posted
Didn't see this posted. This is a relatively new study by Schillaci (of which Joel Irish is a co-author) that basically confirms the previous work of Zakrzewski (2007). One difference is that the "small trickles of possible migration" that Zakrzewski mentions, they restrict to lower Egypt, noting differences in population structure. ...........................................
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians. Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC.
Department of Social Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4. ffjdi@uaf.edu
Abstract The origins of state formation in ancient Egypt have been the focus of recent research utilizing biological data to test hypotheses regarding in situ development of local groups, or large-scale in-migration, possibly by an invading army. The primary goal of the present research is to further test these hypotheses. Our secondary goal is to compare different distance measures and assess how they might affect interpretation of population history. We analyze craniodental nonmetric data using several different measures of biological distance, as well as a method for estimating group diversity using multidimensional scaling of distance estimates. Patterns of biological variation and population relationships were interpreted in temporal and geographic contexts. The results of our analyses suggest that the formation of the ancient Egyptian state likely included a substantial in situ process, with some level of contribution by outside migrants probable. The higher level of population structure in Lower Egypt, relative to Upper Egypt, suggests that such influence and migration by outsiders may not have been widespread geographically. These findings support, but serve to refine further those obtained by the second author in a previous study. Moreover, our comparison of distance measures indicates that the choice of measure can influence identification and interpretation of the microevolutionary processes shaping population history, despite being strongly correlated with one another.
posted
Will they ever stop with these deceitful subtleties? From the paper:
quote:Most traits describe crown and root appearance or position in permanent teeth. Rocker jaw is the only nondental (i.e., cranial) attribute. Although a hallmark of Polynesians, where frequencies approach 95% for some groups (Houghton, 1976; Pietrusewsky, 1984; Kean and Houghton, 1990), convexity of the mandible’s horizontal ramus is also found in Europe. This occurrence has not been published, but Turner (personal communication, 2008) reports that the developmental trait occurs in 10– 20% of adult Europeans at ASUDAS grades of 1–2 (i.e., near- and full-rocker), and dates to at least the late Pleistocene. In addition, a mean incidence of 19.3% at these same grades has been reported in 12 trans-North African samples, with a range of 0–41% (Irish, 1993, 1998a,b). Rocker jaw is similarly common, i.e., 19.2%, in the present Egyptian samples, with a range of 10–32% (Irish, 2006); it is this considerable variation, like that of the 21 other traits, that enhances intersample discrimination; its inclusion also allows direct comparisons with the previous study (Irish, 2006).
^Why invoke Europeans? Not only is it clear that this is an ancient trait (associated with Polynesians) but Egyptians had a higher incidence of this trait than Europeans, also such data for Europeans were never even published (thus no way to cross-reference) and even then we are dealing with loose terms like "near" and "full". So why just slip that in there?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The results of our analyses suggest that the formation of the ancient Egyptian state likely included a substantial in situ process, with some level of contribution by outside migrants probable. The higher level of population structure in Lower Egypt, relative to Upper Egypt, suggests that such influence and migration by outsiders may not have been widespread geographically.
About this:
It's an ambiguous statement as even were all of what we're seeing outsiders we have no clue who (from where exactly would they have been from) and the above statement also leaves out important details as far as "when" and in what eras. Why do i say, "even were there outsiders"? Read:
quote:The results of our study are subject to several important limitations. Chief among these is a lack of control for demographic influences. Without estimates of relative group sizes, it is possible that our measure of group diversity is being driven by small effective population size and the effects of genetic drift for several groups, rather than gene flow or migration from outside sources (Relethford et al., 1997). Our ability to characterize the geotemporal pattern of gene flow or migration is limited by the skeletal samples available for study. It is possible that the primary ancestral populations associated with state formation have not been excavated or included in our analysis.
Furthermore:
quote:Our further analysis of ancient Egyptian population history builds on a previous study by the second author by including an evaluation of relative group distinctiveness and diversity within geographical and temporal contexts. That study (Irish, 2006) provided evidence for predynastic/dynastic continuity, especially during the early dynastic in Upper Egypt. Temporal and geographic distributions of biological variation among skeletal samples in the present study also suggest that in situ development was associated with Egyptian state formation, albeit with some indications of migration and/or gene flow. As such, we could reject neither Hypothesis 1, the in situ model, nor Hypothesis 2, the development by-invading-population model. Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.
Concerning Dynastic period Saqqara and Lisht they mention genetic drift and / or inbreeding [in what were upper class social groups] and / or migration could have played a part in their distinctiveness.
quote:The Greek sample, as well as that from the Roman period cemetery at El Hesa, is consistently greater than one standard deviation from the overall mean distance from the centroid. This finding suggests that these groups may have experienced a high level of in-migration, perhaps associated with trade or warfare. It is important to note, however, that the Greek period sample comprises specimens from two sites, i.e., Saqqara and Manfalut. Samples from dynastic period Saqqara and Lisht variably exhibit levels of group distinctiveness beyond one standard deviation of the mean distance to the centroid. It was posited (Irish, 2006) that such divergence may reflect genetic drift and/or inbreeding in what were shown to be upper class social groups. These samples may also reflect increased levels of in-migration. In the case of Lisht, its proximity to, though still significant difference from, Upper Egyptian samples may suggest an influx of migrants from the latter region (Irish, 2006). In the 12th dynasty, Egypt’s capital and its ruling class were moved from Thebes to Itjtawy; Lisht served as the latter’s necropolis (Baines and Malek, 1982). Another possibility is that Saqqara and Lisht (Itjtawy) experienced substantial extraregional immigration or gene flow during the early to middle dynastic periods. Other middle dynastic period sites do not exhibit a high level of distinctiveness. An examination of group diversity through a comparison of average distance to the centroid by period implies that the highest level of group diversity occurred during the Roman period; the lowest level is observed for the predynastic. If the average distance to the centroid is a reasonably proportionate measure of group diversity, and increases in this structure are attributable, at least in part, to increased migration (see limitations below), then this observed pattern indicates an increasing rate of inmigration from predynastic to the Roman period occupations. As noted, the level of in-migration varies considerably by site. For the most part, those samples farthest from the centroids of MDS maps are either from the Ptolemaic or Roman periods (Table 6); one notable exception is Hawara. The samples from Gebel Ramlah and Lisht also exhibit relatively large distances from the MDS centroids. A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). The Roman period samples in Upper Egypt, particularly Kharga and El Hesa, are biologically distinct and could conceivably comprise at least some extraregional migrants. Interestingly, Roman period Hawara in Lower Egypt seems not to have been composed of migrants—while there is a possibility that the dynastic occupation of Saqqara may have been (though see above).
You know European researchers, they have to look at the world from a Eurocentric angle. When they extensively examine Egyptian samples, what they are in effect looking for, is a European connection to the past. For the same reason, eastern Africa is focused on more than any other area of the continent, with large swaths of territory still not sampled. Instead, hypothesis are made from patchy sampling work, usually leaving the theme to be very speculative.
Notice that classical Greek specimens are not as heavily and meticulously examined as ancient Egyptian specimens.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interestingly, Roman period Hawara in Lower Egypt seems not to have been composed of migrants—while there is a possibility that the dynastic occupation of Saqqara may have been (though see above).
^Weren't the Fayum Mummy portraits found in Hawara?
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed. The samples from Hawara were of elite segments of the population as well, and I think more than anything it shows the heterogeneous nature of those in the Fayum, as the Greek Egyptian sample (and as he says, as well as the Upper Egyptian Roman samples) were distinct. I also think it's curious that the Upper Egyptian sample seemed more affected than the lower Egyptian sample but maybe simply the mixed Fayum residents conformed to Egyptian dental patterns.
Their claim that "Hawara did not seem to be composed of migrants" is contradicted by direct epigraphic evidence. We know many of those represented on the Fayum portraits by their Greco-Roman names thanks to Petrie. I still find it puzzling that they'd group with Egyptians while the Greek and Roman Upper Egyptians did not.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, is dental morphology the best evidence for Egyptian population relationships and continuity vs change? It seems too subject to environmental pressures, particularly diet, to say much about genetics. At most it would reflect dietary shifts and continuity rather than gene flow between populations.
They scramble actually to explain why groups such as upper Egyptian Roman specimens diverge away from Lower Egyptian Roman, etc, yet they don't seem to be able to make heads or tails of it, hence attributing certain anomalies to small sample size or genetic drift. El Hesa was not a small sample and there wasn't enough time for genetic drift to explain why Roman period samples in particular began to diverge, though in fairness they do indicate increased in-migration during this period. As posted above:
quote:A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). .
^My interpretation. We see a steady cline of variation corresponding with the intensity of indigenous affinity to non-indigenous affinity culminating in the Greek Egyptian and Upper Egyptian Roman material. I'd argue that after this period marks the transition into the modern Egyptian phenotype.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, as Keita reports, prior to adopting agriculture, Nile Valley inhabitants had similar dental morphology to West Africans. I wonder if it's possible to do a dental study using only variables that aren't subject to dietary change; my prediction is that Egyptians and Nubians would show stronger sub-Saharan affinities.
posted
^On page 141 Keita mentioned something about fourth molars and alveolar pits behind the third molars, called "fourth molar variants" that are consistent with tropical African populations.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Actually, as Keita reports, prior to adopting agriculture, Nile Valley inhabitants had similar dental morphology to West Africans. I wonder if it's possible to do a dental study using only variables that aren't subject to dietary change; my prediction is that Egyptians and Nubians would show stronger sub-Saharan affinities.
^ When referring to the early Neolithic ''fayum specimen'':
"The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type." --(Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82)
and
None of the bones were intact, probably due to erosion, but they were used to estimate that the individual was probably female and that she has been around 160m tall. Physically “it may be seen that the skull in question shows the closest affinity to Wadi Halfa, modern Negroes and Australian aborigines, being quite different from Epipalaeolithic materials of Northern Africa usually labeled as “Mechta” type. Unlike the bones, the teeth were preserved and consisted of an almost complete set. They show that they were used “with approximately the same intensity, so no pronounced and long lasting food specialisation was practised by the individual” (Henneberg et al 1989, p189-90) On the basis of wear and molar eruption it was estimated that the individual was 35-40 years old.
Which is of course, the same specimen mentioned here:
"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. Human Biology, Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That early Neolithic Lower Egyptians show closer affinities to sub-Saharans than even Northwest African "Berber" types is especially juicy when you consider that even some people who acknowledge an African identity for the Egyptians will liken them to Mediterranean Berbers rather than sub-Saharans. It really shows that the Nile Valley has always been a northward projection of sub-Saharan Africa into the Mediterranean.
But we also have to keep in mind that there were groups already diverging away from Megadont tendencies by the time of the referred to Fayum specimen.
The Gebel Ramlah burials refered to in a recent thread are testament to this. I suspect even earlier changes are at work here, judging by the Badarians showing teeth characteristics by 6500 BP that are comparable to later dynastic teeth.
There is evidence for sickles and mortars before the Holocene in the Qadan culture, which existed in Upper Egypt and the Sudan, suggesting a long history of plant collection and diet change in some Nile Valley groups.
There is a study circulating here on ES that says that skeletal changes associated with the Neolithic occur earlier in the Nile Valley than in other areas. I've been searching it for a while but can't find it, as I can't remember the keywords verbatim. Maybe someone else can repost or localise it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I just realized that this statement contradicts Irish's 2006 paper wherein it was stated that there was no increase in diversity due to outside influence
Recalling his earlier statement:
quote:These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.
--Irish (2006)
The recent paper contradicting the above.
I'm usually no fan of Irish's work, but the 2009 paper he co-authored is much better than his 2006 article which I personally think was flawed. As are some of his other articles, such as his hypothesized replacement in Nubia
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^I agree, good point.
They scramble actually to explain why groups such as upper Egyptian Roman specimens diverge away from Lower Egyptian Roman, etc, yet they don't seem to be able to make heads or tails of it, hence attributing certain anomalies to small sample size or genetic drift. El Hesa was not a small sample and there wasn't enough time for genetic drift to explain why Roman period samples in particular began to diverge, though in fairness they do indicate increased in-migration during this period. As posted above:
quote:A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). .
^My interpretation. We see a steady cline of variation corresponding with the intensity of indigenous affinity to non-indigenous affinity culminating in the Greek Egyptian and Upper Egyptian Roman material. I'd argue that after this period marks the transition into the modern Egyptian phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You know European researchers, they have to look at the world from a Eurocentric angle. When they extensively examine Egyptian samples, what they are in effect looking for, is a European connection to the past. For the same reason, eastern Africa is focused on more than any other area of the continent, with large swaths of territory still not sampled. Instead, hypothesis are made from patchy sampling work, usually leaving the theme to be very speculative.
Sad, yet true. Yet when black peoples try to study these AFRICAN specimens from an African point of view they automatically accused of being biased Afrocentrics!
quote:Notice that classical Greek specimens are not as heavily and meticulously examined as ancient Egyptian specimens.
LMAO
Indeed, these white guys seem to be suffering from the same low self-esteem inferiority-based supremacy complex as Afronuts like Mike, Ironlion, Melaninking, and Marc Washington! The scary thing is that whites have been getting away with it and by far for much longer-- centuries before "Afrocentrics" when academia was dominated by whites and everything studied was Eurocentric. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^My interpretation. We see a steady cline of variation corresponding with the intensity of indigenous affinity to non-indigenous affinity culminating in the Greek Egyptian and Upper Egyptian Roman material. I'd argue that after this period marks the transition into the modern Egyptian phenotype.
^^What's your take on Christy Turner's dental argument of population replacement from "the north" i.e. Southern Levant into the Nile Valley in the Pleistocene? She also argues that the external migrants were from the north and were ancestral Afro-Asiatic speakers. As to Nubia she claims that the Late Pleistocene Nubians were more like West Africans, but HOlocene Nubians (Christian, X-group and Meroitic) are much like "southwestern Eurasians" (En GEdi, Israel, Southern Levant).
I don't have the info on her "sub-Saharan" sample but it is located far west- 'West African", with data from areas near Egypt in the Sudan, Chad, Somalia etc excluded.
Don't have her full paper but she references a bit of Joel Irish in the 1990s. Irish it seems also has a problem with skewed sampling.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Turner is foolish. Her and Irish have been holding on to old ideas. As Keita's piece was cited along side the Turner piece within the same book, I feel that this quote from the Frigi review was likely a shot at her:
quote:Circular reasoning in syntheses involving multiple disciplines has to be avoided. The criteria and methods for a given discipline usually have to be given equal weight, and their results should be considered independently before an effort at synthesis is made. For example, a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. Likewise the place of origin of a particular genetic variant or lineage has to be based on genetic data, principles, and models, not on archaeological data. The locale of origin of a particular culture or archaeological industry is subject to analyses based on methods and theory that are specific to the relevant disciplines. The only exception to these “rules” is if a calculated date of origin of a genetic variant found in a given locale predates the existence of people in that place.
--Keita (2010)
^Hence, her claims of rapidly changing dental patterns are irrelevant to the linguistic reconstructions in Afro-Asiatic finding the highest diversity in Africa, as well as the lack of farming terms in Proto-Afroasiatic. No one buys her theory anyways, as Godde recently points out, she ignores recently data showing that the changes are due to punctuated evolution and neolithic diet.
quote:Researchers have focused on determining the course of cultural and biological evolution in Nubians (Elliot Smith & Wood-Jones, 1910; Adams, 1968, 1977; Carlson & Van Gerven, 1979; Irish & Turner, 1990; Turner & Markowitz, 1990), due to the large number of populations they had contact with and the potential for exchanging ideas and genes from this interaction. Metric analyses have looked at the genetic makeup of Nubians by comparing Nubian groups to each other (Nielsen, 1970; Carlson, 1976; Carlson & Van Gerven, 1977; Van Gerven et al., 1977; Greene, 1982; Van Gerven, 1982). Alternatively, discrete trait analysis not only compared Nubian samples to one another (Irish & Turner, 1990; Irish, 2005), but also compared Nubians to other populations, including Egyptians (Berry et al., 1967; Berry & Berry, 1972) and a Romano-British sample (Turner & Markowitz, 1990). These studies were conducted in an effort to determine the course of Nubian cultural and biological evolution. Biological diffusion persisted as the explanation for Nubian biological evolution (e.g. Elliot Smith & Wood-Jones, 1910) until 1968 when Adams observed continuity across time periods in the archaeological record and deduced the Nubians most likely evolved in situ.
--Godde (2010)
Godde goes on to say that "most people agree with the in situ hypothesis". Turner and Irish are obsolete. Keita (1993) also addresses Irish and Turner on this, noting additionally the presence of "fourth molar variants" in ancient Egyptians and Nubians that are genetic, and found mostly in tropical African populations.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Godde goes on to say that "most people agree with the in situ hypothesis". Turner and Irish are obsolete. Keita (1993) also addresses Irish and Turner on this, noting additionally the presence of "fourth molar variants" in ancient Egyptians and Nubians that are genetic, and found mostly in tropical African populations.
Yes, population replacement is in no way supported. Hassan et al. 2008 seems to also attribute hg J as recent from Arabs in Nubians. Others such as R1b he associates with gene flow with Afro-Asiatic and E-V12 as genetic continuum with upper Egyptians. To associate Afro-Asiatic with dental morphology though... foolish indeed. Especially since we know that this was due to the adoption of agriculture
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Deja-vu. How many times must we refute the notion of population displacement in favor of in-situ micro-evolution?
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic