posted
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Godde K. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. kgodde@utk.edu
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D(2) with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that they are right next to each other in the Nile Valley corridor and that the upper Nile region is an important region to both groups historically going back many thousands of years, it only makes sense. In fact, it shouldn't need scientific study to confirm the obvious fact that both populations are INDIGENOUS Nile Valley Africans and RIGHT NEXT to each other and therefore closer to each other than anyone else.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix.
Discussion
The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the results suggest homogeneity between the two populations. Many of the samples that are similar to one another, between the two populations, are separated by great amounts of time (e.g. Kerma and Badari). These similarities over time make sense because, as Konigsberg (1990) asserted, as time elapses, related groups become more genetically similar. In order to explicate the meaning behind all of these findings, the results here must be tempered by the DNA evidence. Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.
Interpretation of the results framed by several of the groups’ histories helps to elucidate the subtle relationships depicted in the PCO scatter plot. The predynastic sample from Badari occupies a complex position in Egyptian history. The Badarians are Egypt's oldest agriculturalists and produced some of the earliest known pottery (Hassan, 1986) that predated state formation in Egypt. Badarian crania, in comparison to dynastic groups, are slight and less robust than their later counterparts (Angel, 1972; Morant, 1935; Stoessiger, 1927). Stoessiger (1927) likened the gracile nature of the Badarians to the gracile nature of the people from Naqada, but she pointed out that the Badarians are more prognathic. On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990), while the Gizeh sample clustered with the Maghreb and Sedment (Dynasty IX Egyptians) (Keita, 1990).
Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. The unusual grouping of Badari, Naqada, Kerma, and the later Dynastic pooled sample may have been a product of the mixed nature of the pooled sample. The effects of pooled samples have been demonstrated in Nubians by obscuring relationships and creating a falsely close affinity between it and the samples it clusters with (Godde, 2009a). Moreover, affinities among the Badarian, Naqada, and Kerma samples have been revealed by other authors (Keita, 1990; Nutter, 1958) and it is no surprise that this relationship exists in the data here.
Relationships among Badari, Naqada, and Kerma have not always been overt in the skeletal data. Berry et al. (1967) concluded from their nonmetric analysis that their Badarian sample differed significantly from Naqada and Kerma, but was closely related to the Gizeh sample. Their study included the same samples as this analysis, but yielded results that are different from the current study and the craniometric research. Berry et al. (1967) employed a completely different range of statistics, which may account for the difference between the two conclusions. However, Berry and her coauthors also noted homogeneity across all the Egyptian groups, including Naqada and those that pre- and post-date the sample. This is indeed the case here, as is evidenced in the PCO plot; the Egyptians appear to be relatively homogeneously grouped. Some Badarian crania also classified well with the Gizeh sample (Keita, 1990).
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.
Nubian groups have also been scrutinized as to their relationship with other Nubians. Both the Meroitic and X-Group were originally postulated to be foreign peoples migrating into Lower Nubia (Adams, 1968; Nielsen, 1970). These ideas were based on changes in pottery around the beginning of each of the respective time periods. However, the archaeological evidence actually showed slow change in form over time (Adams, 1977) and the biological evidence demonstrated a similar trend in the skeletal data (e.g. Godde, in press; Van Gerven et al., 1977). These conclusions negate the possibility of invasion or migration causing the shifts in time periods. The results in this study are consistent with prior work; the Meroites and X-Group cluster with the remaining Nubian population and are not differentiated.
Despite the biological similarities between the two populations, the Nubians appear relatively homogeneous. The homogeneity is consistent with Carlson and Van Gerven's (1979) in situ hypothesis, but contradicts the findings of Buzon (2006). Buzon (2006) found a high level of heterogeneity in the Nubian samples she examined, including individuals from Kerma and the C-Group. Moreover, the Egyptian samples in her study were homogeneous overall, consistent with Berry et al. (1967) and the results in this paper. However, the levels of homogeneity appear to be similar within Nubians and within Egyptians in this study. The differences between this research and Buzon's (2006) work may be related to the statistics used. Buzon's (2006) goal was not to look at biological affinities; rather, she was trying to establish identity among her individuals by associating it with archaeological material. While this paper used a biological distance approach to investigate past population relationships, her paper used factor analysis, principal components, and a least squares regression. Although these (hers and those used here) statistics all have a solid methodological basis, they measure population relationships in two different manners and the results between them are not entirely comparable.
Gene flow may account for the homogeneity across these Nubian and Egyptian groups and is consistent with the biological diffusion precept. Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes. One of the Nubian groups in this analysis is located in Upper Egypt (Hesa/Biga), near Egyptian occupation, and contact between the two populations may have been commonplace. Specifically, Nubians were often captured and enslaved by Egyptians to build pyramids, or employed by the Egyptian army (Trigger, 1976). Occasionally, Nubians were even directed to fight other Nubians as part of their duties as troops (Trigger, 1976). Moreover, some groups of Nubians allied with the Egyptians for the conquest of Nubian areas, primarily during Dynasty I (Trigger, 1976). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, trade between Nubians and Egyptians flourished at Kerma and Meroe, during the time periods named after the sites, and enabled contact for potential gene flow. As a result of their respective histories, the multitude of interactions between them, geographic locations, and their biological composition, it appears that gene flow was possibly occurring between the two populations.
The similarities uncovered by this study may be explained by another force, adaptation. As stated above, the results appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis because the Nubian and Egyptian groups are biologically similar. However, this resemblance may be indicative of a common adaptation to a similar geographic location, rather than gene flow. Carlson and Van Gerven (1979) stated this idea in reference to common adaptations of Nubian, Paleolithic, and aboriginal Australian populations. Additionally, Carlson (1976), Prowse and Lovell (1995), Van Gerven (1982), and Van Gerven et al., 1977 D. Van Gerven, G. Armelagos and A. Rohr, Continuity and change in cranial morphology of three Nubian archaeological populations, Man 2 (1977), pp. 270–277. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)Van Gerven et al. (1977) also recognized this form of natural selection as a mechanism for in situ biological change; Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate. Because of the similarity between and the overlapping of the two territories that would require similar adaptations to the environment, common adaptation cannot be discounted.
Sample size may have unduly influenced the results in this analysis. Four of the samples were represented by less than 30 individuals, while several of the remaining samples numbered close to 200 individuals. Moreover, only a small number of groups (six) from each population were examined in this study. Observations of more and larger population samples may produce different findings.
In summation, a portion of the in situ hypothesis in Nubians is supported in this paper, namely homogeneity. Gene flow appears likely between the Egyptians and Nubians, although common adaptations to a similar environment may have also been a factor in their cranial similarities. This study does not rule out the possibility that in situ biological evolution occurred at other times not represented by the samples in this analysis. Further research should incorporate more populations the Nubians were in contact with, to further shed light on Nubian population structure. Additionally, Konigsberg's (1990) spatial–temporal isolation model should be applied to the dataset here to further explicate the results.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post Bass, as usual......as Doug said given the proximity between Nubians and Egyptians one would expect this relationship to clearly be visible, which it is, and proven time and time again.....
quote: In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The study will be posted in the yahoo group for safe keeping. one has to wonder whether "Nubians" existed as a distinct group in the first place since the two populations are indistinguishable. Ausar once said that AEs called "Nubia" its southernmost nome.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are the vets and especially zaharan? Normally zaharan uses his creativity to present this data for those who are slow to get it and or understand, no names will be mentioned lest trolls get attracted.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Welcome back, Charlie! We missed you dearly.
Its feels great to be back, battling Eurocentrists on their home turf can get boring, especially when its Evil Euro. The egyptology forum is at least moderated so its safe here.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice the position of the Coptic monks, intermediate between Naqada and the Egyptian E series from Giza, very telling, wonder which monks they're referring to. The 18th dynasty samples even more closely resembles Nubians.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice study Charles, but Doug is correct. Such findings are nothing new as for the last few decades craniometrics show the Egyptians to be closest to northern Sudanese than to any other population.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Where are the vets and especially zaharan? Normally zaharan uses his creativity to present this data for those who are slow to get it and or understand, no names will be mentioned lest trolls get attracted.
LOL So Zarahan is the kindergarden teacher who can break it down to the less intelligent, huh? Somehow I doubt no matter how simple he makes it, such findings will never penetrate the steel wall of ignorance that shields the minds of some folk.
By the way, we are glad to have you back. Gracing us with your presence and your present of this scientific study is a breath of fresh air.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow.. Excellent study and excellent find Bass. Once again you and others have strengthened the quest for an accurate and balanced history of the African peoples. Haven;t been on a much lately but check in from time to time. The study above confirms what older ones show time and time again- the close relationship between Nubians and Egyptians. Ethnically they were the closest relations. Will add this new data to future "presentations".. lol.. This one stands by itself.. and is yet another stab in the heart of those who posit alleged "racial" wars between Nubians and Egyptians. Those fools who like to show pictures of "black" Nubians "versus" Egyptians once again are defeated. The pictures are showing variants of the 2 most closely related peoples in the Egyptian Nile Valley. Ironic...
And yeah Dj, no matter how we break it down, the ignorant and racist will remain in their ignorance and racism. But it is not about them. The point is not to convince racists, but rather to document African history and restore the balance. What racists think is ultimately irrelevant.
The only quibble I have with the author is greater balance on Nubians in Egypt. It is not only as mercenaries or laborers that Nubians appear, but also some pharaohs are of Nubian origin, LONG BEFORE the well known 25th Dynasty. Those of the 12th Dynasty are a case in point and the 12th Dynasty is one of the greatest Dynasties in Egyptian history.
Furthermore as Bianchi 2004 shows, Nubian and Egyptian intermarriages were common where the people had a chance to mingle with one another. That is part of the picture as well. The study however does get the essential point about the closeness of the 2 peoples right.
Anyway Dje, Mind, Bass and others, you guys keep up the good work.
older "presentation" on Nubians .. lol
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Nice study Charles,
You're such a kiss a$$. The study practically debunks your thesis: Kushites (Nubians) and Egyptians don't look alike (see Will Smith thread).
"one has to wonder whether "Nubians" existed as a distinct group in the first place since the two populations are indistinguishable" - Charlie Bass
^ you were arguing the opposite of that in the Will Smith thread Asian. And you too gringo.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAO You moron! My original point was that Will Smith didn't look like a Nile Valley native at all, whether Egyptian or Kushite!!
I see that stupid old Will Smith topic has also vexed you! Only some insecure Will Smith fan (ass-kisser) probably one who was only recently introduced to 'Fresh Prince of Bel-air' would be so perturbed by such nonsense. But, oh well! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Who's lying? He doesn't look Kushite or any Nile Valley African. And the only troll here is YOU who brings baggage of defeat and humiliation onto other threads such as this! Get over it, you idiot-loser! LOL
Back to the topic (and sanity)...
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The study will be posted in the yahoo group for safe keeping. one has to wonder whether "Nubians" existed as a distinct group in the first place since the two populations are indistinguishable. Ausar once said that AEs called "Nubia" its southernmost nome.
As has always been repeated often in this forum, there has never been an ethnic group called "Nubians". "Nubia" was the name the Romans gave to the lands south of Egypt, and the various peoples who lived there were known collectively as "Nubians". The Egyptians themselves never used the term but referred to these groups by their actual name or ethnonyms they had for them. The earliest and perhaps most prominent 'Nubian' group were the Setjau people whose kingdom of Ta-Seti was the earliest historical kingdom in the Nile Valley preceeding both Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt) and Ta-Mehu (Lower Egypt). Not only do the earliest hieroglyphs and pharaonic symbols originate in Ta-Seti but there is even evidence in the oldest capital cities of Upper Egypt were ruled by elite families of Ta-Seti origin. With the unification of Egypt, Ta-Seti was said to have been overcome or as some scholars think destroyed by Egyptians. But it is interesting that the Egyptians throughout dynastic history still consider Ta-Seti to be Egypts 1st Nome. This is why many significant dynasties sought to claim ancestry from Ta-Seti in one way or another and why 'Nubian' groups like Kushites also tried to claim the Egyptian throne.
quote: Notice the position of the Coptic monks, intermediate between Naqada and the Egyptian E series from Giza, very telling, wonder which monks they're referring to. The 18th dynasty samples even more closely resembles Nubians.
"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."
James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980)
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Who's lying? He doesn't look Kushite or any Nile Valley African
Why do your later explains (after your BS has been pointed out) always conflict with your actual quotes Asian? LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And how does it conflict, you mentally and sexually depraved nitwit??! The original thread was about him playing a Kushite king. He does NOT look Kushite! And I just added he doesn't look Nile Valley African at all.
I understand you have a crush on Will Smith. I bet you even wanked off while watching the movie 'Hancock'! LOL
Get the hell over it and get back to the topic, or just remain silent!
If I didn't know any better, you are just disturbed by the findings Charles provided so YOU as the true troll attempt to distract by polluting this thread with your nonsense. I will no longer amuse you little wap. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I "cover up" nothing, fool! As for phenotype stereotyping, just because northeast Africa is diverse doesn't mean they have to look like your favorit African-American star. So enough of your b*tching!
I don't know why I bother. I said I won't amuse your obsession anymore. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I "cover up" nothing, fool!
Screaming wont help.
quote:As for phenotype stereotyping, just because northeast Africa is diverse doesn't mean they have to look like your favorit African-American star.
Ah yes, this is what you are reduced to, yet another of your imbecilic self defeating mantra: African phenotype is diverse yet Africans like Will Smith don't look like any of them! LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the desperate rantings of a defeated troll. As I said, I will no longer abet trolls in their idiotic attempts to sabatoge threads.
Getting back to the topic...
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Oct;101(2):237-46. Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt. Prowse TL, Lovell NC. Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. "A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighbouring populations in southern Egypt."
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The study will be posted in the yahoo group for safe keeping. one has to wonder whether "Nubians" existed as a distinct group in the first place since the two populations are indistinguishable. Ausar once said that AEs called "Nubia" its southernmost nome.
As has always been repeated often in this forum, there has never been an ethnic group called "Nubians". "Nubia" was the name the Romans gave to the lands south of Egypt, and the various peoples who lived there were known collectively as "Nubians". The Egyptians themselves never used the term but referred to these groups by their actual name or ethnonyms they had for them. The earliest and perhaps most prominent 'Nubian' group were the Setjau people whose kingdom of Ta-Seti was the earliest historical kingdom in the Nile Valley preceeding both Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt) and Ta-Mehu (Lower Egypt). Not only do the earliest hieroglyphs and pharaonic symbols originate in Ta-Seti but there is even evidence in the oldest capital cities of Upper Egypt were ruled by elite families of Ta-Seti origin. With the unification of Egypt, Ta-Seti was said to have been overcome or as some scholars think destroyed by Egyptians. But it is interesting that the Egyptians throughout dynastic history still consider Ta-Seti to be Egypts 1st Nome. This is why many significant dynasties sought to claim ancestry from Ta-Seti in one way or another and why 'Nubian' groups like Kushites also tried to claim the Egyptian throne.
quote: Notice the position of the Coptic monks, intermediate between Naqada and the Egyptian E series from Giza, very telling, wonder which monks they're referring to. The 18th dynasty samples even more closely resembles Nubians.
"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."
James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980)
Excellent quotes, and its good you remind us that Nubians varied, and were not "all alike." The below inscription by ancient Egyptians writer Weni the Elder shows numerous different groups of Nubians being recruited to do battle with Asiatic "sand dwellers"..
"When his majesty took action against the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty made an army of many tens of thousands from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians, Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians, Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and from Tjemeh-land." --Weni the Elder
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course it was never said "a black man" does not look like them as 'Nubian' peoples were black! As usual, the troll above you distorts others words in a pathetic attempt to save his bogled-ass. It just can't get over the fact that just because ancient northeast Africans were varied does not mean they look like any modern day individual African Americans, particularly Will Smith looking like a Kushite prince! Every region of Africa is diverse phenotypically but it doesn't mean they can match any African American! It's like saying because Lisa Ray is of African descent she looks like a Kushite princess.LOL
Zarahan, I suggest you ignore the troll and do not feed it any longer. The troll loves its impulses to be fed in cyberspace, the way it loves to be fed d*cks in real life. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Excellent quotes, and its good you remind us that Nubians varied, and were not "all alike." The below inscription by ancient Egyptians writer Weni the Elder shows numerous different groups of Nubians being recruited to do battle with Asiatic "sand dwellers"..
As I said, 'Nubians' was a label coined by Romans. We don't know what the etymology of the word is since it is not based on any Latin language or dialect, but many think it is derived from the Egyptian 'Nubt' meaning gold as areas just south of Egypt were rich in gold. However, the term has devolved over the years to mean black or "negroid" natives of the Nile Valley as opposed to the "caucasoid" Egyptians.
quote: "When his majesty took action against the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty made an army of many tens of thousands from all of Upper Egypt: ...; from Lower Egypt: ...; and from Irtjet-Nubians, Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians, Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and from Tjemeh-land." --Weni the Elder
In the passage above, the term 'Nubia' is translated from the Egyptian word 'Nahasou' there is still debate as to what the word actually means. Wally recently made a thread here discussing its meaning. I disagree with his Diop based conclusion that it means "worthless" or "barbarian" but I stick to the general assumption that it means a southern or upriver people. It is with this definition that I use Nahasou or 'Nubians' similar to how I use Kememou or Egpytians.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogledass: I must say, when you get backed into a corner you do resort to some bizzare logic! LOL
What is "bizzare" about it?? Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. Both groups have entirely different genetic histories. While there may be some resemblance between some individuals, others may not. Please explain how Will Smith looks "Kushite" or find me a Kushite looking like Will Smith. Better yet, why not do so in the ORIGINAL thread and not here!
quote:LMAO @ the Asian pleading for help!
LMAO Indeed at YOU, the white euro bugger with his usual misinterpretations! No doubt, caused by your desperation. Get off this thread, if you won't address the topic and most of all GET OFF MY NUTS.
As I said, it's obvious you don't want to address the actual topic perhaps because the findings bother you. So I won't appease your trolling (feed you my d*ck) anymore. You are officially ignored. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Please explain how Will Smith looks "Kushite"
The onus is on you to explain your bizzare logic Asian. Explain how if E.African phenotype is diverse an African American such as Will Smith could not pass for one! LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see what genetic studies have been conducted on ANCIENT Egyptians to say that they do NOT have a genetic connection with W. Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Bogledass: I must say, when you get backed into a corner you do resort to some bizzare logic! LOL
What is "bizzare" about it?? Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. Both groups have entirely different genetic histories. While there may be some resemblance between some individuals, others may not. Please explain how Will Smith looks "Kushite" or find me a Kushite looking like Will Smith. Better yet, why not do so in the ORIGINAL thread and not here!
quote:LMAO @ the Asian pleading for help!
LMAO Indeed at YOU, the white euro bugger with his usual misinterpretations! No doubt, caused by your desperation. Get off this thread, if you won't address the topic and most of all GET OFF MY NUTS.
As I said, it's obvious you don't want to address the actual topic perhaps because the findings bother you. So I won't appease your trolling (feed you my d*ck) anymore. You are officially ignored.
posted
Ttbomk the ancient Egyptian DNA data hasn't been released to the public. Hawass has it but secrets it claiming it's a matter of national security.
quote:For reasons of national security, DNA test results of Egyptian mummies are usually kept confidential. Some scholars conjecture that full disclosure of the research's findings could lead to a major revision of the country's ancient dynastic history.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I would like to see what genetic studies have been conducted on ANCIENT Egyptians to say that they do NOT have a genetic connection with W. Africans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I would like to see what genetic studies have been conducted on ANCIENT Egyptians to say that they do NOT have a genetic connection with W. Africans.
And where have I said ancient Egyptians have no genetic connection to West Africans??! We know for a fact that Egyptians share a number of lineages with West Africas via the Sahara. Don't make mistake of the bogled troll to misinterpret or rather read something that was never there. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is "bizzare" about it?? Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. Both groups have entirely different genetic histories.
Elaborate. How do African Americans and Nile Valley Africans have entirely different genetic histories?
How are they not related to ancient Nile Valley Africans?
Since you are soapboxing as this all knowing expert on this group, tell everyone who then are African Americans related to?
Now watch folks how this charlatan runs when challenged.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti wrote: ------------------------ Every region of Africa is diverse phenotypically but it doesn't mean they can match any African American! ------------------------
Then explain why there are Eritreans who say that Will Smith looks Eritrean.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You indirectly stated it and I quoted it for you in the post from which I asked the question. African-Americans primarily came from west and central Africa. However, a good amount came from East and south East Africa as well.
To say African-American is to say West and Central Africans. Thus why I asked you for the reports that state there is no relation genetically with ancient Egyptians and West Africans.
This is going to be a hard sell, especially when I open Budge's dictionary and see the word Bantu in the ancient Egyptian language with the same modern meaning (people, the living, persons, etc.). In Egypt they used a different variant which is WANTU. In Budge's dictionary it is spelled UNTU. Now how did Black, "Negro" Bantu speakers insert their lexical items into the ancient Egyptian language and not be ancient Egyptians? Allegedly Bantu speakers came from West Africa (which I believe derived out of the Sudan as that was the home of the Batu nation according to Budge's dictionary as BATU is another variation of BANTU).
Again, you made the statement and I quoted it and I am asking you to defend your statement.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I would like to see what genetic studies have been conducted on ANCIENT Egyptians to say that they do NOT have a genetic connection with W. Africans.
And where have I said ancient Egyptians have no genetic connection to West Africans??! We know for a fact that Egyptians share a number of lineages with West Africas via the Sahara. Don't make mistake of the bogled troll to misinterpret or rather read something that was never there.
posted
The only reason the little Asian would say something like "Both groups have entirely different genetic histories" is becuase he sees black people in America (African Americans) as some sort of genetic "group" that can be boxed, labeled and compared with ancient Egytpians. Again the Asian is caught type-casting blacks. He does it all the time.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Folks, I've informed you repeatedly this Djehuti character is either a liberal racist or a racist posed in liberal garb.
He believes in a world racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom. Then he has an African ethnic hierarchy with so called "west" Africans at the near bottom and diasporic Africans at the actual bottom.
This is why he is so fanatically desperate to seperate African Americans from certain parts of Africa.
You're a sick person Djehuti.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: You indirectly stated it and I quoted it for you in the post from which I asked the question. African-Americans primarily came from west and central Africa. However, a good amount came from East and south East Africa as well.
To say African-American is to say West and Central Africans. Thus why I asked you for the reports that state there is no relation genetically with ancient Egyptians and West Africans.
This is going to be a hard sell, especially when I open Budge's dictionary and see the word Bantu in the ancient Egyptian language with the same modern meaning (people, the living, persons, etc.). In Egypt they used a different variant which is WANTU. In Budge's dictionary it is spelled UNTU. Now how did Black, "Negro" Bantu speakers insert their lexical items into the ancient Egyptian language and not be ancient Egyptians? Allegedly Bantu speakers came from West Africa (which I believe derived out of the Sudan as that was the home of the Batu nation according to Budge's dictionary as BATU is another variation of BANTU).
Again, where have I stated West and Central Africans have no genetic relation to northeast Africans??! You quoted me, yet in those quotes I said no such thing. It's a fact *all* Africans share multiple lineages with each other in every part of the continent. That is not the issue. The issue is Bogledass troll and his boyfriend insisting that any African American or particularly Will Smith looked Kushite an ancient African.
Even though African Americans are primarily of African descent, they also carry some European and Native American ancestry also. You can't expect every African American to like a particular type or group of Africans let alone ancient populations whether it be west or east Africa. I make my basis not only on what Will Smith looks like but also by the many depictions of what ancient Kushites looked like also. Some African American ancestry is southern African also but do you think Will Smith looks like a Zulu or even like Shaka Zulu??
By the way, if you really want to have this discussion I suggest you take it here where it belongs! This thread is about new craniometric findings about ancient 'Nubians' and Egyptians NOT Will Smith looking Nubian! The whole silly issue of Will Smith was brought up by an idiot who was utterly debunked in his own thread so he trolls this thread and others! The troll and his boyfriend have polluted this thread enough, why do you join??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I make my basis not only on what Will Smith looks like but also by the many depictions of what ancient Kushites looked like also
This thread is about the virtual indistinguishability of "Nubians" and Egyptians based on the multiplicity of evidence. That said, your attempt to essentialize "Kushites" as being of a certian phenotypic type that a black man such as Will Smith wouldn't fit is quite imbecilic. Your constant apologies and bizarre logic (which inevitably lapse into basic Eurocentric Nile Valley stereotyping) to justify it only exposes you as a dishonest wretch.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we have to be anymore clear on this. This is your exact words:
quote:Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. Both groups have entirely different genetic histories.
1) You state that the Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. This is to claim that these African-Americans have no affiliation culturally with Nile Valley African people which this forum has demonstrated over the years that there were migrations back and forth from and to the Nile valley from central and west Africa.
2) You claim they were genetically different as if we have the material to view and make such an assumption.
Are you now going to say that you in fact did not say what I have quoted? Are you then going to also claim that you have genetic studies that have compared all of the West Africans with the ancient Nile Valley inhabitants? Please inform me.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [QB] I don't think we have to be anymore clear on this. This is your exact words:
1) You state that the Modern African Americans are NOT ancient Nile Valley Africans. This is to claim that these African-Americans have no affiliation culturally with Nile Valley African people which this forum has demonstrated over the years that there were migrations back and forth from and to the Nile valley from central and west Africa.
You are arguing against a strawman Asar, maybe West and Central Africans do have a connection with Nile valley Africans because of back and forth migrations, but African Americans do not.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So as soon as the Africans who crossed over the Atlantic ocean hit the shores their whole genetic make-up changed? Are you serious?
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look out now for a spam of the Sforza "study" about white genes being 14-30% in AA from "the Bass"!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: So as soon as the Africans who crossed over the Atlantic ocean hit the shores their whole genetic make-up changed? Are you serious?
If you're talking about culture there is NO connection between African Americans and Nile valley Africans, thats the bottom line. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove such a relationship, time to put up or shut up. African Americans descend primarily from West and Central Africans overall, but there are small amounts who have descent from East Africa, no one denies that, but even having shared DNA with an ancestral population does give one the right to claim anything.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Who's lying? He doesn't look Kushite or any Nile Valley African. And the only troll here is YOU who brings baggage of defeat and humiliation onto other threads such as this! Get over it, you idiot-loser! LOL
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic