Not sure how I forgot but I remember reading that Paabo text on FB years ago, along with disappointing dendrograms. Def. doesn't hold a candle to any modern aDNA research. But useful as a reminder that African uniparentals are found with greater ease earlier on in dynastic Egypt (compared to Abusir).
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Not sure how I forgot but I remember reading that Paabo text on FB years ago, along with disappointing dendrograms. Def. doesn't hold a candle to any modern aDNA research. But useful as a reminder that African uniparentals are found with greater ease earlier on in dynastic Egypt (compared to Abusir).
The Paabo refers to mitochondrial DNA of Nakht-Ankh but was awaiting more precise technology to line up the comparison to modern samples. Konstantina resolved it in 2018 Nakht-Ankh's mtDNA was determined of haplotype M1a1
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any comments in that 2018 paper as to the closest matches on the continent today (e.g. Egyptian, Tuareg, Ethiopian, etc)? Don't remember if the more recent paper said something to that effect (probably not), but would be interesting to see if Paabo at least got that SSA part correct (it could be close to Horn mtDNA M1), or if it's just Egyptian mtDNA M1, as I guessed it could very well be.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Any comments in that 2018 paper as to the closest matches on the continent today (e.g. Egyptian or Ethiopian)? Don't remember if the more recent paper said something to that effect (probably not), but would be interesting to see if Paabo at least got that SSA part correct (it could be close to Horn mtDNA M1), or if it's just Egyptian mtDNA M1, as I guessed it could very well be.
I just noticed something I never saw before. Family Tree has Nakht-Ankh's Y-DNA reported as Y DNA> >> H-Z19008 but don't I know of an an article stating that. That a subclade of the now rare H-P96, will have to look into it later
posted
They said "most likely haplogroup", so I'm guessing the SNPs are not diagnostic of any Y-DNA hg. Still, would have liked to see their breakdown of how they came to that conclusion, because they make it seem like they put some research into it.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Family Tree has Nakht-Ankh's Y-DNA reported as Y DNA> >> H-Z19008 but don't I know of an an article stating that. That a subclade of the now rare H-P96, will have to look into it later
I've noticed that in wiki's page on Haplogroup H (Y-DNA)
H2 H2 (H-P96), which is defined by seven SNPs – P96, M282, L279, L281, L284, L285, and L286 – is the only primary branch found mainly outside South Asia. Formerly named F3, H2 was reclassified as belonging to haplogroup H due to sharing the marker M3035 with H1. While being found in numerous ancient samples, H2 has only been found scarcely in modern populations across West Eurasia.
H2 (H-P96)in modern populations
Central Asia Dolan 1.3 West Asia UAE 0.6 West Asia South Iran 1.7 West Asia Assyrian 0.5 West Asia Armenia 0.6 South Europe Sardinia 0.2
However there is a huge time gap between and H-p96 and H-Z19008 Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They said "most likely haplogroup", so I'm guessing the SNPs are not diagnostic of any Y-DNA hg. Still, would have liked to see their breakdown of how they came to that conclusion, because they make it seem like they put some research into it.
for the thread I'll quote it
quote:Nakht-Ankh's most likely Y-DNA haplogroup was determined based on third-party analysis by FamilyTreeDNA and other researchers and low coverage sequencing data from the study by Drosou et al. 2018. The brother Khnum-Nakht’s Y-DNA* haplogroup could not be determined, but they share the same mitochondrial haplogroup M1a1.
posted
What's all this with Djehutynakht?? Yes he shows Eurasian ancestry but he dates to the Middle Kingdom and the area he lives in (Middle Egypt) was known to be an immigrant town in dynastic times.
What about these other ancient Egyptian samples?:
quote: OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: No predynastic egyptians are grouped with SSA, they appear overall even more caucasoid than Horners:
LMAO Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans. All but one population samples he circled fall below the x-axis and the circled sample closest to Europeans is the one in quadrant II. The encircled Badarian and Naqada samples along the Y-axis are in close proximity to the Nubian centroid which is right below the "Somali-Galla" sample which are Horn Africans. LOL Delusion is a funny thing.
Speaking of which, what about ancient Arabians and other Southwest Asians?
Not only do we have HBS but if I'm not mistaken the most common sublade of E in Mesopotamia is E-M34 that was found in Natufians and Neolithic Syrians and as Swenet pointed out made its way as far east as India.
Underhill et al.(2009): Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions Results Saudi Arabia differentiates from other Arabian Peninsula countries by a higher presence of J2-M172 lineages. It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages. Around 14% of the Saudi Arabia Y-chromosome pool is typical of African biogeographic ancestry, 17% arrived to the area from the East across Iran, while the remainder 69% could be considered of direct or indirect Levantine ascription. Interestingly, basal E-M96* (n = 2) and J-M304* (n = 3) lineages have been detected, for the first time, in the Arabian Peninsula. Coalescence time for the most prominent J1-M267 haplogroup in Saudi Arabia (11.6 ± 1.9 ky) is similar to that obtained previously for Yemen (11.3 ± 2) but significantly older that those estimated for Qatar (7.3 ± 1.8) and UAE (6.8 ± 1.5).
And let's not forget maternal clade N1a which was found to be in a quarter of Neolithic European Farmers but the oldest upstream N1 was discovered in Saharan Africa.
Are these not links between Africa and Eurasia during the Neolithic?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
because the above alleged leak, as you know is from 2013. It's already been talked about on Egyptsearch for the past 10 years and gone nowhere
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Yea I remember that "leak" from years and years ago and it never went anywhere...
Posts: 1900 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's the problem. We have all these "leaks" and no raw or concrete data. Funny how we have all the info on the Late Period Abusir mummies but none from these mummies from earlier periods! I still remember Hawass admitting they have DNA samples from Giza going back from the 90s that they haven't released yet. Why is that?? Hawass says they are concerned about misconstruing the results including "Jewish origins" but I call b.s. on that especially now that we have Natufian-Levantine Neolithic ancestry being touted about from the Abusir findings.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2792 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I wonder how Inuit feel about Scandinavians after unpleasant experiences with Danes etc., and whether having Scandinavian DNA is a sensitive issue in that part of the world, possibly leading to people becoming social outcasts. Seems like politics and respectful treatment of indigenous minorities can be hard to separate at times, in some countries.
aDNA does not wear kiddie gloves. No one is exempt from shocking aDNA revelations, which are happening in all parts of the world. Although African aDNA in Egypt is hardly shocking.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.
Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
One example of this is cranial height, which Zakrezewski said strongly discriminates between Gizeh E series and predynastics. When such variables (there are more of them) are not included, it's going to influence the results. The same also applies to some of Keita's work, which has Badarians closer to Sub-Saharan samples than they really are, partly due to his choices in variable selection, which I feel do not always take into account important observations made by his colleagues.
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. [/QB]
posted
^ Indeed the inclusion of some variables over the exclusion of others is something I've notice about Hanihara's cranial data also which has North Africans hovering closer to Eurasians than what Irish's odontic data shows.
And the same can be said about genetics as well especially with the distorted interpretations we are seeing with these leaks.
Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
9 variables poorly selected based on what ? Here more details :
quote:Figure 2, which is more complex, results from the same type of analysis, but where each population has been individually identified. The sample size is limited to 97 male populations, as all European populations postdating the Bronze Age have been excluded. Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data. Axis 1, representing 70% of the total variance, is significantly correlated (r=0.69) with nose width, and Axis 2, accounting for 15% of the variance, is associated with skull width (r=0.61).
Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians) :
Details (It's amusing to see Djehuti asserting that they are intermediates when Froment himself clarified that this is not the case, and only the "Nilotes," representing the Horners/Maasai, fit that description) :
quote:The selected measurements here total 7: length, width, and height of the skull, width and height of the face, and width and height of the nose. The analysis identifies 7 discriminant functions, with the 1st expressing 80%, and the 2nd 12% of the total variance. This means that the other functions can be disregarded.
Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb. The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray) lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Whether you find this flawed or not, it provides compelling evidence that, in terms of these significant craniometric variables, Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs and, in fact, bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins.
But since you'll keep bringing desesperate excuses let's see what else we can find on those early egyptians :
Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs :
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
They remained at "the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" :
quote:Classification of these series according to the increase in C 2 distances as compared to Mirgissa (cf. Table 2) shows the Egyptians to be constantly at a great distance from the black Africans or even from the Nubians of group X (c£ Table 1). [...] We may therefore conclude that, while the existence of a black component in predynastic times may not be altogether excluded, the populations of Middle and Upper Egypt, unlike those of Nubia, remained on the fringe of the currents of Negroid infiltration .
G. Billy, Population changes in Egypt and Nubia, 1977
No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians :
quote:Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971).
Brace, C. et al., 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" :
quote:In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985)
Eugen Strouhal, Anthropology of the Egyptian Nubian Men, XLV/2-3, 2007, p. 115
Also in the 1972 paper, "On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods" by M.F Gaballah et al, it is clearly said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada.
Conclusion :
- Those early egyptians were morphologically caucasoid
- closer to maghrebis/europeans than most SSAs
- Similar to modern egyptians
- Their physical characteristics were notably distinct from those commonly observed in the majority of SSAs, including variations in hair type
- These anthropological data are increasingly supported by genetic findings. Whether we examine uniparental or autosomal results, it becomes evident that these ancient Egyptians shared similarities with modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, without displaying any pronounced affinity with SSA
- From the Badarian period to the Roman Era, Ancient Egypt was not a "black" civilization and had no direct connection to most of the people or cultures found in SSA
P.S. : Furthermore, I want to make it clear that emphasizing Egypt's lack of a significant connection with SSA does not suggest that it was exclusively a "Middle Eastern" civilization or that its population were merely "Levantines" residing along the Nile
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things). Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2792 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things). Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be? [/QB]
I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect that such analyses may be restricted by authorities, like that idiot of Hawass, who has shown difficulty in interpreting this data (I'm still surprised by his stance on the Schuemann paper). Some might fear that allowing these tests could lead neighboring countries to claim ownership of Ancient Egypt (anti-Zionism in Egypt shouldn't be underestimated). However, I do recall that in Gad et al. 2020, he allowed the publication of certain uniparental genetic data from the 18th dynasty.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
He can't even properly read the cranial graphs he posts.
If he did, he would realize that the *Nilote* centroid comes closest to the European centroid! LOL [/QB]
Thanks (screenshot is done) ; The "nilote" sample here isn't Dinka/Nuer but Horners/Masai, Froment made it clear that egyptians are closer to europeans than the nilote cluster and it seems you can't even understand what the two axes represent and what variance means :
quote: Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb.The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray)lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa . In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
I suspect that such analyses may be restricted by authorities, like that idiot of Hawass, who has shown difficulty in interpreting this data (I'm still surprised by his stance on the Schuemann paper).
What do you consider his difficulty in interpreting data and what were his remarks on Schuenemann? Do you have a quote, I hadn't heard his remarks on it
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: However, I do recall that in Gad et al. 2020, he allowed the publication of certain uniparental genetic data from the 18th dynasty.
I would not say "allowed" Gad is part of Hawass' team and co-Author with Hawass on articles I would say whatever Gad publisher Hawass wanted to be published, like the 2020 Gad articles on the 18th dynasty DNA one of them under "Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass."
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Then one can wonder why Egyptians seem so hesitant to allow DNA sampling of mummies in Egypt, and what Hawass means when he says there are risks of misconstruing ancient DNA (if he said such things).
you can't ask why something said if you don't even know if such things were said.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Why do they not release the DNA samples they have or allow also foreign researchers to take samples from all over Egypt? Are they afraid that the human remains will get damaged, or what can the reasons be?
This is all assumption. You assume they have DNA samples that are not released > on what basis?
I might be true or might not be
But we can see DNA is highly political. The Egyptian government is increasingly authoritarian and they want control of information including historical
Thus far they have releasing DNA information, slowly and quietly without major press releases and often under themes of disease or kinship rather than ancestry in contrast to Scheunemann/Max Planck who do articles directly themed in ancestry and media interviews
But with the Cleopatra fiasco it seem that Hawass has become more vocal recently in documentaries and interviews going out of his way to say the ancient Egyptians were not Sub-Saharan and related commentary. However they may continue their slow and low key output of genetics articles.
Notice how Scheunemann's 2017 article gets mentioned a lot and that was primarily late period, primarily maternal DNA while Yehia Gad (Hawass' team) 2020 article on both the Y DNA and mtDNA of the 18th dynasty royals is mentioned much less. That is because of how the information is presented and how they approach or do not approach the media (I happen to respect the low key approach more rather than Scheunemann's over-reaching opinions)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The "Nilote" sample here isn't Dinka/Nuer but Horners/Masai,..
Maasai are Nilotes that is Nilo-Saharans but there are Nilo-Saharans in the Horn also especially in the Gambela region of Ethiopia. Spatially they are still closer meaning that in certain traits these "Nilotes" resemble Europeans.
quote:Froment made it clear that Egyptians are closer to Europeans than the Nilote cluster and it seems you can't even understand what the two axes represent and what variance means:
quote: Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb.The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray)lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa . In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
And your point? We all know that metrically Northeast Africans especially Egyptians resemble Europeans facially. According to the same metric data Indians are right beside Nubians. Does this mean that Nubians are closer related to Indians than other Nile Valley Africans? There are also Australasians that metrically resemble Sub-Saharans does that mean close genetic relation?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
So what is the proper reading of this?
The same reading as this pca of East Eurasian populations.
In another thread Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon.
Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data.
Proving my point. The measurements used simply reflect what they were forced to use based on what was available. Going overboard with 97 male populations, apparently, meant they had to settle with published variables and compromise, rather than deliberately picking variables based on maximizing genetic relationships. Some examples of variables missing from Froment that would have made a difference:
nasion subtense midfacial breadth (fmb) frontal bone measurements (which are standard) orbital measurements (which are standard)
You can see in the paper below (see table 6) that simotic index is a good example of measurements that differentiate between North African samples (predynastics on one hand, and Moroccans and Gizeh on the other hand, and then West Eurasians with the highest values):
quote:Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians)
All you did was prove my point. The 7 variable analysis with its pooled samples gives results more similar to your claim of modern and ancient Egyptians being the same, while the 9 variable analysis, which adds facial flatness data, is much more consistent with dynastic Egyptian samples edging closer to ancient Eurasians over time, which is exemplified most by the E-Series from Gizeh, which is Late Dynastic, and which is fully in the ancient European ellipse.
One of the most African Egyptian samples in Froment is listed as 'Amratian'. Amratian is among the oldest phases of the predynastic, along with Badarians, Tasians, etc. You can clearly see the Amratian and Badarian samples cluster with Tamil and Vedda populations, not with Bedouins or anything else you've put forward. So, later samples plotting elsewhere then is a function of either new Eurasian ancestry, an excess of more southern types of ancestry in Amratians and Badarians (but not in the later predynastics and dynastics), or both.
The rest of your post is just filler meant to distract from the anomalous result of predynastics clustering among dynastics.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
you can't ask why something said if you don't even know if such things were said.
I can not confirm that he said that DNA could be misconstrued (I do not find the source to that claim right now) but it seems he thought that it would not lead to anything. But it was quite a while ago and he may have changed his opinion since DNA testing methods are better now.
quote: Hawass has been skeptical of the DNA testing of Egyptian mummies; "From what I understand," he has said, "it is not always accurate and it cannot always be done with complete success when dealing with mummies. Until we know for sure that it is accurate, we will not use it in our research."
In December 2000, a joint team from Waseda University in Japan and Cairo's Ain Shams University tried to get permission for DNA testing of Egyptian mummies, but was denied by the Egyptian Government. Hawass stated at the time that DNA analysis was out of the question because it would not lead to anything.
quote:There is some secrecy surrounding Egypt's DNA testing of mummies. Hawass, the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, long refused to allow DNA testing on Egyptian mummies but accepted it recently on condition it would only be done by Egyptian experts. He has never disclosed full results of the examinations, sometimes on grounds of national security. Though Hawass has never explained the reasons for this, apparently there is concern the tests could cast doubt on the Egyptian lineage of the mummies.
In another thread Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon. [/QB]
yes but Antalas goes by this new map of Africa, the brown region>
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] One can wonder which is most sensitive for the Egyptians, finding SSA ancestry in ancient Egyptian remains or finding "Jewish" ancestry? Seems they are at odds with both alternatives. Seems politics and science is hard to separate.
That doesn't make sense, considering that modern egyptians already exhibit SSA ancestry, and additionally, when we examine the few available samples from ancient egyptians, we find a similar pattern, albeit in somewhat lower proportions. There is also no such thing as "Jewish ancestry". We already have DNA results from ancient southern levantine populations and phoenicians, and they consistently cluster with modern Levantines, especially Samaritans, Iraqi Jews, Christian Lebanese/Palestinians. These populations don't plot significantly far from both modern and ancient Egyptians. Jews like Ashkenazim, Sephardim, yemenite jews, ethiopian jews, Bene Israel, etc, have distinct levels of non-Levantine admixture, with some communities showing minimal differences from their historical host communities, as is the case with the last three communities I just mentioned.
"Recently Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian Egyptologist and Under-Secretary of State for Giza Monuments, has indicated that the DNA tests carried out by the Cairo Museum on some of the 600 skeletal remains he found in a Giza Pyramids workers' village will soon be published"
Egypt, Trunk of the Tree: The contexts Volumes 1-2 By Simson R. Najovits · 2003 ____________________________________
"To add fuel to this fire Zahi Hawass the chief director of the Giza Plateau allow DNA testing of any mummies backed by the Egyptian government he said 'DNA testing was out of the question because it would not lead to anything."
The editor of Archaeology magazine, Mark Rose, reported in 2002 that the work was cancelled “due to concern that the results might strengthen an association between the family of Tutankhamun and the Biblical Moses.” An Egyptologist with close links to the antiquities service, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, agreed: “There was a fear it would be said that the pharaohs were Jewish.”
Specifically, if the results showed that Tutankhamun shared DNA with Jewish groups, there was concern that this could be used by Israel to argue that Egypt was part of the Promised Land.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Maasai are Nilotes that is Nilo-Saharans but there are Nilo-Saharans in the Horn also especially in the Gambela region of Ethiopia. Spatially they are still closer meaning that in certain traits these "Nilotes" resemble Europeans.
Maasai aren't genetically similar to southern sudanese ("Nilo-Saharan" is a linguistic term) and have Eurasian admixture :
Moreover Somalis/tigray aren't "nilotes". Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And your point? We all know that metrically Northeast Africans especially Egyptians resemble Europeans facially. According to the same metric data Indians are right beside Nubians. Does this mean that Nubians are closer related to Indians than other Nile Valley Africans? There are also Australasians that metrically resemble Sub-Saharans does that mean close genetic relation?
Ah, finally, you acknowledge their morphological proximity to Europeans. But why introduce entirely unrelated populations into our discussion when we're focusing on neighboring groups that share ancestry and sometimes even a shared history? The close proximity of certain Nile Valley populations to Indians has been well-documented multiple times, and it's not surprising given that Indians have both West Asian/Steppe ancestors and AASI ancestors who exhibit many similarities with African Negroids. Just as a Mexican mestizo can be found clustering with Central Asians, despite their lack of genetic relation
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Antalas claimed "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." even though Natufians are in approximation to Moroccan populations. He is just an Afrophobic loon.
Those "Africans" and "Moroccans" are literally my ancestors (they make up 30% of my DNA) what are you even talking about ? Now, I seem to be labeled as racist towards my own ancestors, who, by the way, were dissimilar to any SSA population nor "negroid" as Djehuti tries to imply by using the broad and inaccurate term of "African".
Once again, it's essential to note that Natufians are not genetically close to Iberomaurusians, in alignment with the established scientific consensus. :
quote:Although, ADMIXTURE analysis pointed to some relationship between IAM and Levantine aDNA samples, especially the Natufians, this is not supported by FST distances.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Proving my point. The measurements used simply reflect what they were forced to use based on what was available. Going overboard with 97 male populations, apparently, meant they had to settle with published variables and compromise, rather than deliberately picking variables based on maximizing genetic relationships. Some examples of variables missing from Froment that would have made a difference:
nasion subtense midfacial breadth (fmb) frontal bone measurements (which are standard) orbital measurements (which are standard)
You can see in the paper below (see table 6) that simotic index is a good example of measurements that differentiate between North African samples (predynastics on one hand, and Moroccans and Gizeh on the other hand, and then West Eurasians with the highest values):
All you did was prove my point. The 7 variable analysis with its pooled samples gives results more similar to your claim of modern and ancient Egyptians being the same, while the 9 variable analysis, which adds facial flatness data, is much more consistent with dynastic Egyptian samples edging closer to ancient Eurasians over time, which is exemplified most by the E-Series from Gizeh, which is Late Dynastic, and which is fully in the ancient European ellipse.
One of the most African Egyptian samples in Froment is listed as 'Amratian'. Amratian is among the oldest phases of the predynastic, along with Badarians, Tasians, etc. You can clearly see the Amratian and Badarian samples cluster with Tamil and Vedda populations, not with Bedouins or anything else you've put forward. So, later samples plotting elsewhere then is a function of either new Eurasian ancestry, an excess of more southern types of ancestry in Amratians and Badarians (but not in the later predynastics and dynastics), or both.
The rest of your post is just filler meant to distract from the anomalous result of predynastics clustering among dynastics.
What kind of argument is this ? You can literally apply this to every paper or study... There's no need to "maximize" anything to gain a reasonably clear understanding of their physical traits and affinities. Thus, the paper and graph remain valid, albeit not exhaustive. Of course you have overlooked the other papers I shared, which introduces additional variables.
Furthermore, The E series literally incorporates foreigners (greeks) and the Eurasian influence over time that you're referring to had already been identified within the predynastic populations themselves (funny how people like you always ignore the nubian influence that came later notably during the Middle kingdom era) :
quote:There is a temporal pattern of interest, namely, the relative distinctiveness of the early predynastic period from its successor , the subsequent lack of difference between the two middle series (their similarity being mutually greatest with each other), and the notable distance value between the terminal predynastic period and its successor, Dynasty I (Table 4).
Keita et al., Temporal variation in phenetic affinity of early upper egyptian male crania series, 2008
quote: Results indicate that the Howells sample is similar to other late Dynastic Egyptian groups, but also shows strong similarities with Classical Greek samples that no other Egyptian groups display. Results also reflect dynamic relationships between Upper and Lower Egypt, and support a separation between Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Egyptian populations followed by population continuity throughout the Dynastic Period.
Sander et al., Craniometric analysis of the Howells egyptian sample: the Greek connection, 2014
quote:While the Howells Egyptian group maintains a close relationship with later Egyptian groups, it has a special relationship with the Greek sample that the other Egyptian samples do not have. Therefore, he argue that Howells Egyptian group reflects greater Greek immigration and assimilation into the population of Egypt, a theory consistent with the historical data of the Late Period of Egypt.
quote: Our results agree with those of Stoessiger in so far as t he Badarian population appears significantly different from the later predynastic populations from Naqada and Hierakonpolis
Berry et al., genetical change in ancient egypt
quote:The change observed from the Badarian period through the Predynastic periods thus probably reflects increased gene flow via exogamy or migration along the Nile Valley (as postulated by Hassan 1988) and mirrors the results obtained by Keita (1996). The change between the LPD and the EDynastic, however, appears more fundamental and could reflect even greater migration of individuals along the Nile Valley.
Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Human skeletal diversity in the egyptian nile valley, 2006
Also funny how you missed this :
quote:Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans
Don't you see how desesperate you are with the "muh badarians less eurasian admixture therefore founders of egypt = black" XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I post data. What does Antalas do? He's just stuffing his posts with filler, rhetoric and scatterbrained commentary:
"What kind of argument is this ?" "You can literally apply this to every paper or study." "Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs" "Egyptians bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins. " "Portraits from Hawara as a reminder" "Thus, the paper and graph remain valid" "Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs" "They remained at the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" "No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians" "Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" "Don't you see how desesperate you are with the "muh badarians less eurasian admixture therefore founders of egypt = black" XD "
Antalas, if I'm wrong, all you had to do was post another paper proving that predynastics clustering with late dynastics in Froment is not an anomaly, but a normal result that has been replicated countless times. Of course you can't do that, so you're resorting to these pathetic antics to hide the fact that you got caught posting results that have not been replicated (Froment and Sereno et al 2018).
I have your number by now. You can only make weak, misleading, specious posts. Your grasp of anthropology is weak. You're not nearly as competent as you think you are.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yeah, we just discussed the flawed sampling methods these studies use and the here the kid comes proving our point! LOL
You can see why I avoid the places where anthro and genetics bloggers come together. They're infested with people like Antalas.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Antalas, if I'm wrong, all you had to do was post another paper proving that predynastics clustering with late dynastics in Froment is not an anomaly, but a normal result that has been replicated countless times. Of course you can't do that
That's literally what I did and even better since I showed continuity up until the roman era (Schillaci et al. 2009). As for the rest you can keep your ad hominem.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You can see why I avoid the places where anthro and genetics bloggers come together. They're infested with people like Antalas.
I don't blame you one bit for this. The online anthro/pop genetics fandom is saturated with racialists and ethno-nationalists who care only about validation for their egos and prejudices. It's all about proving their ancestors were some master race, or knocking on whatever ethnic group they happen to dislike (a favorite target of the latter being those racialized as Black, unfortunately).
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans.Just like his comments on the Sereno et al. 2008 paper, Antalas does not realize that the Froment paper failed in some respects. Predynastics are not supposed to be in the middle of dynastic samples. Looks like Froment used only 9 variables, some of which may have been poorly selected as far as capturing the full scope of differences between predynastics and Bronze Age populations.
9 variables poorly selected based on what ? Here more details :
quote:Figure 2, which is more complex, results from the same type of analysis, but where each population has been individually identified. The sample size is limited to 97 male populations, as all European populations postdating the Bronze Age have been excluded. Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. As these measurements are not consistently published, it resulted in a loss of data. Axis 1, representing 70% of the total variance, is significantly correlated (r=0.69) with nose width, and Axis 2, accounting for 15% of the variance, is associated with skull width (r=0.61).
Here is another one from him based on 7 variables and we get roughly the same results (AE centroid much closer to europeans/maghrebis than SSA ; also note how close the bedouins are to ancient upper egyptians) :
What bedouins from where? You keep using these random images from Fromentin, but all of his own data clusters Nile Valley populations together. So he tries to pick traits that he claims are "Eurasian" or "less African" in order to try and get the results he wants but no matter what the populations of the Nile cluster together and you see this in numerous papers of his. Your attempts to argue that this proves that these populations cluster closer to populations of the Maghreb as if the Maghreb is a marker of Non African ancestry is the problem. Not to mention trying to use bedouins the same way when there have always been nomadic populations in Africa. All of this is just racialists nonsense trying to somehow associate certain features in Africans with Eurasia when those features did not originate in Eurasia. And the reason why the Maghreb would cluster with Africans on the Nile is due to Maghrebis having African ancestry that originated in Africa, specifically to the East around the Nile and in the horn. It does not mean that the Nile Valley and Maghreb are somehow related based on Eurasian ancestral components going back to prehistoric time and therefore making them less African. And this is all about Europeans obsession with trying to carve out North Africa from Africa so they can claim the Nile as European/Eurasian history.
Here is another example of the same kind of chart from a different Froment paper where it shows the same clustering of African populations together. Yet somehow according to him and people like him, this means these people weren't African:
And Fromentin is just another European race scientist, using skeletal metrics to support views on race.
quote: Alain Froment showed that there is a good correlation between the shape of the skull and the geographical origin of human populations. As such, he contested the allegations of the Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop by showing that the shape of the skull of the ancient Egyptians did not resemble that of sub-Saharan populations. His position was criticized by the Africanist historian C. Coquery-Vidrovitch, criticism to which the author responded in the same journal. As head of collections at the Muse'e de l'Homme, he defended the principle of collections of human remains, considered as archives of humanity.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Details (It's amusing to see Djehuti asserting that they are intermediates when Froment himself clarified that this is not the case, and only the "Nilotes," representing the Horners/Maasai, fit that description) :
quote:The selected measurements here total 7: length, width, and height of the skull, width and height of the face, and width and height of the nose. The analysis identifies 7 discriminant functions, with the 1st expressing 80%, and the 2nd 12% of the total variance. This means that the other functions can be disregarded.
Figure 1 represents these first two functions as axes, with the first one arranged horizontally. The first axis is strongly correlated (r=0.54) with nose width, meaning it goes from narrow noses on the left side of the figure to broad, tropical noses on the right. The second axis is even more strongly correlated (r=0.65) with face width. Only the centroids, or gravity centers, of the point clouds representing all populations are shown here. A strong association can be observed between the morphological resemblances obtained through our calculations and the geographical positions of the various samples: the Maghreb is intermediate between Europe and Egypt, and Nubia is intermediate between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Upper Egypt is closer to Sub-Saharan Africa, while Lower Egypt is closer to the Maghreb. The Nilotes (Somali-Galla, Maasai, inhabitants of Tigray) lie between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In total, the Egyptian series are closer but distinct from Europe
Whether you find this flawed or not, it provides compelling evidence that, in terms of these significant craniometric variables, Ancient Egyptians exhibit notable distinctions from most SSAs and, in fact, bear a closer resemblance to my own people and Bedouins.
Again more of the same from you trying to argue that the populations of the Nile clustering together somehow proves them to be closer to Eurasians is pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: But since you'll keep bringing desesperate excuses let's see what else we can find on those early egyptians :
Their hair were of the cymotrichous type so once again different from most SSAs :
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
Again, typical racialist approaches to interpreting African remains as if black Africans cannot have straight hair when we know that straight hair is still found among various "bedouins" such as the Beja and other nomadic African groups...... And this is what the researchers say about the development of this site and the surrounding culture in the predynastic:
quote: A northward shift of annual monsoon rains brought about a wet phase during the early Holocene (ca. 9300 BC) and resulted in the return of populations to the Western Desert, which had been abandoned since the late-Middle Paleolithic (Wengrow, 2006). Based upon similarities in lithic technology, people likely migrated into the Western Desert from the southern Nile Valley. By about 8000 BC, the first Neolithic cultures --the Saharan Neolithic-- had developed in the Western Desert. It is important to note that, in contrast to Neolithic economies in the neighboring Levant, the early Egyptian Neolithic developed without any sign of agriculture. These groups are defined as Neolithic based primarily on the presence of ceramics and evidence of the herding of cattle. Thus, the early Egyptian Neolithic developed in a manner readily distinguishable from that which emerged around the same time in the Levant, where animal domestication was adopted soon after the earliest farming villages appeared. As a further contrast between the two regions, the process of state formation in Egypt occurred relatively rapidly --about 1000 years after the first farming villages appeared in the Nile Valley-- while state formation in the Near East lagged behind the adoption of agriculture by perhaps 5000 years (Allen, 1997).
Archaeological investigations suggest that human occupation during the early phase of the Neolithic (ca. 8300 - 6900 BC) in the Western Desert was characterized by small, short-term habitation by small groups of hunter-gatherers. Faunal assemblages from these sites typically include some bones of cattle, although it is generally accepted that they were not domesticated at this point (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000; Wengrow, 2006; cf. Wendorf and Schild, 1980). During the following phases of the Saharan Neolithic, desert population reached its peak. Most sites were small, possibly outposts for herders, while the increase of waddle-and-daub structures at larger sites likely reflects permanent habitation. By about 5600 BC, sheep and goats were present, but wild game appears to have continued as the primary source of meat.
In the Nile Valley, populations practiced a mixed-subsistence economy, exploiting wild game and plants and, especially, fishing. By this time, fishing technologies had become more sophisticated since the Paleolithic; people were not only catching fish in small lakes supplied by annual flooding, but also catching deep-water species from the main channel of the river, which provides indirect evidence for boat use (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000:32). Beginning around 7000 BC, the cooler, wetter climate began to shift, reaching conditions similar to present-day aridity by about 5000 BC.
.... Naqada III (ca. 3200 - 3000 BC) is the final phase of the Predynastic period. By the end of this period, Upper and Lower Egypt had unified into a large, territorial state. As early as the beginning of the Naqada III, cultural traditions in the north had been replaced by those from Upper Egypt. Artifacts originating from Naqada cultural groups in Upper Egypt replaced material culture in sites to the north and had spread south towards Nubia. A consolidation of power in Upper Egypt preceded political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (Bard, 2000). Settlements, as well as the majority of the population had moved closer to the river valley, and larger centers included monumental architecture such as palace and temple complexes (Hoffman et al., 1986; Hassan, 1993). As larger settlements became more urbanized, desert settlements declined, and agriculture began to dominate the subsistence economy (Midant-Reynes, 2000b).
Safe to say, no evidence of caucasian Eurasian nomads or bedouins migrating up the Nile from Eurasia as opposed to African populations on the Nile from the South moving north during the last wet phase forming the basis of the development of a new subsistence economy and cultural framework.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They remained at "the fringe of the currents of negroid infiltration" :
quote:Classification of these series according to the increase in C 2 distances as compared to Mirgissa (cf. Table 2) shows the Egyptians to be constantly at a great distance from the black Africans or even from the Nubians of group X (c£ Table 1). [...] We may therefore conclude that, while the existence of a black component in predynastic times may not be altogether excluded, the populations of Middle and Upper Egypt, unlike those of Nubia, remained on the fringe of the currents of Negroid infiltration .
G. Billy, Population changes in Egypt and Nubia, 1977
No strong negroid element in predynastic egyptians :
quote:Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971).
Brace, C. et al., 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
And here we go posting more racialist French anthropologists trying to act like they "prove" that ancient Nile Valley Africans weren't African, when the data says no such thing. So these arbitrary metrics that these European racialists keep using still put these populations on the continent of Africa and within African population history. But somehow, you keep trying to dig up these old racialized skeletal analyses to try and prove that these were somehow Eurasian caucasoids when they weren't.
But Brilly and Fromentin are part of the tradition of European race scientists, who try to assign cranial metrics to "races" and use them to support pseudo scientific racial characteristics to populations. And often this is in contradiction to what the data actually says. So for G Brilly, we have data showing African features among populations along the Nile, which he tries to argue represents different "racial types", when they don't.
quote: 1) We first encounter below a distance CH2 = 0.125 a set of populations morphologically indistinguishable from Mirgissa characterized by the absence of significant differences for the seven characters considered (Billy, 1975). Here we find all the series from Middle and Lower Egypt: Sakkarah 1st dynasty (Si) and 4th dynasty (S4), Deshasheh-Medum (DM) from the 4th to the 6th dynasty, the Egyptians E of Giza (26th to 30th dynasty).
This set corresponds to a morphological type characterized by large dimensions of the cranium associated with a high face, a narrow nose and a slight projection of the facial mass. We can locate the origin of this type in the North, in the Fayoum region, and follow its expansion in Upper Egypt, as shown by the presence in this same group of the At series (royal tombs of Abydos 1st dynasty), A18 (Abydos 18th dynasty), T18 and Tl9 (Thebes 18th and 19th dynasties).It is found in Sudanese Nubia at Sessebi (SS) and at Mirgissa from the Second Intermediate Period.
2) The second grouping, in a narrow band of CH2, between 0.17 and 0.27, includes, in one sex as in the other, all the series of Upper Egypt from the fourth millennium to the Roman period, with the exception of the male series of Shekh-Ali (SH), moreover considered by Thomson and Maciver (1905) as unrepresentative. All the Nubian series of dynastic age, with the exception of those of group C, are found precisely in this group; these are the series of groups A, B, D of Batrawi, those of Kerma and El Kubanieh.
This is the same group to which corresponds a common morphological type which, although related to the previous type from Middle and Lower Egypt, is differentiated by a narrow head and, in its Nubian variant, by a tendency with lower faces and wider noses. This morphological type therefore covered, during the dynastic era, a vast central area of the Nile valley probably extending well beyond towards East Africa, as evidenced by the still existing relationship with current Ethiopian or Somali populations. We see for example in fig. 3, which allows us to situate the Nubian populations in their African context, that the Tigray and Somali-Galla series fit perfectly into the Nubian group and are very far from the subset of Black Africans delimited by dotted lines.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Nubian A-group and Predynastic egyptians qualified as "caucasoids" :
quote:In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985)
Eugen Strouhal, Anthropology of the Egyptian Nubian Men, XLV/2-3, 2007, p. 115
Nothing in that paper suggests or proves these were anything more than indigenous African features along the Nile. This despearate attempt to redefine African features based on similarities to Europeans, even when those African features don't come from Europeans is the problem and the reason for these studies being called pseudoscience. They have not proven these so-called "A-Group" populations originated anywhere other than in Africa and the data itself shows this but somehow they are determined to turn African populations into Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Also in the 1972 paper, "On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods" by M.F Gaballah et al, it is clearly said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada.
Conclusion :
- Those early egyptians were morphologically caucasoid
- closer to maghrebis/europeans than most SSAs
- Similar to modern egyptians
Again, trying to push again the same narrative that somehow ancient African skulls aren't African. When geography tells you that southern phenotypes are closer to African phenotypes than Eurasian phenotypes. Yet this is the absurdity that these people push in trying to downplay the obvious African origin and affinity of these populations, by hiding behind "Sub Saharan" Africa. As if to say, because ancient Nile Valley Africans don't cluster metricly with random hand picked populations thousands of miles to the South of the Nile such as Ugandans or Tanzanians, that somehow that means the Nile Valley populations weren't Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: - Their physical characteristics were notably distinct from those commonly observed in the majority of SSAs, including variations in hair type
NIle Valley Africans are Nile Valley Africans, not Kenyans, not Ugandans, not Mozambicans or West Africans. This insanity of trying to claim that these other populations are representative off all African features is absurd and ludicrous. Northern Sudan and Upper Egypt are both in the Sahara and have always been part of black Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: - These anthropological data are increasingly supported by genetic findings. Whether we examine uniparental or autosomal results, it becomes evident that these ancient Egyptians shared similarities with modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, without displaying any pronounced affinity with SSA
- From the Badarian period to the Roman Era, Ancient Egypt was not a "black" civilization and had no direct connection to most of the people or cultures found in SSA
THe anthropological data makes it clear that the ancient Nile Valley populations from Naqada and Badari cluster together with other populations in the ancient Sahara and the A-Group before any other population, including those in Central Africa, South Africa and West Africa. That is common sense and the idea that this represents "proof" of these populations not being Africans is just dumb.
The point you are missing is that all these charts that you are posting clusters Nile Valley Africans TOGETHER as Africans, not as Eurasians, not as West Africans and not as South Africans, which is to be expected for any population indigenous to a certain region and having been there a long time. And it is this basic fact of geography that the Nile is in Africa and that the ancient populations there originated in Africa that European racialists keep trying to downplay even though their data reinforces these groups cluster together as Africans.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
The problem with Froment and many of the other analyses of these skulls or of DNA is using "differences" to prop up an a-priori assumption of Eurasian back migration and population replacement. And even worse than that, the data was used to promote the idea that all these ancient populations 'werent really African' either due to that mixture or replacement. Data such as skeletal metrics and DNA only makes sense when used holistically to identify all the relevant populations involved such as those on the Nile, those in the Levant, those in the Sahara and those further South and understand how they interacted with each other. Just saying "skeletal metrics changed" due to influence from "other populations" without identifying what other populations they are talking about just promotes speculation. And this is what these people have mostly been trying to do in these types of reports which is suggest Eurasian influence by proxy without hard evidence. Not saying that there wasn't any, but what they are promoting is something different. Again, look at how they do such studies in Europe and how they are able to identify all the relevant populations involved in any changes that occurred over time. But again this kind of research and the trickling out of selected pieces of data is just to promote more speculation, including the leaks of this DNA.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Part of the reason why Froment's analysis failed in accurately portraying relationships between dynastics and predynastics (he only two facial measurements, causing most of the Egyptian variations to go unnoticed):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Zakrzewski has the following to say about her archaic (Early dynastic Abydos) sample:
quote:The Archaic period populations has noticeable broader faces than the other populations
(….)
The Archaic sample exhibits a pattern of relatively large crania with broad faces, and has misclassification into both Predynastic and OK samples. Figure 3 indicates that facial morphology is of greatest importance in defining this sample
And no. No one is buying Froment's predynastics being the same as late dynastics:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Figure 2 indicates that the predynastic populations are generally smaller than all the Dynastic groups
quote:The frequency of misclassification is greater in the early dynastic periods (Archaic, Ok and MK) than in any of the Predynastic groups. This could occur due to either an increase in morphological variation as a result of massive population increase or due to the presence of individuals from other (potentially non-Egyptian or non-Nile Valley) populations. Although population increase did occur of these periods, the data presented here suggests that some of the increase in variance was due to the immigration of some individuals. Table 3 shows that the Archaic group is relatively heterogeneous and has morphological overlapping with all the Predynastic samples. The pattern seen may be the result of career migration of individuals and their descendants slowly migrating into the Nile Valley from Neighboring regions and then mixing and interbreeding with the indigenous population. The actual crania within the archaic sample thus appear to include individuals from the preceding groups together with the inclusion of new (larger, more robust, broad-faced) people from elsewhere.
[.....]
It has been shown that migrations of certain segment of a population can be recognized within the archaeological record. The form of migration, following the definitions of Tilly (1978) and Anthony (1990), may not be certain, but it is likely that only long-distance movements of peoples will involve the movement of reasonably discrete morphological entities that can be recognized and separated through craniometric analysis. Thus, it is likely that the migration demonstrated here was long-distance in nature, being either along the Nile River into Egypt, or from the desert into the Nile Valley itself. The migration diagnosed by this study, therefore, is probably of the career form, through the development of trading partners from neighboring regions by the indigenous Egyptian population over the later Predynastic period. These trading relationships may have been associated with the exchange of marriage partners and thus of gene flow between neighboring regions and the Egyptian Nile Valley
Quotes taken from:
Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study (2002) -Sonia Zakrzewski
Nice try with the anomalous Froment predynastics, though. I like how you seem to think it's going unnoticed that you have a habit of exploiting papers with shortcomings and anomalous results.
posted
Okay. So you have two Naqada II predynastic samples on the outer edge of dynastic samples. How does that resemble predynastics clustering with later dynastics, which you were defending, earlier? You even posted Roman Hawara portraits that were supposed to be similar to predynastics. Do you read your own posts?
And that big empty space (fig 3's PCO) in between Naqada II and Badari is where predynastics normally fall. That is to say, they normally never fall in the middle of dynastics (just like these Keita Naqada II samples don't fall in the middle of dynastics), so the only place for them to go is in that empty space in figure 3.
But thanks for proving that with Keita's 10 variables (as opposed to Froment's 7 and 9), you don't get a mixup of predynastics and dynastics seen in Froment's PCAs.
Your own source, Keita, even implies that you're unlikely to get this result because there is a change from LP to ED:
quote: A review of the distance matrices between the listed periods in Zakrzewski (2007:506) reveals a trend when the Badarian through ED is considered using the approach developed in Keita and Boyce (2008). The values from the Badarian consistently increase to the ED and then decrease in the OK and MK: Badarian-EP, 2.67, Badarian-LP, 4.74, Badarian-ED, 6.13, Badarian-OK, 3.22, Badarian-MK, 3.90. (Values have been truncated to two decimal points.) An examination of the distances between serial pairs of periods is possibly revealing of population change in upper Egypt from the LP to ED: Badari- EP, 2.67, EP-LP, 2.06, LP-ED-4.81; note the relative increase in the distance value between the latest predynastic period and ED, also found in Keita (unpublished analyses) and Keita and Boyce (2008) using different data. There is a parallel trend of note: The EP, LP and ED samples also have smaller distance values (are more similar) to the OK series that has a large northern component than to the Badarian one. When the distances are analyzed using principal coordinates analysis (PCO) (Figure 1) these patterns are broadly in evidence. Zakrzewski notes, by examining the misidentification of individuals from series afforded by the program—called incorrectly ‘misclassification’ in the computer output—that these individuals generally group into adjacent time periods. One interpretation is that the biodistances indicate diversification over time, and the misidentifications (misclassifications) indicate continuity. This approach to her distance results indicate a trend of increasing distinction from the Badarian, and a notable relative increase in dissimilarity between the LP and ED when compared to other serial pairs. The LP-ED difference is quite interesting because this is the period identified with state formation and greater integration of the Egyptian Nile Valley. The post- Badarian increase in similarity to the sample with northern material is also interesting.
As Djehuti pointed out, Antalas loves proving his opponents' points. This is what his own source says (no mixup of predynastics and dynastics from the viewpoint of the oldest sample's distance profile):
quote:Analysis of the distance matrix (Table 1) proves interesting. The values can be seriated into what can be called a distance hierarchy based on progressive values from a particular series. Using the Badarian sample as a baseline the following is found from the matrix: from the Badarian: Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Senon (Dynasty I Abydos/el-Amrah), Thebes (XI), Dynasty I Royal Tomb, Sakkara Dyn I, Lisht, Gizeh, Sedment, Courtier (Dynasty I Abydos). The apparent “anomaly” in this is the Courtier series—although “from” Upper Egypt it is the most distant from the Badarian. This is most striking in the PCO plot (Figure 3) and is similar to the findings in Zakrzewksi (2007). The sample from around the royal tombs are also distinct. In previous analyses in which all of the southern Dynasty I crania were amalgamated into one series it was found that when treated as unknowns to be classified in an analytical space including northern and southern series that numerous Dynasty I crania from Abydos classified into northern series (Keita 1990, 1992). This analysis reveals that it is the Courtier subset that is primarily responsible for that observation. The results discussed from Zakrzewski (2007) demonstrate the greatest dissimilarity from the Badarian as being the Dynasty I series from Abydos+el Amrah— whose major component is the Courtier subset (i.e. the same series). As noted this Courtier series shows primary affinities to some northern series (Gizeh and Lisht).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Okay. So you have two Naqada II predynastic samples on the outer edge of dynastic samples. How does that resemble predynastics clustering with later dynastics, which you were defending, earlier? You even posted Roman Hawara portraits that were supposed to be similar to predynastics. Do you read your own posts?
And that big empty space (fig 3's PCO) in between Naqada II and Badari is where predynastics normally fall. That is to say, they normally never fall in the middle of dynastics (just like these Keita Naqada II samples don't fall in the middle of dynastics), so the only place for them to go is in that empty space in figure 3.
But thanks for proving that with Keita's 10 variables (as opposed to Froment's 7 and 9), you don't get a mixup of predynastics and dynastics seen in Froment's PCAs.
Your own source, Keita, even implies that you're unlikely to get this result because there is a change from LP to ED:
quote: A review of the distance matrices between the listed periods in Zakrzewski (2007:506) reveals a trend when the Badarian through ED is considered using the approach developed in Keita and Boyce (2008). The values from the Badarian consistently increase to the ED and then decrease in the OK and MK: Badarian-EP, 2.67, Badarian-LP, 4.74, Badarian-ED, 6.13, Badarian-OK, 3.22, Badarian-MK, 3.90. (Values have been truncated to two decimal points.) An examination of the distances between serial pairs of periods is possibly revealing of population change in upper Egypt from the LP to ED: Badari- EP, 2.67, EP-LP, 2.06, LP-ED-4.81; note the relative increase in the distance value between the latest predynastic period and ED, also found in Keita (unpublished analyses) and Keita and Boyce (2008) using different data. There is a parallel trend of note: The EP, LP and ED samples also have smaller distance values (are more similar) to the OK series that has a large northern component than to the Badarian one. When the distances are analyzed using principal coordinates analysis (PCO) (Figure 1) these patterns are broadly in evidence. Zakrzewski notes, by examining the misidentification of individuals from series afforded by the program—called incorrectly ‘misclassification’ in the computer output—that these individuals generally group into adjacent time periods. One interpretation is that the biodistances indicate diversification over time, and the misidentifications (misclassifications) indicate continuity. This approach to her distance results indicate a trend of increasing distinction from the Badarian, and a notable relative increase in dissimilarity between the LP and ED when compared to other serial pairs. The LP-ED difference is quite interesting because this is the period identified with state formation and greater integration of the Egyptian Nile Valley. The post- Badarian increase in similarity to the sample with northern material is also interesting.
As Djehuti pointed out, Antalas loves proving his opponents' points. This is what his own source says (no mixup of predynastics and dynastics from the viewpoint of the oldest sample's distance profile):
quote:Analysis of the distance matrix (Table 1) proves interesting. The values can be seriated into what can be called a distance hierarchy based on progressive values from a particular series. Using the Badarian sample as a baseline the following is found from the matrix: from the Badarian: Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Senon (Dynasty I Abydos/el-Amrah), Thebes (XI), Dynasty I Royal Tomb, Sakkara Dyn I, Lisht, Gizeh, Sedment, Courtier (Dynasty I Abydos). The apparent “anomaly” in this is the Courtier series—although “from” Upper Egypt it is the most distant from the Badarian. This is most striking in the PCO plot (Figure 3) and is similar to the findings in Zakrzewksi (2007). The sample from around the royal tombs are also distinct. In previous analyses in which all of the southern Dynasty I crania were amalgamated into one series it was found that when treated as unknowns to be classified in an analytical space including northern and southern series that numerous Dynasty I crania from Abydos classified into northern series (Keita 1990, 1992). This analysis reveals that it is the Courtier subset that is primarily responsible for that observation. The results discussed from Zakrzewski (2007) demonstrate the greatest dissimilarity from the Badarian as being the Dynasty I series from Abydos+el Amrah— whose major component is the Courtier subset (i.e. the same series). As noted this Courtier series shows primary affinities to some northern series (Gizeh and Lisht).
Seems like you don't even pay much attention to the quotes I've posted. I've already acknowledged the differences but it isn't as stark as you think it is.
Here again :
quote:That study (Irish, 2006) provided evidence for predynastic/dynastic continuity , especially during the early dynastic in Upper Egypt. Temporal and geographic distributions of biological variation among skeletal samples in the present study also suggest that in situ development was associated with Egyptian state formation, albeit with some indications of migration and/or gene flow. As such, we could reject neither Hypothesis 1, the in situ model, nor Hypothesis 2, the developmentby-invading-population model.
quote:The numerically derived affinities (Table 4) and their patterning in the MDS and CA (Figs. 2, 3, 5) suggest that there is some measure of homogeneity among the bulk of Egyptian samples. Specifically, the clustering of 11 or so samples is reminiscent of that observed among post-Paleolithic Nubians in a previous regional dental study (Irish, 2005). In the latter case, homogeneity was thought to be suggestive of population continuity. Similarly, the potential Egyptian continuity extends across time (as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples) and space (as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting Upper and Lower Egyptians).
J.D. Irish, who were the ancient egyptians ? Dental affinities among neolithic trhough postdynastic peoples, 2006
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Seems like you don't even pay much attention to the quotes I've posted. I've already acknowledged the differences but it isn't as stark as you think it is.
The differences are substantial enough to know that Froment's fig 2 has not been replicated elsewhere. You just keep ignoring it by posting studies with 7-10 variables that barely differentiate the samples (including the Keita paper you've just posted; I've already mentioned that Keita's analyses often exaggerate Badarian distinctiveness). Or you post non-metric data, which is a different subject.
From older, more elaborate investigations by physical anthropologists we know that 7-10 generic variables are unlikely to show differences accurately.
It was shown by Morant (1926) that the recorded series of ancient Egyptian skulls can be divided into two groups. These were called, for convenience, the Upper and Lower Egyptian, though there is evidence that the regions represented changed somewhat with time. The series in the first group came from the neighbourhood of Thebes and sites farther south, while those in the second group came from the same region of Upper Egypt and sites farther north. The first group includes all the predynastic series that have been described and some of dynastic date, the latest being of the 18th dynasty: the second group ranges from the 1st dynasty to Roman times, though no series available earlier than the 4th dynasty had come from the region immediately south of the Delta. The Sakkara series described in the present paper extends the range of such material back to the 1st dynasty. It had been found that the means for all these series are almost constant for most of the metrical characters commonly recorded, but for a few measurements more significant differences are found and these separate the two groups of series. Characters of both kinds are treated in Table 2, which is based on Table XIII in Risdon's paper (1939) on the human remains from Lachish (Palestine). The first six characters are those which make the clearest distinction between the Upper and Lower Egyptian types of series, and they are all breadths or dependent on breadths—the latter being the horizontal circumference and the two indices—of the cranium. The Sakkara series is clearly assigned to the Lower Egyptian group, and if counted as a member of this the range of the mean minimum frontal breadths (B') for the group is slightly extended. The Thebes series is also assigned to the Lower Egyptian group by four of the six characters in question: for U and 100B/H', however, its means fall within the ranges given for the Upper Egyptian type of series.
A Study of a First Dynasty Series of Egyptian Skulls from Sakkara and of an Eleventh Dynasty Series from Thebes https://www.jstor.org/stable/2332509
And actually, there are more than the six alluded to in this quote. I've already mentioned nasion subtense for instance, which differentiates Badarians and Naqadans from West Eurasians, Moroccans and Gizeh.
In case you missed it:
The first group includes all the predynastic series that have been described and some of dynastic date
and
the second group ranges from the 1st dynasty to Roman times, though no series available earlier than the 4th dynasty had come from the region immediately south of the Delta. The Sakkara series described in the present paper extends the range of such material back to the 1st dynasty. [....] The Thebes series is also assigned to the Lower Egyptian group by four of the six characters in question: for U and 100B/H', however, its means fall within the ranges given for the Upper Egyptian type of series.
and
It had been found that the means for all these series are almost constant for most of the metrical characters commonly recorded, but for a few measurements more significant differences are found and these separate the two groups of series.
Translation, predynastics are together as a rule, while dynastics are nearby but usually have certain affinities peculiar to themselves. So yes, stark and consistent.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I haven't read Froment, so I can't speak to his intentions.
All anthropology going back before the rise of DNA in the 90s was primarily based on cranial metrics which had its origins in race science. As such most anthropology literature prior to that time was full of such baggage. And Fromentin was a supporter of continuing to use such measurements in anthropology and especially in rejecting Diop's Unesco presentation of African origins of the ancient Nile Valley. A lot of the papers on ancient North Africa were written by the French in that era, especially when it comes to the Sahara and Maghreb as they were the colonial powers there. These papers are also very popular among various North Africa centrists because of that old racialist language and likely because a lot of them are in the Francophone sphere of influence.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit.
No it doesn't Since the prevailing theory is that humankind originated in Africa then any migration into Africa is back migration
Although one could argue "back" is unnecessary to use
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
A) no mutations of DNA resulting in distinct haplogroups occurred outside of Africa, that is a racist myth
or
B) Some mutations of DNA resulting in distinct haplogroups did occur outside of Africa but some researchers are wrong about which ones or unbale to prove which ones
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyone with eyes can see that Egyptians and other North Africans overall are intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans. All but one population samples he circled fall below the x-axis and the circled sample closest to Europeans is the one in quadrant II. The encircled Badarian and Naqada samples along the Y-axis are in close proximity to the Nubian centroid which is right below the "Somali-Galla" sample which are Horn Africans. LOL Delusion is a funny thing.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic