A preliminary analysis of diachronic craniometric geographical variation during the Predynastic-Early Dynastic period: possible population implications for the theories of the merger of upper and lower Egypt.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Ummm can you post it?? Is there a link? What are some of the points???
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Lioness told me about the study and I found the full text here
The study confirms that Lower Egypt was colonized by people from the south. The Maadi sample from Lower Egypt is proof of this according to the authors.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The study confirms that Lower Egypt was colonized by people from the south. The Maadi sample from Lower Egypt is proof of this according to the authors.
Don't know why this thread hasn't gotten much attention.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Yeah really interesting I need to read the full study, but I guess every one else is more attracted to the drama in other threads.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Don't know why this thread hasn't gotten much attention.
Not to be crass, but if there is no unique analysis or insight, I'm not really looking for another Keita study talking about Egyptian metric relationships. I already have about 5. My criticism of Keita is that he doesn't uncover phylogenetic relationships. Craniofacially negroid populations will group with similarly negroid populations in his work even though they may be completely different in a genetic sense. Individuals from the Lachish collection might cluster with the Gabonese sample and Keita typically won't investigate further if the crania in question have West/Central African-specific traits or if it's just superficial case broad nose type stuff. Taforalt, many early farmers, etc had broad noses too. And we all know how those samples turned out aDNA wise. aDNA has set the bar high for physical anthropologists.
But that only explains my lack of commentary. I can't speak for everyone. And also this is just to say it's not for me right now. Others might get a lot of value from another look at this issue.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Taforalt was said to already show "Caucasoid traits" so your point being? Keita never studied Taforalt and Taforalt lacked SSA mtDNA only. but no autosomal nor Y-Chromosome study was carried out of said remains so your point?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, you think they would be assigned properly in Keita's variable design of cranial length breadth, facial breadth, nasal breadth, etc.?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, you think they would be assigned properly in Keita's variable design of cranial length breadth, facial breadth, nasal breadth, etc.?
According to Colin Groves they do plot with so called "Caucasoids"
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262. ISSN 0018-442X.
Abstract:
We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I personally don't think Taforalt are 'Caucasoid', but they do have a large a amount of Eurasian.
BTW, my criticism of Keita above was not completely fair. I revisited his work just now and most of his other studies have more variables than the mere 7 used in the study cited in the OP. Keita usually has 12 or 13 variables, which is more than I gave him credit for earlier.
But Keita should update his work and use more modern variable sets and more relevant samples. If his point is that "Agro-Nostratic" people did not fundamentally change predynastics, why compare modern European Norse, Berg and Zalavar to ancient Egyptians (Keita 2005). He should use ancient Europeans and Levantines dating to the time of the introduction of farming in Egypt.
Also, if Keita actually manually measured crania from Lachish (meaning if he has visually seen them), I have a hard time believing that he himself was convinced that his subset actually resembles Gabonese. I also have a hard time believing that he himself believes Badarian affinities warrant a large distance from the Naqada sample and an almost identical position along function 1 with the Teita and Gabonese (Keita 1988, figure 3). Anyone who has seen images of 'average' Badarians knows that is highly dubious.
^And I say that to say this. Proving 'negroid' morphology is not something that should be a goal in and of itself. This should be investigated further using traits diagnostic of regional ancestry.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
bump
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
I agree that aDNA has transformed the discussion about AEians. aDNA has upstaged anthropology. aDNA takes us back in time and shows clear affinity as with the Amarnas, Rameses III , Man E, Nakht/Khnum brothers even the Abusir mummies. All clearly African. Abusir are labelled “Eurasian” but Eurasian was created in Africa so it is not unexpected to find “Eurasian’ in Africa. Even BEFORE the inception of AE as seen by Mota, Malawi_Hora-8100BC and Luxemundra. Eurasian DNA has always been in Africa. Forcing Skoglund to admit that yes, “Eurasian” may have an African origin! Looking at the mtDNA of Abusir again, clearly African in Origin. No mtDNA H1 or H3 was present. They weren’t European women.
Look at aDNA as the “time machine” we can go back in time and see what these people looked like and who they are most clearly related to comparing modern population …..we no longer have ambiguity.
edit: working now
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
There has been 4 lots of mummies DNA taken throughout Egypt. Abusir el Meleq mummies were ALL Eurasian as were the two brothers from the 12th Dynasty. They carried MTDNA M1A1. The oldest MTDNA M is Central, Southern Asian in origin.
Ancient Egyptians resembled modern unmixed Copts who carry MTDNA U6 going back 30 000 years TO THE MID EAST, ONCE AGAIN PROVING EGYPTIANS ORIGINATED FROM THE MID EAST.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
MAADI Skulls like the Merimde and other ancient Pre-Dynasty Skulls including the first Culture of Upper Egypt, the Tasian Culture, RESEMBLED THE ANCIENT PEOPLES OF ISRAEL and resemble modern day PALESTINIANS.
Abusir was from one northern, post hyksos site. And also, Egypt wasn't unified as a country in the predynastic, so it makes no sense that you act like they were always unified as you talk about specific predynastic people who lived in Egypt. Some tribes or kingdoms in the nile were culturally closer to the Near East and phenotypically bore greater resemblance to common phenotypes of the modern Near East (many Lower Egyptians). Many tribes etc didn't though.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Proof they were Eurasians? But first explain to us what is a “Eurasian”. Proof that they were NOT Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: There has been 4 lots of mummies DNA taken throughout Egypt. Abusir el Meleq mummies were ALL Eurasian as were the two brothers from the 12th Dynasty. They carried MTDNA M1A1. The oldest MTDNA M is Central, Southern Asian in origin.
Ancient Egyptians resembled modern unmixed Copts who carry MTDNA U6 going back 30 000 years TO THE MID EAST, ONCE AGAIN PROVING EGYPTIANS ORIGINATED FROM THE MID EAST.
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
I think is impossible. Because I have a picture of a very negroid pre- dynastic Egyptian King. Actually, he was from the earliest pre dynasties, long before the Scorpion kings dynasties.
Above and by the side of his engraved image, was written that he was from the South Region...Not from Middle Easter
But, hey...I think is better to have Middle Easterners "wannabe ancient Egyptians", than some Muslims people from central Asia, and Egypt, saying they want to destroyed all ancient Egyptian monuments, including burn the Museum of Antiquities of Cairo, because they said - ancient Egyptian kings said they were gods...
Actually, I am horrified with these people religion fanaticism...much more than with "wannabes"
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
What king? And they're not "wannabes" their ancestors were in Egypt so they feel it's part of their heritage and many lower Egyptians probably looked like them. Even if we were to suppose they were also descendants of Greeks, Turks or hyksos No one in Egypt is "pure" anymore.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Show us the pic
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I noticed there are predyn statues that appear to be unique on the internet or uncommon
Ever seen that image?
This is supposedly 1st dynasty but its not easy to find with a basic search.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
Sculptures, especially broken sculptures are not a good indication of race.
There are huge numbers of mummies in Egypt with their hair still attacked. They look exactly like Caucasians. I think thats why Afrocentrics only like to use broken sculptures to claim Egyptians were black.
"Sculptures, especially broken sculptures are not a good indication of race."
Let me guest. "Eurasian" is a a race? SMH why do you even take this illogical fool seriously? SMH
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: Sculptures, especially broken sculptures are not a good indication of race.
There are huge numbers of mummies in Egypt with their hair still attacked. They look exactly like Caucasians. I think thats why Afrocentrics only like to use broken sculptures to claim Egyptians were black.
Your link uses Yuya and Tuya as examples. Two mummies who were genetically more African than anything else and produced someone who was depicted as
and
Leave it to the druids to wear scalemail. Love that armor.
Yet I suppose that the main reason why she was tested was her mummies's straight hair. You have genetically African people who depict themselves with common African phenotypes including curly hair. It could be that her mummies 'good' hair was a weave or wig.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Since when is a haplogroup the same as a race? You guys will (to claim M1) say L3 is "Eurasian" but won't say that the many Sub Saharan (even West African) blacks that carry L3 are anything but black. STOP pretending as though race never existed before people discovered genetics, or that you guys have DNA radar when you judge people by their race. "Black" people can have looser curls and they can have tighter curls.
So this American, when he walks down the street, should assume he registers as a "Caucasian?"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: The oldest MTDNA M is Central, Southern Asian in origin.
1) what is your source for oldest human remains carrying mtDNA M ?
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum:
Ancient Egyptians resembled modern unmixed Copts
2) what is your source for Copt DNA ?
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum:
Ancient Egyptians resembled modern unmixed Copts
3) What is your source that any modern Copts are indigenous unmixed Egyptians?
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: DNATRIBES NEVER took any DNA from any Egyptian mummies. You wont find their results ON ANY GENUINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SITES. It was nothing but a publicity stunt.
4) The December 2012 issue of the British Medical Journal quotes the conclusion of the study of the team of researchers, led by Zahi Hawass, the former head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquity, and his Egyptian team, as well as Albert Zink from the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman of the European Academy of Bolzano/Bozen in Italy. Zink determined that Rameses III was of haplogroup E1b1a and a mummy of an unknown man buried with Ramesses was a good candidate for the pharaoh's son also carried this haplogroup
Ramesses III
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: Sculptures, especially broken sculptures are not a good indication of race.
There are huge numbers of mummies in Egypt with their hair still attacked. They look exactly like Caucasians. I think thats why Afrocentrics only like to use broken sculptures to claim Egyptians were black.
Your link uses Yuya and Tuya as examples. Two mummies who were genetically more African than anything else and produced someone who was depicted as
and
Leave it to the druids to wear scalemail. Love that armor.
Yet I suppose that the main reason why she was tested was her mummies's straight hair. You have genetically African people who depict themselves with common African phenotypes including curly hair. It could be that her mummies 'good' hair was a weave or wig.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: Sculptures, especially broken sculptures are not a good indication of race.
There are huge numbers of mummies in Egypt with their hair still attacked. They look exactly like Caucasians. I think thats why Afrocentrics only like to use broken sculptures to claim Egyptians were black.
Your link uses Yuya and Tuya as examples. Two mummies who were genetically more African than anything else and produced someone who was depicted as
and
Leave it to the druids to wear scalemail. Love that armor.
Yet I suppose that the main reason why she was tested was her mummies's straight hair. You have genetically African people who depict themselves with common African phenotypes including curly hair. It could be that her mummies 'good' hair was a weave or wig.
The 2010 test were done on bone biopsies by a company that wanted to avoid surface areas in fear of contamination. Do you have source on hair sampling?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
This thread is devolving fast. Where are the mods?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
my god the orangutan prostitutes of Scandinavia I cried laughing Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
KNOCK IT OFF with the off-topicness! First warning. Plus Punos_Rey is back in town and you know what that means...
Edit:
Certain posts have been removed.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The study confirms that Lower Egypt was colonized by people from the south. The Maadi sample from Lower Egypt is proof of this according to the authors.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
