...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Cranio-facial studies - ancient Egyptians group with North Africans/ West Eurasians (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Cranio-facial studies - ancient Egyptians group with North Africans/ West Eurasians
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 6 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

Sample Set

Europeans
47. Russians 72–74 (74) 45–47 (41) Recent Russians (NHM, UC, MAE, MSU)
48. Greece 46–54 (20) 12–16 (4) Ancient and recent Greece (NHM)
49. Eastern Europeans 80–98 (52) 18–24 (16) Slav group: Poland, Czecho, Hergegovina, Bulgaria, and
Yugoslavia (NHM)
50. Italy 131–146 (82) 42–47 (31) Recent Italians (NHM)
51. Finland/Ural 72–75 (35) 5–6 (2) Including a few samples of Ural-language people (NHM,
MH)
52. Scandinavia 57–60 (30) 5 (3) Norwegians and Swedish (NHM, UC)
53. Germany 58–61 (44) 9–10 (7) Recent German (NHM, UC)
54. France 74–86 (23) 18–21 (0) Recent French (NHM, UC, MH)
UK series
55. Ensay 64–68 (58) 29–30 (30) Late Medieval to post-Medieval periods, Scotland (NHM)
56. Poundbury 97–109 (106) 46–52 (47) Late Roman period, Southwest England (NHM)
57. Spitalfields-1 122–135 (121) 104–113 (106) Mid-Victorian, London (NHM)
58. Spitalfields-2 73–74 (75) 17–19 (35) Pre-17th century, London (UC)
North Africans
59. Naqada 82–87 (57) 89–93 (39) Predynastic Egypt, ca. 5,000–4,000 BP (UC)
60. Gizeh 122–125 (91) 46–51 (32) 26th–30th Dynasty, Egypt, 664–343 BC (UC)
61. Kerma 114–132 (58) 79–92 (51) 12th–13th Dynasty of Nubia (UC)
62. Nubia 86–92 (39) 42–47 (9) Early Christian or Christian date Nubia (UC)
Subsaharan Africans
63. Somalia 58–64 (53) 10–12 (5) Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali (US)
64. Nigeria-1 74–83 (72) 65–76 (53) Ibo tribe (NHM, UC)
65. Nigeria-2 73–80 (17) 46–53 (7) Ashanti tribe (NHM, UC)
66. Gabon 82–86 (47) 55–57 (36) Fernand Vaz River (NHM, NMNH)
67. Tanzania 69–75 (54) 20–25 (17) Haya tribe, Musira Island, Lake Victoria (UC, NHM)
68. Kenya 71–82 (31) 55–63 (10) Bantu-speaking people from Kenya (UC, NHM)
69. South Africa 100–109 (53) 21–25 (8) Zulu and once called Kaffir tribes (UC, NHM, AMNH)
70. Khoisans 43–36 (28) 17–22 (13) Bushmans and Hottentots (NHM, UC, AMNH)

"Roughly three major constellations are evident. The Subsaharan African, Southeast Asian, and Oceanian samples form a cluster in one quadrant of Figure 2a. However, the Subsaharan African samples form a distinct grouping, well removed from the Southeast Asian and Oceanian samples on the third and fourth principal coordinates. In Figures 1 and 2, the Subsaharan African samples show significant separation from other regions, as well as diversity among themselves. The East/Northeast Asian and European samples form two additional discernable clusters. The New World and Arctic samples are peripheral subgroups in the large East/Northeast Asian cluster, and the two Ainu samples are outliers to other East Asians. The Central Asian samples are located between the Eastern Asian and European clusters. In the bottom half of Figure 2a, the South Asian samples are nearest to the center of all groups, the North African samples are a bit further removed, and the European samples are more separated, having the lowest scores on principal axis 2. Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central andEast/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. The Arctic cluster, which includes groups from northeasternmost Siberia, is deep in a branch containing all New World groups. The Ainu samples are more similar to mainland groups from the Amur River basin and Lake Baikal than to the Japanese."


 -

SOURCE : SOURCE : HANIHARA, TSUNEHIKO, HAJIME ISHIDA, AND YUKIO DODO. 2003. Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:241-251.

Link : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10233/abstract

PDF : http://wysinger.homestead.com/discrete_cranial.pdf

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am so sick of this crap!

quote:
Numerous cranial studies have found ancient Egyptian skulls to resemble those of more southerly Africans. Godde (2009) found Egyptian crania to particularly resemble those of Sudanese, as did Barnard (1935), while Crichton (1966) discovered a strong similarity between Egyptians and Kenyans. Brauer (1976) found Egyptian crania to fit snugly into a cluster with skulls from throughout tropical Africa. Relationships between Upper Egyptians and sub-Saharan populations are particularly strong (Keita 1990, 2005; Vermeersch 2002), but as found by Henneberg et al (1989) and Midant-Reynes (2000), even Lower Egyptian crania have sub-Saharan characteristics.

To be sure, a couple of studies have shown different results, but both of these have fundamental methodological flaws. Brace (1993) claimed to have found an affinity between ancient Egyptians and Europeans, but as pointed out by Howells (1995), too many of Brace's variables involved nose shape, bringing to mind Hiernaux's point about the high variability of African nose shapes. A later study by Hanihara (2003) found that while Egyptians were more closely related to Sudanese than to anyone else, both of these populations seemed related to Europeans according to his analysis. The problem with Hanihara's methods is that they were based not on quantitative measurements of cranial features but on qualititative descriptions of "non-metric" traits (i.e. anatomical anomalies), and this type of analysis is considered useful only for comparing crania within populations rather than between them as noted by Cheverud et al (1981). When these two flawed studies are dismissed, the picture that emerges from cranial analysis is that ancient Egyptians were of sub-Saharan African affinity.

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61235317/African-Origin-of-the-Ancient-Egyptians

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is nothing unexpected about the content of the paper, in fact, similar findings have been made earlier (Ricaut 2008). In that paper, as well as the one you’re bringing up, the dendrograms make it clear what populations have the closest relationships to predynastic Egypt (which is why you didn’t bother to post it, and stuck to the PCO’s).

So, ''Anthro Thinker'', to what extend is the closeness of Naqada to Europe, reproduced when it comes to limb proportions? Or are you of the mindset that this paper frees you of the responsibility to look at all the other osteological evidence?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having gone through their table, the [Truthcentric's] piece appears to be right about Hanihara et al.'s choices for discriminants. However, what particularly struck me, is that little information is given that suggests genetic cranial relationship, as otherwise done in the case of say, Keita (1990) or Strause and Hubbe (2010).
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is the source and citation of the piece TruthCentric posted?

But if you only want metric traits, no problem [Cool] Swetnet seems to be familar with this one...once again they group far away from most 'sub saharans'.

It's the same sample set as the non metric study.

"For a more detailed description of these populations, see Hanihara et al. (2003) and Hanihara and Ishida (2001a–d)."


Europe
1. Pounbury (UK) Late Roman
2. France Recent
3. Germany Recent
4. Scandinavia Recent
5. Italyb Recent
6. Greece Ancient and recent
7. Eastern Europeb Recent
8. Russia Recent
Middle East
9. Turkey/Cyprusb Recent Sagalassos (Anatolia)b,c 7–13th century a.d.
Northeast Africa
10. Naqada (Egypt)b 3–2nd millennium b.c.
11. Gizeh (Egypt)b 7–4th century b.c.
12. Kerma (Sudan)b 20–16th century b.c.
Sub-Sahara
13. Somalia Recent
14. Tanzania Recent
15. Gabon Recent
India
16. Northwest India Recent

 -

 -

SOURCE : Ricaut, F. X. and Waelkens, M (2008) "Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements," Human Biology: Vol. 80: Iss. 5, Article 5.

Link : http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol80/iss5/5/

PDF : http://humbiol.com/pdf/human-biology-volume80.5.ricaut.pdf

How can they be considered Black when they group with all West Eurasians before a large majority of sub saharans?


quote:
So, ''Anthro Thinker'', to what extend is the closeness of Naqada to Europe, reproduced when it comes to limb proportions? Or are you of the mindset that this paper frees you of the responsibility to look at all the other osteological evidence?
The ancient Egyptians were ethnically/racially closest to the populations geographically closest to them...unsurprisingly...West or South.
and probably to a lessor extent North (into the Levant). Frank Yurco had a good write up about them 20 years ago.

And there was also diversity in Egypt, the North was a bit different than the South

The only relationship they had with Europeans..even the most Southern ones like Greeks or Italians...is that they belonged to perhaps the same broad Macro super race as Europeans belong to. They certainly were not Europeans.

As far as osteological evidence.... well Cranio-facial analysis is the way to go. But there is of course other methods like Dental affinities.

 -

They seem to be somewhat close to Greeks here, but if other Northern Africans were sampled i'm sure they would be closer.

"Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth recorded in 72 major human population groups and seven geographic groups were analyzed. The results obtained are fivefold. First, the largest teeth are found among Australians, followed by Melanesians, Micronesians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans. Philippine Negritos, Jomon/Ainu, and Western Eurasians have small teeth, while East/Southeast Asians and Polynesians are intermediate in overall tooth size. Second, in terms of odontometric shape factors, world extremes are Europeans, aboriginal New World populations, and to a lesser extent, Australians. Third, East/Southeast Asians share similar dental features with sub-Saharan Africans, and fall in the center of the phenetic space occupied by a wide array of samples. Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data. As such, worldwide patterning of odontometric variation provides an additional avenue in the ongoing investigation of the origin(s) of anatomically modern humans."

SOURCE : Hanihara T and Ishida H, (2005) Metric dental variation of major human populations American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 128 Issue 2, Pages 287 - 298.

Link : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20080/abstract

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africans have the highest dental diversity

"Previous research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits... The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model." (Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44. )


Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East.  Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.

"During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. 

Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization."

-- Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt 

Michal Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabacinski, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf

British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13 (2009): 147–74


"Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah [the Western Desert- Saharan region] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari.." [the Badarians ]are a "good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like"

--(Joel D. Irish (2006). Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43.)

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But if you only want metric traits, no problem
I have no idea what you're talking about. The things that are looked at during metric analysis are not traits.

quote:
Swetnet seems to be familar with this one...once again they group far away from most 'sub saharans'.
Indeed I'm familiar with it.
Familiar enough to know that the study used nonmentric traits as well, (not metric traits as you're falsely stating) which is why I brought Ricaut (2008) up in the first place. Another thing, without having access to the unpublished data of both studies, how can you know that the North African remains grouped away from Sub Saharan Africans, let alone that they grouped ''far away''?

quote:
How can they be considered Black when they group with all West Eurasians before a large majority of sub saharans?
Because ''black' refers to skin pigmentation, not discrete traits. This is a very odd question.
quote:
The ancient Egyptians were ethnically/racially closest to the populations geographically closest to them...unsurprisingly...
Indeed, and not at all to Europeans.
quote:
and probably to a lessor extent North (into the Levant). Frank Yurco had a good write up about them 20 years ago.
Frank Yurco is not a biological anthropologist.
Discrete traits (which you seem to prefer over other data) has Ancient Egyptians MUCH closer to Nigerians (Ashanti) than to Palestinians.

quote:
The only relationship they had with Europeans..even the most Southern ones like Greeks or Italians...is that they belonged to perhaps the same broad Macro super race as Europeans belong to.
Evidence/indications?
quote:
As far as osteological evidence.... well Cranio-facial analysis is the way to go.
Limb proportions are way more effective than facial analysis in this kind of dynamic ie, settling the question of whether there was gene flow between high and low latitude populations. Limb proportion data is always going to trump craniofacial analysis when it comes to this; no matter how much a high and low latitude populations may seem alike craniofacially.
Extreme differences in appendage length (which is the case between Europeans and Naqadans) will rule out such a relationship, DESPITE cranio-facial likeness. It is well known that facial features can easily arise because of convergent evolution. Appendage length can too, but no low latitude population is going to maintain their ‘’tropical’’ appendage length if they are significantly affected by immigrant people who have been long time residents outside of the tropics.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Indeed I'm familiar with it.
Familiar enough to know that the study used nonmentric traits as well, (not metric traits as you're falsely stating) which is why I brought Ricaut (2008) up in the first place.

Yeah My fault, the study says "Cranio-metric traits in a Byzantine population" next to the page numbers but the study itself is definitely on non metric similarities now that I read it.

btw, here's are cranio-metric similarities.

 -
 -
 -

SOURCE : Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR. 1993. Clines and clusters versus ‘‘race:’’ a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31

Link : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603/abstract

quote:

Another thing, without having access to the unpublished data of both studies, how can you know that the North African remains grouped away from Sub Saharan Africans, let alone that they grouped ''far away''?

I do have access to the studies uploaded in PDF format, i even pasted the links here. What unpuplished data are you speaking of?

quote:
Because ''black' refers to skin pigmentation, not discrete traits. This is a very odd question.
Well then they were not black, but rather reddish brown (on average). But cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic relatedness. As are dental patterns. Anyway, skin color is not a good indicator of genetic relationships, unlike cranio-facial analysis.

quote:

Indeed, and not at all to Europeans.

They were closer to Europeans than to many many sub saharan African populations.

See the Dental, as well as cranio metric and non metric studies I have pasted in this thread. In 2008 non metric study (that sample) of even Somalis don't cluster close to them at all...much less Central/West and South Africans.

quote:
Evidence/indications?
Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass-reduced teeth like Caucacians: North Africans, West Asians, and Europeans.

"EGYPTIAN DENTAL AFFINITIES 9 ever, all 15 samples exhibit morphologically simple, massreduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner,1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well (Brace et al., 1993)."

SOURCE : Irish JD, (2006) Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43

Linke : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331657

PDF : http://wysinger.homestead.com/who_were_egyptian.pdf


quote:
Limb proportions are way more effective than facial analysis in this kind of dynamic ie, settling the question of whether there was gene flow between high and low latitude populations. Limb proportion data is always going to trump craniofacial analysis when it comes to this; no matter how much a high and low latitude populations may seem alike craniofacially.
Extreme differences in appendage length (which is the case between Europeans and Naqadans) will rule out such a relationship, DESPITE cranio-facial likeness. It is well known that facial features can easily arise because of convergent evolution. Appendage length can too, but no low latitude population is going to maintain their ‘’tropical’’ appendage length if they are significantly affected by immigrant people who have been long time residents outside of the tropics.

Cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic similarity and relatedness.

Both Metric

"Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin color shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin color variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species."

Link : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639

And non Metric

"In the present study, the frequency distributions of 20 discrete cranial traits in 70 major human populations from around the world were analyzed. The principal-coordinate and neighbor-joining analyses of Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD), based on trait frequencies, indicate that 1). the clustering pattern is similar to those based on classic genetic markers, DNA polymorphisms, and craniometrics;2). significant interregional separation and intraregional diversity are present in Subsaharan Africans; 3). clinal relationships exist among regional groups; 4). intraregional discontinuity exists in some populations inhabiting peripheral or isolated areas. For example, the Ainu are the most distinct outliers of the East Asian populations. These patterns suggest that founder effects, genetic drift, isolation, and population structure are the primary causes of regional variation in discrete cranial traits. Our results are compatible with a single origin for modern humans as well as the multiregional model, similar to the results of Relethford and Harpending ([1994] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 95:249-270). The results presented here provide additional measures of the morphological variation and diversification of modern human populations. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc."

SOURCE : SOURCE : HANIHARA, TSUNEHIKO, HAJIME ISHIDA, AND YUKIO DODO. 2003. Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:241-251.

Link : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12772212

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
deleted, double post.
Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Moderator
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anthro Thinker:
deleted, double post.

Should not have posted at all.

quote:
But cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic relatedness
In the images Africa is right a long with Australians and Melanesian. This is why you fail. Its one thing to look at the graph but it takes some intellect to know which groups are actually Genetically related : IE the positions of "India" and "Europe" can simply be removed from the equation as they provide no REAL biological relationship with other North East Africans.

Migration history, Uni Parental makers, Culture, language, CONSISTENT results from cranio-facial analysis, Limb proportion data, SIMPLE Geography....the kitchen sink.... all agree with the removal of "India" and "Europe".

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
btw, here's are cranio-metric similarities.
And not just any cranio-metric similarities; Brace lists what those dendograms are based on, and he used cranio-facial regions that don’t properly discriminate between Europeans and the used Northeast Africans ie, they highlight the similarities, and ignore the stark differences. Here the same thing will be told you as well; the features he purposefully nitpicked to create a false relationship between Northeast Africans and Europeans, are caused by convergent evolution, not genetic similarity.
quote:
I do have access to the studies uploaded in PDF format, i even pasted the links here. What unpuplished data are you speaking of?
I’m talking about the unpublished MMD values. If you don’t have those –which I know for a fact since that data wasn’t published in Ricaut (2008) and Hanahara (2003) – you have no way of knowing how close Naqadans were to the used Sub-Saharan samples.
quote:
Well then they were not black, but rather reddish brown (on average).
No human is literally black, so guess where that argument will take you.
Westerners don’t use the term ‘’black’’ to exclusively refer to people who approximate the color black, so I have no idea why you’re making this false distinction. The majority of African Americans, who are called black, are on average brown.
quote:
But cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic relatedness. As are dental patterns.
Not necessarily. If you can post all those plots, read all those studies, and still come out, not noticing the many unlikely matches, you must have a severe case of tunnel vision. Every screenshot you have posted shows unlikely relationships. Why do you think that is?
quote:
They were closer to Europeans than to many many sub saharan African populations.
Cranio-facial relationships are discerned with the aid of certain variables, so what you’re really seeing, is relationships between what is measured, not some sort of ultimate and conclusive judgment. This should be taken into account when you making such sweeping statements.
Analysis of various regions/parts of the skeleton, eg Limb proportions, bi-iliac width, metric analysis, non metric analysis etc. all show stronger ties with Africans than with Europeans, and that’s the bottom line. That Sub-Saharan Africans don’t all converge in that cluster, is all the more testament to African variability, which, in case you didn’t know, is a benefit to the African cause, not against it.
quote:
See the Dental, as well as cranio metric and non metric studies I have pasted in this thread. In 2008 non metric study (that sample) of even Somalis don't cluster close to them at all...much less Central/West and South Africans.
This has to do with how long food has been processed by a given population, not with genetic relationships to those regions. Your reasoning is amusing. Somali people have close genetic ties with Modern Egyptians (let alone the ancient ones), and here you are, trying to convince me that the dental paper shows genetic ties of Naqadans to people from Afghanistan, over people from Somalia. Do you even know what you’re typing?
quote:
Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass-reduced teeth like Caucacians: North Africans, West Asians, and Europeans.
That is because (the ancestors of) the Ancient Egyptians were among the earliest participants of the Neolithic revolution; the Saharan Neolithic. Mass reduced teeth have nothing to do with gene flow from Europeans, if anything, geneflow went mostly from Africa to Eurasia during that time period and before it (the Mesolithic). Like I said above, the only thing you’re doing, is frantically citing European scholars, who have no intent on using variables that discriminate between Europeans and Ancient Egyptians, in a manner that reflects their genetic relationship.

This can easily be done by not obsessively focusing on the nasal region (which is what Brace is fond of doing). You can post and tout their findings as indicating genetic relationships all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone.

quote:
Cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic similarity and relatedness
Then explain the many unlikely relationships in the studies you’ve cited, eg Somalia/China (Hanihara) Afghanistan/Naqada (Hanihara), Somalia/India (Brace), Australo-Melanesia/Africa (Brace), Naqada/Sagalasos (Ricaut).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by astenb:
quote:
But cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic relatedness
In the images Africa is right a long with Australians and Melanesian. This is why you fail. Its one thing to look at the graph but it takes some intellect to know which groups are actually Genetically related : IE the positions of "India" and "Europe" can simply be removed from the equation as they provide no REAL biological relationship with other North East Africans.

Migration history, Uni Parental makers, Culture, language, CONSISTENT results from cranio-facial analysis, Limb proportion data, SIMPLE Geography....the kitchen sink.... all agree with the removal of "India" and "Europe".

Indeed.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Assorted attempts to deny or minimize the ancient
Egyptian primary affinity with tropical Africans
are doomed to failure, and have failed, as demonstrated
numerous times on ES. Generally such minimization or
denial attempts have 8 fatal weaknesses:


WEAKNESS #1 - SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF BRACE 1993 DEBUNKED

 -
---------------------------------------------------

Now for the Ward dental study, also debunked
on several key elements, for several years. Let's
again recap.


WEAKNESS #2 - CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF WARD DENTAL DEBUNKED

 -


WEAKNESS #3 - CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF WARD DENTAL DEBUNKED
 -


WEAKNESS #4 - CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF WARD DENTAL DEBUNKED
 -


--------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's look at the Hanihara 2003 study-
debunked as to assorted "white Egypt" claims..


WEAKNESS #5 - CERTAIN ELEMENTS AND/OR CLAIMS
BASED ON HANIHARA 2003 DEBUNKED

 -


WEAKNESS #6 - CERTAIN ELEMENTS AND/OR CLAIMS
BASED ON HANIHARA 2003 DEBUNKED

 -

----------------------------------------------------------------


Here is cranio-facial analysis of Nubians and Egyptians.
As can be seen, Nubians are the closest ethnically
to Egyptians.

WEAKNESS #7 - SOME STUDIES ABOVE CONVENIENTLY
EXCLUDE NUBIANS. WHEN THEY ARE PUT INTO THE
PICTURE, THEY ARE THE CLOSEST RELATIVES OF THE
EGYPTIANS DEBUNKING CLAIMS OF EUROPEAN OR "MIDDLE
EASTERN" AFFINITY."


 -

And here is another cranio facial analysis- RESULT:
Again the same: Egyptians cluster more with tropical
Africans than with Europeans or Middle Easterners.


WEAKNESS #8 - NO MATTER HOW DENDROGRAMS ARE SLICED
AND DICED, THE RESULT IS THE SAME- EGYPTIANS
CLUSTER WITH TROPICAL AFRICANS MORE THAN
EUROPEANSOR MIDDLE EASTERNERS

 -

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Posted by Swenet:
Limb proportions are way more effective than facial analysis in this kind of dynamic ie, settling the question of whether there was gene flow between high and low latitude populations. Limb proportion data is always going to trump craniofacial analysis when it comes to this; no matter how much a high and low latitude populations may seem alike craniofacially.
Extreme differences in appendage length (which is the case between Europeans and Naqadans) will rule out such a relationship, DESPITE cranio-facial likeness. It is well known that facial features can easily arise because of convergent evolution. Appendage length can too, but no low latitude population is going to maintain their ‘’tropical’’ appendage length if they are significantly affected by immigrant people who have been long time residents outside of the tropics


^^Indeed. As stated by credible scholars, limb proportions
are much more stable, and more genetically embedded
than changeable cranio-facial elements. Cranio-facial
data ALREADY show Egyptians clustering with tropical African types
or tropically adapted peoples (Like tropically adapted
peoples from Europe, before extensive recent cold adaptation.
And cranio-facial data ALREADY shows
that the people closest ethnically to Egyptians are
Nubians. BUT, add limb proportions ON TOP OF THAT,
and the case is more than closed as to the indigenous
tropical African character of the ancient Egyptians.


 -


 -


 -


 -


 -


 -


 -


 -


The data is clear from credible, mu;tiple mainstream
sources. Assorted attempts to deny or minimize
the primary affinity of the ancient Egyptians with
tropical Africans have failed, and will continue
to fail.


--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for White Nord         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anthro don't antho don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians. The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do trolls keep posting that Brace map when I showed its weakness here.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005051

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^lol, what do you expect? They are defeated dogs,
members of a racist religion whose gods have failed.
But "the white faithful" hang on, hoping for miracles.
Perchance, like certain white Mormons, they can
pray for Adolf Hitler. Perchance, from beyond the grave,
he will intervene to erase the clear
scholarship on the ground that shatters their illusions.
We'll wait for Adolf or Odin to answer increasingly
desperate pleas.


IN the meantime....

let's examine the alleged "damming" evidence of
Hanihara lol..


 -


and as Keita shows:
 -

As can be seen, in Hanihara's analysis, certain
categories of Nubians were excluded. But even
with this, it the data STILL confirms what "the white faithful"
desperately seek to deny or minimize. The ancient
Egyptians cluster with other tropical Africans
like Nubians, over and against Europeans or
"Middle Easterners."

of note too in Hanihara's data, is how Somalis,
cluster with other tropical Africans rather than
Europeans or "Middle Easterners" - undermining
another claim of "the white faithful"...

My, my.. such "damming" evidence... lol


Now for "DAMNATION 2" - Ricaut data:
Alack and Alas for "the white faithful" we see that
Ricaut used late period Gizeh samples, around the
era of Persian, Greek and other major foreign
influences. Nevertheless, even more "damming"
Ricuat et al themselves admit that there is a
clear "affinity pattern between ancient
Egyptians and sub-Saharans"
- a pattern noted
by several other investigators. My, my, this is
really "damming" evidence.. 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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by White Nord:
Anthro don't antho don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians. The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with.

Speaking of ignorance, "white Nord"! lol


"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks...brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20790/abstract

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^lol.. not only do ancient Egyptians cluster closer
to tropical Africans via cranio-facial data, but they
also do so based on limb proportion studies as you
show above. No amount of crying, praying and whining
by "the white faithful" can change this reality.

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Antho don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians.
I'm uninterested in proving they were "white" or "black" or whatever else. Those are social terms and subjective. Neither black Americans nor white Americans or most people who descend from West Eurasians or Central/South/West Africans..and their ancestors...had anything to do with ancient EGyptian civilization. Kinda like neither Persians/Iranians or Japanese had anything to do with ancient Han Chinese civilization. HOwever we can see which populations are closests to them. More than likely the Japanese are closer to Han Chinese than the Persians/Iranians are. It's the same here regarding West Eurasians and Central/West/South Africans.

There is really nothing here for me to respond to, but the limb stuff and these guys already know the deal on that. I never claimed Egyptians did not have tropical limb proportions, I've known that. They are far inferior to cranio-facial and dental data (which I have posted here) though.

"...skin color and limb elongation, are adaptations to the intensity of solar radiation--the first directly so and the second indirectly.Since this is so clearly the case, we should expect those two traits to covary, as indeed they tend to do, throughout the world. Evidently, traits that are distributed in conjunction with the graded intensity of their controlling selective forces will be poor indicators of population relationships.[...] The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation."

SOURCE : Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR. 1993. Clines and clusters versus ‘‘race:’’ a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31

Link : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603/abstract

quote:
"The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with.."
The Nubians in The Ricaut study were from Kerma, but there is an interesting fact about them.

"the close clustering of Badari and Naqada with Kerma exemplifies the possible relationship of Nubians to Egyptians. Originally, the Nubian A-Group was thought to be Badarian in origin (Reisner, 1910). However, later work (Adams, 1977; Godde, 2009a) established that the A-Group were actually Nubian. Comparisons of C-Group and Pan-Grave Nubians to Badari and Hierakonpolis separate Badari from the other samples, indicating no biological affinities with these earlier Nubian groups (Godde, 2009b). The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians with neighboring Nubian settlements. Her investigation of the site pointed towards continuous Egyptian occupation of some sort at the site throughout the Kerma time period. This continued presence at Kerma is an optimal condition for gene flow to occur between the two populations."

SOURCE : Godde K. (2009) An Examination Of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances. Support for biological diffusion of in situ development? Homo. 2009-60(50):289-404

Link : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X09001176

Probably why those Kerma Nubians came so close to those Egyptians while the one's from Brace 93 although somewhat close, were not that extremely close. The same Kerma Nubians came extremely close to the Egyptian Naqada in the Hannihara study as well. The other Medieval Nubians from Hannihara were even closer to Europeans than to the ancient Egyptians ! Very bizarre.

And yes of course I know the Nubians should not be taken as a model for Blackness. Check it out. [Cool]

"Population of Nubia up to the 16th century BC

ABSTRACT

The article presents anthropological characteristics (morphological features, paleodemography and paleopathology) of the population inhabiting Nubia from the end of the Upper Palaeolithictill the 16th century BC. The material basis for this work consisted of the collections of bones coming from the archaeological researches carried out in Nubia."

"The Nubians were hardly a homogeneous population. Neither the climate nor the specific geographic conditions in the region they inhabited were conducive of such homogeneity. The population of Nubia was shaped by several migration waves coming from Northwest Africa and from Asia through Sinai and Yemen. All those population movements gained on intensity in the Neolithic, but they did not prevent repeated contacts of the people of Nubia with Southern Africa."


SOURCE : Pudlo, Aleksandra. (1999) Population of Nubia up to the 16th Century BC. Anthropological Review; 62:57-66

PDF : http://www.anthro.amu.edu.pl/pdf/paar/vol062/07pudlo.pdf


Really these guys spend their whole lives trying to blacken Caucasians, heck even French forensic anthropologists classified King Tut as a Caucasian.

"Is this the true face of Tut? This silicone-skinned bust is billed as the most accurate forensic reconstruction ever of ancient Egypt's Pharaoh Tutankhamun. It was based on recent 3-D CT scans of the mummy of the "boy king," who is believed to have been about 19 when he died some 3,300 years ago.

Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans, French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.

Paris-based forensic sculptor Elisabeth Daynès then created the bust shown above. She used Vignal's estimates of skin thickness and other data, plus wooden sculptures of Tut made in his youth. Soft-tissue features, such as the nose and ears, had to be guessed at, though within a scientifically determined range. Daynès based the skin tone on an average shade of Egyptians today and added the eyeliner that the king would have worn in life.

Finally, National Geographic gave the CT data to a U.S. forensic team, who were to work "blind" -- not knowing who the subject was. Their findings validated the French team's conclusions. And their plaster cast, a photo of which will be published on the National Geographic magazine Web site later this month, turned out remarkably similar to the silicon bust.

The reconstruction will be featured in the June issue of National Geographic, in the touring exhibit "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs," and on the National Geographic Channel's King Tut's Final Secrets, airing Sunday night."


-- Ted Chamberlain

 -  -

Link : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_051005_tutsface.html [/qb][/QUOTE]

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is really nothing here for me to respond to, but the limb stuff and these guys already know the deal on that. I never claimed Egyptians did not have tropical limb proportions, I've known that. They are far inferior to cranio-facial and dental data (which I have posted here) though.

^^Complete bullsh1tt, and already debunked by the
data above. NO matter what user name you recycle
your BS under it still won't help you.

IN the meantime....

let's examine the alleged "damming" evidence of
Hanihara lol..


 -


and as Keita shows:
 -

As can be seen, in Hanihara's analysis, certain
categories of Nubians were excluded. But even
with this, it the data STILL confirms what "the white faithful"
desperately seek to deny or minimize. The ancient
Egyptians cluster with other tropical Africans
like Nubians, over and against Europeans or
"Middle Easterners."

of note too in Hanihara's data, is how Somalis,
cluster with other tropical Africans rather than
Europeans or "Middle Easterners" - undermining
another claim of "the white faithful"...

My, my.. such "damming" evidence... lol


Now for "DAMNATION 2" - Ricaut data:
Alack and Alas for "the white faithful" we see that
Ricaut used late period Gizeh samples, around the
era of Persian, Greek and other major foreign
influences. Nevertheless, even more "damming"
Ricuat et al themselves admit that there is a
clear "affinity pattern between ancient
Egyptians and sub-Saharans"
- a pattern noted
by several other investigators. My, my, this is
really "damming" evidence.. lmao..

 -

 -


 -

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
btw, here's are cranio-metric similarities.
And not just any cranio-metric similarities; Brace lists what those dendograms are based on, and he used cranio-facial regions that don’t properly discriminate between Europeans and the used Northeast Africans ie, they highlight the similarities, and ignore the stark differences. Here the same thing will be told you as well; the features he purposefully nitpicked to create a false relationship between Northeast Africans and Europeans, are caused by convergent evolution, not genetic similarity.
quote:
I do have access to the studies uploaded in PDF format, i even pasted the links here. What unpuplished data are you speaking of?
I’m talking about the unpublished MMD values. If you don’t have those –which I know for a fact since that data wasn’t published in Ricaut (2008) and Hanahara (2003) – you have no way of knowing how close Naqadans were to the used Sub-Saharan samples.
quote:
Well then they were not black, but rather reddish brown (on average).
No human is literally black, so guess where that argument will take you.
Westerners don’t use the term ‘’black’’ to exclusively refer to people who approximate the color black, so I have no idea why you’re making this false distinction. The majority of African Americans, who are called black, are on average brown.
quote:
But cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic relatedness. As are dental patterns.
Not necessarily. If you can post all those plots, read all those studies, and still come out, not noticing the many unlikely matches, you must have a severe case of tunnel vision. Every screenshot you have posted shows unlikely relationships. Why do you think that is?
quote:
They were closer to Europeans than to many many sub saharan African populations.
Cranio-facial relationships are discerned with the aid of certain variables, so what you’re really seeing, is relationships between what is measured, not some sort of ultimate and conclusive judgment. This should be taken into account when you making such sweeping statements.
Analysis of various regions/parts of the skeleton, eg Limb proportions, bi-iliac width, metric analysis, non metric analysis etc. all show stronger ties with Africans than with Europeans, and that’s the bottom line. That Sub-Saharan Africans don’t all converge in that cluster, is all the more testament to African variability, which, in case you didn’t know, is a benefit to the African cause, not against it.
quote:
See the Dental, as well as cranio metric and non metric studies I have pasted in this thread. In 2008 non metric study (that sample) of even Somalis don't cluster close to them at all...much less Central/West and South Africans.
This has to do with how long food has been processed by a given population, not with genetic relationships to those regions. Your reasoning is amusing. Somali people have close genetic ties with Modern Egyptians (let alone the ancient ones), and here you are, trying to convince me that the dental paper shows genetic ties of Naqadans to people from Afghanistan, over people from Somalia. Do you even know what you’re typing?
quote:
Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass-reduced teeth like Caucacians: North Africans, West Asians, and Europeans.
That is because (the ancestors of) the Ancient Egyptians were among the earliest participants of the Neolithic revolution; the Saharan Neolithic. Mass reduced teeth have nothing to do with gene flow from Europeans, if anything, geneflow went mostly from Africa to Eurasia during that time period and before it (the Mesolithic). Like I said above, the only thing you’re doing, is frantically citing European scholars, who have no intent on using variables that discriminate between Europeans and Ancient Egyptians, in a manner that reflects their genetic relationship.

This can easily be done by not obsessively focusing on the nasal region (which is what Brace is fond of doing). You can post and tout their findings as indicating genetic relationships all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone.

quote:
Cranio-facial analysis is indicative of genetic similarity and relatedness
Then explain the many unlikely relationships in the studies you’ve cited, eg Somalia/China (Hanihara) Afghanistan/Naqada (Hanihara), Somalia/India (Brace), Australo-Melanesia/Africa (Brace), Naqada/Sagalasos (Ricaut).

''Anthro-thinker'', I take it you can't ''think'' of refutations to the above? LOL.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^We'll wait, while Odinist "knowledge" is consulted.
In the meantime, here is the "damming evidence"
of Ricaut 2008, on cranial data. They say that
there is a patternof affinity between tropical
African and Egyptian populations.. my my...
-- QUOTE:

quote:


"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

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.

This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations...... This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005).

In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the
extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

---Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. Human Biology, Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564


[b]Well, well.. Here we have cranial data, and it clearly
shows affinities between Egyptians and other Africans...
Imagine that...

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^I wonder if the character will be equally eager to stand by his amateurish interpretations ie, that closeness on that plot necessarily indicates genetic closeness, once it dawns on him that the phenotypical distance between the Sagalassos and Gabon samples was low.

Either he is too ignorant to understand that the PCO plots don't tell us about the exact relationships between pairs of samples, or he was trying to fool people when he cited those plots as evidence that Naqadans clustered ''far away'' from the Sub Saharan samples.

I suspect its the former, since his erroneous assertions are all over the place.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
So ancient Egyptians carried a Y chromosomal lineage that arose in East Arica ~25k years ago, whose downstreamd clade arose in Libya/Southern Egypt (and it's presence further south in East Africa is the result of a back migration) which is a lineage that is present in modern Austrians at about ~10%? Ahh ok, well nothing to refute then.

As for the 'morphological data', I believe Brace 2005 said this.

"The Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component."

'A hint'? Well take it or leave it Afrocentrics. [Big Grin]


Let's see what else the Ricaut analysis has to say.

Results

MMD^sub st^ values calculated from 17 nonmetric traits between Sagalassos and the 27 Eurasian populations are provided in Table 3. The matrix of MMD^sub st^ values between each pair of populations is not shown because of its unwieldy size (data available on request from the authors).

An examination of the biodistances (Table 3) shows that the Sagalassos population is more similar to West Eurasian and ancient northeast African populations than to Central and East Eurasian populations. The closest populations to Sagalassos are from Greece, Cyprus and Turkey, Germany, and Scandinavia, followed by the other European and ancient northeast African (ancient Egyptian and Sudanese) populations and then by the Central and East Eurasians and the sub-Saharan Tanzanian population. Intriguingly, the closeness of the Sagalassos population to Germans and Scandinavians was unexpected, but more surprising and less obviously explainable were the MMD^sub st^ values from Gabon and Somalia, which show some similarity with the Sagalassos population, yet the MMD^sub st^ scores are nearly significant (Gabon, 1.93; and Somalia, 1.68; see Table 3).

The MDS representation of the global data set of 28 populations (Figure 2) shows roughly three main population clusters: (1) Central, Northeast, and East Eurasian populations, which are found in the top left; (2)[b] West Eurasian and ancient Egyptian and Sudanese populations in the lower part; and (3) recent sub-Saharan populations in the top right. The Sagalassos population clusters with the second group and is most closely related to Greek, Cypriot/Turkish, and Scandinavian populations.


The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and provides a relatively similar representation of the MMD^sub st^ distance matrix than that provide by the MDS analysis. The populations clearly fall into two groups. The first main group can be broken down into two subgroups: (1) all the recent sub-Saharan populations and (2) mainly Central, East, and Northeast Eurasians. West Eurasians form the second main group, which is also subdivided into two subgroups. One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations.





quote:
I suspect its the former, since his erroneous assertions are all over the place.
How am I "all over the place"? I made one error about whether the study we are talking about now was a metric or non-metric analysis. And you'll see it's an easy error since the study itself says "cranio-metric traits in a Byzantine population" next to the page numbers in pdf format.

Other than that small and honest slip up, i'm on cruise control mate. [Cool]

btw, if anyone has a link to "Keita 1995" which is referenced here i'd be interested in reading it. I hope it's not as shady as his 2005 'study'. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So ancient Egyptians carried a Y chromosomal lineage that arose in East Arica ~25k years ago, whose downstreamd clade arose in Libya/Southern Egypt (and it's presence further south in East Africa is the result of a back migration) which is a lineage that is present in modern Austrians at about ~10%? Ahh ok, well nothing to refute then.
LOL. What is this mouth fart supposed to refute, what is it a response to, and what is your point?

quote:
As for the 'morphological data', I believe Brace 2005 said this.

"The Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component."

I already told you where Brace went wrong, ie, an over-emphasis on nasal morphology. You know, when someone tells you something, you can take it into consideration, or ignore it, but don't think citing another one of his studies - that is equally lacking in proper discriminatory power (same variable set) - is going to bypass the aforementioned critique.

Of course you're going to get relatively large distances beteen hyper platyrine Africans and elongated Africans, when half of the variables are about nasal morphology. Well duhhh. Brace knows exactly what he is doing; he keeps reusing the same ol X-group Nubian and obscure Nubian bronze age samples (never predynastic Sudanese from immediately below the cataract), he never uses Badarians as representatives for pred. Egyptians etc etc.

These seemingly ''innocent'' choices all affect his results, and he knows this, since he has been critiqued on these points (and others) by his colleagues.

quote:
Let's see what else the Ricaut analysis has to say.
What is your point with that piece?

quote:
How am I "all over the place"? I made one error about whether the study we are talking about now was a metric or non-metric analysis. And you'll see it's an easy error since the study itself says "cranio-metric traits in a Byzantine population" next to the page numbers in pdf format.
I'm not talking about that.
In my previous post I said ''I suspect it’s the former'', ie, a severe case of ignorance on your part.

quote:
Other than that small and honest slip up, i'm on cruise control mate.
LOL. Is that why you chose to ignore my previous points?

quote:
btw, if anyone has a link to "Keita 1995" which is referenced here i'd be interested in reading it. I hope it's not as shady as his 2005 'study'.
What exactly is shady about Keita's work?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component."

'A hint'? Well take it or leave it Afrocentrics.

BTW.
Was it not you who was making a fuss out of the dental distance between Somali and Naqadans, and who was passing that PCO distance off as conclusive and indicative of genetic unrelatedness? LOL.

Was it not you who posted that Hanihara dendrogram wherein Somali group with Khoisan and Kenyan peoples?
LOL

First you paint a picture wherein Somali people and other Sub-Saharan peoples cluster ''far away'' from Naqadans, and now, all of a sudden, you're trying to distance them from Sub-Saharan peoples, and make them close to Naqadans?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^lol..
Based on the incoherence of his answers.. looks like
he is searching for a way out...
 -

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And even in studies of facial flatness, Egyptians group
with tropical Africans, not Europeans or "Middle Easterners.


 -

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
''Anthro Thinker'', lol.

Whats taking you so long?

I thought you said you was on cruise control.

Lets face it, you wouldn't know how to interpret the data you randomly cite, if your life depended on it.

Anthropology is NOT in line with your crappy beliefs. You need to scrap that scientific discipline out of your name, because you have ''pseudo-scientific'' written all over you.

[Big Grin]

You crapped out a lot of assertions, but among the most hilarious, is the one where you insinuate that the close ties between Egyptians and Kushites is caused by geneflow from the Egyptian direction in dynastic times, LOL.

I guess all nearby Saharan and Nilotic (Nile-Valley) groups that have strong physical ties with Ancient Egyptians, must have been affected by dynastic Egyptians, to explain why they don't all look like, say, Edi Amin. You people never fail to amaze.

Then the fruitbasket posts Brace studies where half of the variables pertain to the Nasal region, and wonders why there is a distance. I don't know about others, but I don't need a paper to tell me that an excessive focus on nasal morphology will seperate certain Africans who look (on average) like Idi Amin's son on the left, from Africans who generally look (on average) like the Somali man on the right.

 -

Post me a paper that accounts for this, by including elongated Africans, like the Masai, people from Kerma, Tindiga, Baggara, for example, and we'll see whether Naqadans are still distant from ''Sub Saharans'', and closer to Europeans. Good luck.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They want (ancient) Egypt so badly to be caucasiod.lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LOL. What is this mouth fart supposed to refute, what is it a response to, and what is your point?
That paper was talking about sub saharan affinities in the Byzantine population and spoke of Brace 2005 and the PN2 clade ...right? Sure, so modern Austrians have this "sub sahran affinity" as well (they are E-M78 carriers at about 10%). It does not just stop at Egypt, or in the remains of those Byzantine populations, etc.

quote:
I already told you where Brace went wrong, ie, an over-emphasis on nasal morphology. You know, when someone tells you something, you can take it into consideration, or ignore it, but don't think citing another one of his studies - that is equally lacking in proper discriminatory power (same variable set) - is going to bypass the aforementioned critique.
I don't think you're in any position to tell a physical anthropologists who's right or wrong.


quote:
Of course you're going to get relatively large distances beteen hyper platyrine Africans and elongated Africans, when half of the variables are about nasal morphology. Well duhhh. Brace knows exactly what he is doing; he keeps reusing the same ol X-group Nubian and obscure Nubian bronze age samples (never predynastic Sudanese from immediately below the cataract), he never uses Badarians as representatives for pred. Egyptians etc etc.

These seemingly ''innocent'' choices all affect his results, and he knows this, since he has been critiqued on these points (and others) by his colleagues.

He used the Naqada, right? I'm pretty sure the Naqada and Badari are fairly similar...they are both pre-dynastic Southern Egyptians.

What do you care so much about the Sudanese? You mean the "Nubians" from Kerma..we can see where they place non metrically from the earlier study anyways.

quote:
What is your point with that piece?
Exactly what it said, the closest populations to the early Upper Egyptian Naqada, late Lower Egyptian Giza, and early "Kerma" samples were West Eurasians...even Somalis came out further.

quote:

What exactly is shady about Keita's work?

I was speaking of only of his one piece which is featured here in Zaharan's little "mad Afrocentric scientist" graphs called "EARLY NILE VALLEY FARMERS
FROM EL-BADARI" which is in the "Journal of Black Studies" where he took a few skulls from the Howells data base which were originally based on 57 variables...and then he reduced those variables down to 10-15 and claimed the Badari clustered with Bushmen and Zulus before of Northern Europeans.

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anthro Thinker:


What do you care so much about the Sudanese? You mean the "Nubians" from Kerma..we can see where they place non metrically from the earlier study anyways.

the closest populations to the early Upper Egyptian Naqada, late Lower Egyptian Giza, and early "Kerma" samples were West Eurasians...even Somalis came out further.


which Eurasians in particular, of what ethnicity, in your opinion,
came closest to early Upper Egyptian Naqada, late Lower Egyptian Giza?

zarahan had made a thread about Middle Easterners lacking tropical proportions but now he has flip flopped in a new thread (probably a counter move to this thread) and says the Mesopotamians were black (ie "tropical") .

Catching up with Mike and Clyde, all bases are covered,
hense, "black Asians"

definition, "black" -anybody with dark skin

Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That paper was talking about sub saharan affinities in the Byzantine population and spoke of Brace 2005 and the PN2 clade ...right? Sure, so modern Austrians have this "sub sahran affinity" as well (they are E-M78 carriers at about 10%). It does not just stop at Egypt, or in the remains of those Byzantine populations, etc.
I have a hard time understanding why you feel saying that is somehow compatible with your other views, ie, the ones where you try to establish a non-existent relationship between Kermatians/Naqadans and Europeans. You’re basically admitting that the only way Europeans and Nilotic (Nile-Valley) populations are related paternally, is via a marker that was introduced to Europe from Africa. Contrast that with the fact that Sub-Saharan African paternal markers are related to Egyptian paternal markers without needing admixture, ie, the PN2 clade.

quote:
I don't think you're in any position to tell a physical anthropologists who's right or wrong.
I’m not telling you he’s wrong. What I did, was telling you where he WENT wrong, big difference. Being selective in the use of variables cannot be considered ''being wrong’’, because there is no wrong or right in that, because of what I said earlier: you’re seeing the relationships between the used variables. With that being said, his work is rigged to show distorted relationships. His preposterous probability percentages are evidence for this: the modern European group is closer to the 5/8 African samples than any African sample, and the Indian sample is closer to 1/3 of the remaining others, than any African sample is. The only African samples that shows more ties with Africans before foreigners, is the Mesolithic Wadi Halfa sample, and the unidentified ''Nubia bronze'' sample (the closest samples to ''Nubia bronze'' are the X-group, which is then preposterously followed by India and Europe again, with Naqada only slightly closer than Europe). Totally preposterous, and inconsistent with the genetic data. You know what they say: you can judge the fruits of a method by looking at what it produces.

quote:
He used the Naqada, right? I'm pretty sure the Naqada and Badari are fairly similar...they are both pre-dynastic Southern Egyptians.
Metrically, the Badari cultured people are characterized by a phenotype that is way more ''Southern’’ than that of the Naqadans. 50%+ or the Badarians group with equatorial African groups. Yes, I said equatorial Africans, and I don't mean Ethiopians and Somali's.

quote:
What do you care so much about the Sudanese? You mean the "Nubians" from Kerma..we can see where they place non metrically from the earlier study anyways.
I was actually referring to A-group Sudanese, not to Kermatians in that cited bit. Kerma is not situated directly below the first cataract. Non-metric analysis involves different processes (eg, the selection and deletion of variables, to accommodate all the used groups) than metric analysis. Analysis of various kinds and osteological regions don’t give the same results.

quote:
Exactly what it said, the closest populations to the early Upper Egyptian Naqada, late Lower Egyptian Giza, and early "Kerma" samples were West Eurasians...even Somalis came out further.
Like I said earlier, we already know that Africans are well capable of occupying the same multivariate space where Eurasians are positioned, due to African indigenous variability. What your job is, is prove that such positioning is based on phylogenetic ties.

quote:
where he took a few skulls from the Howells data base which were originally based on 57 variables...and then he reduced those variables down to 10-15 and claimed the Badari clustered with Bushmen and Zulus before of Northern Europeans.
Those 11 and 15 variables (not 10-15) are well distributed over the entire cranium. Additionally, Keita’s work is much more in line with reality than Brace’s work, where African populations are concerned. Unlikely relationships are reduced, and much, much more in line with genetic data than Brace’s work under discussion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Those 11 and 15 variables (not 10-15) are well distributed over the entire cranium. Additionally, Keita’s work is much more in line with reality than Brace’s work, where African populations are concerned. Unlikely relationships are reduced, and much, much more in line with genetic data than Brace’s work under discussion.

I'm curious, have you ever taken a course in biological anthropology (I am majoring in that field at UCSD)? You sure seem to know a lot about it, certainly more than "Anthro Thinker".
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ANthro Thinker:
where he took a few skulls from the Howells data base which were originally based on 57 variables...and then he reduced those variables down to 10-15 and claimed the Badari clustered with Bushmen and Zulus before of Northern Europeans.

^^Keita's data on the Badari has been backed up
by other scholars. He showed that they do
not cluster with Europeans as suggested by Brace.
Dental studies back Keita up, finding that the
Badari as an ancestral population were quite
representative of what the ancient Egyptians were
like, and that the closest match with said badari
are tropical Africans near the Sudan border. LImb
proportion studies (Zakrzewski, 2002) also back
Keita up. In fact, not only do such recent studies
back up Keita, but OLDER ones as well. You simply have no idea
what you are talking about, and your debunked
assertions become more and more dubious as you
post.
QUOTE:

"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."


-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

 -

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Those 11 and 15 variables (not 10-15) are well distributed over the entire cranium. Additionally, Keita’s work is much more in line with reality than Brace’s work, where African populations are concerned. Unlikely relationships are reduced, and much, much more in line with genetic data than Brace’s work under discussion.

I'm curious, have you ever taken a course in biological anthropology (I am majoring in that field at UCSD)? You sure seem to know a lot about it, certainly more than "Anthro Thinker".
No I haven't, just been making sure I understand what I'm reading, whenever I'm reading it (I'm talking about the jargon), and that I'm putting all the data in a coherent context, that is in line with everything else I know. I used to want to go in that direction, but I gave it up a long time ago. I still like the profession, and I'm certainly interested in getting closer to the excavations and discoveries being made, through funding, in the near future. From my POV, that is the best way for me to approach the field; financially independant of having to find work in that area (which I understand to be relatively hard), but still being able to get fairly close, and learn more.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for White Nord         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Notice Zaharan's schizo like posting patterns. The OP is asking why are Egyptians and Nubians being grouped alongside West Eurasian populations and not with other East African groups, to which there has been no satisfactory answer. Spamming the same old irrelevant graphics to the question does not make it go away dumbass, that's why you were banned from anthroscape. You could put up a proper argument, but instead relied on mindlessly spamming graphics.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Evergreen
Member
Member # 12192

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Evergreen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by White Nord:
The OP is asking why are Egyptians and Nubians being grouped alongside West Eurasian populations and not with other East African groups, to which there has been no satisfactory answer.

Evergreen Writes:

Convergent evolution and sampling bias.

Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol.. Who cares about the "amen corner" of Anthroscape?
Whatsa matta? Still getting that sinking feeling
that the dubious claims but forward by "the white faithful"
may not stand up when put to the test in an open forum,
where your admin buddies can't block the clear scholarship
that appears?

The "faithful" still looking nervously over its
shoulders? whatsa matta? Hearing footsteps?

And who cares about whether YOU think the question
has been "satisfactorily" answered? The data is
clear to anyone looking at it, and the graphics
contain direct quotations for anyone to
verify.
Your smokescreen about "graphics" translates into
the fact that you no longer have any substantive
argument to make. No one is being fooled.


Several other studies have been referenced showing
that Ancient Egytians primarily cluster with
other tropical Africans, based on cranio-facial data.
And the weaknesses in sampling in various OP studies
skewing to certain results, and/or methodological
procedures that give only a partial picture are
already plainly documented. The better question is:
Why don't YOU have substantive answers to this data,
any why are you STILL unable to sustain your debunked
"Caucasoid" Egypt? Reappearing weeks later to
post a blurb saying that there wasn't a "satisfactory"
answer can't save you. You STILL stand debunked.

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.

Rose JC, Roblee RD.

Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.

The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment.

Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less.

These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenndo
Member
Member # 4846

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kenndo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The kinship of Egypt and Africa
“Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all men… They say also that the Egyptians are colonist sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony… and add the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonists still preserving their ancient manners. For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay their burials and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian.” Diodorus of Sicily.


Diodorus drew is account most from the books of Agarharchides of Cnidus and the geographer Artemidoros of Ephesos, as well as from certain other historians whose homes were in Egypt. Diodorus corroborated these written accounts, he says, by conversing with Egyptians priests during his stay in Egypt and by consulting “with not a few ambassadors from Ethiopia… who were then in Egypt.” On the strength of these inquiries, Diodoros confidently concluded that Agatharchides, Artemidoros, and the rest had been “accurate in all they written.”

Many archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics show that may key aspects of Egyptians culture were indeed brought up from the south by migrating African colonists. The Afro-Asiatic language from which the Egyptian language descended almost certainly came from the south. Joseph Greenberg pointed to Ethiopia as the homeland of this ancestral language. Another linguist, Christopher Ehret, concluded that Afro-asiatic speakers lived on a strip of land stretching along the red sea coast all the way from Nubia to northern Somalia. Also, this territory seems to encompass the fabled land of punt, lending support of the theory that punt was the ancestral homeland of some of the Egyptians’ ancestors. Ehret believes that a group of Afro-asiatic speakers left their homeland between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C. and migrated north into Egypt. Archaeologists have confirmed that early settlers from this region brought many of the skills, customs, and beliefs from which Egyptian civilization was built.


In ancient Egypt, the king was not supposed to reign unless he was in good health. Originally, when his strength declined, he was really put to death. Many African societies would put their kings to death when they showed signs of weakness or old age. For example, the king of the varozwe, a Shona people of Zimbabwe was strangled to death as soon as his hair began to gray, his teeth to fall out, his sight to fail, or his sexual potency to dimishish. A 16th century Portuguese traveler named J.Dos Santos recorded a similar customs of the kings of Sofala. He wrote “it was formerly the custom of the king of this land to commit suicide by taking poison when any disaster or natural physical defect fell upon them, such as impotence, infectious disease, the loss of their front teeth, by which they were disfigured, or any other deformity or affliction.”


Most importantly ancient Egyptians are known for their mummies. In fact, African people did mummify their dead, much like the Egyptians. Some would smoke dry their deceased kings, warp their bodies in cloth, and keep them at hand unburied, for years at a time. Often the internal organs would be removed, as in Egyptians mummies. When Sonni Ali, the emperor of Songhai, died in 1492, for example, his sons gutted his body and filled it with honey.
Ancestor worship provides another cultural link between Egypt and the rest of Africa. Most African peoples impute to the souls of dead ancestors a godlike ability to bring good or bad fortune to living. Ancestral spirits, for that reason, are placated with rich offering and elaborate rituals to want thier favor. The souls of dead kings, in particular, are revered for their power and wisdom. In Uganda, kings are believed to continue watching over their people long after death. Special temples are built through which their spirits can be consulted for advice.


Egyptian regilion reveals its African roots in many other respects as well. Greek and roman writers expressed shock at the menagerie of cats, snakes, donkeys, birds, crocodiles, beetles, hippopotami, cattle, and baboons that populated the Egyptian pantheon. Yet, animal god remain, to this day, a characteristics features of many African cults. Like so many other Africans, the Egyptians wore masks and animals’ tails during religious rites and used hand clapping in their festivals. Egyptian boys and girls were subjected to circumcisions, possibly as a rite passages to adulthood. Male and female circumcision remains, to this day, a widespread practice throughout Africa.

Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenndo
Member
Member # 4846

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kenndo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The peoples of ancient Egypt, in the aforementioned tropical and
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely
resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than
Europeans or Middle Easterners. (Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski
2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of
cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient
Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south,
NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia.
(Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)


The ancient Egyptians in their tropical and sub-tropical/arid
tropic environment, did not need cold climate people to develop their
distinct culture. Several strands of culture from religion to material living put the Egyptians closer to nearby Africans than to
cold-climate Mediterraneans, Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita, 1996,

2004; Yurco 1989, 1996; Williams, 1980; Britannia 1984; Wilkinson
1999; Wendorf, 2001) 5) European/Asiatic cold climate or light skin
inspiration was unneeded by the tropically adapted Africans of ancient
Egypt. They peopled the Nile Valley from the Sahara and the Sudan, and
ancient Egypt is part of a tropical African lineage. Indigenous
development sprang from a long tradition going back deep into the
Sahara and the Sudan. (Lovell, 1999; Lefkowitz, 1993, 1996; Keita
1993, Irish 2006)


African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed
by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley
vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to
the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not
cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita 1996;
Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)


German Institute for Archaeology -excavation of the tombs of the
nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. In several of the noble specimens:
"The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for
specimens of Negroid origin."
(Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods
for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft
tissues", Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13)

"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic'
(formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other
north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural
features, both material and ideological and particularly in the
earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In
sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African
peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western
Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction.
Routledge. p. 10)


"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of
skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially
southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within
the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of
the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper
Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the
Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians,
physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London
and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)


Peoples of the Sahara were an important part of the foundations of
ancient Egypt and pioneered in several features that were to appear in
Egypt, including religion, cattle cults, stone construction and
astronomy etc. Some mainstream scientists consider the Saharans more
organized on some counts than the early Egyptians. Also the Saharan
culture shares clear links with other African peoples. Of note again
is the southern direction of this cultural pioneering and growth, not
the north, the Middle East, or the Mediterranean.

Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So who are the closest peoples to the ancient Egyptians ?

What's wrong withe the OP?

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The closest people ethnically to the ancient Egyptians
are Nubians - really old news.

 -

 -

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anthro Thinker:
So who are the closest peoples to the ancient Egyptians ?

What's wrong withe the OP?

What do you mean, whats wrong with the OP?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ People (or at least TruthCentric) were complaining about my OP i made like 6 months ago.

Zaharan is mostly right, the closest related people were the Nubians. The data clearly shows that. They heavily over lapped with each other. The only problem with that 2009 study is it didn't sample other populations. + Northern ancient Egyptians didn't over lap with the Nubians.
Anyway how would you all Address what 'White Nord' said?


"Anthro don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians. The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with."

You know in my OP i had initially completely ignored where the Nubians (Kerma) clustered. But I had seen that 2009 study from long ago.

Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthro Thinker
Junior Member
Member # 19443

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Anthro Thinker     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's weird in Brace 93 the Nubians came out so different and far away, but I suppose the sample set was quite different. Bronze age and middle ages.
Posts: 10 | From: Earth | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway how would you all Address what 'White Nord' said?


"Anthro don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians. The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with."

Well, somatic variation is clinal, and so, if people from the Levant look a certain way (relatively narrower noses/faces, wavy hair), we should expect long term residents of Northeastern Africa to have an appearance that is in agreement with that cline, and differ in many ways from Africans who reside on the other (Southern) end of that geographical spectrum.

In other words, if somatic appearance is in large a function of environment (and it clearly is), it would be absurd to believe that West Asians in the Sinai, Arabia and the Levant would evolve those features on their own, but indigenous Africans immediately to the West of the Sinai/Arabia would not evolve those features on their own.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is actually common sense and really to understand. The problem is White Nord et al. can't come to grips with the fact that Africans have a diverse range of features based on their adaption to the enviroment. Its funny because Im sure white nord once claimed the Nubians were racially segregated and were the reason Egypt fell etc. back when stormfront released their propaganda, now suddenly he will claim the Nubians are not blacks when they group so strongly with the Egyptians..

how sad.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Anyway how would you all Address what 'White Nord' said?


"Anthro don't expect any real answer to your question as to why ancient Nubians and Egyptians group away from sub saharan Africans and with West Eurasians. The Afro dumbasses know that Hanniharas studies and ricaut are damning pieces of evidence when concerning their occult following of black egypt. They'll just point to Nubians as a model for "blackness" and just ignore who they themselves cluster with."

Well, somatic variation is clinal, and so, if people from the Levant look a certain way (relatively narrower noses/faces, wavy hair), we should expect long term residents of Northeastern Africa to have an appearance that is in agreement with that cline, and differ in many ways from Africans who reside on the other (Southern) end of that geographical spectrum.

In other words, if somatic appearance is in large a function of environment (and it clearly is), it would be absurd to believe that West Asians in the Sinai and the Levant would evolve those features on their own, but indigenous Africans immediately to the West of the Sinai would not evolve those features on their own.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3