Interesting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This was discussed before in regards to idealized portraits vs. acutal appearance of Egyptian individuals.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another X ray of a person with African morphology (prognathous profile) inside a coffin with an ortochnathous profile below:
Father: Ahmose, Mother: Ahmes-Nefertary Rounded glabella, sloping forehead, sagittal plateau, rounded occiput. Zygomatic arches project forward. Moderate protrusion of upper incisors and pronounced prognathism. Receding chin and steeply inclined mandible.
Not to mention post-bregmatic depression.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
One thing that always struck me about Amenhotep I's sarcophagus, was how feminine it looked!
It makes me wonder if his was a case of rushed burial.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
As we can see on the bottom right, the CT scan reveals the entire form of the skull. The nasal bone is there intact and the shape of the maxilla (the upper jaw) is clear but not so in the older x-rays at left.
In the X-ray at left we can see the nasal bone and cheek area under the eye socket is not showing, it's like an empty space and when you compare the jaw shape to the CT scan you can see the x-ray lacks the accurate form. It shows that single x-rays are not reliable for analysis of the facial structure although quite good for skull shape. If X-rays are used to show the skulls, you need additional x-rays at a different if you want to clarify the facial structure. The CT scans uses multiple images that are combined by computer to show a continuous solid structure and can also be set to do cross sectional slices. The CT scan clarifies the earlier ambiguities and missing parts of the decades earlier x-rays
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One thing that always struck me about Amenhotep I's sarcophagus, was how feminine it looked!
It makes me wonder if his was a case of rushed burial.
It could have been for a ritualistic purpose to portrayal the sarcophag that way.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
This is the upper part of a limestone Osiride statue of Amenhotep I. 18th Dynasty, reign of Amenhotep I, circa 1525-1504 BC. From Western Thebes, Deir el-Bahri, Temple of Amenhotep I, modern-day Egypt. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1905. It is currently housed in the British Museum in London.
Relief of Amenhotep I, from Karnak. Limestone. New Kingdom, Dynasty XVIII, c. 1514–1493 BC.
A picture of Amenhotep I created during the reign of Ramses XI as part of his funeral cult.
Taken from "Egyptian Art", Metropolitan Institute of Art, 1983.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One thing that always struck me about Amenhotep I's sarcophagus, was how feminine it looked!
It makes me wonder if his was a case of rushed burial.
It could have been for a ritualistic purpose to portray the sarcophagus that way.
Are you suggesting some sort of magico-ritual of gender-shift as discussed here?? Kara Cooney cites evidence of identitive theurgy, that is invoking to become a deity (in this case Ausar) to resurrect. What evidence do you have of Egyptian men taking on the identity of a female after death?
On the other hand, there are many examples of mummies being put in coffins that don't belong to them or tombs that are not theirs due to their burials being rushed because of some crisis that may put the mummies at risk of destruction. This was discussed before.
In some instances the bodies of royals had to be literally stashed in hidden chaches with no coffins at all!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
As we can see on the bottom right, the CT scan reveals the entire form of the skull. The nasal bone is there intact and the shape of the maxilla (the upper jaw) is clear but not so in the older x-rays at left.
In the X-ray at left we can see the nasal bone and cheek area under the eye socket is not showing, it's like an empty space and when you compare the jaw shape to the CT scan you can see the x-ray lacks the accurate form. It shows that single x-rays are not reliable for analysis of the facial structure although quite good for skull shape. If X-rays are used to show the skulls, you need additional x-rays at a different if you want to clarify the facial structure. The CT scans uses multiple images that are combined by computer to show a continuous solid structure and can also be set to do cross sectional slices. The CT scan clarifies the earlier ambiguities and missing parts of the decades earlier x-rays
Yes we all know the difference between the results of x-ray and those of CT scans. X-rays only show the very hard parts wherease CT shows softer parts including bones that are not as hard as others. Still this does not change the assessment of Harris and Wente which I cited.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: this does not change the assessment of Harris and Wente which I cited.
of course it does
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
this does not change the assessment of Harris and Wente which I cited.
of course it does
How so?!! Their assessment based on x-rays and thus hard cranial features should not change just because a CT scan adds other softer parts to the skull! LMAO
Rounded glabella, sloping forehead, sagittal plateau, rounded occiput. Zygomatic arches project forward. Moderate protrusion of upper incisors and pronounced prognathism. Receding chin and steeply inclined mandible.
The description above still matches the CT scan below. LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
By the way, how certain are we the mummy is really that of Amenhotep I and not say a brother of his?
Tomb and burial: The original location of Amenhotep's tomb has not been securely identified. A report on the security of royal tombs in the Theban Necropolis commissioned during the troubled reign of Ramesses IX noted that it was then intact, but its location was not specified.[10] Two sites for Amenhotep I's tomb have been proposed, one high up in the Valley of the Kings, KV39 and the other at Dra' Abu el-Naga', Tomb ANB.[13] Excavations at KV 39 suggest it was used or reused to store the Deir el-Bahri Cache, which included the king's well-preserved mummy, before its final reburial.[citation needed] However, Tomb ANB is considered the more likely possibility,[10][31] because it contains objects bearing his name and the names of some family members.[39]
The mummy in discussion is from ANB but what about the others?
this does not change the assessment of Harris and Wente which I cited.
of course it does
How so?!! Their assessment based on x-rays and thus hard cranial features should not change just because a CT scan adds other softer parts to the skull! LMAO
Rounded glabella, sloping forehead, sagittal plateau, rounded occiput. Zygomatic arches project forward. Moderate protrusion of upper incisors and pronounced prognathism. Receding chin and steeply inclined mandible.
because the so called "pronounced prognathism" was speculation since the x-ray did not even register that part of the skull. The CT scan has revealed that x-ray was deficient in information. The thread is about a CT scan not an old x-ray
I wasn't even thinking about the old x-ray or prognathism when I posted this CT scan
But for you it's some kind or priority and you saw the CT scan and thought Oh no, that doesn't look prognathic enough I've got to show the old x-ray, prognathism is under attack. So then you post the old x-ray and it doesn't even show the nasal none or much of the front of the skull and we can also see the jaw structure captured by the x-ray is misleading when compared to the CT scan which uses multiple X-rays and has much more definition. No, this skull doesn't have "pronounced prognathism". That is BS and the earlier analysis is wrong. This doesn't mean I hate prognathism. It just means "pronounced is not there, there is no "protrusion of upper incisors". Yes, science gets updated sometimes, more information is revealed.
And now just as back up, now you are questioning the identity of the mummy It's like it's some kind of problem that there has to be "pronounced prognathism" for a mummy to legit
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
There is always a possibility of photoshop with the CT scan image... everything coming out of Egypt regarding ancient Egypt is political and propaganda....
Don't trust everything you see..
Or maybe not.. who knows? No one here can say for sure 100% that the CT scan image has never been altered.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: because the so called "pronounced prognathism" was speculation since the x-ray did not even register that part of the skull.
What the hell are you talking about?! Do you even know what prognathism is??! LOL
Prognathism is the forward projection of the face, specifically the jaw area.
^ The x-rays clearly show this to be case with the maxilla and dental area. There is no "speculation" about something so clear and obvious.
quote:The CT scan has revealed that x-ray was deficient in information. The thread is about a CT scan not an old x-ray
NO. I already told you, the x-ray only shows the hard skeletal features alone wheras a CT scan will add in softer tissue parts. When it comes to bony areas there is nothing "deficient" about an x-ray.
quote:I wasn't even thinking about the old x-ray or prognathism when I posted this CT scan.
No, you just weren't thinking at all except maybe subconsiously about your agenda.
quote:But for you it's some kind or priority and you saw the CT scan and thought Oh no, that doesn't look prognathic enough I've got to show the old x-ray, prognathism is under attack. So then you post the old x-ray and it doesn't even show the nasal none or much of the front of the skull..
Wrong again. I simply posted the old Harris & Wente x-ray photo just to do a simple compare and contrast with the new CT scan. I merely brought up the description as an add in, but apparently that hit a nerve as it betrayed your true intention in posting this thread. LOL
quote:and we can also see the jaw structure captured by the x-ray is misleading when compared to the CT scan which uses multiple X-rays and has much more definition. No, this skull doesn't have "pronounced prognathism". That is BS and the earlier analysis is wrong. This doesn't mean I hate prognathism. It just means "pronounced is not there, there is no "protrusion of upper incisors". Yes, science gets updated sometimes, more information is revealed.
The reason why Amenhotep's prognathism doesn't show as much in the CT scan is simply it is obfuscated by the fleshy parts. All bony features are easier to see when the flesh is not in the way.
It's basic anatomy which apparently flies over your malfunctioning head.
quote:And now just as back up, now you are questioning the identity of the mummy It's like it's some kind of problem that there has to be "pronounced prognathism" for a mummy to legit
Prognathism is just ONE of many traits he has in common with other Africans including PBD, but apparently it is YOU who is obsessed with that trait. Amenhotep I was prognathic. Get over it! Perhaps that ruins your Anatolian origin for Amarna theory. Too bad. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There is always a possibility of photoshop with the CT scan image... everything coming out of Egypt regarding ancient Egypt is political and propaganda....
Don't trust everything you see..
Or maybe not.. who knows? No one here can say for sure 100% that the CT scan image has never been altered.
No Yatunde. There is no white Eurocentric trickery involved. It's as I explained. X-rays gives you an image of the hard skull by itself. The CT scan will include softer tissue parts attached to the skull. That's why Amenhotep I's prognathism is not as prominent in the CT scan as it is in the x-ray.
Brandon and Tukuler have photoshop, all one has to do is show the outline of Amenhotep I's jaws and teeth just on the CT scan image and it's still there.
As a comparison looke at Amenhotep's descendant Tutankhamun and the difference in his x-ray vs. CT scan:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: CT shows softer parts including bones that are not as hard as others.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The reason why Amenhotep's prognathism doesn't show as much in the CT scan is simply it is obfuscated by the fleshy parts.
More BS. Before you said bones. Now you've switched to "fleshy" Meanwhile the x-ray doesn't show the nasal bone at all
CT Scan
there are no fleshy parts showing. That's why you can see these big holes. You are just degrading the thread now trying to save face. The topic is CT scan of Amenhotep I And you don't even see prognathism in the art of Amenhotep I like you do in Amenhotep III
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Apparently your reading comprehension is as screwy as Antalas. I never contradicted myself. X-ray shows hard bone only. CT scan shows all bone including bones that have become soft and other parts that are softer i.e. ligaments, muscle, skin etc. that is "fleshy". Amenhotep's prognathism is not "speculation" but is clear and obvious just like his descendant Tutankhamun as I've already shown.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
For theLioness and others who may be confused on the differences between regular X-ray and CT scan..
A computerized tomography (CT) scan combines a series of X-ray images taken from different angles around your body and uses computer processing to create cross-sectional images (slices) of the bones, blood vessels and soft tissues inside your body. CT scan images provide more-detailed information than plain X-rays do.
A CT scan has many uses, but it's particularly well-suited to quickly examine people who may have internal injuries from car accidents or other types of trauma. A CT scan can be used to visualize nearly all parts of the body and is used to diagnose disease or injury as well as to plan medical, surgical or radiation treatment.
Not only does a CT scanner have an X-ray machine that rotates around the body giving a 3D image, but the X-ray beams are shot in varying wave crests thus varying penetration which then gives different layers of the image.
The son of Ahmose and Queen Ahmose Nefretiri, Amenhotep I was the second king of the 18th Dynasty. He may have ascended to the throne at a relatively young age, for an elder brother had been designated as heir only about five years earlier. He may have even served a brief co-regency with his father, however. He evidently carried on many of the practices of his father, and his mother certainly played an important part in his reign, acting as God's Wife of Amun.. Amenhotep I may have been married to his sister, (Ahmose-) Merytamun, who was a God's Wife of Amun, though there is apparently little documentation to substantiate this relationship. Better known is this king's daughter, Satamun, who is known both from her coffin found in one of the royal mummy caches, and from two statues at central and southern Karnak...
Because of chronology problems, the king's rule is uncertain. We believe that a heliacal rising of Sirius was seen during his reign, as recorded by the Papyrus Ebers1, which states:
"Ninth year of the reign of his majesty the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Djeserkare - may he live forever! Festival of the New Year: third month of summer, ninth day - rising of Sirius"
Urk. Iv 44, 5-6
Hence, Nicoloas Grimal tells us in A History of Ancient Egypt:
"If this is evidence for a heliacal rising of Sirius, the astronomical calculation gives the date 1537 BC for the rising, and therefore 1546 BC for the beginning of Amenophis' reign, but only if the astronomical observation was made at Memphis. If, however, the observation was made at Thebes - which would logically have been the reference point if it was the capital - twenty years have to be deducted from the figure, giving the date of 1517 BC for the astronomical event and 1526 BC for the coronation of Amenophis I"
Most Egyptologists assign Amenhotep I a reign of 25 or fewer years. However, it should be mentioned that on a number of his monuments at the Temple of Karnak are found various Jubilee (Sed-festival) scenes. The Sed-festival was normally celebrated after 30 years of the king's rule, but in this case the structure may have been built in anticipation of the festival.
