...
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 Swenet: [QB] @Ish Gebor I'm assuming you're pointing out that Irish thinks ancient Egyptians and Nubians were indigenous Africans? Irish considers the (pre)dynastic Egyptians and Nubians to have been the product of [i]mid-holocene[/i] colonists of the lower Nile, not of proto-dynastic colonists (i.e. the "Dynastic Race theory"). His rejection of Petrie's dynastic race theory is not an acknowledgment that there was no replacement at all. So even if he calls them "indigenous", he simply means that his ultimately Eurasian people settled the these parts of North Africa. It's simply the same old U6=autochtonous but ultimately Eurasian talk. When academics call U6 autochtonous, most of them are not saying that it should be classified with African lineages. See Zaharan's quotes where Keita talks about Irish et al. Also read the actual paper. Did you read it? Irish is not itching to put things in an African context: [QUOTE]Most traits describe crown and root appearance or position in permanent teeth. Rocker jaw is the only nondental (i.e., cranial) attribute. Although a hallmark of Polynesians, where frequencies approach 95% for some groups (Houghton, 1976; Pietrusewsky, 1984; Kean and Houghton, 1990), convexity of the mandible’s horizontal ramus is also found in Europe. This occurrence has not been published, but Turner (personal communication, 2008) reports that the developmental trait occurs in 10– 20% of adult Europeans at ASUDAS grades of 1–2 (i.e., near- and full-rocker), and dates to at least the late Pleistocene. In addition, a mean incidence of 19.3% at these same grades has been reported in 12 trans-North African samples, with a range of 0–41% (Irish, 1993, 1998a,b). Rocker jaw is similarly common, i.e., 19.2%, in the present Egyptian samples, with a range of 10–32% (Irish, 2006); it is this considerable variation, like that of the 21 other traits, that enhances intersample discrimination; its inclusion also allows direct comparisons with the previous study (Irish, 2006).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Expectedly, therefore, several commonalities are apparent. [b]The relative uniqueness of Gebel Ramlah suggests that this particular Neolithic group did not contribute substantially to the ancestry of subsequent predynastic Nile Valley groups.[/b] It is important to note that Gebel Ramlah is also geographically distant from the Nile Valley. [/QUOTE] [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. [b]As such, we could reject neither Hypothesis 1, the in situ model, nor Hypothesis 2, the development by-invading-population model.[/b] Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component.[/QUOTE] [/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