowse, there is absolutely no basis for this, because the population she interprets as returning, was never even there in the first place.
Don't you think that blunder, ie seeing a return of Meroites to a location where there were never a stronghold of Meroites to begin with, is reflective of this earlier mentioned shortcoming in their methodology?
I see your point. Mine was mainly to emphasize how all of this is only enhanced by archaeology reinforcing a conclusion based on methodological flaws in skeletal biology but it can additionally be argued that this broad phenotypic similarity was also accompanied by a broad cultural similarity that can easily be disguised or misinterpreted as 'continuity'. Djehuti's point I believe would also speak to that.
Yes!!
Somewhat applicable to the similarities in grave goods that may have been found between C and A group:
quote:At the same time as observing that in pre-unification period (Naqada II-III), there were regional differences within both Upper and Lower Egypt, Kohler (1995) has pointed out that the differences between Upper and Lower Egypt may have been exaggerated by the funerary tradition of Upper Egypt, and that when we look purely at settlement evidence, we see much greater similarity in types and forms. She suggests that the Upper Egyptian funerary tradition, with funerary items made specially to accompany the dead, may be disguising a much greater homogeneity in overall traditions than we have previously been able to see. In other words, apart from the great funerary tradition, the cultural divisions between Upper and Lower Egypt may not have been anywhere near as great as once thought. Source, along with other good info here
^Said conditions are in reverse in the case of C and A group peoples, in that the grave goods of the Sudanese folks were more similar (in contrast with Pred. Upper and Lower Egypt), per Prowse and Lovell. Wondering to what extend ''settlement evidence'' was taken into account by Prowse and Lovell. Food for thought.
As for Godde, a quick recap:
Her map doesn't even register Meroe:
Yet she entertains the following:
Then she lets us know that she was not merely entertaining that thought, she actually believes it:
We know she is not simply saying that Meroites means any Nubian from the Meroitic period, but that she actually thinks that her Semna South sample represents Meroites proper, because she says:
And
Makes me wonder what Adams, Godde etc think the name ''Meroitic'' stands for, if not the ancient city between the 5th and 6th cataracts.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let's not forget that studies by Harris and Wente et. ales show dynastic Egyptian skulls to also resemble those of Mesolithic Nubians jaws and dental traits aside.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Preposterous. It seems that Africa is some sort of fantasy world to them, where to get the chance to mess with the parameters of things considered normal behavior and normal thinking, and where they can allow themselves to open the gates of arbitrary emotional thinking. Where do they for example, use that standard in Europe? Do they ever say that asking Southern European groups, whether they agree that they live Southern Europe, is essential for determining that they are Southern Europeans?
LOL Indeed. Their bias and double-speak is so blatant and obvious, I'm amazed they can get away with this sh|t. Even the very notion of North vs. Sub-Saharan division of the continent is obtuse considering that the Sahara did not always exist and even then was never a barrier to populations. When it is shown that Egypt's populace is indeed continuous with Sub-Saharan east Africa they try to separate the latter from the rest of Sub-Sahara now. LOL It is all a big joke. Moving on...
quote:The predynastic samples were included because the Badari and Naqada crania have been reported to more closely resemble Nubians, among other populations, rather than with contemporary Egyptian samples(e.g. Keita, 1990). -An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Notice that she references Keita and says that Badarian crania resemble Nubians more closely, among others, so she knows about insinuations of close relationships of Badarians with other Africans besides Nubians (Keita used Gabonese, Zulu, Teita and Khoisan when he evaluated his Badarian sample), which means that the same holds true for her ''Nubians'' as well.
About this. For those who don't know, the predominant Neolithic culture in Upper Egypt (contemporary to that of Merimda in Lower Egypt) was that of the Tasian culture which was followed by the Badarian culture and then Naqada. Here is what the archaeology shows:
The Badarian Culture is the earliest attestation of agriculture in Upper Egypt and was first identified in the region of Badari near Sohag. A large number of mainly small sites yielded a total of about 600 graves and 40 poorly documented settlements.
The chronological position of the Badarian Culture is still the subject of some debate. Its relative chronological position in relation to the more recent Naqada Culture was established some time ago through excavation at the stratified site of North Spur Hammamiya. The culture might have already existed by about 5000 BC but it can only be definitely confirmed to have spanned the period around 4400-4000 BC.
The existence of a still earlier culture called the Tasian (Deir Tasa) has been claimed. The culture would have been characterized by the presence of calcium beakers with incised designs which are also known from contexts of similar date in Neolithic Sudan. The existence however of the Tasian as a chronologically or culturally seperated unit has never been demonstrated beyond doubt. Although most scholars consider the Tasian to be simply part of the Badarian Culture it has also been argued that the Tasian represents the continuation of a Lower Egyptian tradition which would be the immediate predecessor of the Naqada I Culture. This seems however implausible first because similarities with the Lower Egyptian Neolithic cultures are not convincing and secondly because of the Tasian's obvious ceramic links with the Sudan. If the Tasian must be considered as a seperate cultural entity then it might represent a nomadic culture with a Sudanese background and which interacted with the Badarian Culture. Despite the existence of some excavated settlement sites the Badarian Culture is mainly known from cemeteries in the low desert. All graves are simply pit burials often incorporating a mat on which the body was placed. Bodies are normally in a loosely contracted position on the left side and with the head to the south looking west.