Amenhotep was this kings birth name, which means "Amun is Pleased". He is also known as Amenhotpe I, and Amenophis I by the early Greeks. His throne name was Djeser-ka-re, or "Holy is the Soul of Re". His Horus name was Ka-Waf-Taw (Bull who conquers the land) and his "Two Ladies" name was Aa-nerw (He who inspires great terror).
Regardless of the ferocity of his "Two Ladies" name, Amenhotep I seems to have had a fairly peaceful reign. He may have faced a Libyan uprising his first year as king, but if he did, Amenhotep I successfully overcame the ancient enemies preventing an invasion in the Delta area. We learn from inscriptions provided by Ahmose son of Ebana, with verification from Ahmose-Pen-Nekhbet, that Amenhotep I also led a military expedition into Kush (Nubia) in about year eight of his reign past the second cataract of the Nile, and apparently after his victory, brought captives back to Thebes. However, this appears to have been little more than a skirmish. He appointed a man named Turi as Viceroay of Kush, and established a temple marking Egypt's southern boundary at the Nubian down of Sai.
Because of perhaps a dozen years of peaceful rule during Amenhotep I's reign, his accomplishments included elaborate building work. Amenhotep I repaired and restored many ancient temples along the Nile. We find evidence of his work in Upper Egyptian sites such as Elephantine, Kom Ombo, Abydos and the temple of Nekhbet, but he seems to have done little building work in Lower Egypt. Many of the sites where Amenhotep I built had also seen activity by his father, and at Abydos, for example, he erected a chapel commemorating Ahmose.
But the building projects Amenhotep I is best known for were at the Temple of Karnak in Thebes where he utilized different types of stone including alabaster from Hatnub (and Bosra) and sandstone from the quarries of Gebel el-Silsila. Amenhotep I was responsible for a large, limestone gateway at Karnak that has now been reconstructed. It was decorated with Jubilee festival decorations. The gate may have at one time been the main south entrance that was later replaced by the Seventh Pylon. He also had a bark shrine built for the god Amun that was probably erected in the west front court of the temple. Later, Amenohotep III would use some of his predecessor's work at Karnak as fill for his Third Pylon, including a sacred bark chapel of the finest alabaster and a limestone copy of the White Chapel of Senusret I. Interestingly, many of Amenhotep I's relief carvings on the limestone monuments at Karnak are so much of a conscious emulation of Senusret I's artists that it has been difficult for archaeologists to determine to whom they should be assigned.
Apparently, his building works were caused him to also restore the mines at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai where he also expanded the Middle Kingdom temple of Hathor.
It would seem that by the end of Amenhotep I's reign, the main characteristics of the 18th Dynasty had been established, including a clear devotion to the cult of Amun at Karnak, its successive military conquests in Nubia and its closed royal family with a developing administrative organization drawn from powerful families and collateral relatives.
Amenhotep I was given the rare honor of being declared a titular god upon his death by the priests. He was regarded as the patron god of the Theban necropolis, alongside his mother, Ahmose Nefretiri, who's posthumous renown probably exceeded that of her son. In fact, her name appears in the litany of Amenhotep I's own cult.
Amenhotep I and his mother were especially worshipped at Deir el-Medina on the west bank at Thebes, where the craftsmen and who build and decorated the royal tombs lived. In fact, this community was probably either established in his or his father's reign. Peret, the third month in ancient Egypt, was devoted to and named after Amenhotep I, and several rituals dramatizing his death, burial and resurrection took place at Deir el-Medina during the month of Peret. However, Amenhotep I became a fairly major deity with a number of festivals throughout the year.
The king and his mother's cult remained strong, particularly at Deir el-Medina, throughout the New Kingdom. However, most houses during the Ramessid era contained, in their front rooms, a scene honoring the two. They were usually depicted with black or blue skin, the colors of resurrection, and so were associated with that religious element.
He was probably the first pharaoh to build his tomb some distance from his mortuary temple, a practice that would be emulated by his successors. While the mortuary temple itself has been located, his tomb remains a mystery. Some Egyptologists believe it to be an uninscribed tomb at Dra Abu el-Naga, outside of the Valley of the Kings, while others believe it might be KV 39 within the Valley proper. While we have not established its location, and inspection report on the tomb in year 16 of Ramesses IX's rule reported the tomb to be intact at that time. His mummy, along with his father's and a number of others, was found in excellent condition in the royal mummy cache of 1881.
Some information appears to indicate that Amenhotep I's son died in infancy, while other resources tell us he died childless. At any rate, his military commander, Tuthmoses (I), who was married to the kings sister, princess Ahmose, assumed the throne upon Amenhotep I's death. There is even a possibility that Tuthmosis I was a grandson of Ahmose, the father of Amenhotep I. He may have even served as a co-regent prior to Amenhotep I's death.
1. It should be noted that Papyrus Ebers, which dates from Amenhotep I's rule and is now in the Leipzig Museum, is one of our main sources of evidence on ancient Egyptian medicine. Also, the existence of a festival calendar recorded on this papyrus, along with other evidence suggesting an increased interest in astronomical observations, suggest that Amenhotep I may possibly have wished to rework earlier calendars.
^ My main point of posting this is to show that like many Egyptian rulers, there are more questions than answers regarding ascension, reign, and death, relations including wives and offspring, or even exact location of body.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: For theLioness and others who may be confused on the differences between regular X-ray and CT scan..
A computerized tomography (CT) scan combines a series of X-ray images taken from different angles around your body and uses computer processing to create cross-sectional images (slices) of the bones, blood vessels and soft tissues inside your body. CT scan images provide more-detailed information than plain X-rays do.
A CT scan has many uses, but it's particularly well-suited to quickly examine people who may have internal injuries from car accidents or other types of trauma. A CT scan can be used to visualize nearly all parts of the body and is used to diagnose disease or injury as well as to plan medical, surgical or radiation treatment.
Not only does a CT scanner have an X-ray machine that rotates around the body giving a 3D image, but the X-ray beams are shot in varying wave crests thus varying penetration which then gives different layers of the image.
^^^ definitely trolling, Djehuti puposely not mentioning the fact that the skull on the bottom is not Amenhotep I but another mummy Seqenenre Tao - and then right after it a long bio on Amenhotep I just to further obscure the switch
The thread is called New CT scan Amenhotep I . Just deal with it instead of trying to bring in other skulls, the CT scan Amenhotep I is somehow a problem for your racial purity prognathic theories
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually, I was planning to edit my post specifiying that the bottom image is that of Seqenenra Tao who is Amenhotep I's grandfather, but since you already beat me to it I might as well just add the rest here: Generally, the dentition of each New Kingdom pharoah and queen represents a unique combination of dental characters, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from the x-rays of the dentition alone. This observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to the forensic specialist. Dental-alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for the Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharoahs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the Twenty-first Dynasty (fig.9.10). Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people of the Western world...
His (Seqenenre Tao's) entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs 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 Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination..
It has been argued that Thutmose I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but rather claimed the throne through marriage to his predecessor's sisters (Harris and Weeks 1973). The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the nathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of the Nubians from the ancient cemeteries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm the similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II (Appendix table A1). Certainly Smith and Maspero must be considered correct when they assume that these two mummies must be closely related, but of course they could be brothers as well as father and son.
Further Elliot Smith suggests that Thutmose I is very similar to both Thutmose II and Thutmose III. But after more careful inspection of the craniofacial complex there is a gradient between Thutmose I all the way through Thutmose IV, with the mummy of each of these pharoahs more similar to his immediate predecessor and successor than to any mummies considered in the continuum. Therefore, Thutmose I may be very similar to Thutmose II, while considerably less similar to Thutmose III, who has a straight profile without the protruding dentition and jaws. Amenhotep I and Thutmose IV have even straighter profiles.'(p351-352)
You see before DNA testing, Egyptologists had to rely solely on both nonmetric and metric features of the skull and face to establish genetic relations between mummies of a certain dynasty. The only limit to this tecnhique is that it only establishes parental and sibling relationships. Such relations does help in narrowing down candidates for identity but without DNA itself the identity cannot be established without certainty.
P. K. Mananasala wrote: The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here are common reconstructed family trees for Amenhotep I's ancestors and descendants:
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote: Three-dimensional CT image of the left profile of the face of Amenhotep I show an oval face with a narrow chin, small narrow nose flattened by the bandages, mildly protruding upper teeth, sunken eyes, collapsed cheeks, pierced lobule of the left ear, and few coiled hair locks.
So no obvious SSA features + has straight/wavy hair. The authors of the paper clearly highlight the fact that the X-rays analysis was flawed :
quote:The X-ray examinations of the mummy of King Amenhotep I failed to provide consistent data or detailed information on the mummy (10, 11). In the plain x-ray examination, the three-dimensional (3D) information of the mummy is projected onto a two-dimensional X-ray film. The result is the superimposition of objects and bones which makes mummy characterization less satisfactory. CT is an advanced form of X-ray that obtains hundreds of thin sections (slices) of the body and provides more detailed reconstructed images of soft tissues as well as bones. CT is a non-invasive modality that has been used to examine the mummies of several ancient Egyptian royals. CT provided greater insight into the condition, mummification, health issues, and cause of death of the mummy (12)
Also post-bregmatic depression isn't exclusively sub-saharan it's found in most human groups at different proportions and most SSAs don't have this trait as showed in Vitek et al. 2012 :
quote:On the other hand, post-bregmatic cranial depression has been commonly cited as a trait exclusive to those of African ancestry yet it shows no significant distribution across the African American samples used in this study. It also appears with similar infrequently across the European samples as well.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Ahmose 1 and all the other figures key to the rise of the New Kingdom originated in Upper Egypt in alliance with populations from further South into Lower Sudan. None of these populations are "sub saharan" and we know his family tree and his wife and all of them have indigenous features from the Upper Nile Valley.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote: Three-dimensional CT image of the left profile of the face of Amenhotep I show an oval face with a narrow chin, small narrow nose flattened by the bandages, *mildly protruding upper teeth*, sunken eyes, collapsed cheeks, pierced lobule of the left ear, and few coiled hair locks.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
As for the rest of his features including wavy/straight hair, they are in fact found in Sub-Saharan Africans of East Africa especially the Horn region.
quote:
quote:The X-ray examinations of the mummy of King Amenhotep I failed to provide consistent data or detailed information on the mummy (10, 11). In the plain x-ray examination, the three-dimensional (3D) information of the mummy is projected onto a two-dimensional X-ray film. The result is the superimposition of objects and bones which makes mummy characterization less satisfactory. CT is an advanced form of X-ray that obtains hundreds of thin sections (slices) of the body and provides more detailed reconstructed images of soft tissues as well as bones. CT is a non-invasive modality that has been used to examine the mummies of several ancient Egyptian royals. CT provided greater insight into the condition, mummification, health issues, and cause of death of the mummy (12)
Also post-bregmatic depression isn't exclusively sub-saharan it's found in most human groups at different proportions and most SSAs don't have this trait as showed in Vitek et al. 2012 :
quote:On the other hand, post-bregmatic cranial depression has been commonly cited as a trait exclusive to those of African ancestry yet it shows no significant distribution across the African American samples used in this study. It also appears with similar infrequently across the European samples as well.
I never said post-bregmatic depression is solely African, but that it has its highest frequency among Africans in general not just Sub-Saharans. Small narrow noses are not unique to Eurasians either and are found in some Sub-Saharans as well as North Africans, so your point?
LOL You think you can get away with spreading your b.s. while I was absent! Well I'm back now to clean up your mess.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Actually, the "mildly protruding upper teeth" IS a form of prognathism called dental or alveolar prognathism.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
Alveolar prognathism can happen among mediterranean groups without any influence from SSA as pointed out by M.-C. Chamla :
quote:The prognathism or platyrhinia of some of them, unassociated, might possibly be regarded as resulting from interbreeding with a negroid element, a small number of representatives of which exist in the protohistoric and Punic series, as will be seen later, but it is known that a certain tendency to prognathism may exist in the Mediterraneans outside of any melanoderm influence.
Moreover you seem quite dishonest : in some threads you highlight that north africans have ssa traits when it comes to craniometry and dental morphology but strangely you assume that if an ancient north african skull show a ssa trait it means he was black...XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for the rest of his features including wavy/straight hair, they are in fact found in Sub-Saharan Africans of East Africa especially the Horn region.
It's not common and it's due to eurasian admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said post-bregmatic depression is solely African, but that it has its highest frequency among Africans in general not just Sub-Saharans. Small narrow noses are not unique to Eurasians either and are found in some Sub-Saharans as well as North Africans, so your point?
LOL You think you can get away with spreading your b.s. while I was absent! Well I'm back now to clean up your mess. [/QB]
So you admit that trait can't be an evidence of him being black. Thanks.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Alveolar prognathism can happen among mediterranean groups without any influence from SSA as pointed out by M.-C. Chamla :
quote:The prognathism or platyrhinia of some of them, unassociated, might possibly be regarded as resulting from interbreeding with a negroid element, a small number of representatives of which exist in the protohistoric and Punic series, as will be seen later, but it is known that a certain tendency to prognathism may exist in the Mediterraneans outside of any melanoderm influence.
First of all "Mediterranean" is a geographic region NOT a specific population. Second, Chamla was unaware of the genetic evidence we have today which does show a strong genetic correlation to African populations NOT Eurasians.
quote:Moreover you seem quite dishonest : in some threads you highlight that north africans have ssa traits when it comes to craniometry and dental morphology but strangely you assume that if an ancient north african skull show a ssa trait it means he was black...XD
No. What's truly strange is that YOU identify "black" with the outdated 'true negro' racial stereotype. I do not. Even Nubians both modern and ancient don't fit that racial model but anyone with eyes can see that they're still black and so too are Baladi Egyptians as well as many dark skinned Amazigh.
quote:It's not common and it's due to eurasian admixture.
So you and other other Euronuts claim, yet all of you fail to explain why there is little to no Eurasian ancestry among such populations far south or inland. What about pastoral Fulani of Sahelian West Africa who have thin aquiline features? Even geneticists have debunked the Eurasian admixture assumption on them.
Just give up and admit that such features are part of indigenous African diversity.
quote:So you admit that trait can't be an evidence of him being black. Thanks.
Again your delusion distorts your reading comprehension. I said that trait alone can't be used as evidence but in connjuction with other traits, yeah! Are you going to admit that the trait of small narrow nose is not evidence of Eurasian?? LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ There should be studies comparing ancient mummies to modern day Baladi Egyptians.
quote:Three-dimensional CT image of the left profile of the face of Amenhotep I show an oval face with a narrow chin, small narrow nose flattened by the bandages, mildly protruding upper teeth, sunken eyes, collapsed cheeks, pierced lobule of the left ear, and few coiled hair locks.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First of all "Mediterranean" is a geographic region NOT a specific population. Second, Chamla was unaware of the genetic evidence we have today which does show a strong genetic correlation to African populations NOT Eurasians.
source ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: No. What's truly strange is that YOU identify "black" with the outdated 'true negro' racial stereotype. I do not. Even Nubians both modern and ancient don't fit that racial model but anyone with eyes can see that they're still black and so too are Baladi Egyptians as well as many dark skinned Amazigh.
They aren't black, no one consider them black and if you call them black do not be surprised if they curse you. Moreover genetically these populations are closer to europeans than west or central africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So you and other other Euronuts claim, yet all of you fail to explain why there is little to no Eurasian ancestry among such populations far south or inland. What about pastoral Fulani of Sahelian West Africa who have thin aquiline features? Even geneticists have debunked the Eurasian admixture assumption on them.
Why do you lie ? here :
quote:We inferred that the non-West African proportion in the Fulani were introduced through two admixture events (Additional file 1: Table S2), dated to 1828 years ago (95% CI: 1517-2138) and 302 years ago (95% CI: 237–368). The oldest date compare well with previous dating efforts of the admixture event in the Fulani from Gambia (~ 1800 years ago) [56, 57], indicating a similar genetic history between the Fulani groups of Gambia and Burkina Faso. We hypothesize that the postulated first admixture between West African ancestors of the Fulani with an ancestral North African group/s possibly favoured,
quote:only a North African ancestry population (mixed with a European population) can be a potential ancestor to the Fulani from Burkina Faso, whereas the model where Europeans directly mixed with West Africans to produce the Fulani is not significant. These results stress the importance of demographic context when identifying potential sources of admixture, when the sources have a similar genetic background.
Their eurasian/north african admixture shows up on G25 too :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Just give up and admit that such features are part of indigenous African diversity.
nope such features are the product of mutations that first appeared in Eurasia then got spread in Africa thanks to back migrations. Again these features are only present among SSA groups with substantial amount of eurasian ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again your delusion distorts your reading comprehension. I said that trait alone can't be used as evidence but in connjuction with other traits, yeah! Are you going to admit that the trait of small narrow nose is not evidence of Eurasian?? LOL
Which other ssa traits are present ? There is no alveolar prognathism as you can see in the more accurate ct scan.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Anatalas what is the place of origin for E1b1b ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: source?
I have 2 sources:
A morphometric analysis of prognathism and evaluation of the gnathic index in modern humans Varying degrees of prognathism have been identified as distinguishing features between both temporally and geographically distinct human populations (e.g., Brown and Maeda, 2004; Gonzalez-Jose et al., 2007) and as an indicator of gene flow between populations (Gonzalez-Jose et al., 2007; Martínez‐Abadías et al., 2006). Among modern humans, populations of African ancestries are generally characterized as displaying a high-degree of subnasal prognathism (i.e., prognathic), in contrast with those of European, Asian, and Native American ancestries, who are generally described as having little to no prognathism (i.e., orthognathic) (Bass, 1987; Gill and Rhine, 1990).
quote:They aren't black, no one consider them black and if you call them black do not be surprised if they curse you. Moreover genetically these populations are closer to Europeans than west or central Africans.
LMAO So now Nubians aren't black either?! Funny how you said they were in the thread on Didyme claiming her to be 'Nubian' based solely on her Greek description as "black" but now all of a sudden Nubians aren't black either. By the way, I've met some Nubians years ago in college and they don't seem to have a problem with the black identity especially since they are called such by Arabs all time and even "abid" (slaves).
As for them being closer related to Europeans can you cite a source for that? Especially since most of their Eurasian admixture comes from Southwest Asians (Arabs) and NOT Europeans. Even then, the majority of their genetic ancestry affiliates them with Sahelian Africans namely Nilo-Saharan Daza than with any Euros!!
quote:We inferred that the non-West African proportion in the Fulani were introduced through two admixture events (Additional file 1: Table S2), dated to 1828 years ago (95% CI: 1517-2138) and 302 years ago (95% CI: 237–368). The oldest date compare well with previous dating efforts of the admixture event in the Fulani from Gambia (~ 1800 years ago) [56, 57], indicating a similar genetic history between the Fulani groups of Gambia and Burkina Faso. We hypothesize that the postulated first admixture between West African ancestors of the Fulani with an ancestral North African group/s possibly favoured,
quote:only a North African ancestry population (mixed with a European population) can be a potential ancestor to the Fulani from Burkina Faso, whereas the model where Europeans directly mixed with West Africans to produce the Fulani is not significant. These results stress the importance of demographic context when identifying potential sources of admixture, when the sources have a similar genetic background.
Their eurasian/north african admixture shows up on G25 too :
I'm not the one lying like YOU! First of all, the study you cite was discussed before.
Second of all, the Eurasian ancestry and in particular European ancestry in question was found in coastal Fulani who had direct colonial European contact who by the way tend to have the broad "negroid" features. I specifically refer to Sahelian pastoral Fulani who have aquiline "caucasoid" features and these show total Sub-Saharan lineages. Their autosomal profile does show North African influence but again North African does NOT mean Eurasian, nitwit!
quote:nope such features are the product of mutations that first appeared in Eurasia then got spread in Africa thanks to back migrations. Again these features are only present among SSA groups with substantial amount of Eurasian ancestry.
LOL
Please cite a study showing that the feature of small narrow nose is the result of mutations that occurred in Eurasia only.
Meanwhile I have three studies again destroying your claims as usual.
Let's see: Our GWAS in Tanzanians not only uncovered novel loci and candidate genes related to facial morphology, but also advanced our understanding of previously identified loci in Europeans. Several loci (such as 3q21.3 and 12q21.31) showed associations with facial morphology across different populations. However, due to the strong LD in Europeans, association was detected across a broad genomic region (~300Kb), posing a challenge for identifying the likely causal variant at these loci. In conjunction with the European results, co-localization utilizing the GWAS in Tanzanians provided a more fine-mapped association. Given human evolutionary history, African populations are characterized by a greater level of genetic diversity and less LD among loci compared with European populations. Because of the specific LD structure, the GWAS in Africans offered valuable insights relevant to the genetic factors that contribute to normal facial variation. That said, only a fraction of the loci originally identified in Europeans showed evidence of association in the Tanzanian cohort, which we postulate may be partly attributable to the population differentiation. Of the 203 European signals, more than half of the peak SNPs had substantial allele frequency differences between European and African populations (MAF difference >0.1), which would impact the power to detect associations. Furthermore, the low rate of replication may also be due to insufficient power in the Tanzanian sample due to the smaller sample size and the stricter p-value threshold for declaring significance. For these reasons, we caution that lack of replication across populations should not be taken as conclusive evidence that a signal is population-specific.
quote:Which other ssa traits are present? There is no alveolar prognathism as you can see in the more accurate ct scan.
You mean the CT scan whose results you quoted??
Three-dimensional CT image of the left profile of the face of Amenhotep I show an oval face with a narrow chin, small narrow nose flattened by the bandages, mildly protruding upper teeth, sunken eyes, collapsed cheeks, pierced lobule of the left ear, and few coiled hair locks.
The emboldened IS alveolar prognathism, you idiot! LOL
You need some serious professional mental help.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The emboldened IS alveolar prognathism, you idiot! LOL
You need some serious professional mental help.
What about the name calling? You maybe have different opinions and interpret data differently but calling people idiots or talking about mental help does not belong in a serious discussion.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I have 2 sources:
A morphometric analysis of prognathism and evaluation of the gnathic index in modern humans Varying degrees of prognathism have been identified as distinguishing features between both temporally and geographically distinct human populations (e.g., Brown and Maeda, 2004; Gonzalez-Jose et al., 2007) and as an indicator of gene flow between populations (Gonzalez-Jose et al., 2007; Martínez‐Abadías et al., 2006). Among modern humans, populations of African ancestries are generally characterized as displaying a high-degree of subnasal prognathism (i.e., prognathic), in contrast with those of European, Asian, and Native American ancestries, who are generally described as having little to no prognathism (i.e., orthognathic) (Bass, 1987; Gill and Rhine, 1990).
Thanks now do we have any data to know how common is alveolar prognathism among modern day egyptians ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LMAO So now Nubians aren't black either? Funny how you said they were in the thread on Didyme claiming her to be 'Nubian' based solely on her Greek description as 'black' and now all Nubians aren't black. By the way, I've met some Nubians years ago in college and they don't seem to have a problem with the black identity especially since they are called such by Arabs all time and even 'abid' (slaves).
Most nubians are but not all and I'm talking especially in the case of your egyptian baladi which you said look too much "arab" and started cherrypicking some SSA looking ones.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for them being more closer related to Europeans can you cite a source for that? Especially since most of their Eurasian admixture comes from Southwest Asians (Arabs) and NOT Europeans. Even then, the majority of their genetic ancestry affiliates them with Sahelian Africans namely Nilo-Saharan Daza then with any Euros!!
I already know this but that's not the point. The point is that they are so different than west/central africans that they end up being genetically closer to modern day europeans (let alone groups like upper egyptians ). I'm talking based on the fact that east african groups like eritreans and northern ethiopians already plot closer to europe and knowing that lower nubians have more eurasian ancestry that would be even more the case for them.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Second of all, the Eurasian ancestry and in particular European ancestry in question was found in coastal Fulani who had direct colonial European contact who by the way tend to have the broad "negroid" features. I specifically refer to Sahelian pastoral Fulani who have aquiline "caucasoid" features and these show total Sub-Saharan lineages. Their autosomal profile does shown 'North African" influence but again North African does NOT mean Eurasian, nitwit!
Can't you read what I posted ? The paper literally says that it's not direct european ancestry but that It came with their north african ancestors that's why fulanis have both iberomaurusian and EEF ancestry and this is not surprising since north africans have both of these components in large proportion and yes I suppose that the only people in the region with substantial amount of North african ancestry having "aquiline caucasoid features" is a coincidence. Why are you in such denial ? You're clearly lying to yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Please cite a study showing that the feature of small narrow nose is the result of mutations that occurred in Eurasia only.
Meanwhile I have three studies again destroying your claims as usual.
Let's see: Our GWAS in Tanzanians not only uncovered novel loci and candidate genes related to facial morphology, but also advanced our understanding of previously identified loci in Europeans. Several loci (such as 3q21.3 and 12q21.31) showed associations with facial morphology across different populations. However, due to the strong LD in Europeans, association was detected across a broad genomic region (~300Kb), posing a challenge for identifying the likely causal variant at these loci. In conjunction with the European results, co-localization utilizing the GWAS in Tanzanians provided a more fine-mapped association. Given human evolutionary history, African populations are characterized by a greater level of genetic diversity and less LD among loci compared with European populations. Because of the specific LD structure, the GWAS in Africans offered valuable insights relevant to the genetic factors that contribute to normal facial variation. That said, only a fraction of the loci originally identified in Europeans showed evidence of association in the Tanzanian cohort, which we postulate may be partly attributable to the population differentiation. Of the 203 European signals, more than half of the peak SNPs had substantial allele frequency differences between European and African populations (MAF difference >0.1), which would impact the power to detect associations. Furthermore, the low rate of replication may also be due to insufficient power in the Tanzanian sample due to the smaller sample size and the stricter p-value threshold for declaring significance. For these reasons, we caution that lack of replication across populations should not be taken as conclusive evidence that a signal is population-specific.
What does the opinion of an anthropologist has to do with this ? Keita is telling you that basically it's wrong to assume that SSAs are all perfectly negroid or that caucasoid traits aren't found in SSA he's not saying that there is no correlation between eurasian ancestry and caucasoid traits.
As for the second paper it literally says nothing in regards to caucasoid features and actually shows "trans-ancestry genetic effects". Anyway stop being desesperate caucasoid features are found among population with high amount of eurasian ancestry such as horners and fulanis even a child would recognize this.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You mean the CT scan whose results you quoted??
Three-dimensional CT image of the left profile of the face of Amenhotep I show an oval face with a narrow chin, small narrow nose flattened by the bandages, mildly protruding upper teeth, sunken eyes, collapsed cheeks, pierced lobule of the left ear, and few coiled hair locks.
The emboldened IS alveolar prognathism, you idiot! LOL
You need some serious professional mental help. [/QB]
Upper teeth are not the maxilla get some courses of anatomy moreover are you blind ? :
now compare with a negroid specimen :
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
A Google says otherwise. Alveolar prognathism is a protrusion of the portion of the maxilla in the dental lining of the upper jaw where the teeth are located.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: A Google says otherwise. Alveolar prognathism is a protrusion of the portion of the maxilla in the dental lining of the upper jaw where the teeth are located.
exactly it's not about upper teeth per se. Protruding upper teeth can be found among many individuals in any ethnic group.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL It's apparent you're an ignoramus who's feigning to you know about what you're talking about.
Prognathism in general is the projection of the frontal part of the face, primarily the jaws. There are different types of prognathism and different degrees. Full facial prognathism is the projection of both jaws-- maxilla and mandible. Maxillary prognathism is the projection of the upper jaws alone, while alveolar prognathism is that which is confined to the alveolus or the dental bearing part of the jaws, thus projecting teeth.
Yes, projecting or buck teeth can and does occur among many individuals of any population however in the case of alveolar prognathism there exists a genetic element that is associated with certain populations.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
You say that alveolar prognathism occurs among so-called "Mediterranean" populations and cite Chamla, but most of the 'Mediterranean' populations who exhibit said prognathism are those in Africa not so much Mediterraneans of Southwest Asia or Europe. Gee, why is that? Many of Chamla's claims are outdated because they are based on pre-genetic assumptions which genetics has rectified.
I already cited a study showing how prognathism is not only genetic but takes effect in fetal development which contrasts Africans from Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Upper teeth are not the maxilla get some courses of anatomy moreover are you blind ?:
LOL For your information, I already have a biology degree and aced by anatomy & physiology course back in college thank you very much. Then again I never said upper teeth is the maxilla, you liar! The upper teeth grow from the alveolus which is part of the maxilla.
quote:
now compare with a negroid specimen :
If you're going to do a proper comparison how about you compare actual bony skull to bony skull like this:
What is the provenance of your so-called "negroid" skull anyway? And why does it look so different from this "negroid" skull below?
By your logic the two "negroid" skulls must belong to different races then.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
interestingly, as per these images, Amenhotep I is most resembling Thutmose
Actually...
From the book An X-Ray Atlas Of the Royal Mummies (1980) by James E. Harris & Edward F.Wente: Generally, the dentition of each New Kingdom pharoah and queen represents a unique combination of dental characters, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from the x-rays of the dentition alone. This observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to the forensic specialist. Dental-alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for the Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharoahs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the Twenty-first Dynasty (fig.9.10). Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people of the Western world (fig.9.11)
It has been argued that Thutmose I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but rather claimed the throne through marriage to his predecessor's sisters (Harris and Weeks 1973). The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the gnathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of the Nubians from the ancient cemeteries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm the similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II (Appendix table A1). Certainly Smith and Maspero must be considered correct when they assume that these two mummies must be closely related, but of course they could be brothers as well as father and son.
Further Elliot Smith suggests that Thutmose I is very similar to both Thutmose II and Thutmose III. But after more careful inspection of the craniofacial complex there is a gradient between Thutmose I all the way through Thutmose IV, with the mummy of each of these pharoahs more similar to his immediate predecessor and successor than to any mummies considered in the continuum. Therefore, Thutmose I may be very similar to Thutmose II, while considerably less similar to Thutmose III, who has a straight profile without the protruding dentition and jaws. Amenhotep I and Thutmose IV have even straighter profiles. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: What about the name calling? You maybe have different opinions and interpret data differently but calling people idiots or talking about mental help does not belong in a serious discussion.
And exactly how can one have a serious discussion with someone being so blatantly dishonest? This is not about Antalas having a different interpretation of the data but outright distorting what the data is or what the experts actually said in a desperate attempt to promote a false ideology.
You're right about the name-calling but my patience has reached its limit. And I'm serious about him needing professional help. It's obvious the guy is suffering from delusions when he denies things put in front of his face which is why I really no longer take him seriously.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Amenhotep I CT scan
two slightly different CT scan images of the same skull
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
interestingly, as per these images, Amenhotep I is most resembling Thutmose [/qb]
Actually...
From the book An X-Ray Atlas Of the Royal Mummies (1980) by James E. Harris & Edward F.Wente:
The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the gnathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition.[/b] [/QB]
we have already been over this x-rays and Commodore 64 tracings leave things out things that CT scans don't
No researcher now who has CT scans is going to bother with X-rays CT scans are like a composite of multiple X-Rays
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course CT scans are more advanced than X-rays but how does that in any way refute the findings of Harris & Wente?? Unless you can show me CT scans refuting older assessments made of the skulls I don't see the point of your protests.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
It's only reliable referencing the overall shape of the head but significantly lacking in face and jaw structure
Thus analysis will be limited in accuracy without the CT scan
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ LOL It's apparent you're an ignoramus who's feigning to you know about what you're talking about.
Prognathism in general is the projection of the frontal part of the face, primarily the jaws. There are different types of prognathism and different degrees. Full facial prognathism is the projection of both jaws-- maxilla and mandibula. Maxillary prognathism is the projection of the upper jaws alone, while alveolar prognathism is that which is confined to the alveolus or the dental bearing part of the jaws, thus projecting teeth.
Yes, projecting or buck teeth can and does occur among many individuals of any population however in the case of alveolar prognathism there exists a genetic element that is associated with certain populations.
You say that alveolar prognathism occurs among so-called "Mediterranean" populations and cite Chamla, but most of the 'Mediterranean' populations who exhibit said prognathism are those in Africa not so much Mediterraneans of Southwest Asia or Europe. Gee, why is that? Many of Chamla's claims are outdated because they are based on pre-genetic assumptions which genetics has rectified.
I already knew this but the paper doesn't mention alveolar prognathism nor "alveolus".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL For your information, I already have a biology degree and aced by anatomy & physiology course back in college thank you very much. Then again I never said upper teeth is the maxilla, you liar! The upper teeth grow from the alveolus which is part of the maxilla.
Again the paper only talks about the upper teeth not the alveolus let alone the maxilla.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: If you're going to do a proper comparison how about you compare actual bony skull to bony skull like this:
so where is your prognathism ? I can see it on some of the badarian specimen but here it's clearly absent.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What is the provenance of your so-called "negroid" skull anyway? And why does it look so different from this "negroid" skull below?
By your logic the two "negroid" skulls must belong to different races then.
..When the craniofacial skeleton of first degree relatives (father, mother, brother, sister) is recorded by a cephalogram, traced and measured, the resulting variables should approach a 0.5 correlation. These same variables when measured between non-related individuals should approach 0. This was shown to be true in the study of a large series of nuclear families included in clinical studies at the University of Michigan. It must be emphasized here that soft tissue features such as shape and size of nose, lips and ears may well be inherited as sex-linked, recessive, dominant characters or traits.
Where Smith made expert scholarly judgements of similarity-dissimilarity between members of the Egyptian Royal Family, our approach utilized quantification and statistical analysis of the shape and position of the components of the craniofacial skeleton. Specifically, the mandible, maxilla, dentition and cranial base were traced and measured for every mummy and then compared by computer-generated overlays (Figure I), angular measurements and ratios (Table 1) and cluster analyses (Figure 2). The overlays are particularly useful in visualizing similarities and differences in the shapes and position of the bones of the craniofacial skeleton of the royal mummies. At the same time the set of variables representing the craniofacial skeleton can be interpreted better by utilizing the overlays...
Discussion
For a group of investigators concerned with human craniofacial variation and malocclusion, the differences in the faces and skulls in the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens were especially intriguing. This was hardly a homogeneous sample, and there were great differences both within and between the dynastic periods. **The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty.** What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has examined. This study in fact will be limited to the XVIII dynasty (Table 2).
Some of these mummies were obviously different from their predecessors or their successors. Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people, i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I. Further X-rays reveal that the epiphyses of Thutmose I's knees are still patent, suggesting an individual not yet in his twenties. These biological parameters strongly contradict the identification of the mummy as Thutmose I. Further, the X-rays reveal that the arms of Amenhotep I were crossed at the time of burial, whereas the arms of Thutmose I are in a pudendal position, a question proposed by Elliot Smith to be solved by X-rays in 1912 and noted by Derry in 1932.4 Ahmose has little resemblance to either Seqenenre Tao II or Amenhotep I and is not circumcised, unusual for the XVIII dynasty. Amenhotep II has a long ovoid face compared with the very short face of Thutmose III. Thutmose IV has a very fine featured delicate face compared with that of Amenhotep III. Smith states that, "There is a most striking resemblance in face and cranial form between Amenthos II and Thutmosis IV, in spite of the fact that the general appearance of strength and decision of character in the face of the former are in marked contrast to the effeminate weakness of the latter. The shape of the head, with its curious sloping forehead and slender but prominent nose, is identical in these two pharaohs." In fact, Amenhotep III has a facial skeleton quite unlike all other Royal Mummies and resembles most closely that of the Statuary of Amenhotep IV. One of us (FH) has recorded that Amenhotep III's skull (maximum head length 195 mm) is two standard deviations too large for his body (slightly less than 5 ft or 149.64 cm).6
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
While researchers were hesitant to look at the mummy itself, they wasted no time examining his immediate surroundings. Amenhotep lay inside a sarcophagus that was decorated with hieroglyphic inscriptions or dockets that mentioned not only his name but also the fact that this coffin, despite looking considerably ancient, was not the pharaoh’s original.
According to the dockets, Amenhotep I had been rewrapped and reburied at Deir el-Bahari Royal Cache by the 21st Dynasty, which reigned from 1069 to 945 BC. The dockets even record the names of the people that rewrapped the pharaoh: Pinedjem I, a High Priest of Amun in service to the 21st dynasty, and his son Masarharta.
Seqenenre Tao 34 Ahmose I 27.2 Amenhotep I 33.7 Thutmose I 34 Thutmose II 37.4 Thutmose III 43.1 Amenhotep II 38.4 Thutmose IV 26.2 Amenhotep III 28 Smenkhkare 37.33
In the study of Alexander and Hitchcock of Alabama populations, the AA norm for SN-Mand. was 34.4 compared to 32.0 for Caucasians. The average for the Pharaohs is 34.23. If one includes the New Kingdom Queens the mean is 35.83! (Alexander TL, Hitchcock HP. Cephalometric standards for American Negro children. Am J Orthod 1978;74:298-304)
ANB Values (A point-Nasion-B point)
Subject Seqenenre Tao 6.22 Ahmose I 7.5 Amenhotep I 5.56 Thutmose I 10.46 Thutmose II 3.41 Thutmose III 6.1 Amenhotep II 5.5 Thutmose IV 5.84 Amenhotep III 6 Smenkhkare 5.41
The values here are almost all very high. The mean is 5.9428, which exceeds the means obtained for persons of African descent in previous studies and far exceeds the means obtained for Caucasians (Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-840; Fonseca RJ, Klein WD. A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 1978;73:152-160; Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29:8-29).
Mind you craniofacial traits are inherited from both parents though the stronger masculine traits come from the father. So what of queens?...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Subject SN to M Plane Tetisheri 31.75 Nefertary 32.79 Sitakamos 34.95 Meryetamon 33.50 Tjuya 36.51 Tiye 47.16
The mean for the New Kingdom Queens is 38.59. The rays of this angle are very long, so slight differences in degrees can translate to large linear differences.
The ANB angle is one that has proved successful in developing dentofacial norms for blacks in both Africa and America. Together with steep mandible angles, protruding incisors, anterior prognathism, receding chin, large facial angle (SN-M Plane) and higher lower face as compared to middle face, these features help distinguish the dentofacial complex of persons of African descent. In addition, the royal mummies show features like elevated skull, projecting glabella, and possibly an occipital bun, all of which were common amongst the widespread ancestral African population. The mean for ANB angle among the New Kingdom Queens is 5.803.
This is illustrated above for case N = 11 where the nine Queens, Tjuya, and the Elder lady are clustered. In step one, Tjuya and the Elder lady are defined as being most similar by twenty six measurable variables representing cranio-facial morphology.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
