...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Keita: " Ancient Egyptian Origins" - NatGeo (2008)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Morpheus: The person I'm referring to about the immigrations is Joel Irish who cited comments by Keita on the subject in one of his studies, then cited an essay from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt to call it into question: [QUOTE]Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC– AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative system was maintained and traditional culture mostly continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000). To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the native peoples is unknown. [b]Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred immediately prior to and during this period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants (Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers of government, were probably low.[/b] As such, indigenous Egyptians may not have differed significantly from their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples from these two time-successive periods can help gauge the amount of biological influence these outside groups had on the local peoples. [b]Source:[/b] Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Joel D. Irish, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 129(4):529-43 (2006) [URL=http://wysinger.homestead.com/who_were_egyptian.pdf]PDF[/URL] [/QUOTE]Now Keita has sought to support this hypothesis through DNA studies but he acknowledges that are done on modern populations and not ancient remains they are not entirely conclusive. Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book [i]Egypt after the Pharaohs[/i] by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure where else Keita proposed massive migration in either the pre-dynastic era [which he rejects based on evidence] or the dynastic period, [i]other than[/i] perhaps raise the question of a "possible" impact [but not definitive] from the folks who were referred to as "Hyksos", and yes, gene flow from non-African groups during and from the Ptolemic era onwards, presumably in Greek and Roman [i]settlement centers[/i] in the Nile Valley. I suspect this is what Joel Irish was referring to, when he said: [i]Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred [b]immediately prior to[/b] and [b]during[/b] this period.[/i] Not sure Keita suggested anywhere that the Greeks and Romans *outside of* their main areas of settlements or administration had a "major impact" on the indigenous populations; however, he obviously took note of the influence that would have been brought about by subsequent migrations, [i]after[/i] Greco-Roman rule. To cite him, we have the following from previous discussions... [i]Howells’ (1973) study which included the late dynastic northern “E” series, shows its “intermediateness,” since with a synthetic cluster technique it groups with northern Europeans but with a divisive method with tropical Africans (and [b]of the Broad, not Elongated[/b] physiognomy)... The [b]“E” series[/b] comes [b]from the most cosmopolitan area[/b] of the country and [b]from the era of foreign domination and settlement from northern Libya and the Near East[/b]. The “intermediateness” of the “E” series illustrates the nature of populations below the species or subspecies level (Abott et al., 1985)."[/i] - Keita And this: [i][b]No ongoing major mass movements of new groups[/b] into the valley are postulated between the early pre-dynastic and the latest dynastic period, with the [b]possible exception of the Asiatic Hyksos[/b].[/i] But reiterates this: [i]By the time of the unification [b]they were all “indigenous” and primarily African[/b] in origin. [b]No major migrations[/b] need be invoked in [b]most cases[/b] in dynastic times [b]to explain variation[/b]. The next [b]migrations of probable major genetic impact[/b] were [b]during the *late dynastic* periods and beyond, after Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman ascensions[/b]. [/i] - Keita. Anyway, Keita had this to say about Joel Irish's work, in relation to what is seen as a "change" in a cranial pattern, and how this can be interpreted: [i]"Recently Irish (Joel D.) and Turner (1990) and Turner and Markowitz (1990) [b]have suggested that the populations of Nubia and Egypt of the agricultural periods were not primarily descendents of the geographical populations of mesolithic/epipaleolithic times.[/b] Based on [b]dental morphology, they postulate as almost total replacement of the native /African epipaleolithic and neolithic groups by populations or peoples from further north (Europe or the near east?)[/b] They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture). However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, [b]rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.[/b] The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-dessication Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration. Biologically these people were essentially the SAME. It is also [b]possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for growth pattern requiring less energy.[/b] [b]There is no evidence for sudden or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term 'replacement' would imply.[/b] [b]There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric CONTINUITY in Upper-Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods[/b], although change occured."[/i] - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003435;p=1#000000 And indeed body proportion ratios of ancient Egyptians suggested a body plan described as "super tropical" [for e.g., see Sonia Zakrzewski]. In case anyone wants to have a clue about where Keita came up with such an idea about Joel Irish & co.'s work, the following might provide one... [i]The present study revisits a subject that has been a source of long-standing bioarchaeological contention, namely, estimation of Nubian population origins and affinities. Using the Arizona State University dental anthropology system, frequencies of 36 crown, root, and intraoral osseous discrete traits in 12 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples were recorded and analyzed. Specifically, intersample phenetic affinities, and an indication of which traits are most important in driving this variation, were determined through the application of correspondence analysis and the mean measure of divergence distance statistic. The results support previous work by the author and others indicating that population discontinuity, in the [b]form of replacement[/b] or [b]significant gene flow into an existing gene pool[/b], occurred [b]sometime after the Pleistocene[/b]. This analysis now suggests that the [b]break occurred before the Final Neolithic[/b]. Samples from the [b]latter through Christian periods exhibit relative homogeneity[/b], which [b]implies overall post-Pleistocene diachronic and regional population continuity[/b]. Yet there are several perceptible trends among these latter samples that: 1) are consistent with documented Nubian population history, 2) enable the testing of several existing peopling hypotheses, and 3) allow the formulation of new hypotheses, including a suggestion of two post-Pleistocene subgroups predicated on an age-based sample dichotomy.[/i] - Irish JD, Population continuity vs. discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late Paleolithic through Christian-era Nubians. And finally, Keita leaves no doubt about within-population phenotype variation of ancient Upper Egyptian samples... [i]In most cases, the morphological descriptions of [b]early southern "Egyptian" crania clearly fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation[/b]. If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation [b](Broad to Elongated)[/b] and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African." In other words, the baseline definition of biological African has to take in the entire range of tropical African variability, including fossil and subfossil data, and not be based on the baised (for whatever reason) misusing of race theorists from the earlier part of this century.[/i] - Keita [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3