Analysis of Badarian grave goods and the placement of the wealthier graves in one part of the cemetery clearly seems to indicate social stratification which still seems limited at this point in Egyptian prehistory but which became increasingly important throughout the subsequent Naqada Period.
The pottery that accompanies the dead in their graves is the most characteristic element of the Badarian Culture. The rippled surface that is present on the finest pottery comes from the surface having been combed with an instrument and then afterwards polished to result in a very decorative effect.
The lithic industry is mainly known from settlement sites although the finest examples have been found in graves. It is principally a flake and blade industry to which a limited number of remarkable bifacial worked tools are added. Predominant tools are end-scrapers -- perforators -- retouched pieces. Bifacial tools consist mainly of axes -- bifacial sickles -- concave-base arrowheads. It should also be noted that the characteristic side-blow flakes were also present in the Western Desert.
For a long time it was thought that the Badarian Culture remained restricted to the Badari region. Characteristic Badari finds have however also been found much further to the south at Mahgar Dendera -- Armant-- Elkab -- Hierakonpolis and also to the east in the Wadi Hammamat.
Originally the Badarian Culture was considered a chronologically seperate unit out of which the Naqada Culture developed. However the situation is certainly far more complex. For instance the Naqada I Period seems to be poorly represented in the Badari region; therefore it has been suggested that the Badarian was largely contemporary with the Naqada I Culture in the area to the south of the Badari region. However since a limited number of Badarian or related artefacts have also been discovered south of Badari it might instead be argued that the Badarian Culture was present between at least the Badari region and Hierakonpolis.
Unfortunately most of these finds are very limited in number and a comparison with the lithic industry or the settlement ceramics from the Badari area is in most cases impossible or has not yet been published. The Badarian Culture may therefore have been characterised by regional differences with the unit in the Badari region itself being the only one that has so far been properly investigated or attested. On the other hand a more or less uniform Badarian Culture may have been represented over the whole area between Badari and Hierakonpolis but since the development of the Naqada Culture [also] took place more to the south it seems quite possible that the Badarian survived for a longer time in the Badari region itself.
The origins of the Badarian are equally problematic. It seems that the Badarian Culture did not appear from a single source although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one. On the other hand the provenance of domesticated plants remains controversial; an origin in the Levant via the Lower Egyptian Faiyum and Merimda Cultures might be possible.
Evidence from Badarian settlements shows that the economy of the culture was primarily based on agriculture and animal husbandry. Among the content of storage facilities wheat -- barley -- lentils -- tubers have been found. Furthermore fishing was certainly very important and may have been the principal economic activity during certain period of the year. Hunting on the other hand was apparently of marginal importance... ---Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2003)
The main difference between Tasian and Badarian is that the former is strictly neolithic while the latter is chalcolithic in that copper is used. It was once thought that copper working was introduced from Asia, but evidence shows it was actually present in Lower Nubia prior to Egypt. We know that the Tasian is of Sudanese descent not only from the chiseled calcium beakers but also from a secondary type of pottery known as the black-top which is predominantly found in the Sudan and is characteristic of the Qustul culture as well as subsequent 'Nubian' cultures like Kush etc. Though the Badarian culture seems to have strong roots in the Western desert (perhaps Kharga Oasis being an early center), some other aspects also point to the south such as Nile boat theme depicted on the sides of Badarian homes and on artifacts, and the motif is repeated even more extensively in the Naqada period. We know such a motif is found earliest in the Khartoum Mesolithic. Oh and of course while certain species of plants were adopted from the Levant for agricultural purposes, there is no evidence that people were acquired or that agriculture itself was introduced to the area. Also, the Naqada culture particularly Naqada I shares strong resemblance to the Qustul culture of Lower Egypt. So we have evidence of Libyan and Sudanese input that led to the culmination of pharaonic culture, particularly Sudanese. And you wonder why some so-called experts are no scrambling to separate the Sudan from Sub-Sahara as well.
Good refresher on the Badarians and Tasians, though I tend to think that the common ancestors of the Badarians and contemporary Sudanese samples uncovered so far, date further back in time. I favor the Western Desert explanation, ie located to the west of what would later become ''middle Egypt'' because Badari culture is found in ''middle Egypt'', and because of their teeth, and slighter lower values for their intralimb indices, and other cranial peculiarities, which taken together suggest to me that they evolved in their own direction for some time. A better case may be made, in my opinion, for the Naqadans, because they show a higher intralimb index index among other things.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
From Harris and Wente, a quote that has not been posted here before:
"Thutmose has a much more rounded cranium (than Amenhotep), and prognathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as of the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of Nubians from the ancient cemetaries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II ( Appendix Table A1)" --Harris and Wente: An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
^^Never saw this one- good. WHich Thutmose are they referring to re the rounded cranium- Thutmo1 or 2?
------------------------------
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Makes me wonder what Adams, Godde etc think the name ''Meroitic'' stands for, if not the ancient city between the 5th and 6th cataracts.
Did you see Sundjata's email reply to good on our ZB staff forums? He also posted it on FB. Here is what she says in regards:
Oh well I guess. She is so confusing and I think is herself confused with terminology (e.g., sub-Saharan Africans)
quote:I favor the Western Desert explanation, ie located to the west of what would later become ''middle Egypt'' because Badari culture is found in ''middle Egypt'', and because of their teeth, and slighter lower values for their intralimb indices, and other cranial peculiarities, which taken together suggest to me that they evolved in their own direction for some time
I agree. I think the limb ratios of the Badarian can be taken as a long term residence of a sub-tropical climate. Furthermore, the western desert of Egypt was, in the past, generally Arid but only with short humid phases, so it seems likely that the western desert is a likely scenario.
quote:Never saw this one- good. WHich Thutmose are they referring to re the rounded cranium- Thutmo1 or 2?
Thutmose I. But I would also suspect it doesn't matter since they note similarities between the two. I'll have to look at the X-Rays again
[ 29. April 2011, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: ausar ]
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Over at ESR this (Arab?) guy truthfully notes consistencies between Egyptians and Arabs paternally in terms of DNA, the main question he has is J and when m267 which might be Ethiopian entered Egypt(?). As per some 2006 study and others it first entered North Africa from Arabia in the Islamic era but I'm not aware who was sampled and I believe some of the Egyptian J may predate this event.
^ I don't know if the guy is Arab or not, but I do know of Ethiopians like Yom who identify the origins of hg J in southern Arabia, particularly the island of Socotra where it is most prevalent.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Good refresher on the Badarians and Tasians, though I tend to think that the common ancestors of the Badarians and contemporary Sudanese samples uncovered so far, date further back in time. I favor the Western Desert explanation, ie located to the west of what would later become ''middle Egypt'' because Badari culture is found in ''middle Egypt'', and because of their teeth, and slighter lower values for their intralimb indices, and other cranial peculiarities, which taken together suggest to me that they evolved in their own direction for some time. A better case may be made, in my opinion, for the Naqadans, because they show a higher intralimb index index among other things.
So you agree then that the Badari were from Western Desert while Naqada is from Nubia. This was my belief all along. I believe the Badari represent a branch of people that share common origins with early Libyans like Uan Muhuggiag while the Naqadans represent a branch of people who share origins with the Setjau of Ta-Seti.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Thutmose I. But I would also suspect it doesn't matter since they note similarities between the two. I'll have to look at the X-Rays again.
If you have more quotes directly from the original X-Ray study that would be great. Thanks.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:As per some 2006 study and others it first entered North Africa from Arabia in the Islamic era but I'm not aware who was sampled and I believe some of the Egyptian J may predate this event
Yeah. They say that high frequencies of J1-M267 in populations sampled may Subsequently be the result of more recent demographic events. But they do say:
"Older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)"--Cadenas et al. (2007)
So it does seem as if J1 in some Egyptians may well have predated the Arab invasion. In Sudan Hassan et al. attribute the frequencies of J to Arab occupation.
quote:The data suggest expansion from the north during the Neolithic (or perhaps more recently), which is also reflected in the lower STR variances in southern Arabia (0.14 for Qatar, 0.15 for UAE, 0.20 for Yemen and 0.27 for Oman4 versus 0.31 in Egypt4 and 0.51 in Turkey12). Subsequently, a series of recent demographic events may account for the high haplogroup frequency of J1-M267 in the populations from the present study.
--Cadenas et al. (2007)
What do you take from the above? Neolithic expansion is supported is supported by the low STR variances in populations vs. others that are reflective of more recent events?
quote:originally posted by Zaharan: If you have more quotes directly from the original X-Ray study that would be great. Thanks.
OK. I'll post some more later and scan the pages as well
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I don't know if the guy is Arab or not, but I do know of Ethiopians like Yom who identify the origins of hg J in southern Arabia, particularly the island of Socotra where it is most prevalent.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Good refresher on the Badarians and Tasians, though I tend to think that the common ancestors of the Badarians and contemporary Sudanese samples uncovered so far, date further back in time. I favor the Western Desert explanation, ie located to the west of what would later become ''middle Egypt'' because Badari culture is found in ''middle Egypt'', and because of their teeth, and slighter lower values for their intralimb indices, and other cranial peculiarities, which taken together suggest to me that they evolved in their own direction for some time. A better case may be made, in my opinion, for the Naqadans, because they show a higher intralimb index index among other things.
So you agree then that the Badari were from Western Desert while Naqada is from Nubia. This was my belief all along. I believe the Badari represent a branch of people that share common origins with early Libyans like Uan Muhuggiag while the Naqadans represent a branch of people who share origins with the Setjau of Ta-Seti.
Djehuty Do you remember anything about a paper that surfaced on ES wherein it was said that cranial changes associated with the Neolithic occured in Egypt prior to the rest of the world? I remember that some ES members took that to mean that agriculture started in Egypt. I did not know the significance of it back then, so I just read it and forgot about it. Now that I'm more knowledgeable I want to look at it again and see if I can make connections based on what I know now about the Badarians and other pre-historic Egyptians. Do you know what study I'm referring to, if so, can you help me track it down?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:originally posted by Zaharan: If you have more quotes directly from the original X-Ray study that would be great. Thanks.
OK. I'll post some more later and scan the pages as well
Yeah that'd be nice.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
OK. I'll do it soon. It just occurred to me that I may be able to scan part a book and make it a PDF.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:originally posted by Zaharan: If you have more quotes directly from the original X-Ray study that would be great. Thanks.
OK. I'll post some more later and scan the pages as well
Yeah that'd be nice.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Djehuty Do you remember anything about a paper that surfaced on ES wherein it was said that cranial changes associated with the Neolithic occured in Egypt prior to the rest of the world? I remember that some ES members took that to mean that agriculture started in Egypt. I did not know the significance of it back then, so I just read it and forgot about it. Now that I'm more knowledgeable I want to look at it again and see if I can make connections based on what I know now about the Badarians and other pre-historic Egyptians. Do you know what study I'm referring to, if so, can you help me track it down?
I'm not sure. I do remember a paper presented here which spoke of early cranial modifications associated with neolithic, but I don't remember if they stated this was the earliest in the world. I'm going to try to look in the archives on this. In the mean time what I do know is that the predecessors of the Mushabeans in Lower Egypt were the Sebilian culture in Upper Egypt and the Kadan culture of Nubia which were extensively cultivating and grinding wild grains, and Egyptologists think these may led into the first total sedentary settlements in the Nile Valley.
This is probably what Explorer meant whenever he questioned a notion that some people bring up every now and then about agriculture being introduced to Egypt. There appears to be no evidence from linguistic in vocabulary (other than the names of certain plants imported from Asia) of any agricultural techniques or processes coming from Asia. And the presence of such cranial modifications may support further indigenous agrarian activity.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Yeah I don't think the paper said the earliest in the world explicitly, but definitely early enough that the poster of the abstract would use it to propose that agriculture arose in Africa first, at least earlier than in the Levant.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Are you thinking of the one where dental reduction in the Nile Valley is associated with agriculture over a 10,000yr period (or something like that)?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild used to believe that agriculture emerged first in Egypt but they later retracted these conclusions due to flawed methods in dating.
Also, I'm not exactly sure how a change in subsistence would effect the cranium. I don't recall reading anything to that effect but van gerven talks a lot about punctuated evolution due to dramatic changes in climate.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
There appears to be no evidence from linguistic in vocabulary (other than the names of certain plants imported from Asia) of any agricultural techniques or processes coming from Asia
I'm not even sure that this is the case. Keita and Boyce point out with surprise, that the names for the major near eastern domesticates are not loan words. Conversely, ancient Egyptian has many loan words from eastern Sahelian and Chadic languages.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ My bad, you're absolutely right. The words for the Asian domesticates are definitely not loan words but Egyptian in origin. Many scholars think that the early Delta peoples just happened to adopt the crops on their own and applied their own vocabulary to them.
But as I said there is evidence of peoples along the Nile Valley harvesting and grinding wild grains before consumption well before the Natufian period.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
No luck finding the abstract yet
I know I'm not imagining things because it isn't the first time I'm unable to find abstracts posted somewhere, especially on ES, with (combinations of) keywords that proved to be indeed included in those texts verbatim.
quote:Also, I'm not exactly sure how a change in subsistence would effect the cranium. I don't recall reading anything to that effect but van gerven talks a lot about punctuated evolution due to dramatic changes in climate.
Like I said, I didn't know how to interpret those finds back then so I'm only guessing here, but I'm thinking they're referring to global changes that are said to have occurred after the late pleistocene.
quote:^Are you thinking of the one where dental reduction in the Nile Valley is associated with agriculture over a 10,000yr period (or something like that)?
No, not of it doesn't allude to changes in Egyptian material, that occured earlier than in other regions.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
oh. I didn't read that study yet,
oh, I'll get the pdf
oh, I'm unable to find the abstracts,
oh, I'll PM you,
oh, scratch my back I have an itch
oh, lower
enough already
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It irritates you when people actually discuss intelligent things in this forum (as they should) instead of the stupidity you indulge in. Too bad.
To Kalonji: It is definitely a pain finding one source out of many in this forum. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. I hope Zarahan has better luck since I believe he's been going through the archives more extensively (?)
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Another quote from Harris and Wente:
"Generally, the definition of each New Kingdom pharaoh and queen represents a unique combination of dental characteristics, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from x-rays of the definition alone. The observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to Forensic specialists. Dental alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharaohs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah, and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the 21st dynasty (fig 9.10). Other Royal Mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep III had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people or the Western world (fig 9.11). In summary, then, the pharaohs and queens of the New Kingdom- a period of almost 500 years-- were heterogeneous from the viewpoint of facial profile dental occlusion" (X-Ray Atlas of Royal Mummies pgs 322-323)
Even though the observation of a straight dental profile itself does not need foreign influence to explain.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Recall that other studies essentially confirm increased heterogeneity during the 18th dynasty/New Kingdom as well. Most recently the new Dabbs and Zakrzewski abstract from the AAPA conference. Though you're right in that even here they conclude that the inhabitants came from throughout Egypt and not from outside.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Yeah, that's true on increasing heterogeneity. Harris and Wente say this and later they mention princes and princesses from conquered nations as well.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
One article titled:
Biological and Ethnic Identity In New Kingdom Nubia: A Case Study from Tombos
Concludes that Nubian samples were more variable than the Egyptians ones... but the study is just so erroneous. Basically it says the following:
1)Nubians and Egyptians can be distinguished by cranial-morphology
2)Egyptian gene flow into Sudan is more ancient than Sudanese gene flow into Egypt
Among other things. She (the author) also makes a mention of Nubians generally have broader faces etc., etc.,
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I've read that a long time ago, it's by Buzon who worked under Stuart Tyson Smith (the guy who wrote that book on "Wretched Kush"--which I have if you need a copy). However, if you read it closely it wasn't so straight forward. She (Buzon) even mentions that they were hard to distinguish cranio-facially at times, writing that "these groups have very similar features", so she mainly relied on burial arrangement. If I recall, "Nubians" were buried facing west in a fetal position while Egyptians had some other burial posture/orientation. That's mainly how she identified them. Godde cites her and addresses her methods as well, saying they were different from hers and her (Buzon's) goal was NOT to assess biological affinity as was the goal of Godde's.
^At the same time, Buzon has two studies out like that (which are very similar) so I'm not sure If I'm mentioning the same study (will look it up later).
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:However, if you read it closely it wasn't so straight forward. She (Buzon) even mentions that they were hard to distinguish cranio-facially at times, writing that "these groups have very similar features", so she mainly relied on burial arrangement.
Yes, she did acknowledge that "such a clear cut distinction" between the two could be made based on the Nubian heterogeneity. However, she does classify groups into Egyptian and Nubian based on cranial morphology. Then, she says that Egyptian gene flow into Nubia likely accounted for their variability something addressed by Williams et al. and Keita. And she did say in her article that Nubians tended to have broader noses.
quote:writing that "these groups have very similar features",
Really? Then what do you make of this:
"Nubians tend to have broader and shorter noses than Egyptians. It is likely that people living during the period in which Tombos was occupied also displayed such differences."
quote:If I recall, "Nubians" were buried facing west in a fetal position while Egyptians had some other burial posture/orientation. That's mainly how she identified them. Godde cites her and addresses her methods as well, saying they were different from hers and her (Buzon's) goal was NOT to assess biological affinity as was the goal of Godde's.
OK.
quote:^At the same time, Buzon has two studies out like that (which are very similar) so I'm not sure If I'm mentioning the same study (will look it up later).
Actually, she has three. One on the Tombos, another on Migration into the Nile Valley during the New Kingdom, an Isotope case study and another on Tooth enamel from Tombos...
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I wouldn't doubt that the Sudanese groups she studied generally had broader noses. Doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I'll dig it up in a minute to refresh my memory on all of the specifics. In the meantime, here is what Godde had to say about her conclusions:
quote:Despite the biological similarities between the two populations, the Nubians appear relatively homogeneous. The homogeneity is consistent with Carlson and Van Gerven's (1979) in situ hypothesis, but contradicts the findings of Buzon (2006). Buzon (2006) found a high level of heterogeneity in the Nubian samples she examined, including individuals from Kerma and the C-Group. Moreover, the Egyptian samples in her study were homogeneous overall, consistent with Berry et al. (1967) and the results in this paper. However, the levels of homogeneity appear to be similar within Nubians and within Egyptians in this study. The differences between this research and Buzon's (2006) work may be related to the statistics used. Buzon's (2006) goal was not to look at biological affinities; rather, she was trying to establish identity among her individuals by associating it with archaeological material. While this paper used a biological distance approach to investigate past population relationships, her paper used factor analysis, principal components, and a least squares regression. Although these (hers and those used here) statistics all have a solid methodological basis, they measure population relationships in two different manners and the results between them are not entirely comparable.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:^I wouldn't doubt that the Sudanese groups she studies generally had broader noses. Doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Maybe. But my issue is She seemed to be applying this to Nubians in general by saying that they tended to have broader noses than Egyptians and thereafter saying that these differences were likely present in Tombos as well. Then she said that the variability of Nubians is likely attributed to Egyptian gene flow.
quote:I'll dig it up in a minute to refresh my memory on all of the specifics.
OK....
quote:In the meantime, here is what Godde had to say about her conclusions:
Yes, I realize what Godde said. She is correct that Buzon tried to establish identity. She did so by burials and also said that she could categorize individuals as Egyptian or Nubian based on cranial morphology.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I smell the influence of Batrawi at work.
I'm sure all of you are familiar with his 1945 paper "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" from JRAI:
Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Lower Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebald, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.
In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
I swear it is Batrawi's thesis being constantly rehashed time and again by newer anthropologists in the field despite the latest technology and more accurate techniques. If it ain't Batrawi at work then obviously these folks share the same racialist mentality. Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Egyptian (obviously Badarians, but also Naqadan and middle kingdom Southern Egyptian samples) and Nubian samples throughout had Nasal indices of 50+ but below 55, I believe, with Nigerian samples often going into 90%, in the studies I've seen (probably not that varied in samples), and Sumerian samples just below 50.
Keita also describes Kerma and Naqadan samples as possessing blurred margins in their nasal skeleton, which I presume to be a non metric trait. There is a chart that floats around with the Nasal index of various saharan peoples, and it has their egyptian sample at a Nasal index lower than 50.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So there are people in Sahelian West Africa who have nasal indices below than 50 as well. This is why anthropologists need to stop with all the racialist nonsense.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Yeah. I mean, she acknowledged Nubian heterogeneity, yet at the same time applies the Nubian stereotype and attributes any heterogeneity to gene flow with Egyptians.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^So I WAS thinking of the wrong Buzon study. The one I have is on the isotopic analysis. Here's the part that I was referring to:
quote:7.4. Variation by biological affinity
These data on the strontium isotope ratios of predicted groups are difficult to interpret, as the differences between Egyptian and Nubian cranial morphology are far from straightforward. [Although Egyptian samples examined by Buzon (2006) appeared to form a more morphologically homogenous group than the Nubians, it is clear that these ancient Egyptians and Nubians share many similar features. Several individuals with Egyptian cranial morphology are within the local range. This finding that some individuals who appear local in their strontium isotope ratios would have Egyptian cranial morphology is expected. Considering the time span of the cemetery (1400e1050 AD), it is probable that Egyptian immigrants would have had children at Tombos, who would then have the local strontium isotopic signature in their dental enamel as well as Egyptian cranial morphology []......It is also possible that cranial morphology cannot accurately predict to which ethnic group an individual belongs. A previous examination of Egyptian and Nubian cranial features suggests that Nubians are a morphologically more variable group than Egyptians (some individuals buried as ethnic Nubians with more Egyptian cranial features) (Buzon, 2006). This obscures the connection between cranial morphology and ethnic indicators, highlighting the disparity between different types of identity. This study calls attention to an additional kind of identity, geographic origin, which also may not correspond with ideas of ethnic and biological affinities
^So I see what you mean by her misguided emphasis on explaining the Sudanese variation as being attributable to Egyptian influence but it's just a null hypothesis based on the results from her methods. As Godde implied, she used less reliable statistics to assess biological affinities. If she found that the Sudanese were homogeneous but still similar, she probably wouldn't even be able to differentiate. She's isolating certain features that she feel are important distinguishing characteristics, not overall biological distance. Since the Egyptians are more homogeneous according to her, she's of course going to attribute any uniquely shared characteristics to Egyptian influence.
The fact that these uniquely shared characteristics go back prior to the new kingdom makes that idea misguided anyways. She's a recent graduate like Godde and probably has never studied material outside of the New Kingdom occupational period and if you notice her bibliography she isn't exactly relying on other work in the area to build a better narrative.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
The weird thing about Godde's recent denial of a relationship between Nile Valley Africans and sub-Saharan Africans is that she said the following in her 2009 paper:
quote:On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).
If she's acknowledging a relationship between Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans here, why doesn't she recognize one between Nubians and sub-Saharans now?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I've learned to separate what people say and what people publish. I actually put less stock in what people say they think personally in an off-the-cuff conversation as opposed to what they've had plenty of time to think about. Maybe it's one of those deals where in Charlie's case she didn't like being challenged so saw it as an exercise.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. I've always noticed that some individuals in academia seem to have a disconnect with the work they publish but this Godde chick's disconnect seems to be schizo.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': From Harris and Wente, a quote that has not been posted here before:
"Thutmose has a much more rounded cranium (than Amenhotep), and prognathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as of the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of Nubians from the ancient cemetaries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II ( Appendix Table A1)"--Harris and Wente: An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
Checked it out a while ago...
Somebody else did an analysis of the same book, though I'm not too sure of his credentials:
Since we know their daughter Tiye exhibited equally strong African features I don't see how Yuya could not have.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Its from the Book of the dead scroll that was found in his tomb. It contains (an)other image(s) of him, which I have stored somewhere on my HD. I'll look it up and post it later.
For whatever its worth, Xyyman posted a quote somewhere that said Yuya had a cephalic index of 70%, but the report is unreliable, as it describes KV55 (presum. Akhenaten) and Tut as being Brachycephalic, which we know is bogus.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Tjuya and Yuya standing before Ausar in the Book of the dead.
Translation of the text: ''Adoring osiris, kissing the ground before Unefris. Said by the devine father of the lord of the two lands. The fsvoured of the good god Yuya''
One of Yuya's titles was ''father of god'' since his daughter was Queen Tiye. Yuya's Book of the dead resides at the Cairo museum.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Let me just scan a couple pages then upload them and I'll start the thread
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Don't know what Harris and Wente had to say about it but apparently many scholars believed Yuya to have been a foreigner. Quoting ausar:
quote:Many Eurocentrics have used the Yuya mummy to often prove that caucasians were predominant in Ancient Kmt. We find this to a claim that is never supported by concrete data. Yuya,an offical in Waset, seems to have had a Eur-Asian origin. The wife of Yuya Thuya,which would later to become the mother of Queen Tiy is of Egyptian stock. Her mummy is morphoogicaly different than that of Yuya's.
Sir Grafton Smith found out when he examined the mummies that Yuya fits the profiles of foreginers than he does of Egyptians.
Here's what anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote about this mummy, after examining it in 1905:
"The form of the face (and especially the nose) is such as we find more commonly in Europe than in Egypt."
Indeed, the distinctly foreign (i.e. "Semitic") characteristics of Yuya's mummy were sufficiently pronounced as to move Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman to speculate, in his book "Stranger in the Valley of the Kings" (Harper * Row, 1987) that Yuya might have been the Hebrew patriarch Joseph
About Thuya which was Yuya's wife:
Like the mummy of her husband the wrappings of the mummy of Thuya had been severly damaged by robbers.
The bandages have been covered with black resin,which still bear the impression of stolen jewerly.
The mummy presents some unusual features for the Period.
The emablimng incision is almost vertical and has been sewn up with a string. No plate covers the wound,which gapes open,exposing the linen packing filling the body cavity.
The arms are fully extended with the palms of the hand flattened against the thighs.
The mummy is of a small old lady with typical Egyptian features who was possibly over fifty when she died.
Thuya has scantly white hair,know turned yellow by the materials used in the embalimng \, On the top her head the hair is very thing much like a pony tail in photographs,are in fact,the remains of the linen wrappings around the head and back of the neck of the mummy
page 112-113
Faces of the Pharoahs
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
The Grafton Smith quote on Yuya is misleading, and not at all representative of what Grafton thought about Yuya's origins. In the surrounding text (where Ausar's restricted quote comes from) he makes it clear that he leans towards an indigenous origin for Yuya.
I'll post the full quote in CB's new thread.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
OK, working on it now
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: The Grafton Smith quote on Yuya is misleading, and not at all representative of what Grafton thought about Yuya's origins. In the surrounding text (where Ausar's restricted quote comes from) he makes it clear that he leans towards an indigenous origin for Yuya.
I'll post the full quote in CB's new thread.
I thought as much since nothing in his features look unusual for Egyptians. I wish there as Harris and Wente study for him or some other anatomist or anthropologist.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
up...
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
She just came out with yet another article published online a few days ago:
Haven't had time to read it yet. I do find it a little strange though...
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Calabooz'
You're right Calabooz the abstract states that Nubians did not develop from in situ evolution.
It seems Kanya wants to muddy the waters when it comes to Nubians like many people try and do before her. Hopefully she explains what she means.
Peace
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Reading the full context now to get a better understanding of her results. Although, I agree. It seems as if her findings on Nubian biological evolution aren't very consistent. One thing is for sure though, she believes that there was in situ evolution as well as some form of biological diffusion which would have been necessary. She makes this clear in her email with Bass, and the results of her articles. Another thing we know is that the gene flow of Sudan-Egypt has been bi-directional. The gene flow from Sudan to Egypt would have been ancient, as well as Egypt to Sudan (although some flawed studies have stated that the north to south gene flow is more ancient, the methods used seriously mess up the results obtained). In any event, the Egyptians and Sudanese do share common origins
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^She actually used a different approach to study biological distance by evaluating it in the context of spacial-temporal relationships. For instance, if the A-group were slightly different, but most closely related to Kerma than Kerma was related to Christian Nubia, that would support in situ evolution because A-group and Kerma populations are closer in time and space.
But if say, Qustul specimens (3100 BC) from Lower Nubia clustered with Dongola Nubian specimens (652 A.D.) from upper Nubia before they did with a Kerma (2000 B.C.) specimen in Lower Nubia, wouldn't that be odd?
These are the type of results she reported, hence, such results "did not support the in situ hypothesis". However, she does clarify and you are right, she agrees with the overall evidence showing these to simply be related Sudanese populations, if not successively so via lineage.
quote:The temporal findings using statistical analysis are not consistent with the in situ hypothesis. However, some of the individual biological distances are consistent with the spatial–temporal model, which would partially support in situ evolution. For instance, the two samples from the Christian period are the most distantly related and are separated by less time than most of the other samples. Moreover, the temporally distant samples were more closely related than the temporally similar samples (e.g. Kerma versus X-Group and Kerma versus Christians). Thus, an inverse relationship of time and biological distance is present among some of the groups. Again, a high variation due to evolutionary forces may have obscured the patterning in statistical analysis. Another explanation may, indeed, be gene flow from extraregional populations, **although both the archaeology (Adams, 1977) and the biological data (e.g. Irish, 2005) do not support this notion**.
--Godde (2011)
^Good find by the way. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Sundjata
Thanks for explaining the study.
It seemed odd that she would finish her abstract the way she did...but that was probably just to get more attention to her article.
In the end Nubians are as African as any other Group and Egyptians are not that far behind.
Peace
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
OK yeah - the full context gives a better understanding than the abtract, of course. The new method she used interested me from her observations in the abstract, I understand where she's coming from now. More later... Good summarization too
Since Godde (2011) brings it up, was Joel Irish (2005) the study that concluded significant gene flow/replacement in the pleistocene but continuity afterwards? What would did he suppose the source for population replacement come from anyways?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
OK, I see. In her abstract she does mention how an inverse relationship was expected under this model, now I understand better what she meant. She also notes how her 2010 article focused on the interpretation of biological relationships (and it supported the in situ hypothesis),
The in situ hypothesis was not supported by the statistical analysis because there wasn't a significant correlation between biological variation and the expectations of the spatial-temporal model (that being that over time these groups would become more genetically similar) not forming into a cluster. However as she goes on to subsequently mention, the cause for this pattern may be the terrain used to travel by Nubians or the Isolation by distance model not being appropriate for her Nubian samples as was the case in Zakrzewski (2007)
quote:In order to understand why spatial correlations are not present, we must examine the archaeological and historical records. During the Kerma and Merotic periods, trade flourished in Nubia (Adams, 1977). Although travel has been documented to occur on land along the river (Adams, 1977), portions of the Nile are difficult to navigate (cataracts, sheer cliffs) both on land and in the river, making travel along that course improbable. Rather, a combination of travel along the river and a nonlinear course across land probably acted as a route for travel among these particular sites. If a combination of paths were adopted, analysis of either river or linear distances will not detect spacial associations and are not a proper means to asses population structure in these groups.
Similarly, Mantel tests reported a non-significant correlation between biological and temporal distances. Thus, the biological variation among these samples is not consistent with the temporal expectations, in general, under the spatial-temporal model of Konigsberg (1990); as time passed these groups did not become more genetically similar to one another. Zakrzewski (2007) also lacked significant correlations between time and biological distances, leading her to conclude that the isolation by distance model is not appropriate for her Egyptian samples. This may also be the case in the current study. However, Godde (2010) recorded high biological variation among Nubian samples spanning from the Mesolithic through Christian periods, as evidenced in Fst estimates (ranging from 0.0328 to 0.1214) that exceeds Jorde's (1980) estimates of worldwide populations. It is possible that the high variation in Nubians masked the temporal (and spatial) patterning, rendering the application of the temporal-spatial model ineffective
--K. Godde (2011)
This study is not negating the in situ hypothesis. Her 2010 article interpreted the biological relationships which supported the in situ this study as Sundjata pointed out uses a different method. It looks like the model used is not appropriate for her samples (due in part to the high biological variation that is NOT the result of admixture, the analysis of distances which are not good for the population structure, among other factors).
I look forward to her future work. The Nubian biological evolution is fascinating Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:due in part to the high biological variation that is NOT the result of admixture, the analysis of distances which are not good for the population structure, among other factors
Ironically, this contradicts her 2010 conclusions in another way and agrees with Buzon which suggested that "Nubians" were heterogeneous, when Godde (2010) found them to be homogeneous. It's all about the methodology.
Kanya Godde is actually a pretty sound researcher imo, Charlie just caught a bad wrap and some of us may have initially misinterpreted her. I still think she relies too much on Krings and Adams though.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Ironically, this contradicts her 2010 conclusions in another way and agrees with Buzon which suggested that "Nubians" were heterogeneous, when Godde (2010) found them to be homogeneous. It's all about the methodology.
True, it is all in the methods used. I do remember from her earlier article that the main focus was to interpret the biological variation relative to the competing theories on the biological evolution of Nubians. Although, in her recent article she says the 2010 one found high levels of biological variation(?)
quote:Kanya Godde is actually a pretty sound researcher imo, Charlie just caught a bad wrap and some of us may have initially misinterpreted her. I still think she relies too much on Krings and Adams.
I agree. I'm going to try and find her other articles and also be on alert for future publications she may have on Nubian biological evolution.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LOL, this one is so self defeating that I'm going to leave it alone.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
