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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Crania roundup

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Crania roundup
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't follow some of what's being said in the thread about crania etc. W/ the results of Abusir mummies, I wanna know what the data on the crania is like? Were early or predynastic northern Egyptians like many Levanites or was this a trend that started later? and were southern Egyptians tropical or more like middle eastern people? I think I read that Egyptians became more northern like after Egypt became well...Egypt. Is that true?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crania and post-crania is needed. For now it seems a babble box.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not the only study out there, but I've always thought Keita 1990's results were pretty representative of the trend.

Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa

quote:
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.

The key finding here is that late dynastic northern Egyptians have a more heterogeneous "intermediate" tendency, with some crania looking more African and others looking more "Caucasoid" or intermediate, whereas earlier and more southerly Egyptians have a stronger African affinity. I believe the strongest affinity the early southern Egyptians have is with "Nubian" Kushites from Kerma in Sudan, which we would all expect.

On the other hand, it is true that Keita did a follow-up study on early dynastic royal remains which found a predominance of the southern trend, but also some northerners and possibly the presence of some Middle Eastern individuals. But looking at it now, he does suggest that this might have been more of a thing among the elites (at least during the early dynastic period):

quote:
Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie’s (1939) and Gardiner’s contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south. The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them. Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.
Further studies of crania from ancient Northern Africa: An analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions

As far as population continuity in AE goes, this old study by Berry and Berry reported mostly continuity from the predynastic to the Middle Kingdom, followed by change during the New Kingdom (after the Hyksos migrations).

Origins and relationships of the ancient Egyptians. Based on a study of non-metrical variations in the skull

quote:
In a previous study of non-metrical variation it was found that the Egyptians (i.e. series of Egyptian crania from different excavations now on British collections) changed very little through Pre-dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom times. Only in the New Kingdom (when there was considerable immigration into the Nile Valley) was the earlier stability upset.
(However, their comparisons between the Egyptians and other populations seem to be messed up from what I have read; it seems that the AE appeared closest of all to northern Indians, but apparently West Africans were closer than Palestinians. [Confused] So I would take that part of the study with a grain of salt.)

The finding that late dynastic crania are physically distinct from earlier ones was apparently replicated more recently by Zakrzewksi, but I dunno where in Egypt some of the samples came from:

 -

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is from an older Keita study which includes Levantine crania from Lachish.

 -

An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions

Keep in mind his interpretation is that there was an Egypto-Nubian presence at Lachish, and we all know ancient Levantines had some North African ancestry going back to the Natufians.

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^There was a study that claimed some of the Lachish remains were of Upper Egyptian origins. With recent studies don't know if its still relevant-maybe I'm wrong.

Anyways, your graph shows Lachish remains clustering close to Maghrebis which I find interesting.

Excellent posting btw.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I take it you are referring to the old D. L. Risdon study (1939) and more recent Keita study (1988) both of which were discussed here. Yes it was Risdon who first pointed out Egyptian affinities of Lachish skulls while Keita fleshes it out with MDF analysis showing that the Lachish crania are more heterogenous showing affinities with Maghrebi and Lower Egyptian E series before Upper Egyptian and Nubian series. The Keita study is where T-hotep's graph comes from.

Though I should point out that a 2005 study by Turner et al. here using dental non-metric traits suggests that despite their Egypto-Nubian metric features, such Lachish crania are actually genetically distinct from Egypto-Nubians proper.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
T-hotep, what do you make of the old 1945 Ahmad Batrawi findings from The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute below, and do you think they are still valid in regards to recent findings especially in genetics??

Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period..


^ Obviously the 'northern type' is what Keita called the "coastal northern African type", but I am curious as to how genetically the northern and southern types are truly related and the only way to verify that is with DNA from southern Egyptian remains. Batrawi's findings suggests trends in population expansions between the north and south, though he seemed silent about foreign influence from the north (Asia?) occuring during the New Kingdom/Empire. What I do find interesting though is his finding of a "stronger negro influence" during the late period which seems to support the claims of the recent Abusir study. If this is true, I wonder what the source of this "negro" influence is.

