posted
Topdog,who cares what people on racial sites think. The website is not really about the following. Anybody can post on this website about what their opinion is. The original purpose of this website was to discuss Egyptology but I also allow people to talk about physical and biological anthropology when relavent.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
What is most disturbing is that Charlie Bass STILL believes that Lower Egyptians were similar to Europeans during the predynastic?
They were distinct from Upper Egyptians and if anyone has ever read Keita's work he makes this quite clear. Lower Egyptians were metrically closer to Europeans than to East Africans. The fossil record is sparse on lower Egyptian remains, but the few remains that have been founded suggest they are distinct from Upper Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: They were distinct from Upper Egyptians and if anyone has ever read Keita's work he makes this quite clear. Lower Egyptians were metrically closer to Europeans than to East Africans. The fossil record is sparse on lower Egyptian remains, but the few remains that have been founded suggest they are distinct from Upper Egyptians.
I am not sure which Keita study you are referring to, but if it is the following, I don't see how it says what you are saying above:
Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Keita SO.
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060.
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa.
Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an **indigenous craniometric pattern** common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region.
Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in **mid-Holocene Maghreb sites**.
Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.
The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
However, there is *STILL* no evidence that predynastic Lower Egyptians were the same as the Upper Egyptian ones.
Thought Writes:
OK? But I never made the claim that they were the same.
One thing MOST of us have learned from the recent discoveries in biological anthropology is that African people are extremly diverse, even on the micro-geographical level.
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
OK? But I never made the claim that they were the same.
One thing MOST of us have learned from the recent discoveries in biological anthropology is that African people are extremly diverse, even on the micro-geographical level.
I know African peoples are diverse, but one cannot assume that *ALL* Africans represent gradations of 'Negroids'. While Keita didn't study predynastic Lower Egyptian remains, he is still adamant that Lower Egyptians are still distinct from Upper Egyptians and there is no evidence to suggest a mass population replacement in Lower Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Since when does Keita define any Africans in terms of gradations of Negroid?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 August 2005).]
I never said keita said that, I said that all Africans cannot be grouped together under one 'African' race. Bottom line is, there hasn't been an extensive enough study on predynastic Lower Egyptian remains to make a conclusion on their biological affinities. Of course I'm not saying they were white, they were most likely brown to light brown-skinned peoples.
I never said keita said that, I said that all Africans cannot be grouped together under one 'African' race.
Thought Writes:
Race is a social construct, period. It has no biological basis.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog:
Bottom line is, there hasn't been an extensive enough study on predynastic Lower Egyptian remains to make a conclusion on their biological affinities.
Thought Writes:
Cranial analysis will only yield limited insight into the BIOLOGICAL affinities of ancient people period. However, the general trend in the evidence indicates that during the mesolithic period there was a population movement FROM Sub-Saharan Africa TO southern Europe with settlement patterns along the way. The pre-neolithic people of Lower Egypt, based on this genetic data as well as archaeological data, seem to have this Sub-Saharan background.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: Bottom line is, there hasn't been an extensive enough study on predynastic Lower Egyptian remains to make a conclusion on their biological affinities.
Thought Writes:
If the above is true then why did you JUMP to this conclusion:
However, the general trend in the evidence indicates that during the mesolithic period there was a population movement FROM Sub-Saharan Africa TO southern Europe with settlement patterns along the way. The pre-neolithic people of Lower Egypt, based on this genetic data as well as archaeological data, seem to have this Sub-Saharan background.
Thought Writes:
It is also relevent to realize that population size was larger in Africa than in Eurasia prior to the neolithic period. Placing multidisciplinary facts in mathematical (Maat) order allows us to see beyond the Eurocentric ruse.
Thought Posts:
Journal of Archaeological Science (Article in Press)
Estimates of Upper Palaeolithic meta-population size in Europe from archaeological data
Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel et al.
Abstract
Three databases (2961 georeferenced archeological sites, simulated climatic variables simulating a typical “warm” phase of the isotopic stage 3 (IOS3 project), and ethnographic of hunter–gatherers (HG)) were used to estimate the size, growth rate and kinetics of the metapopulation of HG during four periods of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. The size of the metapopulation was obtained by multiplying a demographic density (per 100 km2) by the size of the population territory of HG. Demographic density for each period was calculated by successively backprojecting a reference density obtained for the Late Glacial with inter-period growth rate of the archeological sites. From the Aurignacian to the Glacial Maximum, the metapopulation remained in a positive quasi-stationary state, with about 4400–5900 inhabitants (95% confidence interval (CI95%): 1700–37,700 inhabitants). During the Glacial Maximum, the metapopulation responded to the cold: (i) by moving the northern limits of its maximum expansion zone towards the low latitudes by 150–500 km from west to east, (ii) by concentrating in few refuge zones (mainly Périgord, Cantabria and the Ibérian coasts), (iii) by becoming perhaps distributed in smaller groups than during the pre and post Glacial Maximum. ***The metapopulation reached 28,800 inhabitants (CI95%: 11,300–72,600) during the mid-Late Glacial recolonisation.***
Thought Posts:
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 Sep;116(1):1-12.
Estimating relative population sizes from simulated data sets and the question of greater African effective size.
Eller E.
Human Genetics Center, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX 77225, USA. elise_eller@yahoo.com
Previous genetic and craniometric studies have suggested greater genetic diversity and a larger effective size in Africa. Several demographic scenarios can explain a larger African effective size, and anthropological geneticists have attempted to obtain better estimates of relative population sizes among continental regions in the Old World. A least-squares approach of estimating relative population weights was developed by Relethford and Harpending ([1994] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 95:249-270), who applied it to craniometric and genetic data sets and concluded that the ratio of African, Asian, and European effective sizes was 3:1:1, respectively; another data set of short tandem repeat (STR) markers yielded a similar estimate of 7:1:2. However, an estimate from restriction site polymorphism (RSP, also known as restriction fragment length polymorphism, or RFLP) data yielded a very different estimate of 1:1:8. Thus, the European and not the African effective size was largest. Simulations showed that this was the result of ascertainment bias in which polymorphic markers were originally identified in a small panel of Caucasians, leading to inflated heterozygosity in the European sample and thus an inflated population weight. This paper extends those computer simulations to incorporate not only ascertainment bias but also interpopulation gene flow and demographic expansion in two types of genetic data, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, which are similar but not precisely identical to RSPs) and STRs. The effects of these three parameters on SNP and STR relative weight estimates are described. Simulations show that the ascertainment scheme affects SNP data but not STR data. Gene flow has a noticeable effect on the bias and efficiency of the estimates in both types of genetic data. Population expansions have a large effect only in one ascertainment scheme in the simulated SNP data and no effect in STR data. Relative population weight estimates from four published STR data sets are also reported. These estimates are similar to each other: all show a larger African weight and a European weight somewhat larger than the Asian weight. Because the STR simulations show that when gene flow is greater than 0.01 migrants per generation the African population weight is biased upward, it is likely that the African weights in the four STR data sets are inflated. ***However, the simulations suggest that the African effective size is still largest of the three regions and is probably at least as great as the sum of the Asian and European effective sizes.***
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 10 August 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: [B] I never said keita said that, I said that all Africans cannot be grouped together under one 'African' race.
Well you introduced Keita as your source and then Negroid and race as your premises.
The problem is your source does not concur with your premise.
quote: Bottom line is, there hasn't been an extensive enough study on predynastic Lower Egyptian remains to make a conclusion on their biological affinities.
That's funny, Keita's doesn't seem to agree with that either based on his latest paper on M81 lineages in Lower Egypt.
quote:Of course I'm not saying they were white, they were most likely brown to light brown-skinned peoples.
This hypothesis (based on?) would prove their biological affinity with Europeans....more so than their own Upper Egyptian countrymen?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: That's funny, Keita's doesn't seem to agree with that either based on his latest paper on M81 lineages in Lower Egypt.
Keita mentioned nothing about skeletal material, nor did he say M81 had an origin in sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:Of course I'm not saying they were white, they were most likely brown to light brown-skinned peoples. This hypothesis (based on?) would prove their biological affinity with Europeans....more so than their own Upper Egyptian countrymen?
Those crania of the Maghreb wouldn't have been much different from Lower Egyptian crania, but thats only an assumption.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 10 August 2005).]
Keita mentioned nothing about skeletal material, nor did he say M81 had an origin in sub-Saharan Africa.
Thought Posts:
Keita 2005
"Some M81 can be found in samples from Sudan, and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with THIS REGION being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers..."
Those crania of the Maghreb wouln't hav been much different from Lower Egyptian crania, but thats only an assumption.
Thought Posts:
Pinhasi and Semal 2000
"...the distance between the western part of the Maghreb and the Nile Valley is larger than between the latter and Ethiopia or Kenya. "
"The existence of such a route at least during the late Pleistocene is supported by the fossil record, which indicates migrations FROM East Africa northward at particular points in time."
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Posts:
Keita 2005
"Some M81 can be found in samples from Sudan, and Ethiopia; this would be consistent with THIS REGION being a possible area of origin, with founder effect explaining the high frequencies in Berber speakers..."
Its possible indeed, but M81 is found at low frequencies in Sudan for example. One study found only 5% M81 in Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: Its possible indeed, but M81 is found at low frequencies in Sudan for example. One study found only 5% M81 in Sudan.
Back up a little.
What I am specifically inquiring about is whether Keita [not you] suggests biological affinity between Lower and Upper Egypt.
Maybe I'm reading him wrong?
There is further evidence from a phylogeographic perspective for the biohistorical Africanity of Haplotype V
Do you not feel that this is meant to imply a biological affinity between upper Egypt; Haplotype XI and IV; and lower Egypt, Haplotype V.
Please answer in terms of what Keita is implying, not your own view.
My concern is only that you are using Keita to imply something, that he does not necessarily concur with - ie - the "European affinity of Lower Egypt"
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 August 2005).]
posted
Keita does cite Howells that mentions the Giza ''E"" series and Howells says its intermaediate between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. This is all I know of the early remains in Lower Egypt. Since the Delta is a enviroment for decay in human remains we don't have that wide of skeletal materials to study.
There were some skeletal remains found in Merimde-Ben-Salama,Omari, and Fayoum Neolithic. Very few studies have been published on these remains.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once saw a discusion on Ta-Seti about this issue and it was agreed that Keita did not study lower Egyptian predynastic crania.
Posts: 44 | From: USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.
The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Congrats. I'm glad you're going on the offensive, so to speak.
Smashing Deniekes and racial reality seem like child's play and almost beneath you.
I agree with the former statement but can't help to extrapolate, is it related to the social environment of the United States, especially in the South where Charlie Bass comes from (Mississippi)?...because as an African, I don't understand why some well informed people try to convince ignorant and racist people that what they believe is completely wrong. I mean I can see that everyday where I live, in my building, on the street. I mean many non mixed Eastern Africans noticed that long time ago. People with European backgrounds are very mixed phenotipically whether from Northern Europe or Southern Europe, that's why I (and I'm not the only one) often compare them to Bantu speaking people who mixed with almost all other African groups. You can't clearly identify them phenotipically as a distinct group because of the large amount of admixture they went through. I remember one of my relatives who said on his first day in Northern Europe: "How come this people are so mixed?" I think some people on this board don't realize how ridiculous it is for an African to read something like Negroid, Caucasian or Mongoloid...because in the firs place we view Europeans and other Eurasians as mixed people whereas Caucasian implies some sort of purity which is laughable from an African point of view. Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 18 August 2005).]
quote:I think some people on this board don't realize how ridiculous it is for an African to read something like Negroid, Caucasian or Mongoloid...because in the firs place we view Europeans and other Eurasians as mixed people whereas Caucasian implies some sort of purity which is laughable from an African point of view.
The whole caucaZoid propaganda ethos is dieing.
All the anger bitterness and racism amounts to little more than an agonized death scream.
I smashed too hard for Dienekes banned me at dodona for 'insulting' him.
Your case isn't the exception; many other medicentrist-fantasy busters were banned as well, by the chief coward mule (Dienekes). This ban should be seen a badge of honor, because it means that you were doing the job right, i.e., busting borderline European fantasies.
quote:Originally posted by Super car: Your case isn't the exception; many other medicentrist-fantasy busters were banned as well, by the chief coward mule (Dienekes). This ban should be seen a badge of honor, because it means that you were doing the job right, i.e., busting borderline European fantasies.
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
He banned me in 2004.
You are a very well informed person, I don't understand what you were doing there in the first place, that applies to anyone who spent more that few seconds on that shameful board... Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 August 2005).]
quote:You are a very well informed person, I don't understand what you were doing there in the first place, that applies to anyone who spent more that few seconds on that shameful board... Relaxx[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 August 2005).]
I dunno. I let my emotions get the better of me.
Posts: 74 | From: Phila., PA , USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic