posted
Nice Find Bass, do you have the full study or at least the conclusions..??
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks...LMAO. Another Nail in the Eurocentric coffin. This Proves the black Tauregs are Authentic Berbers not descendants of African Concubines...
You Reading this Garrig....
Nice Find!!
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Big up to Sundjata
posted
So I presume this is saying that the Garamantes were morphologically distinct from Mediterranean North Africans? If so, that would challenge the Eurocentric argument that they were "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
posted
Good work Bass. Their conclusions are about what ES regulars would expect. The Sahara by drying up, did slow down gene flow, though it did not stop such gene flow entirely. In a number of their charts, the Libyan area Garamantes cluster more closely with the Soleb samples from Nubia, than the late dynasty Egyptian or GReek/Roman samples in Alexandria, (both in the far north of Egypt) or the coastal Carthaginian, or Tunisian or Algerian samples.
These findings should be compared with writing on the Garamantes. Professor Ivan Van Sertima, 1985, holds that the Garamantes were primarily a black African people of the Sahara. He contrasts them with "Libyans." But if the Garamantes in the study above were based primarily in Libya, then arent they too "Libyans?" WHy are "Libyans" so often spoken of in terms of "Tamahu" [sic] rather than Garamantes as well?
And if the Garamantes cluster with Nubians based in the Sudan, how valid is the "racial" claim of so-called "white" Garamantes allegedly hunting down "Ethiopians" in their chariots, as claimed by assorted white writers? Could it be that this claim was always bogus to begin with?
Likewise claims of "white" Saharan invaders in chariots, in various periods, by various European writers. But as Fentress in "The Berbers" 1997 shows, the skeletons of the reputed "white" invaders turn out to resemble those from southern Egypt, not Middle Easterners.
QUOTE: the skeletons seem to show closer resemblance to groups from the upper Nile Valley than to contemporary material from the Maghreb." --M. Fentress. The Berbers, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------- That's that. Now does anyone have any detailed data on the Garamantes? Trade? Government? etc?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: So I presume this is saying that the Garamantes were morphologically distinct from Mediterranean North Africans?
Not necessarily, which is why we should refrain from calling them "Mediterranean North Africans" (note that the Carthaginians and Algerians fit into the same cluster as the Soleb "Nubians").
"Overall, three clusters may be identified. These consist of (1) the Garamantes, (2) a group formed by the populations of Gizeh and Kerma, and (3) a group that includes Soleb, Alexandrians, Algerians, and Carthaginians. The above results have important implications for our understanding of population history and affinities in North Africa in the last 4,000 years."
^The study shows that Garamante men shared most similarity with Soleb Nubian samples while the females showed their greatest affinities with the Egyptian Alexandrian. All in all, it is argued that the Garamantes are pretty much outliners yet by and large their closet relationships are with groups from the Nile valley. Though as Bass points out, sample sizes are small.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This study is inconclusive.The authors used multiple test to make it appear the study is relevant--but it is not relevant at all.
The sample size varies from 8 to 88. To have any significance the sample size should have been a minimum of 15 individuals for each population sampled. If they could not find a population numbering at least 15 for each population sampled--that population should have been kept out of the study. By keeping the population at 15, the authors would have had a random sample which would have been more valid and reliable.
None of the values are statistically significant at .050. As a result, why should we consider them as telling us anything about population dynamics during the period under consideration.
In my opinion the authors of the study knew somebody on the editorial staff. It does not show Garamantes relating to any of the other populations.
And why should they? The Garamante trade routes extended into Dar Tichitt and other Western urban centers.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They do say that the Garamantes were isolated- that is one of the points in their conclusion, but at the same time they show some relative clustering of the Garamantes with Nubian populations from the Sudan, more so than other populations, when the individual groups are broken out separately. Their extensive trade routes would not limit their relative clustering to the Sudanic group.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: They do say that the Garamantes were isolated- that is one of the points in their conclusion, but at the same time they show some relative clustering of the Garamantes with Nubian populations from the Sudan, more so than other populations, when the individual groups are broken out separately. Their extensive trade routes would not limit their relative clustering to the Sudanic group.