But again, I am just as curious about changes to Egyptian demographics made during the New Kingdom. According to Batrawi, the 'northern type' spread into Upper Egypt but according to studies like the one you cited, there was an influx of foreigners into Lower Egypt especially from Asia but also from Libya. That said, I'm thinking this explains the affinities between Lower Egyptians and Palestinians like the Lachish as well as Maghrebis. Again, this may also explain the genetics of the Abusir mummies themselves.

As for the Berry & Berry study, are their findings based on metric traits or non-metric traits? And if the latter, I wonder if their findings are based more on qualitative bias than specific quantitative figures the way Hanihara did for them to conclude that Egyptians are closest to northern Indians in affinity. By the way this conclusion is not as bizarre or surprising as many think considering that Bronze Age northern Indian skulls of the Indus Valley, particularly from Mohenjo-daro and Ādittanallur show similarities such as dolichocephalic crania, chamaerrhine noses, and marked prognathisms. In fact, many Eurasiocentrists (and not just Eurocentrists) have used such features as a way of de-Africanizing not only Egyptians but other northeast African as well. In fact I personally have encountered an Indian guy some years back who made that argument, and no it wasn't Razib Khan LOL but I won't be surprised if Khan would make such an argument as well in terms of skeletal traits.

Batrawi further added:

There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion.


So we know that there is truly no ethnic difference between Copts and Muslims, but again I wonder about what demographic changes may have occurred since the Christian period other than the Arab invasions and conquest. Also, why do modern Nubians have a larger cephalic index and as some reports have even noted more "caucasoid" features than even Upper Egyptians??

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
T-hotep, what do you make of the old 1945 Ahmad Batrawi findings from The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute below, and do you think they are still valid in regards to recent findings especially in genetics??

Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period..


^ Obviously the 'northern type' is what Keita called the "coastal northern African type", but I am curious as to how genetically the northern and southern types are truly related and the only way to verify that is with DNA from southern Egyptian remains. Batrawi's findings suggests trends in population expansions between the north and south, though he seemed silent about foreign influence from the north (Asia?) occuring during the New Kingdom/Empire. What I do find interesting though is his finding of a "stronger negro influence" during the late period which seems to support the claims of the recent Abusir study. If this is true, I wonder what the source of this "negro" influence is.

But again, I am just as curious about changes to Egyptian demographics made during the New Kingdom. According to Batrawi, the 'northern type' spread into Upper Egypt but according to studies like the one you cited, there was an influx of foreigners into Lower Egypt especially from Asia but also from Libya. That said, I'm thinking this explains the affinities between Lower Egyptians and Palestinians like the Lachish as well as Maghrebis. Again, this may also explain the genetics of the Abusir mummies themselves.

As for the Berry & Berry study, are their findings based on metric traits or non-metric traits? And if the latter, I wonder if their findings are based more on qualitative bias than specific quantitative figures the way Hanihara did for them to conclude that Egyptians are closest to northern Indians in affinity. By the way this conclusion is not as bizarre or surprising as many think considering that Bronze Age northern Indian skulls of the Indus Valley, particularly from Mohenjo-daro and Ādittanallur show similarities such as dolichocephalic crania, chamaerrhine noses, and marked prognathisms. In fact, many Eurasiocentrists (and not just Eurocentrists) have used such features as a way of de-Africanizing not only Egyptians but other northeast African as well. In fact I personally have encountered an Indian guy some years back who made that argument, and no it wasn't Razib Khan LOL but I won't be surprised if Khan would make such an argument as well in terms of skeletal traits.

Batrawi further added:

There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion.


So we know that there is truly no ethnic difference between Copts and Muslims, but again I wonder about what demographic changes may have occurred since the Christian period other than the Arab invasions and conquest. Also, why do modern Nubians have a larger cephalic index and as some reports have even noted more "caucasoid" features than even Upper Egyptians??

This isn't unique to modern "Nubians". Ancient Images of Sudanese show some coal black folks from the South with pointy noses and double chins looking so much like black "caucasoids" among other "types" of so-called "Nubians". It is just that modern anthropology is stuck on "race" as the basis for human feature evolution and not Africa which is the oldest place of human evolution on the planet. In fact, if you look at the images from scenes in places like the Tomb of Huy you will notice a great amount of attention to detail in showing a tremendous amount of diversity in the various individual "Nubians", even among the coal black ones.

Tomb of Huy
 -

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I am well aware of Nubians depicted with thin lips and long pointy noses.

 -

The problem is we don't know their exact provenance. There were many kinds of Nubians depicted in ancient Egyptian art but we don't know what part of Nubia they are all from.

Plus, my post was in regard to overall general trends in morphic traits of crania. The general trend for much of dynastic history was that Nubians were more "negroid" than even Upper Egyptians but that isn't the case with modern day Nubians suggesting a change in demography. We know that during the Christian period there were incursions into Nubia from the West and these were the ancestors of modern day Nubians and thus not the same as the ancient Nubians of dynastic times. The problem is such data on the history of Nubian Nile Valley populations is lacking compared to Egyptians which we have a greater track record of.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I am well aware of Nubians depicted with thin lips and long pointy noses.

 -

The problem is we don't know their exact provenance. There were many kinds of Nubians depicted in ancient Egyptian art but we don't know what part of Nubia they are all from.

Plus, my post was in regard to overall general trends in morphic traits of crania. The general trend for much of dynastic history was that Nubians were more "negroid" than even Upper Egyptians but that isn't the case with modern day Nubians suggesting a change in demography. We know that during the Christian period there were incursions into Nubia from the West and these were the ancestors of modern day Nubians and thus not the same as the ancient Nubians of dynastic times. The problem is such data on the history of Nubian Nile Valley populations is lacking compared to Egyptians which we have a greater track record of.

Yes I agree, there have been changes population wise in Sudan since ancient times, but sometimes I still see Eurocentrics pulling their usual tricks, as in the "Arab" tribes of Chad and Sudan (who look no different than the other non Arab Africans).

That said one thing I saw on a video from an Indian talking about ancient Indian temples was that the temples were covered with intricate detailed carvings for a learning purpose, as in 3d picture books. This is also what I think was going on in AE which is why scenes of various ethnic groups had so much attention to detail. Probably a way of teaching geography and anthropology in the ancient culture.

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Andromeda2025
Junior Member
Member # 22772

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Andromeda2025     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Journal of the Royal African Society, Volume 16, Issue 64
By Royal African Society

 -

 -

Posts: 165 | From: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: Jun 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ As old and outdated as the source above is, it still remains useful in elucidating the erroneous racial typology way of thinking that was common back then and still persists today in some corners of academia.

A few things that stand out to me:

In the first paragraph the author claims the Kababish tribe of the Kordofan to be representative of "pure Arabs". Has anyone seen how the Kababish look like? One can do a cursory image search to find out. This makes me wonder what the author thinks a 'pure Arab' looks like although he then claims that pure or original Arabs are brachycephalic even though all the sources including those of his time come to the opposite concensus that they are dolichocephalic.
The author then touches on the same conclusion that his peers and many anthropologists to this day recognize-- that there was a difference in morphology between Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians with the latter appearing relatively more 'African' in appearance and the former less so. Though notice that the so-called "Ethiopic" type which characterizes not only Upper Egyptians but other populations of the Nile in Sudan and the Horn are not considered 'true Negroes' but rather Hamitic Caucasoids with "admixture of Negro blood". LOL

Also, the part about a Nehesi people called the "Nebed" and its mistranslation as "curly haired" was discussed before

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to many images but they are black with relatively thin features. I'm not sure how well it can be seen.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/MPP-Sm2.jpg/220px-MPP-Sm2.jpg

Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^ Here is a better view of that picture:

 -

This is why I'm confused. The pic comes from an 1899 book by Augustus Henry Keane called Man, Past and Present. In the book, the Kababish are described as "admixed Semites" which I assume is synonymous with admixed Arabs. That said, why did the author in the journal article Andromeda cited say the Kababish represent "pure Arabs"??

Anyway, here is a Fula-looking Kababish woman:

 -

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He could mean admixed with the Bedouins as some where straight hair and thin featured but it can't be right as the mehri,hadrami Arabs,himyars are types that varied and some look no different from Africans.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thereal
Member
Member # 22452

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thereal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He could mean admixed with the Bedouins as some where straight hair and thin featured but it can't be right as the mehri,hadrami Arabs,himyars are types that varied and some look no different from Africans.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^ Here is a better view of that picture:

 -

This is why I'm confused. The pic comes from an 1899 book by Augustus Henry Keane called Man, Past and Present. In the book, the Kababish are described as "admixed Semites" which I assume is synonymous with admixed Arabs. That said, why did the author in the journal article Andromeda cited say the Kababish represent "pure Arabs"??

Anyway, here is a Fula-looking Kababish woman:

 -

Yep, I often have wondered how these folks came to these conclusions, during those days, as do bayesian and Markov coalescent models. Models based on assumptions, which are being use in this present day and time to confirm "old data" / assumptions.

The moment I saw this, I started to realize what has been going on.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Found some information from Hierakonpolis, but IDK What it means. It gives numbers for breadth and prognathism but I don't know what they mean as far as affinity goes


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260517463_Cranial_variability_and_population_diversity_at_Hierakonpolis

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://books.google.com/books?id=lvoDHotDNF4C&pg=PA594&lpg=PA5

Man: Past and Present
By A. H. Keane, A. Hingston Quiggin, A. C.
1920

 -

 -

 -

 -

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Found some information from Hierakonpolis, but IDK What it means. It gives numbers for breadth and prognathism but I don't know what they mean as far as affinity goes


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260517463_Cranial_variability_and_population_diversity_at_Hierakonpolis

There is not much population affinity information in that paper. It shows that the Hierakonpolis sample had some prognathism. There is one Hierkonpolis individual with much more prognathism, but (s)he's an outlier, possibly indicating foreign admixture and/or endogamy in predynastic Hierakonpolis.

quote:
It is immediately clear from Figure 2 that there is one skull that forms a distinct morphological outlier from the rest of the Hierakonpolis skulls. This specimen exhibits much greater facial prognathism (i.e., forward projection of the face, particularly in the region around the orbits) than all of the other samples.
What is much more interesting about that paper is that it points out the Lazaridis-like manipulations of African samples (i.e. omitting what you don't want the public to know) during the 19th century:

quote:
The analyses, however, noted that the more recently excavated specimens from Hierakonpolis were more prognathic than either those in the Duckworth Collection sample or the comparative Predynastic sample. Facial prognathism has been described by non-specialists as being an ‘African’ trait (e.g., Gerasimov 1971). The crania sent to Britain tend to be less prognathic (and hence less ‘African-looking’) than those recently recovered from the site. It is possible that this was a subconscious decision, given the prevailing view at the time that the ancient Egyptians were more closely related to modern (Victo-rian) Europeans than to African populations. Further research using (and sourcing) the original collections documentation regarding the initial transportation of the crania to Britain is required to verify this hypothesis.
That's why I'm onto geneticists like Lazaridis. I know their type. What they're doing with African genomes and pretending to not be able to find African admixture is nothing new. They've been omitting, tampering and lying since the beginning of bio-anthropology.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a previous study of non-metrical variation it was found that the Egyptians (i.e. series of Egyptian crania from different excavations now on British collections) changed very little through Pre-dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom times. Only in the New Kingdom (when there was considerable immigration into the Nile Valley) was the earlier stability upset.
Wasn't the Abusir study mostly from the New Kingdom?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lvoDHotDNF4C&pg=PA594&lpg=PA5

Man: Past and Present
By A. H. Keane, A. Hingston Quiggin, A. C.
1920

 -

 -

https://images2.imgbox.com/27/a9/kgcTzgjN_o.jpg

https://images2.imgbox.com/aa/17/Huqx7ric_o.png

How did they determine some of them to be mixed?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
In a previous study of non-metrical variation it was found that the Egyptians (i.e. series of Egyptian crania from different excavations now on British collections) changed very little through Pre-dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom times. Only in the New Kingdom (when there was considerable immigration into the Nile Valley) was the earlier stability upset.
Wasn't the Abusir study mostly from the New Kingdom?
New Kingdom Dynasty 18
quote:

Amenhotep II (66.99.20) ca. 1427–1400 B.C.


https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phar/hd_phar.htm

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/66.99.20/


quote:
An international team of scientists, led by researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, successfully recovered and analyzed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 CE, including the first genome-wide nuclear data from three individuals, establishing ancient Egyptian mummies as a reliable source for genetic material to study the ancient past.
http://www.shh.mpg.de/423779/mummy-genomes


It’s ironic, because Hatshepsut (29.3.2) ca. 1473–1458 B.C is the predecessor to Amenhotep II. There is evidence that Hatshepsut had diplomatic and trading relations with Horn Africans.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

Well now...!

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Recently there was a discussion on Quora


Amenhotep IV and the Bible

Amenhotep the fourth is the 10th Pharaoh in the new kingdom and the 18th dynasty. He was called Amenhotep IV for his first five years reign as a Pharaoh. However, he became so devoted to the sun disc god Aten that he adapted the name Akhenaten, meaning “The one who is of service to Aten”. Amenhotep IV ruled Egypt for 17 years until his death. He is found on the Biblical Timeline Chart during the timeframe of Moses and the Exodus.

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/amenhotep-iv-and-the-bible/

Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/04/Amenhotep-II-and-the-Historicity-of-the-Exodus-Pharaoh.aspx

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right now, I'm digging for studies comparing dynastic Lower Egyptians to their Levantine contemporaries. Since a few people have suggested that the Abusir el-Meleq sample might represent Near Eastern immigrants (and they do appear very similar to Bronze Age Levantines), I want to see whether it would have been typical for dynastic Lower Egyptians to physically resemble the Near Easterners of their day. I would have thought they as a whole would appear more "intermediate" between their Upper Egyptian compatriots and the Levantines.

I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be a great diversity in the Levantine skeletal material used to compare with dynastic Lower Egyptians. Brace 1993 has a sample from Jericho (Neolithic IIRC), and we already posted the Keita 1988 graph showing Lachish's relation to Egyptian crania. I have a hunch that the Lachish series may also be the representative of the "Middle East" in this Irish study (since he mentions it coming from Israel circa 600 BC). It's also Lachish which represents the ancient Levant in this old study as well:

 -

Surely there's more crania from the Levant than Lachish and Jericho that could be compared with ancient Upper and Lower Egyptians, right?

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Predynastic Abydos would've been more appropriate to determine how natives were. Inflow and mixing with lower Egypt has been discussed in research which could explain how it plots where it does.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Right now, I'm digging for studies comparing dynastic Lower Egyptians to their Levantine contemporaries. Since a few people have suggested that the Abusir el-Meleq sample might represent Near Eastern immigrants (and they do appear very similar to Bronze Age Levantines), I want to see whether it would have been typical for dynastic Lower Egyptians to physically resemble the Near Easterners of their day. I would have thought they as a whole would appear more "intermediate" between their Upper Egyptian compatriots and the Levantines.

To clarify, let's revisit this graph from the infamous 2017 study:
 -
You'll notice the three nuclear genomes from Abusir el-Meleq appear smack dab amidst Neolithic and Bronze Age Levantine samples on the PCA graph, and that their ADMIXTURE chart looks barely different from the Bronze Age Levant samples. I'm trying to reconcile this with my earlier understanding that dynastic Lower Egyptians by and large would have appeared intermediate between the Upper Egyptian/Nubian trend on the one hand and the Levantine trend on the other. In which case, we would expect them to appear somewhere in the space between Ethiopian Jews and BedouinB, since they would have at least a bit more indigenous North African ancestry than Levantines. This doesn't seem to be reflected in the Abusir el-Meleq data at all, unless these two charts are misleading us somehow.

I'm not going so far as to insist that the Abusir el-Meleq samples have to be non-native Egyptians. It would be pretty incredible for a non-Egyptian enclave to somehow resist indigenous North African influences for over a thousand years. But, if late dynastic Lower Egyptians like them were supposed to be intermediate between Levantine and Upper Egyptian/Nubian populations, why does this sample appear so slanted towards the Levantine side of the spectrum? And yet, it's steadily slanted that way. You would think that, if Levantine influx into Lower Egypt had grown to the extent of seeping all the way into Upper Egypt during and after the New Kingdom, that we'd see that increase reflected in the Abusir el-Meleq genomes or mtDNA haplogroups across time. Yet the authors don't report that trend at all.

Basically, we have a population in late dynastic northern Egypt that is more Levantine-shifted than we would expect for people intermediate between Upper Egyptians and Levantines, yet its Levantine slant remains steady for 1,000 years rather than increasing over time. What could be going on here?

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
Predynastic Abydos would've been more appropriate to determine how natives were. Inflow and mixing with lower Egypt has been discussed in research which could explain how it plots where it does.

My current assumption is that the cline would have gone like this:

Ancient Upper Egyptians/Nubians ("natives") -> Ancient Lower Egyptians -> Ancient Levantines -> "Pure" OOA

Of course, we know that the Lower Egyptian trend started to seep into Upper Egypt over time. But as I've expounded above, the Abusir el-Meleq data doesn't really look like a population intermediate between Levantines and Upper Egyptians. It looks much more Levantine. And yet it seems to be steadily more Levantine, rather than the Levantine affinity increasing over time (as we would expect if Levantine influx into Egypt was increasing to the point of affecting Upper as well as Lower Egypt). Either there's something I overlooked, or things aren't adding up.

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Right now, I'm digging for studies comparing dynastic Lower Egyptians to their Levantine contemporaries. Since a few people have suggested that the Abusir el-Meleq sample might represent Near Eastern immigrants (and they do appear very similar to Bronze Age Levantines), I want to see whether it would have been typical for dynastic Lower Egyptians to physically resemble the Near Easterners of their day. I would have thought they as a whole would appear more "intermediate" between their Upper Egyptian compatriots and the Levantines.

Predynastic Lower Egypt had housing dwellings and material culture tying it to the Near East. If they'd always been part of Naqada culture they wouldn't have needed to assimilate.

quote:

"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south.":
The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509

My stance has been that Lower Egyptians were largely the product of back migrants with perhaps some indigenous Northern African mixture. Though separate from the Near East for thousands of years, they would've genetically and phenotypically resembled the area because of how close it is and how people living in the north and and in the Levant would migrate into the two territories.


quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

Ancient Upper Egyptians/Nubians ("natives") -> Ancient Lower Egyptians -> Ancient Levantines -> "Pure" OOA

That relativity would offer a simple answer to this, if not for the fact that time is also important. For example, we know after the NK the Lower Egyptian phenotype became dominant through much of upper Egypt. Interestingly, Upper Egyptian periods around the Intermediate period become closer to Europe. As they renew relationships with Nubia the phenotype moves closer to Ethiopian.


Oh and...

what study is this image from?

 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
double post please delete
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Oh and...

what study is this image from?

 -

Info here.

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Right now, I'm digging for studies comparing dynastic Lower Egyptians to their Levantine contemporaries. Since a few people have suggested that the Abusir el-Meleq sample might represent Near Eastern immigrants (and they do appear very similar to Bronze Age Levantines), I want to see whether it would have been typical for dynastic Lower Egyptians to physically resemble the Near Easterners of their day. I would have thought they as a whole would appear more "intermediate" between their Upper Egyptian compatriots and the Levantines.

Predynastic Lower Egypt had housing dwellings and material culture tying it to the Near East. If they'd always been part of Naqada culture they wouldn't have needed to assimilate.

quote:

"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south.":
The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509

My stance has been that Lower Egyptians were largely the product of back migrants with perhaps some indigenous Northern African mixture. Though separate from the Near East for thousands of years, they would've genetically and phenotypically resembled the area because of how close it is and how people living in the north and and in the Levant would migrate into the two territories.


quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

Ancient Upper Egyptians/Nubians ("natives") -> Ancient Lower Egyptians -> Ancient Levantines -> "Pure" OOA

That relativity would offer a simple answer to this, if not for the fact that time is also important. For example, we know after the NK the Lower Egyptian phenotype became dominant through much of upper Egypt. Interestingly, Upper Egyptian periods around the Intermediate period become closer to Europe. As they renew relationships with Nubia the phenotype moves closer to Ethiopian.


Oh and...

what study is this image from?

 -

Where are you getting this "upper egyptian periods become closer to Europe"? What is an "upper Egyptian period?" Can't follow what you mean here. Do you mean "late period"?

Keep in mind as noted previously there was a separate polity in Upper Egypt tied to Sudan even after foreign domination.

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look at the above image and see how close 11th dynasty Thebes is to Europe phenotypically. This would suggest that Thebes and Abydos varied in their proximity to the Near East, Ethiopia and Europe depending on the dynastic period. Dynastic periods were not uniform in how Egypt related to it's neighbors. 1st Dynasty Abydos had immigration from Lower Egypt, as Upper Egyptians intermarried with Lower Egyptians. Understanding what was happening during that period of time allows us to understand why 1st dynasty Abydos appears the way it does. You can possibly apply the same thinking to Thebes. 11th dynasty Thebes appears more closer to Europe toward the intermediate period, but changes towards the New Kingdom. It's very likely that something was happening locally (as in where these specific samples were found) or throughout Thebes as a whole towards the Intermediate and NK periods that would explain this. I honestly don't know why that is, nor would I be able to pinpoint why these traits are so different unless I had the local history of the sites collected. I can't really research that without knowing what study this graph came from.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
I can't really research that without knowing what study this graph came from.

OK, here's a better link to the study:
https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article-abstract/31/1-2/99/203480?redirectedFrom=PDF . At least it provides the title and author of the paper. Unfortunately, I am unable to find the full text at the moment.

That said, you should pay attention to the lines drawn between the samples in that graph, as different styles of line indicate different degrees of relationship. For example, since the lines between 11th dynasty Thebes and the modern Cretan sample are dotted, the degree of difference ("reduced coefficient of racial likeness") is somewhere between 3.5 and 5. I don't think any of the Lower Egyptian samples on that graph appear closer than 3.5-5.0 to the Cretan sample, even if together they are intermediate between Cretans and the Upper Egyptian pattern.

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Woo, Morant, and Pearson's 1920's Coefficients of racial likeness?
Low blow.
What a joke.
Make anthropology great again!
Amazing lack of critical thinking to accept a well known faulty methodology.
But if it supports a priori notions, buy it, unquestioned.

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't know who made the study nor do I know much about it. Could you explain what these anthropologists did that made faulty their methodology/results. As it may in part explain some things I found strange.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Could you explain what these anthropologists did that made faulty their methodology/results.


.

Who these unnamed anthropologists you relying on ?

You'll appreciate it better if you do the thankless work yourself.

I'll give you this much
• Search keys: discredited "coefficient of racial likeness"
• See the 1937 Seltzer and/or Fisher 1936 critiques.


Ol' Skool racial craniometry is so outta touch.
Cranial index takes me and siblings away from their grossly limited stereotypical African black race.
Further it turns me and my son into different races.

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of the Coefficient of Racial Likeness, here's a paper that compared Upper Egyptian skulls from the predynastic to Ptolemaic period with a Kushite series from Kerma. The author mentions that her preferred method found less significant differences between these series than the C.R.L. would.

BARNARD, M. M. (1935), THE SECULAR VARIATIONS OF SKULL CHARACTERS IN FOUR SERIES OF EGYPTIAN SKULLS. Annals of Eugenics, 6: 352-371.

quote:
The Ptolemaic skulls [from Dendera in Upper Egypt] show a significant difference from each of the other three sets. The late Predynastic skulls, besides being significantly different from those of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, have differences from the Sixth to Twelfth [Old to Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptians] and Twelfth to Thirteenth Dynasty skulls [Kushites from Kerma] which just reach the 0.05 level of significance.
quote:
By means of the four mean values, individual pairs of series are compared. In respect of the characters which most effectively specify the skulls with regard to the secular change, all the pairs of series show significant differences inter se, except the Sixth to Twelfth [Old/Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptian] and Twelfth to Thirteenth Dynasty [Kushite] series. The significance of these differences are much lower than those obtained when the series are compared by means of the Coefficient of Racial Likeness, and reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.


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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Speaking of the Coefficient of Racial Likeness,

.


Well you're the one introduced the discredited CRL non-evidence right here in this thread, though that chart's been posted to ES before.

What use in comparing anything to a discredited technique?
Like comparing Piltdown Man to a real fossil.

The idea is to read Fisher or Seltzer knock the stuffing out of CRL 80 years ago.
Mahalanobis' D2 from that same era has proven its usefulness.

https://books.google.com/books?id=YEouDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA10

http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~lerb/rouanet/travaux_statistiques/notes_lecture_5.html

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ CRL maybe outdated, but I too like to look up outdated stuff every now and then for context and comparison with anthropological techniques being used today.

Speaking of which, have you guys heard of the old Karl Pearson CRL study that found the crania of modern Abyssinians of the Tigre district to be as closely related to Dynastic Egyptians as the latter are to the Predynastic Egyptians?

By the way, Brandon's citation of the Keita cranial morphology study seems to mirror Irish's dental morphology study.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bumping this for my own reference...

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

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

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

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


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


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3