posted
Not my interest particularly but what does examination of the ancient egyptian mummies provide in terms of understanding their morphological inheritance?
I did a search of the forum and found almost nothing on the topic, but the search was cursory.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is an excellent source!
Edward Wente and James E. Harris have examined and compared skulls from the Giza period to the 18th to Rameside dynasties.
The results definitely show African features.
I went through your images from another post. They do look like what I consider negroid. Is there a more modern term than negroid, caucasoid etc. being used to refer to the same thing?
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
The standards for differentiating between racial or ethnic groups depends on the method used. In cephalometry and forensic science, there are some standards that have proven effective in practical usage. Because both dentofacial surgery and forensics require practical results, we can presume that ideology will play less of a role as compared to conventional anthropology. The latter has a long history of racial bias. The purpose of this study is to refute the argument that the Pharaohs did not conform to the "Negroid" phenotype, but not to support any biological basis of the concept of race.
Some standards that we will use in describing the x-ray diagrams (lateral view) of the royal mummies are now given:
WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine)
RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro")
Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle).
Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution")
Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
The male cranium above is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame. More recent Nubian crania from the Christian period have more rounded skulls without the sloping frontal bone. However, the vertical zygomatic arch, prominent glabella, sagittal plateau, and occipital bun (less pronounced) are retained. The cranium above has pronounced facial prognathism, but moderate dental protrusion. The chin is vertical with a angular mandible and very squat ramus. (Image from David Lee Greene and George Armelagos. The Wadi Halfa mesolithic population. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1972)
THE ROYAL MUMMIES
Late XVII and XVIII Dynasties
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
Father: Seqenenre Tao II or Kamose, Mother: Queen Ahhotep I or Queen Ahhotep II Strongly proclined incisors. Rounded forehead, sagittal flattening; rounded occiput. Somewhat forward zygomatic arches; pronounced alveolar prognathism. Steep mandible with squat ramus and receding chin.
Amenhotep I
Father: Ahmose, Mother: Ahmes-Nefertary Rounded glabella, sloping forehead, sagittal plateau, rounded occiput. Zygomatic arches project forward. Moderate protrusion of upper incisors and pronounced prognathism. Receding chin and steeply inclined mandible.
Queen Meryetamon
Father: Ahmose, Mother: Ahmes-Nefertary Queen of Amenhotep I. Rounded occiput and forehead, sagittal plateau. Glabella is weak, but there is sexual dimorphism in this feature. Zygomatic arch is slightly forward. Pronounced protrusion of incisors and high ANB causing overbite. Mandible is moderately inclined and ramus is squat. Strong prognathism.
Thutmose I
Father: ?, Mother: Senisoneb Globular skull with high vault; rounded forehead; sagittal plateau; rounded, bulging occiput; weakly manifested glabella; vertical zygomatic arches. Strongly proclined upper and lower incisors; sharply receding chin and angled mandible. Squat ramus and pronounced prognathism.
Thutmose II
Father: Thutmose I, Mother: Queen Mutnofret Rounded glabella and forehead; high vault with sagittal plateau. Rounded occiput. Strongly proclined upper and lower incisors; receding, vertical chin; highly angular mandible. Vertical zygomatic arches and maxillary prognathism.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is an excellent source!
Edward Wente and James E. Harris have examined and compared skulls from the Giza period to the 18th to Rameside dynasties.
The results definitely show African features.
From your source:
"In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period."
Wow. That is pretty wild. I wonder when Hollywood is going to do a new AE movie? Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
XVIV Dynasty
Seti I
Father: Ramesses I, Mother: Queen Sitre Projecting, arched glabella. Zygomatic arches are rather forward giving prominent cheekbones. Very straight upper incisors; receding chin; moderately steep mandible and broad ramus. Sloping, rather flattened forehead. Occipital region is similar to Pharaohs of XVIII Dynasty.
Ramesses II
Father: Seti I, Mother: Queen Mut-Tuy Rounded forehead with sagittal plateau. Slight, rounded glabella. Proclined upper incisors; receding chin with high ANB. Rather long ramus with weak inclination of mandible. Orthognathous.
Merenptah
Father: Ramesses II, Mother: Queen Isis-nofret I Prominent, rounded glabella. Low, sloping forehead; sagittal plateau; high ANB and overbite; receding chin. Rather long ramus and slightly angular mandible like father, Ramesses II. Zygomatic arches appear to project forward.
Siptah
Father: Merenptah, Seti II or Amenmesse, Mother: Queen Tiaa Prominent, rounded glabella. Low, sloping forehead and some sagittal flattening. Vertical, receding chin and proclined upper incisors. Strongly inclined mandible.
XX Dynasty
Ramesses IV
Father: Ramesses III, Mother: Queen Habadjilat or Queen Isis Bulging occipital bun. Rather low vault; rounded forehead with pronounced glabella; vertical zygomatic arches; receding chin and moderate protrusion of incisors. Angular mandible.
Notice Ramesses IV's occipital bun.
Ramesses V
Father: Ramesses IV or Ramesses III, Mother: Queen Habadjilat or Queen Isis Very prominent glabella. Protrusion of upper incisors; receding chin and moderate inclination of mandible. Low, sloping forehead. Flattening of the sagittal contour.
Ramesses V has a very pronounced glabella.
Other Royal Mummy X-rays
Queen Nodjme
Globular cranium, rounded forehead and occiput; sagittal plateau. Pronounced maxillary prognathism; blunt, receding chin and steep mandible.
Queen Sitkamos
Globular cranium, rounded forehead and occiput. Maxillary and mandibular prognathism; proclined upper incisors. Receding chin and angular mandible.
Queen Esemkhebe
Pronounced prognathism. Rounded forehead with flattish cranium and sagittal depression. rounded occiput. Pointed, receding chin.
Prince Ouabkhousenou
Globular cranium with occipital bun. Rounded forehead with prominent, rounded glabella. Strongly prognathous with receding chin and steep mandible.Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
The New Kingdom royal mummies suggest that the Pharaohs were continuing to intermix, both with people from the north and the south.
The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty.
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
Images and data from James Harris and Edward Wente. X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: I went through your images from another post. They do look like what I consider negroid. Is there a more modern term than negroid, caucasoid etc. being used to refer to the same thing?
'Racial' terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, etc. "are worse than useless".
Such terms delimit and fail to convey the full aspects of human biodiversity and variety.
A perfect example would be the fact that there are natives in the Pacific who also fit the description of "negroid" yet are as related to Africans as Native Americans!
At the same time, features like narrow noses which are common to Europeans are also found in Africa and Asia.
And slanted eyes that are found in many (but not all) east Asians are also found in some Africans etc etc.
And what about the populations of India?! The peoples there defy such racial classifications.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Wow. That is pretty wild. I wonder when Hollywood is going to do a new AE movie?
I heard they are coming out with a movie about Nefertiti starring Halle Berry.
If you are asking when Hollywood will portray ancient Egyptians more accurately, I don't know. This new Nefertiti movie is a wonder and I have only seen one picture from it with Halle Berry.
But the educational media is taking slow steps in making that happen.
Already, I've seen programs on TLC and even discovery that are casting black characters and even rural Fellahin!
A far outcry from Yul Brynner as Ramases and the other cast of white, blue-eyed people as Egyptian royalty from the Ten Commandments, huh? Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: I went through your images from another post. They do look like what I consider negroid. Is there a more modern term than negroid, caucasoid etc. being used to refer to the same thing?
'Racial' terms like negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, etc. "are worse than useless".
Such terms delimit and fail to convey the full aspects of human biodiversity and variety.
A perfect example would be the fact that there are natives in the Pacific who also fit the description of "negroid" yet are as related to Africans as Native Americans!
At the same time, features like narrow noses which are common to Europeans are also found in Africa and Asia.
And slanted eyes that are found in many (but not all) east Asians are also found in some Africans etc etc.
And what about the populations of India?! The peoples there defy such racial classifications.
I agree completely. I have to learn the new terminology.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Wow. That is pretty wild. I wonder when Hollywood is going to do a new AE movie?
I heard they are coming out with a movie about Nefertiti starring Halle Berry.
If you are asking when Hollywood will portray ancient Egyptians more accurately, I don't know. This new Nefertiti movie is a wonder and I have only seen one picture from it with Halle Berry.
But the educational media is taking slow steps in making that happen.
Already, I've seen programs on TLC and even discovery that are casting black characters and even rural Fellahin!
A far outcry from Yul Brynner as Ramases and the other cast of white, blue-eyed people as Egyptian royalty from the Ten Commandments, huh?
Everything changes.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period."
The Tasians were among the earliest population in northern Egypt and were black African, but as we have stated even the Natufians of the Palestine possess black African affinities due to the fact that they are of recent African ancestry themselves. Genetics such as E3b derived lineages found among peoples there today only support this even more.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything I have seen thus far makes me think these people were black. But no whites? It just boggles my mind that there were no whites. There were always whites in AE on TV.
-------------------- Rossi aka rusman, RusViking
If you adhere to the truth, and have a good grounding in logic and the scientific method, then, you might, just might, know something sometime. Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparison with Modern Nilotic and South Saharan Africans
The cranial shape displayed by the New Kingdom royal mummies is most commonly found among inhabitants of the Nile and the south Sahara. The skull of Thutmose IV shows some peculiarities regarding the sagittal contour and occiput in the lateral view (profile).
(Wente, Who's Who Among the Royal Mummies)
Notice the same type of head shape in the image below of a Haratin male from the Ahaggar in Algeria:
( LC Briggs, The living races of the Sahara Desert. (New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969)
Seti I and many of his descendants possessed a low, sloping forehead that was so common in Mesolithic Nubians like those found at Wadi Halfa.
(Harris and Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies)
The images below show Lotuko males, a Sudanese Nilotic people. Both have low, sloping foreheads as commonly found in the Dynasties XIV and XX. The Lotuko to the right also shows a prominent occiput similar to that found in the Haratin male above.
(CG Seligman. Pagan tribes of the Nilotic Sudan. (London: G. Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1932)
The more rounded, globular type cranium found in Thutmose I (below) is typical of latter Nubians.
( Harris and Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies)
Another Haratin male from the Ahaggar displays a similar high vault:
(Briggs, The living races of the Sahara Desert)Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I edited the Wikipedia article about ancient Egypt to include a link to that site, but then some moron named Zerida edited it out because he considered it "unscholarly" (what that term defines escapes me). It seems that every time we post information linking ancient Egypt to black Africa, some nitwit edits it out.
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: I edited the Wikipedia article about ancient Egypt to include a link to that site, but then some moron named Zerida edited it out because he considered it "unscholarly" (what that term defines escapes me). It seems that every time we post information linking ancient Egypt to black Africa, some nitwit edits it out.
Shameful but not surprising. No doubt this 'Zerida' felt that such info was "unscholarly" because the site that displayed it was 'Afrocentric', despite the FACT that the actual source of the info was the book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies written by Edward Wente and James E. Harris who are WHITE scholars!!
This is why I think 'Afrocentrics' should put forth more effort in showing that their claims are supported by 'mainstream' (and thus recognizably legitimate scholarship)! Until then 'Afrocentrism' will just be considered pseudo-scientific and pseudo-scholarly nonsense!!
And unfortunately some Afrocentrics will only continue to perpetuate this negative view through faults of their own pseudo-nonsense claims.
*SIGH* Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I re-edited the article with the link, complaining about Zeridan's mistake. Zeridan took it out again and said that it was unscholarly because the site wasn't published in an academic journal. Do you agree with that or have I just observed a fallacious case of thinking that if it's not in a journal, it's unscholarly?
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: I re-edited the article with the link, complaining about Zeridan's mistake. Zeridan took it out again and said that it was unscholarly because the site wasn't published in an academic journal. Do you agree with that or have I just observed a fallacious case of thinking that if it's not in a journal, it's unscholarly?
I am really not certain if the info was published in an academic journal, but I am sure that academic journal did make references to such studies including those like Keita.
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was published in an academic journal. Ausar or anyone else, were Wente and Harris's studies published in any peer-reviewed or academic sources??
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The purpose of this study is to refute the argument that the Pharaohs did not conform to the "Negroid" phenotype, but not to support any biological basis of the concept of race.
The purpose of the study was to show that the Pharaohs were Negroids but not that that being a Negroid is racial. We wouldn't do thatPosts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL @ the desperate lyingass resorting to distorting the words of these scholars.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Not my interest particularly but what does examination of the ancient egyptian mummies provide in terms of understanding their morphological inheritance?
I did a search of the forum and found almost nothing on the topic, but the search was cursory.
Here's a study that reviews all research on Egyptian mummies:
Evidence-based palaeopathology: Meta-analysis of PubMed-listed scientific studies on ancient Egyptian mummies.Authors:Zweifel, L. Buni, Th. Ruhli, F.J.. Source:HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology; September 2009 60 (5): 405-427. Document Type:Article. Abstract:There is a plethora of published scientific studies on ancient Egyptian mummies. Surprisingly, hitherto there is no systematic review of this research, which would help to assess the quality of this vast body of published literature and thus to increase ''evidence'' in palaeopathological research. The aim of this study was to review all PubMed-listed scientific studies performed on Ancient Egyptian mummies. A total of 131 studies were found in the database for the selected time period, 1977-2005. Our ''meta-analysis'' showed that the number of publications per year varies enormously. The majority of mummies examined date to the third intermediate and Ptolemaic periods; data from other time periods were lacking. Identification of the cause of death and 14C-dating of the mummy or funeral goods were rarely addressed. There was a tendency towards an increased use of non-invasive examination methods in more modern times. Our meta-analysis addressed both scientific content (e.g. palaeopathological findings/examination methods) and publication issues (e.g. location of the first author or year of publication) in these studies. Based on our experience, we recommend some minimum publication standards for palaeopathologic studies on ancient mummies, which shall improve evidence-based research in palaeopathology in general..
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic