...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
1- Basic database of Nile Valley studies
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] You still have not established your claim of southern Europeans grouping closer with Ancient Egyptians. You earlier claimed that: [b]Once you include "Southern Europeans", ancient Egyptians' crural indices appear closer to Mediterranean populations than Sub-Saharan African populations. [/b] This is false, and your supporting reference, undermines your assertion. Here’s Raxter- QUOTE: [i]"Ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes are consistently significantly different in limb length proportions from Northern and Southern Europeans, with their brachial and crural indices grouping with the majority of other Africans. One group Lower Egyptian males, is only significantly different from Northern Europeans in crural index. However, this is expected since they are situated in the northernmost area of Northeast Africa, closest to the Mediterranean Sea, and thus would have had the greatest opportunity for gene flow with Southern Europeans." [/i] Furthermore, Lower Es show cural indices closer to Africans before MEdits(see San below.) OVERALL affinity, as confirmed by several studies, taking into account all Egyptians, is with the Africans. The OVERALL picture is still with Africans- as Raxter notes- and consistently so. This further amplified by Raxter and Ruff 2008, who note as to the overall picture- quote: [i]"Intralimb (crural and brachial) indices are significantly higher in ancient Egyptians than in American Whites (except crural index among females), i.e., Egyptians have relatively longer distal segments (Table 4). Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks."[/i] The expanded gene flow from the Medit at the tail end is not at issue. The overall African finding is again confirmed by other studies, such as in Stringer's data above. The Yugoslavs, while somewhat away from Northern Europeans do not match the closer clustering of the African Americans and Egyptians. At best the Lower Egyptians are an intermediate population, almost as much on the warmer side as the colder side. But evenhere studies differ. Raxter 2011 is only one study that must be compared with others. Indeed, Most of Ruff/Raxter's 2008 samples were northern Egypt- (Giza) and the end result was still a primary cluster with tropical populations like Africans or African Americans. And in that paper they looked at yet other studies involving Black Americans. The results were the same- ancient Egyptians clustered primarily with other tropical Africans or tropical African derivatives like US Blacks. Use of say more Italian Americans in the "white" category would make little difference. Raxter 2011 is not the only game in town. As Kemp 2005 notes in other studies of the north: [i]"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." [/i] --(Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60) The weight of scholarly studies and data thus confirms the primacy of the African connection. [b]" AE's were subtropical/warm adapted, not tropical/hot."[/b] “Warm" includes the tropical zone range, which is variable not merely “hot” (whatever than means)- so trying a fuzzy, shifting definition does not help your claim. Almost 20 percent of Egypt by the way is in the tropical zone. part 2 [b]once you include "Southern Europeans", ancient Egyptians' crural indices appear closer to Mediterranean populations than Sub-Saharan African populations.[/b] As another example shows-false. When all AEs are combined the closest affinity is with Africans. But even when you separate out the Lower Egyptians the claim is still false. The lower Egyptians are closer to another African SUB-SAHARAN population, the San. The sub-Saharan San, who have little European gene flow, post a male index of 84.2 compared to the Lower Egyptian 84.7 or .5 difference. By contrast the Medits post 83.9 compared to 84.7 for Lower Egyptians, or .8 diff. In short, while southern Europe has had some gene flow into Egypt such as during Greek or Roman times, the San yet again confirm the case for the primary African connection. The SUB-SAHARAN San have little European gene flow, yet they still post closer to Lower Egyptians. The more temperate zone is the major factor, but its still Africans first. Once again, ancient Egyptians, cluster more with Africans than with northern OR Southern Europeans. [b] As Bleuze et al., 2014 point out: ancient Egyptian "crural indices [are] more similar to Southern Europeans".[/b] But Bleuze is using Late Period samples from the Roman period, a time of greater gene flow. No one disputes that in such later periods more variable Medit elements (Greeks, ROmans) were introduced to the Egyptian population. Beluze states that the Kellis 2 cemetery referenced at the Dakleh Oasis is dated between AD 100 and 450- quite late in the game. Other scholars put the earlier Kellis 1 at the Late Ptolemaic -Early Roman period (c 60 BCE to 100 BCE.) The earlier period doesn't make any difference. So sure, these tail end samples from the Roman periods may trend more Medit, but its tail end after 100AD or even 50BC, and still doesn't change the overall bottom line. In fact Beluze confirms my observation when they note that the Oasis individuals were more Medit flavored to begin with, so naturally in various measurements, they would lean that way, at the tail end of ancient dynastic Egypt. With such a sampling, the expected results are nothing special. QUOTE: [i]"However, given the socioe-conomic conditions at Dakhleh during the Romano-Christian period and the evidence that migrants to the Oasis likely came from regions that experienced geneflow from Southern Europe and/or the Near East, body shape in the Kellis 2 sample may show greater variation than expected." [/i] No matter how you slice it, the ancient Egyptians cluster more with tropical African or tropical African derived groups than Europeans- whether they be north or south. [/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