The paper appears to claim they are not related to the sudanese. Below are a couple of quotes from the study:
quote:
Table 6 shows that the greatest distance of the Garamantes to their neighbors is that with Gizeh and Kerma, both for males and females. These distances are also the greatest among all populations under study and they are statistically significant.
quote:
The three-dimensional plots of the MDS analyses are shown in Figures 4 and 5. To gain a better understanding of sample biodistances, these figures have been drawn using the same scale for all axes since the range of the MDS values from Dimension 1 to 3 follows roughly the ratio 4.6: 2.5: 1.6. Figures 4 and 5 show that among males and females the Garamantes are located at the very positive extreme of Dimension 1, Gizeh and Kerma are at the opposite extreme, while all other groups are spread close to the center. With regard to Dimensions 2 and 3, the Garamantes do not seem to differ particularly from the other populations, being located close to the middle of the comparative range of values. Overall, however, the Garamantes stand out in multidimensional space, as do the samples from Kerma and Gizeh.
.
The paper appears to be standard eurocentric fair.
quote:It should be noted that research has shown nonmetric traits to be population specific and therefore only really useful for intrapopulation analyses (Cheverud & Buikstra, 1981; Kohn, 1991).
Let's also recall Hanihara et al reporting Nubians to be closer to Europeans than even Somalis. Frankly, if nonmetric traits are only useful for intrapopulation analyses, I don't think this is very useful.
posted
Actually I think this study reinforces for me at least the importance of the Sudan Nile Valley corridor along with the ancient Chadian branch of the Nile (now dried up) and its Mega Lakes. There has always been a transit corridor for Africans crossing the Sahara/Sahel to points North and West from Sudan and the Nile Valley. And this is just another example of the evidence for it.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting the complete reliance on non-metric traits aside, the study relies heavily on facial traits.
It has been determined that the facial skeleton is generally more plastic and easily manipulated by external/environmental pressures than the neurocranium, which is more phologenetically discriminatory in assigning relationship between test populations.
The Sahara has not historically barred interaction between coastal north and those more inwardly situated in the past or the present. Where do sub-Saharan west Africans [non-air travelers] migrant workers generally go first, before finding their way into Europe? the Maghreb, of course. Distance may be more of a factor in determining extent of interaction between geographically distant groups than merely conditions of the Sahara, outside of any cultural practices that might restrict genetic exchange between two populations or groups.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be noted that research has shown nonmetric traits to be population specific and therefore only really useful for intrapopulation analyses (Cheverud & Buikstra, 1981; Kohn, 1991).
Let's also recall Hanihara et al reporting Nubians to be closer to Europeans than even Somalis. Frankly, if nonmetric traits are only useful for intrapopulation analyses, I don't think this is very useful.
Agree with what you’re saying. Keita and others have already issued rarely heeded caveats about non-metric analysis. These ''geneflow tunnelvisioned’’ authors (who remind me of Godde) don’t know how incredibly stupid they sound when they talk about Egypto-Nubian closeness in terms of geneflow.
This paper offers little to what is already known about the Garamantes and North Africans in general. Those skeletal remains would’ve been better off in the hands of more creative scholars such as Dr.Zakrzweski.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted that research has shown nonmetric traits to be population specific and therefore only really useful for intrapopulation analyses (Cheverud & Buikstra, 1981; Kohn, 1991).
^^Good point.
Let's also recall Hanihara et al reporting Nubians to be closer to Europeans than even Somalis. Frankly, if nonmetric traits are only useful for intrapopulation analyses.
Non-metric studies may indeed have the weakness you mention, but I can't recall any such Hanihara study. Hanihara 2003 clustered the Somalis with Kenyans and other peoples of East Africa, rather than Europeans or "Middle Easterners." In his facial flatness study 2000, Somalis group with other Africans. Maybe you have another of his studies in mind. Which one?
PS: Swenet- can you link to where Keita warns about non-metric studies? Its good to know what he said, when these questions come up.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanihara et al's '03 PCO plots did place Egyptians and Nubians closer to Europeans than to Somali's (just like Ricaut et al's plots do in their 08 paper), but the inter populational distance values both papers used were not disclosed, so it remains an open question.
Can’t recall where I read Keita’s caveat right now, but in his 93 paper he sheds light on some of the odd results non-metric analysis typically yield (eg, Ashanti’s close to Indians and indistinguishable from Burmese people).
posted
Point taken on the non-metric studies and it is good that you mention those caveats, along with Truthcen. I will have to find Hanihara's study as Godde shows him having a mixed sampling batch. One for example was 12th Dynasty era Nubians, and not contemporaneous or near with Naqada period samples, against whom they were being compared. Godde also claims the batch was also loaded with more recent, Christian period samples, and finally a recent sample from Sesebi. quote from Godde:
The Hanihara samples have been dated to specific time periods, but exact site dates are not available. The first sample from the Hanihara data was from the site and time period of the same name, Kerma. Adams (1977, p. 16) dates the Kerma time period from 1991 to 1650 BC. The second group, from the islands of Hesa and Biga (Hesa/Biga) located near Aswan, dates to the Christian time period. Nielsen (1970) notes the dates for the Christian time period as 550–1500 AD. Hanihara et al. (1998) refers to the final group as a ‘‘recent population’’ from Sesebi.
Don't have the actual Hanihara study on hand to verify. THis doesn't negate the warning about non-metric studies and their methodologies/assumptions, but alongside the those weaknesses stand the sampling issues. Ricaut apparently takes his sampling of Nubians from Hanihara's 2003 study.
Will check out Keita link.
-------------------- 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 |
^Hanihara et al '03 I'm sure you've already read it though, so there is nothing really new to reap here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah true enough. Of note is how Somalians cluster with other "sub-Saharans" but that is nothing new too. Just recapped for first time readers.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Hanihara et al's '03 PCO plots did place Egyptians and Nubians closer to Europeans than to Somali's (just like Ricaut et al's plots do in their 08 paper), but the inter populational distance values both papers used were not disclosed, so it remains an open question.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Godde shows [Hanihara] having a mixed sampling batch. One for example was 12th Dynasty era Nubians, and not contemporaneous or near with Naqada period samples, against whom they were being compared. Godde also claims the batch was also loaded with more recent, Christian period samples, and finally a recent sample from Sesebi.
. . . .
THis doesn't negate the warning about non-metric studies and their methodologies/assumptions, but alongside the those weaknesses stand the sampling issues. Ricaut apparently takes his sampling of Nubians from Hanihara's 2003 study.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad other posters on this board pointed out the glaring faults of this study. Too many of us get happy when we read a study with a conclusion that jives with what we already believe or suspect with little regard for the methods of the study. Eurocentrics, especially the nuts, do it frequently and we shouldn't. The methodology used to arrive at the conclusion is just as important as the conclusion itself, at least, if you're seeking truth and not feel-goodism.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, all should at least be aware that the Nubians used are a pooled sample that incorporates Christian era/Arab advent era Nubia, (a time of some foreign gene flow), not a straight up "classic" Dynastic period Nubian sampling. We really don't have an apples to apples comparison of Dynastic era Nubians to Egyptians or other Africans in Hanihara 2003.
However we do have a straight up "classic" comparison in Godde 2009, which has some weaknesses as other ES vets have shown, but overall, affirms what other scholars have long shown about Nubians and Egyptians- that they are ethnically the closest people in the Nile Valley. Yurco said this way back in 1989, and others before him.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The plot thinckens somewhat. Hanihara 1998, shows Christian era Nubians clustering with Egyptians, based on zygomatic bone traits. So his 2003 pooled "Nubian" match is offset with the Nubian cluster in the 1998 study. Based on Hanihara's 1998 study, the Nubians cluster with Egyptians and are more similar overall to Sub-Saharan Africans. Hanihara's work yields different results depending on sampling, not surprising, but there is also so much diversity in tropical African populations that it easily could account for variations and diversity in samples gathered.
QUOTE: "Bipartition of the zygomatic bone is less frequent in the European region than in the eastern part of the Old World. Few temporal changes are evident among 5 series of the samples from the United Kingdom. The westward and eastward shift of the occurrence of the European bipartite zygomatic bone can be detected. In the North African area, the late Dynastic samples of Egypt and Nubia show the highest frequency among the samples from this region.. No samples from recent North Africa have the bipartite zygomatic bone. Some of the Subsaharan African population samples show a bipartite zygomatic bone... The SubSaharan African samples have relatively higher frequency of the trait.." -- Hanihara et al 1998. Os zygomaticum bipartitum: frequency distribution in major human populations. J. Anat. (1998), 192, pp. 539±555
-------------------- 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
Hanihara's Nubian sample may very well be the same as Holidays (partly) foreign ''somewhat cold adapted'' Nubian sample he has used several times. Unfortunately, this cannot be confirmed, because Holiday doesn't properly label his samples.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic