^Closer overall to Terry Blacks and significantly different from Terry Whites.
Within the range of Modern African populations. Close to upper Europeans, but not close enough to be within their range
Per Zakrzewski they'd only approach the upper range of modern Europeans because of early Badarian groups who paradoxically cluster closer to "sub-Saharan" Africans than other Egyptians in cranio-facial traits.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Per Zakrzewski they'd only approach the upper range of modern Europeans because of early Badarian groups who paradoxically cluster closer to "sub-Saharan" Africans than other Egyptians in cranio-facial traits.
Actually, the ancient Egyptian mean crural index is well within the tropical African range, and out of the European range. Only Zakrzewski's 8 Badarian male specimens [but not the female counterparts] fell short of reaching the tropical African mean, which is not enough to bring down the overall ancient Egyptian mean for the specimens she analyzed. The ancient Egyptian, predynastic and Dynastic were described as "super-tropical" (Robins), since they generally tended to be even more "tropically" adapted in their outlook, if there can be such a thing. And yes, there is no single pattern of "sub-Saharan" Africans, unless one is perpetrating the Eurocentric politics of using the word as a synonymy of the "true Negro" stereotype.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not too familar with this type of study but it looks as if the population studied was maybe mixed. Perhaps giving the averages for two or more phenotypes?
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I'm not too familar with this type of study but it looks as if the population studied was maybe mixed. Perhaps giving the averages for two or more phenotypes?
LOL! I had a feeling you would start trolling this thread as well.
Did you not read the quote? Egyptians were within the range of modern African populations. How does that constitute as "mixed" in your book? They are closer to blacks than whites, look at the figures again.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Did you not read the quote? Egyptians were within the range of modern African populations. How does that constitute as "mixed" in your book? They are closer to blacks than whites, look at the figures again. [/QB]
Yes but it doesn't give the measurements for each individual studied,only an average for the group. That doesn't mean every individual was within the range of modern African groups.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Did you not read the quote? Egyptians were within the range of modern African populations. How does that constitute as "mixed" in your book? They are closer to blacks than whites, look at the figures again.
Yes but it doesn't give the measurements for each individual studied,only an average for the group. That doesn't mean every individual was within the range of modern African groups. [/QB]
Yes but it doesn't give the measurements for each individual studied,only an average for the group. That doesn't mean every individual was within the range of modern African groups.
Naturally, there are going to be variations at the individual level that may not always conform to the modal pattern of a population, even in the supposedly "non-mixed" individuals, but that is besides the point. The mean index tells us that there were enough individuals in the samples with indexes within the range of tropical mean, so as to bring mean index of the samples to the tropical range.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold on now. I know you know more than me about this study because you stay on this subject 24/7 as is apparent.
Now it appears to me that the study is focused on the average as a group and not on each individual. That would mean that each individual wouldn't have necessarily had tropical limbs. In fact some could have had non-tropical limbs and some could have had tropical limbs and their averages showing something in between.
This would merely confirm my belief that Egypt was a mix of people.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hold on now. I know you know more than me about this study because you stay on this subject 24/7 as is apparent.
You could be reading this subject 24/7 and still not understand it. It takes intelligence to get things, not "staying on them 24/7".
quote: Now it appears to me that the study is focused on the average as a group and not on each individual. That would mean that each individual wouldn't have necessarily had tropical limbs. In fact some could have had non-tropical limbs and some could have had tropical limbs and their averages showing something in between.
This would merely confirm my belief that Egypt was a mix of people.
Your belief is a symptom of simple-mindedness. Like I said, the average tells you that the individuals "generally" have a tropical body plan. What does that mean? Don't tell me that you have to "stay on the subject" of basic mathematics "24/7", just to get the meaning of "average"?
And even for those individuals who might deviate from the modal pattern, this is expected in any population, and so, cannot be qualified as "admixture". You are a true rookie at approaching any aspect of population bio-anthropology.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Explorer just answered your question. Sure, some Egyptians may not have had tropical limbs. However, according to Zakrzewski (2003) the Egyptians generally had tropical adaptions. Furthermore, not having tropical limbs would not equate to "mixed". As Sundjata mentioned earlier, the Badarian showed great affinities towards southern Africans, yet at the same time, Zakrzewski's 8 male Badarian sample did not reach the tropical mean (See the link to Explorer's blog)
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It simply seems that you and the other expert misinterpreted the study as meaning all the individuals necessarily had to have tropical limb proportions. The study doesn't suggest this at all.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your belief is a symptom of simple-mindedness.
lmao...
-------------------- 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
Let's take a simple example, for simple-minded's sake:
Let's say the modal pattern of population A was "black skin", and we had 200 people with "pigmented dark skin", and had say, 3 albinos. What do you suppose the average will tell you about the population. That they are "mixed"?
And by the same token, would the deviation of the 3 albino individuals tell you that they have that trait because they are "mixed"?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, even the "simple" example was too hard for you.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No,you and the other expert tried to mislead everyone into thinking the whole Egyptian population was tropically adapted, but it clearly doesn't show that at all.
In fact if the average for ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians are the same, then well that speaks for itself.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cite the average for modern Egyptians. Also tell us, why other "mixed" populations don't reach the "tropical" mean indexes.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
No,you and the other expert tried to mislead everyone into thinking the whole Egyptian population was tropically adapted, but it clearly doesn't show that at all.
We can only mislead an idiot, because anybody in the know of mathematics, knows what an average should mean.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just making sure you don't mislead people on your little study. Actually I don't think that you and the other expert intentionally tried to mislead, you were only misled by your comprehension of the results.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
, No don't do that--i.e. give up. Simple-minded's intellectual sluggishness is an opportunity for others to explore the subject further. There is no such thing as "absolutes" in population bio-anthropological fields. This is bio-anthropology 101, folks!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: , No don't do that--i.e. give up. Simple-minded's intellectual sluggishness is an opportunity for others to explore the subject further. There is no such thing as "absolutes" in population bio-anthropological fields. This is bio-anthropology 101, folks!
Ah then that must mean that there are white folks(albino as you and the others like to call them) that have tropical limbs?
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I'm just making sure you don't mislead people on your little study. Actually I don't think that you and the other expert intentionally tried to mislead, you were only misled by your comprehension of the results.
As evidenced by what citations? First you say that you don't understand the subject, and then you say people are misleading you. In other words, people are now to take up for your reading deficiencies.
When are you going to produce the specifics I asked of you?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ah then that must mean that there are white folks(albino as you and the others like to call them) that have tropical limbs?
Then you are in agreement with Mike and those who say 'whites' like you are nothing but albinos.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What specifics? That the modern Egyptians are the same as the ancients?
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
2)Nobody is misleading anybody- the results speak for themselves. And they say: "Egyptians were within the range of modern African populations. Do you think the authors are mistaken in putting ALL Egyptians in that category? After all, they are their words, not ours.
3)It is virtually impossible to misinterpret the clear results of the study. You just have a reluctance to accept them.
Explorer- Exactly, this simple girl is under the impression that a population can be "100%" and if its not it must be "mixed". I have called her out on this three times before; each time she ignores me
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
This request: 1)Cite the average for modern Egyptians [with the populations they were being analyzed with]. 2) Also tell us, why other "mixed" populations don't reach the "tropical" mean indexes.
Meaning both, not either/or.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that people here have a better understanding now of what the study could mean. And that is that not all of the ancient Egyptians necessarily had to have tropically adapted limbs.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not every single individual had tropical limbs. Most of them did- and those that fell short of the tropical range (the Badarian) had greater cranio-facial similarities to Nubians, Tigreans and other southern Africans. I would like to see you answer The Explorer's requests
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: What specifics? That the modern Egyptians are the same as the ancients?
Precisely what we want- i.e., evidence to substantiate such a claim
I never made that claim. Where do you see that at?
Obviously you suffer from some form of mental illness. Especially since I quoted you directly. So yes, you did make the claim that modern Egyptians are the same as AE, as you repeatedly continue to do
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
I think that people here have a better understanding now of what the study could mean.
Translation: I was really in the dark about this subject, until you guys educated me.
Of course, I'm going to deflect this fact, under the cover that you were trying to mislead me, so that nobody can fault me for intellectual inadequacy. LOL
quote: And that is that not all of the ancient Egyptians necessarily had to have tropically adapted limbs.
That's the most trivial in the bigger scheme of things. This is the taking-home point: Generally have tropical body plans--just like saying Europeans are generally "white". Nuf said.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right: Simple-minded used a caveat, a qualifier if you will, supposedly as a form of a "counter" argument.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that the pharaohs fit within the range of modern Europeans if i'm reading that correctly.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you are not reading that chart correctly. The Europeans had a lower average.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the description: that could be due to a different technique used. In any event, the Pharaohs are only slightly different from other Egyptians whereas Modern Europeans are significantly different. See the download link I provided, maybe after reading it yourself things may be clearer.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
That means nothing. The range tells you that the European average would have been smaller than the average obtained for the pooled Pharaoh. The only thing that strikes me about the average for the pooled Pharaohs, is that without Rameses II it went down.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Yes but they seem to fit within the upper range.
As Explorer stated: Modern Europeans have a lower average. Compare that to Modern Africans; whose range they fit perfectly into. Did you not read it properly:
Egyptians fit into the range of modern Africans but only close to the range of modern EuropeansPosts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simple-minded, if you need any further evidence of what I'm telling, just read from the primary source of those figures in the table:
An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length using Trotter & Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. - Robins, 1986.
Do you know what this means? It is not simply just the values themselves, but also in how those values are reached. So, it goes beyond the values, which are indicative enough in of themselves, but the formula's able to churn out sensible results.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The physical proportions and living stature of New Kingdom pharaohs
G. Robins and C.C.D. Shute Christ's College, Cambridge, England Physiological Laboratory, University of Cambridge, England Received 24 March 1983; accepted 7 July 1983. Available online 4 April 2006. Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees. Keywords: stature; Ancient Egyptians; negroid proportions
Only thing surprising was their comment on Ramses II. Do you have a table that includes Ramses?
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The figure for the pooled Pharaohs is listed on the chart you posted. The average with Rameses II is seemingly higher than that obtained without him. So, yes, that is interesting, in light of the above...or maybe I'm just reading it backwards [more likely].
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the tropical range anyways? That is, what range must one be in to be considered "tropically adapted"?
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Forgot about that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic