posted
We've had topics discussing crania, and I've even opened up some on this, but I'm not sure how many of us are on the same page when reading these studies.
For starters:
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions.
S.O.Y. Keita
…Finkel (1974, 1978), after a normal equivalent deviate analysis of numerous diachronic ancient “Middle Eastern” cranial series, including some Egyptian, Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, and Greek ones, as well as the Lachish Iron Age series, is able to conclude that this broad region’s populations do not have the characteristics of a single breeding population, i.e., a model viewing this area as a single breeding region with a single morphometric pattern fails. Thus the “Mediterranean race” concept is seen to be questionable-if not invalid-at least on the craniometric level. Furthermore, he is able to conclude that the Iron Age Lachish series differed significantly in several variables from the Bronze Age series from the site. He ascribes the difference between the two Lachish series to microevolution secondary to migration and gene flow. Nevertheless, Finkel is able to show that these and other series from within the boundaries of modern Israel form a “ super-population.” He finds a diachronic difference only at the Lachish site; his study utilizes a total of 48 cranial series. Musgrave and Evans (1980), using principal coordinates analysis (PCO), undertook an analysis of several “Greek,” Cretan, Minoan, Egyptian, and the Lachish series in an effort to answer the question of early eastern Mediterranean island population origins, and to investigate biological relationships with Egypt. The Lachish series is not found to plot near any Greek or eastern Mediterranean island series. However, of interest is the consistent tendency of the Egyptian Twenty sixth-Thirtieth Dynasty “E” series to position nearer to the Greek series than to the corpus of other Egyptian series. It is well to note that not only does the “E” series come from northern Egypt, perhaps always more cosmopolitan (Hoffman, 1980), but that its dates overlap the Greek period of Egyptian history. Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon…
INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted.
Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series receiving a very small percentage. The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas. Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. The Bible (I1 Kings) recounts the destruction wrought by Sennacherib, and suggests an alliance of the Judean Kingdom with Egypt during the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when Nubia ruled Egypt (Abu Bakr, 1981). Nowhere is this more vividly revealed than in this warning to Sennacherib as he approached Jerusalem. “Behold, Tirhakah the Ethiopian (Nubian) has come out to fight against thee” (II Kings 19: 8-9). Tirhakah was one of the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
The notable classification of Lachish crania into the northern Egyptian, but not Maghreb, series suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.” This Maghreb series is actually quite morphmetrically heterogeneous (Keita, 1983). The classification of a number of crania into the Romano-British series is noteworthy, and suggests evidence for a Romano-British presence. This is, of course, impossible, since there were no Romano-British during the time of the Judean Kingdom, nor were there any First Dynasty Egyptians, etc. It can be said only at best that these crania morphometrically resemble the various other series at the group or individual level. Theoretically only groups, which in reality an unknown series could have affinities or identities with, can or should be used (Blackith and Reyment, 1971). This is clearly not the case here for most series if the Lachish series’ crania are accepted as truly being of the date assigned to the site by archeology. This reality axiom is especially true when the individuals of the Lachish or any other series are evaluated as unknowns and the results are in terms of specific identities. It is clear as implied earlier that the idea of similarity must be informed by a larger theoretical framework…
In conclusion, the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and “E” series, the latter’s morphomentrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania. However, “Keith’s problem” is illustrated because this mean value hides the variation revealed by the analysis of the series as individual unknown crania, and shows many to have strong resemblances to more southern (both Egyptian and non-Egyptian) series even when Lachish is a choice. It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogeneity in some general sense at Lachish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian presence is supported. - Keita, 1988.
As I've said earlier, an African complex like AE, almost treated like an extraterrotorial sphere, whereby all this hype about this north-south hype is brought about, largely by Eurocentric groups. Yet these same proponents don't hold Europe, the so-called 'Southwest Asia', or anywhere else sans Africa, to the same standards. To that extent, I thought the following might be noteworthy from the piece just cited above:
In conclusion, the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and “E” series, the latter’s morphomentrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania. However, “Keith’s problem” is illustrated because this mean value hides the variation revealed by the analysis of the series as individual unknown crania, and shows many to have strong resemblances to more southern (both Egyptian and non-Egyptian) series even when Lachish is a choice. It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogeneity in some general sense at Lachish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian presence is supported.
But I found this interesting:
The notable classification of Lachish crania into the northern Egyptian, but not Maghreb, series suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.” This Maghreb series is actually quite morphmetrically heterogeneous (Keita, 1983).
The keywords here being: suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.”
This was also interesting:
The classification of a number of crania into the Romano-British series is noteworthy, and suggests evidence for a Romano-British presence. This is, of course, impossible, since there were no Romano-British during the time of the Judean Kingdom, nor were there any First Dynasty Egyptians, etc.
Additionally,...
Examination of the results when the results when the Lachish crania were run as unknowns reveals the classifications found in table 6.
Approximately 31% misclassified into coastal north African and northern Egyptian series, and 30% into southern Egyptian, Nubian, and tropical African series. In the unknown analysis approximately half classified into northern Egypt, coastal North African and European series, and the other half into southern Egyptian , Nubian, and tropical African series. It is well to note in the plot the seriation of the cranial series along Function I. The Romano-British group in this regard, is the most distinct, and the discriminant scores support this observation. By the groups’ Function I scores, the seriation is as follows:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: As I've said earlier, an African complex like AE, almost treated like an extraterrotorial sphere, whereby all this hype about this north-south hype is brought about, largely by Eurocentric groups. Yet these same proponents don't hold Europe, the so-called 'Southwest Asia', or anywhere else sans Africa, to the same standards...
Indeed, I've long noticed such bias concerning cranial studies of North Africa. Fortunately this major fallacy (nonsense) is beginning to be rectified.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Judahite high politicos of Lachish at the time Sennacherib conquered it looked like this:
There are older analyses of the skeletal remains of the Lachish ossuary which contained about 695 Judahite (ancient Jews) crania of all ages and gender. Lachish had been held by Israelites since roughly 500 years before its Assyrian conquest.
D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166, reported that the Lachish cranial series has its closest resemblance to the 4th dynasty series from Deshasheh and Medum in Lower Egypt and the 18th dynasty samples from Thebes and Abydos in Upper Egypt. Cranial samples from other Palestinian sites (Gezer, Megiddo) agree with the Lachish cranium.
Thus we have a clear African phenotypical continuum in the southern Hebrews of Judah based on their cranial similarity to certain Nile Valley folk.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions.
S.O.Y. Keita
… Musgrave and Evans (1980), using principal coordinates analysis (PCO), undertook an analysis of several “Greek,” Cretan, Minoan, Egyptian, and the Lachish series in an effort to answer the question of early eastern Mediterranean island population origins, and to investigate biological relationships with Egypt. The Lachish series is not found to plot near any Greek or eastern Mediterranean island series. .... Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon…
INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
... The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas. Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. The Bible (I1 Kings) recounts the destruction wrought by Sennacherib, and suggests an alliance of the Judean Kingdom with Egypt during the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when Nubia ruled Egypt (Abu Bakr, 1981). Nowhere is this more vividly revealed than in this warning to Sennacherib as he approached Jerusalem. “Behold, Tirhakah the Ethiopian (Nubian) has come out to fight against thee” (II Kings 19: 8-9). Tirhakah was one of the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
As I've said earlier, an African complex like AE, almost treated like an extraterrotorial sphere, whereby all this hype about this north-south hype is brought about, largely by Eurocentric groups. Yet these same proponents don't hold Europe, the so-called 'Southwest Asia', or anywhere else sans Africa, to the same standards...
Indeed, I've long noticed such bias concerning cranial studies of North Africa. Fortunately this major fallacy (nonsense) is beginning to be rectified.
Actually, I think it is a little more complex than that. Yes, there is certainly a will to treat an exclusive African complex like Kemet as an extraterrestrial element, as this standard is applied to Kemet but rarely applied to ancient Greece, Rome, so-called Mesopotamia, China, Indus Valley, ancient Meso-America or any other such cultures of antinquity, none of which will pass the test of homogeneity in lineage. However, as I have just demonstrated, there is usually also lack of understanding about what these craniometric studies are looking at. For instance, some think that northern coastal African crania represent a single type, presumably homogenous. This study shows that this clearly isn't the case.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted.
Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series receiving a very small percentage. The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice.
And...
The notable classification of Lachish crania into the northern Egyptian, but not Maghreb, series suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.” This Maghreb series is actually quite morphmetrically heterogeneous (Keita, 1983).
Two things to note:
1)By comparison, in the coastal north African crania, the Lachish crania largely fell into the northern Egyptian samples than Maghreb.
2)Maghreb crania is notably heterogeneous, as is the "E" series, yet more Lachish crania fell into the "E" series than the Maghreb samples.
If both are heterogeneous, and at the same time both show discernable trends from those of more southward African crania, then what does this say about coastal north African crania? Well, the author put it rather simply:
suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.”
Note that the study data also shows both Maghreb and the "E" series to be yet discernable from the "Sedment" series of northern Egypt.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
...There are older analyses of the skeletal remains of the Lachish ossuary which contained about 695 Judahite (ancient Jews) crania of all ages and gender. Lachish had been held by Israelites since roughly 500 years before its Assyrian conquest.
D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166, reported that the Lachish cranial series has its closest resemblance to the 4th dynasty series from Deshasheh and Medum in Lower Egypt and the 18th dynasty samples from Thebes and Abydos in Upper Egypt. Cranial samples from other Palestinian sites (Gezer, Megiddo) agree with the Lachish cranium.
Thus we have a clear African phenotypical continuum in the southern Hebrews of Judah based on their cranial similarity to certain Nile Valley folk.
Expectedly, the present study [under discussion] does mention Risdon's work, amongst many others:
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Risdon’s work (1939) is the only study that examines the Lachish series as its major focus. Using metric variables in the now credited Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.) (Fisher, 1939; Seltzer, 1937; Howells, 1973), he concludes that the Lachish series represents Upper Egyptians, who were residents in Lower Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty and who immigrated to Lachish during that time (between 1567 and 1320 BC), remaining endogamous. Keith (1940) disagrees with Risdon’s results stating on morphological grounds that the people of Lachish, in the main, are Europeanoid of the “Mediterranean type,” as opposed to the Egyptians who are African of the “Hamitic type,” except in the delta. He clearly is using a larger taxonomic framework and a zoological orientation:
“In the recognition of race, variety or species, naturalists depend - not so much on measurement - as on certain distinctive marks or characters. Mr. Risdon notes among the Lachish people two characters which are non-Egyptian - namely narrowness and prominence of the bridge of the nose and curvature of the cheeks bones.”
Keith expressed the opinion that the C.R.L. is a biometrical averager and concealer of variation in cranial series - analogous to the sausage maker’s mincing machine - preventing observation of the initial “separable qualities and elements” in the final product. He criticizes Risdon for not keeping “these elements in evidence by the use of curves of distribution” (presumably of the individual variables).
Two general issues are raised by Keith’s comments.One concerns the question of how accurately cranial series reflect “populations,” and concomitantly the definition of population - is it a breeding group of individuals at equilibrium for metric traits, or a relatively geographically or culturally isolated group of individuals more likely to breed with each other, but not necessarily at equilibrium? The other issue concerns the covariance of metric traits with aspects of morphology not readily described by metrics, i.e., the issue of morphological versus metric approaches and the “race concept” in skeletal biology. (A concrete example is the following situation: How would one finally classify a skull if on the basis of a metric discriminant function, it classified in one category, but on easily observed morphological traits, it seemed to fall in another? Which traits does one weight more?)
Finkel (1974, 1978), after a normal equivalent deviate analysis of numerous diachronic ancient “Middle Eastern” cranial series, including some Egyptian, Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, and Greek ones, is able to conclude that this broad region’s populations do not have the characteristics of a single breeding population, i.e., a model viewing this area as a single breeding region with a single morph metric pattern fails. Thus the “Mediterranean race” concept is seen to be questionable - if not valid - at least on the craniometric level. Furthermore, he is able to conclude that the Iron Age Lachish series differed significantly in several variables from the Bronze Age series from the site. He ascribes the difference between the two Lachish series to microevolution secondary to migration and gene flow. Nevertheless, Finkel is able to show that these and other series from within the boundaries of modern Israel form a “super population.” He finds a diachronic difference only at the Lachish site; his study utilizes a total of 48 cranial series.
Of note, in Musgrave and Evans study…
Musgrave and Evans (1980), using principal coordinates analysis (PCO), undertook an analysis of several “Greek,” Cretan, Minoan, Egyptian, and the Lachish series in an effort to answer the question of early eastern Mediterranean island population origins, and to investigate biological relationships with Egypt. The Lachish series is not found to plot near any Greek or eastern Mediterranean island series. However, of interest is the consistent tendency of the Egyptian Twenty sixth - Thirtieth Dynasty “E” series to position nearer to the Greek series than to the corpus of other Egyptian series.
It is well to note that not only does the “E” series come from northern Egypt, perhaps always more cosmopolitan (Hoffman, 1980), but that its dates overlap the Greek period of Egyptian history. Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon.
Criticism of previous work focuses on methodogy and research design. For some workers the C.R.L. is not a measure of divergence or “an inverse measure of general resemblance”; it is a significance test (Fisher, 1936; Seltzer, 1937), and does not take the correlations of variables onto account. Other criticisms are to be found in Seltzer (1937).
Risdon did not include other (non-Egyptian) series, thus eliminating a context of wider variation; hence the only choices for affinity in his study were various Egyptian series.
Finkel (1974, 1978), although showing “that the Middle East cannot be considered to be one interbreeding population,” does not specifically examine whether or not the Iron Age Lachish series - the only one in his study showing significant difference from an earlier series from the same site - could group with any other “super population.” This approach would perhaps help eliminate some groups as likely sources of migration. The construction of the “super populations” is based on Birdsell’s (1950) spatial concept of a breeding population, in which geographical propinquity determines the grouping. Finally, Finkel’s approach perhaps suffers from the loss of information inherent in univariate studies (Howells, 1969).
A criticism of both Finkel and Musgrave and Evans is their reliance on published data, and therefore the possibility that error, secondary to inconsistency in technique, renders the series incomparable.
Notwithstanding noted criticisms about Risdon's and others' work, his observation about the detection of Egyptian 'influence' in the Lachish series is consistent with the findings of other researchers, as noted above, and well, the present study.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Very interesting. So tell me, do you think the Lachish remains represent a continuity of the Natufians, or a recent migration of Egyptians?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Very interesting. So tell me, do you think the Lachish remains represent a continuity of the Natufians, or a recent migration of Egyptians?
I have no reason to assume so or deny so, unless demonstrated. Natufians seem to have resembled the "forest Negro" archetype in many respects, judging by the language used by researchers like Brace, who uses terms like "a hint of sub-Saharan" to describe sub-Saharan crania. However, it was said that...
Recap:
Examination of the results when the results when the Lachish crania were run as unknowns reveals the classifications found in table 6.
Approximately 31% misclassified into coastal north African and northern Egyptian series, and 30% into southern Egyptian, Nubian, and tropical African series. In the unknown analysis approximately half classified into northern Egypt, coastal North African and European series, and the other half into southern Egyptian , Nubian, and tropical African series. It is well to note in the plot the seriation of the cranial series along Function I. The Romano-British group in this regard, is the most distinct, and the discriminant scores support this observation. By the groups’ Function I scores, the seriation is as follows:
^The only other relatively 'southward' African specimens that I've come across, aside from ancient southern Egyptian and ancient "Nubian" specimens, were the 'Gabon' series and the 'Teita' series. So, I take it that the tropical Africans mentioned above, are these latter two. It is of note though that, whereas the Lachish series misclassified into the Gabon series, none fell into the Teita series:
Table 6. Classification results[of the Lachish series]
In both the first table representing "Function I scores", and table 2 representing "Lachish classification results", paying attention to the northern African crania, we again notice differentiation between the Sedment, Maghreb & "E" series.
In the topmost table, we see "E" series clustering relatively nearer to the Romano-British series than the other north African series, bearing in mind that the D^2 (Mahalanobis generalized distance) values are significant between the series in question. Sedment series lies in between the Maghreb & Lachish series and the Abydos series; again, apparent indication of differentiation here.
In the second table, more Lachish series misclassified into the "E" series than the Maghrebian and the Sedment, with a little more misclassifying into the Maghrebian than the Sedment series, when the Lachish series is run through as a known series. Misclassifications into the Kerma series are yet greater than Maghrebian and the Sedment. Same number of misclassification into the Abydos and the Maghreb series. The Nagada series in turn, has quantitative advantage over the Kerma series.
When the Lachish series is run as an unknown series, again the "E" series comes out on top, in terms of misclassification of the Lachish crania. In this case, the "E" series is followed by the Abydos series, which is the same as that for the Nagada series, then the Kerma series followed by the Sedment series. The Gabon series takes up more misclassification here, compared to the Maghreb series.
Apparently there is differentiation between the two northern Egyptian series: Sedment series and the "E" series, which apparently has diachronic component to it.
^What then, can one make of these examples?
*Well, those who pass contemporary northern Egyptians as a phenotypic replica of their ancient counterparts, couldn't be further away from truth. Sure, there is some level of continuity, considering that Nile Valley populations weren't displaced, but change definitely has occurred, including northern Egypt.
Zakrzewski's recent cranial analysis shows continuity in Egyptian crania, in such a way that the overall picture painted, is one whereby the Nile Valley is the result of progressive in situ social complexity, accompanied largely by intra-regional migrations. Migrations from outside were actually gradual and not in exodus-type of scenarios, at least during in the pedynastic complexes and earlier kingdoms of the dynastic period. Still, even here some level of change is observed across the crania, apparently diachronic in nature, as a product of both micro-evolution and largely intra-regional migrations. Misclassifications here between diachronically differentiated crania are interpreted as indicators of continuity across the crania involved.
*The other point to reiterate, is that of no such thing as a monotypic coastal North African cranial pattern, just as recently assumed by someone in another thread.
*With all the hype about North-south differentiation, sure it exists by way of trends of certain variables in cranial pattern, but there is no clear-cut demarcation between them. They overlap or grade into one another.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
*With all the hype about North-south differentiation, sure it exists by way of trends of certain variables in cranial pattern, but there is no clear-cut demarcation between them. They overlap or grade into one another.
It has been said that...
Recap: The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
Other related observations…
Recap: "The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less or non- “Negroid” (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported features generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercinski’s (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest that there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, although more different than Badari groups from further south. - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
Recap: Another example of anti-“Negro” bias is given in Briggs (1955), who reports a writer who calls a “Negro” Neolithic Fayum (northern Egyptian) skull, the remains of a slave; why was it not the skull of a native free Fayumian? - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships.
^ Of course such "intermediate" pattern is found in other parts of Africa including the Horn. This reminds me of Stupid-Euro's rantings of Somali crania having affinities with Dutch crania and therefore "caucasoid"! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of 'intermediacy', I'm reminded of the "intermediate" position of the Dogon specimens in reactionary Groves' analysis of predominantly Epipaleothic and early Holocene specimens of European and north African crania.
According to Groves, the so-called "Caucasoid-Negroid" transition in cranio-metric trends of Africans used to be much northward in the Epipaleolithic era than it is today. It is of note though, that what Groves presumes to be "Caucasoid" Epipaleothic coastal northwest African remains, has nothing to do with Tamazight groups that live in said region today.
The classification of a number of crania [Lachish] into the Romano-British series is noteworthy, and *suggests evidence for a Romano-British presence*. This is, of course,**impossible**, since **there were no Romano-British during the time of the Judean Kingdom, nor were there any First Dynasty Egyptians,** etc.
^The Romano-British affinity of some Lachish crania, appear to be just that; resemblance, as there is no evidence of Romano-British contact in the Levantine area from where the specimens came from, tracing back to the timeframe that the Lachish crania are dated for; ~ 8th century B.C.
Hence, we are confronted with a situation whereby the biological influence on the Lachish population(s) would have been rather too late for 1st Dynasty Egyptians, but earlier than any Romano-British contact.
But on the other hand:
The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas.
^To be correlated with historic accounts...
Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. The Bible (I1 Kings) recounts the destruction wrought by Sennacherib, and suggests an alliance of the Judean Kingdom with Egypt during the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when Nubia ruled Egypt (Abu Bakr, 1981). Nowhere is this more vividly revealed than in this warning to Sennacherib as he approached Jerusalem. “Behold, Tirhakah the Ethiopian (Nubian) has come out to fight against thee” (II Kings 19: 8-9). Tirhakah was one of the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
Historical domentation agrees with contemporaneous [to Lachish crania dating] Egypto-"Nubian" [but in the late dynastic periods] influence on the Lachish populations?
Reading a little further,...
It can be said only at best that these crania morphometrically resemble the various other series at the group or individual level. Theoretically only groups, which in reality an unknown series could have affinities or identities with, can or should be used (Blackith and Reyment, 1971). This is clearly not the case here for most series if the Lachish series’ crania are accepted as truly being of the date assigned to the site by archeology. This reality axiom is especially true when the individuals of the Lachish or any other series are evaluated as unknowns and the results are in terms of specific identities. It is clear as implied earlier that the idea of similarity must be informed by **a larger theoretical framework**…
This larger theoretical framework is meant to account for the just now mentioned contrasting situations, whereby in one case, gene flow could be invoked in the diversity of the Lachish crania, while in another instance cranial affinity appears to be something of a coincidence...perhaps parallel evolution?
^Here, Keita takes a look at a model which explores possible linkage of Holocene micro-adaptation to climatic factors along geographical lines, resulting in convergent micro-evolution of cranio-morphometric patterns within designated geo-climatic zones. So a mix of factors could be acting on clinal variations across populations within the designated geo-climate zones, including gene flow and genetic drift. The author procedes to provide examples of what appears to be correlations between geo-climatic factors and certain cranio-morphometric trends across populations within the said geo-climatic zones. Having said that, the author examines the potential limitations of the model as well.
So, returning to the question at hand: In the first intance, where evidence of immediate or direct gene flow between the said groups is lacking, so as to explain gene flow as the agent of bringing about the said affinity, convergent physical micro-adaptation as a response to similar general climatic environment, is used as the possible factor. In the other instance, where the range of variations in the Lachish appear to subsume trends notable in groups from relatively different geo-climatic zones and historical evidence is attested to, gene flow is explained as the likely contributor to the affinities in question. Hence, the misclassifications of Lachish crania into the Romano-British series likely reflects happenstance by way of convergent microadaptation, while the Egypto-"Nubian" affinities likely reflects gene flow from that region.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Geometric morphometric study of population variation in indigenous southern African crania.
Franklin D, Freedman L, Milne N, Oxnard CE.
Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 Western Australia, Australia. dfranklin@anhb.uwa.edu.au
Much of our understanding of population variation in southern Africa is derived from traditional morphometric research. In the search for new perspectives, this paper reports on new geometric morphometric data examining cranial variation in 12 modern human populations from southern Africa. In total, 298 male Bantu-speaking individuals were studied. In addition, a small Khoisan (Khoikhoi and San) series was also examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate Khoisan-Bantu morphological similarities and differences, and to examine variation within both the Bantu-speaking and Khoisan populations. The three-dimensional coordinates of 96 landmarks were analyzed, using the shape-analysis software morphologika. Interpopulation variation was examined by calculating Procrustes distances between groups; a cluster analysis was then used to summarize phenetic relationships. A principal components analysis explored the relationships between populations; shape differences were visualized and explored using three-dimensional rendered models, and further interpreted using thin-plate splines. Morphological differences are present within and between the crania of Bantu-speaking and Khoisan individuals. The Khoisan demonstrate features (e.g., a pentagonoid vault, more rounded forehead contour, and a small and less prognathic face) that clearly distinguish them from Bantu-speaking populations. Although southern African Bantu-speaking populations are clearly closely related, they show population-specific features (e.g., the crania of more southerly populations (Xhosa, Southern Sotho, and Zulu) are characteristically more brachycephalic and less prognathic). This study suggests that differential admixture with adjacent Khoisan peoples has contributed to diversity within southern African Bantu-speaking populations.
Naturally, full access to the entire study would be welcome.
In the meantime, cranio-morphometric diversity even within Bantu-speaking groups neighbouring largely other Bantu-speakers has been well documented [see for example: Craniometrical analysis of Central and East Africans in relation to history: A case study based on unique collections of known ethnic affiliation, by Isabelle Ribot, 2003]
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic